The Evolutionary Reason Why There Is So Much Infidelity in Society

A reasonable theory below. Is it however needlessly complex? Would it not be sufficient to say that infidelity arises because the characteristics we like are usually found in more than one person? if some set of characteristics is so attractive to us that we marry the person having them, would not a similar set of characteristics in another person also be strongly attractive to us? -- JR

We all seem to want monogamy but infidelity is rampant — here is why we can’t escape our unwanted friend, along with an idea for how we can

It’s a fair bet every one of us wants a partner who is faithful to us, even those who want open relationships still want a faithful partner — cheating still happens in open relationships. However, it’s believed that upwards of 80 to 90 percent of people will commit at least one act of infidelity over their lifetime.

Considering how much infidelity there is, the question we are left with is why the hell don’t we all just give up on one-on-one relationships and instead be like bonobos, where everyone sleeps with anyone they want?

The answer is, children. Children sit at the heart of everything, and children are believed to be the main reason why one-on-one relationships have become the norm in human society. Many even postulate that pair bonding between men and women is the greatest human innovation of all time simply because monogamy works better when it comes to raising children.

Children are likely the reason we evolved monogamy
Nobody knows for certain why the males and females of our ancestors several million years or so back started pair bonding, there are many theories out there, and nobody has a clue which if any is closer to the truth. But the theory that most resonated with me actually came from a friend of mine who is obsessed with anthropology.

He theorises that the females of the time realised that having a loyal male that they could rely upon increased the chances of a child surviving into adulthood. He postulates that they came to this realisation perhaps because males lower down the pecking order started showing them loyalty in an effort to increase their chances of mating, and this gradually from the bottom up led to males and females eventually evolving to form full-blown pair bonding as we know it.

Whether this is how it happened we will likely never know, in the end, how it happened is irrelevant, what matters is that the benefits of pair bonding when it comes to creating a safe and stable environment for raising children are inescapable. A man and a woman who are loyal to each other and work together will trump any other setup, especially if those men and women are part of a group of paired-up men and women.

For example, if you have a tribe of male-female pairs, not only do you have a cooperative team of men and women working together to create a safe environment for children, you also have a stable grouping because the men and women will not be competing with each other over who to mate with — because each man and woman will be paired up.

In a way it’s the ultimate win-win, not only is a man and woman working together a brilliant setup for raising a child, by men and women giving loyalty to each other, and all accepting men and women who are paired up as off-limits, it creates greater unity and stability which further enhances the child raising setup.

As such, pair bonding and monogamy bring immense benefits to human advancement and survival chances — there is a reason we are the only advanced race, and it is because one day men and women agreed to start giving each other loyalty and working together in the fight to keep children alive.

Considering this though, it would beg the question of, if pair bonding and monogamy are so beneficial to human advancement and survival, why the hell do so many find it impossible to remain faithful?

The sexual reproduction based downsides to monogamy
Human evolution and as such survival are reliant on three primary factors, one, stable and resource-rich environments for raising children in, two, the strongest passing on their genetics to the most people, and three, large amounts of genetic diversity. Each of these elements is just as important as the other.

Here is the thing though, to ensure the strongest pass on their genetics, people have to compete, and competing typically eventually leads to fighting. If both men and women end up fighting amongst their respective selves to prove their genetics the strongest, the men and women who would be left over would be so few in numbers that the human race would swiftly die out.

This is why females of any species seldom compete against each other by fighting violently to prove that they are the strongest, the fact they have the children makes them too important, but at the same time, it is why males frquently do. Somebody has to fight between themselves to prove they have the best genetics, because one male can impregnate many females, that makes males substantially more expendable than females.

The reality of this can be seen across the animal kingdom, in our past, and in the modern day, and I’m not talking just the dating scene. For example, I’ve heard it argued many times that war is a prime example of male competition over females ending up in violence, and I’m starting to buy into this theory. Whether it be Genghis Khan, the Vikings, even the Russians in World War II, even the Russians in Ukraine today, the idea of kill all the men and rape all the women stubbornly remains, and it very well could be that a root cause may be linked to the instinctual human desire to prove which males are the strongest.

Regardless of the reason, because of the endless competition, the majority of the animal kingdom is not very stable when it comes to keeping offspring alive. Humans on the other hand, despite the frequent outbreaks of war, have become more stable and monogamy through pair bonding is one of the main reasons why, if not the main reason.

This would beg the question of why, if monogamy is such a powerful tool for creating stability, we struggle to practice it to the point society is always ripe with infidelity. The answer of course is absolute monogamy hinders the main essence of sexual reproduction, which is the strongest pass on their genetics to the most.

There is no escaping it. The essence of sexual reproduction is those with the best genetics pass it on to the most, monogamy creates a spanner in the fight to ensure this happens. Infidelity provides the solution.

To explain, in perfect monogamy everybody would only ever have a child with one other person. That creates a lot of genetic diversity but not in a very good way — at least not for a species that desires and needs to continually rapidly evolve. To rapidly evolve, you need the best genetics passed on in the largest amount at all times, which requires competition and promiscuity.

But in a world where the best genetics are always being passed on in the highest number, there is a lot of instability. This is because in such a world males and females will be constantly competing amongst themselves to prove that they have the best genetics, and the male side is likely to more often than not end up in violence — which is what happens. This creates instability, which is the enemy of progress.

Step forth the solution, where if you add monogamy to infidelity, you get the best of both worlds. You get the stability that comes with monogamy, or at least the illusion of it, and you get a world where the strongest still pass on their genetics to the most people, they just do it through a mixture of relationship breakups and infidelity. It’s a total win except of course it sucks.

Is there a solution?

I do believe there is a solution to the infidelity problem, and it is a five-pronged solution:

Number One

We need to start teaching proper social skills at school, including how to communicate while in a relationship. If we did this, it would give people a better chance of finding and connecting with the right person sooner rather than later, which would lower the risk of infidelity.

Also, by teaching people how to communicate so that men and women can again actually start talking to each other again and understanding each other, it would stop many of the cycles that lead people to cheat.

Number two

We need to start countering all the rubbish that men and women are being sold about each other. Extreme feminist rubbish, extreme incel rubbish, all of it, everything that fills the heads of men and women with rubbish that they then unwittingly inflict upon their partners.

Number three

We need to become tolerant of blended families. I’m a firm believer that blended families are the future. For example, they would solve the need to find a life partner before having children, instead, you would just need to find someone you felt happy to have a child with.

No easy task, but easier than finding Mr or Mrs right. Also, if we are more tolerant of blended families, it would stop people being afraid of having children due to the fear of potentially ruining future relationship prospects. Finally, as instinctually we want genetic diversity, blended families create that. So, it’s a win on every level.

Number four

We need to start legitimising sex workers. This one is perhaps controversial (even though it shouldn’t be), but I firmly believe that normalising people allowing their partners to see sex workers, or even sending their partners to sex workers whether for massages or for full sexual experiences, would greatly help reduce infidelity.

Sex is after all primaeval, and as far as I see it, sex work is simply a form of massage, and people are happy for their partners to go to a spa for a massage, so why not a sex worker? I firmly believe if people came to this mindset, it would greatly lower infidelity because it would help solve many sex-based relationship problems, especially in regard to arguments over type of sex, and frequency of sex.

Number five

We need to accept that we are human, and as humans, we are driven by instinctual factors that many of us do not understand and likely will never understand. But the more we try to understand, the better chance we have of creating a world that embraces who we are, rather than suppresses it.

This matters because the reality is, and this is just in my opinion, the main reason many of us end up cheating is that we try to suppress who we are in an effort to be who we are not and will never truly be. So, if we let people be human, and allowed people to truly understand what it means to be human, it would likely greatly reduce infidelity.

Final words

Monogamy creates the illusion that every man and woman will only have a child with each other, that illusion creates stability i.e. it stops men and women from constantly competing amongst themselves over the right to mate with each other.

Infidelity, which can lead to paternity fraud, where men would impregnate other people’s wives and wives would be impregnated by other men, creates genetic diversity of the best kind by allowing the strongest men to still impregnate lots of women — and for the strongest women to still be impregnated by lots of different men. Relationship breakups allow for blended families.

As crazy as it seems, this gives us the best of all worlds. It ticks the box for the strongest passing on their genetics to the most, it ticks the box for genetic diversity by ensuring as many as possible get to pass on their genetics, and it ticks the box for creating stability and the best environment for raising children.

If we want to finally get rid of infidelity, or at least greatly reduce it, we have to create a new way to tick those boxes. Better communication, blended families, the acceptance of sex workers as legitimate workers, and the acceptance that we are human, in my view is the path to doing this. The other option is simply to accept that infidelity is here to stay. I know what option I would choose, but each to their own.

https://medium.com/the-knowledge-of-freedom/the-evolutionary-reason-why-there-is-so-much-infidelity-in-society-138951668d9f

***************************************************

Why is Eventbrite censoring feminists?

Julie Bindel

I could not have been more delighted when the group Women’s Place UK (WPUK) asked me to chair an online event to mark the publication of the book Defending Women’s Spaces, written by my friend and feminist comrade Karen Ingala Smith. Let me tell you a little about Karen. For the past 30 years she has been providing services to women and girls who have experienced all forms of male violence, including sexual assault, domestic abuse, and prostitution.

There is nothing hateful, dangerous or violent about promoting female only spaces

Karen has clung on for dear life to keep the Nia Project, of which she is CEO, female only. The Nia Project is one of only two such charities in the country that put the safety of women over the hurt feelings of trans activists. They openly apply the exceptions permitted under the Equality Act to provide women-only refuge and other single-sex support.

She is also the founder of Counting Dead Women, from which the UK Femicide Census grew. Since January 2012 Karen has done her very best to document the death of women and girls at the hands of men. These women are the victims of unbridled male violence, and the femicide census has been incredibly influential in convincing a broad range of people that these deaths can and must be prevented.

There is more I could tell you about Karen’s work, but hopefully I’ve convinced you already that she has a lifetime of commitment to the safety and liberation of women and girls.

Not according to the US ticketing giant, Eventbrite which this week deleted the link to the event, and began issuing refunds, claiming the book launch event could promote ‘hateful views’.

Defending Women’s Spaces is a book about the threat to feminism posed by gender ideology. But according to Eventbrite’s trust and safety team, the event is in danger of violating its policy on ‘Hateful, Dangerous, or Violent Content’. Eventbrite have been contacted for comment.

There is nothing hateful, dangerous or violent about promoting female only spaces. What is hateful are the things that men do to women and girls that create the need for single sex services.

When women flee for their lives in the middle of the night to escape fatal domestic violence, they need a women-only domestic violence refuge.

The teenage girl who has been raped at a party and fears that she will be blamed, not the perpetrator, needs a safe environment to speak to those that understand what she is going through.

Women pimped into prostitution, desperate to escape, often can’t face being anywhere near men as a consequence of the trauma they have endured at the hands of punters. They desperately need to be kept safe from harm.

In short, women only services exist because of the prevalence of male violence. Right now, there is almost an amnesty on rapists, with the current conviction rate standing at around 1 per cent of the fraction that are reported to police.

Even in prison, vulnerable incarcerated women have been forced to endure being locked up with convicted rapists who say they are transgender. Women I have interviewed have told me that they were scared to report sexual harassment and assault to prison officers in case they were punished for ‘transphobia’.

Sarah Summers, a survivor of rape, has been forced to sue Brighton’s Rape Crisis Centre Survivors’ Network for discrimination because it refused to provide a women-only support group.

And a trans identified child sex offender managed to dupe staff at a Leeds Women’s Aid refuge where he resided for 71 days, amongst the most vulnerable women and their children.

These examples are a tiny minority of those I could give that shows how crucial women-only spaces are, and what an enormous threat trans ideology is to the safety of women and girls.

This is why I am so proud to be involved in launching Karen’s book. We need her expertise and her wisdom in order to resist the colonisation of single sex facilities by violent and abusive men.

I am angry that what should’ve been a joyous and celebratory time for Karen has turned into a nightmare. Publishing your first book should be a proud moment. Instead, Karen has been accused of hateful conduct for writing about the crucial work of keeping women safe.

When did so many institutions and individuals begin to put the hurt feelings of men above the safety and well-being of women? The answer is ‘forever’, which is why we have feminism. But today it is being done in the name of trans rights and supported by so called progressives.

Eventbrite have earned significant amounts of money from WPUK over the years, as they have from events of mine and other feminists. They also platform events which promote transgender ideology, and I’m sure if we trawl through other events they have hosted in the past we will find plenty for all of us to be offended by.

Gender ideology is a misogynistic men’s rights movement. To class a feminist event as ‘hateful’ when it is the launch of a book about how to prevent male violence says it all. Women are being prevented from prioritising our needs, to speak of our concerns, or to have anywhere to go that keeps violent men at bay. But we will not cave.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/11/why-is-eventbrite-censoring-feminists/

*********************************************************

Beyond Meat Is Struggling, and the Plant-Based Meat Industry Worries

For a while, it seemed Beyond Meat was taking over the world.

Its faux burgers and sausages were landing on dinner plates in homes throughout the United States and on the menu boards of chains like Subway, Carl’s Jr. and Starbucks. When the company went public in 2019, its shares skyrocketed as investors bet that the meatless movement was finally having its moment. During the pandemic, Beyond Meat’s grocery store sales surged as curious consumers tried its vegan options.

But these days, Beyond Meat has lost some of its sizzle.

Its stock has slumped nearly 83% in the past year. Sales, which the company had expected to rise as much as 33% this year, are now likely to show only minor growth. McDonald’s concluded a pilot of the McPlant burger — made with a Beyond Meat patty — this year with no plans to put it on the menu permanently.

In late October, the company said it was laying off 200 people, or 19% of its workforce. And four top executives have departed in recent months, including the chief financial officer, the chief supply chain officer and the chief operating officer, whom Beyond Meat had suspended after his arrest on allegations that he bit another man’s nose in a parking garage altercation.

What investors and others are debating now is whether Beyond Meat’s struggles are specific to the company or a harbinger of deeper issues in the plant-based meat industry.

“At the category level, we’re seeing volumes for plant-based meats down 22 consecutive months now,” said John Baumgartner, a consumer food analyst at the financial institution Mizuho Americas.

A few years ago, investors expected the category to explode with growth year after year, Baumgartner said. Now, he said, those expectations are being reconsidered.

“We’re positive on the future for plant-based meat, but this is a 20- to 25-year story,” he said. “It’s not going to happen in 3 to 5 to 10 years.”

Some say the slowdown in sales is a product of food inflation, as consumers trade pricier plant-based meat for less-expensive animal meat. But others wonder if the companies have simply reached the maximum number of consumers willing to try or repeatedly purchase faux burgers and sausages.

Analysts at Deloitte, who conducted a survey of consumers this year, questioned whether the 53% who were not buying plant-based meats could be turned into customers.

“The category had been growing at double-digit for a long time and was expected to continue, but what we saw this year is that the number of consumers who were buying it did not increase,” said Justin Cook, the U.S. consumer products research leader at Deloitte.

While inflation played a role, so did a decline in the perception that plant-based meats are healthier than animal proteins. (The companies focus on the environmental benefits.) But the Deloitte analysts said another problem might be resistance to a product that some segment of customers see as “woke” and linked to politically left-leaning ideas.

In August, when the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain stated on its Facebook page that it had begun offering the meatless “Impossible Sausage,” the post was flooded with thousands of comments from irate customers. “Go woke, go broke,” one wrote. “You just lost a ton of your base. You obviously don’t know your patrons.”

The data around the category are mixed. Over the past year, volume sales of refrigerated plant-based meats slid 11.6%, with packages of faux ground meat and patties taking a particular beating, according to IRI, a market research firm. But volume sales of frozen plant-based meats, which are typically less expensive than the refrigerated products, fell only slightly. Volume sales of faux chicken nuggets and patties rose sharply.

Moreover, while some plant-based meat manufacturers are struggling, others are seeing rising sales.

In October, Brazilian meatpacking giant JBS said it was closing Planterra Foods, its plant-based meat operation, after just two years. And volume sales for vegetarian-meat maker Morningstar Farms, which Kellogg has said it plans to spin off or potentially sell, dropped sharply in nearly every category this year, according to the IRI data. On a call with Wall Street analysts in August, Kellogg’s chief executive, Steven Cahillane, attributed the drop to supply-chain issues with a co-manufacturer of the products.

But privately held Impossible Foods said demand for its products grew tremendously last year.

“We’re not experiencing anything like what Beyond Meat has reported or some of the other brands in the space,” Keely Sulprizio, a spokesperson for Impossible Foods, said in an email. “Quite the opposite: We’re seeing hypergrowth, with over 60% year-over-year dollar sales growth in retail alone.”

The IRI data show that while volume sales of Impossible ground meat and faux burger patties were down slightly, volumes of other categories, including frozen faux meat and chicken, soared.

“We launched in frozen more recently with a larger family size, and it’s been very popular with both retailers and consumers,” Sulprizio said.

In a call with Wall Street analysts in early November, Ethan Brown, founder and chief executive of Beyond Meat, said an increasing number of plant-based meat players were battling for a smaller group of consumers as shoppers traded down to less-expensive animal proteins. As a result, “a shakeout does appear to be underway, and we expect more brands to either retreat or consolidate,” Brown said. Beyond Meat declined to comment for this article beyond the call with analysts.

While the company hoped to restore growth to its refrigerated products, which have some of the highest profit margins, Brown noted that it was expanding distribution for many of its frozen products.

“Frozen plant-based chicken is the largest single subcategory in all of plant-based meats and continues to grow at a double-digit pace,” he said.

Brown also noted that McDonald’s continued to offer the McPlant burger in other markets, including Britain and Ireland, and that Beyond Meat was testing new products with other chains, including KFC and Taco Bell.

Panda Express, for instance, said in September that it would offer Beyond the Original Orange Chicken on its menu nationally for a limited time after an initial offering in New York City and Southern California sold out in less than two weeks last year.

It “showed us just how great the demand is for an innovative plant-based dish at Panda,” Evelyn Wah, vice president of brand innovation for Panda Express, said in an email. She added, “We’ve been pleased with the positive sentiment we’ve received from our guests.”

Baumgartner said that when his firm had asked consumers in a survey why they weren’t buying plant-based meats, they said they didn’t like the taste. While the competitive companies have continued to improve existing products while quickly rolling out new ones, he said, he is concerned that some products are coming to market too quickly.

“You’re not selling iPhone version 1.0 and maybe it’s not the best and greatest, but the consumer can upgrade to version 2.0, which has better graphics and keypad,” Baumgartner said. “If you roll something out in the food industry that’s not quite where it needs to be in terms of quality and taste and the consumer tries it and has a bad experience, he’s not coming back.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/business/beyond-meat-industry.html

****************************************************

Disney's boss is looking for a new gig... because he put progressive activist quackery before turning a buck

You can be businessmen or activists; but you can't be both. Unceremoniously ousted Disney CEO Bob Chapek just learned that lesson the hard way.

Chapek, tapped to run Disney less than 3 years ago, is being replaced by his own predecessor. The legendary Bob Iger is back to right the ship.

Now, I'm no business reporter, but it doesn't take a financial genius to see that Chapek's strategy wasn't adding up.

The stock is down 40% this year. Disney's streaming service, Disney+, ironically keeps adding subscribers and losing money – to the tune of $1.5 billion a quarter. And the company is freezing hiring, cutting spending, and likely laying people off.

So, what was Chapek doing while the House of Mouse crumbled?

He was backing into fights with Republican governors and alienating his customers.

Chapek got the most public attention during his very short tenure for his very public feud with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis over a parental right's law, deemed the 'Don't Say Gay' bill by unhinged critics.

In reality, the law banned the classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools for kindergarten through third grade. Sounds reasonable, right?

Well, initially, Chapek thought so too -- until he decided to play activist.

Chapek went from trying to avoid the left-wing outrage over the law to fully and completely embracing it.

He told shareholders at an annual meeting that the company had advocated against the bill in secret. Then he pledged to work to repeal the law and stoked the narrative that it threatened the lives of LGBTQ+ people.

DeSantis responded, saying Disney had 'crossed the line.' He vowed to fight back, 'when people are threatening our parents and threatening our kids.' And the Florida legislature stripped Disney of its 'independent special district,' which essentially amounts to a massive tax break.

How ironic that seven months later, DeSantis has just been re-elected by the largest margin for any Florida governor in almost 40 years and Chapek is looking for a new job. It turns out Bob should have stuck to the dollar and cents and left the politics to the politicians.

Of course, Chapek's far from the first executive to fall victim to the woke delusion. They seem to think that if they appease the woke mob and win over the activist class, the shareholders will overlook their inadequacies. But business leaders are picked to turn a profit, not play favorites.

And as America's economy is teetering, the stock market plunging and interest rates rising, investors want to know that their money is – well – making them more money.

Funny how a recession sharpens the mind. Chapek tried to win a popularity contest when he should have been boosting the bottom line.

We've seen this misunderstanding cripple business leaders across the board.

Jeff Zucker, the former president of CNN, was fired after instituting an 'anti-Trump' mandate at his news network. While that short-sighted strategy worked while Trump was in office it predictably flopped when Biden became president.

Today, 'the most trusted name in news' is in the midst of an identity crisis after getting rid of left-wing blowhards, like Brian Stelter and Jeffrey Toobin, and wasting an absolutely insane $300 million dollars on its streaming service just to shut it down within weeks of launching.

It also didn't help that Zucker's hand-picked prime time news anchor, Chris Cuomo, was exposed for colluding with his disgraced brother, ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo, to help him navigate a sex abuse scandal and a bungled COVID pandemic response.

Audiences want news networks to deliver the news and not propaganda – who knew?

At least Fox News is in a league of its own appealing to a right-of-center audience. CNN was just preaching to the choir – a very, very small choir.

Apparently, someone also told MSNBC, who recently fired another one of the most divisive names in all of cable news, host Tiffany Cross. We'll see if NBC News still has patience for the leadership there.

And finally, there's Twitter. The social media platform wallowed in financial mediocrity since it launched in 2006. It never managed to realize its potential and create any reasonable return for investors. Instead, the folks running Twitter seemed content to be a left-wing megaphone and a censor of conservative opinions.

Now Elon Musk is in the charge, firing staff and creating havoc with little concern for the judgement of the left-wing elite. Whether or not he can pull it off remains to be seen. But at least he knows what matters.

Real business leaders innovate, unleash creativity, and find a way to make it all work.

You can spout off all of the activist quackery you like – but if you don't deliver a profit at the end of the day, you're out.

That's how America works baby! And it's worked well so far.

Chapek's 'Don't Say Gay' crusade was never a profile in courage – more like cowardice. He didn't want this fight, he was pushed into it by a few vocal, woke employees and a biased media rooting them on.

I'm sure he won over a lot of fans at dinner parties. But that doesn't cut it. Virtue signaling is not a business strategy.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11453961/MEGHAN-MCCAIN-woke-broke-jobless-Disneys-boss-progessive-activist-quackery.html

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************