Apparently, I’m not the only one suffering from Asshole Attraction. It’s innate! Inherent to our species! (Or so they postulate…) When it comes to short-lived flings, we look for a cad. When we’re looking for a partner, we look for lasting potential. And nary the two shall cross…

Just read this article.

“The optimum reproductive strategy for females seems to have been and still is to mate with a male who will invest in your offspring, but keep your eyes open for one whose genes will interact well with your own,” Dr. Barash said.

Hmm. So when I’m lusting after that hunka hunka burnin’ hotness in the bar, he’s somehow genetically compatible with me? And when I finally find myself ready to settle down, I’ll do the figurative ‘crossover’ and find a long-lasting partner who will invest in the well-being of our children?

Interesting. VEEERRRRYYYY interesting. Apparently, evolutionary biology isn’t the only place where we see the standard male/female dichotomy & stereotypes.

This hypothesis assumes, however, that once labeled a ‘cad’ or a ‘dad’, the moniker is permanent. It doesn’t seem to take into consideration the fact that many ‘cads’ are now ‘dads’, prompting the lifelong question “Do people ever really change?”

There’s a quote that says: “Men always want to be a woman’s first love. Women have a more subtle instinct: What they like is to be a man’s last romance.” Meaning, us gals think that at some point, these cads that we’re inherently attracted to WILL change. Whether we are the one to change them, or even put forth any effort in trying (a practice I refuse to participate in, thank you very much), is inconsequential. Thus if we accept the postulate that men (and women) CAN and DO change, the aforementioned theory is invalid.

I’m struck by the quandary of this all – as a biology major, I took plenty of classes where evolutionary psychology (specifically, gender-specific sexual behavior) was discussed. In a true biological sense, it is commonplace to learn that in many species, “females produce few, large gametes whereas males produce numerous small ones. Since eggs are expensive and only a few offspring can be raised, females’ evolutionary pressure is for “choosiness” in mate selection. In contrast, sperm are “cheap” and males’ evolutionary success is limited by their ability to deliver sperm to the egg. Males have evolved to be “salesman”, attractive to females. They advertise good genes by holding territories, displays, courtship rituals, gifts, appearance.” Many scientists further postulate that this is also related to each gender’s investment; i.e., men are promiscuous by nature while women are not. When considering the veracity of any of these statements, it seems (at least on a general scale) logical Yet blaming genetics for our ‘foibles’ (be it promiscuity or abandonment) is a cop-out.

We’re a mixture of nature vs. nurture. Genetics can only play so much. Look at adultery: in a study by Bonnie Eaker Weil , she found that people who had a parent that engaged in adultery have a greater liklihood to do so themselves. In fact, she found that 9 out of 10 people who engaged in adultery had a parent who had as well. And for divorce, a 2001 study found that Parental divorce approximately doubled the likelihood that offspring would see their own marriages end in divorce, even when controlling for a variety of variables measured prior to parents’ marital dissolution. I pose that these statistics are more nurture than nature, but accept that others will see it conversely.

The morning radio station conducted a little test of fidelity, and reported the findings this morning. They had an attractive single girl go out to the bars, and record the interactions she had with married men. In a small test group, over 50% of the married men took her phone number, and 33% of them called her within a day. These are MARRIED MEN. Speaks little about our views on “for better & for worse”.

Still, you just never know. My future husband may be out there, either being the ‘cad’ or acting the ‘dad.’ Either way, I’m not ready for marriage, so for the time being, I suppose I’ll stick to my Cad-diction.

Until I find what I’m looking for, that is.