Interesting study and commentary on monogamy,

"Why More Intelligent Men (But Not Women) Value Sexual Exclusivity
Intelligence affects men's (but not women's) value on sexual exclusivity

Whether you are in a monogamous marriage or a polygynous marriage makes a huge difference for a man, but not for a woman.

Throughout evolutionary history, humans were mildly polygynous. A species-typical degree of polygyny correlates with the extent of sexual dimorphism in size (the extent to which the male is larger than the female). The more sexually dimorphic the species, the more polygynous it is. This is either because males of polygynous species become larger in order to compete with other males and monopolize females, or because females of polygynous species become smaller in order to mature early and start mating.

I personally believe it’s the latter; I believe men and women could potentially be the same size except for the fact all human societies are invariably polygynous to various degrees. In fact, women’s (but not men’s) average height in society is partly determined by its degree of polygyny. The more polygynous the society, the shorter women are on average, while men’s average height is unaffected ....

Consistent with this comparative evidence, a comprehensive survey of traditional societies shows that an overwhelming majority (83.39%) practice polygyny, with only 16.14% practicing monogamy and .47% practicing polyandry. While present-day hunter-gatherer societies are not exactly the same as our ancestors in every detail, they are our best analogs available for us to study. The fact that polygyny is widespread in such societies, combined with the comparative evidence discussed above, strongly suggest that our ancestors might have practiced polygyny throughout most of human evolutionary history.

Of course, polygynous marriage in any society is mathematically limited to a minority of men. Given a roughly 50-50 sex ratio, the highest proportion of men in polygynous marriage in any society is 50%. If half the men each take two wives, the other half must remain wifeless. If some men take more than two wives, more men must remain wifeless and the proportion of polygynous men will even be smaller. So the proportion of polygynous men in any society must always be lower than 50%. Most men in polygynous societies either have one wife or no wife at all.

However, at least some men throughout evolutionary history were polygynous, and we are disproportionately descended from polygynous men with a large number of wives, because they had more children than monogamous or wifeless men. Nor does the human evolutionary history of mild polygyny mean that women have always remained faithful to their legitimate husband. As I discuss in earlier posts on the testicles and the penis, there is clear anatomical evidence on men’s body to suggest that women have always been mildly promiscuous ....

Sexual exclusivity prescribed under socially imposed monogamy today is therefore evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. The Hypothesis would therefore predict that more intelligent men may value sexual exclusivity – having only one sexual partner in a committed relationship – more than less intelligent men, but intelligence may not affect women’s likelihood of espousing the value of sexual exclusivity.

Consistent with this prediction of the Hypothesis, data from a large, representative American sample shows that more intelligent boys are more likely to grow up to value sexual exclusivity in early adulthood than less intelligent boys. In contrast, childhood IQ does not affect girls’ value on sexual exclusivity in early adulthood. The effect of intelligence on the value of sexual exclusivity is more than four times as strong among men than among women. Among women, the association is not statistically significant."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-more-intelligent-men-not-women-value-sexual

What I've noticed is that the more successful or more influential a man is, he's less likely to be monogamous.

I'm pretty sure this is a stereotype not supported by data. All in all humanity acts in an ethical manner including in their physical relationships.

On the flip side success and influence may be directly correlated to loose ethics. However that would only be the case if we as a society valued that in those that we consider to be successful and influential. I'm fairly certain that, considering the heavy blow back that is given to well known philanders that this isn't the case.

I have a mostly positive attitude when it comes to humanity. Mostly because my Mormon upbringing taught me that everyone was inherently evil. Now I hold that most everyone is well meaning and if they make a mistake it is probably more naivete and ignorance and less malice. Obviously sprinkled with selfishness, but looking out for number one isn't necessarily malicious. It might be short sighted but not by nature malicious.

I gather you are a fairly pessimistic person. I'll bet you see an increased quality of life if you were to stop believing that the world was out to get you.

Just my two cents.

If single guys my own age wanted to date me, I might agree with you. Instead, I only seem to attract older, married men who want to have an affair -- doctors, laywers, politicians, military officers, top university academics and the like. I tried it a couple of times. It's fun but doesn't lead anywhere. Once, a manager wanted an outside of the office relationship. I had been wondering why his wife kept calling him every twenty minutes. Another time a politician's wife actually called me to tell me he wasn't worth bothering with. The few nice guys I meet always seem to have some problem. C'est la vie.



And I don't think I'm pessimistic at all. I also think most people are well meaning -- but if danger lies ahead I'm going to tell people about it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2017 08:11PM by anybody.

Fair point, if you just cite a person's "success" as one of power, manipulation, and influence.

Higher intelligence doesn't necessarily equate to having that kind of success or influence (or desire to) with the women.

The *most* intelligent men *tend* to be more monogamous. Not a hard and fast rule, just more probability.