I am suggesting that the “stereotypical masculine temptations” JT is experiencing and comparing herself to actually needs to be “deconstructed” somewhat. I am asserting that the male stereotype she assumes (and indeed many males also assume) is heavily biased by popular secular society (and even some christians) towards an almost purely biological explanation which downplays the strong role (for good or bad) that environment/culture also contributes.
Yes. What most of the studies that we see demonstrate is not any scientific fact, but superficial observation compiled to re-assert a widely-held belief. To pass over, or even discard completely the power that group pressure or modern convention has on individual human behavior, and to then attempt to reach a definitive biological conclusion, is misleading. This would be like observing my behavior toward chocolate (which I love). If one were to place a slice of chocolate cake in front of me I will want to eat it almost every single time. What will cause me to refrain from eating four slices a day is the knowledge of the consequences such an action may bring. (I will gain weight, my blood sugar will skyrocket, it provides unhealthy calories as opposed to healthy ones, society does not approve of obesity, etc) The fact that I take this information into account and refrain from indulging says absolutely nothing about my desire for it – it simply demonstrates that I will refrain
despite my desire, not because there is a lack of it. To observe my deferral of chocolate each time it is offered to me and to then reach the conclusion that I therefore must not like chocolate very much would be false.
I would also argue that the notion “men are polygamous, women are hypergamous” is again not rooted in any biological imperative, but is rather a reflection of how sexual selection had to be modified once societies had shifted from small agricultural tribes in which the male-female ratio is relatively equal to societies which were later based upon inter-tribal conflict and monetary systems. Good old-fashioned polygyny relied on the ability of men to fight off male competitors from getting close to their women, either by physical force or legal sanction. The practice was able to thrive not because women preferred by nature to share a wealthy man with other women, or because they had no sexual drive toward men who were not their designated mates or husbands, but because their nesting instinct forced them to adapt to the options available when the acquisition of resources were delegated in return for money. I would hypothesize that prior to the barter system, if the residing alpha male at the time lost to his challenger, the females who had been sequestered for his own enjoyment would then mate with the usurper, because their drives prompted them to do so. I say this because this is what happens with most animals – a female will mate with any male that is able to reach her, and she will become impregnated by several different males over her lifetime.
In patriarchal societies, which are created, and fluid in terms of custom and practice, in order to circumvent the need to physically block access to females (and the subsequent risk of losing the females to another male), a dominant ruling class that is able to set standards by which the weaker are required to comply can introduce an artificial concept which states that women should desire to mate with one male and one male only. Continue perpetuating that notion, and keep the double-standard firmly in place, and we might see why some reach the erroneous conclusion that monogamy is somehow more natural to women. It might be interesting to study whether there is a diametrically-opposed shifting between the evolution of a society that relies more heavily on group cooperation and organization (and less on raw brute strength) and the sexual expectations of women. (Or in other words, as society has moved away from dependence upon physical strength, have more restrictions been placed upon female behavior to compensate for the risk to the male?)
) - is in fact supported in your first reference (as others look to have noticed also):
.
God set the tone for how He wanted the family unit to be when he created one woman for Adam and one man for Eve.