"Bad boy" gene or high testosterone it doesn't really matter, does it? A high testosterone male is generally healthier, stronger, takes more risks, less empathetic and has a higher sex drive than a low testosterone male. If anyone wants to interpret that as "bad boy" that's a social interpretation of biology. It does epitomise the type of male that generally gets the women's pulse rate up. Whether the woman, when thinking socially about it really wants to spend the rest of her life with a big, strong, unempathetic risk-taker who's fairly likely to stray is the dilemma.
Big strong hairy-azzed risk taker - good as far as health of off-spring goes Socially adept, caring, faithful - good as a long-term prospect.
What has not been addressed at all, and when you look at ape societies as well as many human societies is whether the monogamous model fits at all. What we might well be happier with is a model where women live together in small sororities helping each other with the kids, and "entertain gentleman callers". Very often in the human versions of these types of society it is the brothers of the family unit who act as providers and protectors. The social unit consists of a matriarch and her daughters raising babies, the matriarch's son's provide for the family and go elsewhere to spread their DNA.
The monogamous model is more of a democratic model, one man one woman (kind of like one man one vote )
I sometimes wonder whether what we are currently witnessing in terms of high divorce rates and serial monogamy is a break-down of the monogamous model possibly back to some kind of sorority model.
And who called Corri the tangent queen
Fran
if we can be sufficient to ourselves, we need fear no entangling webs Erica Jong
)
