Tiger's Cheating and Evolutionary Theory

[Justice44]

Since the Tiger’s Woods scandal, those who believe in evolutionary psychology especially when it pertains to perceived gender differences of sexual behavior, attempt to biologically justify male promiscuity especially among rich alpha males. They contend that the male reproductive function is to have as many offspring with as many females as possible. Since women can not have as many children with different men as men can have with different women, women have no reason to be polygamous. However, I have read several sources that explain the reason behind female promiscuity. I would like to share some of them with you. Here’s the list of quotes from various sources:
 

“Biologists believe that women are genetically programmed to have sex with several different men in order to increase the chances of healthy children with the greatest likelihood of survival.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/sep/03/anthonybrowne.theobserver

In primates generally, much evidence suggests that multi-male mating functions
to confuse paternity, and thereby decrease the risk of infanticide by males (Hrdy 1979; van Schaik & Janson 2000; Wolff & Macdonald 2004). This is plausible for chimpanzees, for whom infanticide by adult males within the social group is an important risk (Nishida & Kawanaka 1985; Clark Arcadi & Wrangham 1999). An additional possibility is that paternity confusion induces males to\ invest in infants indirectly, through cooperative defence of  a community feeding range (Wrangham 1979).
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~kibale/pdfs/Muller2007_PRSL.pdf

“Nascimento says the findings suggest that sperm from promiscuous species such as chimps, where a female might mate with multiple males within an hour, have evolved to move faster as a result of competition. "The first ones to make it to the egg" succeed, she says.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12345-in-promiscuous-primates-sperm-feel-need-for-speed.html

Some experts have asserted that since gay males have significantly more partners than straight couples and lesbians have significantly less partners than straight couples, it proves that most men desire to have more sexual partners than women. I would like to share a quote that clearly exposes the faulty reasoning behind this theory:

And what is the evidence for these male-female verities? For the difference in promiscuity quotas, the hard-cores love to raise the example of the differences between gay men and lesbians. Homosexuals are seen as a revealing population because they supposedly can behave according to the innermost impulses of their sex, untempered by the need to adjust to the demands and wishes of the opposite sex, as heterosexuals theoretically are. What do we see in this ideal study group? Just look at how gay men carry on! They are perfectly happy to have hundreds, thousands, of sexual partners, to have sex in bathhouses, in bathrooms, in Central Park. By contrast, lesbians are sexually sedate. They don't cruise sex clubs. They couple up and stay coupled, and they like cuddling and hugging more than they do serious, genitally based sex.

In the hard-core rendering of inherent male-female discrepancies in promiscuity, gay men are offered up as true men, real men, men set free to be men, while lesbians are real women, ultra women, acting out every woman's fantasy of love and commitment. Interestingly, though, in many neurobiology studies gay men are said to have somewhat feminized brains, with hypothalamic nuclei that are closer in size to a woman's than to a straight man's, and spatial-reasoning skills that are modest and ladylike rather than manfully robust. For their part, lesbians are posited to have somewhat masculinized brains and skills -- to be sportier, more mechanically inclined, less likely to have played with dolls or tea sets when young -- all as an ostensible result of exposure to prenatal androgens. And so gay men are sissy boys in some contexts and Stone Age manly men in others, while lesbians are battering rams one day and flower into the softest and most sexually divested girlish girls the next.
Men, Women, Sex And Darwin By Natalie Angier, 2/21/99, New York Times

I share her sentiment. For one, the notion that all sexual behavior, including promiscuity, in humans is primarily focused on reproductive strategies is absurd. Can someone explain what is the reproductive function of anal sex(by hetero-homosexuals), oral sex(vagina/penis), breast masturbation, and making out? I hate to sound crude but my illustration was to prove the point that many acts of sexuality serve no reproductive purpose.

Secondly, the orientation of homosexuality is a non-reproductive by nature. It is an arrogant assumption to say that gay men are an evolutionary by-product of straight men. There is no evidence that gays evolved from straight men, thus there would be no reason for gays to adopt a reproductive strategy that pertains to straight men.

Lastly, even though there is clear evidence of female promiscuity in primates, why would the lack of female promiscuity in primates prove that male monogamy is unnatural? First of all, in most primates males are the leaders of the community. Does that mean human females should not be political leaders? Does that mean women are not programmed to lead countries? Of course we reject this theory as ridiculous, but yet greater accept evolutionary theories on sexual behavior which focus on gender differences. I conclude that the reason behind this is because we are more comfortable using gender stereotypes in discussions of sexual behavior.

P.S. BTW I am a male who does not view monogamy as an absolute ideal. However, there are men who are biologically monogamous. If one would just examine the  system of monogamy, they would find several laws that expect monogamy especially from poor to average income males. These were sanctioned by paternal governments.