In November 2026, Nvidia founder and chief executive Jensen Huang acknowledged in an email to employees that he had been unfaithful to his wife, and apologised to his family and colleagues. At the same time, Nvidia's board announced an independent investigation into the risks of foreign intelligence activity raised by the reporting. Huang has acknowledged the affair himself. Allegations concerning national security, the specific facts and any resulting responsibility still require investigation and should be treated separately.
I have little interest in celebrities' private lives or gossip. Yet Huang's position in his industry, and the institutional questions arising from this episode, give it significance beyond ordinary entertainment news. Questions about US national security, corporate confidentiality, security clearances and reporting obligations will be discussed in a separate article. This article uses the episode only to raise a broader question: how do human expectations of a stable marriage relate to biological tendencies in mate choice and sexual behaviour?
Biologically, there is an important asymmetry between the reproductive costs borne by women and men. Pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding generally entail a higher minimum physiological investment for women; men's minimum reproductive investment is comparatively lower. Evolutionary psychology therefore proposes that, in some environments, men may gain greater potential reproductive benefits from having more partners, while women may place greater weight on a partner's long-term investment and reliability. This is a theoretical explanation of evolutionary selection pressures. It does not mean that everyone consciously pursues reproduction, nor does it directly establish how people behave today.
Research has identified some consistent average differences. Sexual strategies theory, proposed by Buss and Schmitt in 1993, holds that both women and men may pursue long-term and short-term mating strategies, although their motivations and trade-offs can differ across situations. A cross-cultural study published by Schmitt and colleagues in 2003 surveyed 16,288 participants in 52 countries and regions, finding that men generally reported a greater desire for sexual variety than women. A 2022 meta-analysis combining 211 studies and more than 620,000 participants also found higher average sex drive among men. Adjusting for response bias reduced the difference without eliminating it.
These findings provide sufficient grounds to reject the simplistic claim that there are no biological or psychological differences between women and men in this area worth discussing. They do not, however, establish that men will inevitably seek extramarital relationships, or that women are naturally inclined to remain with just one partner. The strength of sexual desire, a preference for variety, willingness to enter short-term relationships and the decision to break an existing marital commitment are different variables. Conflating them turns group statistics into unwarranted judgements about individuals.
In particular, the finite number of eggs a woman has does not directly imply that she will necessarily be sexually exclusive. Differences in reproductive costs may influence mating strategies, but women also have short-term relationships, change partners and participate in varied relationship arrangements. Men, too, pursue more than numbers: a stable partnership, shared parenting, emotional attachment and long-term cooperation can all bring substantial survival and reproductive benefits. The human capacity to form lasting intimate bonds itself has a biological basis. Treating variety as a natural male attribute while attributing stability entirely to civilisation underestimates the complexity of human evolutionary strategies.
This helps explain an often overlooked possibility: an affair does not necessarily mean that someone is dissatisfied with their marriage or wants to end their family relationship. Attachment to an existing partner, satisfaction with family life and attraction to a new partner can coexist psychologically. A person may even wish to preserve the existing family while seeking new intimate experiences. That coexistence is understandable, but it shows only that motivations can be complex. It does not establish that a stable marriage encourages infidelity.
The suggestion that a secure family makes someone feel more able to seek relationships elsewhere can be considered a hypothesis to test. Family stability might lower some people's perceived risk, while increasing others' appreciation of their marriage. Infidelity also involves opportunity, personality, attachment style, relationship quality, social norms and assessments of consequences. A systematic review and meta-analysis of attachment and marital infidelity found a statistical association between attachment insecurity and infidelity. The association is far from deterministic and cannot explain a particular case on its own. Existing research does not support a general rule that men become more likely to be unfaithful as their families become more stable.
Similarly, men's greater average preference for sexual variety does not establish that monogamy necessarily causes men more suffering than women. Suffering needs to be assessed in concrete terms. Some people feel constrained by giving up opportunities for other relationships; others suffer from fears of betrayal, inequality within a relationship, financial dependence or an inability to leave an unhappy marriage. Differences in individual circumstances may far exceed average differences between the sexes. Research can help identify certain tendencies, but it cannot rank everyone's inner experience on a single scale.
There can indeed be tension between the institution of marriage and biological tendencies. Yet nature and civilisation are not unrelated worlds. Marriage has taken different forms across societies and historical periods, serving functions that include childcare, the pooling of resources, inheritance, social recognition and expectations about relationships. At the same time, attachment, jealousy, cooperation, caring for children and the pursuit of novelty may all have evolutionary foundations. Civilised institutions do more than suppress a single natural instinct. They also organise and coordinate the multiple, sometimes conflicting tendencies that humans already possess.
This raises a more basic philosophical distinction: explaining where a desire comes from cannot directly determine whether acting on it is justified. Even if an impulse has an evolutionary background, acting on it does not become free of responsibility. Conversely, a breach of marital commitment does not require us to deny its underlying psychological mechanisms. Factual enquiry asks why something might happen. Ethical enquiry asks what has been promised, who is affected, whether deception is involved and how responsibility should be borne. These enquiries should inform one another, but neither can replace the other.
In this sense, the ethical core of marriage need not be the expectation that people will never feel attracted to anyone else. It concerns how partners understand, agree upon and fulfil their obligations within the relationship. Different relationships may have different boundaries. In a marriage with an explicit agreement of exclusivity, concealment and crossing those boundaries without consent undermine trust. Acknowledging the complexity of desire does not remove a person's capacity to choose, or the binding force of a commitment.
Returning from the Huang episode to the broader issue, the worthwhile question is not whether a successful man conforms to a stereotype of male instinct. It is why humans can form deep, enduring intimate bonds while continuing to experience attraction beyond them. The evidence better supports an explanation involving multiple strategies and motivations, shaped by circumstances. Biology helps us understand the origins of differences; psychology helps us understand how individuals act; marital ethics must also address consent, trust and responsibility. Keeping these levels distinct allows us to avoid reducing human behaviour to moral judgement or using biological instincts to justify it.
References
Axios, 8 November 2026. Reporting on Jensen Huang's email to employees and the board investigation. https://www.axios.com/2026/11/08/nvidia-ceo-jensen-huang-affair-email-to-company
ABC News / Reuters, 9 November 2026. Reporting on Nvidia's independent investigation. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-11-09/nvidia-investigation-into-jensen-huang-chinese-spy-reports/107362376
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory. Psychological Review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8483982/
Schmitt, D. P., et al. (2003). Universal Sex Differences in the Desire for Sexual Variety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12872886/
Frankenbach, J., et al. (2022). Sex Drive: Theoretical Conceptualization and Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Differences. Psychological Bulletin. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36227317/
The Interplay of Attachment Styles and Marital Infidelity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38163207/
Discover more from Geoffrey Chen
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.