Naturally unfaithful women.

scanlas

10% of people have fathers who are different than the one who they think is their father, this is due to female infidelity. It has been scientifically proven around the world. 10% of people in the western world too are also the result of a cheating woman, I said that just in case you think poorer countries are skewing the results.

Women naturally find a male who will support them and their family and have sex with them when they aren't in estrus ( the five days around ovulation). When a woman is in estrus " in heat" she seeks to mate with as many sexworthy men (alpha types) as possible to allow sperm competition amongst worthy suitors.

Religion and marriage was originally created by men as a means of keeping women faithful and for a man to know his woman's child was his own.
Two of the ten commandments are: Thou shalt not commit adultery. This one was aimed at the women. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife.
After the ice age early man discovered that he could tend and farm crops and live a life much more succesfully than hunting alone. This is when the concept of property was born. The men began to view women as property for life, so they invented marriage and religion for this to work.

But as stated in the first paragraph, this isn't natural for women. Women intuitively know that when they get emotional during estrus that they would throw logic out the window and have sex with anyone deemed worthy, even if it's her best friend or sister's husband. Women know this, that's why women are suspicious of women and act bitchy. A woman knows that she can't trust herself when she gets emotional and so knows that she couldn't trust other women when they get emotional.

This paragraph will be on the topic of the word "slut". Womem hate to be considered a slut and will condemn a woman for being a "slut" if she is seen to be displaying her natural sexual behavour. This reason for this is women need to give the image that they are nice and faithful, otherwise a quality man would not marry them. A woman gets a lifetime of resources and help bringing up her family in exchange for sex. If the word gets out what women are really like that would be terrible. No one would marry them. So it's very important for women to give the impression that they are nice and faithful. When a woman is seen to be slutty she is vilified and looked down upon because she is giving away their secret. So women must accuse them of being slutty and demonise them to make sure she is seen as nice and faithful and different to the "anomaly" slut. When really she's the same as the rest of them.

In today's culture it is said that a woman does not respect herself if she has sex with lots of guys. This is ridiculous. How can someone not respect themself for doing what they want to do and making their own choices.

Now, I look forward to reading responses to this. This is an emotional topic so I suspect it will make some people angry/emotional because it puts some peoples core beliefs on the line. But try and stick to the facts and keep this discussion civil.

carlowguy32

wow, what a thread, it explains so much, i always perceived women like this but thought it was just in my head

Leeby

Can we have a link to somewhere detailing this "scientifically proven" fact that 10% of people think they're being raised by their own father but are not? I find it quite hard to believe that on average 1 in every 10 people are in fact the result of an affair which has been kept secret from the man they believe to be their father.

carlowguy32

Leeby wrote: »

Can we have a link to somewhere detailing this "scientifically proven" fact that 10% of people think they're being raised by their own father but are not? I find it quite hard to believe that on average 1 in every 10 people are in fact the result of an affair which has been kept secret from the man they believe to be their father.

i believe that statistic, just because you may have a good relationship with some fella does not mean everyone does, get real, wake up and smell the coffee

TerrorFirmer

carlowguy32 wrote: »

i believe that statistic, just because you may have a good relationship with some fella does not mean everyone does, get real, wake up and smell the coffee

Get real and stop being a dick?

Link before comment.

scanlas

Hey guys,

I have a link here to free video seminars about this stuff. Really interesting. This is where I learned about this stuff. I'm just passing on the information because I think everyine deserves to know.

http://www.worthyplayboys.com/philosophy-seductive-reasoning.html

Google the 10% non-paternity thing. You'll find it's been widely proven. I was shocked too to find out.

scanlas

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.aspx

Moon_Eyes

Shouldn't you have posted in conspiracy theories? ...
Yes of course we're all sluts, we're all out to get as much sex as we can from all of you. Tis all you're good for. Have a nice weekend.

You're just looking for reaction. Well ....here you go.

scanlas

Chill.... I'm not attacking women. I believe women are are victims as a result of religion and marriage. Women are made to feel guilty for their sexual desires. I think it's horrible.

Look how women are treated in muslim countries. It's disgusting. They are made cover their faces and bodies so not to attract men. They are treated like property.

VeryBerry

scanlas wrote: »

Women naturally find a male who will support them and their family and have sex with them when they aren't in estrus ( the five days around ovulation). When a woman is in estrus " in heat" she seeks to mate with as many sexworthy men (alpha types) as possible to allow sperm competition amongst worthy suitors.

How does contraception fit into this theory? For example, if females are mating with as many men as possible to ensure sperm competion (presumably with a view to getting pregnant), why do we practice safe sex in order not to get pregnant?

Btw...can anyone enlightened me on how it feels to be "in heat"...I'm not sure I've ever experienced it...

anonymous_joe

VeryBerry wrote: »

How does contraception fit into this theory? For example, if females are mating with as many men as possible to ensure sperm competion (presumably with a view to getting pregnant), why do we practice safe sex in order not to get pregnant?

Btw...can anyone enlightened me on how it feels to be "in heat"...I'm not sure I've ever experienced it...

Head says one thing heart another? :pac:

I've no idea if this is true or not, my last ex cheated on her previous boyfriend but never cheated on me. Sounds a bit silly really.

quad_red

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Head says one thing heart another? :pac:

I've no idea if this is true or not, my last ex cheated on her previous boyfriend but never cheated on me. Sounds a bit silly really.

You're asking for it on this thread....

Moon_Eyes

scanlas wrote: »

Chill.... I'm not attacking women. I believe women are are victims as a result of religion and marriage. Women are made to feel guilty for their sexual desires. I think it's horrible.

Look how women are treated in muslim countries. It's disgusting. They are made cover their faces and bodies so not to attract men. They are treated like property.

I am chilled, I was being facesious, seriously, or maybe I mean, not seriously...sorry for taking too light an approach to your thread.

I cannot read the link to the website at work as when I opened it I thought I'd get fired straight out, but anyway. I am not reacting emotionally as I think you think I am, I honestly don't get generalisations about either gender and do not think women are victims of anything, or men for that matter. I'm a huge fan of individualism and don't like quotes of percentages or whatever you may throw at people as being statistical fact, it's rarely ever accurate. But I'm backing out of your thread now as I was just bored and it caught my eye and I can't read your links anyway so I could be well of the mark with what this is all about and I could have it all a*r*seways....

Edit: I only read your comments about women in Muislim countries now. Your initial thread does not really get at that at all and comes accross more as trying to provoke a reaction from western women about their lifestyle as opposed to perceived "oppressed" women in other cultures. It never ceases to amze me that so many people think they need to be saved. Most of them are happy enough and just because they're covered up and have a completely different way of living does not make them victims. A lot of them are quite happy to do it and I doubt they need saving from us superior more spohisticated people, who sit on the internet all day making comments that achieve little, and change less. Not a jibe at you personally OP. Difference is a good thing and not all women don their burka's in fear of their men, lots of them do it with pride.

Ostrom

scanlas wrote: »

Religion and marriage was originally created by men as a means of keeping women faithful and for a man to know his woman's child was his own.

After the ice age early man discovered that he could tend and farm crops and live a life much more succesfully than hunting alone. This is when the concept of property was born. The men began to view women as property for life, so they invented marriage and religion for this to work.

Philosphy?

I think you may have over-emphasised human agency in your explanation - (actually you run both determinisms through your post).

'Religion and marriage was created by men to.....'

The 'after the ice age' part is just plain inaccurate

ChocolateSauce

50% of my grandmother's children were not the children of her husband.

It is a mistake to accept that monogamy is the natural order of things.

carlowguy32

i know a woman with 5 children by 4 different men and one of her daughters has 3 children by 2 different men

scanlas

VeryBerry wrote: »

How does contraception fit into this theory? For example, if females are mating with as many men as possible to ensure sperm competion (presumably with a view to getting pregnant), why do we practice safe sex in order not to get pregnant?

Btw...can anyone enlightened me on how it feels to be "in heat"...I'm not sure I've ever experienced it...

We have evolved over millions of years, contraception has not been apart of our evolution for the vast majority of that time. We feel moods and emotions which compel us to have sex, when we see someone who is sexy we feel an attraction to that person, we aren't generally thinking how great our child's immune system would be if we mated with them, we have inherited "succesful "genes which make us feel attracted to the person which will benefit are offspring. The people who felt attracted in the past to people who don't have "succesful" genes generally die off over millions of years simply because they possesed "bad genes".

Another point: Have you noticed how infrequent the sex generally becomes in a marriage, in many cases this is because the female's genes don't want her to mate with him so her genes give her the moods and emotions so she doesn't want to have sex with him.

Nevyn

scanlas wrote: »

Another point: Have you noticed how infrequent the sex generally becomes in a marriage, in many cases this is because the female's genes don't want her to mate with him so her genes give her the moods and emotions so she doesn't want to have sex with him.

esp if there are already off spring with that mate.
but we are not just dna carriers and animals controlled by the urges to mate.
It is good to understand where that comes into play and if needs be guard
against it and to be aware of it but " sorry I screwed around ti wasn't me it was my genes" is bullshít.

But it's funny that when a woman does stray her partner can in a primal way tell and often
the response is to renew sexual activity to a point which they had long passed as a couple.

orestes

Moved from the philosophy forum. Wasn't sure if I should move it to here or humanities, if I made the wrong choice my apologies and feel free to move it on.

herya

Is there a research on how many married men have a child outside of wedlock?

LolaLuv

Thaedydal wrote: »

But it's funny that when a woman does stray her partner can in a primal way tell and often
the response is to renew sexual activity to a point which they had long passed as a couple.

Is that true? Very interesting.

Húrin

scanlas wrote: »

Religion and marriage was originally created by men as a means of keeping women faithful and for a man to know his woman's child was his own.
Two of the ten commandments are: Thou shalt not commit adultery. This one was aimed at the women. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife.
After the ice age early man discovered that he could tend and farm crops and live a life much more succesfully than hunting alone. This is when the concept of property was born. The men began to view women as property for life, so they invented marriage and religion for this to work.

I don't think that these are sound athropological assertions.

Jules

Moved from the Ladies Lounge.

SeekUp

Isn't this just the opposite argument that men are prewired to spread their seed and sleep with as many women as possible, therefore it's okay? Men can't control themselves and are victims of biological urges . . . Now women can't control themselves when "in heat."

scanlas wrote: »

A woman knows that she can't trust herself when she gets emotional and so knows that she couldn't trust other women when they get emotional.

So . . . when women go "into heat" they are incapable of thinking rationally? They "throw logic out the window" and mount anything available? And why is being emotional equated with sleeping around? Many people get emotional often and somehow, miracle of miracles, find a way to keep their pants on and legs closed.

scanlas wrote: »

Womem hate to be considered a slut and will condemn a woman for being a "slut" if she is seen to be displaying her natural sexual behavour. This reason for this is women need to give the image that they are nice and faithful, otherwise a quality man would not marry them. A woman gets a lifetime of resources and help bringing up her family in exchange for sex.

Yes, women hate being called a slut. Although I'd guess it's more likely because of the double standard for displaying sexual behaviour common to both men and women. Also -- I'm sure I don't need to point out (but I will!) that a woman does not necessarily get a lifetime of resources and help bringing up her family in exchange for sex. What about single mothers who are working their fingers to the bone trying to provide for her family (without the help of social welfare)?

VeryBerry wrote: »

Btw...can anyone enlightened me on how it feels to be "in heat"...I'm not sure I've ever experienced it...

Lots of loud noises and humping pillows and people's legs when they drop in for a visit. I know that's how I get.

Nevyn

PillyPen wrote: »

Is that true? Very interesting.

There is also a difference in how much ejaculate a man will pump into
a new sexual partner compared to a long term one.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

There is also a difference in how much ejaculate a man will pump into
a new sexual partner compared to a long term one.

I've read some interesting stuff on that one. If a couple are apart for a week or two the next time they have sex the man ejaculates more when next he sees her, even if he's had sex with someone else or was sorting himself in the interim. His body seems to "mistrust" the woman and hedges it's bets. When a couple are trying for a baby the idea either of more sex the better or abstinence to let him "build up" seems to have little going for it. The study suggested a week apart and his sperm count and motility will go up. Another bit was that women have more vaginal orgasms(even if they rarely had them before) with lovers, than with their long term partners, even if the orgasm rate is roughly equal. The cervix dipping that occurs in both, but stronger in vaginal may help induce pregnancy. Fascinating stuff and amazing that there is much going on we're not aware of.

I don't think it has that much to do with large scale infidelity though. It's a holdover from our past and our minds can control the large scale urges even if the small scale go unnoticed.

Ostrom

herya wrote: »

Is there a research on how many married men have a child outside of wedlock?

Quite a lot, but subject to the expected sources of error (reliability and self-reporting)

johnnyskeleton

Húrin wrote: »

I don't think that these are sound athropological assertions.

Quite right, and if the OP reads Dr. Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape followed by Elaine Morgan's The Descent of Woman, he will see how two people can reach two polarised conclusions about the same anthropological matter. So I propose to put a different spin on some of the things that the OP is saying, which I think are just as plausible.

scanlas wrote: »

10% of people have fathers who are different than the one who they think is their father, this is due to female infidelity.

This could also be explained by rape.

scanlas wrote: »

Women naturally find a male who will support them and their family and have sex with them when they aren't in estrus ( the five days around ovulation). When a woman is in estrus " in heat" she seeks to mate with as many sexworthy men (alpha types) as possible to allow sperm competition amongst worthy suitors.

Women seek an Alpha male at all times. It is only due to modern society where resources do not necessarily accrue to the strongest that women's choice in a mate could be seen to vary at different times. In any event, for women seeking to have "sperm competition" as you put it, they would need to have a high degree of temporal proximity between sexual encounters and you have not suggested that this is the case.

scanlas wrote: »

Religion and marriage was originally created by men as a means of keeping women faithful and for a man to know his woman's child was his own.

Religion was created by a madman.

1) Marriage was created by women to ensure that men would want to provide for them and their offspring.

OR

2) Marriage was created by the weaker males in society so that they would have one sexual mate each rather than the alpha males having all the women and they have none.

scanlas wrote: »

Two of the ten commandments are: Thou shalt not commit adultery. This one was aimed at the women. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife.

Both aimed at preventing civil disorder. Infidelity often leads to violence, and this is bad for social cohesion. Members of a society need to be united to face common enemies, so it is important that they don't kill each other because of infidelity.

scanlas wrote: »

Womem hate to be considered a slut and will condemn a woman for being a "slut" if she is seen to be displaying her natural sexual behavour. This reason for this is women need to give the image that they are nice and faithful, otherwise a quality man would not marry them.

It's much more basic - women don't like being called a derogatory name when it is meant in a derogatory manner. Women don't like to be called any frigid either, because it is equally meant as an insult. Most of the time, it's not the name you are called, it's the way it is said. Otherwise, who would take offense at being told to f off?

scanlas wrote: »

A woman gets a lifetime of resources and help bringing up her family in exchange for sex.

Where, out of curiosity, does that leave women who earn more than their husbands and who provide a lifetime of resources to them?

scanlas wrote: »

If the word gets out what women are really like that would be terrible. No one would marry them.

Perhaps, but I suspect we'd all have a bloody good time. Marriage is overrated in any event.

philologos

To the OP and others who are in agreement:

Do you think that we should just forget all moral structures within society and to act according to the laws of nature alone? This comes considering the fact that you are quite okay to allow promiscuity in society irrespective of the harm that may come to the partners of said individuals and the emotional attachments that people may have for eachother?

I personally think that is a dangerous road to go down, in terms of the mental health of the general population in a country where the suicide rate is already high enough without encouraging people to go out and break up marriages, relationships and so on.

,8,1

10% of people have fathers who are different than the one who they think is their father, this is due to female infidelity.

This could also be explained by rape.

Rape is pretty rare throughout nature; it is unlikely to be as high as 10% in the human animal. Also you are saying women are 100% faithful when they say they are, apart from rape?

Promiscuity I would say is a universal female mating drive. As the gene-selectors, the female will seek not only quality genes, but variance.

I wouldn't treat arguments which discount female promiscuity too seriously.

1) Marriage was created by women to ensure that men would want to provide for them and their offspring.

OR

2) Marriage was created by the weaker males in society so that they would have one sexual mate each rather than the alpha males having all the women and they have none.

I'd go with 2. In the normal run of things, alpha males monopolise the market for insemination. Marriage does indeed improve the situation for the beta as it (a) takes alphas out of circulation and (b) discourages the female instinct towards promiscuity and choosing alpha-genes.

I'd say you could call marriage (and the monogamy it implies which is actually more fundamental) a group strategy on behalf of beta males.

A woman gets a lifetime of resources and help bringing up her family in exchange for sex.

Where, out of curiosity, does that leave women who earn more than their husbands and who provide a lifetime of resources to them?

Usually, unmarried and/or divorced.

Womem hate to be considered a slut and will condemn a woman for being a "slut" if she is seen to be displaying her natural sexual behavour. This reason for this is women need to give the image that they are nice and faithful, otherwise a quality man would not marry them.

It's much more basic - women don't like being called a derogatory name when it is meant in a derogatory manner.

Ah but things are not always as they seem.

I'm sure you are familiar with the expression "f*** you". Men are particularly fond of using this, when they are threatened by others. But you'll know too that the word "f***" is used as a verb, relating to the action of sexual intercourse. It seems in some primate societies males are known to "threaten" other males with their penis, in a kind of "f*** you" gesture.

Notice too that the manual expression for "f*** you" is a raised middle figure, leading to a phallic symbol.

[Sorry for the language, there's no other way I could describe this.]

This is an example of where our language and evolutionary instincts can cross-over in unexpected ways.

Scanlas point is actually very valid. Much of female survival and welfare is related to concealing their sexual past and/or fertility.

A woman may have no problem with being seen as promiscuous ("a slut"), but the long-term view must be taken. Will this always remain the case, that her sexual reputation does not matter? Perhaps not, and that is perhaps an evolutionary reason why the term is generally detested by women. The card of virtuousness must be retained for future play in the mating game.

If words describing promiscuity are made unacceptable in a society then that works as a group strategy too, on behalf of females.

Do you think that we should just forget all moral structures within society and to act according to the laws of nature alone?

That decision has already been made. The only thing separating us from persuing a Naturalistic amoral mating system is our human conscience.

I personally think that is a dangerous road to go down, in terms of the mental health of the general population in a country where the suicide rate is already high enough without encouraging people to go out and break up marriages, relationships and so on.

Nature abhors a vacuum. If we have a situation where all moral and legal structures relating to mating are being dismantled, that will be reacted to whether we think it's a good idea or not.

johnnyskeleton

,8,1 wrote: »

Rape is pretty rare throughout nature; it is unlikely to be as high as 10% in the human animal. Also you are saying women are 100% faithful when they say they are, apart from rape?

Promiscuity I would say is a universal female mating drive. As the gene-selectors, the female will seek not only quality genes, but variance.

I wouldn't treat arguments which discount female promiscuity too seriously.

My point is that you can put any spin on it you like, there is no more evidence to support the OP's suggestion than there is my extreme suggestion.

,8,1 wrote: »

I'd go with 2. In the normal run of things, alpha males monopolise the market for insemination. Marriage does indeed improve the situation for the beta as it (a) takes alphas out of circulation and (b) discourages the female instinct towards promiscuity and choosing alpha-genes.

I'd say you could call marriage (and the monogamy it implies which is actually more fundamental) a group strategy on behalf of beta males.

We just don't know. The best we can do is look at monkeys or other social animals and observe how they behave, but its guesswork at best.

,8,1 wrote: »

Usually, unmarried and/or divorced.

I know several women who earn more money than their men and they are happily married or in happy long term relationships. Since the OP suggests that it is all women who are seeking resources in exchange for sex, it only takes one or two examples to disprove the rule.

,8,1 wrote: »

Ah but things are not always as they seem.

I'm sure you are familiar with the expression "f*** you". Men are particularly fond of using this, when they are threatened by others. But you'll know too that the word "f***" is used as a verb, relating to the action of sexual intercourse. It seems in some primate societies males are known to "threaten" other males with their penis, in a kind of "f*** you" gesture.

That supports my point though - it is the offensive intent rather than the actual meaning of the words that is important.

,8,1 wrote: »

Notice too that the manual expression for "f*** you" is a raised middle figure, leading to a phallic symbol.

No, it's two fingers face forward in a v shape. It's origin is often attributed to English longbow men in the hundred years war. When captured, the French would could off their index and middle finger and release them so that they couldn't fire a bow again. So the English longbow men adopted the gesture as a sign of defiance to show that they still had their fingers. But coming back to my point, there is no right or wrong answer as to why these things are done, it's just a case of different opinions.

,8,1 wrote: »

Scanlas point is actually very valid. Much of female survival and welfare is related to concealing their sexual past and/or fertility.

Without proof, which is very hard to come by, all he can have is a persuasive argument. I take the view that in early societies a promiscuous woman was not as big a deal as it was in later societies, or rather that the stigmatisation comes from a social imperative rather than simply evolving to where it is.

,8,1 wrote: »

A woman may have no problem with being seen as promiscuous ("a slut"), but the long-term view must be taken. Will this always remain the case, that her sexual reputation does not matter? Perhaps not, and that is perhaps an evolutionary reason why the term is generally detested by women. The card of virtuousness must be retained for future play in the mating game.

Who knows, but I'd tend towards the view that it is a societal rather than evolutionary inclination.