Naturally unfaithful women.

scanlas

If you ask a woman whether she would prefer her partner to cheat on her with a prostitute for one night or just with a with a non-prostitute for one night you'll find that alot more women would prefer their partner to cheat with a prostitute. The reason being that the at least the prostitute isn't giving away sex for free. The so called "slut" (girl with whom he had the one night stand) is giving it away for free, this is terrible for a woman who wants resources and assistance in exchange for sex. The more "sluts" their are the harder it is to find a quality man to will agree to give resources and assistance in exchange for her sexuality.

Think about it this way, if every man had the ability to have sex with a new woman everyday, how many of these men would choose to be in monogomous relationships? It would certainly be a lot fewer than what it is. That would be a disaster for women.

I recommend reading a book called " My Secret Garden". It describes some common sexual fantasies of women that they don't admit to. It's a good book for understandiing how sexual and dirty women's minds really are.

Macha

Some of the ideas being expressed in this thread are as bizarre as they are worrying.

scanlas

I recommend reading a book called " My Secret Garden". It describes some common sexual fantasies of women that they don't admit to. It's a good book for understandiing how sexual and dirty women's minds really are.

VeryBerry

scanlas wrote: »

I recommend reading a book called " My Secret Garden". It describes some common sexual fantasies of women that they don't admit to. It's a good book for understandiing how sexual and dirty women's minds really are.

1. Fantasy does not always equate with reality (thats why its fantasy). This is particularly true for sexual fantasy.

2. I would recommend the book "Men in Love", also by Nancy Friday, as its a good book for understanding how mens minds are equally as sexual and "dirty" as women. :rolleyes:

scanlas

Most people know know already or assume already that men have dirty minds. I'm more interested in what goes on in a female's mind.

Wibbs

taconnol wrote: »

Some of the ideas being expressed in this thread are as bizarre as they are worrying.

Well they do have some kernel of truth behind some of it, but it's extrapolating that out in dodgy ways that's the issue.

Read an interesting article in new scientist recently(doesn't appear to be on their website sadly). It was a study of different ethnic groups in the US and how culture of said groups impacts successful child rearing. The extremes were observed in african americans and latin americans. The former for various complex reasons have fewer high value males to choose from. Those high value males are sought after and the women will trade off sexuality and males infidelity to secure one. The latter has more high value males and the women are much choosier and push for marriage to secure their position because of that.

It loosely made the point that women "trade" sex for resources with caveats and that men will trade resources for regular sex.

Here's an interesting study; http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/uom-jlp041008.php

scanlas made the point that if men could have sex with a new women everyday, it would have a serious impact on women. I would agree. Indeed I would even suggest that sexual liberation for women has been a double edged sword at times. For most of the population it has worked out fine with some hiccups, but there exists more of an extreme that can be detrimental to women.

A high value male if he so chooses can run a virtual harem of women, one after the other for years, without too much societal pressure or worry. There's always the next woman to come along. Significantly more than he could have 2 generations ago when access to women was more restrictive. I know men who have done this. Then there are the men who are lower value, who without the structures of the past may go a very long time between women or get none at all.

Now you could argue that a high value woman could do similar and maybe so, but it would likely be much more frowned upon and socially detreimental for her to do so(mostly among her peers too). Plus if she gets' pregnant she has much more to lose.

One stat I read (afair scientific american) was that among college age people, 60% of women were having sex, but only 15/20% of men were. That disparity suggests that far fewer men are having sex with far more women.

scanlas wrote:

I recommend reading a book called " My Secret Garden". It describes some common sexual fantasies of women that they don't admit to. It's a good book for understandiing how sexual and dirty women's minds really are.

You see that's where you lose me. Sexual I can agree with, but dirty? That sounds like more of an issue with your view of women. Yes women are sexual and have sexual needs. So what?

scanlas

When I say dirty I'm not being judgmental, just trying to get the point across about the misperception of women not having alot of similar thoughts as men when it comes to sex.

Wibbs

Yes but unless someone is very naive or a 15 year old boy with overly romantic notions, the idea that women have just as much of a sexual need and men, is hardly news. It's up there with the sky is blue, so again I can;t see your point.

scanlas

I think there's alot of men who are under that whole "romantic notion" about women.

Nevyn

scanlas wrote: »

I think there's alot of men boys who are under that whole "romantic notion" about women.

FYP

Wagon

My girlfriend studies sociology. I remember her telling me that she read that men are more likely to cheat than women as it's in our nature to want to spread our seed as much as possible. Now I know for a one night stand, that's the last thing anyone wants but it does explain the brief sexual attraction that one or both parties hold. I don't think woman are more likely to cheat than men, I just think they do it for different natural reasons.

,8,1

My girlfriend studies sociology. I remember her telling me that she read that men are more likely to cheat than women as it's in our nature to want to spread our seed as much as possible.

This is a very popular meme, I don't think you need to study sociology to pick it up. It does not consider monogamy-as-beta-male-group-strategy nor female desire for genetic variance.

The conclusion being, promiscuity may be less an inherently "male" behaviour than we are inclined to think.

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.

Actually there's more evidence for the OP's suggestion: genetic evolutionary imperative (seeking out best genes and variety).

,8,1

An illuminating article on this subject:

There is a sense in which a man who is always "faithful" is under-serving his genes -- and the behavioral tendency to do that will be selected against. His optimal strategy is to be promiscuous enough to pick up opportunities to have his reproductive freight partly paid by other men, while not being so "faithless" that potential mates will consider him a bad risk (e.g. for running off with another woman and abandoning the kids).

What nobody had a good theory for until the mid-1990s was why women cooperate in this behavior. Early sociobiological models of human sexual strategy predicted that women should grab the best provider they could attract and then bend heaven and earth to keep him faithful, because if he screwed around some of his effort would be likely to be directed towards providing for children by other women. In these theories, female abstinence before marriage and fidelity during it was modeled as a trade offered men to keep them faithful in turn; an easy trade, because nobody had noticed any evolutionary incentives for women to cheat on the contract.

In retrospect, the resemblence of the female behavior predicted by these models to conventional moral prescriptions should have raised suspicions about the models themselves -- because they failed to predict the actual pervasiveness of female promiscuity and adultery even in observable behavior, let alone concealed.

Start with a simple one: If the trade-your-fidelity-for-his strategy were really a selective optimum, singles bars wouldn't exist, because genotypes producing women with singles-bar behavior would have been selected out long ago. But there's an even bigger whammy...

Actual paternity/maternity-marker studies in urban populations done under guarantees that one's spouse and others won't see the results have found that the percentage of adulterous children born to married women with ready access to other men can be startlingly high, often in the 25% to 45% range. In most cases, the father has no idea and the mother, in the nature of things, was unsure before the assay.

These statistics cry out for explanation -- and it turns out women do have an evolutionary incentive to screw around. The light began to dawn during studies of chimpanzee populations. Female chimps who spurn low-status bachelor males from their own band are much more willing to have sex with low-status bachelor males from other bands.

That turned out to be the critical clue. There may be other incentives we don't understand, but it turns out that women genetically "want" both to keep an alpha male faithful and to capture maximum genetic variation in their offspring. Maximum genetic variation increases the chance that some offspring will survive the vicissitudes of rapidly-changing environmental stresses, of which a notably important one is co-evolving parasites and pathogens.

Assume Jane can keep Tarzan around and raise four children. Her best strategy isn't to have all four by Tarzan -- it's to have three by Tarzan and one by some romantic stranger, a bachelor male from another pack. As long as Tarzan doesn't catch them at it, the genes conditioning Jane's sexual strategy get 50% of the reproductive payoff regardless of who the biological father is. If the stranger is a fitter male than the best mate she could keep faithful, so much the better. Her kids will win.

More brain food.

quad_red

scanlas wrote: »

It's a good book for understandiing how sexual and dirty women's minds really are.

In my minds eye, the above seems like something Ted would say.

994

Húrin wrote: »

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

Very true, for one thing early farmers had a much worse life than hunter-gatherers; they were forced into it by overpopulation.

,8,1 wrote:

Rape is pretty rare throughout nature

Well how do you define "consent" in non-humans? Some turtles seem to mate only by force.

Wibbs wrote:

One stat I read (afair scientific american) was that among college age people, 60% of women were having sex, but only 15/20% of men were. That disparity suggests that far fewer men are having sex with far more women.

Or maybe that college-age women are having sex with older men?

Religion was created by a madman.

"Religion" was pretty much inseparable from science, music and art for a long time. And I like your assumption that a crude attempt at explaining the world is said to be "madness".

johnnyskeleton wrote:

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.

That's a myth.

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."

I heard it to be quite the opposite, women don't go into heat so that not even they know when they're fertile. This ensures that a male partner is around constantly. Loyalty ensures more support for the baby (as the man is more sure it's his); much of human society derives from the fact that human babies, unlike virtually all other mammals, are born utterly helpless and need constant support.

Phototoxin

Think about it this way, if every man had the ability to have sex with a new woman everyday, how many of these men would choose to be in monogomous relationships? It would certainly be a lot fewer than what it is. That would be a disaster for women.

I would choose to be in a monogomous relationship. As I see it anyway some people don't, they go out for a night on the tear and then shack up. Then repeat and rinse. People don't have to be 'tied down' if they don't want to.

In addition are humans so short sighted that they really think its best for women to have 3 by tarzan and 1 by Romantic Alpha Male Stranger. If jane has entered a monogomous relationship of her own free will then she has no excuse to be flingin about with RAMS.

Traditionally speaking if RAMS was a real man he'd look after his offspring. Men are only made more masculine by taking care of their offspring (and I dont mean financially either) but society equates man+kids=pœdo which is unfortunate.

Wibbs

994 wrote: »

Or maybe that college-age women are having sex with older men?

Apparently they allowed for that, by filtering out such liaisons where they could. I would tend to agree that more women have sex with fewer men. Look around a group of men and women and the women in general have had more sexual partners than the males in general, though there will be some males that will have had a lot more. Of course there will be women with a lot more too, but in general I would say a smaller group of males have more sex with a larger group of females.

Macha

Wibbs wrote: »

Apparently they allowed for that, by filtering out such liaisons where they could. I would tend to agree that more women have sex with fewer men. Look around a group of men and women and the women in general have had more sexual partners than the males in general, though there will be some males that will have had a lot more. Of course there will be women with a lot more too, but in general I would say a smaller group of males have more sex with a larger group of females.

What research are you basing this on?

scanlas

Did anyone watch the free video seminars in my original post?

What did you think of it?

The Corinthian

Anthopology and genetics aside, we all know that both men and women can be unfaithful. This is a fact of life, regardless of the exact frequencies involved, although one study in Liverpool found that depending upon area the frequency was anything between 1% and 30%.

The problem arises because, in the case of an unfaithful woman, she can get pregnant and then choose to deceive her partner into believing the child is his.

Of course a man may be unfaithful and end up having a child outside of the marriage too. But this is not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

When a man is cuckolded thus, he ends up with a cuckoo. He ends up emotionally, financially and physically investing in another man's child that he has been told is his, only to discover years later that he has been taken for a chump all along. Worse still, such is the imbalance in the law that he can then still be ordered to pay child support.

Moral of the story? Where it comes to reproduction, it sucks to be a man. Until that changes, caveat emptor where it comes to love.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

The problem arises because, in the case of an unfaithful woman, she can get pregnant and then choose to deceive her partner into believing the child is his.

This is one problem that can arise from unfaithfulness within a marriage.

What about the fact that many partners (men and women) both contract STIs from unfaithful partners, but that biologically women are more at risk?

What about the amount of women that are left holding the baby?

What about the amount of women whose husbands are living double lives, with two families?

Infidelity sucks for both genders.

Edit: I haven't even touched on periods, PMT, child birth and potential dangers, pregnancy, the joys of contraception, menopause, etc. When it comes to reproduction, be glad you're male.

lickirishallsor

taconnol wrote: »

Edit: I haven't even touched on periods, PMT, child birth and potential dangers, pregnancy, the joys of contraception, menopause, etc. When it comes to reproduction, be glad you're male.

Actually this is very interesting tread, the above is noteworthy, and don't get me wrong, but wow, what a remarkable life experience it must be to be a woman! seriously, I've always said it to myself, women are everything, the custodians of life, the most interesting of the sexes, the most fascinating, its so true that men are so inadequate compared to women, and we in our lives miss so much more experiences than women, such as mate finding, birth, nesting, and its all evident from so young an age, Id even go so far to say it starts with the simple toy "doll". All the above ideas and comments are evident all around us, in all ages, in all cultures.

I often joking say, "No doubt I love women! but there is one thing I love as much, and that's a woman who loves men"

Think about it.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

Edit: I haven't even touched on periods, PMT, child birth and potential dangers, pregnancy, the joys of contraception, menopause, etc. When it comes to reproduction, be glad you're male.

Why is it that whenever a topic whereby men get the short end of the stick is raised, someone has to put forward the argument that women are always still worse off and that the implication is that this somehow justifies the injustice against men?

Do women have a monopoly on victimhood that I don't know about and shouldn't challenge?

I'm sorry, but nothing, IMO, of the infidelities you listed comes close to the betrayal and emotional rape that waking up to the child that you cared for, supported and loved being someone else's and that everything about your parenthood was based upon a lie.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why is it that whenever a topic whereby men get the short end of the stick is raised, someone has to put forward the argument that women are always still worse off and that the implication is that this somehow justifies the injustice against men?

Why is it that you're totally determined to paint men as victims, regarldess of the facts? Why don't you try and actually debate the facts rather than whinging about someone pointing out another point of view? Why do you complain when someone expresses the women's situation?? You seem to have a real problem with this.

I did not imply that any of these issues justify any injustices against men - you need to stop with this mindset and seeing things that I just haven't written. In fact, I pointed out that in terms of infidelity, it sucks for BOTH genders. And after that, I simply pointed out that your assertion that men get the short end of the stick in relation to reproduction is nothing short of farcical.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do women have a monopoly on victimhood that I don't know about and shouldn't challenge?

Did I say that? Again, try reading what's actually there. You seem to take all expressions that women have it tough, as a veiled accusation of how terrible men are. It's getting tiring.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, but nothing, IMO, of the infidelities you listed comes close to the betrayal and emotional rape that waking up to the child that you cared for, supported and loved being someone else's and that everything about your parenthood was based upon a lie.

Of course it doesn't come close for you. Because the irony is that as much as you (incorrectly) complain about other posters (ie ME) pointing out that women suffer injustices, you're determined to paint men as victims in some shape or form, in some thread or ther other.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this, as long as you stick to the facts. But you love to twist things and take such obviously biased stances, like the one above, just because it suits your argument. Using what parameters do you determine that the above is worse than contracting HIV/AIDS from your partner without your knowledge? Or finding out that your partner has another partner and child?

Infidelity and lies suck for both genders.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

Why is it that you're totally determined to paint men as victims, regarldess of the facts? Why don't you try and actually debate the facts rather than whinging about someone pointing out another point of view? Why do you complain when someone expresses the women's situation?? You seem to have a real problem with this.

I have a problem with it when it is used to undermine when men are the victim, which we are in certain cases - according to the facts.

I did not imply that any of these issues justify any injustices against men

You did though. An issue has been raised that specifically affects men and your response was one of "be glad you're male".

And after that, I simply pointed out that your assertion that men get the short end of the stick in relation to reproduction is nothing short of farcical.

Which is complete BS. Women hold close to a monopoly where it comes to de jure and de facto power where it comes to reproduction. The only legal or practical right men have is abstinence, after which it is completely in women's hands. Even after birth, our status is of second class citizen as is reflected in law. To suggest that this is farcical is to ignore all of the facts surrounding how law differentiates men and women in this area.

Of course it doesn't come close for you. Because the irony is that as much as you (incorrectly) complain about other posters (ie ME) pointing out that women suffer injustices, you're determined to paint men as victims in some shape or form, in some thread or ther other.

No one is suggesting that women do not suffer injustices. However, telling men that "be glad you're male" is completely dismissive. The strategy you've employed is simple: an injustice against men is pointed out, the counter argument is that women too suffer injustices (with the implication that they have it worse) and so men should be happy with our lot. Case closed.

So with respects, the only one manipulating the discussion is you.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

I have a problem with it when it is used to undermine when men are the victim, which we are in certain cases - according to the facts.

I'd love to see you argue this, rather than just alluding to it. That would actually be a decent debate. Please point out how I "undermined when men are the victim".

The Corinthian wrote: »

You did though. An issue has been raised that specifically affects men and your response was one of "be glad you're male".

Sorry I did not. You're reading what you want into my posts. Stop accusing me of things that I have not done.

Now infidelity specifically affects men? I'm loving this...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which is complete BS. Women hold close to a monopoly where it comes to de jure and de facto power where it comes to reproduction. The only legal or practical right men have is abstinence, after which it is completely in women's hands. Even after birth, our status is of second class citizen as is reflected in law. To suggest that this is farcical is to ignore all of the facts surrounding how law differentiates men and women in this area.

Ah, see now you've brought in something different. We were talking about the biological aspects of reproduction and infidelity. Now you've brought in the legal side of it, which is totally biased against men. Different aspect of topic but one that I totally agree with you on.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one is suggesting that women do not suffer injustices. However, telling men that "be glad you're male" is completely dismissive. The strategy you've employed is simple: an injustice against men is pointed out, the counter argument is that women too suffer injustices (with the implication that they have it worse) and so men should be happy with our lot. Case closed.

Another strawman!! I didn't say that you said that women don't suffer injustices.Please stop with this - I'm getting tired of defending myself from statements that I didn't make or insinuations that you insist on seeing.

I did not say this in relation to infidelity, I said it in relation to the biology of reproduction. Again, more twisting. If you're interested in arguing that men get the short end of the stick in relation to the biology of reproduction, I'd love to hear it. I'm not going to argue that the law isn't an ass in relation to men's reproductive rights - it's really terrible how men are treated in the Irish legal system in relation to the family and children. However, I would be interested to see if you can find a source that shows that men would have to pay for an illegitimate child in Ireland.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry I did not. You're reading what you want into my posts. Stop accusing me of things that I have not done.

I'm reading what you wrote in your posts. "Be glad you're male" is unambiguously dismissive and there is no way you can backtrack on that without barefaced lying.

Ah, see now you've brought in something different. We were talking about the biological aspects of reproduction and infidelity.

Actually, we were discussing the social implications of reproduction and parenting - which include the legal, and I already gave one example in my first post on this subject here. You brought biology into it.

Another strawman!! I didn't say that you said that women don't suffer injustices.

I never suggested you did accuse me of that, but if you did not, why do you insist on twisting a discussion about men to one about women?

Why must every discussion about men's rights have to be hijacked?

However, I would be interested to see if you can find a source that shows that men would have to pay for an illegitimate child in Ireland.

I assume you have phrased that incorrectly, because otherwise you are asking for proof that Irish law requires men to financially support their children, regardless of the circumstances of conception or their choice to become parents. You surely don't claim that this is not the case?

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm reading what you wrote in your posts. "Be glad you're male" is unambiguously dismissive and there is no way you can backtrack on that without barefaced lying.

Again (and hopefully for the last time) I said this in relation to the biology of reproduction and nothing else. If you want to be offended by that, that's your choice.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, we were discussing the social implications of reproduction and parenting - which include the legal, and I already gave one example in my first post on this subject here. You brought biology into it.

Er..no, most of this discussion has been about the psychology and biology of it. You brought up the legal aspect because you know that it's the main area where men are discriminated against.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never suggested you did accuse me of that, but if you did not, why do you insist on twisting a discussion about men to one about women?

Er...you do know that this discussion is about women AND men? You're getting a bit weird with your thinking that this is thread is/should be all about men.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why must every discussion about men's rights have to be hijacked?

How is this solely a discussion about men's rights? I think you've decided that you want this thread to be an expose of how terribly men suffer and don't like when someone discusses something else or disagrees with you.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I assume you have phrased that incorrectly, because otherwise you are asking for proof that Irish law requires men to financially support their children, regardless of the circumstances of conception or their choice to become parents. You surely don't claim that this is not the case?

Your sarcastic, condescending tone does you no favours at all. You claimed that sometimes men are forced to provide for children, even when they're not their own but you used an American source. I was asking you for an Irish source. And you complained about ME being dismissive? Hilarious.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

Again (and hopefully for the last time) I said this in relation to the biology of reproduction and nothing else. If you want to be offended by that, that's your choice.

And again, if that is what you meant, that is certainly not was written. What you wrote, was pretty unambiguous - I've said this before - and incredibly condensing. I find it astonishing that you can come out with an argument that dilutes the wrong that is done to men in paternity fraud, then concludes with the words "be glad you're male" and then claim you were not trying to undermine what happens to men in these situations.

Er..no, most of this discussion has been about the psychology and biology of it. You brought up the legal aspect because you know that it's the main area where men are discriminated against.

Yet you are the one who decided to bring things off topic and discuss how women have a hard time of it, ending in your "be glad you're male" conclusion.

Er...you do know that this discussion is about women AND men? You're getting a bit weird with your thinking that this is thread is/should be all about men.

However, this discussion is about paternity fraud, where women are not the victim. Men are, as are the children in the middle. It seems obvious that you simply did not like the idea of men being seen as victims, and so had to turn the discussion towards other situations where women could be the victims. But this discussion is not about all forms of infidelity, it is about the infidelity surrounding paternity fraud. Nothing else.

Why do you find it so hard to accept that men can be victims without feeling the need to chime in that women are bigger victims?

How is this solely a discussion about men's rights?

This is a discussion about something that happens only to men and thus relates to their reaction, why it happens and, naturally, their rights surrounding the issue. It's not a discussion about how women have it tough because they have periods, or worse still that men should be "glad" that we don't.

Your sarcastic, condescending tone does you no favours at all. You claimed that sometimes men are forced to provide for children, even when they're not their own but you used an American source. I was asking you for an Irish source. And you complained about ME being dismissive? Hilarious.

You asked if I could "find a source that shows that men would have to pay for an illegitimate child in Ireland", not "find a source that shows that men would have to continue paying for a child has been shown not to be theirs in Ireland". I pointed out that perhaps you phrased that wrong, as what you said is well documented to be the case.

scanlas

I heard it to be quite the opposite, women don't go into heat so that not even they know when they're fertile. This ensures that a male partner is around constantly. Loyalty ensures more support for the baby (as the man is more sure it's his); much of human society derives from the fact that human babies, unlike virtually all other mammals, are born utterly helpless and need constant support.[/quote]

While it maybe true women don't know when they are in heat on an intellectual level, their hormones gives them the moods and emotions to mate with alpha types while they are in heat.