Naturally unfaithful women.

Wibbs

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Exactly, which is why fathers or male role models are so much more effective in passing on information to their charges. That's my point.

True but only if they have half a clue themselves. Og the men I know of my age with kids I have to say only one would have any understanding of women beyond the superficial and he would be a good role model(though he has daughters). The rest? Precious little of an idea TBH. Of the non parent men, I would add just another two to the list.

Ickle Magoo

Wibbs wrote: »

True but only if they have half a clue themselves. Og the men I know of my age with kids I have to say only one would have any understanding of women beyond the superficial and he would be a good role model(though he has daughters). The rest? Precious little of an idea TBH. Of the non parent men, I would add just another two to the list.

That's pretty shocking but that is surely an issue for those men to address or redress? I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, my point wasn't that there are no men struggling with the very basics of female psychology to the point they can't speak to their kids about it - I know sadly that's just not the case - my point was women should not be expected to step into that void - or to be lambasted for not stepping in to that void with sufficient verve and/or with more successful results.

Parents have to share parenting equally and by that I don't necessarily mean half of all duties, I mean educating and caring for their children according to their greatest strengths and effectiveness. Mothers should be teaching their sons that women are not some kind of alien race, how to get in touch with their softer side without shame and how to feel empathy, etc and men should be teaching by discussion and example how to deal with women on a romantic and sexual level - among all the other millions of things, of course.

I wasn't a natural earth mother type, I found pregnancy and motherhood an extremely steep learning curve. I read many books and did some courses and what have you, to try to equip myself with the means to be the best parent I can be - we still have a stack of child psychology/behaviour and discipline books next to our bed, I think we'll always be trying to redress our own weaknesses that hamper our ability to parent effectively - that's part and parcel of parenthood these days, isn't it?

That's not say they won't inherit a whole host of other issues of course.

Wibbs

*alert* ramble ahead.:)

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's pretty shocking but that is surely an issue for those men to address or redress?

I agree. I reckon the pickup lot are filling that void that many men seem to be feeling. I'm not sure it's the best way by a long shot, but it's showing some willingness to look at the problem. I also agree it's shocking. It was for me too over the years. Both my own ignorance and other mens. Given I have a fair few women mates, it was more of a shock to me as I would have thought at say 30 that I would have had had a better insight than my male peers who didnt have women as mates(actual mates too, not "I secretly fancy her" guff).

OK Now this is obviously my humble, my personal experience and in general terms, but I have found that women are strangely enough pretty much the worst people to ask about women as far as romance and what they actually want in a man goes. Ditto for how to conduct a relationship beyond genera terms. Yes women discuss the minutae of relationships more than men(much more), but they do so without mens input, so you tend to only get the one side. Much like the pickup guys actually. Observation over the years seems to have borne that out to me one way or another. Now whether thats a societal pressure that often makes women say what is expected of them to say, rather than what they mean, or they don't actually know themselves (as they haven't put thought into it), both or something else, but that would be my take on it. It changes with age too.

It could simply be definitions of terms. The classic is "I want a nice guy". Nice guy to women really does seem to me to have a very different connotation to nice guy to many, if not most men. Looking back across my own relationships, I would say there's defo a balance to be struck for men. A balance that can be hard to define, if they don't know where the pitfalls may lay.

Take sharing of emotions from men to women. I have noted, both in my own relationships and that of men and women I know, while women will say they want a lover to share his inner feelings with them, more often than not it doesn't add to the relationship. It certainly increases the incidence of "I love you, but I'm not in love with you" from women. Now I don't mean never discussing how I may feel as a man in a given situation, but I have found if I keep my own counsel for the most part, the relationship goes more smoothly. Nowadays, if I did have an emotional issue I needed to vent, I would do it with my male(and female) friends much more than I would with a partner. I would keep her up to speed certainly, but I would resist the urge to "spill my guts" except in an extreme situation. Now obviously this is a general thing and would be an individual thing too, but I would say that women prefer the man in their life to be more in control of his emotions than she may be. A better compliment to her essentially and she is a good compliment to the guy, by seeing things in a different way to maybe how he sees them.

I have also noted how differently women who are my friends treat me, to how they treat and deal with their romantic partners. Very differently in some case. A lot less what men would define as "drama" for a start. Actually pretty much none. One woman mate is known as a "drama queen" by any man that shes been with. To a mad degree at times, yet with me I couldn't ask for a cooler head and more balanced person. Mad or wha?:)

Over the years I did see some patterns in it and following from this one of the things I noted the pickup crowd talk about a lot is women testing men as romantic partners. Heavily at the start and reducing but still to some degree as they stay together for longer. I would tend to agree, though maybe in a more subtle way than the pickup crowd put it. My own conclusion was that my women mates take far less of a risk with me as they don't want to have kids with me, so I get them as people on a different level than a lover does. With their lovers they do run that risk and accordingly manage that risk by testing to make sure he's the best bet if such a thing came up. They're more concerned that the guy will stick by them, is emotionally stable and has the emotional and often physical resources to support them.

I would also say that while both genders can be emotionally variable and conditional where love is concerned, I do think women are more so. They're more about the moment. Well the moment based on the future and hwo she sees herself with the guy in that future. So if a woman tells me she loves me(as a romantic partner), I fully believe her, but I believe it to be more in the moment and at that time, than say with a man. It can turn on a sixpence by comparison to men. Again obviously there are men like this too, but I believe men tend to get into a status quo and rut in a relationship. The "I've got her now so I can chill". Bad plan and most guys don't get that and then wonder why it goes pear shaped. IMHO women see and act in relationships as a more fluid thing that can change and should change and if it doesn't she may well get itchy feet.

I've seen this on my own life as well as in mates lives. I've had a woman tell me she loves me and literally days later that has changed for her. I've seen female mates tell me they love a guy and again a week later change their mind. I believe them when they say it, but would not rely on it as a status quo thing, more an "I love you at the moment and conditional on the relationship remaining fresh or satisfying to me". Now IMHO that this apparently sudden change in women comes from more long term subtle under the surface changes and dissatisfaction with the man that suddenly snaps over to not feeling that. Their emotions and observations coalesce under the surface to tipping point. It amazes me how so many can't actually explain it even to themselves. They'll often just say the lost the spark for the guy or suddenly saw him differently. For years I didn't spot those subtle clues(as most men don't IMHO again with the fondness for the emotional status quo) and just listened to the surface stuff until it was too late. I endevoured a few years back to take a trip through previous relationships to see where I went wrong(and right of course), what part I had played in it and then looked at their actions and words. I even looked up exes to see if I was on the right track. very enlightening to me anyway. In nearly all cases I could tell them the very moment when they looked at me differently. I didn't see it at the time, but they agreed with me. One got quite emotional about it actually. Now I would see the signs better and indeed have seen the signs in mates relationships and pointed them out and had them head it off at the pass.

OK ramble over:s I think the short answer is that both men and women as far as romantic relationships go, need to learn about and acknowledge the triggers that make a good one or a bad one. They have to do this with dialogue and observation and they can't afford to do it in the vacuum of their own gender or their own needs. Or something:D

That's not say they won't inherit a whole host of other issues of course.

:)true!

monellia

scanlas wrote: »

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.

I agree with you on the point that in most cases women will prefer to have their partner cheat on them with a prostitute rather than a non-prostitute. However, the reason is not because the woman wants resources and assistance in exchange for sex, but because a man is far less likely to be emotionally attached to a prostitute than he is a non-prostitute. Men sleep with prostitutes usually to satisfy their physical urges and nothing more. The prostitute gets paid and fecks off, posing no futher threat to the relationship. The fact that the non-prostitute was willing to do it for free indicates a mutual attraction and this poses a threat to the woman she is “cuckolding” in that she may take him away from her. It has nothing to do with money or an ability to provide.

monellia

carlowguy32 wrote: »

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

It's kind of depressing in general, that this attitude may be common among men.

The Corinthian

monellia wrote: »

It's kind of depressing in general, that this attitude may be common among men.

If there were not so many double standards and evidence that promotes such views, I'm sure it would be less common.

Wibbs

monellia wrote: »

It has nothing to do with money or an ability to provide.

I agree, money and provision is only part of it. scanlas said resources which is a better word for it. This includes emotional and practical support, which financial would be a part of it, maybe even a tiny part if the woman is well sorted financially.

It's kind of depressing in general, that this attitude may be common among men.

It's common enough. Indeed I would be of the opinion that few enough men actually like women. They may love one or two, but actually like in the same way they may like their male mates? Not so much. I can certainly think of many men who would not hang around their partners if the sexual part was not in play.

That said, I would say that many men are suspicious of women. Younger men who have little experience can be like that(or the other extreme where they think women are "perfect"), older men who have been through the mill with a couple of loopjobs along the line and paint all women with the same brush are another type. Men who arent very successful with women would IMHO be the worst offenders.

I do think for my part that women as far as the mating game go do in general have a different angle on it for many many reasons, some biological, some cultural. It can come as a shock to guys when the idea of women is replaced by the reality, even if that reality is just another way at looking at the world. As for fidelity, no gender holds the moral high ground on that. I

scanlas

monellia wrote: »

I agree with you on the point that in most cases women will prefer to have their partner cheat on them with a prostitute rather than a non-prostitute. However, the reason is not because the woman wants resources and assistance in exchange for sex, but because a man is far less likely to be emotionally attached to a prostitute than he is a non-prostitute. Men sleep with prostitutes usually to satisfy their physical urges and nothing more. The prostitute gets paid and fecks off, posing no futher threat to the relationship. The fact that the non-prostitute was willing to do it for free indicates a mutual attraction and this poses a threat to the woman she is “cuckolding” in that she may take him away from her. It has nothing to do with money or an ability to provide.

I'd say on average women would prefer the idea of men cheating with prostitutes they know the men will never see again to a non prostitute they know they'll never see again.

One of the reasons in my opinion is that it protects the secret of "normal, nice" women's interest in sex for non love reasons. People may say that in this day and age women are sexually liberated etc etc, but the secret still exists on an individual level. Why do women call women who sleep around sluts with such disdain if they are not are not protecting the secret of female sexuality and the current male female sexual dynamic?

I've yet to hear any alternative possible reason why women are so annoyed by other women sleepng around . If modern women are so liberated these days and things are different now why do women still call women sluts? Why do women have such disgust for women who sleep around?

Ickle Magoo

I wouldn't want my partner to sleep with anyone else, I don't care whether they're doing it for business or pleasure - both would bother me equally.

Slut is not a name used just by women to denigrate other women, it's used by men too. I think 'some' women call others sluts because they don't consider sleeping around to be sexually liberated. There are still women - and men - who put a particular importance of sex, virginity, etc and consider anyone who has multiple sexual relations to have questionable morality. Again, I think it often comes down to religion, upbringing and age in a particular demographic than a global phenomena with one gender.

I'm not disgusted by women who sleep about. I'm a 'modern woman', I think. I know of many women who do/did sleep about and many others who didn't/don't judge their friends for sleeping about.

scanlas

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I wouldn't want my partner to sleep with anyone else, I don't care whether they're doing it for business or pleasure - both would bother me equally.

Slut is not a name used just by women to denigrate other women, it's used by men too. I think 'some' women call others sluts because they don't consider sleeping around to be sexually liberated. There are still women - and men - who put a particular importance of sex, virginity, etc and consider anyone who has multiple sexual relations to have questionable morality. Again, I think it often comes down to religion, upbringing and age in a particular demographic than a global phenomena with one gender.

I'm not disgusted by women who sleep about. I'm a 'modern woman', I think. I know of many women who do/did sleep about and many others who didn't/don't judge their friends for sleeping about.

I doubt many women call women sluts because they think they aren't acting the way a sexually liberated woman should.

Of course you know women who don't judge women sleeping around. Firstly when women are around women, gay men and men who already know the sexual secret they don't have to hide it. Also there is a propotion of women who break the "code" women have of hiding the sexual secret, they are the ones called sluts by women. The reason women get so annoyed by women sleeping around openly is they are breaking the code. The breakers of the code are in the minority.

That's why most women on this forum will deny the the majority of my original post. One woman did post that she thought my original post was spot on for most of it. That post has since been deleted. The code breakers are in the minority so only a minority of posters would admit my original post is true.

When a woman openly admits she loves a big penis or openly describes her innermost sexual fantasies she is a code breaker. A woman who is not a code breaker would probably not admit openly she loves a big penis for example. The reason is that it could harm her chances of getting commitment from a high quality man.

If you are a code breaker and you are reading this I would appreciate it if you posted your thoughts about my original post.lol.

Wibbs

I dunno about the big willy one for a start, I would say the majority of women I know as mates(and lovers) will say they prefer a bigger one and not have a problem saying it either(though for the rest it actually doesnt matter). I think this code lark is just a tad too simplistic. I can see how some might think there is a code, but I think it's just wild extrapolation from guys who dont know women that well. They lurch from one naive view of women that's unsustainable, to an equally naive but cynical view. In both cases it's just other ways of explaining away the unexplainable for them.

scanlas

Men have codes as do women. There's stuff you don't talk about openly but only have to look into the man/woman's eyes to know their thinking it. There's stuff men know men know but not most women know and vice versa.

It's like if you are ever flirting with a woman and then tell her at some point "You really need to be put in your place" she will give you a look to ascertain if you accidently put those words together or if you "get it". When you say those words you are speaking a code with the woman which communicates you get whats going on with women and the front that's put up, you get what they are like deep down underneath the thin veneer. When you say those words your giving the woman a hint that you know what really turns her on that she wouldn't admit.

rantyface

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. It has been scientifically proven around the world.

I just did some research- that's not true, it's much lower than that in the US and Britain anyway, which are the only countries I could find statistics for.

Your idea of some massive conspiracy among women to hide their "code" etc etc is ridiculous. Most people love their partners and wouldn't go behind their backs, and wouldn't want to.

rantyface

rantyface wrote: »

I just did some research- that's not true, it's much lower than that in the US and Britain anyway, which are the only countries I could find statistics for.

Your idea of some massive conspiracy among women to hide their "code" etc etc is ridiculous. Most people love their partners and wouldn't go behind their backs, and wouldn't want to.

Can we see your research? :rolleyes:

scanlas

rantyface wrote: »

I just did some research- that's not true, it's much lower than that in the US and Britain anyway, which are the only countries I could find statistics for.

Your idea of some massive conspiracy among women to hide their "code" etc etc is ridiculous. Most people love their partners and wouldn't go behind their backs, and wouldn't want to.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just the way things are, it's no big deal. When you are a man who "gets it" you don't take any interaction with women too seriously, you're not judgmental of women enjoying their sexuality whatever way they want, men who "get it" have options with women. When you don't "get it" a woman will hide her sexuality (which is her default state in social situations) and make you jump through hoops before you have sex ie take her out for dinner and make you wait. When you are a man who "gets it" the same woman would be completely different around the man who "gets it". She'll discuss her interest in threesomes if that's her interest whereas with the man who doesn't "get it" she'll pretend not to be bothered by threesomes. When you are a man who "gets it" she's more likely to tell you the real number of men she's slept with or how many one night stands she's had.

The following statement is for the people who have a warped sense of logic. I did not say all women like threesomes. That was an example. Also, men who "get it" have options with women. Does not mean men who have options "get it".

scanlas

The story about the 13 year old boy not being the father is another indication of how widespread non paternity is. Another indication of how widespread it is is shown on the likes of Maury, Jeremy Kyle etc where women say they are 100% sure the baby is the boyfriend/husbands but it turns out it isn't. The women on these shows usually do love their partner and logically wish the baby was their's but their biology gave them the drives and emotions to have the baby by another man who would give her a greater chance of propogating her genes.

I know that's not proof but the clues are out there of high rates of non paternity if you look hard enough.

Sharlovesjohn

it takes two to tango!!

My mom has had children with 3 different partners

1st died in a car crash when my older brother was just a few months old
2nd left my mother for no reason when my sister was 2
3rd is my father who took on the first two kids as his own and then they had me

Its easier to say a woman is a slut by the amount of different partners she had but what about the men who leave a woman with children to bring up on her own?

scanlas

scanlas wrote: »

I know that's not proof but the clues are out there of high rates of non paternity if you look hard enough.

If there were indeed the high rates of non paternity which you suggest, then there wouldn't be a need to look hard enough. It would be in our faces 24/7 on the media. Its not as if western society is shy about showing scandal.

No, I do acknowledge that it exists. Women are human just like men, and thus these things happen. Whether they're as common as you want to promote, I don't think so. Perhaps, in certain countries more than others, but I don't think its too widespread.

Marriage & relationships are always going to be a risk for both partners. And the chances of an affair occurring are quite high, but are entirely dependent on the history of the couple. Which makes it hard to make a complete sweeping gesture. It happens.

scanlas

Have a look at this http://relationships.blog-city.com/how_common_is_female_infidelity.htm


Essentially society has introduced moral codes and rules to allow "weak" men to keep a woman. It doesn't work though, women want sex with "strong" men. It's nature. That's why female infidelity and non paternity is so widespread, imagine how high non paternity would be if contraception didn't exist.

Affable

I'm prepared to believe more than we think, but 10%? no way

The Corinthian

Affable wrote: »

I'm prepared to believe more than we think, but 10%? no way

Why no way?

994

Sharlovesjohn wrote: »

it takes two to tango!!

My mom has had children with 3 different partners

1st died in a car crash when my older brother was just a few months old
2nd left my mother for no reason when my sister was 2
3rd is my father who took on the first two kids as his own and then they had me

Its easier to say a woman is a slut by the amount of different partners she had but what about the men who leave a woman with children to bring up on her own?

Women abandon their children all the time - abortion, adoption, etc. - but they aren't seen as evil for it.

Zombrex

scanlas wrote: »

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.

No they don't

That is quite biologically inaccurate, I would be interested in where you got such an idea.

One way to tell this isn;t how it works for homo-sapiens is to look at the male sperm. In species that do work like this (female of the species has sex with multiple partners around the same time), the sperm has developed the ability to fight with other sperm, thus increasing the chances of reaching the egg. We (humans) don't have that, nor do other species that have children inside what we would call monogamous relationships.

I'm not saying women don't cheat on their husbands, but if they are it isn't for the reason you are suggesting.

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.

Well that is true, males have an instinctive desire to stop their partners from reproducing with other males, probably to stop them wasting resources on children that are not their own.

scanlas wrote: »

But as stated in the first paragraph, this isn't natural for women.

Actually it is, both sexes have a range of evolved emotions designed to keep them in a child bearing union. That is just how our species works.

scanlas wrote: »

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.

Again this is wrong. This person is very unlikely to help care for the baby produced by such a relationship, and that is key to human child bearing. Women have a natural instinct to have sex within a child bearing relationship, and in fact this causes a lot of trouble some times (you often here of a girl who has slept with a man and had her heart broken because she confused sex with an emotional attachment)

You seem to be confusing humans with other species. Some species do work like that. Humans don't. Again this is just the way we have evolved.

And again I'm not saying women do not cheat on their partners. But the reasons they do are not the ones you are listing.

scanlas wrote: »

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.

You are correct about women viewing other women as threats but the reason is wrong and in fact doesn't make sense if what you say is true.

If women worked that they went off, shagged a bloke, and then went back to their partner why would other women be instinctively concerned about this? It is the other woman's problem, she has to raise the kid without the help of your man.

So that doesn't make much sense.

The reason women are mistrusting of other women is precisely because they work the opposite way to how you are presenting it. The woman isn't concerned that the man will simply shag another woman and then come back to her, the woman is concerned (instinctively from an evolutionary position) that the man will leave her and form this child bearing relationship with another woman, leaving her to raise children on her own.

Women may attempt to tempt other men away but they in general don't do it for seed sowing one night stands, they do it for the relationship they see the man having. It is playground myth with some backing behind it that women view men in relationships more favourably to the same man not in a relationship. A human males worth is measured not only in how physically attractive he is (as you say his genetic fitness) but also in an instinctive assessment of how well he can provide for her and her children.

A man who will simply impregnate her and then leave doesn't provide at all, and is not what human females are instinctively looking for.

scanlas wrote: »

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.

That is true, but then that contradicts the idea that polygamy is their "natural sexual behaviour". If it was we would not have evolved this behaviour. We evolved this behaviour (both men and women looking down on women who are considered sluttish) because we have an instinct to form monogamous relationships.

scanlas wrote: »

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

That is a rather inaccurate way of looking at it. It isn't that men want sex, we do but that is ignoring why we want sex. We want sex to have children. This is the point of evolution designing us to want sex in the first place.

Women get a lifetime of resources and help bringing up her family in exchange for having the man's baby. The two adults then bound over the shared purpose of sustaining the children.

I'm not saying this is how it always works, and all these evolutionary instincts have been thrown on their heads some what by the ability humans have developed to have sex with no children. But this the biological process behind relationships and sex. Children. Its basically that simple.

scanlas wrote: »

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

Can you not see the inherent contradiction in that.

You are basically saying that if women acted as they naturally are no one would form child bearing relationships any more. But that is nonsense, the species would have died out when we were still swinging in the trees.

Women are obviously not naturally like this because it doesn't fit into any of the other sexual behaviours of homo-sapians.

scanlas wrote: »

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.

There is no secret. Evolution does not design secrets, they are too complicated and unnecessary.

994

Wicknight wrote: »

No they don't

That is quite biologically inaccurate, I would be interested in where you got such an idea.

One way to tell this isn;t how it works for homo-sapiens is to look at the male sperm. In species that do work like this (female of the species has sex with multiple partners around the same time), the sperm has developed the ability to fight with other sperm, thus increasing the chances of reaching the egg. We (humans) don't have that, nor do other species that have children inside what we would call monogamous relationships.

Actually, sperm combat has been observed in humans.


Actually it is, both sexes have a range of evolved emotions designed to keep them in a child bearing union. That is just how our species works.

Again this is wrong. This person is very unlikely to help care for the baby produced by such a relationship, and that is key to human child bearing.

Not if the woman already has a partner who'll support any child she produces - this happens all the time, 5-10% of us were not fathered by our "dads".

Zombrex

994 wrote: »

Actually, sperm combat has been observed in humans.

Not nearly to the level it has been observed in other animals though. It is rare to see and pretty tame when it is observed.

994 wrote: »

Not if the woman already has a partner who'll support any child she produces - this happens all the time, 5-10% of us were not fathered by our "dads".

Yes but evolution isn't that clever. As far as the woman's instincts are concerned she is raising the child with the father of the child. She may consciously be aware that she has another sap waiting to provide for her, but that would have nor more effect on her instincts than say the conscious awareness of orphanages or abortion.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

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?

Long term relationships are in the laws of nature.

T "real deal" J

I personally know scanlas and this guy does "get it". Look guys, he is just simply relaying facts from what we see from interations with all types of women. It's amazing how irrational women can get in the heat of the moment...

Now i'm not overly swayed by this "in heat" argument....in fact from what can be seen a woman will cheat regardless of time of month...if she meets a guy who emotionally and sexually stimulates her to a high enough degree...it just happens...and she'll rationalise it to herself as not being her responsibility

Forget about wealth & social status...although these can act as barriers to a man's (if he's poor & has low social status) entry to an interaction. Once he's involved and he's a positively dominant emotionally exciting alpha outcome indifferent cool guy.....he is as attractive to women as a supermodel is to us..and he has the same options as a supermodel. This is the level of attractiveness which causes this rife infidelity 10% statistic.

Some loser guys I know finally managed to get a girlfriend and are clinging on. They are scared of being outside of a relationship because of fear of not having the ability to get regular sex. Now obviously I know this doesn't apply to all couples and i don't generalise, but I believe that these low value guys' inherent neediness & lazyness contribute to women wanting to have sex with a more "happening" guy that "gets it".

This is not a bad thing and i'm certainly not generalising women, but i can understand womens' behaviour in this situation as nothing more than an expression of her frustration in an unexciting relationship in a social conditioning/social boundary setting. she needs to breathe.

I'd be interested to listen to your opinions.

Erin Go Brath

I don't think there are many "naturally unfaithful women" as such. If a women is contented with her man she won't stray, or at least it would be rare. If married women are cheating on their husband there is generally a reason for it, and that reason is most likely that she knows/suspects he is cheating on her and she wants a revenge fcuk, or else her needs just aren't been catered for.

As the saying goes an unfaithful women is a terrible thing, unless of course its somebody elses woman.

Wibbs

T real deal J wrote: »

I personally know scanlas and this guy does "get it". Look guys, he is just simply relaying facts from what we see from interations with all types of women. It's amazing how irrational women can get in the heat of the moment...

I have seen the interactions you speak of alright, but I don't personally see it as irrational. It may be to some men, but it's actually quite rational, it's just coming from a different angle. In many ways it's more rational and cleverly done and certainly more subtle. I would agree that a woman who wants a man and wants him now is more forthright than a lot of guys understand. That's IMHO because a lot of guys simply underestimate how powerful a womans sex drive can be. Mens is high but more scattergun, women's is the same but more focused for the most part.

Now i'm not overly swayed by this "in heat" argument....in fact from what can be seen a woman will cheat regardless of time of month...if she meets a guy who emotionally and sexually stimulates her to a high enough degree...it just happens...and she'll rationalise it to herself as not being her responsibility

Men do too though. Though I do know what you mean. Responsibility is put on another or drink or heat of the moment. Though again men will pull that stuff too. The "it was the beer goggles lads" notion is but one example.

Forget about wealth & social status...although these can act as barriers to a man's (if he's poor & has low social status) entry to an interaction. Once he's involved and he's a positively dominant emotionally exciting alpha outcome indifferent cool guy.....he is as attractive to women as a supermodel is to us..and he has the same options as a supermodel. This is the level of attractiveness which causes this rife infidelity 10% statistic.

This I only partially agree with. It's a notion commonly referred to with the pickup crowd. Personally I think it's a way to sell the idea better to guys. Makes them think all guys can do this, no matter what their actual looks or actual status. Yes I agree that status, positivity, personality and emotional balance are very attractive to women. Much more than with how men look at women. The thing is I feel that you can't fake it. I've seen guys pull this kind of alpha pickup stuff. It's very common recently actually. Any success I've seen it was clear the woman had already made up her mind and in a few interactions I've noted the woman was into the guy and went off him because he was pulling this stuff. The problem is one of incongruity I think. The guy is saying and acting one way, but it's not a reflection of him as a man. There's a disconnect between the inner and the outer. Women do pick up on that more than guys. Now maybe with very young or insecure women it works, but with experienced women not so much.

The problem in these theories IMHO is that they're too locked into one way of thinking. They generalise way too much. It becomes an step by step process. Yes it can be successful or appear to be. One thing I noted with the whole idea is to try with as many women as possible. This is a good thing in some ways as it helps get rid of anxiety for some men, but it also skews the results. If a random guy trys to chat up 100, unless he's a mutant, he's going to get somewhere with at least 1, if not 10. Hell if he just walks up and goes, "fancy a roll in the hay?" sooner or later he'll get a yes. He's still getting lucky, he's just increased the numbers.

Some loser guys I know finally managed to get a girlfriend and are clinging on. They are scared of being outside of a relationship because of fear of not having the ability to get regular sex. Now obviously I know this doesn't apply to all couples and i don't generalise, but I believe that these low value guys' inherent neediness & lazyness contribute to women wanting to have sex with a more "happening" guy that "gets it".

I would tend to agree with a lot of that. Many men do think they're so lucky to have gotten a woman. They see women as rare creatures, especially women interested in them. They're actually quite sexist at the back of it all as they see women as radically different to them. IMHO What the guy who "gets it" actually gets and what women like about him is that he sees them as equal players in the game. Just another human being getting through life and not being judegmental about it.

There are women like those guys you describe too. Lots of them. A lot of women are in mediocre relationships because they're afraid of being single or not getting someone else. There are a fair few women in highly abusive relationships that keep going back to the guy because of fear of being single or having a relationship fail. Same coin, two sides.

This is not a bad thing and i'm certainly not generalising women, but i can understand womens' behaviour in this situation as nothing more than an expression of her frustration in an unexciting relationship in a social conditioning/social boundary setting. she needs to breathe.

Again you could say similar of many men too. How many guys are frustrated with their relationships? A fair number. How many of them would jump at the chance to be with someone else if they could? Quite a few.

I do think we have general gender differences between the approaches, but they're pretty much mostly aiming in the exact same direction on the same road and have a helluva lot of similarities as far as bumps on that road go.

scanlas

Hey Wibbs,

You're bang on when you say you can't fake being a cool, positive dominant guy, the outer game stuff will only get you so far if you are a nervous person. 80-90% of game is transforming yourself into a cool person who is congruent interacting in high status ways. Transform might not be the best word to use because every man has a cool person inside them, it has simply been repressed through social conditioning. Most men who think they are " being themselves" aren't actually being themselves. They are being their ego which is a false made self. Any man can be turned into the cool person that they are already deep inside, they might need help though. When you become that cool person that you already are you become present, postive dominant (assertiveness with a smile) and a man who takes action. If you are not in the moment but instead acting through your ego the women can tell that, she'll see that you are retreating into your head, she can sense the cogs moving in your head. When you are in the moment and present, the rhythm is sweet, the words arise out of you instead of you going into your head to find them. Think about the best interactions you've had, they were the ones where you weren't thinking, you were just kind of flowing. It's difficult to explain.

An example of a man being "fake" or not being himself is feeling nervous or guilty when approaching a hot woman on the street. When a man is truly in connection with who he is he does what he thinks is right unapologetically. He knows it's right to approach a hot woman on the street on a deep level, there is no reason to be nervous. When you know what you are is not your ego the outcome of the interaction can't affect you. Your naturally attractive self doesn't change. When you have an ego the a bad outcome can be devastating, your sense of self diminishes. It's so ridiculous, how can who you are diminish by an arbitraty detail such as a woman not giving you her number or thinking you are weird.


In being succesful in a chat up you are the steak and the techniques and knowledge is merely the seasoning on the steak.