Ladies, why are you cheating more often?

[Tayla]

Woggle- Where in my post was I promoting this behavior? Pardon but I personally find insult to be grouped by gender to come up with that comment you made. I realize it is "chilling" to read some of the comments, but they are just that, comments -opinions/ ...not necessarily researched valid facts.

 

THANK YOU SARA for putting things straight! Hopefully this thread settles into some real solid reasonings and facts.

[Woggle]

I did see one post saying women do it because men do it but I admit most women in here don't seem to be condoning it. This is just a very sore subject with me after the crap I had to here after I was cheated on as if I did anything to deserve it. Stuff like this can cause to go from happy and vibrant to angry and hateful in a second.

[Saul Goodman]

Well vis, it looks like we unleashed a temporary wave of male angst for a little while there.

[AHardDaysNight]

People cheat. It is not exclusive to women.

[KR10N]

People cheat. It is not exclusive to women.

OP said they slept w/ women "in relationships". He admitted to being in on the act yet doesn't seem to think he's contributing. lol.

[sally4sara]

Woggle- Where in my post was I promoting this behavior? Pardon but I personally find insult to be grouped by gender to come up with that comment you made. I realize it is "chilling" to read some of the comments, but they are just that, comments -opinions/ ...not necessarily researched valid facts.

 

THANK YOU SARA for putting things straight! Hopefully this thread settles into some real solid reasonings and facts.

 

Oh you're welcome. You gotta watch him sometimes since he is always trying to twist people's words to prove his paranoia. You were the second person he tried to suggest was promoting "female infidelity". I think its a bit of subtle misogyny on his part that he is more chilled by the thought of "female infidelity" when it doesn't matter who is cheating - betray is wrong no matter who does it.

[dasein]

The concept of mating for status was born of the change from hunter/gatherer society to one built on agriculture.

 

So every mammal on Earth seeks high status mates from the earliest measuring points as a matter of basic well-documented scientific biology, yet somehow, the progenitors of man are/were different than... every other mammal on Earth, and females only sought high status mates after the advent of agriculture?

 

Source your theory of agriculture please, it is the second thread you have brought it up in and it is completely misinformed.

[AHardDaysNight]

I agree that women are more drawn to physically attractive men.

 

This doesn't help me, as an ugly man, though.

[sally4sara]

So every mammal on Earth seeks high status mates from the earliest measuring points as a matter of basic well-documented scientific biology, yet somehow, the progenitors of man are/were different than... every other mammal on Earth, and females only sought high status mates after the advent of agriculture?

 

Source your theory of agriculture please, it is the second thread you have brought it up in and it is completely misinformed.

 

Not every mammal on earth seeks high status mates. More to the point, the ones we are most closely related to do not seek high status mates and the one we are most closely related to are promiscuous and don't choose only one mate. This is very well documented; maybe you need to read more and post on LS less?

[Richard Friedman]

Not every mammal on earth seeks high status mates. More to the point, the ones we are most closely related to do not seek high status mates and the one we are most closely related to are promiscuous and don't choose only one mate. This is very well documented; maybe you need to read more and post on LS less?

 

Maybe they are promiscuous, but still they choose the ones that are taller, faster, stronger(this is what i meant by status, not strictly social status). Across the board eggs are a limited resource. Every tom dick and harry can't get his shot.

[Elysian Powder]

Maybe they are promiscuous, but still they choose the ones that are taller, faster, stronger(this is what i meant by status, not strictly social status). Across the board eggs are a limited resource. Every tom dick and harry can't get his shot.

 

Incoming wall of text:

 

 

What I don't understand is how so many women talk about connections and chemistry and how a friendship must flourish first(or they have to be attracted to the guy and also feel, at the same time, that they can be friends); but then you read their posts on threads such as ' top 5 turns off/on from the opposite sex,'' and most women are turned off by baldness or receding hairline(which most guys are or are going to be), short stature(and that depends on what each individual women regards as ''average '' and ''short'') and a lack of earning potential.

 

 

Then you look at their posts concerning height. Most of them will not date anyone below the height of 6 feet, whereas some women will say that height is not vital for attraction - as long as he 's built as a brick house.

 

The women who say this are usually skinny or very short, but every reasonably tall woman is going to expect the man - at the very least - to be some good inches taller than her.

 

Not paying that much attention to that subgroup of women; we're left with the majority of women ONLY interested in tall men, who are both fit, hairy, and highly educated(the education is only of any significance to the formation of the relationship if she 's looking for marriage).

 

Doesn't that leave most guys in the dark? I have no doubt that LS has some attractive ladies. Good-looks beget good-looks. However, it is highly unlikely that the vast majority of the LS female population is above average in looks, body, or height.

 

What am I missing?

 

 

 

Then you look at their posts concerning height. Mos of them will not date anyone below the height of 6 feet, whereas some women will say that height is not vital for attraction - as long as he 's built as a brick house.

 

I've said before that an attractive woman has the right to expect a relationship, casual sex, or reproduction with an attractive man.

 

I'm often told that I'm immature. An accusation based on my lack of interest in slavery(commitment). I suppose the accusation come from women in their 30's. Women who are - in theory - far more mature than their 20 year old sisters; but they increase the price to date them/marry them/fck them/ in such a inordinate standard of quality; most guys can't be seen in the vicinity of a woman's sexual desires by leaps and bounds.

 

If women past their hormone-driven years and shallowness are adamant at not wavering from the scenario of pairing up only with the best of males....

 

In what state are the women in their late teens and mid 20's; women in their prime and coveted by the majority of the male population?

 

Does the guy need to be rich, very handsome, and fluent in all of the romantic languages?

 

Nope. He just needs to be tall. I'm tall, fit, and thickly haired with natural dark shades and a hint of autumn brown that comes and goes as it pleases.

 

Is this the calculator for a man's worthiness as a sexual king? His height? The rest of his qualities are only of some - or most importance - when the women want to mate?

 

Then the man has to be tall, still has to have all of his hair in his 30's, should have a PhD in whatever is paying the most,at the time the woman deducts him to be of good genetic stock, and he's obliged by law and by moral responsibility to impregnate her and support her financially.

 

Now, I hear a lot of talk from women dishing down 'Game ' and putting the men who use game to increase the chances of women growing an interest in them, in the category of ''losers,'' ''sexual predators,'' ''insecure mama's boys,'' and they also state in the most monumental fashion that game doesn't teach men how to connect with women, and that it doesn't teach them the tools to create a relationship.

 

Huh, I need to know how to swim before I take a trip into an ocean. It's feasible to believe that to have a relationship, the woman has to be attracted to the man; how is he going to achieve that if women and their royally long list of traits sought after in a man have as their #1 and immovable required a significant height advantage over most men?

 

Is this some sort of unconscious agenda women have built-in their genetic wiring since time lost to the ages, and that agenda seeks only to create physically superior men, with the bonus of vastly increased good-looks, some sort of natural travesty to everything we men are told from the moment we are born to the moment we have a woman in front of us telling us that she' not ready to date, only wants to be friends with you, and during the length of next day's interaction with her you find that she banged Mr. Tall, dumb as rocks, and unwilling to commit.

 

Do tell me, then, why women don't want men to turn their backs to the world of love, when these unwanted guys, figure out that the women aren't interested in them?

 

Is it to prevent a stable part of their lives(good men, average men, white knights) from manning up, as in, retiring their emotional support, their tenderness from women, as women enter their 30's, want to reproduce and they can't find a husband?

 

Are women alluding to this when they claim that no good man is to be found?

 

But is a good man a man with the looks, the height, and the money; or is the good man the guy who puts up with them and pays for what the other guys had for free?

 

Taking into consideration that in most of the marriages occurring around the globe, the man is average, and that most relationships(legal relationships or not) end, and if we reflect on how the overwhelming majority of women initiate the divorce.

 

Could it be that the women take everything the man owns as a form of vindicative retribution, a payment for the sex they(very rarely) had with the man they married?

 

Could this be proof that the marriages who do work(baring the people who can't get a divorce for a reason or another) have as the main protagonist an Alpha male; the man who embodies all of the characteristics women are so wet for?

 

Have I mentioned that most of the women who marry are average? Does this have any correlation to one of my posts?

 

That a good-looking man can sex up a woman without any effort if the woman is average? That the man has to be increasingly more good-looking to land a woman who is more good-looking than most?

 

So a guy, to have a successful relationship with a woman, has to absolutely superior to the other men - if the woman is average; and he has to be very good looking/rich as a safety measure(women won't take away his money) and main attractor mechanism to get a girlfriend/wife/mother of his kid?

 

Can I then imply that the dating world is a land of kissing women's shoes, paying for their company, for the average man, the creature that will never get free sex; is going to endure tremendous hardships in his dealing with women; and is also considered a predator/garbage/bitter/addicted to porn if he figures out that to catch the fish he'll have to fight moby dick?

 

I also hear a lot of women go into a very deep detail on the qualities that the men must holding inside of his being. Intelligence ranking #4 (#1 Height; #2 muscles; #3 Hair), but there are an infinitely higher number of good-looking/tall/fit men than the number of intelligent men is, and the really intelligent number is even far more reduced.

 

Am I the only one who thinks that if women cared so much about brains, the NASA engineers, the oxford teachers, and the winners of the Nobel Prizes(not the nobel prize of peace) would be packing so many women which would result - at the very least - in an extremely intelligent species?

 

Yet.. most of the women seem to put height up there next to superiority over the rest of the males, for women will only have sex with men they think are superior(to themselves, or to other males) with that, wouldn't most guys be considered to be sub-par by most women?

 

All that really matters is physical power and prowess. Women are still seeking mates, and casual sex(women are far more likely to not use the pill or condoms in those one-night stands) in warriors and conquerors.

 

In a world of civilization, women are still enthralled by the warlord of Mars, John Carter, and no amount of political bull**** on how the sexes are equal and the endless Sunday mass that we(men) are the victims of, all of our lives, is going to deny the fact that women are naturally genetic apologists for reproductive eugenics .

Edited September 9, 2011 by Elysian Powder

[sally4sara]

What I don't understand is how so many women talk about connections and chemistry and how a friendship must flourish first(or they have to be attracted to the guy and also feel, at the same time, that they can be friends); but then you read their posts on threads such as ' top 5 turns off/on from the opposite sex,'' and most women are turned off by baldness or receding hairline(which most guys are or are going to be), short stature(and that depends on what each individual women regards as ''average '' and ''short'') and a lack of earning potential.

 

 

One of the things I see happen on this site quite a lot is person A can create a post saying something like the bolded above, but if person B makes a post about attraction based on the more shallow aspects - folks will go on as though it is a contradiction if the two posters share the same gender. It isn't a contradiction. It is two different views by two different people and it is completely irrational to take what person B says and use it to invalidate what person A said. The genders are not hive minded so it stands to reason that they will not all have the same perspective or agree on the same things.

So what will it serve to draw conclusions about one person based on the words of someone else? I can't think of anything good.......

[ThsAmericanLife]

Faithful married men just get nothing but a wife who cheats on him.

 

Oh please... quit the whining. You know that's not true.

[ThsAmericanLife]

I did see one post saying women do it because men do it but I admit most women in here don't seem to be condoning it. This is just a very sore subject with me after the crap I had to here after I was cheated on as if I did anything to deserve it. Stuff like this can cause to go from happy and vibrant to angry and hateful in a second.

 

Ok...

 

but I'm betting most people here have been cheated on at some point in their lives.

[AHardDaysNight]

Things aren't like they are on tv and in movies and music. Sometimes life isn't a box of chocolates. Forrest Gump was wrong.

 

That being said, anybody who cheats is an imbecile, and deserves whatever karma they have coming to them.

[Feelsgoodman]

They're cheating more openly(women of hundreds of years ago had to hide the cads from their husbands) because in this age of enlightenment, more than enough ''men'' don't mind paying a crap load of money in that sweet divorce settlement.

 

Women get the kids, a double paycheck per month(alimony and child-support), and a young buck to unwind those spider curtains from their poon.

 

Why wouldn't they cheat?

Quoted for truth. In the old days, a woman would become a social pariah for committing adultery. In the really old days, she'd get stoned in the town square. Nowadays, she'd get rewarded in family court thanks to the legalized scam known as "no fault divorce".

[madjac74]

Quoted for truth. In the old days, a woman would become a social pariah for committing adultery. In the really old days, she'd get stoned in the town square. Nowadays, she'd get rewarded in family court thanks to the legalized scam known as "no fault divorce".

 

And if a man did it at anytime throughout history, he would get a pat on the back or a joking nudge from his pals.

[Tayla]

I did see one post saying women do it because men do it but I admit most women in here don't seem to be condoning it. This is just a very sore subject with me after the crap I had to here after I was cheated on as if I did anything to deserve it. Stuff like this can cause to go from happy and vibrant to angry and hateful in a second.

 

Correct woggle, its a heated perspective if you are the one cheated on or had the unfortunate task of cheating . What I think though is your anger for one ladies action that meant alot to you created this over-generalized desire to find fault with ladies sometimes. I have read your past..and gosh do I ever get it that you are upset with a family member and an ex spouse who happen to be female. What I do not get and do not allow is a guy to use that as an excuse to group all women in a belittled fashion. In your heart of hearts you have improved much yet these comments do set ya back alittle. Own it, correct it and if at all possible "THINK" twice before making such derogatory statements. Just because I didnt get OUTRAGED or CHEER on the cheaters doesnt mean I dont have an opinion. I just learned to stop casting stones when its done so objectively.

[Woggle]

I know I shouldn't generalize but when I see a general trend amongst some women it does make me wonder. People forget that in the gender wars there are innocent human beings being hurt.

[AHardDaysNight]

And if a man did it at anytime throughout history, he would get a pat on the back or a joking nudge from his pals.

 

Biologically, things have not changed, and will never change.

[SteveC80]

Incoming wall of text:

 

 

What I don't understand is how so many women talk about connections and chemistry and how a friendship must flourish first(or they have to be attracted to the guy and also feel, at the same time, that they can be friends); but then you read their posts on threads such as ' top 5 turns off/on from the opposite sex,'' and most women are turned off by baldness or receding hairline(which most guys are or are going to be), short stature(and that depends on what each individual women regards as ''average '' and ''short'') and a lack of earning potential.

 

 

Then you look at their posts concerning height. Most of them will not date anyone below the height of 6 feet, whereas some women will say that height is not vital for attraction - as long as he 's built as a brick house.

 

The women who say this are usually skinny or very short, but every reasonably tall woman is going to expect the man - at the very least - to be some good inches taller than her.

 

Not paying that much attention to that subgroup of women; we're left with the majority of women ONLY interested in tall men, who are both fit, hairy, and highly educated(the education is only of any significance to the formation of the relationship if she 's looking for marriage).

 

Doesn't that leave most guys in the dark? I have no doubt that LS has some attractive ladies. Good-looks beget good-looks. However, it is highly unlikely that the vast majority of the LS female population is above average in looks, body, or height.

 

What am I missing?

 

 

 

Then you look at their posts concerning height. Mos of them will not date anyone below the height of 6 feet, whereas some women will say that height is not vital for attraction - as long as he 's built as a brick house.

 

I've said before that an attractive woman has the right to expect a relationship, casual sex, or reproduction with an attractive man.

 

I'm often told that I'm immature. An accusation based on my lack of interest in slavery(commitment). I suppose the accusation come from women in their 30's. Women who are - in theory - far more mature than their 20 year old sisters; but they increase the price to date them/marry them/fck them/ in such a inordinate standard of quality; most guys can't be seen in the vicinity of a woman's sexual desires by leaps and bounds.

 

If women past their hormone-driven years and shallowness are adamant at not wavering from the scenario of pairing up only with the best of males....

 

In what state are the women in their late teens and mid 20's; women in their prime and coveted by the majority of the male population?

 

Does the guy need to be rich, very handsome, and fluent in all of the romantic languages?

 

Nope. He just needs to be tall. I'm tall, fit, and thickly haired with natural dark shades and a hint of autumn brown that comes and goes as it pleases.

 

Is this the calculator for a man's worthiness as a sexual king? His height? The rest of his qualities are only of some - or most importance - when the women want to mate?

 

Then the man has to be tall, still has to have all of his hair in his 30's, should have a PhD in whatever is paying the most,at the time the woman deducts him to be of good genetic stock, and he's obliged by law and by moral responsibility to impregnate her and support her financially.

 

Now, I hear a lot of talk from women dishing down 'Game ' and putting the men who use game to increase the chances of women growing an interest in them, in the category of ''losers,'' ''sexual predators,'' ''insecure mama's boys,'' and they also state in the most monumental fashion that game doesn't teach men how to connect with women, and that it doesn't teach them the tools to create a relationship.

 

Huh, I need to know how to swim before I take a trip into an ocean. It's feasible to believe that to have a relationship, the woman has to be attracted to the man; how is he going to achieve that if women and their royally long list of traits sought after in a man have as their #1 and immovable required a significant height advantage over most men?

 

Is this some sort of unconscious agenda women have built-in their genetic wiring since time lost to the ages, and that agenda seeks only to create physically superior men, with the bonus of vastly increased good-looks, some sort of natural travesty to everything we men are told from the moment we are born to the moment we have a woman in front of us telling us that she' not ready to date, only wants to be friends with you, and during the length of next day's interaction with her you find that she banged Mr. Tall, dumb as rocks, and unwilling to commit.

 

Do tell me, then, why women don't want men to turn their backs to the world of love, when these unwanted guys, figure out that the women aren't interested in them?

 

Is it to prevent a stable part of their lives(good men, average men, white knights) from manning up, as in, retiring their emotional support, their tenderness from women, as women enter their 30's, want to reproduce and they can't find a husband?

 

Are women alluding to this when they claim that no good man is to be found?

 

But is a good man a man with the looks, the height, and the money; or is the good man the guy who puts up with them and pays for what the other guys had for free?

 

Taking into consideration that in most of the marriages occurring around the globe, the man is average, and that most relationships(legal relationships or not) end, and if we reflect on how the overwhelming majority of women initiate the divorce.

 

Could it be that the women take everything the man owns as a form of vindicative retribution, a payment for the sex they(very rarely) had with the man they married?

 

Could this be proof that the marriages who do work(baring the people who can't get a divorce for a reason or another) have as the main protagonist an Alpha male; the man who embodies all of the characteristics women are so wet for?

 

Have I mentioned that most of the women who marry are average? Does this have any correlation to one of my posts?

 

That a good-looking man can sex up a woman without any effort if the woman is average? That the man has to be increasingly more good-looking to land a woman who is more good-looking than most?

 

So a guy, to have a successful relationship with a woman, has to absolutely superior to the other men - if the woman is average; and he has to be very good looking/rich as a safety measure(women won't take away his money) and main attractor mechanism to get a girlfriend/wife/mother of his kid?

 

Can I then imply that the dating world is a land of kissing women's shoes, paying for their company, for the average man, the creature that will never get free sex; is going to endure tremendous hardships in his dealing with women; and is also considered a predator/garbage/bitter/addicted to porn if he figures out that to catch the fish he'll have to fight moby dick?

 

I also hear a lot of women go into a very deep detail on the qualities that the men must holding inside of his being. Intelligence ranking #4 (#1 Height; #2 muscles; #3 Hair), but there are an infinitely higher number of good-looking/tall/fit men than the number of intelligent men is, and the really intelligent number is even far more reduced.

 

Am I the only one who thinks that if women cared so much about brains, the NASA engineers, the oxford teachers, and the winners of the Nobel Prizes(not the nobel prize of peace) would be packing so many women which would result - at the very least - in an extremely intelligent species?

 

Yet.. most of the women seem to put height up there next to superiority over the rest of the males, for women will only have sex with men they think are superior(to themselves, or to other males) with that, wouldn't most guys be considered to be sub-par by most women?

 

All that really matters is physical power and prowess. Women are still seeking mates, and casual sex(women are far more likely to not use the pill or condoms in those one-night stands) in warriors and conquerors.

 

In a world of civilization, women are still enthralled by the warlord of Mars, John Carter, and no amount of political bull**** on how the sexes are equal and the endless Sunday mass that we(men) are the victims of, all of our lives, is going to deny the fact that women are naturally genetic apologists for reproductive eugenics .

 

Women are more shallow and have more physical requirements[not preferences] then Men its just that men get more **** for being shallow then women

[sally4sara]

I know I shouldn't generalize but when I see a general trend amongst some women it does make me wonder. People forget that in the gender wars there are innocent human beings being hurt.

 

You see a general tread of cheating among some people and ignore that half of them are men just so you can continue to have your gender war.

[AHardDaysNight]

I don't know how you had time to write all of that, Elysian Powder.

[Woggle]

You see a general tread of cheating among some people and ignore that half of them are men just so you can continue to have your gender war.

 

Misandrists who cheer on female cheating do the same thing.

[KR10N]

Women are more shallow and have more physical requirements[not preferences] then Men its just that men get more **** for being shallow then women

Lies! Anyone can be shallow, just takes one real ignorant individual to be into such superficial looks.

 

Don't make me lol.