Ginger Beer Posted September 14, 2011 Posted September 14, 2011 Not having female friends is not an indicator of being a cheater. I don't have friends (in my thirties now) and never had a lot of friends throughout my life. I used to hide in the bathroom and library during lunch at high school because I had no one to eat with. I still don't have friends because I'm not social and I don't talk; I like to stay home and keep to myself. Having no friends means I am more likely NOT to cheat because I don't go anywhere; to bars or clubs to meet men. I would rather slit my wrist then go out alone. So yea, not having friends doesn't mean you are cheater; it could just mean that you HAVE NO FRIENDS. I have no male friends either btw. Also, not having friends means that I am LESS likely to meet men because people usually meet guys through friends and going out. I am always home. So I disagree that not having friends means that you are a cheater. I don't have female friends because I'm not empathetic enough to care about what other women talk about (their lives, boyfriends). i just don't care so I keep to myself. I find socializing really annoying. I think the OP meant having male friends and no female ones, not having no friends full stop. And the highlighted bit made me feel so sad. I'm sorry if that offends you but it makes me sad to think of people on their own.
fltc Posted September 14, 2011 Posted September 14, 2011 There was a time when the incidence of cheating was extremely low amongst women. Untrue, women have always cheated. The evidence is all over, as far back as written history can take us. You're all grousing about the horrible cheating women out there, but the men STILL outnumber the women. Again, not true according to recent statistics, it's pretty even. We'd pay more attention to your rant if your opinions matched the facts.
carhill Posted September 14, 2011 Posted September 14, 2011 I was thinking, back in my father's day, as an example, who did the often maligned but accepted philandering males 'cheat' with? Lonely spinsters? I wouldn't exist but for a woman cheater who left her husband while he was away protecting our country and interests from the Nazis. If she hadn't left him for another man, he might have never gotten divorced and never met my mom and I'd never have been born into the family I was. Perhaps there was a time when *apparent* infidelity amongst women was lower than amongst men and it was likely during a time when men held economic and physical power over women and women feared for their security and life and that fear 'kept them in line'. Was that healthy? I think not. Did it work? Well, it certainly taught women how to be devious and secretive, if nothing else; traits which survive to this day. I saw these characteristics with MW's. They were/are experts at deception and manipulation, or more precisely wielded those natural traits as weapons.
Doo Posted September 14, 2011 Posted September 14, 2011 I was thinking, back in my father's day, as an example, who did the often maligned but accepted philandering males 'cheat' with? Lonely spinsters? I wouldn't exist but for a woman cheater who left her husband while he was away protecting our country and interests from the Nazis. If she hadn't left him for another man, he might have never gotten divorced and never met my mom and I'd never have been born into the family I was. Perhaps there was a time when *apparent* infidelity amongst women was lower than amongst men and it was likely during a time when men held economic and physical power over women and women feared for their security and life and that fear 'kept them in line'. Was that healthy? I think not. Did it work? Well, it certainly taught women how to be devious and secretive, if nothing else; traits which survive to this day. I saw these characteristics with MW's. They were/are experts at deception and manipulation, or more precisely wielded those natural traits as weapons. Interestingly, this also means you wouldn't exist if Hitler never lived and if he never wreaked havoc over Europe. Bravo, Hitler.
Doo Posted September 14, 2011 Posted September 14, 2011 There was a time when the incidence of cheating was extremely low amongst women. Chastity belts aren't allowed any longer, though. Men have always been notorious for looking for cheap thrills on the side, and it would appear that women are finally catching up to them, is all. You think mistresses are "cheap"? Many of them are actually quite expensive. Whoring can be a very cash-intensive hobby. But then it's worth it, isn't it? You're all grousing about the horrible cheating women out there, but the men STILL outnumber the women. By definition the weighted average has to the same as between the sexes. Simple arithmetic. If there are on average fewer number of women who cheat, then they must each be cheating with a higher number of men. If ten men out of a hundred men are cheaters, but only five women out of a hundred women are cheaters, those five women must be cheating twice as much, on average, as the ten men. Where's your horror at THAT? Where's your horror at 50 years ago when women stayed home like good little slaves while Mr. Romeo was out getting his wick dipped? Where's your indignation about THAT, boys? If they were actually good little slaves then Mr. Romeo wouldn't have an urge to seek it elsewhere. Instead Mrs. Romeo was all too often, a fat, ugly, sloppy, sex-hating, money spending, nag. Why would Mr. Romeo seek it elsewhere if he had a good little sex slave at home, willing to do his every sexual bidding, as well as everything else he wanted? No all too often as reflected on many "low/no sex marriage threads" after marriage the wife dries right up. That'll be a cold day in hell when women outnumber cheating men. Well then get your head out of Satan's lap and tell him to put his mittens on, since the weighted average must be the same (as proven above). Most men would screw a knothole in a fence if they were sure the neighbors wouldn't see and they wouldnt get splinters from it. So you're complaining because your boyfriend decided he would rather screw a fence knothole than you? Why criticize him? Obviously he chose the more pleasurable of the two options available to him, and as a bonus, fences shut up once in a while. I'm laughing my ass off at this ridiculous thread where you're all suddenly trying to paint MEN as saints. As IF. We only consider them "saints" if they are stuck with a woman like you. Not all men suffer from such affliction so they aren't in the "saint" category. And lastly, the Daily Mail is HARDLY an authority to be taken as gospel. Jesus. If you satisfied your Male Daily then you wouldn't need to worry about the Daily Mail.
carhill Posted September 14, 2011 Posted September 14, 2011 Interestingly, this also means you wouldn't exist if Hitler never lived and if he never wreaked havoc over Europe.Considering alternative timelines opens up a myriad of possibilities. Would the same acts have occurred had there been no war? If the man in question had been off fighting as millions of other American males were? Expand that dynamic to all countries/cultures impacted during that time in world history. The potentials are endless. The particular timeline which resulted in my birth is but one of them. Specific humans made specific choices which resulted in a specific timeline of events. Similar choices are still being made today, though Hitler (as one example) has been replaced by other focal points. Both men and women make them. How does this relate to signs of female cheating? One relevant aspect is how a woman deals with stress and adversity and loneliness. What are her coping skills? Does she look outward for validation and 'comfort' or do those aspects self-start? Does she feel 'it'll all work out' or 'I can't be alone'? Many aspects to consider. I had to look to the wider world to experience the 'I can't be alone' aspect because my socialization didn't cover that subject and I was completely ignorant of how people prosecuted it. More signs.
karnak Posted September 14, 2011 Posted September 14, 2011 Perhaps there was a time when *apparent* infidelity amongst women was lower than amongst men and it was likely during a time when men held economic and physical power over women and women feared for their security and life and that fear 'kept them in line'. Was that healthy? I think not. Did it work? Well, it certainly taught women how to be devious and secretive, if nothing else; traits which survive to this day. I saw these characteristics with MW's. They were/are experts at deception and manipulation, or more precisely wielded those natural traits as weapons. Right on target!
Doo Posted September 14, 2011 Posted September 14, 2011 Considering alternative timelines opens up a myriad of possibilities. Would the same acts have occurred had there been no war? If the man in question had been off fighting as millions of other American males were? Expand that dynamic to all countries/cultures impacted during that time in world history. The potentials are endless. The particular timeline which resulted in my birth is but one of them. Specific humans made specific choices which resulted in a specific timeline of events. Similar choices are still being made today, though Hitler (as one example) has been replaced by other focal points. Both men and women make them. How does this relate to signs of female cheating? One relevant aspect is how a woman deals with stress and adversity and loneliness. What are her coping skills? Does she look outward for validation and 'comfort' or do those aspects self-start? Does she feel 'it'll all work out' or 'I can't be alone'? Many aspects to consider. I had to look to the wider world to experience the 'I can't be alone' aspect because my socialization didn't cover that subject and I was completely ignorant of how people prosecuted it. More signs. Speaking of important historical figures who, although evil, change the course of history, here's a link to a fascinating article which suggests that Genghis Khan was so prolific that fully one out of 200 of all men alive on earth today, are his direct descendants. http://www.isteve.com/2003_Genes_of_History_Greatest_Lover_Found.htm I found the following paragraph to be of perhaps the greatest interest: Tyler-Smith noted, "In 'The Secret History of the Mongols,' an extraordinary and unique contemporary or near-contemporary document, Genghis Khan's subordinates are represented as explicitly promising him the pick of captured women and horses." This makes me wonder how many of the Earth's horse population were descended from him, as well.
carhill Posted September 14, 2011 Posted September 14, 2011 Interesting read and gave real legs to my prior assertions about women's fear for safety and security 'keeping them in line'. Considering all the raping and pillaging and murdering which went on while Khan was conquering the world, it's no wonder women developed further the coping skills which now, in more benevolent times, sometimes are used as weapons, along with bred psychology to desire submission to the omnipotent male. History is pretty interesting stuff. Kahn underscored that, for the times, longevity is indeed the ultimate success. His apparent lineage underscores that.
Recommended Posts