Naturally unfaithful women.

scanlas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

carlowguy32

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

Leeby

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

carlowguy32

Leeby wrote: »

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

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

TerrorFirmer

carlowguy32 wrote: »

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

Get real and stop being a dick?

Link before comment.

scanlas

Hey guys,

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

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

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

scanlas

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

Moon_Eyes

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

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

scanlas

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

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

VeryBerry

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

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

anonymous_joe

VeryBerry wrote: »

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

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

Head says one thing heart another? :pac:

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

quad_red

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Head says one thing heart another? :pac:

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

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

Moon_Eyes

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Ostrom

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

Philosphy?

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

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

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

ChocolateSauce

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

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

carlowguy32

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

scanlas

VeryBerry wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Nevyn

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

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

orestes

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

herya

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

LolaLuv

Thaedydal wrote: »

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

Is that true? Very interesting.

Húrin

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

Jules

Moved from the Ladies Lounge.

SeekUp

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

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

VeryBerry wrote: »

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

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

Nevyn

PillyPen wrote: »

Is that true? Very interesting.

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

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

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

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

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

Ostrom

herya wrote: »

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

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

johnnyskeleton

Húrin wrote: »

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

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

scanlas wrote: »

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

This could also be explained by rape.

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

scanlas wrote: »

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

Religion was created by a madman.

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

OR

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

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

scanlas wrote: »

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

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

philologos

To the OP and others who are in agreement:

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

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

,8,1

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

This could also be explained by rape.

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

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

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

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

Usually, unmarried and/or divorced.

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

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

Ah but things are not always as they seem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

johnnyskeleton

,8,1 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

,8,1 wrote: »

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

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

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

,8,1 wrote: »

Usually, unmarried and/or divorced.

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

,8,1 wrote: »

Ah but things are not always as they seem.

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

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

,8,1 wrote: »

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

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

,8,1 wrote: »

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

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

,8,1 wrote: »

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

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

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.