Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cheating

Options
123578

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Palmach wrote: »
    Only saw this post now. Hysteria much?

    That's weird...

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109498075&postcount=21


  • Options
    #123
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Most humans aren't built for monogamous relationships. It wasn't our default position to for 100,000's of years, its a relatively new thing hence why so many people falter.


  • Options
    #124
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Most humans aren't built for monogamous relationships. It wasn't our default position to for 100,000's of years, its a relatively new thing hence why so many people falter.

    That's actually horsesh1t, while it can be said that humans didn't evolve to be strictly monogamous, hominids shifted towards monogamy about 3.5 million years ago and monogamous relationships in our primate forefathers helped push us on beyond other primates.
    While the two new studies published last week disagree about the force driving the evolution of monogamy, they do agree on something important. “Once monogamy has evolved, then male care is far more likely,” Dr. Opie said.

    Once a monogamous primate father starts to stick around, he has the opportunity to raise the odds that his offspring will survive. He can carry them, groom their fur and protect them from attacks.

    In our own lineage, however, fathers went further. They had evolved the ability to hunt and scavenge meat, and they were supplying some of that food to their children. “They may have gone beyond what is normal for monogamous primates,” said Dr. Opie.

    The extra supply of protein and calories that human children started to receive is widely considered a watershed moment in our evolution. It could explain why we have brains far bigger than other mammals.

    Brains are hungry organs, demanding 20 times more calories than a similar piece of muscle. Only with a steady supply of energy-rich meat, Dr. Opie suggests, were we able to evolve big brains — and all the mental capacities that come with it.

    Because of monogamy, Dr. Opie said, “This could be how humans were able to push through a ceiling in terms of brain size.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/science/monogamys-boost-to-human-evolution.html


  • Options
    #125
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    That's actually horsesh1t, while it can be said that humans didn't evolve to be strictly monogamous, hominids shifted towards monogamy about 3.5 million years ago and monogamous relationships in our primate forefathers helped push us on beyond other primates.



    https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/science/monogamys-boost-to-human-evolution.html

    There's also studies to suggest being raised by an entire group of around 50-100 polyamorous hunter-gatherers gives the exact same benefits you are suggesting.


  • Options
    #126
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Polyester Strings wrote: »
    Monogomy was an invention to allow economic growth, give the unattractive men, which are most men, just enough sex so that they'll work hard. Sexy men and women were the losers in this arrangement, unattractive men the winners.

    Guess who's back, back again!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Talking on a telephone, using a computer, driving a car and taking a dump in a toilet are all unnatural situations. Monogamy is probably a more natural situation than any of those things and there is a theory out there that suggests that monogamous relationships in our ancient ancestors is what helped us evolve beyond other primates. The males hung around, hunted meat and provided a protein rich diet for their offspring with helped in the evolution of our bigger brains. Even when we engage in polygamy, we tend to form long term bonds which go way beyond what we see in most mammals out there. One night stands and the like would not be where we'd be at if we were living as early man.

    People in long term relationships that dismiss monogamy as an unnatural state tend to do so to excuse their own sh1tty behaviour.


    In the theory that I read, these "one night stands" didn't exist in groups of around 50-100 hunter-gatherers. You would know everyone who you slept with. You would develop multiple strong relationships. Males still hung around. Forsaking and abandoning the tribe meant certain death. There was an even greater support system as you felt an affinity to more people than just your immediate nuclear family. It's not obvious amongst our species when the female is ovulating, therefore it was also not clear who the father might be if there was multiple partners. This led to a strong tribe as apposed to strong nuclear family. This article talks about this belief: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/amazon-tribes-believe-a-child-can-have-more-than-one-father-1075873.html


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partible_paternity


    There's a village in China which has a matriarchy as opposed to our patriarchy which seems to benefit the children and counter-acts the "deadbeat dad" scenario by having the children raised by the mothers extended family (including maternal uncles):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo#Advantages_to_a_walking_marriage



    If you want to talk about what is natural and unnatural, how come when any of us are in long term relationships, we all still have a wandering eye? We all can't help ourselves but have a look? Whether that is some pop star or someone on the street, we have this hardwired into us.



    I am not suggesting that cheating is okay. Cheating is deceitful. You are engaged in a contract with your partner based on trust and it is incredibly hurtful to do anything behind that persons back. What I am suggesting that is okay, is open relationships amongst consenting adults, which is not deceitful hence not cheating.


    And if it makes a difference, I have never cheated in my life so I'm not trying to justify apparent bad behaviour.



    The point I'm trying to make is that our society is not he be-all and end-all, but given how our society has developed into hundreds of thousands of people living in smaller areas, our original hunter/gatherer tendancies are incompatible.


  • Options
    #128
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I had to go find this post of mine as I feel quite strongly about this: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110596696&postcount=19


  • Options
    #129
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Deleted User wrote: »
    In the theory that I read, these "one night stands" didn't exist in groups of around 50-100 hunter-gatherers. You would know everyone who you slept with. You would develop multiple strong relationships. Males still hung around. Forsaking and abandoning the tribe meant certain death. There was an even greater support system as you felt an affinity to more people than just your immediate nuclear family. It's not obvious amongst our species when the female is ovulating, therefore it was also not clear who the father might be if there was multiple partners. This led to a strong tribe as apposed to strong nuclear family. This article talks about this belief: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/amazon-tribes-believe-a-child-can-have-more-than-one-father-1075873.html


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partible_paternity


    There's a village in China which has a matriarchy as opposed to our patriarchy which seems to benefit the children and counter-acts the "deadbeat dad" scenario by having the children raised by the mothers extended family (including maternal uncles):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo#Advantages_to_a_walking_marriage



    If you want to talk about what is natural and unnatural, how come when any of us are in long term relationships, we all still have a wandering eye? We all can't help ourselves but have a look? Whether that is some pop star or someone on the street, we have this hardwired into us.



    I am not suggesting that cheating is okay. Cheating is deceitful. You are engaged in a contract with your partner based on trust and it is incredibly hurtful to do anything behind that persons back. What I am suggesting that is okay, is open relationships amongst consenting adults, which is not deceitful hence not cheating.

    And if it makes a difference, I have never cheated in my life so I'm not trying to

    The point I'm trying to make is that our society is not he be-all and end-all, but given how our society has developed into hundreds of thousands of people living in smaller areas, our original hunter/gatherer tendancies are incompatible.

    We still tend to be quite tribal in our outlook and Dunbar's number of 150 for the amount of people a person is going to maintain stable social relationships is based on surveys of ancient villages and tribe sizes.

    Even polyamorous cultures today are built on long, stable relationships and most people are inclined to partake in monogamy.

    I'm not sure how check out a popstar or a girl walking down the street is an argument against monogamy if you don't ever intend to act on it. I can appreciate a good looking woman, the missus can appreciate a good looking fellow - neither of us are ever going to leave the other over it.

    I'm not trying to say everyone needs to shack up and that's that but I think people trying to say that monogamy or long-term meaningful relationships are somehow unnatural and not what our caveman ancestors would have done is talking bollocks.


  • Options
    #130
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    We still tend to be quite tribal in our outlook and Dunbar's number of 150 for the amount of people a person is going to maintain stable social relationships is based on surveys of ancient villages and tribe sizes.

    Even polyamorous cultures today are built on long, stable relationships and most people are inclined to partake in monogamy.

    I'm not sure how check out a popstar or a girl walking down the street is an argument against monogamy if you don't ever intend to act on it. I can appreciate a good looking woman, the missus can appreciate a good looking fellow - neither of us are ever going to leave the other over it.

    I'm not trying to say everyone needs to shack up and that's that but I think people trying to say that monogamy or long-term meaningful relationships are somehow unnatural and not what our caveman ancestors would have done is talking bollocks.

    Can you explain your position on this rather than just saying I'm talking bollocks? Ad hominems are weak arguments.

    My claim is that our species has been polyamorous for far longer than we have been monogamous. It has been suggested that it was the agricultural revolution that changed everything. The concept of property and handing it down to your son. This led to controlling female sexuality, because the only way you know its your son, is if she isn't having sex with anyone else. https://timeline.com/preshistoric-polyamory-56fc454f43bd

    One of the reasons why we have this wandering is because we used to act on it. It is our society that doesn't allow to act on it (and rightfully so given how our world works now). You and your partner have determined that looking at other people is acceptable but going further is not acceptable. Our distant ancestors acted on this far, far more. We are naturally attracted to novelty.


  • Options
    #131
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,512 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    A lot of you are not talking about cheating.
    Cheating is having sex with somebody else unbeknownst to your partner.
    This isn't about what set up you think is best.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can you explain your position on this rather than just saying I'm talking bollocks? Ad hominems are weak arguments.

    My claim is that our species has been polyamorous for far longer than we have been monogamous. It has been suggested that it was the agricultural revolution that changed everything. The concept of property and handing it down to your son. This led to controlling female sexuality, because the only way you know its your son, is if she isn't having sex with anyone else. https://timeline.com/preshistoric-polyamory-56fc454f43bd

    One of the reasons why we have this wandering is because we used to act on it. It is our society that doesn't allow to act on it (and rightfully so given how our world works now). You and your partner have determined that looking at other people is acceptable but going further is not acceptable. Our distant ancestors acted on this far, far more. We are naturally attracted to novelty.

    Your claim is horse manure since there are no written records from this period we really have no idea what the structure of society actually was. The most likely scenario was that the strongest men fcuked who they wanted and the rest went along with it. That's how nature works. Survival of the fittest. We see this with ISIS.. they took sex slaves. This is the real romantic past many are yearning for.

    Also depends on how you define marriage. Now the partner with the most income is financially discouraged from cheating. It shouldn't be like that IMO. If you want to cheat then you should be prepared to lose all the security a marriage provides. Male or female.


  • Options
    #133
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can you explain your position on this rather than just saying I'm talking bollocks? Ad hominems are weak arguments.

    My claim is that our species has been polyamorous for far longer than we have been monogamous. It has been suggested that it was the agricultural revolution that changed everything. The concept of property and handing it down to your son. This led to controlling female sexuality, because the only way you know its your son, is if she isn't having sex with anyone else. https://timeline.com/preshistoric-polyamory-56fc454f43bd

    One of the reasons why we have this wandering is because we used to act on it. It is our society that doesn't allow to act on it (and rightfully so given how our world works now). You and your partner have determined that looking at other people is acceptable but going further is not acceptable. Our distant ancestors acted on this far, far more. We are naturally attracted to novelty.

    I actually wasn't saying that you were talking bollocks, I was talking more about somebody justifying one night stands and cheating as more natural than long term relationships as talking bollocks. I though the polyamory that you were talking about in a previous post in terms of a village of interconnected relationships was still based on maintaining stable relationships but from a quick glance of the article in your above post, they are talking about a whole village engaging in casual sex so I'll actually have to sit down tonight and read more about it.


  • Options
    #134
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    I actually wasn't saying that you were talking bollocks, I was talking more about somebody justifying one night stands and cheating as more natural than long term relationships as talking bollocks. I though the polyamory that you were talking about in a previous post in terms of a village of interconnected relationships was still based on maintaining stable relationships but from a quick glance of the article in your above post, they are talking about a whole village engaging in casual sex so I'll actually have to sit down tonight and read more about it.

    If everyone is engaging in casual sex then that could work.

    If a small percentage of men are having casual sex with all the women then that won't work. I actually think this is what a true matriarchy would look like - a small percentage of men having sex with all the women and the rest slaves providing for their lifestyle. Love Island in a nutshell.


  • Options
    #135
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    A lot of you are not talking about cheating.
    Cheating is having sex with somebody else unbeknownst to your partner.
    This isn't about what set up you think is best.

    Fair point.


  • Options
    #136
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Personally I think it's about dishonesty. If you promise to be faithful to someone then you are an enormous asshole for breaking that promise. You are also an enormous asshole to go after someone who has made this promise. That's as simple as it gets.

    Also if you go after that guy who is scoring with different women every weekend while having a girlfriend or that girl who is giving every guy she meets the glad eye while posting pics on Instagram with her "best friend" and "love of her life" you are an idiot if you think they are going to be faithful to you.

    If you want to live a polyamourous lifestyle then great - but don't promise someone else you are going to be monogamous.


  • Options
    #137
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Am I the only one who simply doesn't grasp why 'cheating' is an issue at all?

    I never understood the big deal or issue out of it. If I sleep with a million women, but my own relationship isn't affected, then who cares? What harm is it causing? I appreciate it's a bit of an issue if you've made the conscious agreement to be only with each other (ala most relationships) but if you mention it beforehand or talk it out, i can't see why it's an issue.

    If I'm in love with Girl A, but I sleep with Girl B as a once-off, that doesn't mean i care any less about Girl A. I don't get it at all.


  • Options
    #138
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Your claim is horse manure since there are no written records from this period we really have no idea what the structure of society actually was. The most likely scenario was that the strongest men fcuked who they wanted and the rest went along with it. That's how nature works. Survival of the fittest. We see this with ISIS.. they took sex slaves. This is the real romantic past many are yearning for.

    Also depends on how you define marriage. Now the partner with the most income is financially discouraged from cheating. It shouldn't be like that IMO. If you want to cheat then you should be prepared to lose all the security a marriage provides. Male or female.

    No written records therefore I didn't happen, okay cool, it must be akin to religious extremism so. But tribes have existed into written history. Some up until the 1970's. It's generally, universally agreed that hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian, moreso than today's society.


  • Options
    #139
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Am I the only one who simply doesn't grasp why 'cheating' is an issue at all?

    I never understood the big deal or issue out of it. If I sleep with a million women, but my own relationship isn't affected, then who cares? What harm is it causing? I appreciate it's a bit of an issue if you've made the conscious agreement to be only with each other (ala most relationships) but if you mention it beforehand or talk it out, i can't see why it's an issue.

    If I'm in love with Girl A, but I sleep with Girl B as a once-off, that doesn't mean i care any less about Girl A. I don't get it at all.

    You're describing an open relationship there. If you have an open relationship and both people are honest and happy with the other sleeping with different partners then there's no issue and no cheating.

    Cheating is about dishonesty and going behind your partner's back and engaging in a different relationship while maintaining the pretence of fidelity to your main partner by lying to them.


  • Options
    #140
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    You're describing an open relationship there. If you have an open relationship and both people are honest and happy with the other sleeping with different partners then there's no issue and no cheating.

    Cheating is about dishonesty and going behind your partner's back and engaging in a different relationship while maintaining the pretence of fidelity to your main partner by lying to them.

    100% correct. If both parties agree from the start then thees no problem. If they introduce the idea years down the line with kids and property involved then it's a whole other ballgame. Unless both are mad enthusiastic from the get go.


  • Options
    #141
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No written records therefore I didn't happen, okay cool, it must be akin to religious extremism so. But tribes have existed into written history. Some up until the 1970's. It's generally, universally agreed that hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian, moreso than today's society.

    Egalitarian yes maybe. Less brutal or patriarchal no. The murder rate in ancient civilisations was up to 1000% of ours. Go to the national museum and read how some of the bog bodies died. I'm on holidays and not bothered looking up sources but read anything not written by a gender studies.professor about tribal societies and you will see this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Am I the only one who simply doesn't grasp why 'cheating' is an issue at all?

    I never understood the big deal or issue out of it. If I sleep with a million women, but my own relationship isn't affected, then who cares? What harm is it causing? I appreciate it's a bit of an issue if you've made the conscious agreement to be only with each other (ala most relationships) but if you mention it beforehand or talk it out, i can't see why it's an issue.

    If I'm in love with Girl A, but I sleep with Girl B as a once-off, that doesn't mean i care any less about Girl A. I don't get it at all.


    The problem with being a cheater and thinking it's ok as long as you don't get caught is ok until you do get caught.

    You'll be tripping the light fantastic thinking you're e big stud until you're out in traffic and you'll get an itchy sensation,your partner sends you a text telling you she's been civilized by the seaside nipper's and wtf....

    More than likely you being the dishonest one will try your hardest to get out of the dilemma and say you borrowed a towel at the gym.
    Then eventually you'll convince her it was locker room safari....

    Thank your lucky star's and maybe feel guilty until the itch to hump stranger's will invade your conscience...

    Next step is you break a glove while digging in the tunnel of love, few weeks later you'll be feeling unwell and end up on Meds for a lifetime....

    Happen to a straight friend of mine, he diped his wick got very sick....


  • Options
    #143
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Egalitarian yes maybe. Less brutal or patriarchal no. The murder rate in ancient civilisations was up to 1000% of ours. Go to the national museum and read how some of the bog bodies died. I'm on holidays and not bothered looking up sources but read anything not written by a gender studies.professor about tribal societies and you will see this.

    I don't think you know what the words egalitarian and patriarchal mean


  • Options
    #144
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    nthclare wrote: »
    The problem with being a cheater and thinking it's ok as long as you don't get caught is ok until you do get caught.

    You'll be tripping the light fantastic thinking you're e big stud until you're out in traffic and you'll get an itchy sensation,your partner sends you a text telling you she's been civilized by the seaside nipper's and wtf....

    More than likely you being the dishonest one will try your hardest to get out of the dilemma and say you borrowed a towel at the gym.
    Then eventually you'll convince her it was locker room safari....

    Thank your lucky star's and maybe feel guilty until the itch to hump stranger's will invade your conscience...

    Next step is you break a glove while digging in the tunnel of love, few weeks later you'll be feeling unwell and end up on Meds for a lifetime....

    Happen to a straight friend of mine, he diped his wick got very sick....




    Google Translate isn't picking up whatever that language is..?


  • Options
    #145
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,446 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Google Translate isn't picking up whatever that language is..?

    Basically, if you have Sex, you will get Chlamydia and you will die.


  • Options
    #146
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Google Translate isn't picking up whatever that language is..?

    It's ok unless you're a poet, you won't understand my logic.

    Dip your wick you'll pay for the oil....


    But if you're happy out being a cheat, and that's ok according to your moral compass.

    Who am I to judge you, rock's and glasshouses...

    So I can only say that I hope you don't get caught and have a healthy lifestyle...

    By the way the seaside nipper's are crabs :)


  • Options
    #147
    rireland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 90 ✭✭rireland


    What are your opinions on chasing a woman who is in a relationship?


  • Options
    #148
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    rireland wrote: »
    What are your opinions on chasing a woman who is in a relationship?

    It's undermining your fellow man.

    It's show's how insecure a guy is if he's after another guys woman.

    If she'll cheat on him she'll cheat on you.


  • Options
    #149
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    rireland wrote: »
    What are your opinions on chasing a woman who is in a relationship?

    Anyone who knowingly pursues someone in a relationship is a scumbag, regardless of gender.


  • Options
    #150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Had an argument with the gf recently. She had no problem with it. I did. She also had no problem cheating on an ex because "he was a prick". I wish I hadn't remember all this just now. Slightly boils my blood still.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Pyr0
    Registered Users Posts: 5,967 ✭✭✭Pyr0


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Had an argument with the gf recently. She had no problem with it. I did. She also had no problem cheating on an ex because "he was a prick". I wish I hadn't remember all this just now. Slightly boils my blood still.

    Alarm bells would be ringing for me. What is a prick to her? You could have a bit of a row and she goes off and cheats because you were acting the prick and she thinks that's fine?


Advertisement