Exactly. Just look at me, Debra, and AlphaF. We’re completely unalike. And yet, given that we all like to work out and debate politics, we probably have more in common with one another than we do with most other women.
In most surveys, men tend to say that they’re much more hurt my sexual infidelity and women more hurt by emotional infidelity. This goes along perfectly with evo-psych. So I can’t help but think there’s something to what Orion is saying.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
In most surveys, men tend to say that they’re much more hurt my sexual infidelity and women more hurt by emotional infidelity. This goes along perfectly with evo-psych. So I can’t help but think there’s something to what Orion is saying. [/quote]
It’s difficult for me to imagine that a man wouldn’t be more hurt by his wife falling in love along with having sex than by just having sex alone, and by the same token it’s difficult for me to understand a scenario wherein a woman would be more hurt by a husband’s confiding in another woman (emotional infidelity = what?) than a sexual and emotional affair.
I suspect that there was something odd about the wording, or whatever, because I think both men and women would be most hurt by the idea of their spouse in bed with another sex partner, sharing post-coital pillow talk and intimate laughter.
[quote]orion wrote:
Men and women fucking around is simply not the same, it cannot be, there are different biological imperatives.
Women have 500 eggs per lifetime, if I am being generous here, men create 1500 new sperm PER SECOND.
Is it any wonder that men spread their seed more easily and are less discriminating?
On the flip side, that means of women cheat, it matters more. [/quote]
1 - 500 viable eggs is def on the generous side
2 - Chushin’s earlier attempt to parallel the above reasoning failed. Please try again.
[quote]orion wrote:
Men and women fucking around is simply not the same, it cannot be, there are different biological imperatives.
Women have 500 eggs per lifetime, if I am being generous here, men create 1500 new sperm PER SECOND.
Is it any wonder that men spread their seed more easily and are less discriminating?
On the flip side, that means of women cheat, it matters more. [/quote]
If I were producing 1500 eggs per second I would not be in a biological hurry to mate, specially since only one counts.
Secondarily since “wasting my eggs on the ground” would be a logical and cheap and instant and safer solution to get rid of the overabundance, I would have no need to mate unless I had the purpose to build a nest.
And since you do not believe the Bible counts, using the imperative from God to males that he should not waste his semen on the ground - being an atheist I would logically be keeping my semen exclusive to a highly selected female I chose to have my offspring with.
It would be highly illogical to waste my semen and risk offspring with a weak mate.
That drive would supersede sleeping around, specially in view of my pro creative power overabundance.
Again, strictly biologically speaking, if I only have 500 eggs and a window of 25 to 30 ( make it 18 years old if you want ) and pushing to 40 with the risks because the Bio-clock will still be ticking and even harder - by then I am certainly biologically in a hurry to mate as often as possible and not waste any eggs due to my pro creative power shortage.
That does not need to be done with multiple partners and biologically speaking the flow of life would be even better suited through monogamy. [quote]
Either they are th e"choosing" sex, or their cheating is as meaningless as that of men.
Could you guys just come up with a story that makes some kind of sense?
Please?
Not just emotionally, logically. [/quote]
Female cheating is a tit for tat side effect of feminism.
Women have not been liberated they have lowered their sexual value to achieve an equalizer.
( Women can’t raise the bar physically because women are simply not equal to men - so the bar has to be lowered: in behavior to match the general male standard of behavior )
It is not that females are “choosing sex” they are secretly choosing revenge.
They are fulfilling, unwittingly, their “ugly” master’s secret fantasies: The Feminazis.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Men and women fucking around is simply not the same, it cannot be, there are different biological imperatives.
Women have 500 eggs per lifetime, if I am being generous here, men create 1500 new sperm PER SECOND.
Is it any wonder that men spread their seed more easily and are less discriminating?
On the flip side, that means of women cheat, it matters more. [/quote]
If I were producing 1500 eggs per second I would not be in a biological hurry to mate, specially since only one counts.
Secondarily since “wasting my eggs on the ground” would be a logical and cheap and instant and safer solution to get rid of the overabundance, I would have no need to mate unless I had the purpose to build a nest.
And since you do not believe the Bible counts, using the imperative from God to males that he should not waste his semen on the ground - being an atheist I would logically be keeping my semen exclusive to a highly selected female I chose to have my offspring with.
It would be highly illogical to waste my semen and risk offspring with a weak mate.
That drive would supersede sleeping around, specially in view of my pro creative power overabundance.
Again, strictly biologically speaking, if I only have 500 eggs and a window of 25 to 30 ( make it 18 years old if you want ) and pushing to 40 with the risks because the Bio-clock will still be ticking and even harder - by then I am certainly biologically in a hurry to mate as often as possible and not waste any eggs due to my pro creative power shortage.
That does not need to be done with multiple partners and biologically speaking the flow of life would be even better suited through monogamy. [quote]
Either they are th e"choosing" sex, or their cheating is as meaningless as that of men.
Could you guys just come up with a story that makes some kind of sense?
Please?
Not just emotionally, logically. [/quote]
Female cheating is a tit for tat side effect of feminism.
Women have not been liberated they have lowered their sexual value to achieve an equalizer.
( Women can’t raise the bar physically because women are simply not equal to men - so the bar has to be lowered: in behavior to match the general male standard of behavior )
It is not that females are “choosing sex” they are secretly choosing revenge.
They are fulfilling, unwittingly, their “ugly” master’s secret fantasies: The Feminazis.
[/quote]
But the size and number of gametes are not the only thing to consider here.
You have to take into account that in order to succesfully procreate a woman has to invest at least 9 months a man about 10 seconds.
So, even if you had eggs in abundance, your minimal investment would still be higher, thus you would be more discriminating.
As for the evil feminists, I dont think they planned any of this. Mostly because of what I have read from them they are not that terribly clever and have no clue whats going on.
I believe that tradition and social mores have reasons we cannot really understand because we are unable to see the whole picture and if you throw the pill and the sexual revolution in there the whole culture shifts in unexpected ways.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
In most surveys, men tend to say that they’re much more hurt my sexual infidelity and women more hurt by emotional infidelity. This goes along perfectly with evo-psych. So I can’t help but think there’s something to what Orion is saying. [/quote]
It’s difficult for me to imagine that a man wouldn’t be more hurt by his wife falling in love along with having sex than by just having sex alone, and by the same token it’s difficult for me to understand a scenario wherein a woman would be more hurt by a husband’s confiding in another woman (emotional infidelity = what?) than a sexual and emotional affair.
I suspect that there was something odd about the wording, or whatever, because I think both men and women would be most hurt by the idea of their spouse in bed with another sex partner, sharing post-coital pillow talk and intimate laughter. [/quote]
Lets try it this way:
A man banging some other woman, thats bad, but waddayougonnado?
A man laughing and pillow talking and whatnot is a threat because he might jump ship and take his resources and protection with him.
You on the other hand are the resource. Or rather, your uterus is, but that is kind of built in and stuff.
The moment you have sex with another man, not only are you far more likely to leave, but even if you dont you could still trick him into raising a child that is not his, diminishing his reproductive success significantly.
Hence, there are very few men who do not have a healthy mate guarding instinct.
Women have that too, but just because he came in someone else, what have you lost really?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
In most surveys, men tend to say that they’re much more hurt my sexual infidelity and women more hurt by emotional infidelity. This goes along perfectly with evo-psych. So I can’t help but think there’s something to what Orion is saying. [/quote]
It’s difficult for me to imagine that a man wouldn’t be more hurt by his wife falling in love along with having sex than by just having sex alone, and by the same token it’s difficult for me to understand a scenario wherein a woman would be more hurt by a husband’s confiding in another woman (emotional infidelity = what?) than a sexual and emotional affair.
I suspect that there was something odd about the wording, or whatever, because I think both men and women would be most hurt by the idea of their spouse in bed with another sex partner, sharing post-coital pillow talk and intimate laughter. [/quote]
Lets try it this way:
A man banging some other woman, thats bad, but waddayougonnado?
A man laughing and pillow talking and whatnot is a threat because he might jump ship and take his resources and protection with him.
You on the other hand are the resource. Or rather, your uterus is, but that is kind of built in and stuff.
The moment you have sex with another man, not only are you far more likely to leave, but even if you dont you could still trick him into raising a child that is not his, diminishing his reproductive success significantly.
Hence, there are very few men who do not have a healthy mate guarding instinct.
Women have that too, but just because he came in someone else, what have you lost really?[/quote]
We’ve been over and over that: I’ve lost trust in my partner, who made promises he didn’t keep. Honor, my own and others’, is important to me. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
We’ve been over and over that: I’ve lost trust in my partner, who made promises he didn’t keep. Honor, my own and others’, is important to me. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
[/quote]
Honor is a luxury your genes do not enjoy.
Different strategies, different programming, different emotions.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
We’ve been over and over that: I’ve lost trust in my partner, who made promises he didn’t keep. Honor, my own and others’, is important to me. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
[/quote]
Honor is a luxury your genes do not enjoy.
Different strategies, different programming, different emotions.
[/quote]
Genes ain’t the whole story, son.[/quote]
No, but the story necessarily takes place on the stage nature has set.
The way I see it, women would very much like to be free agents nowadays but would also very much like men to stick to the old script.
This is one of the many, many times where the female narrative, which just so happens to be the socially dominant one right now, magically transfers all the power in a relationship to the female if a man accepts it.
We all know how female “honor” was measured not so long ago, by this metric there are no honorable women to be found, but the exact same women who “would have been stoned at the city gates”, to paraphrase AlphaF, would very much like men to play it “honorable”.
How is that supposed to work without men getting shafted?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
We’ve been over and over that: I’ve lost trust in my partner, who made promises he didn’t keep. Honor, my own and others’, is important to me. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
[/quote]
Honor is a luxury your genes do not enjoy.
Different strategies, different programming, different emotions.
[/quote]
Genes ain’t the whole story, son.[/quote]
No, but the story necessarily takes place on the stage nature has set.
The way I see it, women would very much like to be free agents nowadays but would also very much like men to stick to the old script.
This is one of the many, many times where the female narrative, which just so happens to be the socially dominant one right now, magically transfers all the power in a relationship to the female if a man accepts it.
We all know how female “honor” was measured not so long ago, by this metric there are no honorable women to be found, but the exact same women who “would have been stoned at the city gates”, to paraphrase AlphaF, would very much like men to play it “honorable”.
How is that supposed to work without men getting shafted?[/quote]
See, now you sound like my cousin, who is angry that men are not being good guys while at the same time has three of them on the hook. She ranted about men proposing without a ring, which offends her delicate sensibilities (“what is that, you want me to marry you and you can’t even buy me a fucking ring?”). She buys into the same essential world view that you do, orion. She’s your match, because her “narrative” is the flip side of yours. Which is not to say you’d ever get together. Probably not, because you’d see each other as awful. Which you both sort of are, in a way.
My narrative is different: I fall in love with someone who falls in love with me and we both do our level best to be worthy of the other’s respect.
The sad part for me as an observer of the two of you is that with that level-best thing comes the things each of you wants. That mind-blowing sex you don’t associate with relationships (what could possibly be more fun for me than waiting for him to get home and knowing that I’m going to get to see his eyebrows shoot up at what I’m wearing or doing? I absolutely LOVE putting that look on his face, and I love even more the things that happen right after I see that look) and for her part there would be the sweet mushy stuff she craves, but doesn’t get.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Your attempt to make a worthwhile contribution to this discussion failed. Please try again.
[/quote]
Heh fair enough
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
We’ve been over and over that: I’ve lost trust in my partner, who made promises he didn’t keep. Honor, my own and others’, is important to me. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
[/quote]
Honor is a luxury your genes do not enjoy.
Different strategies, different programming, different emotions.
[/quote]
Genes ain’t the whole story, son.[/quote]
No, but the story necessarily takes place on the stage nature has set.
The way I see it, women would very much like to be free agents nowadays but would also very much like men to stick to the old script.
This is one of the many, many times where the female narrative, which just so happens to be the socially dominant one right now, magically transfers all the power in a relationship to the female if a man accepts it.
We all know how female “honor” was measured not so long ago, by this metric there are no honorable women to be found, but the exact same women who “would have been stoned at the city gates”, to paraphrase AlphaF, would very much like men to play it “honorable”.
How is that supposed to work without men getting shafted?[/quote]
See, now you sound like my cousin, who is angry that men are not being good guys while at the same time has three of them on the hook. She ranted about men proposing without a ring, which offends her delicate sensibilities (“what is that, you want me to marry you and you can’t even buy me a fucking ring?”). She buys into the same essential world view that you do, orion. She’s your match, because her “narrative” is the flip side of yours. Which is not to say you’d ever get together. Probably not, because you’d see each other as awful. Which you both sort of are, in a way.
My narrative is different: I fall in love with someone who falls in love with me and we both do our level best to be worthy of the other’s respect.
The sad part for me as an observer of the two of you is that with that level-best thing comes the things each of you wants. That mind-blowing sex you don’t associate with relationships (what could possibly be more fun for me than waiting for him to get home and knowing that I’m going to get to see his eyebrows shoot up at what I’m wearing or doing? I absolutely LOVE putting that look on his face, and I love even more the things that happen right after I see that look) and for her part there would be the sweet mushy stuff she craves, but doesn’t get.
[/quote]
I am not like your cousin.
Let me count the ways:
-
For me to act like an utter dick in a prolonged effort to thoroughly fuck your mind, you really, really had to beg for it. Repeatadly.
-
I am not a spoiled little princess.
-
I took great efforts to “get” women and even though you doubt that I do, their reations say I do. She never did the opposite, I am willing to bet that her wisdom can be distilled down to “men like to fuck”, which sadly, might be enough.
-
If I meet more than one woman, they know.
-
If I bleed for 5 days, I am dead.
Dont know what any of this has to do with the female narrative being pretty much the official one and how that magically always puts them in the stronger position, but hey.
[quote]orion wrote:
No, but the story necessarily takes place on the stage nature has set.
[/quote]
We have modified nature. You can argue evolutionary psychology in the aggregate, and you can argue that our instincts have not caught up with the technological reality. But reproduction is not the same as it was at humanity’s inception.
You mean that women want to have their cake and eat it, too? You’re right, that isn’t a universal human trait at all!
[quote]
This is one of the many, many times where the female narrative, which just so happens to be the socially dominant one right now, magically transfers all the power in a relationship to the female if a man accepts it.
We all know how female “honor” was measured not so long ago, by this metric there are no honorable women to be found, but the exact same women who “would have been stoned at the city gates”, to paraphrase AlphaF, would very much like men to play it “honorable”.
How is that supposed to work without men getting shafted?[/quote]
It is supposed to work by equalizing how honor is measured.
And, of course, there is a large difference between having casual sex outside of a relationship and monogamy within one. I agree that there’s a compelling evolutionary argument for men to attempt promiscuity, and women to require exclusivity. But we also have compelling legal arguments for monogamy, as well as ethical arguments for it. Human beings are inherently unpredictable. Promises between individuals are important because they signify to the other person that one will be predictable in certain ways. Otherwise, there could be no trust between people. Trust has all sorts of uses beyond sexual exclusivity, but breaking trust in one area is a signal that one is willing to do so in others.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
We’ve been over and over that: I’ve lost trust in my partner, who made promises he didn’t keep. Honor, my own and others’, is important to me. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
[/quote]
Honor is a luxury your genes do not enjoy.
Different strategies, different programming, different emotions.
[/quote]
Genes ain’t the whole story, son.[/quote]
No, but the story necessarily takes place on the stage nature has set.
The way I see it, women would very much like to be free agents nowadays but would also very much like men to stick to the old script.
This is one of the many, many times where the female narrative, which just so happens to be the socially dominant one right now, magically transfers all the power in a relationship to the female if a man accepts it.
We all know how female “honor” was measured not so long ago, by this metric there are no honorable women to be found, but the exact same women who “would have been stoned at the city gates”, to paraphrase AlphaF, would very much like men to play it “honorable”.
How is that supposed to work without men getting shafted?[/quote]
See, now you sound like my cousin, who is angry that men are not being good guys while at the same time has three of them on the hook. She ranted about men proposing without a ring, which offends her delicate sensibilities (“what is that, you want me to marry you and you can’t even buy me a fucking ring?”). She buys into the same essential world view that you do, orion. She’s your match, because her “narrative” is the flip side of yours. Which is not to say you’d ever get together. Probably not, because you’d see each other as awful. Which you both sort of are, in a way.
My narrative is different: I fall in love with someone who falls in love with me and we both do our level best to be worthy of the other’s respect.
The sad part for me as an observer of the two of you is that with that level-best thing comes the things each of you wants. That mind-blowing sex you don’t associate with relationships (what could possibly be more fun for me than waiting for him to get home and knowing that I’m going to get to see his eyebrows shoot up at what I’m wearing or doing? I absolutely LOVE putting that look on his face, and I love even more the things that happen right after I see that look) and for her part there would be the sweet mushy stuff she craves, but doesn’t get.
[/quote]
I am not like your cousin.
Let me count the ways:
-
For me to act like an utter dick in a prolonged effort to thoroughly fuck your mind, you really, really had to beg for it. Repeatadly.
-
I am not a spoiled little princess.
-
I took great efforts to “get” women and even though you doubt that I do, their reations say I do. She never did the opposite, I am willing to bet that her wisdom can be distilled down to “men like to fuck”, which sadly, might be enough.
-
If I meet more than one woman, they know.
-
If I bleed for 5 days, I am dead.[/quote]
You are.
-
You make assumptions about the group that inform your behavior toward individuals.
-
Your unhappiness is a result of your poor choices, but you project the blame onto the group, which confirms for you both the circular reasoning you used in the first place. She: men are shitbags so I am continually victimized by their lack of genuine caring. You: women are incapable of honor so I am continually victimized by their lack of fair play.
-
Neither of you are princesses so you both defensively attempt to pump your egos through a combination of wishful thinking and manufactured scorn. She has been hurt over and over again, but will assure me that “we’re the prize.” Well, no. Most people are a mixed bag of qualities, some good and some bad. Whether or not that person is a prize depends very much upon who is doing the judging. Like you with women, rather than focusing energy on the things about herself that are negative, she focuses solely on negatives she assigns to men as a whole.
-
While I’m sure you’re right that she does not have to do very much to get the men who like to fuck, that is not what she wants. She wants someone to love her. She also, and here is where she fits your narrative, wants someone to take care of her financially. Her solution is to bottom-feed. Meanwhile, for you, there is the sticky dilemma of how to get a woman who will at least exhibit (to the extent her nature will allow) something like honor, despite the unfaithfulness your “nature” demands of you. Your solution is also to bottom-feed. That’s not to say that the women you pursue aren’t physically attractive. My cousin’s men are not bad looking! But desirable beyond that? No. Not for what you each want.
[quote]orion wrote:
Dont know what any of this has to do with the female narrative being pretty much the official one and how that magically always puts them in the stronger position, but hey. [/quote]
The point is that your premises are wrong. There is no female narrative. Females are people, and therefore have individual narratives. Your assumptions are as much motivated by fear and insecurity as by the reading and thinking that you’ve done.