TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

44

A common trope I see here, mostly by men, is that male cheating is somehow better or at least more tolerable because “at least the man stays with his wife and doesn’t jump ship”. The supposed difference is in the notion that a woman cheating is more likely to branch swing and leave him and so that makes her cheating worse, while a man that cheats would not necessarily leave his gf/wife.

Sorry, but a man is not loyal just because he doesn’t immediately hand his wife divorce papers as he racks up mistresses.

Most men don’t leave because they want to be able to eat their cakes and have it. If you have a wife that’s at home that takes care of all or most of the household duties, ensures that you’re fed and takes care of the children, and even has sex with you on a reasonable basis, while you have a bunch of mistresses for kinky, nasty sex, then such a man would obviously have a very low incentive to leave that. He’s literarily getting the best of both worlds. It is ridiculous for anyone to think that he’s being self sacrificing just because he manages to not leave his wife.

It’s not a compliment to your wife to basically directly or indirectly tell her, “I love you but I’m going to keep having sex with other women. But don’t worry baby, I would never leave you. Just keep taking care of the house and the kids and feeding me and doing all the housework and I’ll keep coming home to you after I’ve fucked other women.”

If there was a wife that treated her husband well (including with sex) and did not leave him and was “loyal” to him, but was fucking hot men every other night, most men would not be happy with this. They would not feel that her treating them well and her not leaving was enough compensation for continued unfaithfulness. So I have no idea why men would think that women would feel solace in the fact that he hasn’t left yet.

In fact, if you’re cheating on your partner, one could argue that the more humane thing to do was to leave them and not make them suffer through your disloyalty. Most of the women that stay with men and don’t care that he has mistresses, do not love those men. They’re either in it for the money or for the free shit and favors that he provides for them. A woman that loves him would not be able to handle the cheating and betrayal, and would either make his life hell, cheat back for revenge and/or eventually leave.

Male cheating is just as bad, if not worse, than female cheating.

CMV

EDIT: Apparently some men are clutching their pearls about the fact that I used the word “better”, even though the meaning is always clear when someone says, “these two things are bad, but at least this one is better”. Plus this is why I even put the word “better” in quotes.

This tbh, is just a distinction without a difference, because male cheating is not “less damaging” or “less bad” or “less ghastly” than female cheating. Reasons stated above.

CMV.


[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Most men I know that have cheated have done so in the heat of the moment, purely lust. I cannot recall one of them to actually have liked the girl on any other level except physical/lust to get their rocks off.

With woman i know that have cheated however....whole different ball game.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

lol you've never heard of mistresses/sidechicks? men will carry out entire relationships with other women (and yes these relationships involve emotional intimacy)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Im am aware of this, nor am I denying such a thing exist. Just posted my anecdotal experience....

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Nah. Just long term fuck buddy

[–]ivegotsomequestions0Purple Pill Woman 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you look at other sub reddits and forums, you will see that men regularly catch feelings for their fuck buddies. Even happens with prostitutes.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Some men are retarded

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

considering men often leave their wives for their mistresses, no.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Not very often out of fear of divorce court

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

often enough to be relevant to this discussion.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So it’s ok if I cheat because of pure lust?

Why would I tolerate a man hugging and kissing and caressing another woman? How is that not showing love and intimacy to someone else?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

FFS, I justed posted my anecdotal experience on WHY people around me cheat, im not condoning shit.

And no you shouldn't tolerate it

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No only if the dude does it because that is merely lust which is temporary and once the lust is satisfied the man can go back to wifey perfectly content until the next time he experinces lust. That makes it okay.

[–]the_calibre_cat 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I think it would make it better. Not ideal, but there'd be a reason to continue the relationship after that - she hasn't checked out of the relationship, she just wanted some strange and some variety in her sexual experience, which is what men want. I get that. I'd be hurt and I'd be angry and it would take a long time to rebuild my trust, but I could move past that.

But that's not how women's attraction works, that's how men's attraction works. If a woman cheats, it is very likely NOT because she just wanted to experience the sexual spice of life, but because she met someone that does it for her in a way that her existing partner no longer does. He can't come back from that. His turn is over, and it's really best for everyone (except the kids, who are now the proud owners of shittier socioeconomic outcomes) that they divorce. Women are more loyal than men, but the instant they're attracted to someone else, their loyalty to their first partner is gone.

That's how it's different.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]the_calibre_cat 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, that's not an unfair perspective. Cheating sucks, don't do it.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it would make it better. Not ideal, but there'd be a reason to continue the relationship after that - she hasn't checked out of the relationship, she just wanted some strange and some variety in her sexual experience, which is what men want. I get that. I'd be hurt and I'd be angry and it would take a long time to rebuild my trust, but I could move past that.

Well at least you’re not hypocritical. I can respect that.

[–][deleted]  (120 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 25 points26 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Yes, you're right about the way adultery pre-modern era was decidedly a one-way issue (de facto if not du jure).

But thats largely because the marriage deal pre-modernity was a different deal.

The man was de facto promising protection and provision (but not necessarily fidelity, only that he wouldn't provide for bastard children).

The woman in return was promising fidelity (not to have children of other men the husband was raise).

Thats was kinda the deal.

Men who left their wives to shack up with a mistress and failed to hold up the provisioning part of the deal were treated pretty harshly too.

It's only really in the late-modern era (20th C) that this deal de facto changed into men also genuinely having to promise fidelity too.

[–][deleted]  (18 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 11 points12 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Well, generally shunned from society. Ostracised. Forced to support the wife. Killed if the woman's father could get his hands on him.

[–][deleted]  (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Weren’t women the property of their husband to do with as he saw fit?

Yes, but they were also the property of her father. Taking a daughter as a wife, having sex with her, and doing a flit left the daughter to be looked after by the father and left her as "sullied goods" he needed to support but couldn't sell again. They did NOT like it.

I just st don’t think men were shunned or ostracized for neglect or abandonment.

They were. They couldn't have come back to "their village" and not expected the wife's dad not to put na axe in their head.

But by the very nature of them "doing a flit" they were elsewhere anyway. It would just mean abandoning all social networks and ties , which was a much bigger deal back then without social safety nets and when those social ties were the economic network as well as the social network.

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Wel, no... I said abandon his wife to be with his mistress (or abanadon her for any reason).

And NO they didn;t do that in the same village. For this very reason. Fathers or other relatives of the females (Brothers/Uncles etc) putting axe in head.

If he's abandoning her to go with the mistress.... they're BOTH moving out of the village.

If they both stayed. That was probably the one circumstance where the church and the law really WOULD impose anti-adultery laws on the man as harshly as the female. Nailing a mistress was fine. Abandoning a wife to live with the mistress and refusing to provision the wife and kids was NOT.

Even Kings got into a lot of fucking trouble for this (See Henry VIII).

The law/church didn't mind kings fucking whoever they felt like.

They tended to excommuniate whole kingdoms if the king started abandoning wives without their special dispensation to do so.

How's THAT for the perfect historical example that abandonment was treated seriously in men. They excommunicated a kingdom over it.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes,

Thats the point.

He could sleep with whoever he wanted to (infidelity) and no-one cared.

He had to literally create a whole new religion in order to get away with abandoning a previous wife.

Thats quite a hoop to have to jump through. This supports what I was saying that the de facto deal was "The woman gave fidelity. In return the man gave provisioning and protection" with the male failure to live up to his half of the deal treated as harshly as female failure to live up to her half.

A whole kingdom was excommunicated because Henry VIII failed to live up to his half.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Husband’s will was absolute.

That's the story feminists sell. Reality was more nuanced. A wife didn't lose her family alliances on her wedding day. Indeed the groom and his family often prized those alliances. Women were never as powerless as some would have us believe.

Then, as now, alliances where often curated by family matriarchs.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This varied a lot from culture to culture but the idea that men had absolute power with no checks is feminist propaganda

[–]Taipanshimshonhere for the downvotes 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Too many novels.

A woman’s brothers and father were liable to come to your house and dig you a grave.

And if the wife cheated ... well who knows.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, he's right, that's pretty much what happened to men who abandoned their wives and kids.

[–]speltspelt 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

BS on pretty much every level. Only women who had high status relatives who cared about them had any kind of recourse.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Women with low status relatives had recourse through tose relatives too. Not legal recourse. But local rough justice recourse of the kind that supplied almost all law and order for anyone who wasn't a nobleman.

[–]speltspelt 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

not if his family was "rougher" than hers. there will always be weaker parties that are unable to protect their interests compared to stronger parties. having a strong social network to call on in time of need is something that is itself status-related. nobody was going to save a wife from an alcoholic husband who chose to drink instead of pay for household expenses, historically.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

not if his family was "rougher" than hers. there will always be weaker parties that are unable to protect their interests compared to stronger parties.

Yes. But thats the same for every aspect of such rough justice. Including rough justice meted out to unfaithful females.

having a strong social network to call on in time of need is something that is itself status-related.

I don't think so. In even agricultural environments, let alone HG environments, social networks among the poor did almost everything.

The rich had their social networks AND the law. The poor had only their social networks, for justice, for credit, for "welfare", for everything.

nobody was going to save a wife from an alcoholic husband who chose to drink instead of pay for household expenses, historically.

Well her family might, just as his family might save him from her infidelity.

I agree the law was generally for the rich. The poor had social networks and social censures and all the rest for that.

[–]Russelsteapot42Non Pill 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't need status to murder someone. If they don't have an army, a sharp rock will do just fine.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean technically you are correct that women's sexuality has always been more stricter controlled than men's, but stonings are actually carried out for men as well

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3645062/Chilling-pictures-ISIS-militants-savagely-stoning-four-married-men-death-committing-adultery-Iraq.html

These sickening pictures claim to show four married men being stoned to death by ISIS after being accused of adultery.

The images show blindfolded prisoners praying on the floor next to a pile of rocks before they are executed under the terror group's warped interpretation of sharia law.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/13/two-men-stoned-to-death-for-adultery-in-iran.html

Two men convicted of adultery were stoned to death in northeastern Iran last month but a third convicted man managed to escape, Iran's judiciary spokesman said Tuesday.

The last time Iran reported a death by stoning was in July 2007 when Jamshidi said a man convicted of adultery was stoned to death in a village in northern Iran.

The escaped one is interesting because

Typically under Islamic rulings, a man is buried up to his waist, while a woman is buried up to her neck. Those carrying out the verdict then throw stones until the person dies. If the person manages to escape from the hole, he or she will remain free under Islamic law.

It seems like an infinite time more easy for men to escape.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]decoy88Men and Women are similar 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Worst hurray ever lol

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (40 children) | Copy Link

Knock them up? Again, women have no agency? It's all men's fault..

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If you have unprotected sex and then come inside a woman, what do you think will happen?

[–]tiposkY'all hoes need Jesus! God bless! 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Unicorns... but only if you're Chad.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Again, is woman just a retard sleeping in coma or does she have agency and can make her own choices and even, God forbid, refuse unprotected sexual intercourse? Why do I have to point this out in every thread about woman's responsibilities?

[–]allweknowisD 16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Who is even taking responsibility away from the woman here? It’s discussing cheating from a husband and a wife POV, therefore it’s about their responsibilities; no one else’s.

Just like if the wife were to become pregnant, it would be discussed with her responsibility. Not the man who impregnated her.

You’re reaching here to try and take responsibility away from the hypothetical husband here.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You've missed his point.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How you made the leap from knocking someone up to concluding that women have no agency is beyond me. No one here has claimed that knocking a woman up means that she isn’t also responsible. It’s just a common phrase to indicate who got the woman pregnant, because when it comes to children, there usually isn’t doubt about who the mother is.

Jeez. Men are so quick to play the victim these days.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

No one here has claimed that knocking a woman up means that she isn’t also responsible.

you imply from your own comment here. Like many women do. Here. Words are important.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The implications that you take from other people’s words are your issue to deal with. Read the actual words and don’t let paranoia make you imply what isn’t there.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 9 points10 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

How do you describe a man’s actions in getting a woman pregnant if that phrase bothers you?

[–][deleted]  (18 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Be civil!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]  (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Again, MAN'S ACTIONS? What about fricking woman? Goddamn. Where is a woman in all of this? A doll?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 4 points5 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I’ll repeat my question since you didn’t answer it: how do you describe a man’s actions in getting a woman pregnant? Are we somehow forbidden from discussing the actions men take just because it annoys you or because a woman also takes part?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Why do you focus on a man but not both?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

The context of the conversation was about men cheating. Hence it makes sense to focus on their actions. If the context of the conversation was about women cheating I would not get all up in arms about “men’s agency,” despite the fact it takes both a man and a woman to cheat in a hetero extra-pair relationship.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The context of the conversation was about men cheating.

yes but not men knocking up women without their knowledge and consent and responsibilities.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Nobody said that though. “Getting knocked up” or “knocking up a girl” is just a common phrase to describe impregnating a woman. Literally no one is acting like this hypothetical third party woman didn’t have a say in her being impregnated.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I know it is common phrase. But not in the context that we are discussing here on PPD. Both sexes have same responsibilities to their bodies. And I just pointed out how this phrase is just toxic and very unprofessional. A man does not get a woman pregnant without her knowledge and consent (well unless rape or something, but that's exceptions).

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I really like this answer.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (24 children) | Copy Link

Citation please

[–][deleted]  (23 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Citation for “men have never been punished” for cheating

That’s not true. Men have suffered all manner of sanction both criminal and noncriminal for cheating

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They may have done, but she's right that female cheating was often much more thoroughly investigated, more often punished when found, and punished more harshly when found.

Du Jure (by the rule) there was an equivalence, but De Facto (by the facts) men had an easier ride of it. I'd maintain that was becaue the de facto deal of marriage was a promise of protection/provision in return for a promise of fidelity.

A woman having an affair was breaking her side the "real" deal in the way a man wasn't. The men got punished when they refused to properly provide for their wife and children when they were breaking their de facto side of the deal.

[–][deleted]  (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

As long as wife got her continued status as wife and access to all his money, what was the problem?

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 12 points13 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

As long as he got continued sexual access to her, (even as she also gave that sexual access to other men), why would any man be complaining?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

But he DOESN'T get continued sexual access to her. If she's giving it to other men, that's opportunity he doesn't get. And she almost NEVER gives it to hubby WHILE ALSO giving it to other men - usually she's long ago cut hubby off.

Thanks for playing; try again.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 10 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Shifting goalposts. You cannot answer the question as to how justified it is for her to be fucking other men while she’s still fucking her husband, so you shift it to the notion that they aren’t fucking their husbands.

There are many cheating wives who still fuck their husbands. I do not presume to know their reasons, but unless you have evidence showing that women that cheat aren’t also fucking their husbands, then you’re entering the territory of a completely different argument. My suspicion is that a lot of them still do it, albeit out of guilt, but still.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Because wife fucking other men while also fucking husband is a pure hypothetical that has no real world application and never happens.

There are many cheating wives who still fuck their husbands.

Source? Evidence? Factual basis?

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

If he was a guy who brought home the bacon, what's the problem?

If he's a poor man and cheats, well, YOU PICKED HIM. And back then, sprinkling the world with "bastards that expect provisioning" didn't happen - that only happens now. (Funny - when it's some other slut, the kid's a "bastard". When it's the slut's own kid, it's "HIS son/daughter".)

WRT slave owners' wives: (1) They were the wives, and they lived in the house and got to be called "Mrs. Slave Owner." (2) The husband never brought home the caramel colored babies, who stayed with their mothers and never saw the insides of their bio dads' houses.

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

That source DOES NOT SAY that ANY of Jefferson's house slaves were his own kids. It says

Sometimes planters used mixed-race slaves as house servants (or favored artisans) because they were their children, or otherwise relatives. Six of Jefferson's later household slaves were the grown children of his father-in-law John Wayles and his slave mistress Betty Hemings.[76][77] Half-siblings of Jefferson's wife Martha, they were inherited by her (with Betty Hemings and other slaves) a year after her marriage to Jefferson following the death of her father. At that time, some of the Hemings-Wayles children were very young; Sally Hemings was an infant. They were trained as domestic and skilled servants, and headed the slave hierarchy at Monticello.[78]

That does not say Jefferson himself followed that practice with his biological children by Sally Hemings.

I guess it isn’t if the choice is 1) put up with his cheating or 2) starve to death on the streets. What a great life full of rich opportunities. /s.

or 3) Remain Mrs. Rich Cheater, with access to all the benefits, privileges and emoluments of same.

Reason #1,000 why hypergamy should be taught in schools as gospel because poor and ugly men are shitty people and basically useless.

Hypergamy doesn't need to be taught in schools to girls. They know it innately. It needs to be taught to MEN.

If poor, ugly men are shitty and worthless, why do you women keep having sex with them and letting them impregnate you?

[–]OfSpock 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not true, there are laws dating back to the Elizabethan era which attempt to force the men to pay for their bastards.

Even before that, historians trace bastard lines by tracking which men paid voluntarily.

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah! 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She didn't get all the dick she wanted, so there's that. And her status would be forever tarnished when word gets out hubby's cheating and raping.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (26 children) | Copy Link

No, because men marry to raise a family, to provide for and protect their kids, not to lock in a source of pussy. Pussy is not as valuable as you women think it is, we can get it from a bar girl for 8$ drinks, game on Tinder, sugaring, hell a hundred dollar pain-pill in the bad part of town can land a man a threesome.

The protection, provision, status, and all that we convey on women whom we marry is far more valuable than male sexual fidelity.

Rank the following in value on a scale of 1-7 without repeating any numbers.

Sexual fidelity, our earnings, our status, our physical strength, how high up the social hierarchy we are sexual value Relationship value

No man ever made a woman fall deeply and passionately in love by being faithful. A faithful loser is still a loser, an unfaithful HV Male is still a HV male.

Male sexual fidelity means very little to women in regards to everything else.

Any woman who argues otherwise is either sick of female competition, an outlier, or pissed that she has to give up the CC.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

No, because men marry to raise a family, to provide for and protect their kids, not to lock in a source of pussy.

Women married because they had to in order to survive. It’s basically like picking a man out to hold you hostage because you really don’t have a choice. It’s marriage, or starve to death because no one had to hire you or pay you a fair wage. You can see that once that was no longer necessary, we started divorcing you in droves.

The protection, provision, status, and all that we convey on women whom we marry is far more valuable than male sexual fidelity.

Well, yes, if you completely prohibit women from gaining these things on their own through threat of force or the law, of course women are going to need those things from you. Now we can get most of that ourselves (to varying degrees) so it matters much less.

No man ever made a woman fall deeply and passionately in love by being faithful. A faithful loser is still a loser, an unfaithful HV Male is still a HV male.

That’s true of humanity - Women being faithful to men doesn’t make them fall in love either. You all want the best toys to yourselves, so it’s in our best interest to make you compete with each other so you feel like you’ve “won”.

Male sexual fidelity means very little to women in regards to everything else.

Women didn’t really have the chips to barter for sexual fidelity - it’s not that it’s not important, it’s just not the most important when it comes to a heirarchy of needs. Big difference. This is a huge reason why marriage is rapidly declining among the lower/working class. Would you stick around with a man who can’t provide but still cheats and acts like a dick? Female submission is a privilege, not a given. Only the rich are going to have the level of provisioning necessary for the average woman to look the other way on his cheating anymore, so the rest of you are SOL.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (24 children) | Copy Link

It has never been true that women had to marry or starve. It is an invention of feminism to justify their own BS. Women had to marry to help with a family. To be a breadwinner, and raise kids before the invention of the modern welfare state was near impossible. It is simple economics. Men demanded to still be able to sleep with other women in order to give women that. That is one freedom we decided not to give up.

It is utterly untrue that women were barred by law from providing for themselves.

And no, female submission is not a privelages, it is necessary for men to enter that contract. Hence you see the Man Strike, MGTOW, and RP seeking to have a varied sex-life while enjoying the decline.

You want financial access, us to be the primary person responsible for the family fortunes, you want to share in our status and privelages. You want us to share all the financial costs of a divorce. And you want us to forego other women??? Can we still jerk off to porn and smoke weed or is that too much male-freedom.

I got beach front property in Colorado for sale.

If women want men to give up polygyny, they gotta give up hypergamy. I expect to wait till the energy death of the universe before I see women give up their pursuit for the best men. They also gotta stop weaponizing sex against us. (That'll never happen)

By and large women do not want to be the one in the trenches making the money. They want the benefits but someone else doing it. They don't wanna be the ones working 80+ hour work weeks in high-stress positions (such as underwater welding where pay is six-figures). In that regards women are the whip-crackers of the plantation and men are the negroes working the fields.

Women were barred from becoming doctors because so few women wanted to be doctors. Even now, what is the gender ratios of western militaries? Heck, there was an attempt to incorporate women in the draft and a feminist backlash (I'm all for equality but not this much) squashes it.

To be perfectly honest, I don't care if she cheats. But I'll be damned if I raise another man's kids. That is why society came down on Adulteresses.

[–]darla10 2 points3 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

Well good thing you have DNA testing available now. If you don care if she cheats and you’ve said you would cheat either way, why not just have an open relationship? Why the necessity to lie?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (22 children) | Copy Link

Where did I say I would cheat exactly?

I said my sexual fidelity is not an indicator of my commitment. I can be sexually faithful and not provide, take care of, and protect a woman (otherwise known as commitment). I can also cheat and provide, take care of and protect a woman.

It is that simple. A woman using where a man sticks his dick as a thermometer to judge his commitment to her is as stupid as a man judging a woman's RMV solely on her looks.

A woman demanding sexual fidelity from a man (asking him to forego a component of his sexual psychology) is as stupid as men demanding women give up hypergamy (a key component of female sexual psychology).

[–]darla10 2 points3 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

I agree. A woman demanding anything puts herself in a losing situation. A woman stating her needs + boundaries in a LTR/marriage is in a winning situation. A woman who is high value enough will inspire that man to give up the thermometer in hole game. He will simply not fuck other women, even if he gets ‘tingles’ from some hottie walking past him on the sidewalk. He won’t do it.

But ifhis wife isn’t high value enough, or if he himself isnt high value (use any metric you want, psychological, intellectual, emotional, physical), then yes, his little validation engine will compel him to give in to this....component of his sexual psychology. Same goes for women and hypergamy. Th answer is always: be high value enough.

Oh, and if you think a high value woman would enthusiastically tolerate a man who routinely sticks his thermometer in random holes, you are dreaming. Even if she wouldn’t leave him (because of his provisioning), are you under some RP delusion that their marriage/relationship would be anything other than sub par? That woman would find all sorts of ways to make his life a living hell.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

A woman who is high value enough will inspire that man to give up the thermometer in hole game. He will simply not fuck other women, even if he gets ‘tingles’ from some hottie walking past him on the sidewalk. He won’t do it

not entirely true. it doesn't matter what rmv or smv a woman may have, it has nothing to do with whether or not her man can or chooses to cheat on her. plenty of amazing, beautiful, LOVED women get cheated on for any myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with her.

I don't like that women think "well, if i just suck his dick on command and make him steak every night, he'll never cheat"

No woman knows that going into a relationship. Its a risk.

[–]darla10 1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

I said he also has to be a high value human. To me, a high value man does not have psychological problems (like validation seeking) that would cause him to cheat on a high value woman.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

To me, a high value man does not have psychological problems (like validation seeking) that would cause him to cheat on a high value woman.

it may have nothing to do with validation. he may just be horny and a cute woman is there.

what does cheating have to do with psychological state? I don't think ANY woman ever thought that a something had to be mentally wrong with a man in order for him to feel compelled to cheat. that's alien to me.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry but the upper echelon have cheated since forever. This is the same argument BP's make about the alpha spectrum, that something is immoral therefor untrue.

You are welcome to your personal opinions but that doesn't make them facts. Men and women of all castes have been cheating since forever.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Male polygyny is not a psychological problem like BPD, Clinical Depression. Anymore than hypergamy is a psychological problem in women like BPD or Clinical Depression.

Women have a thirst for HV men. Men have a thirst for a variety of women.

What woman would settle for some unemployed loser, she can do so much better.

What man would limit himself to one woman when he can have two, or three or a dozen? He can do so much better than just one woman.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

He will simply not fuck other women, even if he gets ‘tingles’ from some hottie walking past him on the sidewalk. He won’t do it.

female solipsism.

Oh, and if you think a high value woman would enthusiastically tolerate a man who routinely sticks his thermometer in random holes, you are dreaming. Even if she wouldn’t leave him (because of his provisioning)

more solipsism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

True, she has the right to make it a living hell. And he has the right to leave you and the kids.

This is the delusion of women, that they have the power to enforce absolute compliance from their men.

[–]darla10 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You cheat, you get a living hell. It’s called consequences. This is the absolute delusion of men, thinking that they can cheat and still command respect and submission. lol

[–]gabriotDidn't know it was purge week 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You had a good post going until the second paragraph.

[–]theambivalentroosterLiteral Chad 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice edit, Jammerly. Really stick the knife in.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you are going to circle-jerk then at least put it under the Auto-Mod

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (39 children) | Copy Link

Red men say male cheating is just about sticking their dick in strange whereas female cheating means the relationship is over, so if you accept the red thesis then cheating is fine, does no relationship damage, does not prevent the man from being committed to the marriage, and is perfectly fine whereas female cheating is a symptom of evil doing and should not be tolerated. So male cheating might be "just as bad" for the wife who may or may not be publically humiliated or feel despair but that is okay because it does not mean the dude is the bad guy. So from the red perspective men who cheat in a marriage are doing no great harm and discussions about it are silly because it does not detract from his nobility or character.

[–][deleted]  (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

My person view is cheating is shitty and reasons do not make it okay.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

But as is often the case these are gradations of shitty.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type. 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but I tend to disagree that gender alone makes someone more or less shitty, all other metrics equivalent. Might just be me thinking crazy things though. Entirely possible.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Gender alone isn't the issue. Its whether the cheating is a fling or branch swinging.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type. 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll agree that there's certainly degrees of cheating that make the act itself worse. But, my point is, I don't think gender factors into how shitty the cheating is AS MUCH AS the type of cheating it is.

That is to say, a guy having a fling with the barista and a gal hooking up with the pizza delivery man are, at least to me, on the same level, gender is a negligible factor.

Similarly, a woman stepping out on her husband in the hopes of latching permanently onto someone a "step up," be it in attractiveness, money, etc, is comparable to a man "upgrading" and leaving his starter wife to fend for herself. Both of these cases are IMO more deplorable than the casual flings, but when compared to each other in the same vein of cheating, I think gender is a very minute point to stress over.

Shitty people are shitty (in varying degrees), regardless of gender.

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B. 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I said to my wife one day "if you found out that I fucked a chick one night and never spoke to her again, or I was confiding my deepest emotions with a girl for over a year, what would be worse?". Can you guess what she said?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why does it have to be either or? I don’t think you would be happy with your wife if she was discussing things in your marriage with another man. It smacks of disrespect.

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B. 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most women would view it like my wife. Most men would view it the opposite. That's why the act of fucking is worse for women.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If your wife cheated “just because” and has no emotional attachment to the guy she cheated with, how would it suddenly make it better or more moral?

It's better because she has only undermined one pillar of the marriage. She hasn't destroyed the kids lives and she hasn't destroyed the family finances.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If a woman gets pregnant, it's gaunteeed to be hers no matter who the father.

But a guy might get stuck raising another man's kids

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Then, I guess my question to the “reds” would be that if there was a wife that did not break up her marriage, was good to him (including with sex) and stayed with him till the end of her days, while she went out once in a while to catch some strange, would that warrant making a fuss about? Because, and I’m just following their supposed logic here, such discussions about that would be silly as it does not “detract from her nobility or character”.

And let’s be honest, women like this aren’t some mythical characters, because they do exist. So then you can imagine my confusion at the outrage that would probably ensue regarding such a woman.

[–]ivegotsomequestions0Purple Pill Woman 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So far what I'm getting from the reds is that it's still different because 1) wife might get pregnant and force husband to unknowingly raise child, 2) wives don't fuck husbands while cheating, and 3) the marriage trade has historically been resources for fidelity and children. Of course #1 can be stopped now with very available effective birth control and paternity testing, #2 needs some sort of cite, and #3 may be true for some modern marriages but definitely has been well renegotiated between many couples.

So assuming that I don't get pregnant with someone else's child, keep fucking my husband, and we have a modern marriage where both are expected to contribute resources and fidelity, it seems like my cheating is no worse than his. That is my takeaway from an interesting thread which has needed to be posted for some time now.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So assuming that I don't get pregnant with someone else's child, keep fucking my husband, and we have a modern marriage where both are expected to contribute resources and fidelity, it seems like my cheating is no worse than his.

Yup. This pretty much sums it up. But watch them try to and come up with plot holes and a bunch of “B-b-but...”

That is my takeaway from an interesting thread which has needed to be posted for some time now.

Thanks! I’ve been meaning to post it for a while now. It escalated much faster than I thought it would, and most of the RP men were, as predicted, inconsistent in the logic of their responses.

It’s been entertaining.

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B. 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

When a women cheats, it's always with a man of higher value. If she can secure this man of perceived higher value or believes that she can find others of similar value, she leaves. If she can't, he never finds out.

When a man cheats, it's usually with a women of equal to lesser value. He has no intention of branch swinging, he just isn't getting his at home. If she finds out, either the value he brings isn't worth the damage to her reputation and she curbs him or she doesn't want to lose his value and takes him back; often giving him more sex so it doesnt happen again.

It's not that one is worse than the other, it's just that one person has an easier time coming out on top, so that persons cheating is seen as worse.

[–]OfSpock 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lots of women would prefer the guy take his cheating ass away from her.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No disagreement from me.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Marriage is for the children. The fact that women leave when they cheat is more dangerous for the well being of the kids.

Most marriages suck, but parents owe society non fucked kids.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (19 children) | Copy Link

That’s not the “red” thesis at all. Strawman. Show me where I or any red has said cheating is fine

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Silly disingenuous argument.

theultmatecad is red and advocates cheating and you know it. Cheating is even explicitly part of the dread ratchet. Plenty of cheaters on MRP.

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If they were red, they'd be getting divorced. And they aren't divorcing. So they ain't red

"Don't get married!" isn't the same thing as "Get divorced!" theultmatecad is senior endorsed under whatever account he's using now.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Many ECs are married. So is Rollo, Ironwood, etc.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't agree with "if they were red they'd be getting divorced".

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They don’t say it is “ok”. Only that it’s not as damaging.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, Cad advocates cheating and there are cheaters on MRP.

No one says it's "better" than female cheating. "Better" implies it has a more favorable moral component/effect.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 16 points17 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

TRP and the manosphere has always held that male cheating is "better" than female cheatign because men dont "leave" over cheating (aka 'break up the family' or 'abandon their older loyal wives')

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

No. “Less damaging”. Not “better”.

[–]concacanca 5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Are those not the same?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No. They're not.

[–]concacanca 6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not seeing it. Are cheaper and less expensive not the same also?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

They are. But the analogy is inapposite.

"Better" means "fundamentally improved from a prior state."

"less damaging" just means "not as bad as it was before".

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No. And it’s because they’re comparing it to female cheating.

So, no, it’s not better in terms of improved state of marriage. They claim that it’s “better” when compared to female cheating.

No one is confused at the meaning when someone says “The beef and the chicken both taste terrible, but at least the chicken is better”. The meaning is always clear.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're wrong.

No one is saying anyone's cheating is an "improved state of marriage".

THey are not saying it's "Better". They are saying it's "less bad".

You're just wrong.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

yes, youre right

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 19 points20 points  (133 children) | Copy Link

OK, playing devils advocate to CYV...

Lets say that male cheating and female cheating are equally emotionally damaging in all the ways we would commonly understand. Breach of trust, Destruction of the realtionship (if caught) etc etc etc. Basically, say we say that everything on a "general human level" is functionally the same.

Can we find anything additional to add to that that would make a female cheating worse than a male cheating ? Some injury the man can suffer, but the woman can never suffer.

I think we can.

I think that a female cheating may get pregnant. She may have the baby. And that the male may (believing the baby is his) love and raise that baby as his own, being deceived the whole time at much damage to himself and his genes interest in reproducing themslves.

A woman cannot suffer this damage from cheating, it is not even a possibility. If a baby came out of her vagina, she knows it is her own. If a male has a baby with another female, she cannot be "tricked into" nor is any way expected to raise that child as her own child.

So on this dimension... there is clearly additional damage that a cheating female can cause a male, that a cheating male cannot cause a female. She could get pregnant, and allow him by deception to raise the child of another man, putting effort and resources into that child that he may not have done had he known it was another mans child.

As we assumed all the normal human damage is identical... and there is this additional factor on one side only that would, by itself, mean "female cheating is worse than male cheating" due to this additional factor.

So... that'd make female cheating on average slightly worse.

Edit: And also I think you misunderstood the previous conversation which was about "loyalty" and not necessarily "goodness". The man who cheats but stays with his wife is more "loyal", if not necessarily "good" ... and, seriously ?, Downvoting a CYV comment on a CMV thread ? You girls really do take this stuff personally.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I think to further this, men and women have different ethics around cheating compared to each other, as a result of these reproductive differences.

Men and Women, imo, are just as likely to cheat on each other, but women are more likely to put up with it, because ultimately they're in it for the relationship, the support for herself and her children. Women don't like cheating, not because the man is having extramarital sex, but rather because the mans mistress is likely trying to poach him into an exclusive relationship with her, which poses a significant threat to the woman's reproductive goals.

Conversely, a man finds out about cheating, and if he isn't a spineless cuck, thats the end of the relationship. From that point on there will always be a significant chance that any child the woman produces won't be the mans, and from a male reproductive perspective, its better not to have a child at all then risk raising one that isn't their own.

[–]concacanca 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of all the posts here, I think this is the only one I agree with.

Odd to think that women being more loyal in the case of cheating actually makes male cheating better due to higher chance of reconciliation.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes, if OP ever replies to my comment this is exactly where I was going to go with this.

Because of this differential effect. In particular, the differential effect this has on genes rather than individuals, men are going to have evolved to take this harder than women.

Men are more interested in fidelity in a mate than women are (not that women aren't interested, but men are interested more). This is going to make infidelity more damaging to a males assessment of his wife than vice-versa.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

right on point. Have you ever read "the moral animal"? It covers this in excellent depth, working out a lot of the nuances and different situations, and how exactly we arrived to be like this.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, never read that one. As it sounds exactly up my street and amazon gave it a few stars I've just ordered it. Needed a new book. Thanks.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha You're welcome

[–]OfSpock 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any evidence of it? Becaus I have figures which show more women who file for divorce cite cheating as the reason.

[–]Freethetreees 17 points18 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

A man can get MULTIPLE women pregnant and spread his resources thin taking care of his multiple families. A significant enough lack of resources can spell death for legitimate children. That's worse.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yea, but his wife won't get stuck taking care of those kids

[–]speltspelt 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

she'll have to make up his deficit ,which is basically equivalent.

[–]concacanca 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesnt apply in most countries with a welfare state.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

A man can get MULTIPLE women pregnant and spread his resources thin taking care of his multiple families.

As can a woman. She can mother multiple children, and spread her resources thin mothering them all too.

A significant enough lack of resources can spell death for legitimate children. That's worse.

As can a mother who has too many children, and spreads her resources too thin, and causes one to die... thats equivalent too.

[–]Freethetreees 8 points9 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

She can mother multiple children

Not at once. And it takes 9 months to pop each one out. I'm saying a man can have multiple pregnant women simultaneously.

As can a mother who has too many children

Why would a woman have "too many children" in the first place? Men are the ones that spray and pray their gametes everywhere. It takes a lot of time and effort for a woman to make even one baby. If a woman doesn't have enough resources to take care of her existing children, that would mean she's likely starving, and a starving woman's body will typically have trouble getting pregnant in the first place, or naturally aborts any fetuses that do occur. This is NOT equivalent. Men are more likely let their existing children die for the sake of more sex, not women.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 2 points3 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Not at once. And it takes 9 months to pop each one out. I'm saying a man can have multiple pregnant women simultaneously.

He can. But thats irrelevant to the argument of "spreading resources too thin".

Both sexes can do that, albeit in different ways.

The damage from doing so comes from the "resources being too thin" not the method they used to get there.

This is still a bi-directional argument applicable to both sexes. BOTH can spread their resources too thin, killing a child. And it would be equally bad if either did it... regardless of the route either took to get there.

Why would a woman have "too many children" in the first place?

For the same reason any man would. I could make the argument "why would men have "too many childre" in the first place.

Men are the ones that spray and pray their gametes everywhere. It takes a lot of time and effort for a woman to make even one baby.

It does. And that plays into both sides of this equation (whilst bearing/nursing the next she is much less able to care for the others). She's much more at risk of depriving an existing child of resources by having the next as the man is... because at least his productive output doesn't drop for the 9-18-36 months it takes to bear, nurse and wean a child.

If a woman doesn't have enough resources to take care of her existing children, that would mean she's likely starving, and a starving woman's body naturally aborts any fetuses.

By the same argument any man without enough resources for another child is likely starving. And is therefore both less fertile, less horny and more likely to be diverting his time into finding food than he is into finding secondary mates.

In any case, this little bit is irrelevant. Because she wouldn't BE starving (and neither would he). They'd have enough NOW. But wouldn;t once one more child comes along.

If they are starving NOW the point at which there shouldn't have been another child was "the last time she/he had one". Which reverts to the argument where they're not starving, but would be with 1 more child.

[–]Freethetreees 1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

regardless of the route either took to get there

No. The route and method is important, you can't just ignore that.

I could make the argument "why would men have "too many childre" in the first place

Because they value (new) sex or their own children, obviously.

And is therefore both less fertile, less horny and more likely to be diverting his time into finding food than he is into finding secondary mates

Why would he be "less horny"? Men with adequate T levels are always horny, regardless of the situation at home. Men prioritize sex above all, certainly above provisioning for children.

Because she wouldn't BE starving (and neither would he). They'd have enough NOW. But wouldn;t once one more child comes along. If they are starving NOW the point at which there shouldn't have been another child was "the last time she/he had one". Which reverts to the argument where they're not starving, but would be with 1 more child

You're erecting these overly specific hypotheticals and ignoring the points I made. It's not a problem until they're starving, and once they've reached that point, both parents should stop making other babies. But men are less likely to stop. Women HAVE to stop, physically.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

No. The route and method is important, you can't just ignore that.

Well we're going to have to... because you can make up all sorts of shit about the route you think everyone takes that can swing your point one way or the other.

The real point here is "The child may suffer because there are no enough resources". I don't care whether we make up a story that this is because the female burned down the granary, or the male bought a ferrari, or any of the other routes you could use to get to "not enough resources".

The important point is that if there isn't enough and either the male OR the female does not have enough, thats bad for the child. So thats sex symmetrical.

Because they value (new) sex or their own children, obviously.

So, same with women. They could be having another child because they value new sex, obviously. Could even be with the the husband. Doesn't matter. What matters is that females as well as males can go over their resource limit to the point that a child is in danger.

Why would he be "less horny"?

A starving man ? You are aware the body shuts down LOTS of drives and instincts in starving people ? Sex drive is one of them. It's shut down as biologically as the females ability to get pregnant is, and for the same reason. Genes know starving bodies have better things to be doing with their time.

Men with adequate T levels are always horny, regardless of the situation at home.

Unless they're starving. Because starving men will both NOT have adequate T levels AND will be having their sex drive turned off by other means.

We were talking about starving people here.

Men prioritize sex above all, certainly above provisioning for children.

NOT above starving to death no. We're horny, but it turns out... not that horny. Not enough to be putting "food gathering" above "seducing women" if we are starving.

You're erecting these overly specific hypotheticals and ignoring the points I made.

No I'm not ignoring the point you made.

The point you made was "at the point she was starving a womans body shuts down the ability to have new children".

However, thats the point at which she has already gone over the resource limit and her children are also already starving and the damage from "having too many kids" is already being done. Likely one or more of her children are also too dying of starvation at the point her body is shutting down.

So that little biological escape hatch is shutting too late for the point you wished to make (women would NOT have a child they could not support). In this little scenario where her body is shutting down pregnancy due to starvation, it is ALREADY shutting of milk to existing kids and her existing kids TOO are also starving through lack of provision.

Her not getting pregnant did NOT prevent the situation, because by definition the situation has already happened if she is already that short of nutrition.

[–]Freethetreees 3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Her not getting pregnant did NOT prevent the situation, because by definition the situation has already happened if she is already that short of nutrition

It prevents further escalation of the situation. But there's nothing stopping men from continuing to make more babies simultaneously with multiple women. I don't believe starving men don't have sex drives, the rape rate in third world African countries is enough proof of that.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

It prevents further escalation of the situation.

Well as would his sex drive going down regarding starving. But I think we can declare with the whole family starving, this damage is done. And we can agree that both can cause this damage. So it's sex symmetrical. Which is all we need for this argument.

But there's nothing stopping men from continuing to make more babies simultaneously with multiple women.

There is. He's starving and using that time to look for food to eat.

They're not likel to get the hots for the starving man who cannot feed himself and is begging them for food.

I don't believe starving men don't have sex drives, the rape rate in third world African countries is enough proof of that.

And that rape will be carried out by guys who are relatively well fed. Because they guys doing the raping are usually the guys also stealing everyone elses food too. The guys sweeping into town with all the guns, and raiding the granaries and raping the women.

I don't think the epidemic of rape in africa is all the starving men. I think it's the well fed "men with guns" who are causing everyone else to be starving by stealing their output at the pointy end of an AK.

[–]Freethetreees 1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

And that rape will be carried out by guys who are relatively well fed

Relatively well fed in a starving country is still starving by objective standards.

I don't think the epidemic of rape in africa is all the starving men

I don't think so either, but if you think none of the men raping are starving, I have a bridge to sell you :P It doesn't take a gun or a well fed body to rape vulnerable women in a country where no one cares about rape. I do not believe starving men stop caring about sex. Males (in most all species) prioritize sex above all other physical needs. There are plenty of male animals that literally die after having sex, of starvation no less!

[–][deleted]  (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Silly laydee people cheating is not personal the men just want to jizz somewhere new, that does not mean he is not devoted to his wife.

Who is making this personal ? She asked for a reason why male cheating is "better" than female cheating. She got one. I'm not saying it's good. I started out by saying that the human damage is equal on each side. This makes them both "bad" but female cheating "slightly worse" as more damage can be done.

It's an intellectual argument about relative damage. It's not a personal attack on anyone in particular, or even females in general.

Why you wanna make cheating all personal?

Why have you got to make intellectual discussion about human behaviour and human responses personal ? YES, it should be done non-personally.

There are things that are true, or not true, that are irrespective of your personal feelings about them. If you're going to take everything as a personal assault you're going to close your mind to the truth all over the place because it hurts your feelings, or feels like a personal slight.

Thats not good for understanding reality how it actually is.

See if you were more logical and rational you would see everything is all good.

No, not all good.... See it as it really is... Thats the important thing. Frequently thats quite bad. Often it's distressing, or annoying, or in other way triggers emotional issues. Nevertheless, seeing it for what it actually is is important.

No-one on this little sub-thread is arguing male cheating is good.

SOME people can't understand an argument that says "Both are bad, but this one of the two is worse" as anything other than than an argument that "the other is good". Thats just a silly way to assess that.

Shooting an adult in the face is bad. If I make a case that shooting a child in the face is worse no-one should take that as a case that shooting an adult in the face is therefore good all of a sudden and that I'm seeking to defend people who shoot adults in the face.

You can see it perfectly clearly there. But not here. Because you're talking it as a personal argument, a slight against your group, here... but not there (unless you are a person who shoots children in the face, in which case you might feel aggrieved enough to downvote).

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Much hamster in your reply.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Why would I be rationalising this ?

What am I rationalising ? I am not a cheater, nor ever have been.

I am explaining clearly what I also very clearly said in the original post.

You've somehow managed to hamster "This is bad for both sexes, but slightly worse in the female" into "if the male did this it is good" when I was very clear thats not what I was saying.

See to the beam in your own eye.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Pole when did I say you ever cheated? Head tilt. Anyway going out for a bike ride, it is sunny today.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

When you said I was "hamstering" this.

Thats rationalising your own behaviour in a way to make it seem more morally acceptable to you. Thats literally what RP means when it accuses a woman of "hamstering".

So when you take a comment where I am talking about male cheating, and say "Much Hamster in your reply" thats an implict accusation that I am trying to rationalise my own behaviour.

I wanted to deal with that head-on... even though I knew you were probably mis-using/mis-understanding the term and meant a wider thing with it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This actually makes sense.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

circlejerking

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Be civil.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this 11 points12 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

So female cheating is a-okay if she has her tubes tied. Sweet!

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely Socky.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

No. Not neccessarily.

No more than male cheating is perfectly OK if he wears a condom.

This was an argument about relative damage. Both male and female cheating is "bad". Female cheating for this reason is "a little worse".

If she has her tubes tied... then suddenly it's not "a little worse" it is merely "just as bad as male cheating". How bad you think that is depends on how bad you'd think it is if a male cheated on you.

Tube tying would just equalise this again. No-one here is saying male cheating is GOOD (although, god knows I've answered 3 female replies here so far that jumped straight to this unjustified conclusion). They're both bad. Female cheating is just a bit worse. Unless she got her tubes tied. Then it'd only be as exactly as bad as male cheating.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So it sounds like all female cheating would be equal to men's if every woman agreed to DNA testing of their kid.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, that'd be another way to square it.

If every child was compulsorily DNA tested before the father signed the birth certificate, and the father informed of any result, and so with no father being asked to look after a child that is not his unless he voluntarily agrees to do so with full knowledge of his non-paternity that would indeed fully equalise the situation and make male and female cheating equally bad as OP claims is the case now.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I understand where you’re going with this, but condoms prevent pregnancies both ways. If the guy that she cheats with wears a condom, then, even by your logic, it’s all well and good and equal to male cheating. She doesn’t even need to get her tubes tied.

The same risk of pregnancy that the man takes on by using a condom on another woman is the same risk of pregnancy that the wife would carry if she sleeps with a man wearing a condom. Condoms don’t carry different risks if you’re the husband or the wife.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I understand where you’re going with this, but condoms prevent pregnancies both ways. If the guy that she cheats with wears a condom, then, even by your logic, it’s all well and good and equal to male cheating. She doesn’t even need to get her tubes tied.

Except that condoms aren't as effective and his personal feelings over the matter are going to reflect an ancestral environment in which there was no contraception and so cuckoldry was a real concern.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If condoms aren’t as effective, then it also means that it’s also not as effective at preventing him from getting one or more of his mistresses pregnant.

Do you seriously think that there aren’t any personal feelings over the matter of a woman having to share her husband’s time, resources and attention with another child or another family? Or worse, having that child live with them under the same roof and having to contribute to raising him?

[–]Freethetreees 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Female cheating is NOT worse. They are equally bad and equally damaging, just in different ways.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, I appreciate thats your opinion.

Can you in any way justify that ?

As my comment says.... cheating damages men and women equally through lots of dimensions.

I have found an additional way in this damages men on top of all that, in a way it does not damage women. That would make it worse for a woman.

Are you going to justify your personal opinion by either pointing out some balancing way in which a woman can be hurt, but not a man OR show some way in which this aspect is NOT damaging to men.

Because you'd need to go one of those two routes to invalidate my point.

Just asserting your opinion doesn't really help.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean...it only makes logical sense.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

No one said that.

Jesus H. Christ, the strawmanning going on in this thread...

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Chill Lewis. I'm obviously being sarcastic.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Then you're circlejerking.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sarcasm has it's place when pointing out potential flaws in an argument.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Cheating isn't a okay for ethier, but ya. At least the guy won't spend his retirement money on kids that aren't his

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and the man can get one or multiple of his mistresses pregnant and she and her children could be stuck having to share her husband’s love, resources and time with another woman’s child. In some cases, that child might even move into her home and she has to face and be reminded of the living proof of her husband’s infidelity everyday. (Game of Thrones, anyone?...I guess we all know where Jon Snow actually came from, but still. Catherine never did.)

And also I think you misunderstood the previous conversation which was about "loyalty" and not necessarily "goodness". The man who cheats but stays with his wife is more "loyal", if not necessarily "good"

In a marriage, what do you consider as loyal? If a wife cheats but doesn’t leave her husband, would you consider her as loyal?

Downvoting a CYV comment on a CMV thread ? You girls really do take this stuff personally.

I didn’t downvote you.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and the man can get one or multiple of his mistresses pregnant and she and her children could be stuck having to share her husband’s love, resources and time with another woman’s child.

Or she could get pregnant multiple times, by multiple men, leaving the husband to shack up with one of them. It's symmetrical.

In some cases, that child might even move into her home and she has to face and be reminded of the living proof of her husband’s infidelity everyday.

As indeed a man may have to face the child another man "begot" on his wife every single day too, it's symmetrical.

In a marriage, what do you consider as loyal? If a wife cheats but doesn’t leave her husband, would you consider her as loyal?

Well it's more loyal than her leaving him for the other man. Even if it's less loyal than no cheating at all.

I didn’t downvote you.

Didn't say you did.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s symmetrical

My argument from the beginning! Male cheating isn’t less bad and female cheating isn’t worse. RPers just like to whine over it. And men dont like being cheated on, yet the downplay the way it hurts and affects women that have to go through it. Highly hypocritical.

Cheating on both sides is terrible in equal measure.

Didn't say you did.

Okay then great.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My argument from the beginning! Male cheating isn’t less bad and female cheating isn’t worse.

I meant this issue is symmetrical. The cuckolding one (and arguably the STD one) are not.

If 1001 issues are symmetrical. But there is an additional form of damage a male can suffer, that a female cannot (cuckoldry), then female infidelity is more damaging than male infidelity. The males suffer the same 1001 problems as females plus this.

That makes female infidelity worse in an objective sense.

RPers just like to whine over it.

They do. Not a big fan of that myself...

And men dont like being cheated on, yet the downplay the way it hurts and affects women that have to go through it. Highly hypocritical.

Well, no not necessarily hypocritical. No-one is saying "I should be able to whine but women shouldn't".

Cheating on both sides is terrible in equal measure.

Cheating on both sides is terrible. But not in strictly equal measure. Due to cuckoldry, or the risk of it, it's slightly more terrible when a female does it. She can cause more harm doing so.

I suppose in a similar way you can argue that A woman punching a man in the face is "just as bad" as a man punching a woman in the face.

I would argue that a man punching a woman in the face is slightly worse, because he can do slightly more damage.

Well, it's the same argument here. Women can do more damage due to cuckoldry.

That makes female infidelity worse than the reverse.... in the same way it makes males punching females in the face worse than the reverse.

More damage can be caused.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yet another reason to get a vasectomy ;)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Amen

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

So... that'd make female cheating on average slightly worse.

Bit of an understatement there.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 2 points3 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Well I was trying to understate the case to make it easier to defend. If I'd said it made it "a lot worse" I'd not only have to defend the case per se but also defend how it made is "a lot" worse as well.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Actually, when you think about it, there's an equal counterpoint. A man who cheats may very well end up impregnating another woman. The man would then be obligated to leave his original woman for the new one and their kid.

So, if you think of it that way, cheating is the same for men and women.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 2 points3 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

No. Thats sex symmetrical.

SHE could have sex with another man and SHE could get impregnated by another man and SHE could feel obligated to leave her original family for the new one and their kid.

So.... even if you think of it this way.... this cuts both sides of gender the same way. This would still make both sides just as bad and not tip the scales one way or the other.

In a way cuckoldry does not, because that MUST be asymetrical by sex, and so that does tip the scale in the direction of "male is bad, female is worse".

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

So you're saying since the man can get cucked, this ultimately makes things worse?

Not sure I 100% agree with that. According to traditional gender roles, men are supposed to function as providers. So if a man cheats with another woman and she has his baby, then wouldn't that make the original woman a sucker?

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

So you're saying since the man can get cucked, this ultimately makes things worse?

I'm saying there are lots of bad things about cheating. These are sex symmetrical. So they're equally bad for both sexes.

Then there is at least one additional bad thing about it for men, that cannot apply to women. This makes infidelity against a man "worse" than infidelity against a woman. Which is still bad, just not quite as bad. Due to this additional factor.

Not sure I 100% agree with that. According to traditional gender roles, men are supposed to function as providers. So if a man cheats with another woman and she has his baby, then wouldn't that make the original woman a sucker?

No, not if he continues to provide for her children and not the bastard. In that deal she lost nothing.

There is a risk of abandonment of the female and her kids with the husband by the male (with him shacking up with Miss-24-and-perky-tits.... but thats only as great as the risk of the abandonment of the male and his kids with the wife (with her shacking up with Mr-Hunky-in-his-leather-jacket).

Thats sex symmetrical as an outcome. Cuckoldry is not. If the baby came out of her vagina she nows it's hers. But he doesn't know i's his. This makes female infidelity potentially more damaging than male infidelity as everything else bad about it can happen to both...but THIS can only happen to a male.

[–]speltspelt 5 points6 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

men are basically always spending money, time, effort to cheat, this fantasy where male cheating is ever free doesn't exist. Mating effort takes away from reproductive effort.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes, it does. Thats why in our evolutionary past this effort to cheat must have had a payoff, despite your usual insistence to the contrary (or men with non-cheater genes would dominate the species, and men wouldn't cheat).

I agree it's not free. But, again, in the context of this argument the female effort put into cheating isn't "free" either, so thats another symmetrical argument that can't balance the risk of cuckoldry which makes female cheating slightly worse.

[–]OfSpock 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

They need people to cheat with. They can can only cheat within that subgroup of people. The example I have seen is that men fathered an average of four children each, cheaters could end up with a fifth child, knocking some other guy down to three. If however, most of the cheaters wives were also cheating, that gives all the guy three kids with their wife and one with someone else's wife.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No, not if he continues to provide for her children and not the bastard. In that deal she lost nothing.

That would take one cold hearted man.

There is a risk of abandonment of the female and her kids with the husband by the male (with him shacking up with Miss-24-and-perky-tits.... but thats only as great as the risk of the abandonment of the male and his kids with the wife (with her shacking up with Mr-Hunky-in-his-leather-jacket).

Thats sex symmetrical as an outcome. Cuckoldry is not. If the baby came out of her vagina she nows it's hers. But he doesn't know i's his. This makes female infidelity potentially more damaging than male infidelity as everything else bad about it can happen to both...but THIS can only happen to a male.

Hmmm. I'm trying to poke holes in this but I think you got me convinced.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That would take one cold hearted man.

That was, and had been, explicitly the deal forever.

Heirs (sons and daughters with the legitimate wife) get all the provisioning.

Bastards (sons and daughters with people not the legitimate wife) get no provisioning.

Thats what hapenned to bastards. The only exception was when the man was soooooo wealthy he could provision the 2nd a little without affecting the first. Kings and the like. Other than that, bastards got fuck all.

And the reason was.... How did you know the bastard was really yours ? You had reason to know that for the mate-guarded wife, but not for the woman who sleeps with men she isn't married too.

Thats how it worked. Still does, really, unless the law gets involved and makes him pay child support. Thats WHY there is the law, to force him to do so. Men didn't without a law to force them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, makes a lot more sense now.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. Fuck raising another man's kids. It's allot of work and money raising kids

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Jokes on them. I'm retiring early and going minimalist. I'll be back in the lowest tax bracket

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Reminds me of this greentext lol.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

They take this EXTREMELY personally.

[–]Freethetreees 10 points11 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

As would men, if women insisted that their cheating was "not as damaging" and therefor excusable.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

No one said "and thereforE excusable". Please show me where I or anyone else have said "male cheating is excusable and is perfectly morally, socially and relationally acceptable".

Stop strawmanning this.

[–]Freethetreees 11 points12 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Even though no one outright said it, it's VERY MUCH implied. There's a lot of gaslighting going on in this thread. Women are accurately reading through the lines and reds are going "nuh uh, didn't specifically say those words dummy".

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No. You INFER that based on your biases and prejudices. It is not IMPLIED.

I did not call anyone "dummy".

[–]Freethetreees 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You think all these people inferring the same thing from the same statement all have the same exact "biases and prejudices"? It couldn't possibly be they're reading into what is blatantly implied.

How do you feel about statements like: "women lying to men is not as damaging", "women abusing men is not as damaging", "women using men is not as damaging"? Would you suspect the person saying those statements might be endorsing women lying, abusing, and using men?

[–]the_calibre_cat 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How do you feel about statements like: "women lying to men is not as damaging", "women abusing men is not as damaging", "women using men is not as damaging"? Would you suspect the person saying those statements might be endorsing women lying, abusing, and using men?

The contemporary social narrative DOES excuse women doing all these things to men

[–]Freethetreees 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Not the point. The point is that the manosphere (people like Lewis) do not like those statements for the same reason women don't like this one.

[–]the_calibre_cat 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure, but you can hardly be upset about their being upset when the statements that's upset you ARE actually met with significant social punishment, yet the statements that upset them really aren't.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Lol there are countless posts about how men spin plates but the moment a plate sleeps with someone else the man gets all butthurt.

[–]concacanca 0 points1 point  (23 children) | Copy Link

Why don't you post a few for us to laugh at?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok I posted several. Multiple responses due to multiple posts

[–]concacanca 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks!

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]concacanca 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also about a dude running into a girl whilst with another girl. No butthurt.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This one is particularly gross. Especially in the light of the whole friendzone vs fuckzone debacle that we had recently. With all the men talking about how apparently cruel it is to friendzone a guy and some of them giving “tips” to women on how to avoid friendzoning a guy. Lol.

And then these guys would call me evil when because of this, I turn a blind eye to women that use men and dangle sex in order to get free stuff. No more sympathy. It’s a dog eat dog world apparently.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Look at the top comment! "Feelings aren't out of the question, you know."

Dangle bait, get her over there, smash.

Repeat several times, then use

"You know we're just going to end up in each others' arms again"

The next time. Smash some more, then wait for either resignation, or plate breakage.

Just because commitment is out of the question doesn't mean don't imply it as bait.

[–]concacanca 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

This isn't what you were talking about at all..... It's just a guy asking about how to handle a commitment talk. No butthurt at all.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Look at the top comment! "Feelings aren't out of the question, you know."

Dangle bait, get her over there, smash.

Repeat several times, then use

"You know we're just going to end up in each others' arms again"

The next time. Smash some more, then wait for either resignation, or plate breakage.

Just because commitment is out of the question doesn't mean don't imply it as bait.

[–]concacanca 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not anyone getting butthurt over a plate though. It's a dick move but it's not butthurt lol

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]concacanca 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This guy is seeing a plate out with her boyfriend and asking about how to play it for maximum advantage. I guess it's eye of the reader whether he's butthurt but doesn't really to me.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]concacanca 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This one is a dude asking how to handle her seeing him with another girl not the other way around

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

You girls really do take this stuff personally.

😒

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Well, c'mon.

No-one was downvoting it for being low quality content. No-one was downvoting it for being insulty or trolly. That left personal preference. Couldn't see any reason why a man might wish to downvote it... that seemed to leave a female who was NOT happy that someone had said something that could be portrayed as a negative about women.

I maintain it was a likely supposition.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't know who downvoted you but why are you taking it so personally, it was only directed against your argument, why are your so unhappy? So triggered?

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not unhappy nor triggered.

I happened to mention it as I was editing in a bit about loyalty for OP, and as I did so I saw I'd gone to '0' ... and I it's annoying to see people break the subs rules in a way that the sub can't counteract. So I called them out as I wrote the edit.

In addition, I've now had 3 separate females reply erecting the same strawman in order to burn it down, over the same wrong point that I'm somehow saying male infidelity is good. Which in itself is frustrating as I'd rather argue the point I had made instead of their strawmen.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The females is not cooperating. It is frustrating.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The females are erecting strawmen and slapping themselves on the back about how insightful they are and how magnificent their mighty strawman looks, and completely ignoring the real point being made. That is frustrating.

I can see you in the thread below slapping Socky on the back for making the exact same mistake you made. Yeah. It's frustrating to see people deliberately misconstrue your point, and then pretend they hadn't done so when corrected and continue to labour on that false point and not address the real one.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Well, c'mon.

No-one was downvoting it for being low quality content. No-one was downvoting it for being insulty or trolly. That left personal preference. Couldn't see any reason why a man might wish to downvote it...

Maybe because they disagree with you or think your logic doesn't follow?

that seemed to leave a female who was NOT happy that someone had said something that could be portrayed as a negative about women.

There's plenty of dudes who would disagree. There's also plenty of women who don't disagree or take your comment personally.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

There's plenty of dudes who would disagree.

Yep checking in.

This whole fear of raising someone else's kid is hugely overblown by terps.

[–]the_calibre_cat 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This whole fear of raising someone else's kid is hugely overblown by terps.

I think it's a legit fear.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's extremely rare and if you're really so paranoid just get a DNA test, unless you live in France nothing is stopping you.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's so bad that they assume they are going to statistically get cucked, regardless of any actual evidence in the relationship.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey, the fear of being raped is hugely overblown by women, but at least they get to lie about it and fuck someone over. Men cannot do that. The best they got is a paternity test because no one wants to be that 2% it happens to.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe because they disagree with you or think your logic doesn't follow?

Could be. I'd expect them in that case have replied gleefully pointing out the flaw in the logic. Happy to have skewered the view they didn't like so expertly.

Just downvoting and not replying is not the action of someone who dislikes a comment and has spotted a flaw in its argument.

There's plenty of dudes who would disagree. There's also plenty of women who don't disagree or take your comment personally.

Yes, I wasn't saying all women would disagree or take it personally. But I'm pretty sure the one downvoting had, and that it was a female in this case.

I'd presume it was a male if the argument was something like "Men are pussies and here is why..." for the same reason. Someone had taken it personally.

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah! 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Hey I like playing DA.

Man cheats. Gets other women preggers. He provisions rugrats pumped out by these women. Less provision for wife and children. He brings back STDs. She gets STDs and can't have any more healthy children.

Money and resources meant for her children is being partly given to bastard children, meaning the wife is provisioning and helping raise children she does not wish to provision. Bastard children may have a claim to father's estate when he dies, ruining the family legacy.

Marriage contract broken. Family name and legacy in tatters. Wife and legitimate children angry and broken and without the provisioning they would otherwise have had.

Contrast this with a kid or two that didn't have the DNA of the father. He provisions but never finds out they're not his. Family legacy continues.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

All thats sex reversible though... It could just as easily be...

Woman cheats. Gets preggers by other man. She provisions rugrats pumped out by these other men. Less provision for original family. She brings back STDs. He gets STDs and can't have any more healthy children.

Money and resources meant for his children is being partly given to bastard children, meaning the husband is provisioning and helping raise children he does not wish to provision. Bastard children may have a claim to mother's estate when she dies, ruining the family legacy.

Marriage contract broken. Family name and legacy in tatters. Husband and legitimate children angry and broken and without the provisioning they would otherwise have had.

All of this is sex reversible, except for the risk of cuckoldry. Being forced to unwittingly raise other guys children. Thats the only bit that isn't sex reversible (as she knows if it comes out her vagina it's hers). Thats the non-removable difference that makes female cheating slightly worse.

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nicely put.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (60 children) | Copy Link

Strawman.

The argument is that male cheating isn’t always as damaging to the marriage as female cheating is. No one says male cheating is “better” or “tolerable”. Just “not as damaging”.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

yes, this is what they say

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (39 children) | Copy Link

If the cheater is looking for a replacement LTR then of course the cheating is more damaging than just a fling. This isn't gender specific. If the goal is to replace your current SO the cheater has betrayed the relationship on multiple levels. However, if the women just had sex with the pizza delivery guy or the man hooked up with the girl from the coffee shop the betrayal is much more limited.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

Men and women cheating has different effects on the marriage and on the noncheating spouse. Because men and women are different. Men and women cheat for different reasons.

If the woman has fucked the pizza delivery guy, that has different effects than the man hooking up with the barista. Woman fucking a different guy, even once, fundamentally changes the marriage, and her attitude toward it and her husband. Because the highest level of commitment she can give a man is sexual access to her body. The highest level of commitment a man can give a woman is access to his resources.

Her cheating on a man deprives him of the thing he wants most. The only real thing of value a man gets from marriage is access to his wife's body for sex. But a man cheating on his wife DOES NOT deprive her of the thing she wants most - marital status and access to his money, time, labor, attention, and resources.

That's why male cheating is less damaging - wife still gets what she wants. Female cheating is much more damaging - husband is deprived of what he wants and bargained for, and in fact the only real thing of value he gets from marriage.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

It's comments like this that really drive home how shallow red pills view of relationships are. You really think it all comes down to sexual access and resources? Relationships are so much more than that.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

At bottom, when you get all the way down to it, she needs his resources; he needs her body for sex. There's more that gets put on top of that. But the foundation is his resources; her body. Because if he didn't bring resources, she'd have nothing to do with him. If she didn't bring pussy, he'd have nothing to do with her.

Call it shallow all you like, it is what it is and we all know it.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

I think you're making the mistake of assuming because thats how you and your wife operate that's how all relationships operate. I'm perfectly open to the idea that theres a slice of society that is really that shallow. But in my experience I've never met a man who's baseline goal is to find a woman to fuck. Most people are looking for someone with compatible goals and life expectations that they can love forever. Maybe in your slice of society you're just associating with a lot of shallow men and women?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't talking about me or my wife. I was talking about the vast majority of husband wife relationships and what their foundations are.

EDIT: And I'm not too interested in the opinions of a person whose Reddit account is all of 2 days old.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

You're going to need to have a source if you want to claim that the vast majority of relationships work that way.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

No, I don't need a "source" other than my own observations and conclusions drawn therefrom, and the observations of about 200,000 other men.

"A "baseline goal" of finding a woman to fuck." That is NOT what I said. What I said was, that the thing of value men get from marriage is access to her body for sex. And men want to fuck. If you've never met a man who wants to fuck, well, I have to question the breadth of your experience and knowledge.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Oh okay. Well my observations contradict yours. So I guess we're at an impasse.

[–]wattwattyOld and reddish 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

But in my experience I've never met a man who's baseline goal is to find a woman to fuck.

In my experience, I have never met a man who did anything, ever for any reason other than to get a woman to fuck. Literally anything beyond eating, defecation and voiding, sleeping, and finding shelter.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Weird.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes. This.

Of course men want to fuck. Hoofle has to be coming at this from the POV of a 19 year old idealistic "progressive" college student who's had maybe 2 "serious" boyfriends, has no kids and has never been married.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol wrong.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. I'll comment where you claim to be a 25 year old married woman.

[–]Willow-girlACAB (All Cows Are Beautiful) 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Her cheating on a man deprives him of the thing he wants most. The only real thing of value a man gets from marriage is access to his wife's body for sex.

So even if the wife brings in six figures, nahhh, her husband doesn't care about that -- he's just warm for her form? Color me skeptical.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 4 points5 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

This is even still invalid because in relationships with that kind of dynamic, the wife wants exclusive access to his money, time, labor, attention and resources. Just as he wants exclusive access to her body.

Considering that a man does not just walk into a bar to pick out which of the new women he wants to fuck without expending time, attention, money and other benefits before the new woman would fuck him, he’s still cheated.

He wants exclusive access to her and she wants exclusive access to him. If he’s happy doling out some of that access to other women, then he should also be happy with her doling out some of that her access to other men. Anything else would be cheating.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

No, it's not invalid, you just disagree with it.

"I disagree with you" != "your opinion has no validity". Reported for invalidating others' opinions which is a violation of the rules.

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Both of you can calm down.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Both of you can calm down.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

No. And it’s because they’re comparing it to female cheating.

And is also why I put the term “better” in quotes.

No one is confused at the meaning when someone says “The beef and the chicken both taste terrible, but at least the chicken is better”. The meaning is always clear.

Plus “more tolerable” is most definitely a term that is commonly used with regards to male cheating.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

You're wrong.

No one is saying anyone's cheating is an "improved state of marriage".

THey are not saying it's "Better". They are saying it's "less bad".

You're just wrong.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

No one is saying anyone's cheating is an "improved state of marriage".

Wtf? I literarily just stated that no one says male cheating is better in terms of improved state of marriage, but reds assert that its better when compared to female cheating.

THey are not saying it's "Better". They are saying it's "less bad".

Okay now it’s obvious that you don’t have much of an argument and you just want to nitpick to cover it up. I’ve literarily compared it to the statement that “these two things are bad, but at least this one is better”. And no one can mistake the meaning when that’s said. That’s where the comparison comes from. Jesus.

Saying “you’re wrong” multiple times, is also piss poor excuse for an argument.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

It's not nitpicking. "BEtter" is not the same as "Less bad".

Saying “you’re wrong” multiple times, is also piss poor excuse for an argument.

Tell that to u/planejane. If she can argue in that fashion, then I can too.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type. 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Dude, I picked it up from you. I'm astonished it went over your head but I was intentionally trying to imitate your dismissive manner when dealing with anybody who shares an opposing view.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you get to argue that way, I do too.

Would you all prefer it if I just said "I disagree with you, my experience is different from yours, agree to disagree"?

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type. 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I honestly don't care how you argue bud. You are so closed off to any information, be it statistical or qualitative, that does not confirm your view.

90% of the interesting people to talk to either have you on ignore or just don't respond. I have a policy of not interacting with you unless you directly reply to my comments, and now that you're probably going to use this information to hound me, I'll probably be adding my name to that list, too.

It's not that you don't have good points from time to time, it's that your execution of presenting them comes from such a place of stubborn victimhood that few folks even want to bother discussing things with you.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

It's not nitpicking. "BEtter" is not the same as "Less bad".

It absolutely is when it’s used to compare two bad things. Stating that something is “better than bad” is the same as saying it’s “less bad”.

Just admit that you don’t have an argument and you had just been itching to accuse a bluepiller of strawmanning all day.

Tell that to u/planejane. If she can argue in that fashion, then I can too.

Bringing up your arguments with other users is an even worse excuse for an argument. Jesus.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type. 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Bringing up your arguments with other users is an even worse excuse for an argument. Jesus.

Is it worse, or is it simply "more bad?" 😂🤣

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

😂

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

OK, I think it's clear you have nothing and are resorting to personal attack now. So you've reduced it down that far.

I'm done here.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

There was no personal attack here. I made observations about you. I attacked your arguments, and not you. Last time I checked, that’s how arguments usually go. And it’s not against the rules to do so. Whether or not you’re sensitive about that, is your issue to deal with.

I'm done here.

Of course you are. Predictable as always. Bye Lewis!

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

This comment was reported for being rude. Please be civil.

[–]___Morgan__ 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Female cheating is worse on average because women have a bigger chance to get pregnant, catch most STDs or get raped. Men are also much better at separating intimacy from sex on average.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-and-sex-in-the-digital-age/201707/why-infidelity-is-so-different-men-and-women

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you have a wife that’s at home that takes care of all or most of the household duties, ensures that you’re fed and takes care of the children, and even has sex with you on a reasonable basis

Most men do not have this at all.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A husband can't "cuck" his wife. It is basically impossible for a man to secretly father a child and get his wife to raise it as her own.

AFAIK, under Roman law, if a child was born in wedlook it was 100% the responsibility of the husband and if born out of wedlock it was 100% the responsibility of the mother. A cheating husband put zero financial or domestic burden on the wife while a cheating wife could force the husband to shoulder the burden of raising another man's child. Cheating husbands was decidedly less problematic than cheating wives.

You can play sematic games about "better", "less damaging" or "less problematic" but it really doesn't matter as using arguments and examples from ancient history to either challenge or support your view circa 2018 is moot at best.

There is still a bit of carry-over in that a man cannot trick his wife into raising another woman's child as her own.

Given the nature and strictness of child support laws, a married couple can have resources taken from them to pay for the husband's bastard child, but even condoms are 97% effective (86% with "typical use" - ie. including careless and stupid people) and if you already have kids, why would you not get a vasectomy?

A more difficult argument is not about the cheating itself, but the underlying motivation for the cheating and which is more toxic in a relationship.

So " men are more likely to cite sexual motivations for infidelity and are less likely to fall in love with an extramarital partner. Women, she says, tend to have an emotional connection with their lover"

As it is put elsewhere: " Women cheat just as much as men, and their affairs are more dangerous. . . women are more likely to cheat for emotional satisfaction. . . Becoming emotionally invested in another person means you've likely checked out of your marriage. But if it's just sex, it's less about attachment and more about a hurtful mistake."

In a turnaround of many TRP complaints, women cheat because they mean it: Women are also less likely than men to have an affair that "just happens" because they tend to think longer and harder about the situation, experts say.

So for all the talk about a woman's lack of sexual agency and the "oops, I just fell on his dick" phenomenon, cheating is a reversal of that. Women plan it out carefully rather than it just being a situation that arises.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are two types of cheating. Flings where the cheater doesn't want a LTR and the type where the cheater is looking for a new LT partner. The second type of cheating is obviously much more detrimental than the first. A woman who fucks the pool boy hasn't destroyed her family. A woman who has an affair with her kid's high school math teacher with the hopes of making it LT has.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is a male speaking. Who I take care of, protect, and provide for is a more important person than who I sleep with. Taking care of, protecting and providing for others is a hell of a lot more trouble and work than gaming a woman into spreading her legs.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Curious: Are you RP?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess.

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It is the cheated partner that gets to decide whether the marriage continues, so your post doesn't make much sense.

Female cheating has an inevitable emotional and genetic angle, and that is why men usually junk cheating wives.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It is the cheated partner that gets to decide whether the marriage continues, so your post doesn't make much sense.

How doesn't it make sense? I never said that the cheated partner isn't the one that decides whether the marriage continues. I fail to see what this comment has to do with my post, except to express some weird bitterness about the fact that women no longer put up with male cheating as they used to.

Female cheating has an inevitable emotional and genetic angle, and that is why men usually junk cheating wives.

They don't actually. And there is an emotional and genetic angle to male cheating as well, as he can get one of his mistresses pregnant. Statistics show that men are slightly more likely to stay with cheating wives than vice versa. Women are more likely to initiate divorce and male infidelity is one of the major reasons. So male cheating is kinda more likely to lead to divorce than female cheating.

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It is the cheated partner that gets to decide whether the marriage continues, so your post doesn't make much sense.

How doesn't it make sense? I never said that the cheated partner isn't the one that decides whether the marriage continues. I fail to see what this comment has to do with my post, except to express some weird bitterness about the fact that women no longer put up with male cheating as they used to.

Your post gives agency to the cheating partner in terms of the continuation of the relationship - which they don't have.

Female cheating has an inevitable emotional and genetic angle, and that is why men usually junk cheating wives.

They don't actually. And there is an emotional and genetic angle to male cheating as well, as he can get one of his mistresses pregnant.

She doesn't have to raise those kids thinking that they are hers. Maternity fraud, outside of science fiction, is impossible physically.

Statistics show that men are slightly more likely to stay with cheating wives than vice versa. Women are more likely to initiate divorce and male infidelity is one of the major reasons. So male cheating is kinda more likely to lead to divorce than female cheating.

You have mixed up your stats. It is well known that males are less likely to forgive a cheating wife than vice versa.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your post gives agency to the cheating partner in terms of the continuation of the relationship - which they don't have.

Um, where does it do that?

She doesn't have to raise those kids thinking that they are hers. Maternity fraud, outside of science fiction, is impossible physically.

She has to share her husband's time, attention and resources to the children that aren't hers. And her children would have to share that those resources too.

You have mixed up your stats. It is well known that males are less likely to forgive a cheating wife than vice versa.

Nope. That may have been the case when women had no choice but to stay with unfaithful husbands because they didn't have financial independence, but modern statistics actually show something different. Here you go.

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (45 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]DebatePonyLet's ride! 9 points10 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

Agreed, not to mention that the cheating can lead to bringing home infections/diseases which can harm the health of your wife/future children.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 4 points5 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

As can female cheating. In fact, given that most std's are much more easily spread male->female than female->male due to differences in anatomy, this would also be another modest means in which female cheating is "worse" than male cheating... the likelihood of her bringing an STD home "per extra pair coupling" is considerably higher.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Perhaps anatomically, but if you consider the type of woman men typically choose for mistresses, it's usually a very promiscuous woman or a prostitute.

Frankly, women seem to go for more double whammys, and pick a married man. Which suggests a small network of sex partners.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps anatomically, but if you consider the type of woman men typically choose for mistresses, it's usually a very promiscuous woman or a prostitute.

And women tend to choose the kind of highly attractive man who also has had lots of partners too.

Frankly, women seem to go for more double whammys, and pick a married man. Which suggests a small network of sex partners.

Well, if he's a married man thats cheating with her it suggests the type of married man who has probably had lots of partners.

Not the type of married man that is faithful to his wife, and so has a low number of partners.

[–]Freethetreees 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Or it increases the likelihood of the cheating guy avoiding "catching" the disease but effectively still carrying it. This makes male cheating worse, not female cheating.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No, thats not how it works.

If he hasn't "caught" it he can't spread it.

He'd need to "catch" it himself to do so.

I'm not maintaining here that men are somehow more immune to the diseases effects than women. But most STDs have a male->female transmission rate 5x or 10x higher than the female->male transmission rate just due to the fact he's putting biological material internal to her, but she's putting hers external to him.

The transmission rates are very different due to this. And this would therefore make it another reason why female infidelity is slightly worse (NOT that male infidelity is GOOD people ... But they're both BAD but female infidelity is slightly more BAD).

[–]Freethetreees 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

But if he doesn't have any symptoms of the disease, it's almost the same as not having it. He's just carrying it. A woman is more likely to show symptoms and have lifelong reproductive consequences than a man. A man is more likely to cheat with a bunch of women (making him more vulnerable to a variety of diseases) while a woman will likely only be cheating with one or two men. This reflects worse on MEN not women.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

But if he doesn't have any symptoms of the disease, it's almost the same as not having it.

Why do you think he has the disease but hasn't got symptoms.

Thats not the case.

He just hasn't got the disease. Men are NOT "just as likely to catch it, but less likely to have symptoms". They are "less likely to catch it".

Take AIDS... Men don't survive aids or have any less symptoms than women. But it takes about 10x as much sex with a woman to catch it from her.... than it takes for her to catch it from him.

A woman is more likely to show symptoms and have lifelong reproductive consequences than a man.

No, thats not true in general for all STDs. In the way "he's less likely to actually catch it per sex act" is.

A man is more likely to cheat with a bunch of women (making him more vulnerable to a variety of diseases) while a woman will likely only be cheating with one or two men. A man is more likely to cheat with a bunch of women (making him more vulnerable to a variety of diseases) while a woman will likely only be cheating with one or two men.

Well, thats making assumptions about cheating behaviour up until now I've not made. I could make the point that the men she is cheating with are therfore likely to have had lots more partners themselves than the women HE is cheating with by the exact same argument.

If men ARE likely to have more partners. That goes for the partners SHE is sleping with as much as the husband. The argument is self-refuting.

You can't have it that the husband is likely to have sex with lots of women.... but the men the wife is sleeping with have NOT had sex with lots of women. You have to assume the same behaviour for all of the men, or you're just special pleading.

[–]Freethetreees 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

just as likely to catch it

When did I say that?

But it takes about 10x as much sex with a woman to catch it from her.... than it takes for her to catch it from him

So once he DOES inevitably catch it and brings it home, the wife is basically GUARANTEED to catch it.

If men ARE likely to have more partners. That goes for the partners SHE is sleping with as much as the husband

Nah. Women are more likely to cheat with married men or men in relationships.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I just answered this above. It's asymmetrical due to the number of times they have sex with the EPC and the partner.

So lets say his risk of catching it is 10%, and his risk of passing it on is 50%.

And her risk of catching it is 50%, and her risk of passing it on is 10%.

If he only has sex with the infected EPC twice, he's only got a risk of catching it of 20%. She's got a 100% risk.

Yet, when he comes home to wife .... assuming they stay married for years.... they'll have sex 100 times.

She will always pass what she caught on to him (10 times over).

But he cannot pass what he did not catch on to her.

In order to make this equal (with these numbers) he'd have to have sex with the EPC 10 times to equalise the risk.

In many cases transmission rates female->male are eve lower than this. The point is... couples have sex so frequently that anything they catch is likely to be transmitted no matter how low the transmission risk is.

Where the transmission risk really counts is the EPC. A fling with only 4 "sex events" is far more likely to give the female an STD than the male. A marriage with (say) 50 sex events per year, every year, for decades, is going to ensure anything caught is passed on.

[–]yaseedog will hunt 4 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

std's are much more easily spread male->female than female->male

This is an odd point to bring up because it obviously cuts both ways. Maybe a cheating husband is less likely to catch something, but if he does then he's significantly more likely to transmit it to his wife (especially if we consider stuff like men's greater impulsivity & risk-taking, reluctance to seek medical care and general penchant for sexual variety)

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

This is an odd point to bring up because it obviously cuts both ways. Maybe a cheating husband is less likely to catch something, but if he does then he's significantly more likely to transmit it to his wife (especially if we consider stuff like men's greater impulsivity & risk-taking, reluctance to seek medical care and general penchant for sexual variety)

No, it doesn't cut both ways. Because couples who are together have sex a lot more frequently.

So lets say his risk of catching it is 10%, and his risk of passing it on is 50%.

And her risk of catching it is 50%, and her risk of passing it on is 10%.

If he only has sex with the infected EPC twice, he's only got a risk of catching it of 20% 19%. She's got a 100% 75% risk. [Edit: math made accurate because some of you know math]

Yet, when he comes home to wife .... assuming they stay married for years.... they'll have sex 100 times.

She will always pass what she caught on to him (10 times over).

But he cannot pass what he did not catch on to her.

The fact that "number of sexual intercourse events" with an EPP is far lower than "within the pair" makes it an asymmetrical risk.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

And her risk of catching it is 50%, and her risk of passing it on is 10%.

If he only has sex with the infected EPC twice, he's only got a risk of catching it of 20%. She's got a 100% risk.

I get your final point, which is accurate, but I just felt the need to say that's not how the math works. If you flip a coin twice, you do not, actually, have a 100% chance of getting heads at least once.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, I know. I just felt that if I wrote the correct odds (75%) then someone would query the math. I hadn't thought of the possibility that someone would know the math well enough to query it the other way.

You're right. The liklihood of "at least one head" in 2 coin flips is 75% not 100%.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha, sorry that someone had to doubt your math either way.

[–]yaseedog will hunt 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

"number of sexual intercourse events" with an EPP is far lower than "within the pair"

What do you base that on?

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

The fact that EPC are relatively rare, relatively infrequent and tend not to last very long.

If they DO they tend to become "the couple" via divorce etc etc.

[–]yaseedog will hunt 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't really have any context for knowing whether you're right about that or not, but assuming it's true, would the other factors I suggested (impulsivity, risk taking, less chance of treating potential infections and perhaps a higher likelihood of having multiple partners) not somewhat level the playing field?

(Also I know what you mean by them but just so I know, what do those acronyms stand for?)

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

(impulsivity, risk taking, less chance of treating potential infections and perhaps a higher likelihood of having multiple partners) not somewhat level the playing field?

No, because who is SHE sleeping with ? Other than men who are just as likely to be impulsive/risk taking/less likely to treat/higher liklihood of multiple partners men ?

I'd argue that whilst any man having affairs are likely to display those traits... they're only roughly as likely to do so as men "who have affairs with married women"... they're the same people by and large.

(Also I know what you mean by them but just so I know, what do those acronyms stand for?)

EPC=Extra-Pair Coupling. It's what scientists call "having an affair" for animals that pair bond, like humans and puffins.

EPP=Extra Pair Partner.

[–]yaseedog will hunt 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the clarification

who is SHE sleeping with

Maybe another woman? lol

they're the same people by and large

That could be true. My overall take on this issue is that there are so many factors and variations playing into the potential impact of cheating that it's impossible to make any meaningful statement about whose infidelity is "less damaging"

edit: for example, this

Other than men who are just as likely to be impulsive/risk taking/less likely to treat/higher liklihood of multiple partners

is more or less irrelevant if she insists on using a condom every time :) and she has added incentive to do so over her husband in a similar situation.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

But that wasn’t the argument though. It was that if he did catch it, he’s more than likely to pass it on to her than vice versa. And keep passing it on to her repeatedly. If she catches the STD, she’s less likely to pass it on to him.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but he's less likely to catch it meaning he cannot pass it to her is she does... and in reverse, it doesn't matter if she passes it to him 1 time or 50 times. Once she's passed it once, he has it.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Men that cheat are more likely to do it with multiple times and with multiple women than vice versa. This then puts him at the same risk of catching it as a woman that sleeps with less number of men outside of her marriage.

And once he’s caught it, there’s a high chance of his wife getting it and being re-infected multiple times.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men that cheat are more likely to do it with multiple times and with multiple women than vice versa.

Well thats different. Men who murder multiple times are worse than men who murder once.

So if men are cheating multiple times, then thats worse than a woman cheating once.

But your view is "male cheating is worse than female cheating" it isn't. An individual instance of a woman cheating is worse than an individual instance of male cheating.

This then puts him at the same risk of catching it as a woman that sleeps with less number of men outside of her marriage.

No it doesn't....because who is SHE sleeping with if it's NOT the kind of men that sleeps with lots of women ? If men "sleep around a lot" that goes for her affair partner as much as the husband putting her at that same risk.

And once he’s caught it, there’s a high chance of his wife getting it and being re-infected multiple times.

No, there is a chance of her being infected once. And continuing to have it. He can't infect her more than once.

So if there is a 10% chance of him catching it from a single EPC, then there is a 10% chance she'll eventually get it from him.

If there is a 50% chance of her catchingit from a single EPC, then there is a 50% chance he'll eventually get it from her.

Because the re-transmission rate to the husband/wife doesn't matter if they're having sex 50 times a year for decades. No matter how low it is, he/she'll get it if the cheating partner caught it.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But then this also means that if she does get an STD, it’s less likely to go to her husband, since female to male transmission is lower.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

OK, if you'd just read a little lower you'd see I've already addressed that twice below. I won't C&P it again lest I spam the thread with the same answer 3 times.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok

[–]ivegotsomequestions0Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The different ease of spread is offset by the fact that condoms are much more effective at preventing male to female transmission than vice versa, when dealing with those stds (hsv and hpv) that do get spread around the condom.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Cheating is shitty and damaging to a relationship regardless of gender. Of course it's ridiculous to call an unfaithful husband "loyal."

Finding out you've been investing, financially and emotionally, in a relationship where the other has been unfaithful really sucks. And yes, finding out that he's been raising, and financially and emotionally investing in a kid that isn't biologically his sucks even more than her finding out he fucked Stacy last week. But finding out he has a mistress and a kid with her (and money/time has been going that way, too) sucks more than him finding out she fucked John last week. Let's not pretend that's what anyone on TRP is talking about when they say men cheating isn't as damaging to a relationship. What they mean is it isn't as damaging to men.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's not pretend that's what anyone on TRP is talking about when they say men cheating isn't as damaging to a relationship. What they mean is it isn't as damaging to men.

Yup.

Every time a man brings up cuckholdery as justification for why male cheating isn’t as bad, I’m amazed that they forget that a husband can get another woman pregnant too. And being reminded of the evidence of your husband’s illicit affair hurts just as much as being reminded of your wife’s.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Agreed, cheating is cheating and it's just as bad from either gender.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

C'mon... they're not risking raising another mans kid. Thats not to say male cheating is good. It's still bad by most moral systems. It's just female cheating is slightly worse in the same moral systems, for this reason.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The act of cheating in and of itself is the same thing from either a man or a woman. It signals the same negative things about the state of your relationship.

The consequences of that action will differ wildly depending on each individual circumstance anyway.

But I mean the scenario you are talking about is very fucking rare come on, I know it's like the greatest fear among terps for whatever reason but it's not at all common to raise another man's kid. If you're that worried do a DNA test. There's many preventative measures you can take if you're concerned about that scenario.

But it's rare enough to begin with that it's hardly a big concern when you are discussing the morality of cheating as a whole.

Besides, as I said in my reply to your top level comment... vasectomy! Bitch comes to me saying she's pregnant and my first question would be "who else you been fucking then?" 😂

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

But I mean the scenario you are talking about is very fucking rare come on, I know it's like the greatest fear among terps for whatever reason but it's not at all common to raise another man's kid.

Non Paternity rates as measured in modern society are roughly between 1-10% (depending on group measured). So it's hardly impossible.

Nor is "rates of non-paternity" necessarily the issue. Because they aren't consciously choosing to be worried by this, such that they can consciously choose to ignore the risk. Thats not how it works. This, like everything else, is instinctive.

They instinctively adverse to this risk. Rationally pointing out it's a low risk doesn;t help.... anymore than rationally pointing out to a person "afraid of heights" standing on a glass bridge that "this bridge could take a tank" helps.

They know it can take a tank. They still feel the instinctive fear anyway because the rational mind can't turn it off.

Regardless of real cuckoldry rates, this has been bred in as a real instinctive aversion in men. They're going to instinctively feel that whatever their conscious assessment on modern non-paternity. Just like the person on the glass bridge does despite their conscious understanding that they'd need to put on over 100 tons of weight to put the bridge in jeopardy.

Same with your vascetectomy. That certainly actually protects you. Like the glass bridge protects the person standing on it. Yet you will feel the instinctive aversion ANYWAY. Because your genes no more know you had a vascectomy and what that is... than they know the tensile strength of plexiglass and how that makes them safe from the height.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Most people do not waste their time getting all scared of this shit though. It's a niche thing the manosphere is obsessed with and that's it.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yet you're having a vascectomy, and regard that as excellent protection against this problem.

You're aware enough to know it's a problem, but feel safe as you have a solution. I also feel safe as I have a solution.

Lots of other guys do NOT feel safe because they haven't a solution and as unattractive males they're right to feel that if it's going to happen to anyone.... it's going to happen to them.

Not necessarily the cuckoldry. But the infidelity that backs that cuckoldry, and would necessarily mean the same thing if it wasn't for modern contraception/vascectomies.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I took the choice of a vasectomy because I never want children and if even one single accident occurred I would literally rather off myself than have anything to do with raising a child. I have very strong feelings about this, I made my personal choice based on reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with this strange fear of being "cucked" that is so common in the manosphere.

It is nice to have the security that, in the unlikely chance it does occur, I know it can't possibly be mine. But in reality I tell girls I get into relationships with about the vasectomy anyway so they understand I really am serious about not wanting kids and I will not in fact "change my mind later" blah blah blah.

So really the chances of any woman even attempting to claim some baby is mine are minuscule to begin with. She'd have to be really fucking dumb to do that with a guy she knows is infertile. The odds of a vasectomy failing are less than 1%.

Although, to your point, the guys who are worried about this stuff could easily get vasectomies themselves and freeze some sperm for if they do want kids in the future. Again, nothing is stopping them.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I took the choice of a vasectomy because I never want children and if even one single accident occurred I would literally rather off myself than have anything to do with raising a child. I have very strong feelings about this, I made my personal choice based on reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with this strange fear of being "cucked" that is so common in the manosphere.

Nevertheless, that decision gives you safety from this particular problem.

Although, to your point, the guys who are worried about this stuff could easily get vasectomies themselves and freeze some sperm for if they do want kids in the future. Again, nothing is stopping them.

They could. That seems a little extreme though as a solution.

perhaps if they were doing this I'd agree with you that their reaction indicates they're taking this way too far.

As they're not, I think they're just using this as an excuse to blame women for shit they wanted to blame women for in any case.

In the same way they call them hypergamous whores for no good reason either, that being a perfectly normal drive of women.

They're not doing this because of an extreme reaction to cuckoldry.

They're doing this because they're venting about women and picking up any rhetorical cudgel they can find lying around to try and beat women with.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Silly lady people with your silly feelings, are you not grateful for the bridges the men build and the sperms they give you for the babies, and now you insist the men cheating is just as bad! Your childlike expectations! Your less capable hamster brains, if only you could understand the greatness of male intellect to explain why male cheating is not as bad.

[–]theambivalentroosterLiteral Chad 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

While I generally agree with you, I think their fantasy of 'rational male infidelity' would look like a 'good' husband and father who provides financial and emotional support for his family, is present, devotes time and attention to both his children and wife, and only cheats while 'on the road' or has some other arrangement with a mistress who is not interested in blowing up his family life.

Which of course, is just fantasy.

They also assume that if a woman is cheating then she is fully checked out of the relationship already, whereas the man can still love his wife while dumping loads into other women. To them, a woman can't get dick from another man without preferring him completely to her husband.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

😄

I thoroughly enjoy your satire comments.

[–]newName543456went volcel 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why would it? He's still married after all.

[–]newName543456went volcel 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why would it? He's still married after all.

[–]newName543456went volcel 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why would it? He's still married after all.

[–]Artpop_Tattooed Red Flag 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Male and female cheating isn’t the same. Men in general compartmentalize sex and relationships more than women do. Men will cheat if they’re just horny, when women cheat it’s usually because they have an intimate connection with the guy or they’re partner is ignoring them emotionally. Men’s sexuality is driven more physiologically, it’s so easy to give a guy a boner especially if he’s young all it takes is a gust of wind.

It’s not better for men to cheat, but it’s just not exactly the same

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This was my entire argument. But she's trying to say there are some women that do cheat for physical reasons alone. Even then it's not majority. On average women cheat for emotional and physical reasons where men mostly cheat for physical reasons.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Marriage is for the benefit of the children. Not the man, not the woman, but the kids. Very few marriages are perfect, but in the past they made them stick together so their kids didn't grow up to be school shooters or other drains on society

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah but when you put it that way it seems to be a justification for women cheating too.

[–]MisterJose 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Most men don’t leave because they want to be able to eat their cakes and have it. If you have a wife that’s at home that takes care of all or most of the household duties, ensures that you’re fed and takes care of the children, and even has sex with you on a reasonable basis, while you have a bunch of mistresses for kinky, nasty sex, then such a man would obviously have a very low incentive to leave that. He’s literarily getting the best of both worlds.

Bingo. Now all we need is men to stop being full of shit and admitting that this is an ideal for many of us. There's a reason kings throughout history had a queen, and then also mistresses/concubines/harems: Because they could. Rich and powerful men still do it.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And women can justifiably leave such men and take half his shit on the way out. Win-win.

[–]celincelinNeeds to be taught not to rape 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Unless the wife learns about all those mistresses, there's no harm for her.

That's one of the reasons why it's less damaging.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

And unless the husband finds out about the men she’s seeing on the side, there isn’t any harm for him.

I don’t see what distinction you’re trying to make here.

[–]celincelinNeeds to be taught not to rape 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

To see, look no further than your own post:

A cheating husband that stays married with his wife, does not make male cheating “better”.

The supposed difference is in the notion that a woman cheating is more likely to branch swing and leave him and so that makes her cheating worse, while a man that cheats would not necessarily leave his gf/wife.

The distinction is whether cheating leads to a divorce or not.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I’m guessing you’re defining ‘harm’ as branch swinging?

The harm is in the cheating itself. Women who love their husbands are emotionally ‘harmed’ and feel betrayed when he cheats. Branch swinging is even less cruel, as you don’t make the other partner suffer through your infertility. I mean seriously, would men actually feel better or think that the woman is doing him a favor if she stays instead?

[–]celincelinNeeds to be taught not to rape -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women who love their husbands are emotionally ‘harmed’ and feel betrayed when he cheats.

I said clear enough that there's no harm if the wife never learns about cheating.

Cheating and then branch swinging is worse than just cheating.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 1993 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

no, what a woman should do is exactly that, cheat on him before she dumps him. more women should do that instead of keeping him around.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Then by your logic, as long as she stays with her husband as she has sex with other men on the side, then it’s not so bad? After all, there’s no harm if he never learns about it.

[–]celincelinNeeds to be taught not to rape -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

"Good" or "bad", there's no harm if he never learns about it.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Perfect. Works for female cheaters then.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Most women cheat for emotional reasons. Most men cheat for physical reasons.

If they both end up having sex the woman not only cheats physically but emotionally.

If the man ends up having sex it's mostly not emotional and he just wants to bust a nut

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

So if a woman cheats for physical reasons and doesn’t leave her husband and remains good to him, it’s not so bad, huh?

Okay then.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

That's not even the claim I made. All cheating is bad. Some are just worse than others.

You're also speaking on an anomaly basis. Majority of women don't cheat just for physical reasons/to have new dick. They usually cheat due to emotional reasons. Therefore majority of women that do cheat are worse than men.

But if you wanna push the pro woman victim angle then go ahead

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

That's not even the claim I made. All cheating is bad. Some are just worse than others.

Yes, and your justification for the notion that female cheating is worse, is because women usually get more emotionally involved. So (and I’m really just following your astounding logic here), if a woman does not get emotionally involved, then her cheating must not be “worse”. Yeah? Alright then.

You're also speaking on an anomaly basis.

Not really. There are lots of women that cheat just for strange dick. Most of them that do it this way, do it as revenge for her man that cheated on her.

Therefore majority of women that do cheat are worse than men.

Your only argument here is that it’s worse because there’s more emotional involvement. Okay. And so? What is your justification that more emotional involvement means that the cheating is “worse”?

But if you wanna push the pro woman victim angle then go ahead

Considering that you’re pushing the pro man victim angle, I don’t think you have much of a leg to stand on here.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and your justification for the notion that female cheating is worse, is because women usually get more emotionally involved. So (and I’m really just following your astounding logic here), if a woman does not get emotionally involved, then her cheating must not be “worse”. Yeah? Alright then.

But that's hardly ever the case. In certain instances sure. But 99 percent of the time the woman cheats for emotional reasons. You're basically arguing an anomaly point. Which ruins your argument

Not really. There are lots of women that cheat just for strange dick. Most of them that do it this way, do it as revenge for her man that cheated on her.

Nope. It's not the majority. Nor is it half and half and you know it. Lying like this is disingenuous. We all know for a fact majority of a reason why women cheat is because she loses a strong emotional tie to the man she's with. Men cheat because they get horny. Women and Men aren't equal. Stop acting like they are.

Your only argument here is that it’s worse because there’s more emotional involvement. Okay. And so? What is your justification that more emotional involvement means that the cheating is “worse”?

😂 dude. If you add emotions and physical cheating together it's worse than a woman just physically cheating. You add another element to it. There's no way physically cheating is worse than physically cheating AND emotionally cheating.

Considering that you’re pushing the pro man victim angle, I don’t think you have much of a leg to stand on here.

LMAOOOO. How?? I don't victim blame any of these men. Cheating is wrong. But you have your head up your butt too much and want women cheating to not be seen as worse.

At the end of the day all cheating is bad. But to say there's not more of a negative when a woman cheats is utterly false. And you know it.

You again have no argument because all you've said was "there are women that cheat for physical reasons" which again. Is a fallacy because majority of women don't cheat for solely physical reasons.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

You're basically arguing an anomaly point. Which ruins your argument.

It really doesn’t. Because you have no evidence that it’s an anomaly point. There are lots of women that cheat and stay with their husbands and there are a bunch of women in open relationships and in poly relationships. All you’re doing is further proving how hypocritical men are and how they cannot answer the question as to how justified (or not as bad) it is for a woman to cheat if it’s just for physical reasons.

Nope. It's not the majority. Nor is it half and half and you know it. Lying like this is disingenuous. We all know for a fact majority of a reason why women cheat is because she loses a strong emotional tie to the man she's with. Men cheat because they get horny.

Again, more ridiculous claims without anything to back them up and you’re calling me a liar? Lmao! What a strange claim when you yourself haven’t said anything truthful. Please take several seats.

Women and Men aren't equal. Stop acting like they are.

Don’t know what world you live in, but in the western world, they are. Not with anatomy and in the way they approach things sometimes. But when it comes to male and female cheating, they sure as hell are.

If you add emotions and physical cheating together it's worse than a woman just physically cheating. You add another element to it. There's no way physically cheating is worse than physically cheating AND emotionally cheating.

Weird. Because I never said it was. Whether or not there are emotions involved does not change the fact that an agreement is broken and both sides are likely to feel bad about their partner cheating. So tacking on emotions to it, does not change the way your partner would feel to find out that you’ve stepped out of your marriage. And the breakdown of the marriage is pretty much as likely either way.

I don't victim blame any of these men. Cheating is wrong. But you have your head up your butt too much and want women cheating to not be seen as worse.

Um yes? How is this bad? Why the hell would I want to see women as worse? And considering that you do not want to see men as worse, I have no idea what you’re arguing here. You’re literarily accusing me of doing the same thing that you’re doing. Except that your stance is even worse because you’re trying to paint male cheating as less bad while I’m painting them as both equally bad. The fact that you think that that doesn’t make you more pro male than it makes me pro female, is amazing.

But to say there's not more of a negative when a woman cheats is utterly false. And you know it.

What are these increased negatives? You’ve provided no valid ones and you’re running your mouth. Lol wtf?

You again have no argument because all you've said was "there are women that cheat for physical reasons" which again. Is a fallacy because majority of women don't cheat for solely physical reasons.

Lol pot calling kettle black. Apart from the fact that you have no justification for the notion that because more women cheat emotionally as well as physically, and that makes their cheating worse. You also have no answer to the query about a woman that cheats physically and if that justifies her to be on the apparently “less bad” level of male cheating. Your ability to shift goal post is impressive. Well done.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

It really doesn’t. Because you have no evidence that it’s an anomaly point. There are lots of women that cheat and stay with their husbands and there are a bunch of women in open relationships and in poly relationships. All you’re doing is further proving how hypocritical men are and how they cannot answer the question as to how justified (or not as bad) it is for a woman to cheat if it’s just for physical reasons.

Majority of women aren't in poly or open relationships. That's a red herring. If majority of women were in poly, open relationships then you'd have a point. However we are speaking on majority. Majority of women are in conventional male/female relationships where cheating is bad. You mentioning relationships that are poly or open that are statistically way less than the modern relationship dynamic is again a fallacy. You're reaching for points.

Again, more ridiculous claims without anything to back them up and you’re calling me a liar? Lmao! What a strange claim when you yourself haven’t said anything truthful. Please take several seats.

You are. You and I both know majority of women cheat emotionally. Women tie emotions more into sex in general. Men however are more physical. This is what I mean when I say men and women aren't equal. Women don't think about sex in the same way a man does. Men and Women don't even view relationships the same. So how then can you try to make it seem as if Women cheating is the same as a man cheating (on average) when women do in fact tie in emotions more than men when they do have sex/cheat. That doesn't make sense.

Don’t know what world you live in, but in the western world, they are. Not with anatomy and in the way they approach things sometimes. But when it comes to male and female cheating, they sure as hell are.

False. If I hit a woman I'm going to jail. If a woman hits me she MIGHT get a small fine or talk from the cops. This and of itself proves we aren't equal. You yourself even said the anatomy is different. So again we aren't equal. Male and female cheating is not the same because men usually don't involve emotions and women usually do involve emotions. Does that really matter in the long run? No. Cheating is cheating. But in hindsight from an objective view. The woman does worse.

Um yes? How is this bad? Why the hell would I want to see women as worse? And considering that you do not want to see men as worse, I have no idea what you’re arguing here. You’re literarily accusing me of doing the same thing that you’re doing. Except that your stance is even worse because you’re trying to paint male cheating as less bad while I’m painting them as both equally bad. The fact that you think that that doesn’t make you more pro male than it makes me pro female, is amazing.

So you admit you're speaking from a bias perspective? Ok. I don't speak from a pro man angle. I speak from a pro truth and reality angle. I don't argue to make men seem like victims. I've shown numerous times how men need to improve and stop blaming women for issues. Your post history clearly shows an agenda against men in general so you try to make women seem like victims more times than not. You're not painting them both as equally bad you're trying to alleviate the actual real reasoning behind a woman cheating because you believe women are equal to men. That's not true. We are very different.

Lol pot calling kettle black. Apart from the fact that you have no justification for the notion that because more women cheat emotionally as well as physically, and that makes their cheating worse. You also have no answer to the query about a woman that cheats physically and if that justifies her to be on the apparently “less bad” level of male cheating. Your ability to shift goal post is impressive. Well done.

Because majority of women don't just cheat physically. Majority of women cheat with emotions involved. Women are emotionally creatures. Men are physical. Women can be sweet talked into sex. Men are flashed some boobies and they're already ready. It's pretty much easy to see. You keep bringing up "what about a woman that cheats physically" when I've said over and over again majority of women don't cheat for solely physical reasons. Majority of women cheat with emotions involved. You can't bring up something that's not majority as an example of why the rule is false. An anomaly to the standard doesn't negate the standard.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

If majority of women were in poly, open relationships then you'd have a point. However we are speaking on majority.

Nowhere did I say that majority of women are in open or poly relationships. I merely gave that as an example. There are many women in regular relationships that cheat just for sex as well, not the majority but a significant minority. As there are many men who cheat emotionally, not the majority but a significant minority. My query was that for these women that do sleep with other men just for sex, would it be "less bad", as it is for men? A query which you have failed to answer because you realize that all you've been saying till now is pure bullshit. Male cheating is only viewed as "less bad" when it benefits men.

So how then can you try to make it seem as if Women cheating is the same as a man cheating (on average) when women do in fact tie in emotions more than men when they do have sex/cheat.

What you've have failed to convince anyone is why that makes a difference. So again, I ask, "And so?". What does the notion that women generally place more emotions to sexual activity have to do with whether their cheating is worse. In both parties, they've both broken their agreement or vow and it hurts just as much for women as it does for men when they're cheated on. So you trying to make a distinction in the cause, when the effect is usually the same doesn't make any sense.

Male and female cheating is not the same because men usually don't involve emotions and women usually do involve emotions.

I'm honestly starting to feel like a broken record here, but again...and so? Your failure to succinctly define how female cheating is worse because she attaches more emotion to it, is starting to make this conversation redundant. Something cannot be "worse" if the effect on both people are the same.

So you admit you're speaking from a bias perspective?

Um, no I don't. Do you know how to read? I clearly stated that I'm saying that the cheating is equally bad for both of them. You're the one trying to paint men as the victims here by stating that it's worse when females cheat. Please don't project your biases unto me.

I speak from a pro truth and reality angle.

Lmao! You go back and re-read all the nonsense that you've written, and if you're still convinced that you don't speak from a pro-man angle, then your cognitive dissonance is at its peak.

Your post history clearly shows an agenda against men in general so you try to make women seem like victims more times than not.

So, you've been stalking my post history and bitterly hanging on to it, to ultimately "get back" at me someday. The amusing thing is that you do not even realize how hypocritical you are, in the fact that your post history is riddled with pro-man, anti-woman nonsense. You really have no leg to stand on here. Deal with your shit first before you come at me.

An anomaly to the standard doesn't negate the standard.

Apart from the fact that I do not agree that it's anomaly. Because an anomaly implies that something is rare. If 70-80% of women cheat emotionally, and 20-30% cheat physically, the percentage of women that cheat physically is not an "anomaly". It's a minority, and a significant one at that because it means that 1 in every 3-4 women that cheat, cheat solely physically. So for these women, is it less bad since they cheat the way that men do? You repeatedly refusing to answer this question is the most amusing part of this conversation tbh.

[–]AstuteBlackManRed Pill Man 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Nowhere did I say that majority of women are in open or poly relationships. I merely gave that as an example. There are many women in regular relationships that cheat just for sex as well, not the majority but a significant minority. As there are many men who cheat emotionally, not the majority but a significant minority. My query was that for these women that do sleep with other men just for sex, would it be "less bad", as it is for men? A query which you have failed to answer because you realize that all you've been saying till now is pure bullshit. Male cheating is only viewed as "less bad" when it benefits men.

Right. And I'm telling you your example is a shitty one because we're speaking on majority. Male cheating is less bad because they usually don't involve emotions. The problem with your argument is you keep trying to debate the outliers. Your argument consists of "I'm sure there are some women who cheat only physically" which again isn't the standard or norm. So that's why you're wrong.

What you've have failed to convince anyone is why that makes a difference. So again, I ask, "And so?". What does the notion that women generally place more emotions to sexual activity have to do with whether their cheating is worse. In both parties, they've both broken their agreement or vow and it hurts just as much for women as it does for men when they're cheated on. So you trying to make a distinction in the cause, when the effect is usually the same doesn't make any sense.

Lmao really? Would you rather someone cheat on you for physical reasons or physical and emotional reasons? Come on. When women cheat they fall in love with another man/cheat physically and lose attachment to the man. When men cheat it's more so they don't lose attachment but they wanted to bust a nut. The effect being the same doesn't equate to something not being worse. Example. If I murder 5 people vs 10 The end result is still the same but objectively one is way worse. Your example of the end result being the same doesn't change anything.

I'm honestly starting to feel like a broken record here, but again...and so? Your failure to succinctly define how female cheating is worse because she attaches more emotion to it, is starting to make this conversation redundant. Something cannot be "worse" if the effect on both people are the same.

I've explained it plenty. You just don't want to accept it. Someone cheating on you physically alone is better than someone cheating on you physically and emotionally. If I sleep with a girl and cheat on my wife that'll hurt my wife a lot. But it my wife sleeps with a man and falls in love and gets emotionally tied to another man that'll hurt way worse objectively. That doesn't mean the end result will be different but logically the healing process will be longer.

Um, no I don't. Do you know how to read? I clearly stated that I'm saying that the cheating is equally bad for both of them. You're the one trying to paint men as the victims here by stating that it's worse when females cheat. Please don't project your biases unto me.

This was in response to you saying you speak from a pro woman angle. Nice try though.

Lmao! You go back and re-read all the nonsense that you've written, and if you're still convinced that you don't speak from a pro-man angle, then your cognitive dissonance is at its peak.

Woah. Nice big words babe. I've clearly said all cheating is bad. But I guess sure. I'm speaking pro male. Lmao

So, you've been stalking my post history and bitterly hanging on to it, to ultimately "get back" at me someday. The amusing thing is that you do not even realize how hypocritical you are, in the fact that your post history is riddled with pro-man, anti-woman nonsense. You really have no leg to stand on here. Deal with your shit first before you come at me.

Took like 30 seconds. But ok. Lmao.

Apart from the fact that I do not agree that it's anomaly. Because an anomaly implies that something is rare. If 70-80% of women cheat emotionally, and 20-30% cheat physically, the percentage of women that cheat physically is not an "anomaly". It's a minority, and a significant one at that because it means that 1 in every 3-4 women that cheat, cheat solely physically. So for these women, is it less bad since they cheat the way that men do? You repeatedly refusing to answer this question is the most amusing part of this conversation tbh.

The anomaly was more in reference to the trash poly open relationship example you gave. However you seem to be making up stats. These are made up stats to portray a narrative you think is correct. Which again you have no proof of. wether it's a minority or anomaly doesn't negate the point.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

The problem with your argument is you keep trying to debate the outliers.

Debating outliers would only be "wrong", if the actions of those outliers created an effect that was any different from the majority. When the effects are basically equivalent in both groups, neither of them is "worse".

Would you rather someone cheat on you for physical reasons or physical and emotional reasons?

I would rather neither. And so would most women. A man cheating because he just wanted sex or because he actually loved her, hurt pretty much the same and would garner the same consequences.

When women cheat they fall in love with another man/cheat physically and lose attachment to the man. When men cheat it's more so they don't lose attachment but they wanted to bust a nut.

Irrelevant. The end result is that they cheated and the way that the partner feels when cheated on, is similar.

If I murder 5 people vs 10 The end result is still the same but objectively one is way worse.

What an incredibly terrible analogy. Because with those extra 5 people you murdered, you've deprived 5 more people of a life and have 5 more families affected by the killing spree. So of course one is way worse. And its worse because the effect is different. Lol. Try again.

I've explained it plenty. You just don't want to accept it. Someone cheating on you physically alone is better than someone cheating on you physically and emotionally. If I sleep with a girl and cheat on my wife that'll hurt my wife a lot. But it my wife sleeps with a man and falls in love and gets emotionally tied to another man that'll hurt way worse objectively.

It's not about accepting, but about the fact that you're way off with the effects that those different types of cheating would cause on the spouse. You have nothing that proves that it'll hurt way worse "objectively". When someone cheats on you, very few people are going to go into the mental analysis of "but did they fall in love?" An agreement was broken and there was betrayal. Plus the statistics do not even support your view. Because if you believe that emotional+physical cheating is worse than just physical cheating and men are the ones that mostly do the latter, then it should follow that the feeling of betrayal effect would be lower in women. But statistics actually show that women are less likely to forgive a cheating partner than vice versa.

This was in response to you saying you speak from a pro woman angle.

Did you have a stroke in the middle of this conversation? When did I say this? Lmao! If you're going to lie, at least use a lie that can't be that easily caught. Jesus.

Woah. Nice big words babe.

The fact that you think cognitive dissonance is a "big word" really does not reflect well on you. Who the hell doesn't have the word cognitive or dissonance in their vocabulary? Yikes!

But I guess sure. I'm speaking pro male.

First step is admitting it, I guess. Congratulations.

The anomaly was more in reference to the trash poly open relationship example you gave.

Then phrase your words more clearly. If you're unable to clearly state what you're referring to, then don't blame me if I can't piece together whatever is going on in your head.

However you seem to be making up stats. These are made up stats to portray a narrative you think is correct. Which again you have no proof of. wether it's a minority or anomaly doesn't negate the point.

Nope. Not making up statistics. A simple google search would do you a lot of good. Here you go. 34% of female cheaters surveyed are happy or very happy with their spouses. So yes, a significant minority (one-third actually) cheat for physical reasons, effectively negating your point about it being an "anomaly" or an "outlier".

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 1993 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't make it better, which is why I divorced his sorry ass and drove to near-suicide. Cheating is bad. Period.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter