-lationships without atleast informing the —significant other?? what you want, is what I'm saying. Even if it seems like all their friends are doing it since, more than likely, they were doing it to impress you too.
Cheating is natural.. but only for men. (Page 2)
You are on page out of 2 | Reverse Order
Also, after having reread multiple posts, I think op confused cheating with polygamy. Funny how I just realized this.
But yes, cheating and polygamy are in very different. There are still religions today, like Islam, that allow polygamy. Those who practice know exactly what marriage is going to be like, both the husband and wife. Cheating doesn't mean multiple partners/spouses, it means lying to their partner that ARE monogamous (my point). I don't know why I didn't mention it earlier.. -doh-
Unless deception is part of the human biology too?
But yes, cheating and polygamy are in very different. There are still religions today, like Islam, that allow polygamy. Those who practice know exactly what marriage is going to be like, both the husband and wife. Cheating doesn't mean multiple partners/spouses, it means lying to their partner that ARE monogamous (my point). I don't know why I didn't mention it earlier.. -doh-
Unless deception is part of the human biology too?
From a biological stand point it's probably more natural for the woman than the man.
Hence why men's sperm are made to fight each other if a woman gets multiple in her system.
Hence why men's sperm are made to fight each other if a woman gets multiple in her system.
Plausible. Yet again, an example of something that was fine way back then, might not be acceptable now. Most women, I think, would want to know who the father is. So I guess no one wins?
But honestly, biology is only meant for people who want understand why/how things work. I'm not dismissing it as all scientific mumbo jumbo, I don't think it really matters as far as modern relationships are concerned. It can't help us be better humans. I'm only curious as to why men use this excuse when it's only said to be true for a percentage if them. Things went from, "Honey, it isn't what it looks like!" to "Cuz' imma man. Deal.", all in a matter of a few years, grammar and all. 😛
The whole thing is still conversal, especially with further studies being conducted. Sadly, no matter which will be proven true, the dishonesty and disrespect of one another will be everlasting. Of all things.
But honestly, biology is only meant for people who want understand why/how things work. I'm not dismissing it as all scientific mumbo jumbo, I don't think it really matters as far as modern relationships are concerned. It can't help us be better humans. I'm only curious as to why men use this excuse when it's only said to be true for a percentage if them. Things went from, "Honey, it isn't what it looks like!" to "Cuz' imma man. Deal.", all in a matter of a few years, grammar and all. 😛
The whole thing is still conversal, especially with further studies being conducted. Sadly, no matter which will be proven true, the dishonesty and disrespect of one another will be everlasting. Of all things.
e: Thanks for the articles, I love reading that type of stuff.. but the problem I see with these "recent studies" is that every week there seems to be a new revolutionary discovery that you will never hear of again! It's like entertainment for science geeks. After reading the original arguments and the new ideas that are presented, I'd say the original arguments still make hell of a lot more sense. But that's just me.
Posted by OneDullExistence
Using science to back up deception is acceptable?
I never said that our biological impulses make deception acceptable. I said I'm not interested in justifying or judging anyone for their behaviour. I'm only interested in explanations to why people may behave in certain ways.
Posted by OneDullExistence
The only reason I disagreed with you, was not because you said polygamy existed in nature, but rather that it was 'embedded' in 'all animals' and human 'males', even when people of either gender have been known to be both..click to expand
Wait... wait.... what are you talking about polygami? See this is why I can't have a discussion with you, you are all over the place! Where did I ever say polygami is natural behaviour in animals or males? I never said a word about polygami. You started this thread with the question, why cheating is ok for men and not for women? I suggest you read carefully and then calmly collect your toughts before you respond. And why are you constantly referring to yourself in third person? You keep mentioning some OP, that's you is it not? "Original poster"?
Back to the subject: From my experience there is a huge difference between male and female promiscuity. Most of those women I know who sleep around a lot tend to lead a somewhat destructive existence and don't seem to feel very good about themselves, while their male counterparts don't display any similiar traits. There are exceptions obviousely, every rule has those... but that doesen't make the "rule" invalid.
Posted by OneDullExistence
Alright now, psychology and sociology. Modern day sex is not all instinct as it used to be without all the external influences and peer pressure. Men are expected to be experienced and woman are to suppress sexuality or risk being perceived as loose. The power of society can affect anyone of any age, gender or background.
"External influences and peer pressure" may not be that external at all! Basic social behavior and norms are triggered by biological factors. There can be very small factors, hardly worth paying attention to in nature, but when you look at the big picture you will see clearly how it manifests itself in the modern society, layer by layer. Open your eyes.
And so in plain English, those of both sexes who do not possess enough of those "stereotypical" qualities are considered less desirebale by the opposite sex and are in extreme cases even met with contempt, as in the case of female "promiscuity". You can move from a cave to a city but you're still a human being, a mammel - civilized on the surface (with a little too high opinion of oneself regarding how much you can "control" what's in your nature) but underneath slave under your biology!
If these norms and social constructions don't have biological or natural grounds, then where do they come from? And howcome they look the same all over the world? It is not a question of what's now and what's prehistoric, this is the way it has been since the dawn of man. Where does it come from? Do you think there was a point in time when all the men suddenly came to a decision to create a bunch of social codes that would enslave women under their gender for all time? Or is it more plausable that there are biological grounds to the social norms that we consier ourself chained to?
Some feminists think waaaay too highly of men, as if men really have that much power to hold women down for all this time. Why is it assumed that the sexes are suppose to be equal? The sexes are not meant to be the same, physically nor emotionally, we are meant to complement eachother. I am not against introducing new fresh ide(L)s, I'm just saying you can change it around all you want but what's in your spine will remain the same as long as you're a human being.
Posted by OneDullExistence
Human biology is still a study. There are still new findings, any of which can disprove previous 'facts'. None of it are —established?? facts. Just what they concluded from their experiments. No one considers the number of participants in these studies. A hundred men can't speak for the entire population, and that's even if that many people are willing to part take in the experiment.
It is not history where there are physical proof of what exactly took place. Unless they found cave drawings with cavemen getting it on with their neighbors wives too?
We're not talking about a penis size survey here! What experiments? What hundred men? I'm talking about research and theories that have been established by simple observation of human and animal life! There are theories, and then there are established facts, "cornerstones" if you want - that are undisputable, such as natural selection. This is practically self-proven, you just need to observe! Soon you're gonna pull the "once upon a time they thought the earth was flat", on me. That's true, but consider the pace the knowledge has evolved not only since then, but in the 20th century, that I seriousely doubt there will be some radical discovery in this field that will totally overthrow certain "cornerstones" that have already been laid!
Anyway here's why you're loosing credibility with me: Your only real argument is that "there will, or could be new findings" and, that theories CAN be disprovien. When the day comes that these "established" facts - or according to you, "theories" - are overthrown and new facts surface, trust me, I will be the first one to embrace them. But till then, what matters is what we KNOW NOW. I don't live by "there could be", I live by what is.
And this sceptical approach to science that seems to be an on-going trend these days truly sickens me. For your information, scientists are not sceptical. No ambitious scientist will ever tell you what's possible or impossible. They will tell you what conclusions they have drawn so far. That's the beauty of science, it doesen't even deny that there is a God, it just says that there is no plausable proof or theory to support such claims at this point. Keep that in mind the next time you feel like saying "science is the new religon". What IS a new religion however, is this sceptical approach to science..
http://www.livescience.com/13010-polygamy-good-men-bad-women.html
This was where my post comes in. Regardless of what is truly the case, those same men use this shit EVERY damn time, half of which didn't even read past the fricking heading. I can not say one thing on a forum without someone trying to slap such an —article?? on me. BS.
OP was a typo, your name should have been there. Did not notice, not relevant enough. No editing allowed, so I have to rely on you to correct me. You love it anyway. 😛
This was where my post comes in. Regardless of what is truly the case, those same men use this shit EVERY damn time, half of which didn't even read past the fricking heading. I can not say one thing on a forum without someone trying to slap such an —article?? on me. BS.
OP was a typo, your name should have been there. Did not notice, not relevant enough. No editing allowed, so I have to rely on you to correct me. You love it anyway. 😛
I can't understand why you are fighting me (still?). If you look back, I only disagreed with one thing. You dig science, now show it by going back to the basics like the brain men you admire. Just. Look. Back. And . All. Shall. Be. Revealed. I promise. Whether my story was real or not, it's not uncommon. It happens so often people don't even write articles on it anymore. Still, that is aside the point.
I never said biological responsibly did not exist or was incorrect, but all men do not care about this, unconsciously or other wise. Such men I speak of (if you were following), have no interest in protecting or populating the earth. In fact, they go to great lengths to avoid impregnating women. This had already proven itself, so I will say no more. Have you never seen or heard of such a thing, assuming we are in the same lifetime? Open your eyes. Do you not understand this, or do you simply not want to believe this? Why do you seem to evade this? If not, tell me if this is wrong.
You failed to see ANY points made because you refuse to acknowledge them. Ask me for any specific points you found invalid or irrelevant to my topic, and I will try to explain the best that I can. You also fail to see that I'm not disagreeing, but rather stating, adding that *that* specific human biology —rule??, does not apply to every male, everywhere in the world, giving me reason to believe that there may be more to it.
I never said biological responsibly did not exist or was incorrect, but all men do not care about this, unconsciously or other wise. Such men I speak of (if you were following), have no interest in protecting or populating the earth. In fact, they go to great lengths to avoid impregnating women. This had already proven itself, so I will say no more. Have you never seen or heard of such a thing, assuming we are in the same lifetime? Open your eyes. Do you not understand this, or do you simply not want to believe this? Why do you seem to evade this? If not, tell me if this is wrong.
You failed to see ANY points made because you refuse to acknowledge them. Ask me for any specific points you found invalid or irrelevant to my topic, and I will try to explain the best that I can. You also fail to see that I'm not disagreeing, but rather stating, adding that *that* specific human biology —rule??, does not apply to every male, everywhere in the world, giving me reason to believe that there may be more to it.
No, —there will be?? or —there can be?? are not my main points. My point is, I have stressed this so many times, biological responsibility and populating the earth, it is not a universal rule for men, no matter what they have —observed??. They could not have found out exactly why on observations alone. Therefore, experiments must have been conducted to support their claims. You haven't looked into this have you?
Every thing, every idea that has ever been, is NOT the way nature intended, an idiot can tell you that. Nope, not when humans and science are involved. Why does all the norms, roles and beliefs seem to be the same way all over the world? You mean like all the social expectations? To be liked by all, rich, physically attractive, all of which didn't even matter back then? Because we feed off each others' thoughts and expectations, whether we are aware of it or not. Exchanging ideas and regions is what we do as part of communicating with each other. There are people who have no sense of direction and are easily persuaded. Anyone with some common sense knows that those people make up most of the population "all over thw world". Not many people want/know how to lead, so when someone finally does, anything that comes out from that person??s mouth is considered divine teachings (religion, sexism, social ideals so forth. People can and believe anything if it's told by who they *feel* is credible enough. If I go any further, I'm afraid I will only confuse you. Knowing how you love to —skim?? through my writing so most will probably be in vain anyway. Just pick something irrelevant to bold and point out already.
Sorry that it sickens you so much, my skepticism. I guess science has always proven to be right and I have never given any one any reason to worry or doubt. Such paranoia.. woe is me..
Also, tell me the names of these 'scientists' that accept possibilities? Ones I come across can't even respect a persons religion or beliefs. Safe to assume that they're not all equal, even being all men of science?
Your interest in human biology is none of my concern, nor what you like to live by. I posted vent, you replied with wanted to share and things went way off. Speaking of fighting imaginary battles. I understand that unlike your brain men, you do not believe in possibilities of what 'may be'. Matters not.
Every thing, every idea that has ever been, is NOT the way nature intended, an idiot can tell you that. Nope, not when humans and science are involved. Why does all the norms, roles and beliefs seem to be the same way all over the world? You mean like all the social expectations? To be liked by all, rich, physically attractive, all of which didn't even matter back then? Because we feed off each others' thoughts and expectations, whether we are aware of it or not. Exchanging ideas and regions is what we do as part of communicating with each other. There are people who have no sense of direction and are easily persuaded. Anyone with some common sense knows that those people make up most of the population "all over thw world". Not many people want/know how to lead, so when someone finally does, anything that comes out from that person??s mouth is considered divine teachings (religion, sexism, social ideals so forth. People can and believe anything if it's told by who they *feel* is credible enough. If I go any further, I'm afraid I will only confuse you. Knowing how you love to —skim?? through my writing so most will probably be in vain anyway. Just pick something irrelevant to bold and point out already.
Sorry that it sickens you so much, my skepticism. I guess science has always proven to be right and I have never given any one any reason to worry or doubt. Such paranoia.. woe is me..
Also, tell me the names of these 'scientists' that accept possibilities? Ones I come across can't even respect a persons religion or beliefs. Safe to assume that they're not all equal, even being all men of science?
Your interest in human biology is none of my concern, nor what you like to live by. I posted vent, you replied with wanted to share and things went way off. Speaking of fighting imaginary battles. I understand that unlike your brain men, you do not believe in possibilities of what 'may be'. Matters not.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
If leo are the one who get bored fast but how do they last in a long relayionship and admit thedy are never bored w8ith
...is very little about: Men Dating Relating to men in a dating sense How I feel or don't feel about men I basi
Where's my favourite Scorpio milf? :|
Hello, I just joined dxpnet after reading the leo threads here and really love the informative responses. This site rock
I'm reading up trying to find if this is really a compatible relationship or if it's nothing but arguing and an inevitab
Hello guys, Im gonna need you. It appears I may about to be stood up by the aqua who cancelled our original first d
Why do leo men seem to want to just say what they want and run away ( walk away ) quickly as possible? I tried to tal
When leo men get upset it seem like they are so so distant and like give u short answers to everything
i just broke up with my gf we have been fighting alot, have been away from each other for about 3 weeks, and im going th
I'm am madly, truly, and deeply in love with a Leo man. I'm so confused by him. To make a very long story short, I met
I met him in about October we met at a friends Halloween party we begun to talk i noticed he was very over the top and w
The aqua returneth. This is the guy who said how fab I am but was geographically undesirable. Dude with pisces moon
i am a lioness. the kind that is full of love to give, so sweet and peaceful i seem fragile. it's all i can be. but i fe
In the beginning of my friendship with benefits with the Leo I just called things off with today, I said to him I wanted
As I have read a number of threads here and on the other forums, I have begun to think that Leo women might enjoy the du
with an Aquarian. Odd creatures that say 'baby' alot in bed. Much more unexpectedly affectionate than I thought.
I met this Leo guy a little over a month ago when we ran into each other at a wedding we both happened to be attending.
..sign, baby? I need help. How do I ask for someone's sign (and later DOB/COB) whom I've just started chatting with f
I'm chasing that Leo girl for a couple of months. Its not only about sex or flirt. I have feelings for her. I told her s