As a man, does hearing that another man cheated on his wife or spouse change your opinion about them

[DarrynCobretti]

You really don't want anyone let alone everyone to read your posts in this thread. This hasn't been close. You are at this point resorting to pure lies. You keep making claims about how you've posted evidence and are now even saying you've posted more than me, but everyone can see, once again, your post lacks links. Here are mine yet again:



And there's more where that came from. Also a bonus one from @BlackPearl The Empress , which you blatantly did the same thing you are now lying about me doing to you (that just because the opposing party deems it insufficient, means it is)



I of course know you will not quote yourself with all the research you claim to have posted, because you never posted as much evidence as I did. And what you did post was never anything both not already debunked (by me and later you as well) as well as relevant to your point.

Aw that's cute, so you admit that you again only posted 3 links...



Which coincidentally is the exact same number of links I've posted in this thread to support my position...@MeachTheMonster @Astroslik please help her out with the math and count them for her (because math apparently isn't her strength among other subjects).
Sexual dimorphism in cognition and behaviour: the role of X-linked genes
Desegregating sexuality research: cultural and biological perspectives on gender and desire. - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Peplau_Lab/Publications_files/Peplau 2003.pdf

 

[DarrynCobretti]

Btw @PartyHeart did you see what the source in YOUR OWN DAMN link concluded:

http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2013/09/gender-expectations.aspx
Sex on the brain?: an examination of frequency of sexual cognitions as a function of gender, erotophilia, and social desirability. - PubMed - NCBI

It is commonly believed that men think about sex much more often than do women, but the empirical evidence in this area is fairly weak. By means of a golf tally counter, 283 college students kept track of their thoughts pertaining to food, sleep, or sex for one week. Males reported significantly more need-based cognitions overall, but there was no significant interaction between sex of participant and type of cognition recorded. Therefore, although these young men did think more about sex than did young women, they also thought more about food and sleep.

Wow. Thanks for proving my point. This isn't even a debate anymore, she's committing intellectual suicide

 

[DarrynCobretti]

In fact @PartyHeart you're not slick at all. After carefully reading and analyzing your 3rd link once more...I've found something fascinating.

Your third link doesn't even support your argument as well.

Nature vs. Nurture and Sex: Why the Fight?

However, brain differences do not arise only through the social conditioning. As Ridley shows in his book, The Red Queen: Sex and Evolution of Human Nature, differences seen between the male and female brain can arise from hormonal differences during development. “Testosterone masculinizes the body; without it, the body remains female” (Ridley 254). It also produces differences in the male brain by “masculinizing [it]” (Ridley 254). While functions in the female brain are diffused throughout the entire brain, testosterone causes the brain functions of males to become more localized and separated into different areas of the brain. This works to more definitely separate the functions between the individual brain hemispheres in males as compared to females (Ridley 250-254).

Nature and Nurture

The bottom line is that regardless of how the differences between men and women arise, “men are not closet women and women are not closet men…men and women are different” (Ridley 270). These differences can arise through biological factors, such as differences in the brain or hormone levels, as well as differences in social conditioning. Nature and nurture need to get in on through some slash.

In the end, it is not clear how the differences between men and women actually affect sexual desire or the expression of it.

Man delete every post you've made in this thread citing your links at this point. This is becoming embarrassing and cringe-worthy. I'm starting to look like a bully picking on a defenseless kid.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

And yet scientists with resources far more than ours go to work every day to put their hypotheses to work. Should they stop talking about it because it is inconclusive?

Should they not bring evidence to the table or talk about the position they think is more feasible because its ultimately inclusive?

Because that's exactly what this debate is, or would have been, if I was debating with someone who had any inkling of what he was talking about.

You nikkas ain't scientists, and neither one of you (or I) are versed on the subject enough to even make that comparison.

But I do know, what a scientist wouldn't do is demand conclusive evidence on a subjective concept, otherwise deem an opinion wrong or invalid.

Quote me where he said that. You are literally making up arguments for him and telling me you're not coming to his rescue.

I said that. I made the argument for me.

It's the truth. And if you think the truth is an argument for him, then maybe you need to go back and reconsider what you've been saying.

Its obvious that you didn't read then. Because its his exact argument. I have quoted it myself. If you cared to read his posts and analyze them like you are attempting to do mine you would have seen that.

I'm playing loose with words yet for the past page he's ignored his own posts to me to start this debate repeatedly. But you're telling me you're not obviously coming to his rescue. Okay lol.

You framed his argument in two different ways in the same damn post

I'm not making it up. You did that.

I'm really not interested in arguing the validity of either of your arguments or arguing for either side.

I just gave my opinion that y'all were making the debate impossible by the standards y'all set forth.

That's it.

And with that I'm out, cause again I think this is a dumb argument

 

[PartyHeart]

Aw that's cute, so you admit that you again only posted 3 links...



Which coincidentally is the exact same number of links I've posted in this thread to support my position...@MeachTheMonster @Astroslik please help her out with the math and count them for her (because math apparently isn't her strength among other subjects).
Sexual dimorphism in cognition and behaviour: the role of X-linked genes
Desegregating sexuality research: cultural and biological perspectives on gender and desire. - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Peplau_Lab/Publications_files/Peplau 2003.pdf

Please try to keep up with your own argument. You are trying to prove that men have higher sexual drive than women. You introduced sexual dimorphism as evidence of it.

Your first link says nothing about sexual dimorphism = men have higher sexual drives than women. I told you this already.

Your second link is an abstract that explains sex differences research and does not prove your position that men have higher sex drives than women.

Your last link has a section on sexual desire and it specifically says it relies on reporting. Something I debunked early on with simple logic, and you eventually agreed to in desperation to be saved by Meach.

Btw @PartyHeart did you see what the source in YOUR OWN DAMN link concluded:

http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2013/09/gender-expectations.aspx
Sex on the brain?: an examination of frequency of sexual cognitions as a function of gender, erotophilia, and social desirability. - PubMed - NCBI


Wow. Thanks for proving my point. This isn't even a debate anymore, she's committing intellectual suicide

This is so sad. Do you think that if you don't bold and highlight sentences that they don't exist? It clearly states

It is commonly believed that men think about sex much more often than do women, but the empirical evidence in this area is fairly weak. By means of a golf tally counter, 283 college students kept track of their thoughts pertaining to food, sleep, or sex for one week. Males reported significantly more need-based cognitions overall, but there was no significant interaction between sex of participant and type of cognition recorded. Therefore, although these young men did think more about sex than did young women, they also thought more about food and sleep.

Literally the first sentence in the paragraph that you quoted. If you are too dim to understand this, which I now know is the case, this is saying that men reported on specific types of things (need based cognitions) more than women. It is saying men reported on needs more, but there was no significant interaction between the sex of the participant and the type of cognition they had (this is something not measured by reporting).

You also need to read the rest of the link instead of desperately searching for something to help you get out of the corner you've backed yourself into. Because it includes this:

Overall, erotophilia was a better predictor of sexual cognition than was sex of participant. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that, although there may be a sex difference in sexual cognitions, it is smaller than is generally thought, and the reporting is likely influenced by sex role expectations.

It literally concludes that exactly the stance I have taken is accurate: the differences in behavior are influenced by sex role expectations (social).

You are AWFUL at this.

 

[PartyHeart]

In fact @PartyHeart you're not slick at all. After carefully reading and analyzing your 3rd link once more...I've found something fascinating.

Your third link doesn't even support your argument as well.

Nature vs. Nurture and Sex: Why the Fight?



Man delete every post you've made in this thread citing your links at this point. This is becoming embarrassing and cringe-worthy. I'm starting to look like a bully picking on a defenseless kid.

You cannot be this dumb. I have been trying to give you a pass because you started off well and since then you have clearly become highly emotional and incapable of rational thought, but this is getting to be too much. I should not have to continue to remind you what we are even debating about.

Read the things you are quoting and apply them to your actual argument. Remember what that is? Ok now, focus. Focus....you are trying to prove that men have a higher sexual drive than women!!

I am trying to support that the differences in sexual behavior for men and women are largely social.

You pulling up a part of an article that says men and women have biological differences in general does not support your argument. The fact that women and men have biological differences is something I said in a post before you even engaged me and again in a post after you did. A post that you dapped. That is not the argument for the last time. You are talking about men having a higher sex drive and have fallen on your face repeatedly in even supporting that argument. And again, just to point out your desperation, here is what the article says.

She shows differences between men and women’s desire, showing that men who claim to be heterosexual were aroused mainly by pornographic images of women or heterosexual sex, whereas men who claim to homosexual are mainly aroused by pornographic images of men. In contrast, women were aroused by images of heterosexual sex, homosexual female sex, homosexual male sex, as well by images of bonobo sex! Clearly there are differences in desire.

Let me guess, being aroused by more things is evidence of less sexual desire? lol. Terrible.

 

[PartyHeart]

I said that. I made the argument for me.

Exactly. For you. Your position has nothing to do with his and what was being debated. But for whatever reason when I responded to him pointing out how he was agreeing with a new argument that did not support his initial position, you jumped to his defense to say "oh that's just your interpretation, it does fit his argument". Which showed me you didn't understand what was even being debated. And now here we are.

I don't have an issue with someone taking a neutral position, which is what you did initially. But you digressed from that neutral position when you claimed his argument was supported by your neutral position. It wasn't. There was nothing neutral about his position, and the quotes that started this debate are there for you to read for yourself. So no need to try to save him like you did. Something you're still doing low key, but I expect it because I know how it goes. Men support each other against women, especially on topics such as these and especially on here. Cheers though.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

Please try to keep up with your own argument. You are trying to prove that men have higher sexual drive than women. You introduced sexual dimorphism as evidence of it.

Your first link says nothing about sexual dimorphism = men have higher sexual drives than women. I told you this already.

Your second link is an abstract that explains sex differences research and does not prove your position that men have higher sex drives than women.

Your last link has a section on sexual desire and it specifically says it relies on reporting. Something I debunked early on with simple logic, and you eventually agreed to in desperation to be saved by Meach.



This is so sad. Do you think that if you don't bold and highlight sentences that they don't exist? It clearly states



Literally the first sentence in the paragraph that you quoted. If you are too dim to understand this, which I now know is the case, this is saying that men reported on specific types of things (need based cognitions) more than women. It is saying men reported on needs more, but there was no significant interaction between the sex of the participant and the type of cognition they had (this is something not measured by reporting).

You also need to read the rest of the link instead of desperately searching for something to help you get out of the corner you've backed yourself into. Because it includes this:



You are AWFUL at this.

You cannot be this dumb. I have been trying to give you a pass because you started off well and since then you have clearly become highly emotional and incapable of rational thought, but this is getting to be too much. I should not have to continue to remind you what we are even debating about.

Read the things you are quoting and apply them to your actual argument. Remember what that is? Ok now, focus. Focus....you are trying to prove that men have a higher sexual drive than women!!

I am trying to support that the differences in sexual behavior for men and women are largely social.

You pulling up a part of an article that says men and women have biological differences in general does not support your argument. The fact that women and men have biological differences is something I said in a post before you even engaged me and again in a post after you did. A post that you dapped. That is not the argument for the last time. You are talking about men having a higher sex drive and have fallen on your face repeatedly in even supporting that argument. And again, just to point out your desperation, here is what the article says.



Let me guess, being aroused by more things is evidence of less sexual desire? lol. Terrible.

It's hilarious to see you become so unhinged, you went from pretending to be above the fray and being someone that wanted to keep up the allusion of knowing what they're talking about - to being exposed as posting drivel and having an uneducated opinion. This is sad. Of course I peeped this (it's the reason I decided to correct you) soon as I saw you respond to others in this thread and noticed how you were so afraid to present any evidence supporting your opinion that you'd tell them to google it or just accept your unsubstantiated opinions as if it's a scientific fact.

Fortunately, for you such ignorance about science is correctable although if you're incapable of grasping this I can't help you because then that just reveals you're likely an idiot.

Let me break it down for you as if I'm explaining to a toddler..
For instance, again this is the source (the entire abstract) of one of your links:

It is commonly believed that men think about sex much more often than do women, but the empirical evidence in this area is fairly weak. By means of a golf tally counter, 283 college students kept track of their thoughts pertaining to food, sleep, or sex for one week. Males reported significantly more need-based cognitions overall, but there was no significant interaction between sex of participant and type of cognition recorded. Therefore, although these young men did think more about sex than did young women, they also thought more about food and sleep. In contrast, a retrospective estimated frequency of need-based cognitions obtained at the start of the study revealed a sex difference in sexual cognitions, but not thoughts about eating or sleeping. Erotophilia and sexual desirability responding were significant predictors of frequency of sexual cognitions for women, but not for men. Overall, erotophilia was a better predictor of sexual cognition than was sex of participant. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that, although there may be a sex difference in sexual cognitions, it is smaller than is generally thought, and the reporting is likely influenced by sex role expectations.

Notice how in the last sentence, she specifically said that merely the reporting of the study is influenced by sex role expectations. She used a golf tally counter, which is a methodologically different than other studies have used and she doesn't speak for them (just her study). Moreover, regardless of it being influenced by sexual role expectations it doesn't change the fact that the actual results proved my point that men have been noted by scientists as having greater sex drives and on average think about sex more than women.

You literally linked a study that proves my point.

The fact is I never denied social factors or culture factors play a role in sexuality(and you can't pull up a single post I made in this thread that says otherwise). However, I can pull up a post that shows you idiotically claimed sexuality is "purely" social. Yet YOUR link not only didn't back that up but even admitted otherwise:

there may be a sex difference in sexual cognitions

Every link posted in this thread(mine and yours) has said men on average desire/think about sex more than women. Are you this dumb where you can't even post a link that at least shows men and women have equal sex drives because I know you're completely incapable of posting a link that shows women have greater sex drives or think about sex more than men.

Nor can you find a link that outright denies that sexuality is influenced by biological differences/sex differences manifested cognitively.

 

[PartyHeart]

It's hilarious to see you become so unhinged, you went from pretending to be above the fray and being someone that wanted to keep up the allusion of knowing what they're talking about - to being exposed as posting drivel and having an uneducated opinion. This is sad. Of course I peeped this (it's the reason I decided to correct you) soon as I saw you respond to others in this thread and noticed how you were so afraid to present any evidence supporting your opinion that you'd tell them to google it or just accept your unsubstantiated opinions as if it's a scientific fact.

Fortunately, for you such ignorance about science is correctable although if you're incapable of grasping this I can't help you because then that just reveals you're likely an idiot.

Let me break it down for you as if I'm explaining to a toddler..
For instance, again this is the source (the entire abstract) of one of your links:

Notice how in the last sentence, she specifically said that merely the reporting of the study is influenced by sex role expectations. She used a golf tally counter, which is a methodologically different than other studies have used and she doesn't speak for them (just her study). Moreover, regardless of it being influenced by sexual role expectations it doesn't change the fact that the actual results proved my point that men have been noted by scientists as having greater sex drives and on average think about sex more than women.

You literally linked a study that proves my point.

The fact is I never denied social factors or culture factors play a role in sexuality(and you can't pull up a single post I made in this thread that says otherwise). However, I can pull up a post that shows you idiotically claimed sexuality is "purely" social. Yet YOUR link not only didn't back that up but even admitted otherwise:


Every link posted in this thread(mine and yours) has said men on average desire/think about sex more than women. Are you this dumb where you can't even post a link that at least shows men and women have equal sex drives because I know you're completely incapable of posting a link that shows women have greater sex drives or think about sex more than men.

Nor can you find a link that outright denies sexuality isn't influenced by biological differences/sex differences manifested cognitively.

The fact that 90% of your post is an attempt to bash me but you can't dedicate more of that to proving your own point. The desperation

Once again, when you make a claim and post evidence that takes human reporting as the basis, and that evidence is then quickly debunked and you even agree that the logic used to debunk it is valid, it is absolutely idiotic to continue to insist on that evidence. This is why I am imploring you to post something else to support your point. Again I will say it again because I will not allow you to run from it: thus far you have only presented research that attempts to quantify sexual desire using reporting. And you have admitted that reporting is unreliable.

As for me posting something to support women having higher sex drives, I literally just posted one Men were only aroused and horny when viewing heterosexual sex with a male and female (or a male and male when the participant was a homosexual). Women were aroused by every sexual stimuli put in front of them. And this was shown not by reporting but by actually testing the participants physiological responses. This is different than and debunks the one study you keep leaning on while having already admitted how flawed it is. And like I said, there is more where that came from.

Come again.

 

[SuperGrizzy]

I don't have anything to do with that, unless I do

 

[DarrynCobretti]

@PartyHeart so are you saying the word "wide" = greater or often? Because unless you've struggled with your English classes as much as you apparently did math and science courses, in that study you're citing men didn't have as wide range they were sexually attracted to but thought about the stimuli they deemed sexual MORE OFTEN. Basically they showed more desire to fukk their stimuli than the women did theirs.

If subject A is willing to fukking 6 objects 1 time and Subject B is willing to fukk 1 object 144 times, Subject B is obviously showing more sexual desire. While subject A merely has a wider range of things it finds attractive.

Exactly. For you. Your position has nothing to do with his and what was being debated. But for whatever reason when I responded to him pointing out how he was agreeing with a new argument that did not support his initial position, you jumped to his defense to say "oh that's just your interpretation, it does fit his argument". Which showed me you didn't understand what was even being debated. And now here we are.

I don't have an issue with someone taking a neutral position, which is what you did initially. But you digressed from that neutral position when you claimed his argument was supported by your neutral position. It wasn't. There was nothing neutral about his position, and the quotes that started this debate are there for you to read for yourself. So no need to try to save him like you did. Something you're still doing low key, but I expect it because I know how it goes. Men support each other against women, especially on topics such as these and especially on here. Cheers though.

This sounds like the ramblings of a defeated soul who know she was intellectually ill-equipped to defend her opinion from the beginning.

I thought this display of emotional investment and hurt feelings were beneath you, at least you said that when you had someone on your side but strangely enough the tears started to spill when someone who is actually an impartial observer noticed your lack of knowledge and logic on this subject. When he proceeded to call you out, I'm sure it hurt especially since you were used to someone jumping in and rescuing you from the beginning when I destroyed your argument.

Now let me give you one more time to save face and prove your argument -

1. Post a link that doesn't say men have more sexual desire/think about sex more.
2. Post a link that says sexuality is completely socially influenced and denies that is biology doesn't have an influence

 

[PartyHeart]

@PartyHeart so are you saying the word "wide" = greater or often? Because unless you've struggled with your English classes as much as you apparently did math and science courses, in that study you're citing men didn't have as wide range they were sexually attracted to but thought about the stimuli they deemed sexual MORE OFTEN. Basically they showed more desire to fukk their stimuli than the women did theirs.

If subject A is willing to fukking 6 objects 1 time and Subject B is willing to fukk 1 object 144 times, Subject B is obviously showing more sexual desire. While subject A merely has a wider range of things it finds attractive.

Except that's not what the study said at all. Re-read it again. Slowly this time, and with more rational thought and less rabid emotion at the thought of how badly you're being embarrassed.

I thought this display of emotional investment and hurt feelings were beneath you, at least you said that when you had someone on your side but strangely enough the tears started to spill when someone who is actually an impartial observer noticed your lack of knowledge and logic on this subject. When he proceeded to call you out, I'm sure it hurt especially since you were used to someone jumping in and rescuing you from the beginning when I destroyed your argument.

You have an active imagination, I'll give you that. I think you need to take a breath and have a cup of warm milk though.

Now let me give you one more time to save face and prove your argument -

1. Post a link that doesn't say men have more sexual desire/think about sex more.
2. Post a link that says sexuality is completely socially influenced and denies that is biology doesn't have an influence

lol I've posted my links many times dear lol. I've even argued against your pathetic attempts to discredit them by making some words larger than others and hoping no one notices what you've left out and tried to draw attention away from. I'm waiting on you to post anything that doesn't rely specifically on reporting and nothing else to prove your point since I already shredded those arguments a long time ago. Your attempts to flip it are transparent and don't work on someone who is clearly smarter than you. Post evidence that supports your argument or stop it.

 

[PartyHeart]

@DarrynCobretti

Keep in mind I haven't even brought up again that women have entire organ specifically for fulfilling sexual desire, nor have I reintroduced the lack of a sexual refractory period in women that exists in men. We can't even get to that because you literally have no idea how to make your own point.

You lost this argument pages ago. I'm just trying to see you through it dear. Go ahead and post real evidence of your position that isn't rudimentary research based on reporting, or stop it.

 

[jadillac]

to answer the thread question.....it does change my perception a little bit. It used to ALOT. But as I am an adult male now, I definitely understand that it's harder than it seemed as a youngster. So my expectations are lower now.

I'd like to think I would never cheat on somoene I made vows with though.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

@DarrynCobretti

Keep in mind I haven't even brought up again that women have entire organ specifically for fulfilling sexual desire, nor have I reintroduced the lack of a sexual refractory period in women that exists in men. We can't even get to that because you literally have no idea how to make your own point.

You lost this argument pages ago. I'm just trying to see you through it dear. Go ahead and post real evidence of your position that isn't rudimentary research based on reporting, or stop it.

"Argument" implies that it's clash between two positions. This isn't a clash. It's me walking you through this and taking the time out of my day(and night) to teach you about the rudimentary basics of science.

I refuse to allow you to use the fact that you're intellectually handicapped as an excuse to why you don't know any better. I'm going to help you shorty, together we're going to fight your ignorance and help you learn.

For instance, here's your source in it's totality that you cited to back up your claim that women have a higher sex drive than men-
http://indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pubs/Chivers_Seto_Blanchard_2007.pdf
Lol please actually look at the charts and the descriptive data found this time, ma.

There's mathematical units and there's charts used to illustrate quantitative data involved that I will interpret for you and explain:
Both heterosexual males and homosexual males registered a higher Z score on the chart than both heterosexual females and homosexual women. The Z score represents genital response to stimuli they find sexual.

The females(unlike males)finding non-humans sexually attractive doesn't change that their measured desire to fukk both humans and non-humans is still found to be lower than than males measured desire to fukk humans.

Why are you making this so easy for me? Do you not realize if you cite a source with any form of quantitative data I will not stop until I find the actual data from the study and I will analyzed the apparatus used as well.