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

[PartyHeart]

Right I asked another poster for scientific reasoning. You stepped in and provided pseudoscientific nonsense.

For example, scientifically having a community of 100 children by 100 different women is biologically MUCH more beneficial than having 1 child by 1 woman. An army is much stronger than a tag team. There is nothing scientific in that line of reasoning at all and it actually goes against all logic and common sense. You're really tryna say your seed has a better chance of survival with 0 siblings than 100. Nonsense. Only someone who is monogamous in nature biologically could be so narrow sighted in their thinking.

Come with the science or don't come at all in your next post, thanks.

There's nothing pseudoscientific about it. It is actual science.

It has been mentioned to you several times that science says women are attracted to a variety of men throughout their ovulation cycle. That is, women desire many different types of men each month to have sex with. You haven't addressed it.

It has been mentioned to you that women never, ever have to fear parentage and always know who their children are. This gives less of a reason for women to need to hover around their partners, pair bond, and ensure parentage than men. You haven't addressed it.

To take it even a step further, women do not have a sexual refractory period and are physiologically equipped for multiple partners. Men are not.

You just are so emotionally invested in believing you can be unfaithful to women but they are biologically forced to be faithful to you. Its not allowing you to think logically.

I will explain the 100 offspring scenario again. If a man impregnates 100 women at the same time, that means 100 offspring he'd have to support in order to ensure their survival. If he chooses not to support any of them, which I'm guessing is your thinking, they have a far lower chance of survival. Many of the women knowing he couldn't provide could abort and search for better partners. Even the women that keep the child will recognize they will basically have to fend for the child themselves, and that child will not thrive. The man who only has to provide for one child, has infinitely increased his chances of seeing his offspring survive and thrive. Do you understand now?

 

[Ms.CuriousCat]

Your problem is rather than going by pure science, you use man made systems like child support to try and back up your rationale that women are polygamous. This is because you cannot keep this argument scientific for it to work.

Now I ask you to rework your argument to keep it purely scientific and biological. If you can't keep your argument scientific you must concede there is no valid scientific reasoning for your line of thought.

my bad.

 

[ZEB WALTON]

yup, if he cant be faithful to his woman/wife/SO... he cant be trusted with ANYONE

 

[Shorty K]

There's nothing pseudoscientific about it. It is actual science.

It has been mentioned to you several times that science says women are attracted to a variety of men throughout their ovulation cycle. That is, women desire many different types of men each month to have sex with. You haven't addressed it.

It has been mentioned to you that women never, ever have to fear parentage and always know who their children are. This gives less of a reason for women to need to hover around their partners, pair bond, and ensure parentage than men. You haven't addressed it.

To take it even a step further, women do not have a sexual refractory period and are physiologically equipped for multiple partners. Men are not.

You just are so emotionally invested in believing you can be unfaithful to women but they are biologically forced to be faithful to you. Its not allowing you to think logically.

I will explain the 100 offspring scenario again. If a man impregnates 100 women at the same time, that means 100 offspring he'd have to support in order to ensure their survival. If he chooses not to support any of them, which I'm guessing is your thinking, they have a far lower chance of survival. Many of the women knowing he couldn't provide could abort and search for better partners. Even the women that keep the child will recognize they will basically have to fend for the child themselves, and that child will not thrive. The man who only has to provide for one child, has infinitely increased his chances of seeing his offspring survive and thrive. Do you understand now?

Okay let's drop science.

1. Explain how a body that is physically capable of reproducing one child at a time is somehow more polygamy suited than a body that can sexually produce an unlimited amount of children at a time. Please drop the science on that.

2. Fear parentage is why it's in a woman's biological best interest to be monogamous. A man will leave you and your kid that you know is yours high and dry if he doubts for a second the kid isn't his leaving you and your child with less chance of survival. What is wrong with you

3. Being monogamous doesn't suddenly turn a magical switch on where you become asexual to the world outside your baby daddy


4. You just sound stupid when you try to womansplain a smaller family being more suited for survival than a larger. There's nothing scientific in your rhetoric at all and reveals an extreme immaturity in you to keep babbling on and on about it. Stop it, just concede the polygamous nature of the penis vs the monogamous nature of the vagina and move on. You sound like a kid just too angry at the parent to concede to the more adult logic.

 

[PartyHeart]

my bad.

You shouldn't have edited, you were right the first time

 

[Da King]

Depends on who he’s cheating with

 

[MikelArteta]

As someone who has been cheated on I depise cheaters, selfish and full of greed.

If you don't want to be with someone just tell em.

 

[PartyHeart]

Okay let's drop science.

1. Explain how a body that is physically capable of reproducing one child at a time is somehow more polygamy suited than a body that can sexually produce an unlimited amount of children at a time. Please drop the science on that.

You don't seem to have a good grasp on what debating is either. You don't get to keep asking questions and trying to have a person "re-prove" a point you've failed to address over and over. Either combat the point made or concede the point.

2. Fear parentage is why it's in a woman's biological best interest to be monogamous. A man will leave you and your kid that you know is yours high and dry if he doubts for a second the kid isn't his leaving you and your child with less chance of survival. What is wrong with you

The man is going to be faced with the same uncertainty no matter what woman he goes to . He can drop one woman, but unless he pair bonds and sticks around with the next he still has less chance of knowing for sure if that is his child either. Unlike women, who will always know their children. Honestly even when men pair bond, they could still potentially be with a woman who created a child with a different man. Again, the woman never has this fear. Her monogamy will never dictate or even influence her own parentage. It is her child regardless and she will always know it, it doesn't matter who the father is.

3. Being monogamous doesn't suddenly turn a magical switch on where you become asexual to the world outside your baby daddy

I'm not even sure if you know what you're arguing anymore. If you agree that women are sexually attracted to more than one man even after entering a relationship with one, you are conceding that women are not monogamous by nature like you desperately hope is so for your own insecurity's sake. Women not acting on their desires is a separate topic and is purely socially enforced. If it was socially enforced for men, they'd behave similarly, despite also being non-monogamous by nature.

You seem to forget that its you that knows so little about women's biology that you are arguing that women are monogamous. I have never claimed men are monogamous, because I actually understand biology and accept it for what it is. Unlike yourself, who wants to twist biology to fit my hopes and dreams about being able to demand faithfulness from my partner while not being willing to give it.

4. You just sound stupid when you try to womansplain a smaller family being more suited for survival than a larger. There's nothing scientific in your rhetoric at all and reveals an extreme immaturity in you to keep babbling on and on about it. Stop it, just concede the polygamous nature of the penis vs the monogamous nature of the vagina and move on. You sound like a kid just too angry at the parent to concede to the more adult logic.

You sound mad. Try having this debate without obviously being spitting mad and hurling insults as if that is helping prove your point (or lack thereof). I'll return once you do.

 

[Shorty K]

You don't seem to have a good grasp on what debating is either. You don't get to keep asking questions and trying to have a person "re-prove" a point you've failed to address over and over. Either combat the point made or concede the point.

So you can't exactly explain how a body that can produce one child at a time is more suited for polygamy than a body that can produce an unlimited amount of children.

Understood. It's a very ridiculous position to take and I expect deflection rather than explanation when called on it. I accept your concession you are mentally incapable of making on this issue.

Next.

The man is going to be faced with the same uncertainty no matter what woman he goes to . He can drop one woman, but unless he pair bonds and sticks around with the next he still has less chance of knowing for sure if that is his child either. Unlike women, who will always know their children. Honestly even when men pair bond, they could still potentially be with a woman who created a child with a different man. Again, the woman never has this fear. Her monogamy will never dictate or even influence her own parentage. It is her child regardless and she will always know it, it doesn't matter who the father is.

Correct and he will drop the next woman too and now you have two children growing up with no father because the woman was mentally incapable of accepting her monogamous nature. Good job.

I'm not even sure if you know what you're arguing anymore. If you agree that women are sexually attracted to more than one man even after entering a relationship with one, you are conceding that women are not monogamous by nature like you desperately hope is so for your own insecurity's sake. Women not acting on their desires is a separate topic and is purely socially enforced. If it was socially enforced for men, they'd behave similarly, despite also being non-monogamous by nature.

Do you have a scientific definition of monogamy that indicates anything about physical attraction to the opposite sex? Or are you just making stuff up

You seem to forget that its you that knows so little about women's biology that you are arguing that women are monogamous. I have never claimed men are monogamous, because I actually understand biology and accept it for what it is. Unlike yourself, who wants to twist biology to fit my hopes and dreams about being able to demand faithfulness from my partner while not being willing to give it.

Right, because men aren't monogamous. Our bodies aren't built to bond with and depend upon another human during sexual reproduction the way women's body are because a woman's organs and nature is monogamous. It's your own monogamous nature, as a matter of fact, that made you recoil and try to splain how a 3 person family biologically has a better chance at survival than a 201 person family. That's a monogamous entity being a slave to its nature

 

[Huellz Santana]

if you're a man 25 and above... you definitely have a friend or mentor who has cheated on their wife.

I only judge the ones who are sloppy about it or don't even care about their spouse.

like get a divorce you coward. ​

 

[PartyHeart]

So you can't exactly explain how a body that can produce one child at a time is more suited for polygamy than a body that can produce an unlimited amount of children.

It has actually been explained to you over and over again. This will be my third time (and last) at least.

Children take a great amount of time and resources to survive and thrive. Having an unlimited number of them is not beneficial as you will never be able to supply them all with the time and resources required for them to thrive. It is not my fault that you fail to understand that children aren't toys and actually require resources to survive.

Correct and he will drop the next woman too and now you have two children growing up with no father because the woman was mentally incapable of accepting her monogamous nature. Good job.

Are you following the conversation at all? Whether they are monogamous or not, he will never know. Whether they are his kids are not, he will never know. They could be, but he will never know. If he wants to do this an infinite amount of times because he is insecure in his position as being unable to know the parentage of his children as surely as the women he sleeps with, that is his choice. Womb envy is real. But at the end of the day his children will not thrive. For evidence, see the difference between the white community and the black.

Do you have a scientific definition of monogamy that indicates anything about physical attraction to the opposite sex? Or are you just making stuff up

You are on a computer. You know what Google is. If you don't know the definition of monogamy, why wouldn't you look it up? Why do you think I'm going to do the work for you?

Right, because men aren't monogamous. Our bodies aren't built to bond with and depend upon another human during sexual reproduction

lol What? How is a female body built to bond and depend upon another human during sexual reproduction and not a man's when they both are involved in the act. Especially when women have no refractory period and an entire organ specifically for pleasure and not reproduction (the clitoris, in case you didn't know)

Stop typing your feelings/wishes/wants and type facts as I have.

It's your own monogamous nature, as a matter of fact, that made you recoil and try to splain how a 3 person family biologically has a better chance at survival than a 201 person family. That's a monogamous entity being a slave to its nature

Where are the resources coming from to support a 201 person family and have it thrive.

Think.

 

[Mowgli]

As someone who has been cheated on I depise cheaters, selfish and full of greed.

If you don't want to be with someone just tell em.

What if u want your cake and eat it to?

 

[Ms.CuriousCat]

You shouldn't have edited, you were right the first time

you know that will just take you further into the rabbit hole.

 

[Gold]

If lies about the most important bond he's made in his life, his word is shyt.

Can still be a cool guy, but i'll trust him less

 

[Shorty K]

It has actually been explained to you over and over again. This will be my third time (and last) at least.

Children take a great amount of time and resources to survive and thrive. Having an unlimited number of them is not beneficial as you will never be able to supply them all with the time and resources required for them to thrive. It is not my fault that you fail to understand that children aren't toys and actually require resources to survive.

Baby girl, we're talking about the biology of men and women. Things that aren't apart of the biology of men and women do not matter in a purely biological discussion. Do you understand what a person's biological make up is?

Are you following the conversation at all? Whether they are monogamous or not, he will never know. Whether they are his kids are not, he will never know. They could be, but he will never know. If he wants to do this an infinite amount of times because he is insecure in his position as being unable to know the parentage of his children as surely as the women he sleeps with, that is his choice. Womb envy is real. But at the end of the day his children will not thrive. For evidence, see the difference between the white community and the black.

Okay, right, let me be the nuts in this conversation and reign things in, from a purely biological perspective, because you continue to take this conversation in far out directions, how is a body capable of producing one child at a time from one other person at a time, and puts itself in a state that is vulnerable and relies on that one other person to take care of it during reproduction a body that is polygamous? Respond with pure biological science.

You are on a computer. You know what Google is. If you don't know the definition of monogamy, why wouldn't you look it up? Why do you think I'm going to do the work for you?

So you are making stuff up. Gotcha. But feel and prove me wrong by providing one scientific definition from an acredited source that includes physical attraction to the opposite sex in it. All you gotta find is 1. I'll wait

lol What? How is a female body built to bond and depend upon another human during sexual reproduction and not a man's when they both are involved in the act. Especially when women have no refractory period and an entire organ specifically for pleasure and not reproduction (the clitoris, in case you didn't know)

You're right. Pregnancy ain't what women crack it up to be and is a very easy condition to deal with on your own. Women aren't in a biologically vulnerable state while they're pregnant and don't require any support what so ever.


Also women don't have a refactory period so in your womanly mind this means you can have three different babies by three different men in the same 9 month time frame.


Oh wait yall can't do that because you're biologically monogamous.

Stop typing your feelings/wishes/wants and type facts as I have.

Where are the resources coming from to support a 201 person family and have it thrive.

Think.

Genghis Khan had hundreds of children at a time and a 201 person family has 101 adults to pool resources together with, along with 101 different families being bonded and tied together.