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

[DarrynCobretti]

Show your studies about sexual dimorphism having immense influence on behavior? As I have said, most of the differences in the behavior of the sexes are socially influenced. When you start saying the differences are innate and "correct" so to speak, you are definitely going to have to prove it.

As far as your question, I am definitely challenging the idea that men biologically have more sexual desire. Please post your studies since you seem to be very confident that they do and it has nothing to do with social influence. Remember, I have already disproven your initial one about male reporting more desire in two different ways.

Wait are you seriously questioning the influence sexual dimorphism has on human social interaction and animal behavior overall? That's absolutely hilariously foolish and completely denies the sexually dimorphic influences on human cognition.

In fact here's a link that conveys the reality of sexual dimorphism's impact on humans as well as other primates we're closely related too: Sexual dimorphism in cognition and behaviour: the role of X-linked genes

Also you neither disapproved anything I've said nor even so much as supported anything you've said with scientific studies or a shred of empirical evidence. I've never once said anything is strictly bio-driven, in fact everything humans do is influenced by genes AND environment - so for you to say anything both sexes do is strictly social (aka only environment) is completely without scientific basis and ignorant. That's completely spitting in the face of the nature v. nurture debate that the scientific community still explores and embraces.

I'm not saying a biological component alone plays a role to why men have been noted in various studies to have more sexual desire on average but I'm saying it plays a part just as social influence/cultural factors (i.e. environment) does. Many scientists agree with that holistic approach that seeks to explains things from all known factors rather than your unsupported theory that only claims nurture exists (and not nature). Here's a link that shows that biology plays a role in sexuality and not just cultural factors/social influence:
Desegregating sexuality research: cultural and biological perspectives on gender and desire. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[PartyHeart]

Wait are you seriously questioning the influence sexual dimorphism has on human social interaction and animal behavior overall? That's absolutely hilariously foolish and completely denies the sexually dimorphic influences on human cognition.

In fact here's a link that conveys the reality of sexual dimorphism's impact on humans as well as other primates we're closely related too: Sexual dimorphism in cognition and behaviour: the role of X-linked genes

Also you neither disapproved anything I've said nor even so much as supported anything you've said with scientific studies or a shred of empirical evidence. I've never once said anything is strictly bio-driven, in fact everything humans do is influenced by genes AND environment - so for you to say anything both sexes do is strictly social (aka only environment) is completely without scientific basis and ignorant. That's completely spitting in the face of the nature v. nurture debate that the scientific community still explores and embraces.

I'm not saying a biological component alone plays a role to why men have been noted in various studies to have more sexual desire on average but I'm saying it plays a part just as social influence/cultural factors (i.e. environment) does. Many scientists agree with that holistic approach that seeks to explains things from all known factors rather than your unsupported theory that only claims nurture exists (and not nature). Here's a link that shows that biology plays a role in sexuality and not just cultural factors/social influence:
Desegregating sexuality research: cultural and biological perspectives on gender and desire. - PubMed - NCBI

First of all, you do realize this is the first and only time you yourself have posted any study? Relax. I don't know what it is about you guys on here and your inability to have a simple conversation without getting emotional and hurling insults.

And please follow your own line of logic. You are the one who brought up sexual dimorphism as it relates to differences in desire between the sexes. You cannot jump from talking about a specific topic, to then moving back into the broader topic (sexual dimorphism in general) and then pontificating about the "overall" effects of it and ignore we were talking about something quite specific. To put it plainly, you would need to post evidence to back up the specific topic of sexual dimorphism and sexual desire to prove your assertion that men desire sex more often than women on average. Your first link is moot as a general conversation about sexual dimorphism was never the topic of debate anyway. It was simply something you brought up in relation to the topic of conversation, which was sexual desire in the sexes. Your link doesn't talk about that.

My theory of it being more social than biological is as much of a theory as your assertion that women on average are not as horny as men. And despite your claims that you're not agreeing with it not being a reason for men to cheat more, etc. it is an excuse that is being used by men who do believe that and it is a claim you've made repeatedly in this thread.

Here is a link of mine, to an article about a study that was conducted and actually addresses the conversation at hand:

What Do Women Want? - Discovering What Ignites Female Desire

Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos.
...
All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes.

If women can be physically aroused by a wider range of sexual stimuli, this could actually be said to indicate a stronger sex drive in women, could it not? And when you are able to see that it is not acted on as much as men despite the physiological necessities being there, would it not lend credence to the idea that when it comes to sexually behavior it is heavily due to social influence?

We also see in this study evidence that female sexual arousal reporting, due to a literal entire lifetime of social conditioning, is often unreliable and doesn't actual match up with their physiological response of sexual desire.

Another study (of many) that would also indicate another reason to dismiss your earlier attempts to use sexual desire reporting to say men's sex drive > Women's:

http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2013/09/gender-expectations.aspx

She asked nearly 300 undergraduates taking a course in general psychology to complete a questionnaire asking how often they engaged in 124 different "typically male" or "typically female" behaviors, such as telling obscene jokes (male) and lying about weight (female). About half of the participants filled out the questionnaire while they were attached to a polygraph machine that they were told would indicate lies. In reality, the machine did nothing.

Fisher found that the men who weren't hooked up to the machine reported having more sexual partners than those who were hooked up and that the women who were not hooked up to the machine reported fewer partners than those who were hooked up, indicating the participants may have fibbed about their actual behaviors.

When men and women thought they could get caught for lying, they reported true numbers that may not have reflected their gender stereotype about how much and how often they should having sex. When they thought they couldn't get caught in a lie, they lie their behinds off in favor of their gender stereotypes.

And here is another study that even specifies that biology can actually be influenced by social factors, something those of us in the medical field have known for years:

Nature vs. Nurture and Sex: Why the Fight?

Biological differences can actually arise from social conditioning, as shown by Lise Eliot in “Girl Brain, Boy Brain?” Eliot shows that there is a difference seen between men and women in the size of the straight gyrus (SG), a region of the brain associated with personal and social cognition. Adult females tend to have a larger SG than males do. It was postulated that because women are the “primary child-rearers, their brains have become programmed to develop a larger SG, to prepare them to be sensitive nurturers.” However, adolescent and pre-adolescent boys tend to have a larger SG than girls do. When studied closer, it was seen that the size of the SG depended on the individual’s overall concept of him or herself as masculine or feminine in terms of a socially constructed gender concept rather than just in terms of biological sex.

We also know that in times of great stress, many biological changes happen in the human body to adapt. In times of great sorrow and happiness/overindulgence as well. To tie that directly, so as to not be misunderstood,

Now is this irrefutable evidence that sexual behavior is mostly social? Absolutely not. There are very few things in this area of science that can be said to be irrefutable. Every new study debunks the last. But do I feel there is far more evidence to say that sexual desire differences in the sexes leans more social than biological? Absolutely.

 

[Hungry Rabbit]

Eh keep a side eye on em...if they capable of doing that to someone they love...fukk u think they gone do to u....cheatin is so last decade...let ur nuts hang..be honest.. Most nagas think they pimpin but fail to realize a good pimp tells the woman the truth...

Put me on game brah

 

[DarrynCobretti]

@PartyHeart are you aware every link you've just posted didn't disapprove a single thing I've said nor even addresses anything the entire studies I linked.

Listen it's obvious that even by the links you've cited that you can neither prove your theory that sexual behavior is solely environment and nor is that the scientific consensus. Fortunately most actual scientists have a nuanced opinion that concludes that sexuality (like most highly subjective cognitive-based concepts) is in fact a product of both nature and nurture not just one component like you're pushing.

You're operating from a position of confirmation bias just like the anti-women trolls in this thread; for instance saying fallacious statements like "If women can be physically aroused by a wider range of sexual stimuli, this could be said to indicate a stronger sex drive in women, could it not?" implies that the word "wide" is synonymous with the word "strong". You're acting as if something can not be wider than a thing and still be weaker, but I'm sure you knew that but chose to that invoke that failed game of semantics for the sake of your argument anyway.

FWIW here's another study, by yet another scientist (who is a woman) that admits men have a stronger sex drive than women. http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Peplau_Lab/Publications_files/Peplau 2003.pdf

Btw it's clear you didn't fully read the first link in my previous post; sexuality is a sociological concept that is inherently subjective and it's purely cognitive based. My link is research about sexual dimorphism in cognition and behaviour, and explores the role of X-linked genes. It clearly shows how biology can influence cognition which in turns influences cognitive based concepts like sexuality. Even in the abstract it explains before it goes much deeper into it...

Recently, it has become clear that a long-standing theory, implicating X-linked genes in a sexually antagonistic evolutionary role, is probably correct. Genes on the sex chromosomes can directly influence sexual dimorphism in cognition and behaviour, independent of the action of sex steroids. Mechanisms by which sex-chromosomal effects, due to X-linked genes, influence neural development or function are reviewed. These include the biased expression of genes subject to X-inactivation, haploinsufficiency (in males) for non-inactivated genes with no Y homology, sex-specific brain functions and genomic imprinting of X-linked loci. Evidence supporting each of these mechanisms is available from both human and animal models. Recently, the first candidate genes have been discovered.

The bottomline, is we both can find scientists and scholarly articles who support our positions, but the fundamental difference is that you chose to get attached to only one ideological component(nuture) and outright deny the influence of the other(nature) that scientists have identified as a factor as well, where as I acknowledge both and view both as having an influence on cognitive based-concepts and fortunately it's backed by modern behavioral genetic research that doesn't view the nature vs. nurture dichotomy as something worth picking sides anymore, due to the well-documented interaction of genes and environment.

 

[King Jae]

Put me on game brah

I ain't no P bruh..just knew a couple..and if u wanna talk to them they gonna charge u a consultant fee...game to be sold...

 

[Critical Distance]

@PartyHeart is a thot, thot, thot.

 

[King Jae]

Put me on game brah

I ain't no P bruh..just knew a couple..and if u wanna talk to them they gonna charge u a consultant fee...u know how the saying goes...

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

You take a up standing good dude

This is incongruent with cheating

And if a man is willing to betray his wife there's no telling what he will do to you :biggapls:

 

[Hungry Rabbit]

I ain't no P bruh..just knew a couple..and if u wanna talk to them they gonna charge u a consultant fee...game to be sold...

HAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA

 

[King Jae]

HAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA

...why would my homie charge me?... wasn't talking bout me.. anyone else he would...good try tho...

 

[homiedontplaydat]

I found out an old friend of mine cheated on his wife. When he came over the crib, I told him I was mad at him and for him not to say one word to me. After the game went off, I pranced over to the door, opened it, and stared into space. He said "I guess I should leave, huh?" I replied "mmm hmm" and he left.

Don't cheat on your wife, u fukkin idiots

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

1. How can you say she has a sound argument - when she neither supported her argument with scientific facts nor bothered to even to substantiate her claims when her position was dissected?
2. Yet in the same breathe, you only focused on a stat in one sentence (based on one of many studies I referred to in that same sentence) then completely ignored everything else I said in the post to fit your narrative of her having a sound argument that claims women and men have the exact same sex drive and libido.

With all due respect, what's the point of just reading one sentence of my entire post and debating the merits of that one sentence then completely ignore the other facts I posed that completely disapproves her entire post I responded to. I even told you if you want me to I'll cite sources and links to support my post (which is more than your girl did in this entire thread).

You said you haven't stated an opinion (and I can respect that), so then if you're not biased at least read my entire post out of respect for an opposing view point.

You're usually one of the more logical brehettes here so, again here's my entire post and please look at my overall point:

Notice how I said "some studies" because obviously not all studies shared the same conclusion regarding the exact number of times men think about sex daily (although they do in fact all come to the same conclusion that males typically think about sex more than women on average).

Plus even in the "myth-buster" article you linked in response to my post above - your own link actually supported my entire position that men think about sex more than women in the first sentence of the article:


Again, let me also clarify once more that I'm not using my point to make an argument that attempts to justify why one gender should cheat more than the other. I'm merely saying biological differences between genders exist and manifest itself through things like sex drive, aggression (statistically males have a higher a tendency of mindless violence) and human's relatively limited sexual dimorphism.

Didn't read and you are still doing the most with that long was reply. You seriously trying to argue down someone when you don't even know their opinion.

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

First of all, you do realize this is the first and only time you yourself have posted any study? Relax. I don't know what it is about you guys on here and your inability to have a simple conversation without getting emotional and hurling insults.

And please follow your own line of logic. You are the one who brought up sexual dimorphism as it relates to differences in desire between the sexes. You cannot jump from talking about a specific topic, to then moving back into the broader topic (sexual dimorphism in general) and then pontificating about the "overall" effects of it and ignore we were talking about something quite specific. To put it plainly, you would need to post evidence to back up the specific topic of sexual dimorphism and sexual desire to prove your assertion that men desire sex more often than women on average. Your first link is moot as a general conversation about sexual dimorphism was never the topic of debate anyway. It was simply something you brought up in relation to the topic of conversation, which was sexual desire in the sexes. Your link doesn't talk about that.

My theory of it being more social than biological is as much of a theory as your assertion that women on average are not as horny as men. And despite your claims that you're not agreeing with it not being a reason for men to cheat more, etc. it is an excuse that is being used by men who do believe that and it is a claim you've made repeatedly in this thread.

Here is a link of mine, to an article about a study that was conducted and actually addresses the conversation at hand:

What Do Women Want? - Discovering What Ignites Female Desire



If women can be physically aroused by a wider range of sexual stimuli, this could actually be said to indicate a stronger sex drive in women, could it not? And when you are able to see that it is not acted on as much as men despite the physiological necessities being there, would it not lend credence to the idea that when it comes to sexually behavior it is heavily due to social influence?

We also see in this study evidence that female sexual arousal reporting, due to a literal entire lifetime of social conditioning, is often unreliable and doesn't actual match up with their physiological response of sexual desire.

Another study (of many) that would also indicate another reason to dismiss your earlier attempts to use sexual desire reporting to say men's sex drive > Women's:

http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2013/09/gender-expectations.aspx



When men and women thought they could get caught for lying, they reported true numbers that may not have reflected their gender stereotype about how much and how often they should having sex. When they thought they couldn't get caught in a lie, they lie their behinds off in favor of their gender stereotypes.

And here is another study that even specifies that biology can actually be influenced by social factors, something those of us in the medical field have known for years:

Nature vs. Nurture and Sex: Why the Fight?



We also know that in times of great stress, many biological changes happen in the human body to adapt. In times of great sorrow and happiness/overindulgence as well. To tie that directly, so as to not be misunderstood,

Now is this irrefutable evidence that sexual behavior is mostly social? Absolutely not. There are very few things in this area of science that can be said to be irrefutable. Every new study debunks the last. But do I feel there is far more evidence to say that sexual desire differences in the sexes leans more social than biological? Absolutely.

I wish I could rep you again

 

[DarrynCobretti]

Didn't read and you are still doing the most with that long was reply. You seriously trying to argue down someone when you don't even know their opinion.

Lol @ claiming I'm doing the most with a long reply, then proceeds to read a post from someone later in the thread with an even longer reply. That inconsistency reeks of immature intellectual dishonesty and reveals your underlying opinion you either are unable to argue for or simply will not so you can pretend that you haven't directly stated your opinion in this topic.

Because everyone can clearly see that you share the same opinion of the poster that you're nut-hugging in this thread.
Which is why you addressed me in this thread when I was replying to your homie.



In fact now that I see you're purposely wasting my time and trolling me, I'm not replying to you anymore in this thread. In fact you'd be better off sitting this one out and keep on cheering on the sidelines. I actually thought you were more logical than the type to blindly back someone who goes against the scientific consensus and eventually admits in her last sentence that she can't actually prove her theory and finally realized none of the links she cited backed her up either:

Now is this irrefutable evidence that sexual behavior is mostly social? Absolutely not. There are very few things in this area of science that can be said to be irrefutable.

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

Lol @ claiming I'm doing the most with a long reply, then proceeds to read a post from someone later in the thread with an even longer reply. That inconsistency reeks of immature intellectual dishonesty and reveals your underlying opinion you either are unable to argue for or simply will not so you can pretend that you haven't directly stated your opinion in this topic.

Because everyone can clearly see that you share the same opinion of the poster that you're nut-hugging in this thread.
Which is why you addressed me in this thread when I was replying to your homie.



In fact now that I see you're purposely wasting my time and trolling me, I'm not replying to you anymore in this thread. In fact you'd be better off sitting this one out and keep on cheering on the sidelines. I actually thought you were more logical than the type to blindly back someone who goes against the scientific consensus and eventually admits in her last sentence that she can't actually prove her theory and finally realized none of the links she cited backed her up either:

Your still doing the most and a I'm still not reading your books. You keep trying to come at me b/c I said she is arguing her pt better...which she still is. Get out your feelings. You are too emotionally invested in this discussion