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

[Copy Ninja]

Cheating is a sign of a man's character

I won't lose friendships over it, but I won't be cosigning that breh either

 

[NSSVO]

If a nikka is willing to cheat on his baby moms that he says he loves and builds a family, that nikka don't give a fukk about anybody So don't be surprised when he does some snake shyt to you without conscience because obviously he doesn't have one.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

This is a lot of talk but you have yet to post a study that confirms your POV. I have posted 3. Please provide at least one.

The previous one you linked does not say anything about sexual dimorphism being the reason for men having a higher sex drive than women (your claim). You did not read your own link. Now you are trying to make a very tenuous link between sexual dimorphism -> cognition -> behavior -> sexual behavior. Something your research paper itself did not do.

The one you have posted now again attempts to make claims on female and male sexuality based on reporting. This is something I thoroughly debunked when you first tried to bring it up pages ago. You have already admitted that social factors are an influencer, yet none of the things you post take that into consideration in their research methodology. You admit that you believe that social and biological factors influence sexual desire, but none of your research attempts to take social factors into account at all when measuring. I wonder why that is Especially since all of mine have taken both into consideration.

Lastly, you are getting arguments mixed up and pretty obviously changing mine in a desperate attempt to create a strawman you can easily knock down. I did not say that sexual behavior is solely environmental. I said mostly and I stand by that and unlike you have actually made several posts supporting my position. You on the other hand have claimed repeatedly without a shadow of a doubt that men have higher sex drives than women on average. You have yet to make one post that confirms this as firmly as you do. I'm waiting for you to do so.

Hmm this post was filled with so many logical fallacies, much more than you're previous posts in this thread. Do you know what a syllogistic fallacy is? If you aren't aware of what that is then I strongly suggest you google that term and be sure to cut down on committing those. It would keep your argument from being so easy to attack and dissect.

Moreover, I love how you're actually aware of the fact that you didn't post a single link that supported anything that you've actually stated. I've read every single link you cited and each time you posted them you added unsubstantiated conjecture to preface the link (as if you hoped that I didn't take the time to actually read and analyze your sources).

In fact let's revisit some things you've actually stated and claimed in this thread, by looking at few interesting quotes from you:
QUOTE 1:

The differences in the way men and women behave sexually are purely socially taught.

You still haven't posted a single link to that even tangentially touched upon this let alone supported this completely unsubstantiated claim.
As you can see you literally say "purely socially taught" which means you literally denied biology and attributed everything to social. Then later in another post you switched up your own flimsy argument because you've realized your error:

As I have said, most of the differences in the behavior of the sexes are socially influenced.

See how you leaped from saying "purely socially taught" to downgrading you're unsupported claims by including the word "most"? Now instead attributing all of sexual desire to social factors, you merely just attribute most of it to social factors. Yet even when you conveniently switch you're argument position - you again failed to post a single link that even proves that sexual desire is mostly due to social factors.

QUOTE 2:

This is a lot of talk but you have yet to post a study that confirms your POV. I have posted 3. Please provide at least one.

Now after I just peeped how you changed you're entire argument and even before that you had the audacity to attempt to play a failed semantics game that you wisely backed away from when I called you out on that as well. This is starting to become hilarious.

Only one of us in this thread made a consistent, logically coherent argument. My POV is that men have a stronger sexual desire, are generally more horny that women and think about sex more. Regardless of the causative factors (which I think is both nature and nurture like any of our behavior is a product of) this is a proven and well-supported position in the scientific community. Every source I cited in this thread literally displays studies supporting that, where as not a single source you posted stated women have a greater sexual drive than men yet remember when you went so far as too posit that illogical, unsubstantiated opinion in this post:
QUOTE 3:

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?

I addressed this by immediately saying this: 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.

Coincidentally (yet smartly) you realized you'd be better off not inferring that women have stronger sex drives than men anymore after I called you out on such a half-baked theory that even you know better than to attempt to debate the merits of such an opinion.
QUOTE 4:

Lastly, you are getting arguments mixed up and pretty obviously changing mine in a desperate attempt to create a strawman you can easily knock down. I did not say that sexual behavior is solely environmental.

Wrong lmao. I just provided proof that you in fact did attribute sexual behavior solely to environment.

Wait, you hear that - that's the sound of a gun shot where your own bullets rained upon your argument and made holes in it. I didn't even have to pull the trigger, you did. By mixing up your own poor argument and changing positions in the middle of a debate, you've bodied yourself.


QUOTE 5:

Show your studies about sexual dimorphism having immense influence on behavior?

Btw do you see how this was your entire question and the complete context, when I proceeded to give you this link: Sexual dimorphism in cognition and behaviour: the role of X-linked genes
Exactly answering that specific question and showing how sexual dimorphism has an immense influence on behavior which if you actually read the link even touches upon sexual behavior and causative factors like genes.


Moreover I'm not even surprised you didn't actually read any of the sources I cited, because anyone who'd say completely unsubstantiated things due to an underlying bias and deflects by invoking failed games of semantics, would likely not bother to read anything behavioral scientists has to say in a scholarly article that may discredit their argument.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

Sorry to jump into yalls thing, but y'all are going in circles cause "sex drive" is impossible to quantify. People perceive their sex drive and sexuality in very different ways, so any "science" on the subject is ambiguous at best.

Just my 2 cents

That's actually completely correct.

Anyone who has a working knowledge of biology(and science overall) knows that a sociological concept like sexuality is inherently subjective thus impossible to thoroughly quantify. Which is why it's unintentionally hilarious that @PartyHeart is discrediting studies that report sexuality - on the basis that they are unreliable yet all possible studies (including controlled studies via polygraph) are fundamentally flawed. I bet even Party's subservient lap dog in this thread that follows her around can see that.

Moreover, that's why I'm not in here trying to prove my definition of sexuality rather than just stating whatever anyone's definition of sexuality is - there's multiple complex factors why such sexuality exists. We're a product of our genes & environment. Even on a molecular level of genetics, that concept of 'nature and nuture' is illustrated wonderfully by gene expression .

 

[PartyHeart]

Hmm this post was filled with so many logical fallacies, much more than you're previous posts in this thread. Do you know what a syllogistic fallacy is? If you aren't aware of what that is then I strongly suggest you google that term and be sure to cut down on committing those. It would keep your argument from being so easy to attack and dissect.

Moreover, I love how you're actually aware of the fact that you didn't post a single link that supported anything that you've actually stated. I've read every single link you cited and each time you posted them you added unsubstantiated conjecture to preface the link (as if you hoped that I didn't take the time to actually read and analyze your sources).

In fact let's revisit some things you've actually stated and claimed in this thread, by looking at few interesting quotes from you:
QUOTE 1:

You still haven't posted a single link to that even tangentially touched upon this let alone supported this completely unsubstantiated claim.
As you can see you literally say "purely socially taught" which means you literally denied biology and attributed everything to social. Then later in another post you switched up your own flimsy argument because you've realized your error:

See how you leaped from saying "purely socially taught" to downgrading you're unsupported claims by including the word "most"? Now instead attributing all of sexual desire to social factors, you merely just attribute most of it to social factors. Yet even when you conveniently switch you're argument position - you again failed to post a single link that even proves that sexual desire is mostly due to social factors.

QUOTE 2:

Now after I just peeped how you changed you're entire argument and even before that you had the audacity to attempt to play a failed semantics game that you wisely backed away from when I called you out on that as well. This is starting to become hilarious.

Only one of us in this thread made a consistent, logically coherent argument. My POV is that men have a stronger sexual desire, are generally more horny that women and think about sex more. Regardless of the causative factors (which I think is both nature and nurture like any of our behavior is a product of) this is a proven and well-supported position in the scientific community. Every source I cited in this thread literally displays studies supporting that, where as not a single source you posted stated women have a greater sexual drive than men yet remember when you went so far as too posit that illogical, unsubstantiated opinion in this post:
QUOTE 3:
I addressed this by immediately saying this: 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.

Coincidentally (yet smartly) you realized you'd be better off not inferring that women have stronger sex drives than men anymore after I called you out on such a half-baked theory that even you know better than to attempt to debate the merits of such an opinion.
QUOTE 4:
Wrong lmao. I just provided proof that you in fact did attribute sexual behavior solely to environment.

Wait, you hear that - that's the sound of a gun shot where your own bullets rained upon your argument and made holes in it. I didn't even have to pull the trigger, you did. By mixing up your own poor argument and changing positions in the middle of a debate, you've bodied yourself.


QUOTE 5:
Btw do you see how this was your entire question and the complete context, when I proceeded to give you this link: Sexual dimorphism in cognition and behaviour: the role of X-linked genes
Exactly answering that specific question and showing how sexual dimorphism has an immense influence on behavior which if you actually read the link even touches upon sexual behavior and causative factors like genes.


Moreover I'm not even surprised you didn't actually read any of the sources I cited, because anyone who'd say completely unsubstantiated things due to an underlying bias and deflects by invoking failed games of semantics, would likely not bother to read anything behavioral scientists has to say in a scholarly article that may discredit their argument.

You spent all this time dissecting my posts looking for ways to use language and syntax to discredit me, when you could have spent that time posting proof of your argument, like I have asked you repeatedly to do.

When are you going to post actual scientific studies and research that back your claims?

 

[Thegospel]

Y'all nikkas goofy asfukk. Y'all wouldn't trust MLK huh? Don't respect him as a man? And don't give me no extra talk about what he did for black folks, this is about cheating.

 

[PartyHeart]

That's actually completely correct.

Anyone who has a working knowledge of biology(and science overall) knows that a sociological concept like sexuality is inherently subjective thus impossible to thoroughly quantify.

Impossible to quantify yet you from the beginning have stated men on average have higher sex drives than women? That is literally the reason you quoted me and now you're backing out of it to say its all subjective? After just attempting to claim I was admitting I was wrong because I basically said there answers aren't exactly all out there? Guess its easier to take things when a man says it. Whatever helps you to come to the truth dear.

Whenever you are ready to post studies that prove your position I am here.

 

[3rdWorld]

Some of the greatest men to have walked this planet cheated on their wives..tell us again how that affected your life. The hypocrisy and stupidity in here is astounding.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

You spent all this time dissecting my posts looking for ways to use language and syntax to discredit me, when you could have spent that time posting proof of your argument, like I have asked you repeatedly to do.

When are you going to post actual scientific studies and research that back your claims?

Impossible to quantify yet you from the beginning have stated men on average have higher sex drives than women? That is literally the reason you quoted me and now you're backing out of it to say its all subjective? After just attempting to claim I was admitting I was wrong because I basically said there answers aren't exactly all out there? Guess its easier to take things when a man says it. Whatever helps you to come to the truth dear.

Whenever you are ready to post studies that prove your position I am here.

I literally gave you proof and you claimed it doesn't count because your own subjective feelings about the viability of it's methodology.

Even when even an unbiased poster chimed in - just a few posts ago tried to help you out by rightfully informing you that sexuality is subjective - which means your opinions of the studies is simply another fallacy (of moving the goalposts variety). You conveniently ignored their response to your post.

If you're only accepting links/sources that agree with your opinion than you're not really asking for proof at all- you're just clinging desperately on a failed argument that you flip flopped back and forth on. You're acting no different than the anti-woman trolls you argue with.


The fact that you literally switched arguments in mid-debate, makes me wonder... which @PartyHeart am I even addressing? Your first opinion or the opinion you conveniently switched to because you couldn't post a single link to prove your biased opinions has any scientific basis at all.

 

[Still Benefited]

Depends,my boy became a devout christian so we stopped hanging out like that,he was always telling me how I needed to give my life over to god and change. He got married and everything.

Next thing I know he needed me to pick em up from work one day,nikka gon ask me to take em over to his side house chick for a quickie

It was on the way so I did,but I had the look on my face when he came out,couldnt really fukk with homie like that no more.

Its one thing pretending to be a good upstanding husband or boyfriend ,and lying to your wife or girl.

But to have the audacity to point out I aint shyt,when you aint shyt either?We in this together.

 

[---]

Nope, feel nothing don't know their relationship history and honestly it isn't my business. Imagine me an imperfect human being passing judgment on somebody else.

Actually would feel more concerned that someone is more concerned about someone else business than their own. That would make me.

If I am hearing a next mans business from a next man best believe he isn't in my circle!

 

[PartyHeart]

I literally gave you proof and you claimed it doesn't count because your own subjective feelings about the viability of it's methodology.

Even when even an unbiased poster chimed in - just a few posts ago tried to help you out by rightfully informing you that sexuality is subjective - which means your opinions of the studies is simply another fallacy (of moving the goalposts variety). You conveniently ignored their response to your post.

If you're only accepting links/sources that agree with your opinion than you're not really asking for proof at all- you're just clinging desperately on a failed argument that you flip flopped back and forth on. You're acting no different than the anti-woman trolls you argue with.


The fact that you literally switched arguments in mid-debate, makes me wonder... which @PartyHeart am I even addressing? Your first opinion or the opinion you conveniently switched to because you couldn't post a single link to prove your biased opinions has any scientific basis at all.

You sound unstable. Kept simple I will repeat it again so you can't continue to try to make up your own arguments.

My claim: Sexual desire is mostly behavioral.

I have provided 3 links thus far that speak to that point.

Your claim: On average men have higher sex drives than women and sexual dimorphism proves this.

You have provided nothing, literally nothing that speaks to your point. Suddenly you're on the "sexuality is subjective" side of things, scared to stand strong in your own initial opinion. There is a reason why you continue to focus on my point rather than prove your own (or at this point even acknowledge that you said it). Its because you can't. Worse still, you have no studies that can even lend credence to it other than studies based on reporting--the worst and most unreliable studies in the scientific community that don't even take into account social influence, which you have already admitted plays a role.

I said it before and I will say it again: When are you going to post actual scientific studies and research that back your claims?

 

[PartyHeart]

This is where social context comes in, because studies show that women routinely under-report their sexual desire to fulfill expectations for women to be less sexual. That's why studies have been done to test both women's reporting and their physiological changes when reporting desire. Most of the time the woman's report and the actual displayed desire did not match up. So getting to the truth is a lot more complicated than a formula of hormone levels.



There isn't any denial from me that there aren't inherent biological differences between men and women though. If the initial poster I quoted had said there is a correlation between testosterone and physical strength and perhaps even aggression, I'd see the merit. But he said testosterone and sexual desire. And because men have more testosterone than women, they are obviously more sexual. Its not true.

Plus, men like to downplay the social aspect of behavior to try to make the behavior they want women to practice be more rigid and seem more sound. That's why the other dude in here is losing his mind because he really wants women to believe he can cheat and its natural and ok but if she cheats she is going against her own biology. But sexual desire is heavily socially influenced. It really is.

For instance, say we take men and women's reports on desire as accurate. Consider the fact that you as a man can turn on your TV now and not only see TV shows but even commercial ads that heavily sexualize women. You can see women sexualized on the sides of buses and on billboards and in store windows. If your sex drive is constantly being primed by outside forces like this, it could very easily explain why you report a higher sex drive when asked. You are quite literally being stimulated more often. Women on the other hand, do not have comparable stimuli constantly being thrown at them, and would reasonably report less. This is a scenario where the sexes are actually speaking the truth in reporting, but you cannot tie it to any natural biological differences.

Ok then I stand corrected. You raised a perfectly logical point, in fact had you said your entire last paragraph in the first place I wouldn't even argued against it.

There's definitely an environmental influence in behavioral differences and how both genders sexuality are expressed. Moreover, just how much of it is nature v. nurture is a topic still debated in academic circles by people smarter than you and I.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that biological differences like sexual dimorphism for example, immensely influence behavioral differences as well and statistically speaking, men are simply more prone to mindless violence and have a greater sexual urge on average globally.

Keep in mind I'm not supporting the guy who you quoted nor his argument that seeks to justify why men should cheat more (or vice versa). I was under the impression that you were claiming that there isn't a biological difference between genders and that women on average are just as horny and sex-driven as men.

@DarrynCobretti These are the actual quotes that started our debate. I have proven my side. When are you going to post anything to prove yours? When are you even going to acknowledge you said what you said instead of doing what you're doing now and back tracking into "sexuality is subjective" defense

 

[PartyHeart]

Sorry to jump into yalls thing, but y'all are going in circles cause "sex drive" is impossible to quantify. People perceive their sex drive and sexuality in very different ways, so any "science" on the subject is ambiguous at best.

Just my 2 cents

Sorry, I never initially saw this post. If he had said this there wouldn't have been a debate. Instead he insisted that gender differences are not only real and quantifiable (when men having higher sex drives on average than women) but that they are biological in nature.

@DarrynCobretti explain to me how you are agreeing with this when this speaks more to social influence being a primary factor rather than biology and sexual dimorphism?

 

[DarrynCobretti]

You sound unstable. Kept simple I will repeat it again so you can't continue to try to make up your own arguments.

My claim: Sexual desire is mostly behavioral.

I have provided 3 links thus far that speak to that point.

Your claim: On average men have higher sex drives than women and sexual dimorphism proves this.

You have provided nothing, literally nothing that speaks to your point. Suddenly you're on the "sexuality is subjective" side of things, scared to stand strong in your own initial opinion. There is a reason why you continue to focus on my point rather than prove your own (or at this point even acknowledge that you said it). Its because you can't. Worse still, you have no studies that can even lend credence to it other than studies based on reporting--the worst and most unreliable studies in the scientific community that don't even take into account social influence, which you have already admitted plays a role.

I said it before and I will say it again: When are you going to post actual scientific studies and research that back your claims?

You. Literally. Didn't. Prove. A. Single. Opinion. You. Stated.
Either you lack self-awareness or you deep down know the irony of you accusing anyone about standing on your own opinion because you literally changed your entire arguments.

Again let me break it down for you -

• You disagreed with the scientific consensus that both genes and environment(i.e. nature and nurture) affects the existence of an organism and its actions. I, on the other hand agree with the scientific consensus.
• You've asked me to support my opinion which is already a widely supported theory by people who get paid to actually study, teach and critique science. While in the same breathe, you're completely unable to quantify your own opinion and unlike my position, your opinion actually isn't widely supported in the first place. Which is why you were unable to post a single link that claimed sexual behavior is only a product of environment. While I've actually posted links that show both genes and environment play a role.

Just admit that your initial bold assertion that there's absolutely no biological component to the sociological concept of sexuality is completely illogical.

It's like if I were foolishly deny that social and cultural factors play a prominent role in virtually every behavioral aspect - despite the solid evidence that supports the impact of social and cultural factors.

Your desire for men and women to be born with a predisposition for identical sexual behavior, overrides the fact that men and women have a biological differences(however small they are) that affect a few behavioral aspects in our daily life. Again I'm not arguing my position to support whatever people are using our debate as a tool for, because I'm of the opinion that overall our biological differences are inconsequential in terms of overall quantitative cognitive performance.