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

[PartyHeart]

I'm not coming to the rescue of anyone. I simply said sexuality is subjective therefore studies on either side are inconclusive. There are plenty of studies that conclude biology plays a role is sexuality, just as there are studies concluding differences are due to society.

All of them are inconclusive, therefore this argument is futile if each side seeks to disprove the other barring conclusive scientific research.

Except that was not the debate. He specifically said he believed it to be biological, even citing sexual dimorphism, he brought one piece of evidence to try to support that. I said I believed it to be mostly socially influenced, and brought several studies supporting that.

The fact of the matter is, the one piece of evidence he brought uses reporting to prove his point. Him agreeing with you that perception is different between men and women, and that will effect reporting, completely crushes his only piece of evidence.

I'm not trying to help anybody's argument. You're acting real sexist right now

How am I acting sexist?

But it doesn't. You are making that up in order to support your position.

For example. People interpret pain very differently. 10 people get the same surgery, all ten need a different dosage of medicine to be comfortable.

That in no way implies the cause of the difference in the perception of pain is due to society.

And if I made an argument saying "no, pain is objective and hardwired", brought evidence that used reporting of people's perception of pain to prove my point, and then agreed with someone who said pain is subjective, I would be defeating my own argument. That's exactly what he just did. Go look for yourself.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

lol This is sad.

Here is what I said when you first quoted me:



Here is what you responded:



Here is what I responded to that:



Digging up and focusing on a quote you NEVER commented on once when you started this debate with me is extremely transparent. Coupled with the fact that you are now afraid to even state the initial opinion you had, that men have higher sex drives than women, is quite frankly sad.

Either present evidence for your position as I repeatedly have, or move on. When you post those studies for sexual dimorphism confirming that men have higher sex drives than women I am here. But this dap fishing for men who you are afraid to even say you agree with, and your goal post moving to stick to a point you refuse to actually make is tiresome at this point.

No what's transparent is, that you're attempting to debate something that you obviously aren't well versed in. Which is why you're grasping for straws now that someone outside of argument knows you're attempting to deny biology to espouse an opinion that aligns with your agenda.

Give it a rest, if it's tiresome to you. Because anyone who isn't biased and actually has a nuanced perspective can see right through you.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

I'm not coming to the rescue of anyone. I simply said sexuality is subjective therefore studies on either side are inconclusive. There are plenty of studies that conclude biology plays a role is sexuality, just as there are studies concluding differences are due to society.

All of them are inconclusive, therefore this argument is futile if each side seeks to disprove the other barring conclusive scientific research.


I'm not trying to help anybody's argument. You're acting real sexist right now

But it doesn't. You are making that up in order to support your position.

For example. People interpret pain very differently. 10 people get the same surgery, all ten need a different dosage of medicine to be comfortable.

That in no way implies the cause of the difference in the perception of pain is due to society.

Bro, @PartyHeart knows she's in over her head at this point. Which is explains why she's frustrated at yet another person who is taking her to task on her illogical argument. She invoked the nature vs. nurture dichotomy on a sociological concept (sexuality) that is inherently subjective and when faced with evidence that men are biologically different than women as well as have been documented by various scientific studies to have higher sex drives, she's outright denied evidence without supporting any opinion she's posted in this thread.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Except that was not the debate. He specifically said he believed it to be biological, even citing sexual dimorphism, he brought one piece of evidence to try to support that. I said I believed it to be mostly socially influenced, and brought several studies supporting that.

And neither of you would be "right" or "wrong" because the science is inconclusive.

The fact of the matter is, the one piece of evidence he brought uses reporting to prove his point. Him agreeing with you that perception is different between men and women, and that will effect reporting, completely crushes his only piece of evidence.

No. Perception can be and is influenced by biology.

How am I acting sexist?

Just a joke about you assuming I'm jumping on his side. All jokes. Don't think about it much

And if I made an argument saying "no, pain is objective and hardwired", brought evidence that used reporting of people's perception of pain to prove my point, and then agreed with someone who said pain is subjective, I would be defeating my own argument. That's exactly what he just did. Go look for yourself.

As far as I've seen that argument was never made.

You are playing very lose with words and throwing different words in to fit your argument.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

You are playing very lose with words and throwing different words in to fit your argument.

Exactly. In fact if you actually look at some of her posts she's played semantics games frequently. Notice how she implied that my position in this debate is strictly taking the side of biology, just because she chose to strictly align with the social side. That's completely false and changes the entire narrative of the debate.

When in reality, I said BOTH biology and social/cultural factors play a role. Unlike her I'm not attributing anything humans do from a physical or cognitive standpoint - as strictly socially or strictly biology influenced. Both actually play a role, which has been proven and the reason it's the consensus among the scientific community. Therein lies the crux of my argument, I chose to side with science rather than my biased personal beliefs unlike her.

I even used sexual dimorphism as an example of biological differences between men and women, and while that wasn't even a main part of my argument she's spent a large portion of her time attempting to attack the legitimacy of sexual dimorphism's existence, instead of my actually position on what influences sexuality and the fact that men have been reported by various scientific studies to have higher sex drives.

Her argument is that she doesn't care about the empirical data from various studies that scientists conduct, everyone in the scientific community is completely wrong - because she believes men and women have exact identical sex drives and men and women do not have biological differences that manifests in how we conceptualize sexuality.

 

[PartyHeart]

And neither of you would be "right" or "wrong" because the science is inconclusive.

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.

No. Perception can be and is influenced by biology.

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

As far as I've seen that argument was never made.

You are playing very lose with words and throwing different words in to fit your argument.

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.

 

[PartyHeart]

@DarrynCobretti lol I'm happy you feel you have a savior coming to rescue you that you can lean on and "see bro" with. But you will never be able to escape the true as it is right here in the thread and you cannot deny it.

Again:

Here is what I said when you first quoted me:

That isn't the way any of this works. Women do not need the same amount of testosterone to get as physically stimulated as men.

Here is what you responded:

The problem with that statement, is that you're implying women on average get physically stimulated as much as men.

There's empirical evidence out there that have shown men typically think about sex more than women (some scientific studies have said men think of sex as often as every 7 seconds) and score higher in libido studies.

There's actual evolutionary biologists who have multiple theories why this is, but the bottomline is there isn't some biological equilibrium between men and women in the sexual desire category like you're implying.

Here is what I responded to that:

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.

Then you responded with THIS:

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.

Which is what we had been debating. Now all of a sudden its not what you said and you were saying its inconclusive all along

 

[DarrynCobretti]

@DarrynCobretti lol I'm happy you feel you have a savior coming to rescue you that you can lean on and "see bro" with. But you will never be able to escape the true as it is right here in the thread and you cannot deny it.

Again:

Here is what I said when you first quoted me:



Here is what you responded:



Here is what I responded to that:



Then you responded with THIS:



Which is what we had been debating. Now all of a sudden its not what you said and you were saying its inconclusive all along

Literally everything you quoted from me I still believe.

Just because I fully admit that sexuality as a sociological concept is fundamentally subjective in it's core doesn't mean I don't believe that the vast majority of measurement attempts of "sexual desire""sex drive" that exists has concluded that men have a greater sexual urge on average globally.

You again are falling victim to fallacious reasoning, it's as if you are unable to rationalize multiple concepts in your head at once. There isn't some dichotomy that exists where one can't view sexuality as fundamentally subjective and note that any measurement attempt of it -has concluded that men on average have a greater desire.

 

[PartyHeart]

Just because I fully admit that sexuality as a sociological concept is fundamentally subjective in it's core doesn't mean I don't believe that the vast majority of measurement attempts of "sexual desire""sex drive" that exists has concluded that men have a greater sexual urge on average globally.

And yet you still have posted nothing to prove it, other than the study about reporting that you have yourself deemed unreliable (whether you are intelligent enough to realize it or not) due to differences in perception

I have posted 3 different studies that support my position. You have neither addressed them as I did yours off top, nor posted others to bolster your own argument. You have kept this argument going on desperate grasps at straws, appeals to authority and semantics. Why have you not posted any of these other measurement attempts to support your argument if they exist, you believe them, and they are so widely available?

 

[Kalik]

Nope...

 

[DarrynCobretti]

And yet you still have posted nothing to prove it, other than the study about reporting that you have yourself deemed unreliable (whether you are intelligent enough to realize it or not) due to differences in perception

I have posted 3 different studies that support my position. You have kept this argument going on desperate grasps at straws and appeals to semantics. Why have you not posted any of these other measurement attempts to support your argument if they exist, you believe them, and you have them?

You are either completely blind or completely incapable of abstract thought. I really assumed you're at least intelligent enough realize in a debate, just because an opposing party deems evidence as insufficient doesn't actually mean both parties(and impartial parties for that matter) deem it insufficient.

I've actually posted more links to support my argument in this thread than you have yet your perception suggests otherwise. Which tells me in an academic setting your argument would get laughed at due to your complete ignorance of the Rules of inference (which is a concept in logic and discrete mathematics).


Moreover, my goal in responding to you wasn't to convince you to accept my perspective and my adherence to the scientific consensus via empirical evidence but to show you (and everyone reading your posts) that regardless of what you believe- you're wrong and science doesn't back up your agenda.

 

[Neuromancer]

I guess. I don't ask them for relationship advice since those are about communication and they clearly don't do that.

 

[Mandarin Duck]

20 pages and I ain't get no feature
fukk wrong with y'all mods

 

[DarrynCobretti]

Also @PartyHeart it's entertaining to watch you get so flustered and emotionally helpless when someone (other than your homie who attempted to rescue you before realizing she'd be better off sitting this one out and cheerleading from the sidelines) - interjects in this debate.

@MeachTheMonster came in this thread and saw right through your argument and didn't even need me to point it out.


I'm actually shocked you didn't realize anyone with at least a working knowledge of science would see that your position was clearly agenda-driven and not supported by solid evidence.

 

[PartyHeart]

You are either completely blind or completely incapable of abstract thought. I really assumed you're at least intelligent enough realize in a debate, just because an opposing party deems evidence as insufficient doesn't actually mean both parties(and impartial parties for that matter) deem it insufficient.

I've actually posted more links to support my argument in this thread than you have yet your perception suggests otherwise. Which tells me in an academic setting your argument would get laughed at due to your complete ignorance of the Rules of inference (which is a concept in logic and discrete mathematics).


Moreover, my goal in responding to you wasn't to convince you to accept my perspective and my adherence to the scientific consensus via empirical evidence but to show you (and everyone reading your posts) that regardless of what you believe- you're wrong and science doesn't back up your agenda.

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:

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.

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)

Health Myth: Do Men Really Think About Sex Every 7 Seconds?

Common breh. This has been proven not be true and she actually already made a post addressing this point. She explained herself and the point very well.

But there's no real research to back up this oft-cited stat. And while people often attribute the myth to research by the Kinsey Institute, the *actual *research shows that while men think about sex a lot (and yes, more often than women), every seven seconds is a gross exaggeration. When Kinsey researchers asked men and women how often they think about sex, 54 percent of men said they think about sex several times a day, 43 percent responded a few times per week or just a few times per month, and 4 percent said less than once a month. Meanwhile, 19 percent of women said they thought about sex every day or several times a day, 67 percent responded a few times per week or a few times a month or, and 14 percent said less than once a month.

Note that a larger percentage of men and women only think about sex several times a week

She didn't cheerlead anything. And unlike Meach, she was actually engaged from the beginning and read all of the posts, not just yours attempting to find fault. Going back, she gave you enough to throw your research in the trash well before I got around to further dissecting your argument.

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 we both know it. 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.