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

[PartyHeart]

Told you you were being sexist

lol How is that me being sexist?

That is true. Men are going to back up men especially on a male dominated board where they have more numbers. Same thing would happened on a women's board. Stop.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

lol How is that me being sexist?

That is true. Men are going to back up men especially on a male dominated board where they have more numbers. Same thing would happened on a women's board. Stop.

Your interaction with me was based on your prejudice of me due to my gender.

It's why we were unable to come to an understanding intellectually, cause you were to busy fighting the men V women war.

Damn shame

 

[PartyHeart]

You're implying that there's a dichotomy between both my evidence and yours. I don't have to reject mine to love the fact that your evidence supports my position.


Your evidence doesn't technically touch on frequency of urge, rather it touches on the scope of sexuality (basically what actually constituents as sexual stimuli to both genders and various sexual orientations). It touches on desire though, which the Z-scores illustrating that men react stronger to their sexual stimuli than females.

Just because someone like you may like seeing two bonobos go at it (and a guy doesn't), doesn't mean your desire to get piped by a guy is stronger than his desire to pipe you, @PartyHeart .

So now getting aroused every time a different type of content was shown somehow now does not touch on frequency of urge.

There is legitimately no lie you won't form to not admit you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about.

I'm still waiting on the answer as to how you switched from using frequency of urge reported as evidence to dismissing frequency of urge displayed as evidence? @DarrynCobretti

 

[PartyHeart]

Your interaction with me was based on your prejudice of me due to my gender.

It's why we were unable to come to an understanding intellectually, cause you were to busy fighting the men V women war.

Damn shame

Nah. You jumped into a conversation you didn't fully know about, came to the defense of a guy who was originally saying the exact opposite of you, made up an argument for him that he never said himself, and all on the pretense of him being a man and me being a woman. The fact that you continued to directly quote me and come at me and not him while he and I continued debating said everything, even if you're not willing to admit it.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Nah. You jumped into a conversation you didn't fully know about, came to the defense of a guy who was originally saying the exact opposite of you, made up an argument for him that he never said himself, and all on the pretense of him being a man and me being a woman. The fact that you continued to directly quote me and come at me and not him while he and I continued debating said everything, even if you're not willing to admit it.

I didn't come to anyone's defense.

That's all you see cause you wanna fight.

You directly quoted me and put words in my mouth, so I corrected the record.

He did not do that, so I had no reason to quote him.

I can tell you do a lot of feminism fighting on the web. Because you don't see my words or my argument, you are just arguing with naratives at this point. Don't matter what I say.

Damn shame

 

[Originalman]

that is between dude and his wife. Like I say on here you never know how relationships work.

Second of all I could care less and I am sure they don't care what I think. Hell I think some of the folks I deal with are crazy to be giving these white folks all they money too......but I bet they don't give a fukk what I think.....as they should.

 

[PartyHeart]

I didn't come to anyone's defense.

That's all you see cause you wanna fight.

You directly quoted me and put words in my mouth, so I corrected the record.

He did not do that, so I had no reason to quote him.

I can tell you do a lot of feminism fighting on the web. Because you don't see my words or my argument, you are just arguing with naratives at this point. Don't matter what I say.

Damn shame

Nah. That's not what's happened. Which is why when I pressed you on that point where you "corrected the record" I asked you to point out to me where he said what you were saying and you couldn't.

The point is that his entire argument was that scientific literature proves that men have a higher sex drive than women. You came in saying it is not quantifiable, yet his entire point is that it is quantifiable and when quantified it supports his argument. Even if you pretend that perceiving sexual arousal in a different way does not point to sociological factors at all (which you did in your defense of him), how is it that you completely honed in on me saying that and never once quoted his insistence that men have quantifiably higher sex drives than women? Especially when his was in direct opposition to your own position?

Yet are pretending you didn't come to his defense because he's another man?

Its much better for you to stand in your bias--whether purposeful or accidental--and own it, rather than pretend its not real. You can't grow otherwise and that would be a true damn shame.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Nah. That's not what's happened. Which is why when I pressed you on that point where you "corrected the record" I asked you to point out to me where he said what you were saying and you couldn't.

The point is that his entire argument was that scientific literature proves that men have a higher sex drive than women. You came in saying it is not quantifiable, yet his entire point is that it is quantifiable and when quantified it supports his argument. Even if you pretend that perceiving sexual arousal in a different way does not point to sociological factors at all (which you did in your defense of him), how is it that you completely honed in on me saying that and never once quoted his insistence that men have quantifiably higher sex drives than women? Especially when his was in direct opposition to your own position?

Yet are pretending you didn't come to his defense because he's another man?

Its much better for you to stand in your bias--whether purposeful or accidental--and own it, rather than pretend its not real. You can't grow otherwise and that would be a true damn shame.

Like I said. You are arguing with naratives based off your own prejudices, and not my words.

I've gone back and forth with you now for half a dozen posts basically telling you "no I didn't say that"

And you keep making up shyt, claiming I said it. That's the exact reason you and I are doing this.

Honestly you seem like a miserable person, and I'm sorry I jumped into this.

Keep fighting the good fight telling these men what you need to tell them.

Hope you move past conflict to understanding one day.

Have a good night.

 

[PartyHeart]

Like I said. You are arguing with naratives based off your own prejudices, and not my words.

I've gone back and forth with you now for half a dozen posts basically telling you "no I didn't say that"

And you keep making up shyt, claiming I said it. That's the exact reason you and I are doing this.

Honestly you seem like a miserable person, and I'm sorry I jumped into this.

Keep fighting the good fight telling these men what you need to tell them.

Hope you move past conflict to understanding one day.

Have a good night.

We've gone back and forth because you injected something into a post that it was never about. Had you left it at that, it would have been fine since it is a fair opinion to have.

However when I pointed out how the person I was debating with agreeing with you was contradictory, you couldn't it let it ride. You had to come to his defense instinctively because he's another man.

And when I've pointed out to you why him suddenly agreeing with you as if it was his position all along makes no sense, you get upset and call me sexist because I see your defense as what it is.

Nothing miserable about me, but whatever helps you feel better about accepting that you were completely biased in your response.

You have a good night too.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

We've gone back and forth because you injecting something into a post that it was never about. Had you left it at that, it would have been fine since it is a fair opinion to have.

However when I pointed out how the person I was debating with agreeing with you was contradictory, you couldn't it let it ride. You had to come to his defense instinctively because he's another man.

And when I've pointed out to you why him suddenly agreeing with you as if it was his position all along makes no sense, you get upset and call me sexist because I see your defense as what it is.

Nothing miserable about me, but whatever helps you feel better about accepting that you were completely biased in your response.

You have a good night too.

Last post I promise:


Here's the thing. Even if you felt I was saying whatever, and I am bias, and just defending a man just because he's a man.

If I stepped back and said "that's not what I'm doing at all" and have now spent more time than I wanted to clarifying myself and telling you what I really meant. Why don't you go with my clarification.

I've now told you multiple times that I was not attempting to strengthen either of your arguments. I saw both of you imposing impossible standards and I simply pointed that out. I thought both of you had good points, it's just that the science is still out on the subject, so with both of you demanding conclusive scientific proof, you'd never get it.

That's fukking it. That's all I ment, that's all I've said.

My argument doesn't support or disprove either of yours. That's not what I intended it to do. So when you latched on to my argument and tried to say it strengthens yours, I had to tell you no it does not.

I almost regret jumping into this now. I didn't gain anything from it and neither did any of you.

 

[PartyHeart]

Last post I promise:


Here's the thing. Even if you felt I was saying whatever, and I am bias, and just defending a man just because he's a man.

If I stepped back and said "that's not what I'm doing at all" and have now spent more time than I wanted to clarifying myself and telling you what I really meant. Why don't you go with my clarification.

I've now told you multiple times that I was not attempting to strengthen either of your arguments. I saw both of you imposing impossible standards and I simply pointed that out. I thought both of you had good points, it's just that the science is still out on the subject, so with both of you demanding conclusive scientific proof, you'd never get it.

That's fukking it. That's all I ment, that's all I've said.

My argument doesn't support or disprove either of yours. That's not what I intended it to do. So when you latched on to my argument and tried to say it strengthens yours, I had to tell you no it does not.

I almost regret jumping into this now. I didn't gain anything from it and neither did any of you.

OK, I can accept that. If you say you were not jumping to his defense, I can take your word for it since you've put it this way.

However I would think too that you would accept and admit that that is exactly how it came off. Don't tell me you did not notice him dapping all over your posts and quoting you as some type of sounding board like "see bro..."?

You never directly quoted him or addressed him the way you directly quoted and addressed me, and that's what gives off that you were defending. Despite the fact that he did the same thing you're saying I did before I did it in terms of quoting you and latching your words onto his argument, you were mum in "correcting" him. Go back and read it for yourself. Sidenote, I wasn't wanting to latch onto your argument as some support of mine at all. Because while I know its all inconclusive like you said, I still was okay with having an interesting debate where both sides were presented.

I'm sure you didn't mean to get into the debate, especially since your first post was decidedly neutral. I'll leave it at that and won't quote you about it anymore, as even this initial debate has gone on longer than it should have with very little evidence and a lot of contradictions coming from Darryn's side.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

So now getting aroused every time a different type of content was shown somehow now does not touch on frequency of urge.

There is legitimately no lie you won't form to not admit you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about.

I'm still waiting on the answer as to how you switched from using frequency of urge reported as evidence to dismissing frequency of urge displayed as evidence? @DarrynCobretti

How is this hard to understand? Reading charts and interpreting the quantified results shouldn't be this difficult for you. I'm starting to think you were lying about working in the biology field or any industry for that matter where one's education background necessitates a certain amount of hard science credit hours to be completed.

So let me break it down for you once more:

1. My very first post contained my points I still haven't changed positions from and I still consistently mention, which is how often men think about sex compared to women.
2. You keep mentioning "frequency of urge" as if you're some dim-witted pet parrot who is completely unaware of the meaning of that arbitrarily constructed expression you keep blurting out. The study doesn't quantify frequency of urge nor cares enough about that to even attempt to form a conclusion regarding how often both genders and sexual orientations actual think about the various stimuli it finds attractive. It merely attempts to quantify the scope of what both genders and various sexual orientations actually constituent as SEXUAL. It shows arbitrarily picked stimuli to illicit genital responses just so they can measure it and compare it to what they predicted the outcome would be. In fact in the study it even constantly mentions and actually defines a salient term known as "cue" to help people like you who aren't aware of the contextual lens this study was conducted under.
3. Your link doesn't contradict nor clash with the results of any actual 'frequency of urge' findings by other scientists. You repeating it over and over in this thread doesn't change reality. In fact click on your actual link source and read the link in its entirety to see for yourself: http://indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pubs/Chivers_Seto_Blanchard_2007.pdf

   The experimental stimuli consisted of 18 film clips that were 90 s and that were presented with sound, representing nine stimulus categories: control (landscapes accompanied by relaxing music), nonhuman sexual activity (bonobos or Pan paniscus mating), female nonsexual activity (nude exercise), female masturbation, female–female intercourse (cunnilingus and vaginal penetration with a strap-on dildo), male nonsexual activity (nude exercise), male masturbation, male–male intercourse (fellatio and anal intercourse), and female–male copulation (cunnilingus and penile–vaginal intercourse). Participants saw two exemplars of each stimulus category. All of these clips were excerpted from commercially available films

4. Allow me to refresh your waning memory, because you've contradicted yourself in this thread so much and backed yourself in a corner you're unable to get out of- you seem to not be of sound mind anymore. Here's the absolute first thing I've posted and said to you in this thread actually regarding frequency of urge :

   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.

   Literally at no point did I deviate from this position nor did any of the links you've cited prove my initial observation that recognizes a supported school of thought in the scientific community - false or that it doesn't exist. The link you've posted that I actually liked (because via the mean genital response in z scores, it completely proves my accurate "...score higher in libido studies.." statement I made in this thread) also does not clash with anything I've stated. I refuse to believe you are dumb enough to attribute/project a biased opinion you believe in - onto the scientists of your own sources - since unlike you they're actually aware of what their circumstantial results can conclude AND what it can't consider conclusive. Just thoroughly read their entire study for once.
5. Let's get back to your embarrassingly foolish misuse of "frequency of urge" and how you apparently don't understand what the word "cue" means and how this study was done to measure what cues illicit genital responses. Again this study was not to conducted to measure how often humans actually think about sexual stimuli (aka how often we think about sex) - but what stimuli and cues humans actually find sexual. In fact read the results of the entire study:

   Results
   In the following section, we first examine the genital responses
   of the female participants and then examine the genital responses
   of the male participants, to compare the relative effects of sexual
   activity cues and actor gender cues. We then examine the effects
   of these different kinds of cues on self-reported sexual arousal for
   female participants and then for male participants. We further
   analyze the data to examine the category-specificity of women’s
   and men’s subjective and genital responses, to replicate the major
   finding reported by Chivers et al. (2004). Finally, we examine the
   responses of women and men to the nonhuman stimulus depicting
   bonobos mating, to replicate the major finding reported by Chivers
   and Bailey (2005).

Word of advice, google some introductory logic course tips or brush up your debate and rhetoric techniques because you can't have carelessly constructed language in your argument then feebly attempt to induce a weak game of semantics to defend yourself.

 

[PartyHeart]

How is this hard to understand? Reading charts and interpreting the quantified results shouldn't be this difficult for you. I'm starting to think you were lying about working in the biology field or any industry for that matter where one's education background necessitates a certain amount of hard science credit hours to be completed.

So let me break it down for you once more:

1. My very first post contained my points I still haven't changed positions from and I still consistently mention, which is how often men think about sex compared to women.
2. You keep mentioning "frequency of urge" as if you're some dim-witted pet parrot who is completely unaware of the meaning of that arbitrarily constructed expression you keep blurting out. The study doesn't quantify frequency of urge nor cares enough about that to even attempt to form a conclusion regarding how often both genders and sexual orientations actual think about the various stimuli it finds attractive. It merely attempts to quantify the scope of what both genders and various sexual orientations actually constituent as SEXUAL. It shows arbitrarily picked stimuli to illicit genital responses just so they can measure it and compare it to what they predicted the outcome would be. In fact in the study it even constantly mentions and actually defines a salient term known as "cue" to help people like you who aren't aware of the contextual lens this study was conducted under.

Actually, no. The study was brought in to invalidate your initial attempt to pass off reporting as evidence that men "are generally hornier than women". The study does that, showing that womens' reporting and their actual physiological response are not congruent. The study notes that this has something to do with gender expectations and social conditioning, something you've both disagreed with and agreed with being a factor depending on which of your lies you need to get out of at the moment.

In addition to that, the study also provides evidence that the women tested were actually shown to be horny more frequently than the men in a more objective way. For whatever reason, you are trying to pass off men reporting being more frequently horny as evidence while invalidating a study where women objectively show more frequent horniness. You're now typing a whole lot of nothing to deny this fact.

You can save the name calling and desperation and answer the question as to how your logic makes any sense now. Thanks.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

Actually, no. The study was brought in to invalidate your initial attempt to pass off reporting as evidence that men "are generally hornier than women". The study does that, showing that womens' reporting and their actual physiological response are not congruent.

Boom - that's what I was waiting for you to outright claim. Thanks, wanted to make sure that was your position before I easily attack that then you run and attempt to hide by some more ambiguous language. So now that we got that out of the way, you've made this entertainingly easy because you've gone so far as to now officially claim that the studies I initially posted and this study are actually attempting to quantify the same objective. Even when one looks at both abstracts, conclusions and implications stated in their research - you can see they're actually different and even initially test a different hypothesis.

One study attempts to measures how often humans think about sex while one study attempts to measures what stimuli and cues humans find sexual, yet your whole argument is postulated on both studies being the same. Are you completely ignorant of scientific method? Are you seriously unable to recognize that even if you claim my supporting evidence is flawed (on the basis of self-reporting) that citing a study that attempts to quantify what actually constitutes as sexual stimuli in films/movies to both genders and various sexual orientations (via genitial response) doesn't support your theory nor invalidate any position I have.

In fact here's the actual name of your source's study you continue to cite:
Gender and Sexual Orientation Differences in Sexual Response to Sexual
Activities Versus Gender of Actors in Sexual Films
By Meredith L. Chivers
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
By Michael C. Seto and Ray Blanchard
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and University
of Toronto

So let me ask you once more, are you completely ignorant of scientific method and bereft of the rudimentary ability to interpret basic research?

The study notes that this has something to do with gender expectations and social conditioning, something you've both disagreed with and agreed with being a factor depending on which of your lies you need to get out of at the moment.

I've never disagreed that social conditioning and gender expectations impact our society and the planet globally for that matter. You do realize you're arguing with someone who espouses opinions that some label as male-feminist/male pick-me type logic, right? For instance, I actually don't think there's a biological basis for patriarchy to exist today.

Moreover, show a post I've made in this thread (or on this forum for that matter) that completely denied that socio-cultural factors heavily impact gender behavioral differences, unlike you my position has always accepted(and embraced) that both "nature and nurture" impact the entire fabric of reality. Even at a molecular level, gene-environment interactions are manifested.

Btw please stop talking about what this study notes, because you've just proven that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to interpreting your own sources that you cite. Your refusal to thoroughly read it and only skim through the parts you think supports your ideas, is embarrassing because I know you're actually capable of reading large amounts of literature.

In addition to that, the study also provides evidence that the women tested were actually shown to be horny more frequently than the men in a more objective way. For whatever reason, you are trying to pass off men reporting being more frequently horny as evidence while invalidating a study where women objectively show more frequent horniness.

Here you go again. I see you.

You really think you repeating this falsehood makes it reality. By now even you know it's an outright lie, that reeks of intellectual dishonesty and desperation at this point.

Moreover, by now even you know that a study that attempts to observe what people actually deem sexual in a few (18) short arbitrarily picked out TV show/commercial/film scenes (each were 90 seconds) that contain certain sexual activity and cues isn't quantifying (or even cares enough to attempt to measure) how often people actually think about sex daily.

The only thing such a relatively small study attempted to quantify was what on-screen sexual activity and cues people actual deem as sexual stimuli and the strength of the desire such stimuli elicited(my favorite part of the data). It wasn't measuring how often men and women think about sex in our daily life nor was it attempting to measure our libido (sex drive/frequency of urge) like any studies that actually attempted to examine if the myth that men want/think about sex more than women is true. It's measuring the scope/fluidity of sexuality rather than sex drive. Also this study (and it's arbitrary choices that led to it's findings) was admittedly biased and focused on women:
http://indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pubs/Chivers_Seto_Blanchard_2007.pdf

The first objective, therefore, was to address two novel questions
regarding the relationship between sexual orientation and
sexual response, which focus on women because of the counterintuitive
findings that have been reported to date.

After I read this revelation, this made me laugh hysterically because throughout this thread you kept harping on my studies(which actually attempted to measure sex drive) being limited/flawed yet used a limited/flawed study that doesn't actually attempt to measure sex drive - to claim women have a higher frequency of urge than men. That's what makes the fact that men still ended up scoring higher in the study's strength of the desire that the arbitrarily selected stimuli elicited- so damning.

You're comparing apples and oranges(my study and yours) and are completely unable to conceptualize that there's people who may *gasp* like both fruit. Their results conclude two entirely different things that don't clash with each other.

 

[Roid Jones]

Nope, Couldn't care less