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

[Cuban Pete]

Every man in my family has cheated multiple times for the last 3 generations and the women in my family facilitate me cheating on my girl by introducing me to women. I should never be a husband to be honest

 

[Bless't]

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

 

[PartyHeart]

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?

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.

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


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.

I have no idea why you think these long posts where you deny what's in the study even with the evidence right there is doing Your desperation and inability to read as well as interpret has you arguing that if a study didn't specifically write out this is the conclusion, then that's not what it shows. Even when that's exactly what you're doing with your own study, which never specifically concludes men are "on average hornier than women", even with its unreliable measuring tactics.

Are you going to answer the question I've been asking you the past few pages or are you going to continue to put your ignorance on display? You can do continue to show it as long as you like, I'm okay with being the sounding board for it since you seem to enjoy it so much

 

[DarrynCobretti]

I have no idea why you think these long posts where you deny what's in the study even with the evidence right there is doing Your desperation and inability to read as well as interpret has you arguing that if a study didn't specifically write out this is the conclusion, then that's not what it shows. Even when that's exactly what you're doing with your own study, which never specifically concludes men are "on average hornier than women", even with its unreliable measuring tactics.

Are you going to answer the question I've been asking you the past few pages or are you going to continue to put your ignorance on display? You can do continue to show it as long as you like, I'm okay with being the sounding board for it since you seem to enjoy it so much

I see you finally realized that you misinterpreted a study you used as your source. Never thought I see the day shorty isn't even capable of mustering up responses to long posts anymore.

It's ok experiencing cognitive dissonance doesn't make you any less of a person Party, I just hope you learned a valuable lesson about going against the scientific consensus of gene-environment influence and attempting to cite scientific studies that has it's data illustrated by charts which you are unable to interpret/fully digest.

 

[PartyHeart]

I see you finally realized that you misinterpreted a study you used as your source. Never thought I see the day shorty isn't even capable of mustering up responses to long posts anymore.

It's ok experiencing cognitive dissonance doesn't make you any less of a person Party, I just hope you learned a valuable lesson about going against the scientific consensus of gene-environment influence and attempting to cite scientific studies that has it's data illustrated by charts which you are unable to interpret/fully digest.

Its funny watching you continue to try to make it seem as if you have any idea of what you're talking about lol. I don't know what you think you're salvaging since it can easily be seen you lost this argument pages ago, if not when you first started by providing a study that uses reporting as evidence...even after admitting social context makes this completely unreliable and seeing studies that confirm it.

When are you going to answer the question dear? Or are we still on the me being the sounding board for your pure ignorance part?

 

[Kenny West]

I see you finally realized that you misinterpreted a study you used as your source. Never thought I see the day shorty isn't even capable of mustering up responses to long posts anymore.

It's ok experiencing cognitive dissonance doesn't make you any less of a person Party, I just hope you learned a valuable lesson about going against the scientific consensus of gene-environment influence and attempting to cite scientific studies that has it's data illustrated by charts which you are unable to interpret/fully digest.

Don't bother.

That bytch is the slimiest most intellectually dishonest forked tongue trash to ever register on this site. You'd get a more honest open dialogue with a trump staff member.

She just shytposts some ambiguous feminist garbage at the end of long threads then runs once challenged or debunked. It's funny to see that M.O. hasn't changed at all 5 years into this site.

 

[(Lean Ambrose)]

No why the hell would I?...
And why is this thread so long?...
Edit: I see, yall been arguing with this negro bedwench shea butter feminist @PartyHeart again...
Carry on...

 

[PartyHeart]

Woman hating undercover homosexuals to the rescue

 

[(Lean Ambrose)]

Woman hating undercover homosexuals to the rescue

Why do you crispy negro bedwenches always use that as your go to insult?...
"Oh he hate womens girl mhmmmm, he a faq!"...
shyt is weird...

 

[DarrynCobretti]

Its funny watching you continue to try to make it seem as if you have any idea of what you're talking about lol. I don't know what you think you're salvaging since it can easily be seen you lost this argument pages ago, if not when you first started by providing a study that uses reporting as evidence...even after admitting social context makes this completely unreliable and seeing studies that confirm it.

When are you going to answer the question dear? Or are we still on the me being the sounding board for your pure ignorance part?

What's even more hilarious is seeing how you went from making declarative statements to random illogical misogynist trolls - to backtracking and trying to play a failed semantics game to get out of being exposed for not being to substantiate anything you've posted. Everyone can see that and even the people who were dapping you - left this thread after seeing how you failed to comprehend the quantitative data from scientific studies.

Everyone can see how your argument is completely unsupported by the scientific consensus. The fact that you even think this was an argument to be won or loss shows an underlying ignorance. If this was actually a scholarly debate in an academic setting, you'd been laughed out the room due to your obvious lack of knowledge on this topic and not being able to cite a single source that proves your categorically wrong initial statement: "the differences in the way men and women behave sexually are purely socially taught."
Moreover, the fact that you've failed to comprehend that a debate about sexuality doesn't change the reality that it's a subjective concept and any observed disparity between sexes are influenced by the expression of gene-environment interaction - is evident to anyone who read this thread.

No why the hell would I?...
And why is this thread so long?...
Edit: I see, yall been arguing with this negro bedwench shea butter feminist @PartyHeart again...
Carry on...

Word? All I know is that she's been outright denying that biological differences between men and women exist as an influence on how both sexes conceptualize sexuality. According to her everything is completely socially constructed. Which is something she still hasn't proved despite all her posts in this thread.
To be fair shorty never gave off bedwench vibes or said anything positive about cacs/lusted after them, to my knowledge. Then again this is my first time interacting with her, so you know her more than I, so I hope that isn't so.

@PartyHeart tell me this man is lying and I haven't spent weeks conversing with someone who hates my melanin while liking Brad's wet dog smelling skin in real life.

 

[PartyHeart]

What's even more hilarious is seeing how you went from making declarative statements to random illogical misogynist trolls - to backtracking and trying to play a failed semantics game to get out of being exposed for not being to substantiate anything you've posted. Everyone can see that and even the people who were dapping you - left this thread after seeing how you failed to comprehend the quantitative data from scientific studies.

Everyone can see how your argument is completely unsupported by the scientific consensus. The fact that you even think this was an argument to be won or loss shows an underlying ignorance. If this was actually a scholarly debate in an academic setting, you'd been laughed out the room due to your obvious lack of knowledge on this topic and not being able to cite a single source that proves your categorically wrong initial statement: "the differences in the way men and women behave sexually are purely socially taught."
Moreover, the fact that you've failed to comprehend that a debate about sexuality doesn't change the reality that it's a subjective concept and any observed disparity between sexes are influenced by the expression of gene-environment interaction - is evident to anyone who read this thread.



Word? All I know is that she's been outright denying that biological differences between men and women exist as an influence on how both sexes conceptualize sexuality. According to her everything is completely socially constructed. Which is something she still hasn't proved despite all her posts in this thread.
To be fair shorty never gave off bedwench vibes or said anything positive about cacs/lusted after them, to my knowledge. Then again this is my first time interacting with her, so you know her more than I, so I hope that isn't so.

@PartyHeart tell me this man is lying and I haven't spent weeks conversing with someone who hates my melanin while liking Brad's wet dog smelling skin in real life.

So the one other woman in the thread full of misogynists who saw your post as the nonsense it was and even provided her own evidence against you (which you inexplicably believe you could dismiss just because you disagreed with it) left the thread. That invalidates your failure to provide anything of substance to support your claim and your inability to answer a simple question for pages now, how?

For whatever reason you think because you don't agree with evidence being shown, or it doesn't explicitly state it for you in proverbial crayon, its invalid. I have given evidence to entirely kill the reliability of the one study you provided, as well as supported my argument in showing that all things equal women were aroused more frequently. You have given nothing. Over and over again.

And again, you are back to backtracking and lying. You feverently agreed with someone who said its impossible to really support either of our arguments because of the subjectivity of the subject, but now you are claiming my argument was unsupported. How can you simultaneously agree that you can't define it because its subjective, while engaging in a debate about it and also believing its defined enough to call yours supported and mine unsupported? You mean to tell everybody reading that you engaged in a debate by making a very objective statement on a subject that you all along thought was impossible to actually debate in the first place?

No, you didn't. You just agreed with that at the time because you saw it as an out and you are the most desperate debater (and I struggle to even give you the minimal respect the title requires in this instance) that I've ever seen. You now are leaning on some misogynists--one of whom I honestly didn't even know existed and the other I only know exists because he pops up in threads to stalk me from time to time--on your "see bro" stuff. Like I can't believe you are doing all this again after desperately clinging to and dapping up every post by another male poster who you then considered your savior, and who as I said literally disagreed that it was even possible for us to have the initial debate.

You know nothing about the "scientific community", and it becomes so obvious you aren't involved in the sciences the way you throw this phrase around. You probably don't even know that there are different schools of thought in the scientific community on many subjects like this. But as I said, I will be the sounding board for your ignorance as long as you need. Once you get done throwing around anti-black women and 'bed wench' jokes with your misogynist friends I'm here for you babe. Take as long as you need.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

So the one other woman in the thread full of misogynists who saw your post as the nonsense it was and even provided her own evidence against you (which you inexplicably believe you could dismiss just because you disagreed with it) left the thread. That invalidates your failure to provide anything of substance to support your claim and your inability to answer a simple question for pages now, how?

For whatever reason you think because you don't agree with evidence being shown, or it doesn't explicitly state it for you in proverbial crayon, its invalid. I have given evidence to entirely kill the reliability of the one study you provided, as well as supported my argument in showing that all things equal women were aroused more frequently. You have given nothing. Over and over again.

And again, you are back to backtracking and lying. You feverently agreed with someone who said its impossible to really support either of our arguments because of the subjectivity of the subject, but now you are claiming my argument was unsupported. How can you simultaneously agree that you can't define it because its subjective, while engaging in a debate about it and also believing its defined enough to call yours supported and mine unsupported? You mean to tell everybody reading that you engaged in a debate by making a very objective statement on a subject that you all along thought was impossible to actually debate in the first place?

No, you didn't. You just agreed with that at the time because you saw it as an out and you are the most desperate debater (and I struggle to even give you the minimal respect the title requires in this instance) that I've ever seen. You now are leaning on some misogynists--one of whom I honestly didn't even know existed and the other I only know exists because he pops up in threads to stalk me from time to time--on your "see bro" stuff. Like I can't believe you are doing all this again after desperately clinging to and dapping up every post by another male poster who you then considered your savior, and who as I said literally disagreed that it was even possible for us to have the initial debate.

You know nothing about the "scientific community", and it becomes so obvious you aren't involved in the sciences the way you throw this phrase around. You probably don't even know that there are different schools of thought in the scientific community on many subjects like this. But as I said, I will be the sounding board for your ignorance as long as you need. Once you get done throwing around anti-black women and 'bed wench' jokes with your misogynist friends I'm here for you babe. Take as long as you need.

How many times do I have debunk your use of a source that doesn't support anything you've said. Regardless of your unsubstantiated opinions and pre-conceived notions, reality doesn't change.

Btw you're not slick shorty, you just legitimately regurgitated every single thing I've said about you and that has been noted about your posts by other random people here- and applied them in your cute little description about me.

The fact is that you are unable to understand or even grasp that the entire construct of any sociological concept like human sexuality is inherently subjective while the basis of its formation and some affects of it are indeed quantifiable and hence capable of being supported by a dominant school of thought via empirical evidence.

Anyone has read your posts in this thread can see you come across as only have a working knowledge of things that barely even tangentially touch on the hard sciences.

You even had the audacity to talk about "different schools of thought in the scientific community" like I haven't mention that in essentially every page I've posted on in this thread, plus you mentioned it like it was some complex concept to grasp - when it's a banal thing that even people who don't have a single natural science credit hour to their name should know. Anyone using such a basic concept as a litmus test for judging one's education background or occupation is telling on themselves. Instead of mentioning some complex theoretical framework, like for example wondering how well one grasps something like the fundamentals of string theory... you're in here bringing up elementary trivialities that even people who shovel shyt should know. A more effective way to judge someone is how attached they are to quantitative aspect of any giving topic vs looking at it through the lens of soft social science influenced goggles. The latter is something you do, while caring very little about the former.

Spoiler

Oh and lol you claiming that I'm making anti-black women jokes now - out of all insults you've said to me in this thread, that's an accusation that actually offends me. It would actually be nice to get an apology from you for saying such hurtful nonsense- in fact every female poster who's ever dapped your posts would confirm you're reaching on that description of me.