'Fess Up! Who has Cheated?

[NotLurking]

Well Anna, Salomon had 700+ concubines if that means anything. There is evidence in the bible that supports the ?cheating? behavior of men since very early in our nature evolution this is a 'natural' practice for males. However the reciprocal is not true and it is evident even in nature that the male of the species is suppose to behave as a ?STUD?. For example, a rooster usually has many mates as opposed to the hen. The hen is very protective of herself and will not allow another rooster to even come close to her if she is consorting with a different rooster. The rooster is just as protective of the hens he is actively mating with and will defend his mate vigorously. The same holds true for many species. To bring the example closer to humans consider spending a day or two observing the sexual behavior of cattle or monkeys. In general, their sexual behavior is not much different then I describe it for chickens and in the evolutionary latter monkeys are our closes kin. It is interesting to note that moneys are very promiscuous just like humans.

You may be wondering why bring up other species in this discussion but I assure you that it has relevance, after all humans are animals too. There is a general connection with the animal sexual instincts and the desire for males to engage in it as many times as they possibly can. In fact, males can mate with several female partners and achieve the ultimate goal of procreation with every partner whereas the female can not. A female will mate with the male of her species, and if successful in her attempt, there will be no need for her to engage in the act again. However males can participate indiscriminately with as many females as they can conquer and be successful at procreation with each and every one of them. Thus when a male engages in what by nature is natural to them, the male is a stud. On the other hand, females have no natural purpose to engage in such practice hence their activities are only fornication and they are deemed to be sluts. I?m not saying it is fair but if females have a problem with this behavior perhaps they could argue they case to mother nature.

I think the real question should be, why do males have to resist their natural sexual instinct? I find the idea of changing natural and seemingly good male behavior socially hypocritical but that is only my opinion.

 

[Negro Lindo]

Now with all this comparison to animals, we don't want you ladies to go thinking that men are just a bunch of monkey trying to get thier bananas peeled either. The comparison is to bring to light the underlying nature of things.

 

[Forbeca]

I think the real question should be, why do males have to resist their natural sexual instinct? I find the idea of changing natural and seemingly good male behavior socially hypocritical but that is only my opinion.

Thank God this is only your opinion. If my husband felt the same I may just have to do him in.

 

[Indie]

...Thus when a male engages in what by nature is natural to them, the male is a stud. On the other hand, females have no natural purpose to engage in such practice hence their activities are only fornication and they are deemed to be sluts.

If I understand your post correctly, you start by justifying and praising human male behaviour in reference to male animal behaviour, yet end up condemning human female behaviour with the same argument and logic. That makes no sense. You attempt to make a comparison between human and animal behaviour, only to judge and place social labels on males (stud=positive) and females (slut=negative) of the human species. Again, the old double-standard, and your theory is wrong. Human females' nature is to have sex at times for procreation and pleasure simultaneously, but mainly for pleasure. What's so "slutty" about that? Human males do it too.

I think the real question should be, why do males have to resist their natural sexual instinct?

Why do females?

I find the idea of changing natural and seemingly good male behavior socially hypocritical...

And it's even more hypocritical when you dislike and can't accept the same behaviour from females.

-Indie
Never cheated. Never will. classic But not one to judge. confused

 

[Negro Lindo]

Cheating is not necessary either. I know from the beginning if a girl is one that I will take seriously or if I will probably date other people.

 

[Larry]

bottom line

Mens lives revolve around physical pleasure and the need for it much more than womens lives do. What do men find pleasure in? Sex, Food, Drink...we are content sitting in front of the TV watching a football game with a plate full of buffalo wings, a cold beer and a pretty girl giving us a blowjob.

Women on the other hand need emotional support, constant reassurance, a sense of security and so on and so forth.

I am not saying that men dont need some of the things I stated for women and visa versa but this is to a much lesser degree.

I know this post is a little vulgar but I am going to drive my point home because it is true. Men have a constant need to release through orgasm. A normal healthy man needs to cum daily or at least several times per week. Females on the other hand may ENJOY having an orgasm but the physical NEED for it is not there. I have had plenty of women tell me that they do not masterbate unless the mood strikes them and that they may go for weeks or months without masterbating. My point is that the way men were created, we have to constant need for physical pleasure through sex and we naturally feel drawn towards fornication with several different women. Like animals, it is in our nature to fornicate with several different females. Animals do it for reproductive purposes, we are smart enough to use contraception so the act is enjoyed without to intended natural result.

I am not saying this is fair but it is the way nature intended it to be. Men who do not cheat refrain from doing so for whatever reasons they may have but trust me, all men are naturally attracted to many females. Marriage and monogamy is perfect for a woman so they can recieve all of the things they need (emotional support, companionship, reassurance, security,etc. ) but monogamy is not natural for us because what we really need for satisfaction is physical pleasure.

 

[johnsr]

GOD

My reply GOD was posted "tongue in cheek" not as a historical fact. I didn't mean to start a fire storm!!!!
John

 

[AZB]

Thanks larry and Lurker, I am beginning to feel more like a normal man now. Its a relief to know there are others like myself. I was thinking of getting professional help for my behaviour but (Now)instead I will spend the shrink money on finding other mates to further cheat on my existing wives. Hehehehe

 

[NotLurking]

AZB LOL your are too funny!!!

Johnsr, your reply was appropriate and opened the thread up to a more interesting discussing ? tongue, cheek and all

Indie, I was attempting to jokingly answer Anna?s question. My reply was also tongue and cheek, just as Johnsr?s was, with an attempt to make it more real with the info provided. However you cannot dispute the fact that men and women are not created equal in terms of sexual needs or behavior. Or can you? It is easily proven historically, scientifically and even Biblically (with Bible) that men?s sexual behavior has been the same for eons and has been socially accepted since the beginning of civilization. The dilemma of social correctness for males appeared recently in our history. Men have a need to be active sexually (continuously) - It IS male nature. This fact is not easily refuted, it is what it is!

Social acceptance today of ?natural? male behavior is a different matter and many societies recognize and accept this male behavior phenomena without problems. Unfortunately for females the same is not true. I agree, it is a double standard but that doesn?t change the fact that men have a 'lovely' natural sexual behavior. :bandit:

I made reference in my previous post to Solomon, a biblical character, recognized in the bible as a wise man, in fact, the wisest. If he was truly that wise why did he err so many times? (attempt at humor but it is biblically correct )

Indie there are things that are how they are and no amount of debating will change them. Male sexuality is a good example of this. I don?t care how much weman yell, kick and scream it will remain as it has been until the sun stops shining or there is a mutation in natural selection and males are changed.

In general, men are physically stronger and women readily acknowledge it. Should women feel threatened or less of a person because of this? Certainly not!!!. Why shouldn?t women accept and acknowledge with the same eagerness the sexual differences that naturally exist between men and women? Could it be selfishness of perhaps female insecurity.

 

[chicker]

Re: bottom line

Mens lives revolve around physical pleasure... What do men find pleasure in? Sex, Food, Drink...we are content sitting in front of the TV watching a football game with a plate full of buffalo wings, a cold beer and a pretty girl giving us a blowjob.

This makes us all seem so shallow.
Don't we also want to grow old with someone who will give us more than a BJ and a sandwich? I think it's been demonstrated down through the ages that men are just as covetous of security and fidelity and love as women are, especially as we leave our "wild oats sowing" years behind.

Aren't men also seeking that level of mutual dependency that knits two people together for life, what a favorite author of mine, Kurt Vonnegut, described as "a nation of two." When that effort inevitably fails, I think sometimes that disappointment manifests itself in this uncaring attitude toward commitment in general. It's an "umbrella defense" against future wounds, but it's not our first choice, is it, guys?
st louis mike
i know all the answers, i just don't
know what questions they go to

 

[XanaduRanch]

[i]Seem[/i] shallow?

No, I am shallow. I think on this one I will side with the BJ and a sandwich crowd. Although I'd like to change the 'sandwich' reference to a steak instead.

 

[Larry]

Re: Re: bottom line

This makes us all seem so shallow.
Don't we also want to grow old with someone who will give us more than a BJ and a sandwich? I think it's been demonstrated down through the ages that men are just as covetous of security and fidelity and love as women are, especially as we leave our "wild oats sowing" years behind.

Aren't men also seeking that level of mutual dependency that knits two people together for life, what a favorite author of mine, Kurt Vonnegut, described as "a nation of two." When that effort inevitably fails, I think sometimes that disappointment manifests itself in this uncaring attitude toward commitment in general. It's an "umbrella defense" against future wounds, but it's not our first choice, is it, guys?
st louis mike
i know all the answers, i just don't
know what questions they go to

Mike, as men grow older and their sex drives wane the desire for constant sex with different females naturally diminishes. At this point I think that the need for security and companionship grows stronger. It all has to do with testosterone level. Look at 10 year old boys and 14 year old boys in a schoolyard.They behave completely different.Puberty is the culprit. As the testosterone level increases so do our natural cravings for sex as well as competetiveness and other things. A 30 year old man and a 60 year old man will act completely different with regards to these thigs too. As I said in my prior post, men have the same needs as women (security, companionship, etc.) but on a much lesser level. A 25 year old man couldnt give a shit about emotional security because he wants to get laid but a 55 year old man would desire it to a greater degree. Shallow or not, this is what we are.

Larry

 

[Indie]

For NotLurking...

Why shouldn?t women accept and acknowledge with the same eagerness the sexual differences that naturally exist between men and women?

Because unfortunately it isn't nature that dictates our sexual behaviour; it's society. We learn our gender roles; we're not born into them.

Could it be selfishness of perhaps female insecurity.

How about an unwillingness to be treated unfairly, and having a conscious desire to be treated justly and as an equal?

-Indie

 

[XanaduRanch]

Indie, you can't be serious!

We learn our gender roles, we aren't born into them." Good Lord! We may learn to ignore the roles we are born into. But we are born into them none-the-less.

 

[Larry]

Re: For NotLurking...

Because unfortunately it isn't nature that dictates our sexual behaviour; it's society. We learn our gender roles; we're not born into them.

-Indie

I disagree. Our roles are molded to a certain extent by society but for the most part things come naturally.

Larry

edited to add: Xanandu I just read you last post. It was very well put.

 

[Chris]

Re: For NotLurking...

We learn our gender roles; we're not born into them.
-Indie

Don't know if you wanted to say this Indie - I was born into a woman and last time I checked, I was still inhabiting one.

But more seriously, I think what you may have meant is that we learn to play roles consistent with our gender... I do really understand. It just came out funny.

 

[Indie]

Indie, you can't be serious!

We learn our gender roles, we aren't born into them." Good Lord! We may learn to ignore the roles we are born into. But we are born into them none-the-less.

I am totally serious! We are not BORN with or into gender-specific roles--we LEARN them! From society!

I'll give you an example: Male infants and toddlers don't know the difference between a "boy" toy doll, or a "girl" toy doll. They'll go for and grab the nearest or brightest one, without any regard to or awareness whatsoever of the doll society expects him to pick or choose. Same goes for female infants and toddlers. To young children, "GI Joe" dolls are the same as "Ken" and "Barbie". But it is their parents who make the distinction and discern between the two. They hand out "baby" or "girl" dolls to the female infants and toddlers, thus teaching and creating the supposed "nurturing" role in females, while teaching and creating the supposed "competitive" role in males as they hand out cars, robots, and action-hero dolls.

Pink=baby girls. Light blue=baby boys. We weren't "born" into that, we learned it from someone, somewhere.

Chris: I was referring to roles. And yes, I meant roles specific to one's gender. We learn them. And no, we can't choose our gender. We're born with it. I didn't think I'd have to make that clarification, but I guess I was wrong. You understood me. Thank you.

-Indie
Have a nice weekend y'all.

 

[XanaduRanch]

Well, then you're just wrong.

It's hard to imagine how a woman can't understand the role hormones play in creating these gender roles in the first place. They didn't spring into being just because someone invented them.

 

[Indie]

What? Hormones?

No, I'm not wrong. And yes, I'm a woman and I understand many things. And when was this ever about female hormones? And who said a woman created these roles? And what does any of this have to do with cheating?

"They didn't spring into being just because someone invented them."--XR

Back to the OT: Likewise, cheating, and males' rules and justifications for cheating doesn't/don't have to exist just because someone invented it/them.

-Indie
Again, have a nice weekend y'all.

 

[XanaduRanch]

Yes, you are wrong.

Well, you have a good weekend too. But you keep missing the point.

It's not about little boy dolls and little girl dolls and pink colors and blue colors as much as you might like it to be. We are animals. Much as you might like to think not, we are. And we react that way. We can learn not to, but that is the learned behavior not the other way around.

Tell me. Do you like the sound of fingernails scraping on a blackboard? No? Guess what! You're reacting to 100,000 years of memories built into our cerebral cortex. Literally, our brain stems. That's a warning signal among primates that predators are at hand. We don't know why we still feel that way, we just do.

Females of our species can have only one baby at a time. During that 9 months they are of no further use in propogating the species. None what-so-ever. Males of our species however can have many more than one female pregnant at any one time. Just basics here. Nothing I trust that you don't understand or would argue about so far, right? Because these are very basic facts.

Our gender behavior has been built into us over hundreds of thousands of years. It was not as you seem to think invented by Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. The hormonal differences between the sexes exaggerate these preferences. Learned behavior diminishes them.

Negro Lindo is absolutely correct in his statements that men seek sex and more sex and women seek security. It is exactly the bahavior pattern that one would expect to lead to the best chance of survival for the species. Females need food, care, and protection while bearing young, males need to make as many females pregnant as they can take care of.

What's surprising to me is that this seems to be news to you? I am not suggesting that this is the way civilized humans today should interact. But it is foolish in the extreme not to understand the reasons we are the way we are. Because if you don't know where you came from, ain't know way you're going to figure out where you're going to.