# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Who punishes promiscuous women?

## Angela

See:
Muggleton et al
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...90513818303064



"*Who punishes promiscuous women? Both women and men are prejudiced towards sexually-accessible women, but only women inflict costly punishment"*"*Abstract*Across human societies, female sexuality is suppressed by gendered double standards, slut shaming, sexist rape laws, and honour killings. The question of what motivates societies to punish promiscuous women, however, has been contested. Although some have argued that men suppress female sexuality to increase paternity certainty, others maintain that this is an example of intrasexual competition. Here we show that both sexes are averse to overt displays of female sexuality, but that motivation is sex-specific. In all studies, participants played an economic game with a female partner whose photograph either signalled that she was sexually-accessible or sexually-restricted. In study 1, we found that men and women are less altruistic in a Dictator Game (DG) when partnered with a woman signalling sexual-accessibility. Both sexes were less trusting of sexually-accessible women in a Trust Game (TG) (study 2); women (but not men), however, inflicted costly punishment on a sexually-accessible woman in an Ultimatum Game (UG) (study 3). Our results demonstrate that both sexes are averse to overt sexuality in women, whilst highlighting potential differences in motivation."

This reads like some thesis in some idiotic "women's studies program". 

How about some hard data from actual human communities across the world?

The highest "punishment" is death, and from what I can see, it's usually the male relatives who inflict it.

----------


## bicicleur

> See:
> Muggleton et al
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...90513818303064
> "*Who punishes promiscuous women? Both women and men are prejudiced towards sexually-accessible women, but only women inflict costly punishment"*"*Abstract*Across human societies, female sexuality is suppressed by gendered double standards, slut shaming, sexist rape laws, and honour killings. The question of what motivates societies to punish promiscuous women, however, has been contested. Although some have argued that men suppress female sexuality to increase paternity certainty, others maintain that this is an example of intrasexual competition. Here we show that both sexes are averse to overt displays of female sexuality, but that motivation is sex-specific. In all studies, participants played an economic game with a female partner whose photograph either signalled that she was sexually-accessible or sexually-restricted. In study 1, we found that men and women are less altruistic in a Dictator Game (DG) when partnered with a woman signalling sexual-accessibility. Both sexes were less trusting of sexually-accessible women in a Trust Game (TG) (study 2); women (but not men), however, inflicted costly punishment on a sexually-accessible woman in an Ultimatum Game (UG) (study 3). Our results demonstrate that both sexes are averse to overt sexuality in women, whilst highlighting potential differences in motivation."
> This reads like some thesis in some idiotic "women's studies program". 
> How about some hard data from actual human communities across the world?
> The highest "punishment" is death, and from what I can see, it's usually the male relatives who inflict it.


I just read the abstract, not the study.
Maybe it is a stupid game, but the outcome and different motivation of both sexes confirms my intuition on the subject.
Males don't want to share their sex partners, and women can be very jealous (in average much more than men).
And harsh punishment of promiscuity is often promoted by religion, there is no forgiving, it is forbidden fruit and whoever eats it must pay.
And when an alledgadely promiscuous woman is stoned to death, who is actualy killing her? It is hard to tell. But it is clearly a decision of the clan.

----------


## Angela

> I just read the abstract, not the study.
> Maybe it is a stupid game, but the outcome and different motivation of both sexes confirms my intuition on the subject.
> Males don't want to share their sex partners, and women can be very jealous (in average much more than men).
> And harsh punishment of promiscuity is often promoted by religion, there is no forgiving, it is forbidden fruit and whoever eats it must pay.
> And when an alledgadely promiscuous woman is stoned to death, who is actualy killing her? It is hard to tell. But it is clearly a decision of the clan.


I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, Bicicleur. I just want to see it in terms of concrete data from all over the world. 

This analysis is concerned more with western mores it seems to me. Women don't like promiscuous women because they threaten the stability of their homes and relationships. I get it.

It's a deeper issue than that, however, with much larger implications. The punishment of promiscuous women takes place all over the world, and not always in a context where female jealousy is involved.

In a stoning, it's hard to tell, but here in the west it is usually males, brothers or fathers or uncles, in the case of young women, or husbands and his kin committing the violence. The motivation for a lot of it isn't jealousy by males or females: it's concern for the "honor" of the family and the clan. Perhaps it's because if this is unpunished, who will marry their other daughters?

What interests me is whether all the women in these clans in agreement that their daughter or sister must die. Well, I know not all do. Sometimes the mother protects the daughter, for example, and sometimes she joins in. 

I'd like to understand all of this more.

----------


## bicicleur

most killings for 'honor' in Europe are commited by immigrant families from Muslim countries
but we know it also happens very frequent in Hindu India

violence out of jealousy or revenge happens in the west too, of course, but afaik for family 'honor' amongst autochtones, it is very rare

and defending 'family honor' is not for the benefit of the daughter, but for her market value because their marriages are araigned, she is virtualy sold to the party with the highest influences
sometimes they even kill their own daughter

it is not something in modern society, but mostly in backward communities who are still very much clinged to clan values

indeed, promiscuity is seen as a thread against stability of the homes, and that is a community thing
IMO the punishments are not in relation to the real thread, but maybe these women are used as a scapegoat for other malfunctions like unhappy or forced marriages

----------


## bicicleur

I agree it is more complicated than it seems and it will be impossible to uncover the real mechanism.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

Or patrilineal vs matrilineal societies. The following study found:




> Recent literature presents evidence that men are more competitively inclined than women. Since top-level careers usually require competitiveness, competitiveness differences provide an explanation for gender gaps in wages and differences in occupational choice. A natural question is whether women are born less competitive or whether they become so through the process of socialization. To pinpoint when in the socialization process the difference arises, we compare the competitiveness of children in matrilineal and patriarchal societies. *We find that while there is no difference at any age in the matrilineal society, girls become less competitive around puberty in the patriarchal society.*


https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Gender%2C-Competitiveness%2C-and-Socialization-at-a-a-a-Andersen/beb6f391f36399f46fc1ca164298eb03048bf402

Attachment 10847

----------


## bicicleur

> Or patrilineal vs matrilineal societies. The following study found:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Gender%2C-Competitiveness%2C-and-Socialization-at-a-a-a-Andersen/beb6f391f36399f46fc1ca164298eb03048bf402
> 
> Attachment 10847


yes, there is a difference, but first define competitiveness

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> yes, there is a difference, but first define competitiveness


I think they mean women competing with men as independent actors rather than choosing supportive or subsidiary roles.




> We ran our experiment in matrilineal and patriarchal villages in the same general region of Meghalaya in Northeast India. The matrilineal villagers in our study belong to the Khasi tribe, while the patriarchal villagers are of the Kharbi tribe. The Kharbi are considered to be the closest to the Khasi in terms of biology and origin. The two tribesare located in the same region and engage in similar economic activities. Yet, the social organization of the two societies is quite different. In the Khasi, inheritance and clan membership always follow the female lineage through the youngest daughter. Family life is organized around the mother’s house headed by the grandmother who lives with her unmarried daughters, her youngest daughter (even if she is married), and her youngest daughter’s children. Additionally, her unmarried, divorced, or widowed brothers and sons reside in the home. Even in cases when married men reside with their wife’s family, they spend much, if not most, of their time in the mother’s or sisters’ household (Van Ham, 2001, Nakane 1967). Women are therefore raised from infancy in their mother’s or grandmother’s home. Importantly, the youngest daughter never leaves and eventually becomes the head of the household, whereas older daughters usually form separate households adjacent to their mother’s household...
> 
> The Kharbi society, on the other hand, is organized in the usual patriarchal structure, in that men possess ownership of the land and have power over monetary decisions of the household. Lineage also descends through the male, and women move to the household of their husband when they get married...
> 
> The children were told that they would have 5 chances to throw a ball into the bucket, and could choose between two payment options. The choice of incentives was the only choice the participants in our experiment were asked to make. The piece-rate optionpaid 10 Indian Rupees per successful shot (the ball had to enter the bucket and stay in it), and only depended on the participant’s own performance.8The second option was a tournament payment scheme in which earnings depended on the comparison of the subject’s performance to that of a randomly-matched subject from another group of participants. This option paid 30 Rupees per successful shot if and only if the participant outperformed the randomly selected participant that he/she was matched with. In case of a tie the subject who chose the tournament option was paid 10 Rupees per successful shot; if the subject was less successful than the opponent then he/she was paid nothing...
> 
> We see no significant differences in competitive behavior across gender or culture for the younger children aged 7 to 12. That is, younger boys’ and girls’ competition propensities are not different from each other, in either the matrilineal society or the patriarchal society (p=0.48and p=0.80, respectively). 
> 
> By the ages of 13-15, as girls and boys enter/approach adolescence, there is still no significant difference between boys’ and girls’ competitiveness in the matrilineal society (p=0.62). In contrast, in the patriarchal society, girls around puberty exhibit a significantly lower propensity to compete compared to boys of the same age in the same villages (p<0.01). This result suggests that the gender difference in competitiveness that is commonly observed in adults arises around puberty in societies with traditional gender roles, whereas such a difference never materializes in a matrilineal society.


The whole paper can be read here: http://home.ku.edu.tr/%7Esertac/kids.pdf

----------


## bigsnake49

This is strictly my opinion but sexually promiscuous women threaten the stability of a social group because of jealousy among the men that share her favors and the women steady partners of those men. Religion reflects those mores and codifies those prejudices.

----------


## bicicleur

> This is strictly my opinion but sexually promiscuous women threaten the stability of a social group because of jealousy among the men that share her favors and the women steady partners of those men. Religion reflects those mores and codifies those prejudices.


that is correct, it is all about jealousy, which is a negative, destructive sentiment, and religion and many clanlike societies support this negative sentiment
yes, sexually promiscuous women threaten the stability of a social group but the repression is not proportional and not justified

----------


## halfalp

> most killings for 'honor' in Europe are commited by immigrant families from Muslim countries
> but we know it also happens very frequent in Hindu India
> 
> violence out of jealousy or revenge happens in the west too, of course, but afaik for family 'honor' amongst autochtones, it is very rare
> 
> and defending 'family honor' is not for the benefit of the daughter, but for her market value because their marriages are araigned, she is virtualy sold to the party with the highest influences
> sometimes they even kill their own daughter
> 
> it is not something in modern society, but mostly in backward communities who are still very much clinged to clan values
> ...


Honor Crimes are way more subtile than just fixed marriages. I dont have a Sister, but i can imagine knowing myself, the repercussions that would happened if another Men messed with her, even tho she was consenting. It all turns toward pride, people sometimes dismiss it, but Men have huge pride towards their Mother and Sister, and they want tolerate any slip from either they or anyone else targeting them. It not just concerns Muslims or Indians, but absolutely all Nationalities. Big difference is that, Western World are Pussies. If your Sister would being Attacked, you would just called the police and ask another random man to the job for you, even going in some contexte as this man have to put his own life and family in threat because of this. They like to call this whole Progressivness, i called it Lying to Yourself because you are Scared. If you would to understand the hatred towards Promiscuous Women, you should just ask their Fathers or Brothers their feel about it and how they gonna deal with it. Historically, shame pushed people to kill themselves for bringing back Honor in the Family or to kill people who bring shame to it, because they were selfish and selfishness have no place in a struggle society.

----------


## bicicleur

> Honor Crimes are way more subtile than just fixed marriages. I dont have a Sister, but i can imagine knowing myself, the repercussions that would happened if another Men messed with her, even tho she was consenting. It all turns toward pride, people sometimes dismiss it, but Men have huge pride towards their Mother and Sister, and they want tolerate any slip from either they or anyone else targeting them. It not just concerns Muslims or Indians, but absolutely all Nationalities. Big difference is that, Western World are Pussies. If your Sister would being Attacked, you would just called the police and ask another random man to the job for you, even going in some contexte as this man have to put his own life and family in threat because of this. They like to call this whole Progressivness, i called it Lying to Yourself because you are Scared. If you would to understand the hatred towards Promiscuous Women, you should just ask their Fathers or Brothers their feel about it and how they gonna deal with it. Historically, shame pushed people to kill themselves for bringing back Honor in the Family or to kill people who bring shame to it, because they were selfish and selfishness have no place in a struggle society.


if you call that lying to yourself you could as well bypass the whole judicial system and take right in your own hands for all matters

and yes, it is universal that a man will defend his sister when she is under attack, but no it is not universal that she is forbidden to have an afair with someone belonging to another clan

anyway the study discussed in this thread has nothing to do with family honnor, or with sisters and mothers, it is about different feelings between men and women towards promiscuous women

----------


## halfalp

> if you call that lying to yourself you could as well bypass the whole judicial system and take right in your own hands for all matters
> 
> and yes, it is universal that a man will defend his sister when she is under attack, but no it is not universal that she is forbidden to have an afair with someone belonging to another clan
> 
> anyway the study discussed in this thread has nothing to do with family honnor, or with sisters and mothers, it is about different feelings between men and women towards promiscuous women


I dont call out the Judiciary Power, but how occidental people seems to have lost Passion and Love. I cannot even understand how you can sit on a chair while your children got slaughtered. It's way more cynical that anything. Mexican Cartels sometimes are kidnapping children or girls to get ransom, then family should engage local police to found them, people that will risk their own family just for someone else family. Occidental Judiciary system is overrated and borderline. When i saw post-Bataclan people who lost people just crying and dont do anything, even letting themselves got threated by terrorists... it made me so depressed. It will always let the weak who dont defend themselves with a lost.

It was universal, that not just girls, but also boys who are treathening the system of relationship that different clans have put together should be punished in a way or another. It's not an hazard that a lot of local romantic stories have for subject " a girl and a boy flying away their family and environement to _vivre de passion et d'eau fraiche_ ". Now here we talk about social constructions and not natural appealing to have sex with someone, wich everybody ( almost ) are feeling time to time. 

I responded to your topic about " Honor Crime ". As for the actual study, i'm not sure why Women are more often punished than Men when outpassing order.

----------


## bigsnake49

> I dont call out the Judiciary Power, but how occidental people seems to have lost Passion and Love. I cannot even understand how you can sit on a chair while your children got slaughtered. It's way more cynical that anything. Mexican Cartels sometimes are kidnapping children or girls to get ransom, then family should engage local police to found them, people that will risk their own family just for someone else family. Occidental Judiciary system is overrated and borderline. When i saw post-Bataclan people who lost people just crying and dont do anything, even letting themselves got threated by terrorists... it made me so depressed. It will always let the weak who dont defend themselves with a lost.
> 
> It was universal, that not just girls, but also boys who are treathening the system of relationship that different clans have put together should be punished in a way or another. It's not an hazard that a lot of local romantic stories have for subject " a girl and a boy flying away their family and environement to _vivre de passion et d'eau fraiche_ ". Now here we talk about social constructions and not natural appealing to have sex with someone, wich everybody ( almost ) are feeling time to time. 
> 
> I responded to your topic about " Honor Crime ". As for the actual study, i'm not sure why Women are more often punished than Men when outpassing order.


So, what are going going to do if your relative was killed in a terrorist attack? Get a gun and mow a few innocent people down?

If your sister is having an affair will you mow her down also? Because she hurt your pride and your honor? 

Please crawl back to whatever cave you came out of. Us civilized people don't want you around.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> This is strictly my opinion but sexually promiscuous women threaten the stability of a social group because of jealousy among the men that share her favors and the women steady partners of those men. Religion reflects those mores and codifies those prejudices.


In a patriarchal society, control of land, property, and incomes are at stake, passed down through the eldest son, so guarding one's paternal lineage in that context makes sense, less from overheated passion than from cold calculation. In an "honor society" it is the inability to requite a slight that is shameful, more than the slight itself. 

That is much less the case in a matrilinear society, which might pass inheritances through the youngest daughter, for instance.

----------


## halfalp

I think here we are overthinking the concept of Matrilinear Society. There is no and never was a society were Women are working, warrioring or leading the society. Matrilinear Societies are about lineage, we recognize you as your Mother kin and not your Father one, but it doesn't tell anything about hypothetic Equality, or Governance of the society. Jews are Matrilinear but it is still a very patriarcal society, just like Romans were matrilinear. There is very rare modern exemples of women governing other men, and in general those exemple conclude about the wife or the daughter of a very powerful King.

----------


## bicicleur

this lady was asked to leave a spa and sauna facility in New-Zealand which was accesaable for adult people only
she was there with her partner
some mothers had complained that her bathing suit was 'not suitable'
I think it demonstarates clearly that jealousy is an excuse to condemn other ladies for 'undecent behaviour'



https://www.hln.be/bizar/zangeres-26...c7wtI#comments

I wonder who were the ladies complaining and what their background is.

----------


## Angela

> this lady was asked to leave a spa and sauna facility in New-Zealand which was accesaable for adult people only
> she was there with her partner
> some mothers had complained that her bathing suit was 'not suitable'
> I think it demonstarates clearly that jealousy is an excuse to condemn other ladies for 'undecent behaviour'
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.hln.be/bizar/zangeres-26...c7wtI#comments
> 
> I wonder who were the ladies complaining and what their background is.


That kind of thing is common. Well, maybe not in the world of the "Housewives of Beverly Hills", but in my east coast world if you have a voluptuous figure and you wear that kind of suit around other women's husbands at a community pool you can expect to have very few women friends. It's considered threatening, I suppose. One experience with a lot of death stares is enough. In other cultures everyone may wear suits like that and so the issue wouldn't arise.

Plus, there are children, teenage boys around the pool (although not in the case you cite), and I also would consider it inappropriate in that case. They have enough fantasies about the mothers of their friends without encouraging it. 

Men are jealous too, you know, some extremely so, and often more obvious about it. It's just human nature. You protect your turf.

----------


## bicicleur

> That kind of thing is common. Well, maybe not in the world of the "Housewives of Beverly Hills", but in my east coast world if you have a voluptuous figure and you wear that kind of suit around other women's husbands at a community pool you can expect to have very few women friends. It's considered threatening, I suppose. One experience with a lot of death stares is enough. In other cultures everyone may wear suits like that and so the issue wouldn't arise.
> 
> Plus, there are children, teenage boys around the pool (although not in the case you cite), and I also would consider it inappropriate in that case. They have enough fantasies about the mothers of their friends without encouraging it. 
> 
> Men are jealous too, you know, some extremely so, and often more obvious about it. It's just human nature. You protect your turf.


I don't think this is how you protect your turf.
It's not wanting to face reality and lack of (self)confidence.

----------


## Angela

> I don't think this is how you protect your turf.
> It's not wanting to face reality and lack of (self)confidence.


Bicicleur, with all due respect, you don't understand women, which is certainly normal for a man. :) 

If a voluptuous woman with a great figure puts on a tiny bikini and goes prancing around men in a married couples setting, she's doing it for the effect, to be admired. She might not want to have sex with them, but she certainly wants their attention. Another woman, with an equally beautiful body, let's say, might not want that kind of ogling and attention from the husbands of her friends or from their teenage sons. She might find it extremely uncomfortable, and might not like being "hit on" by these men. It's also a question of respect in some cases, respect for the women of her acquaintance. 

The women who resent it are not necessarily less attractive. They're just realistic. A man can have steak at home and still consider having filet mignon occasionally. Most women instinctively know this, although not all. I know a woman, a very attractive woman, who spent a fortune on maintaining her looks: a tummy tuck after each baby, breast lifts, discrete wrinkle removal, hours at the spa every week, you name it. She was universally considered gorgeous, yet her husband was constantly cheating. It was about him, not her. 

Why do you think a lot of women, even if they can afford it, either don't want live in help, or at least don't want to hire young, attractive nannies. It doesn't matter if the wife is attactive or not. Even hiring an older, unattractive woman is not always a guarantee. Look at Arnold Schwartzenegger.

----------


## Vandemonian

> I'd like to understand all of this more.


Then I have a paper I will highly recommend you look at. I'll dig it out for you tomorrow.

----------


## bicicleur

> Bicicleur, with all due respect, you don't understand women, which is certainly normal for a man. :) 
> 
> If a voluptuous woman with a great figure puts on a tiny bikini and goes prancing around men in a married couples setting, she's doing it for the effect, to be admired. She might not want to have sex with them, but she certainly wants their attention. Another woman, with an equally beautiful body, let's say, might not want that kind of ogling and attention from the husbands of her friends or from their teenage sons. She might find it extremely uncomfortable, and might not like being "hit on" by these men. It's also a question of respect in some cases, respect for the women of her acquaintance. 
> 
> The women who resent it are not necessarily less attractive. They're just realistic. A man can have steak at home and still consider having filet mignon occasionally. Most women instinctively know this, although not all. I know a woman, a very attractive woman, who spent a fortune on maintaining her looks: a tummy tuck after each baby, breast lifts, discrete wrinkle removal, hours at the spa every week, you name it. She was universally considered gorgeous, yet her husband was constantly cheating. It was about him, not her. 
> 
> Why do you think a lot of women, even if they can afford it, either don't want live in help, or at least don't want to hire young, attractive nannies. It doesn't matter if the wife is attactive or not. Even hiring an older, unattractive woman is not always a guarantee. Look at Arnold Schwartzenegger.


you're right, I'm a man and I don't understand women
those who I'm interested in, I try to understand them as an individual

I do understand though, many of them like to parade and be admired
and I also understand men, at least most of them

I can tell you, those women who are afraid of that lady in the bikini at the spa and think it threatens their marriage or influences their children in a bad way, their mind is ****** up
I'm sorry, these women don't understand men, they even understand their own husband, unless it is a perverted one (they do exist, but are a minority), and in this case, they should concentrate their anger to their husband, not to the lady in question, as a matter of fact, they shouldn't have taken this husband at all

----------


## Nik

> I can tell you, those women who are afraid of that lady in the bikini at the spa and think it threatens their marriage or influences their children in a bad way, their mind is ****** up
> I'm sorry, these women don't understand men, they even understand their own husband, unless it is a perverted one (they do exist, but are a minority), and in this case, they should concentrate their anger to their husband, not to the lady in question, as a matter of fact, they shouldn't have taken this husband at all


I'll have to politely disagree with you. "Those women" or any woman in the world has a reason to be afraid and suspicious because this is reality, men cheat. 

There's many opinions why men cheat and mine is because of their own weakness which lets say half of it is their fault and half the modern society. Modern society is creating weak effeminate men who are so encouraged to use their wits and forget about manly honour and pride so they'd start arguing and shouting at a woman or even worse use violence to impose their dominance. That just means they're weak and they have a need for recognition. 

Weakness causes you to lower your expectations and choose someone as a partner because you can't do better, but the moment they start to do well and take care of themselves they look for an upgrade. 

As Chillon of Sparta said in 6th century BC: "If one is strong be also merciful, so that one's neighbors may respect one rather than fear one." The strong men that I looked up to growing up never had to show it, everybody knew and that made them the chillest among many. Men like this will vastly the % of promiscuous women, yet it doesn't guarantee that all these men will be loyal too. 




> ...unless it is a perverted one (they do exist, but are a minority)


The majority of men (if not all) are as perverted as they get, together with women. It's the stuff that'd fed to you since you were a kid that makes you different, as well as to whom you direct your perverted thoughts to (your partner or the entire world).

----------


## Angela

Bicicleur, a lot of men cheat, not a small minority, and most don't even want a divorce. The standard explanation if caught is "It doesn't mean anything." I used to think it was a crock of you know what, but perhaps in a way it's true for some. Men can more eaily divorce their sexuality from their feelings. 

Goodness knows I'm not excusing it; I just think it's reality.

----------


## bicicleur

> I'll have to politely disagree with you. "Those women" or any woman in the world has a reason to be afraid and suspicious because this is reality, men cheat. 
> 
> There's many opinions why men cheat and mine is because of their own weakness which lets say half of it is their fault and half the modern society. Modern society is creating weak effeminate men who are so encouraged to use their wits and forget about manly honour and pride so they'd start arguing and shouting at a woman or even worse use violence to impose their dominance. That just means they're weak and they have a need for recognition. 
> 
> Weakness causes you to lower your expectations and choose someone as a partner because you can't do better, but the moment they start to do well and take care of themselves they look for an upgrade. 
> 
> As Chillon of Sparta said in 6th century BC: "If one is strong be also merciful, so that one's neighbors may respect one rather than fear one." The strong men that I looked up to growing up never had to show it, everybody knew and that made them the chillest among many. Men like this will vastly the % of promiscuous women, yet it doesn't guarantee that all these men will be loyal too. 
> 
> 
> The majority of men (if not all) are as perverted as they get, together with women. It's the stuff that'd fed to you since you were a kid that makes you different, as well as to whom you direct your perverted thoughts to (your partner or the entire world).


men cheat, that is right, it's nature

but not just because they see a woman in bikini in a spa

come on

----------


## bicicleur

> Bicicleur, a lot of men cheat, not a small minority, and most don't even want a divorce. The standard explanation if caught is "It doesn't mean anything." I used to think it was a crock of you know what, but perhaps in a way it's true for some. Men can more eaily divorce their sexuality from their feelings. 
> Goodness knows I'm not excusing it; I just think it's reality.


yes, the vast majority of men will cheat when they get a good opportunity
but does it mean they are perverts?

what is a pervert?
I would say a pervert does things to a woman he enjoys only himself, and uses force to the woman in one way or another

----------


## bicicleur

oh yes the vast majority of men
I can tell many men even think of themselves they will never cheat, untill they suddenly get that opportunity
and if that happens, will they all of a sudden become less devoted to their wife and family? I doubt it

----------


## Angela

> yes, the vast majority of men will cheat when they get the opportunity
> but does it mean they are perverts?


No, I don't think they are "perverts". 

Maybe we have a misunderstanding. Let's go back to my example. It's a family club. A voluptuous woman always wears a tiny bikini to the pool. You don't think a lot of the men who are inclined to cheat might see this as a subtle invitation, an indication that perhaps she's "available"? Wouldn't a man perhaps then be more likely to discretely ask her to meet him for lunch, or to give her a cell phone number for "future reference" etc., etc.?

Now, I've never known of any kind of "dress code" for the pool, but if an attractive woman dresses like that around other women's husbands, she may jeopardize her female friendships. It's just the way it is: women are territorial too, if not as territorial as men.

I was thinking about whether there would be the same reaction if a man appeared wearing one of those little "pouch" suits. I'm used to it, but I can tell you that northeastern Americans would be very uncomfortable. They're more into baggy shorts. :) Some people might indeed complain. 

This is all culture specific probably. This is common in Italy, as is women going topless in some areas.

----------


## bicicleur

> No, I don't think they are "perverts". 
> Maybe we have a misunderstanding. Let's go back to my example. It's a family club. A voluptuous woman always wears a tiny bikini to the pool. You don't think a lot of the men who are inclined to cheat might see this as a subtle invitation, an indication that perhaps she's "available"? Wouldn't a man perhaps then be more likely to discretely ask her to meet him for lunch, or to give her a cell phone number for "future reference" etc., etc.?
> Now, I've never known of any kind of "dress code" for the pool, but if an attractive woman dresses like that around other women's husbands, she may jeopardize her female friendships. It's just the way it is: women are territorial too, if not as territorial as men.
> I was thinking about whether there would be the same reaction if a man appeared wearing one of those little "pouch" suits. I'm used to it, but I can tell you that northeastern Americans would be very uncomfortable. They're more into baggy shorts. :) Some people might indeed complain. 
> This is all culture specific probably. This is common in Italy, as is women going topless in some areas.


Angela, I told you man think with the body part that contains the most blood.
Yet, I think you underestimate them a little bit.
They won't see a lady in bikini as an invitation, they understand that women like to parade, and probably the lady also feels more confortable in a bikini than in a full bathing suit. Maybe she's just working on her tan.
But if this lady realy would sent out an invitation, I think very few man would refuse if they could get away with that.
However any sensible man knows she doesn't.
Unless his mind is ****** up, which is sometimes cultural rather than just nature.
I mean, some cultures have to many rules for contact between man and woman, that men don't know any more how to deal with that.
Those rules have an effect that is not helping, it becomes counterproductive and even dangerous.

----------


## Vandemonian

OK Angela, here is the study I suggest you read: 

Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 166-203.


It can be easily located and downloaded through google scholar. Although I'll encourage you to read the study in its entirety, here's the abstract:




> Four theories about cultural suppression of female sexuality are evaluated. Data are reviewed on cross-cultural differences in power and sex ratios, reactions to the sexual revolution, direct restraining influences on adolescent and adult female sexuality,double standard patterns of sexual morality, female genital surgery, legal and religious restrictions on sex, prostitution and pornography, and sexual deception. The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage.


In other words, it isn't than men never enforce cultural norms on female behavior, but rather, that the preponderance of the evidence very heavily supports the idea that females themselves are driving those cultural norms. This may be why feminism stumbled and broke into factions over issues related to prostitution and pornography; some feminists pushed for individual women's freedom, but the rest pushed for the power of the sisterhood.

----------


## Angela

> OK Angela, here is the study I suggest you read: 
> 
> Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 166-203.
> 
> 
> It can be easily located and downloaded through google scholar. Although I'll encourage you to read the study in its entirety, here's the abstract:
> 
> 
> In other words, it isn't than men never enforce cultural norms on female behavior, but rather, that the preponderance of the evidence very heavily supports the idea that females themselves are driving those cultural norms. This may be why feminism stumbled and broke into factions over issues related to prostitution and pornography; some feminists pushed for individual women's freedom, but the rest pushed for the power of the sisterhood.


Thanks. I'll definitely read it. :)

----------


## bigsnake49

Angela, women cheat just as often as men. Marriage as an institution is very constraining when it comes to sex. So partners sometimes stray. It is when it veers off into love that it becomes threatening to your partner. Or when she's really great in bed.  :Embarassed:  I have had some very attractive partners that were total cold fish in bed. Some others were dynamite. I wonder what my ex partners would say about me behind my back :Laughing: .

----------


## Angela

> Angela, women cheat just as often as men. Marriage as an institution is very constraining when it comes to sex. So partners sometimes stray. It is when it veers off into love that it becomes threatening to your partner. Or when she's really great in bed.  I have had some very attractive partners that were total cold fish in bed. Some others were dynamite. I wonder what my ex partners would say about me behind my back.


Not in my experience, but maybe it's just the circle of married women with whom I'm friendly. I only know two women who have cheated on their husbands. All the rest are faithful, so far as I know, and women talk. Or maybe it's also partly a generational thing. 

I take that back. One of my college dorm mates cheats on her husband, so that's three, but I don't like her very much, for that and other reasons.

I'm surprised Greek women would be cold blooded or a lot of them, anyway. 

I can tell you that if a woman doesn't like food she doesn't like sex. Controlling the liking is one thing, not much liking it is another. I think it has to do with the strenth of your desire for sense satisfaction. That's my scientific observation. :)

If you can laugh at yourself, probably good things. :)

----------


## bigsnake49

:Laughing: 


> Not in my experience, but maybe it's just the circle of married women with whom I'm friendly. I only know two women who have cheated on their husbands. All the rest are faithful, so far as I know, and women talk. Or maybe it's also partly a generational thing. 
> 
> I take that back. One of my college dorm mates cheats on her husband, so that's three, but I don't like her very much, for that and other reasons.
> 
> I'm surprised Greek women would be cold blooded or a lot of them, anyway. 
> 
> I can tell you that if a woman doesn't like food she doesn't like sex. Controlling the liking is one thing, not much liking it is another. I think it has to do with the strenth of your desire for sense satisfaction. That's my scientific observation. :)
> 
> If you can laugh at yourself, probably good things. :)


Oh they are red blooded but only when you're having an argument...well not quite an argument, it is usually one sided, they yell at you and you try to act civilized :Laughing: .

There was a poll I think some time ago and the percentages of cheating were very close. In the US the cheating percentages drop, but the divorce rates go up.

----------


## Angela

> Oh they are hot blooded but only when you're having an argument...well not quite an argument, it is usually one sided, they yell at you and you try to act civilized.
> 
> There was a poll I think some time ago and the percentages of cheating were very close. In the US the cheating percentages drop, but the divorce rates go up.


Italian men yell back, and it usually ends in a...reconciliation, shall we say. :) My husband admits he used to set me off on purpose. He said he liked to see the "sparks" fly. Then he would laugh, which would just infuriate me more. :) 

Once we had an argument, believe it or not, over the fact that he called my name incessantly when he was home: to get something for him; to see something; to listen to something; to tell him where something was, which he couldn't find, but which was right under his nose. It was endless, like a child calling his mother all day, except that we had no "real" children yet. I couldn't get a damn thing done. It was worse if he tried, for once, to do "manly" jobs around the house. I would have to stand right next to him to be "assistant". I threatened to get in the car and go to my friend's house for the week-end if he didn't leave me alone and give me some peace. The next day he did it even more. At one point late in the afternoon I exploded: I told him I'd stab him to death with my Chef's knife if he didn't leave me alone. (I know: I'm confirming all the stereotypes. Of course I didn't actually mean to do it.) At that point I heard him laughing maniacally upstairs.

----------


## bigsnake49

:Grin: 


> Italian men yell back, and it usually ends in a...reconciliation, shall we say. :) My husband admits he used to set me off on purpose. He said he liked to see the "sparks" fly. Then he would laugh, which would just infuriate me more. :) 
> 
> Once we had an argument, believe it or not, over the fact that he called my name incessantly when he was home: to get something for him; to see something; to listen to something; to tell him where something was, which he couldn't find, but which was right under his nose. It was endless, like a child calling his mother all day, except that we had no "real" children yet. I couldn't get a damn thing done. It was worse if he tried, for once, to do "manly" jobs around the house. I would have to stand right next to him to be "assistant". I threatened to get in the car and go to my friend's house for the week-end if he didn't leave me alone and give me some peace. The next day he did it even more. At one point late in the afternoon I exploded: I told him I'd stab him to death with my Chef's knife if he didn't leave me alone. (I know: I'm confirming all the stereotypes. Of course I didn't actually mean to do it.) At that point I heard him laughing maniacally upstairs.


Remind me not to use your name too often Angela :Embarassed: .

----------


## matty74

*Men can more easily divorce their sexuality from their feelings. 
Goodness knows I'm not excusing it; I just think it's reality.*

I believe this can be 100% true for many of us men until we see the hurt we inflict on our better halves. We're wired differently but probably not a great excuse for our behavior as a whole. On the other hand, promiscuous women seem to make the world go round. :)

----------


## bicicleur

> Not in my experience, but maybe it's just the circle of married women with whom I'm friendly. I only know two women who have cheated on their husbands. All the rest are faithful, so far as I know, and women talk. Or maybe it's also partly a generational thing. 
> 
> I take that back. One of my college dorm mates cheats on her husband, so that's three, but I don't like her very much, for that and other reasons.
> 
> I'm surprised Greek women would be cold blooded or a lot of them, anyway. 
> 
> I can tell you that if a woman doesn't like food she doesn't like sex. Controlling the liking is one thing, not much liking it is another. I think it has to do with the strenth of your desire for sense satisfaction. That's my scientific observation. :)
> 
> If you can laugh at yourself, probably good things. :)


as far as you know, as far as women talk

----------


## halfalp

I think cheating depends on the man and the woman themselves instead of numbers. I just feel that most couples in the world are not really meant to be together and they do it at the beginning for convention or solitude/boredom. You dont cheat over true love, love that you worked out a lot to bloom. Even though you would break up at some point because you happened to a crossroad, there still would be love and respect for the other.

----------


## halfalp

> *Men can more easily divorce their sexuality from their feelings. 
> Goodness knows I'm not excusing it; I just think it's reality.*
> 
> I believe this can be 100% true for many of us men until we see the hurt we inflict on our better halves. We're wired differently but probably not a great excuse for our behavior as a whole. On the other hand, promiscuous women seem to make the world go round. :)


Are you as a Man juging yourself and your kind and applausing at Woman who are doing the same? Do you know that women are hating guys like that, a lot?

----------


## matty74

> Are you as a Man juging yourself and your kind and applausing at Woman who are doing the same? Do you know that women are hating guys like that, a lot?


I'm not following, but the last part was in jest.

----------


## Nik

I don't think men and women think and cheat equally. Women tend more to rather push their men to look better, dress better, and hope to be more successful rather than jumping on the next better one at first sight. 

Men are less patient in that sense and care less. Obviously when women become that pushy it gets irritating even though its for your own good and it's a cry of please do something otherwise adios.

----------


## Angela

How many cheat in America?

So, my social circle isn't so weird. :) People are more faithful than is assumed, even today.




The media provides a very distorted view of reality. Most people are not acting like rabbits.


Promiscuity by religious denomination:

----------


## bicicleur

'there was a lady in the spa with a bikini' does not list in the top 5 reasons  :Wink:

----------


## Angela

> 'there was a lady in the spa with a bikini' does not list in the top 5 reasons


You're being too literal, Bicicleur. Look again. Number one reason men gave for cheating: She was so HOT. :)

I added some other data to that post. 

A lot of men do take form fitting clothes, never mind tiny bikinis, as an invitation, even when it isn't meant that way at all. 

This girl has attitude. :) She knows how to deal with it and call their bluff. 




Now imagine if she had a better figure and was wearing fitted, really feminine clothes. 

That's how men are...

----------


## bicicleur

> You're being too literal, Bicicleur. Look again. Number one reason men gave for cheating: She was so HOT. :)
> I added some other data to that post. 
> A lot of men do take form fitting clothes, never mind tiny bikinis, as an invitation, even when it isn't meant that way at all. 
> This girl has attitude. :) She knows how to deal with it and call their bluff. 
> 
> 
> Now imagine if she had a better figure and was wearing fitted, really feminine clothes. 
> That's how men are...


well, it's obvious, these men are all losers, having nothing else to do than hanging around in the street
and they all had some comments, but none of them didn't get any further than a few words
other men won't waist ther time, because they know they don't stand a chance (not because they don't want)

the top 5 isn't realy a top 5
it are 5 excuses the people in the survey were allowed to choose from to justify their cheating behaviour

for adultery, unless if it is forced rape, it takes 2 people to consent
just the other one being hot is not enough

also the percentage cheating is not the same as the percentage that admits cheating

----------


## Vandemonian

> 


What interests me about the above is that women are evidently selecting men for greater amorousness. "My partner stopped paying attention to me" has many likely reasons, but "his sex drive is high" will not be among them.

----------

