X

Cookies on SurvivingInfidelity.com®

SurvivingInfidelity.com® uses cookies to enhance your visit to our website. This is a requirement for participants to login, post and use other features. Visitors may opt out, but the website will be less functional for you.

more information about cookies...

Return to Forum List

Return to General

SurvivingInfidelity.com® > General

You are not logged in. Login here or register.

Burn the Witch!!!

Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24

DictumVeritas posted 8/12/2020 04:33 AM

Sissoon,

How do you presume to think you know what human behavior comes from nature and what part comes from nurture?

Sorry I did miss your post earlier, I did not ignore your point.

Nature vs. nurture. This is a point of division and contention even among experts. The humanities will always argue nurture and biological science will argue nature.

I think to an individual both has an impact, but the highest impact is on happiness.

I will refer back to a previous comment of mine on this thread concerning different processors running either native of interpreted code. Both are capable of doing the task, one is comfortable doing it.

Men and Women are indeed biologically different, (from muscle structure, through hormone production to brain structure and yes men have more in common with each other than with woman in all these physical expressions) [Edit Corrected Grammar 18:24] just like those processors are structurally different. That is nature. Learned behavior, that is nurture (the program being run by the processor).

It is not optimum to run the wrong program on the wrong processor via interpretation. It is optimum to run the native program and we know the basis of these programs by examining their historical roots.

Conclusion, nurture can overwrite nature in as far as it concerns behavior and response, but it is a bad idea to do so since it is impossible to obtain anywhere close to optimal performance in the attempt and it always takes an extra-ordinary amount of effort just to get it to work, even sub-optimally. Effort that equates to resentment and unhappiness.

ETA:

This post does not adjust for statistical outliers, since their low prevalence should not dictate the direction of the rule.

[This message edited by DictumVeritas at 11:24 AM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

Booyah posted 8/12/2020 06:00 AM

Onebiglie, my apologies, I too thought you were referring to all men not being as committed as women for a stable home for their kids.

Better end it here as I don't want chamomiletea to get bent out of shape for a T/J.

Rideitout posted 8/12/2020 06:11 AM

Nature vs. nurture. This is a point of division and contention even among experts. The humanities will always argue nurture and biological science will argue nature.

The best way to disaggregate the two is, when looking at individuals, twin studies; identical twins, separated at birth, raised by two different families and then compared at adulthood. There is a lot that's determined by both nature and nurture, but this is the best way to pull the two apart. Heritability studies are another good method for figuring it out, nobody would argue that being a redhead is "nurture", because we know it's strongly heritable. We also (sadly) know that things like intelligence are strongly heritable, which causes all kinds of problems in society. We further know that men, statistically speaking, are the outliers. If you're looking at the tail of just about any bell curve, either the "top of the top" or "bottom of the bottom", it's going to be almost all men there. There are some theories as to why, the one I think makes the most sense is "nature takes risks with the "y" chromosome" because it's less important than the X. The "y" chromosome is also far more "selected for" than the X; most women in history successfully reproduced, most men did not. Depending on the study, it was either a rather difficult hurdle to jump over to nearly impossible (the one that really grabbed headlines was 17 women reproduced for every one man). Either way, there was a LOT more evolutionary pressure on "y" than on X.

HOWEVER I AM willing to say IN MY OPINION with clearly good reasoning that ALMOST ALL WH are less committed to their children than their BW. Because duh.

Change that to "WS" and "BS" and I wholeheartedly agree with you. A WS isn't committed to the marriage the same way that a BS is, and if that marriage includes children, well, one just follows the other.

You wanna tell me men have a harder time with the sexual side of the A because of emasculation like it's common sense. Sure, I'll tell you women are generally mpre committed to their children becausw common sense. Your WW no, but other women, yes. That's biology right? Women and children. The bond is obvious. Hello, of course. That's why BW get blamed for As cause they 'care more about the chidren than their husband. Poor neglected WH'. Betrayed WOMEN get that bullshit.

In general, I'd agree with both of those statements. I know exceptions to both, men who are more committed to their children than their wives and also women who are more bothered by the sexual side than emotional of the WH's A. But I think, in general, your two statements above are probably true.

But if you want studies to show women in general are more committed to their kids, go ahead and google it. It's clear.

I have, and it is, as you say, "clear" from the studies. I've also googled the difference in reactions to PA's between the sexes and that's also shows a clear gender difference.

No wonder I can't imagine how any guy (I have a son and daughters) would see being a nice guy has value in this era.

It depends on what your definition of "nice guy" is, but, in general, I agree with you. We've devalued that more and more through time, in fact, most of our "heros" (not mine, but those society holds up as such) are the antithesis of "nice guys". They are the corporate titans who are systemically destroying the competition. The sports icon sleeping with 3 different women every night, or the actor doing the same. We try to push this message that "cops/doctors/firefighters/teachers/etc" are "heros" but our collective interest shows what really matters. Someone in the Jenner family posting a picture of their backside will get more views in an hour than the story of a firefighter pulling a child out of burning building will get in Internet eternity. We SAY we value "nice guys" or "heros" and then we show what we really value; wealth, power, fame, attractiveness/youth and IMHO, even to the point of actually valuing narcissism as a "virtue". Great book here for those who are interested, "The culture of narcissism". Excellent read about how we've gone from a society where "talking up your game" was frowned on and discouraged to celebrated and seen as a path to get ahead.

It IS possible to make a point without being offensive to the point where someone needs a thicker skin.

It's also possible to be so careful with words that the meaning is lost. When people talk of my WW in threads, they often use words like "broken" and "lost", "desperate for love and willing to do anything, even debase herself, to get it" and "searching for meaning" and lots of other pretty, flowery words. When, if you examine the facts in my case, words like "whore who forgot to pick up the money at the end", backstabber, compulsive liar, and frigid b*tch are much better descriptions of what she actually did and who she was during the A. Using the "flowery" words makes me question, well, everything. It makes me wonder who's the victim here, me or her. I never mince words on BW/WH threads, and I think that we do a disservice when we try to "flower up" what a cheating wife really is. I take particular offense at "broken", one of the most common that gets tagged to WW's, which just drives me batty. Someone is broken by others, so, is that just a way to say "It's your fault" without saying it? Being broken is an event, when did this happen? Can it be "fixed"? It's just a maddening euphemism for what I'd say on a BW's thread, "Your husband is a POS and can't keep his d**k in his pants, that's the fundamental problem here".

It's not directed at EVERYTHING masculine.

It was recently directed at/commingled with male facial hair (Gillette commercial). So you'll have to excuse me/us for having some issue with the idea that it's not directed at "everything masculine". Thought exercise I read right after that came out when lots of people couldn't see how that portrayal of "toxic masculinity" would be so hurtful to men.. Watch the Gillette commercial again, but, instead of razors, imagine it's for tampons. With a bunch of women behaving in shit manners portrayed throughout the commercial and the message being delivered as "plug up your toxic femininity". I spent a few minutes imagining that commercial and wound up a LOT more offended than I was by the original Gillette commercial.

Rating people and slut shaming is a devaluation ; not just one that you have noted but one you agree with .

We all rate people, a lot of us just like to lie to ourselves and say we do not. But we do; otherwise, the world becomes a random walk, without rating this person higher than that person, how do you know who to date? Who to be friends with? Who to spend your time on and who not to spend your time on? It's a natural and intrinsic thing, and it's also pretty universal. "Slut shaming" is something I don't agree with, I think that people should be able to make their own decisions at to their sexuality. But I equally don't agree with "that guy's an asshole" if he won't date a woman that has had 100 partners, that's his decision, there's basis in reality for why he may not want to date a woman who's that experienced, and frankly, it's none of my business if he "nexts" women who are >100 partners. He gets to choose who he wants to date, not me, and not society. The issue here is that isn't an outlier, lots of men have a preference for low partner counts, and women feel that restricts their behavior (and are right about that) and their sexuality. I can't disagree with that, but I also can't hold the men who won't date experienced women (or heavy women, or women with children, or whatever) at fault. That's their choice, there are logical reasons why you may not want to date someone who's had a lot of partners, and I simply don't feel it's my place at all to get into a debate and try to convince someone they are "wrong" for their sexual preferences in a partner. Shaming women? No, not at all, totally not on board with that. Selecting dating/marriage partners based on some set of criteria? Sure, we all do that, and while I may not LIKE it, it's also not my place at all to try to convince someone otherwise.

siracha posted 8/12/2020 08:06 AM

Firstly , no clearly everyone does not assess value or prioritize the exact same way . I would not judge a parent or a scientist by their gender sexual orientation race religion etc . Id look for personal markers ( except for swedish people maybe they are not humans just cliches :))
Also plenty of people in good relationships didnt just pluck the prettiest / richest / least sex partnered entity out of the pile they prioritized personality character sense of humour values etc
I do take your point on bad relationships , there are certainly people who reduce other people to objects of gratification and status and its hard to build a healthy relationship on that
Also people who are conservative have less partners and it makes sense for them to be with another person with the same outlook .
But In what world is a man with 100 partners too good for a woman who also has 100 ? The world of chauvinism ; a pretty cheap and stupid world

[This message edited by siracha at 8:35 AM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

siracha posted 8/12/2020 08:08 AM

Stinger - sorry i confused you for someone else earlier ; also cats dogs horses all deserve love every bit as much as humans ( ok maybe a little more )

Onebig lie - i didnt mean to mis represent your views , thanks for clarifying them

Rideitout posted 8/12/2020 08:36 AM

But In what world is a man with 100 partners too good for a woman who also has 100 ? The world of chauvinism ; a pretty cheap and stupid world

No argument from me, but, it also happens to be the world we live in. Just like the impossibly beautiful woman who's "too good" to date a plumber, and only wants to date rich men is equally biased. But also equally realistic; one of the reasons that many men pursue money so relentlessly is because it's a very effective way to attract "up the chain" in female attractiveness. Exactly the same reason that women pursue thin/in shape and the appearance of youth with such relentless drive; because, right or wrong, it matters a lot in the type of partner your going to be able to attract.

And, to your specific example, yes, this double standard exists, and exists for a very logical, if uncomfortable/unfair, reason. Men who sleep with 100 women have to work at it HARD, and be good at it; know how to talk to women and talk them into bed. It's NOT easy to get that many women into bed, where it's very easy for a woman to get 100 guys into bed. My wife could get 100 men into bed before the week was out, it's freely available to her, so the "value" in conferred by saying no. Where for men, the situation is the opposite, the "rare" or "hard" thing to do is get 100 people to say yes.

We value, as a society, things that are rare and hard to obtain. The clearest example of this, back when food was scarce, being overweight was very rare; those who would "achieve that" were rich/powerful, and as such, being fat was a status indicator. Now, it's more a status indicator to be thin because it shows self-control and it's the "rare" thing. The same thing with suntans, it used to be mark of wealth to be pale because you didn't have to work in the fields/outside, today, having a tan shows you have the time to get tan, and it's viewed as a mark of having the leisure time to lay out in the sun, so now we value tan more. We value what's rare/hard; what's hard for men is sleeping with 100 women, what's hard for women is saying NO to 100 men.

The final example I'll give, most men and women look down on men who use prostitutes. And the reason for that is primarily because, unlike sleeping with 100 "normal" women, sleeping with 100 prostitutes requires no "skill" at all, there's no "status" granted; you're just seen as someone who has little/no self control.

Notmine posted 8/12/2020 08:51 AM

OMG how do you all find the time to read all of this? It is the war of the intellects!! Seriously, intellectualizing the (As CT puts it) "overly generalized male vs female debate" misses the point entirely IMO. I honestly do not have the energy or resilience to read all of the posts, so I will not also pontificate on their specific content, but I did notice that the prevailing wisdom from men AND women with regards to the actual point of CT's original post is:
1. Be cognizant of what we say to the newly betrayed and thoughtful in our responses in order to provide these people with the compassion they need.
2. STOP making insanely inflammatory, unfair and untrue pronouncements about WS when there is no evidence whatsoever to support these pronouncements.
3. REMEMBER that honesty without compassion is HOSTILITY.

DevastatedDee posted 8/12/2020 09:56 AM

I give up on the whole gender argument. No one is going to have their minds changed. I can know that I exist and don't fit all of the cultural expectations and that I'm not such an outlier if other women I've known in my life are any indication, but let's just keep on pretending that the stereotypes have much value. As long as we're told what we should think and feel, it won't slide away.

I will comment on this, though:

The final example I'll give, most men and women look down on men who use prostitutes. And the reason for that is primarily because, unlike sleeping with 100 "normal" women, sleeping with 100 prostitutes requires no "skill" at all, there's no "status" granted; you're just seen as someone who has little/no self control.

No. A great deal of why it's looked own upon is how it is so often just perpetuating a system that harms women. I know that there are women who could do whatever they wanted but just love being a sex worker and that's fine. It isn't the majority. You have sex slavery, desperation and drug addictions to factor into this particular issue. The reasons I think my XWH is a piece of shit aside from him cheating on me aren't because I judge him as being too lazy to try and pull a woman on his own merits. I was obsessed enough to research the shit out of these local prostitutes, even got one on the phone for a couple of hours. Their FaceBook pages are examples of utterly miserable fucked up people. Two are just infamous for being crackheads and junkies, in and out of jail. Their lives are sad as fuck. One died in a hit and run earlier this year. The one I spoke to at length had a life so fucked up and psychological issues so sad (along with her pill addiction) that there is no way that she has any kind of decent life. Instead of helping to pull these sad and hurting people out of their misery, he tossed them money and busted a load on their faces. That makes him a low piece of shit.

Thumos posted 8/12/2020 10:10 AM

I choose to generally mix honesty with some form of compassion. But it cannot be taken at face value that "honesty without compassion is hostility."

This is yet another untested bromide and there are various versions: "honesty without compassion is cruelty" "honesty without compassion is brutality" etc. It's one of those things that sounds good on the surface, but doesn't really mean much. It also commits a logical error. And by the way, is it hostility, brutality or cruelty. They aren't always synonymous.

Honesty is just honesty. The truth is just the truth.

The JIm Carrey movie Liar Liar has fun with the idea of unfiltered honesty, but it's important to keep in mind that the 'hero" was a compulsive liar before, so an antidote to this condition was the opposite for a time (side note: the movie includes a painful infidelity subplot in which a WW is able to rip the children out of the BH's arms and gain custody).

Being honest doesn't require sugary flattery or numerous qualifiers or equivocation. Honesty can be delivered with subtlety and perhaps this is what is meant by compassion. perhaps a better formulation would be "honesty pronounced without an intent of malice is a social good."

JanaGreen posted 8/12/2020 10:19 AM

Dee, I'm sorry. That hurts.

Threads like this fill me with quiet despair. Stumbling on online spaces where men talk freely about how much they despise women - ALL women - AWALT. I never realized how much they hate us.

I have a son who is the light of my life, along with his sister. My father is a man who isn't perfect but who ALWAYS tries to do the right thing for everyone. My brother is a person I admire deeply for his integrity. I often describe my brother-in-law as damn near a saint. I watch my own partner and the way he treats people and I respect him so much. They are all masculine men (in different and unique ways, excluding my son of course because he's 5) in a very positive way. I say all of this to establish that I believe that masculinity in and of itself is NOT TOXIC.

I look at my daughter who is ten amd bright and funny and empathetic and goofy. Will she grow up and encounter men who hate her on sight because AWALT, while still desiring her physically? The thought makes me sick.

Sometimes I feel like I need to step away from the whole ass internet because the vitriol between the sexes is so depressing. I would be devastated to find out the men in my life secretly feel this way about women. I realized a while back that my ex does. I want to believe that it's not as prevalent as I fear.

[This message edited by JanaGreen at 10:20 AM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

humantrampoline posted 8/12/2020 10:22 AM

EDIT: I referred to the wrong user in my post. However, I removed a whole section. I think it violates the rule not to discuss other posts outside of the thread. I'm sorry!

First, I wanted to say that I read some of the early and later replies but skipped most pages.


I believe women are treated better here, BW and WW.

BH are expected to primarily value their wife's sexuality primarily and their finances secondly. They are expected to make a decision and act and are held more accountable for their own healing and how a potential divorce will affect their WW. If they don't pay enough attention to the sexual things, there are many other BH to drill that point home. I think it's partly societal expectation, and I do see a changing attitude in my teenage son and his friends. Rideitout, the Gillette commercial was interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.

BW are expected to think more about how their children will be affected and how a divorce affects their standard of living. They're given more leeway for taking longer to make decisions and their “acting out” verbally is more tolerated here.

In the following three recent postings, I think the reactions would be different in a gender reversal.

REMOVED.

[This message edited by humantrampoline at 11:19 AM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

Thumos posted 8/12/2020 10:32 AM

would be devastated to find out the men in my life secretly feel this way about women.

Can you be more specific Jana? I confess I lost interest in reading the entire thread awhile back, so I guess I missed the vitriol.

hikingout posted 8/12/2020 10:34 AM

Being honest doesn't require sugary flattery or numerous qualifiers or equivocation. Honesty can be delivered with subtlety and perhaps this is what is meant by compassion. perhaps a better formulation would be "honesty pronounced without an intent of malice is a social good."

I don't think anyone is suggesting to sugarcoat it or to not be honest. I do believe that some BH (and BW for that matter) do need to see the picture more clearly and gain a stronger vantage point of their situation.

I think what this thread is really about is some of the derogatory language that does get used and seems to look to the rest of us like shaming the BH for not being "stronger".

I think it's kind of being diluted into things not meant by the statement. Self reflection is okay, if this post made you have self reflection then maybe it will help. I truly believe this post was in defense of new BH's and with their interests in mind. What is wrong with considering saying something more like "your wife has had sex with another man" instead of "she couldn't wait to spread her legs for him". I think there is a much gentler nuance being asked than the 2 by 4 this thread is being interpreted as.

[This message edited by hikingout at 10:35 AM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

OwningItNow posted 8/12/2020 10:41 AM

She gets plenty of sympathy and support. I'm not saying that's bad, but I think if it were a BH, he would not be treated the same.

Exactly. And let me tell you, it would not be the BW that would attack you.

In fact, I feel so strongly about this that I'm actually a BH and I post as a BW to get more sympathy

Proving our point.

It seems, Humantrampoline, that you are very upset by the financial unfairness. I assume that resonates with you. But honestly, WW getting treated well here? Maybe if there is a stop sign on their thread, only then.

JanaGreen posted 8/12/2020 10:44 AM

Can you be more specific Jana? I confess I lost interest in reading the entire thread awhile back, so I guess I missed the vitriol.

Not so much what's specifically on this thread, but the red pill All Women Are Like That mentality, only caring about money and dating alpha males and monkey branching to a higher status man at the first given opportunity. Which does not allow any space for trust or respect. It only allows you to view your partner with sneering contempt and mistrust. Get what you can from them while withholding any true love or connection because you have been taught you can't trust women with your vulnerabilities. As I'm reading through here I keep getting that red pill taste in my mouth.

I look at everything through the lens of my kids. I want my son to eventually have a partner who views him as a whole, complex, complicated, beautiful person, not something toxic or controlled by his libido. I want my daughter to have a partner who views her as a unique human, not a "female" (spoken in that sneering tone) who is out to take advantage of a man for everything she can.

[This message edited by JanaGreen at 10:45 AM, August 12th (Wednesday)]

OwningItNow posted 8/12/2020 10:47 AM

I truly believe this post was in defense of new BH's and with their interests in mind. What is wrong with considering saying something more like "your wife has had sex with another man" instead of "she couldn't wait to spread her legs for him". I think there is a much gentler nuance being asked than the 2 by 4 this thread is being interpreted as.

Agree. It doesn't seem like a big ask, unless you really hate women so much that it feels like a huge sacrifice to not call them slutty, bitchy, blood sucking, gold-digging, skanky whores who loved to spread their legs for every dick they could find because they are all way better than yours." If not talking like that is a huge sacrifice in your life, then it's a you problem, my friends.

TKOGA posted 8/12/2020 10:58 AM

I think some people come here from MGTOW and Red Pill forums and enjoy upsetting people. People are comforted by their anger. They're also comforted when everyone around them is as angry as they are.

Thumos posted 8/12/2020 10:59 AM

the red pill All Women Are Like That mentality, only caring about money and dating alpha males and monkey branching to a higher status man at the first given opportunity.

I agree that the red pill is a simplistic approach to gender relations. It tucks men and women into convenient boxes as pre-programmed evo-psych robots and is basically a deterministic outlook on life. The "gaming" red pillers engage also seems exhausting and inauthentic and stupid - as does the obsession with who is alpha and who is beta.

But I'm hard pressed to think of many instances where I've read someone on SI espousing a hardened "red pill" view. Again, maybe I've just missed it.

I myself think that some aspects of the red pill "ideology" are true - mixed in with heaping helpings of misogyny that is really unfortunate. It's gotten worse over time, in my view.

That said, phenomena like BH's pedestalizing their WW's are something we see all the time here. Disabusing men of the idea of "soul mates," especially in the wake of a WW"s betrayal, is probably another worthy "red pill" idea. Nice Guy Syndrome is another idea that was generated out of the red pill "movement" if you will and it certainly has value as something BH's can jettison and should in the wake of betrayal. The Way of the Superior Man, as another example, is essentially a "red pill" book from the positive empowerment angle, but most people wouldn't identify it as such because it is couched in somewhat flowery New Age terminology. The book is excellent fo men no matter their age, and is a much-needed salve and curative for betrayed men in my view. It won't work much for women because it was written for men.

hikingout posted 8/12/2020 11:00 AM

And root's situation. She's been coming on here complaining about her marriage for a long time and getting support. Now she's moving out and taking the children. Someone commented that her BH is kicking his children out, but it's not even clear to me that he believes he has any control over that. She's also saying that they have 6 figures in the bank, and she's separated out and leaving with half and a well paying job. Also she's taking an additional $5,000 for advance child support. She has an attorney, so I guess he/she approved that. If that were a WH instead of a WW, I don't think he would be treated the same by SI or the court. Again not saying she should not be supported or that she's not making a healthy choice, but I think the reactions would be different with a gender reversal.

Hi Humantrampoline.

I am not at all trying to undermine your point here but I do want to share with you a couple of things I think you missed. For one, Root was pretty much given so many 2 by 4's for how she was behaving that she asked for her account to be inactivated and left the site. She also had borderline personality disorder and was pretty isolated.

I also think that when you reference Migander's situation she has also gotten really piled on so much I haven't seen her here in a while either.

And the BW you are mentioning, on her thread she is getting feedback that aligns with what you are talking about.

With all that being said, I am sorry you have had to hold your identity from us here. I do think that it's still been your decision based on a fear rather than just being you. I hope you will consider that for the future and come here just as you so those on the site can support your situation better.

Thumos posted 8/12/2020 11:01 AM

It doesn't seem like a big ask, unless you really hate women so much that it feels like a huge sacrifice to not call them slutty, bitchy, blood sucking, gold-digging, skanky whores who loved to spread their legs for every dick they could find because they are all way better than yours." If not talking like that is a huge sacrifice in your life, then it's a you problem, my friends.

Could you point to when and where this has happened on SI. I'll admit I don't read everything here, and I may have just missed this. But I haven't seen this.

Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24

Return to Forum List

Return to General

© 2002-2020 SurvivingInfidelity.com ®. All Rights Reserved.     Privacy Policy