SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Genghis Khan maybe, had 20,000 children or some ridiculous number. That's the very definition of biological success, only achieved by sleeping with lots of different women.

This statement is just on so many levels. I know there are men out there that don't think like this.

Somebody at work one day was telling me about "red pill" and "MGTOW" movements. I couldn't help but chuckle because all I could think of was Al Bundy's movement "No Ma'am". Was that the birth of these movements?

[This message edited by CincyKid at 9:40 AM, February 2nd (Friday)]

Interesting how there isn't a male equivalent for the word "slut". Instead, it's the long description of "an out of work guy who rides a motorcycle and has muscles on top of muscles", and nowhere in that description is the man shamed for his sexuality specifically.

It is interesting, but it isn't a double-standard the way you think it is.

Until recently, it's been pretty tough to establish paternity without a doubt. That's why we end up with pejoratives directed at promiscuous women (slut, whore). Fidelity is a more important factor to men historically.

The pejoratives for men that would be equivalent would be cuckold, or referring to a man as emasculated, etc. There are no female versions for these words either. Historically, it was more important to women that men were able to impregnate them.

Also due to the tone of this thread I will note that these biological differences only contribute to why we are where we are right now, and shouldn't determine where we go from here. We should acknowledge these differences, and their value getting us here, and work to honor them. At the same time, could we maybe make some room to cultivate ourselves and others? Like maybe work out at the gym and do man things, but also try to meet women halfway when it comes to emotional support?

I mean, I know that giving your wife a hug when she's experienced a loss surely opens the door for a twenty-year-old thunderdick to come in and bang her, but we could give it a shot right?

Genghis Khan maybe, had 20,000 children or some ridiculous number. That's the very definition of biological success, only achieved by sleeping with lots of different women.

You spelled raping lots of different women wrong.

Also, it was equally as biologically successful to kill all of the males while doing this. Did we just slip from run-of-the-mill misogyny to genocide? I think we did.

This statement is just on so many levels. I know there are men out there that don't think like this.

I know one that doesn't.

Fidelity is a more important factor to men historically.

I understand this. Most men want their own child and not unknowing raise another. Of course, totally agree they have that undisputable right, and I think it is a crime when a man is unaware a child is not his.

DNA paternity testing is a huge benefit to men and women. No more wondering. No more denying. If its is yours, you are probably going to get hit with child support if the woman can afford a lawyer. Be careful with those 20,000 successes now days

Historically, their own fidelity to their W has not been important, but again, not all men are like that. Thank goodness.

[This message edited by shiloe at 10:00 AM, February 2nd (Friday)]

That's the very definition of biological success, only achieved by sleeping with lots of different women.

This statement is just on so many levels. I know there are men out there that don't think like this.

If there are, they don't know how to read. I didn't say that was the definition of a "good man" or even say that should be the goal of any man, ever, for any reason. But, it IS the definition of biological success. The number of offspring you have that survive to the next generation is exactly what biological success means, the more women a man sleeps with an impregnates, the more "successful" he is. And yes, that means that most of us are descended from a relatively small number of men. Here's an interesting study if you care to know more:

http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2009/05/gender-differences-in-reproductive.html

Are there men who don't think like this? Yes, in fact, I'd say almost all men don't think like this. But the facts are what they are, even if most people choose to ignore (or, frankly, don't care, more likely) them.

Also, it was equally as biologically successful to kill all of the males while doing this. Did we just slip from run-of-the-mill misogyny to genocide? I think we did.

I think this is where I really bow out of the conversation, as they often turn into this. I never said a single thing about underage women, rape, or genocide. I'm talking about evolutionary biology, if you or anyone else wants to make the jump from "this is what has happened and shaped our past" to "Rideitout is condoning rape", feel free, but it's a jump completely unsupported by facts. Yes, I'm sure that some of the very "successful" men in history did rape many women. It doesn't change the fact that they were very successful in reproducing, just reinforces the fact that some men do horrible things to women; something I think we all know.

But, if we must talk about rape, the interesting thought experiment, using GK as an example (who was called, and likely was, a prolific rapist), how many of us are descended from rapists? Or, how many generations back do you have to go before you find a product of rape? Something like .5% of the male population is descended from GK. Shocking/stomach churning when you start to think about it.

At the same time, could we maybe make some room to cultivate ourselves and others? Like maybe work out at the gym and do man things, but also try to meet women halfway when it comes to emotional support?

I mean, I know that giving your wife a hug when she's experienced a loss surely opens the door for a twenty-year-old thunderdick to come in and bang her, but we could give it a shot right?

We could totally give it a shot! Sounds like a healthy plan for everyone.

I ❤️ Al Bundy.

Yes, I'm sure that some of the very "successful" men in history did rape many women. Many women died from childbirth back then. It doesn't change the fact that they were very successful in reproducing,

YOU used Genghis Khan as an example of a man who was biological SUCCESSFUL.

You completely have no empathy for the women he raped. Just -he was biologically successful. What suffering and hardships he must have caused to so many women. Many women died from childbirth back then. Causing the female to raise the child of your rapist, success?

You think him and his men had no qualms about raping underage girls (or boys for that fact, yeah that happens too, but no child will result).

Yes, I'm sure that some of the very "successful" men in history did rape many women. It doesn't change the fact that they were very successful in reproducing

Well, you got me there, as long as they were very successful in reproducing

I have seem some very "biologically successful" men on Maury Povich getting hit with paternity suits when they have nothing to offer a better life to those many successful reproductions.

And yes, there are the female version of them also.

[This message edited by shiloe at 10:22 AM, February 2nd (Friday)]

So much to think on. Plan C , I like your approach to life. Honestly, it's amazing how much energy we humans spend on this stuff. If we spent just a fraction of that time solving other problems.....

I can see a little better now the men's perspective. Any time a person has to put up barriers to trusting because they fear being used is sad. I know it happens. I don't want to do that though. But thanks for the warnings about red pill men. I think men can be attractive and strong without lying and gaming. Life isn't just sex.

Shiloe, I think you misunderstand the term “biologically successful.” He is discussing gene propagation, not morality.

He is discussing gene propagation, not morality.

No misunderstanding. I know what he means.

Yes, I'm sure that some of the very "successful" men in history did rape many women. It doesn't change the fact that they were very successful in reproducing

Hitler was "successful" at cleansing his country and others of Jews, homosexuals and gypsies.

The Hutus were "successful" in ridding the country of Tutsis.

While I am sure that a robot would agree with you, perhaps using a word like "effective" would maybe get your point across better. Success is a word that is generally associated with a positive outcome, and while I understand the point that you are making from a biological perspective, I think we can agree that we shouldn't make reference to these specific activities attributed to Genghis Khan in a positive way.

Yes, I'm sure that some of the very "successful" men in history did rape many women.

Not just in history.

Time's Up.

At the same time, could we maybe make some room to cultivate ourselves and others? Like maybe work out at the gym and do man things, but also try to meet women halfway when it comes to emotional support?

I mean, I know that giving your wife a hug when she's experienced a loss surely opens the door for a twenty-year-old thunderdick to come in and bang her, but we could give it a shot right?

^^This and women too need to be mindful of ALL men and being honest and respectful of them as they are entitled to.

This comes from teaching our children right from wrong no matter what gender. Every soul born is valuable.

[This message edited by shiloe at 10:36 AM, February 2nd (Friday)]

I'm not going to make any friends with this statement either (I probably need to give this thread a rest), but, yes, I could have done things differently and not gotten cheated on. It's not my fault, no, but I absolutely could have prevented it, no question in my mind. And while I don't "blame myself" for her cheating, I do blame myself for not trying harder and preventing it from happening in the first place.

RPM actually has 16 points on how to keep building the attraction in a monogamous relationship with a woman. Its called "Heartiste's 16 Commandments of Poon" lol. Good read.

Heartiste's 16 Commandments of Poon

Reading it now. What's appalling to me is how flirting with other women and always having a safety net (or "two in the kitty" ) is encouraged. Randy... this is an infidelity site. You know that, right? Those points of theirs about inspiring jealousy by flirting around and having another woman waiting in the wings are encouraging cheating.

I've read the 16 points myself Randy. Do you really think all relationships have a shelf life? Eventually, your woman will cheat because you're not alpha enough, you're not beta enough, you didn't pass a shit test, or you dropped the ball on a comfort test? Or, eventually some Chad will come along and she'll hamster away and disregard you without a second thought? AWALT and hypergamy make LTRs impossible, why bother? Are you prepared to drop your woman in an instant if she disrespects you in any way?

Heartiste's 16 Commandments of Poon

Well, I guess if we were at all unclear about where Randy's priorities lie, we aren't any longer.

I didn't say I subscribe to this philosophy, I just find it entertaining. Everyone is so serious around here...

I didn't say I subscribe to this philosophy, I just find it entertaining. Everyone is so serious around here...

You are referring to a list, which directly advocates keeping other women in the picture as a way to keep your supply of "poon", as a good read. On an infidelity discussion board.

What did you expect?

I mean, I get keeping tension in a relationship, but what you are advocating (then conveniently saying that you aren't advocating) is abhorrent behavior.

If you just want to stir shit up and watch the drama, maybe go somewhere else and do it.

[This message edited by xhz700 at 11:22 AM, February 2nd (Friday)]