# Rotating Polyandry—and its Enforcers



## BruceBanner (May 6, 2018)

> Michelle Langley’s Women’s Infidelity is probably the first book ever
> reviewed in The Occidental Quarterly advertised as “shipped in a plain
> envelope without any mention of the contents on the package.” But
> even if you are not an adulterous wife yourself, there are good reasons for paying
> ...


Interesting stuff.

Source


----------



## Decorum (Sep 7, 2012)

This should be a sticky!


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Eh, no.

I am no fan of feminism, especially modern, third wave types. That said, this is a non-scientific publication of OPINION, which researched and reviewed two non-scientific publications, trying to be passed off as fact and/or hard science. 

Does it have some nuggets, especially in how to deal with a cheating wife? Yup.

Is the author mostly full of ****? You bet your ass.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Thanks for the laugh....double laugh

Laugh 1: the article

Laugh 2: the people who believe this is science


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

The first fallacy is the one about divorce disrupting parenting. NOT divorcing has probably disrupted more parenting than divorce ever has.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

I find this strange and insulting to women's intelligence, like they don't understand their own feelings or sexuality.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

personofinterest said:


> Laugh 2: the people who believe this is science


People believe what they want to believe, it's called enabling.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Aside from the fallacy about divorce disrupting parenting, some of you should read the entire article. First off the article is a review of two different books. Secondly, the books detail issues which are often discussed here on TAM. Thirdly, I would like to remind everyone that TAM stands for Talk About Marriage, it does not stand for "only Talk positively About Marriage".
The books, one about women and infidelity, and the other about men and divorce, highlight many issues that are discussed on a regular basis here.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Ynot said:


> The first fallacy is the one about divorce disrupting parenting. NOT divorcing has probably disrupted more parenting than divorce ever has.


You know, there is a lot of truth in this. I offer my own first marriage as exhibit A.

People who stay for the sake of the kids arent always noble....sometimes they are just cowards.

For a lot of years, I was a coward, and neither of my kids EVER want to marry.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

It is not science and should not be viewed as science or as established fact. 

It is nothing more than someone's [email protected]$$ guess or idea. 

But as far as [email protected]$$ guesses and ideas, it's probably as good as any other [email protected]$$ guess. 

I've never heard of this 4-year breeding cycle but I do believe the 7-year itch has some basis in reality. 

I think there are at least a few nuggets of truth in some of this. 

This is just my [email protected]$$ idea, but I think both men and women have some basic programming to diversify the gene pool. 

I think most people kind of accept that men have some basic programming that says to spread their seed as much as possible and that any healthy, vigorous, fertile female will turn them on to one degree or another. 

Where I think people stumble a bit however is in thinking that women are somehow more naturally monogamous. I think that is the fallacy. I don't think women are any more naturally monogamous than men......they just ask for more. 

A female may want some commitment and may not be content until she gets it, but her own programming is no more monogamous "forever" than a man's. 

She may seek and demand more commitment and monogamy, but her programming is to pair-bond and seek a faithful and reliable mate - PER CHILD. 

Coming back to the 7-Year Itch, this makes sense (for someone's [email protected]$$ idea) 

By the time a child is a handful of years old (roughly school-aged in the western world) a child is able to live carry on without 24/7 hands-on care. A 6 year old can eat solid food without assistance, can understand and follow verbal instructions, can dress themselves and perform basic life tasks. 

Mother Nature sees that and says - "Time for another child,,,," but however with the caveat that she would prefer it be with another father. 


Mother Nature only cares that a species gets propogated with a diverse gene pool and doesn't give one hoot about mortgages or 401Ks or credit ratings or any of the other trappings of man-made social life. She wants healthy, fertile women to bare offspring and wants strong, virile men to father them..... and the more diversity of gene pool is in the herd, the better. 

So according the great internet forum poster Oldshirt, men are hardwired to spread their seed to whatever healthy, vigorous, fertile female will have them. And women are hardwired to seek whoever is the strongest and most capable male that will pair-bond with her at that time until that offspring is capable of surviving healthily without 24/7, hands-on care. 

Once that has occurred, then all bets are off on whether that female will stick around for more with that particular male or whether she will lose interest in him in favor of another mate that may be a bigger and better deal (BBD). 


If there is no BBD available to her at that time, she may mark time and hang around for quite some time. But once a BBD comes along that is available to her, all bets are off.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Ynot said:


> Aside from the fallacy about divorce disrupting parenting, some of you should read the entire article. First off the article is a review of two different books. Secondly, the books detail issues which are often discussed here on TAM. Thirdly, I would like to remind everyone that TAM stands for Talk About Marriage, it does not stand for "only Talk positively About Marriage".
> The books, one about women and infidelity, and the other about men and divorce, highlight many issues that are discussed on a regular basis here.


Yeah, the articlae was actually quite good and had a lot of nuggets of truth and reality in it. 

I don't know if there is any actual scientific study that supports the claim of a 4-year breeding cycle in human females, but much of the stuff discussed in the article is quite topical.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Ynot said:


> The first fallacy is the one about divorce disrupting parenting. NOT divorcing has probably disrupted more parenting than divorce ever has.


I agree also. 

there are many instances where divorce is the therapy and not the disease.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

That sounds about right in my situation. Once the child was about 5 she started exploring connections with other available men.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I have to admit, I am fascinated by Evo-Psych. 

It is totally a pseudoscience that probably has no more scientific 'proof' than astrology and tarot cards etc etc but it still fascinates me and I do believe that we carry some basic, instinctual hardwiring in us that influences our feelings, reactions, motivations, desires etc etc. 

But because we still have some bits of DNA programming from our ancient ancestors etching out survival on the plains of Africa tens of thousands of years ago, does not make it "right" today. 

If we gave in to our every instinctual whim and desire, it would be total chaos and pandemonium and bodies would litter the streets. 

I do not think lifelong monogamy is natural. It does not come naturally and it certainly does not come easily for anyone. 

We all have carnal desires and yearnings that are not socially embraced, practical, productive or even legal in some circumstances. 

Monogamy is a man-made concept that was designed and instituted exactly for the reason that we NOT go all Darwin every 15 minutes. 

It's so we don't have bodies littering the streets and we aren't killing and raping and pillaging for our very survival. 

Monogamy is a choice that people make to rise up above our animal instincts and to try to live in a civilized society that is based on common laws and rules and not determined solely by whoever is the biggest and strongest......that day. 

One take away message I think we should all embrace and share is that monogamy is not based on the lack of sexual feelings and desires and yearnings for other people. Monogamy is still having and recognizing those desires, but choosing to embrace your mate instead and nurturing and remaining in the relationship anyway even though you are having passing feelings for someone else in the moment.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

I agree that monogamy is not our natural state. I think serial monogamy would best describe modern reality. We may be more monogamous now but we can never really know how monogamous people were in earlier times. What we do know is that even in our recent past many people were actually married multiple times. This was not so much a result of divorce (although that did happen) but more so mortality. Many men had multiple wives as their earlier wives died during child birth, consumption, etc. The same holds true of women, many of whom were married multiple times as their previous husbands died in industrial accidents, or whatever.
The concept of lifetime (or very near lifetime) monogamy is a relatively recent ideal that is more based on wishful thinking than reality. Yes there are those couples who live this lifestyle, but for the vast majority that is simply not the case. More likely they have practiced a form of serial monogamy, having several sole partners over their lives.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

oldshirt said:


> Monogamy is a man-made concept that was designed and instituted exactly for the reason that we NOT go all Darwin every 15 minutes.
> 
> It's so we don't have bodies littering the streets and we aren't killing and raping and pillaging for our very survival.
> 
> ...


And I think it is incumbent on every couple to recognize and accept that there will be feelings and desires and yearnings for other people and other sexual experiences over their lifetimes and that as a couple they will need to address how to deal with those feelings. 

I think a lot of social and religious programming tries to dictate that we simply should not be having those feelings in the first place and that if we do that means there is something wrong with us (or something wrong with our spouse)

And the other dictate is that we should simply bury it and try to deny it and hope that it goes away. Some times it does. Some times it doesn't go away on it's own. 


I think there are 4 general ways to deal with those urges -


- one is to try to just suck it up and gut your way through it. There are a variety of things a couple can do to try to keep their relationship fresh and alive to help eleviate the pressure but at some point it is going to involve living with a certain degree of frustration.


- Another way is to cheat and get some on the side without your partner's foreknowledge or approval. 


-Another is to work some kind of arrangement such as swinging or open marriage or polyamory where there is some leeway for contact with others within certain guidelines and boundaries to preserve the marital relationship.

-And the 4th is to divorce and move on to find another relationship and basically live a serial monogamous lifestyle and have a series of relationships over one's life. 


All of those lifestyles are going to come with their own set of pros and cons and costs and benefits. 

Some are more socially acceptable and some are endorsed by more major religions than others - but all have their own set of pros and cons just the same. 


What really is not in the cards is to meet your one and only true love one day in your teens and spend the next 70 years with the same initial rush of euphoria and desire and lust for them that you did in the beginning. And neither will you go a lifetime without experiencing desire or yearning or lust for someone else at various points. 


Anyone that has only been with one person for multiple decades and says that they have never experienced a desire for another warm body up against them is either lying to make themselves feel good or to look good to others, deceiving themselves, or has never stepped out of the house. It just isn't for real. As humans we desire. They may not have wanted to break up their marriage to pursue their desires - but they do have desires.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

Monogamy used to mean one partner for life. Now it means one partner at a time.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

> In the absence of any system of marriage, a woman’s
> natural tendency is to “liberate” herself from her mate after that point. When
> her hormones prompt her to reproduce again, she simply takes a new mate.


Since we are going on natural tendency what do you think most men's natural tendency would be when a women tries to do that, or when another mate comes into the picture? Hint, it isn't to just let them? I wonder when someone will have the balls to right a book about that and present it like somehow because we don't do that we are working against nature. 

Just once I would love someone to make this point to her or anyone when they start this silly argument and shut this **** down. Like well "you know it's a man's natural tendency to hit a women over the head with a club and drag her away to spread his seed." Ha! I wanna read that book. That's why this stuff is bull****, who gives a ****! When was doing what's natural an argument for anything. (Maybe she is not doing that but lots of people will used this argument as justification to act like an *******). 

If you want to go **** around on your partner just be honest about it, don't use your nature as an excuse. Or if you are going to do that and you want to be moral you have to say so BEFORE you start the relationship. That's all, then you can quote all the papers and books you want, just say you are going to do as soon as you can tell their is an attraction there. "You know this date is really going well and I really want to **** you but I have to tell you in about 4 years I am going to get bored and have to go spread my seed somewhere else. Maybe sooner, I can't guarantee it, a lot depends on how hot you are and how much your salary increases in that time." So charming. 

That being said I do agree that there should be talk about the fact that you will have these feelings and it doesn't mean you have to act on them or there is something wrong in your marriage. But it just seems like most people use this stuff to justify their ****ty behavior. 

What's even more interesting is the same folks making the "it's only nature" argument are the same who in the next breath will talk about so call "toxic masculinity. " The irony seems to escape them. Left to our own natural tenancies we would all still be living in mud huts and she wouldn't be writing any books. 

Is there anything worse in our modern world than postmodernists.


----------



## Dusk (Oct 29, 2018)

Some of that goes with the ideas in Sex At Dawn about women being more easily aroused by a new partner and men by a familiar one. It’s interesting although I don’t know how rigorously scientific the research is. I suspect not very. 

Monogamy within marriage has mostly been concerned with women’s faithfulness anyway. Marriage has for almost all its history been a patriarchal tool to control women’s sexuality so men could be more sure of paternity. 

It’s probably only in the last 50 years that men have been expected to be monogamous. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

I have to say this has been one of the more amusing and highly predictable threads I have ever read lol. The only thing funnier is the fact that anyone on Earth thinks I am a misandrist. Anyone who actually knows me would get a good laugh out of that.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

MAJDEATH said:


> Monogamy used to mean one partner for life. Now it means one partner at a time.


Life also didn't last 90 years for most people either. As I said earlier, both men and women were often married multiple times throughout their lives because spouses died and another one took their place.

We are for the first time facing a situation where we are not only living longer, but we are also living longer and healthier than before. Long term marriage and monogamy have NOT been the norm for the vast majority of the population for most of our history.

We also do not know just how monogamous our ancestors really were. We know what the societal ideal was, but we have no real idea how closely it was adhered to.


----------



## Dusk (Oct 29, 2018)

Monogamy only ever meant one person at a time. The word means just that - married to one person. Nothing to do with length of marriage or married for life. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Dusk said:


> Monogamy only ever meant one person at a time. The word means just that - married to one person. Nothing to do with length of marriage or married for life.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


True, but many people conflate monogamy and marriage.


----------



## Dusk (Oct 29, 2018)

Monoamory is definitely awkward to say 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarbedFenceRider (Mar 30, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> I have to say this has been one of the more amusing and highly predictable threads I have ever read lol. The only thing funnier is the fact that anyone on Earth thinks I am a misandrist. Anyone who actually knows me would get a good laugh out of that.


You are definately not a misandrist....

But you are duly aware of your feminity. But to actively say that you are willing to put "aside" masculinity, THAT would be doing your husband a disservice. And WE all know that you adore the guy. So there! lol

But Hypergamy and Misandry do exist, but it needs to be defined better before euphanisms get thrown around on the webs....


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

BarbedFenceRider said:


> You are definately not a misandrist....
> 
> But you are duly aware of your feminity. But to actively say that you are willing to put "aside" masculinity, THAT would be doing your husband a disservice. And WE all know that you adore the guy. So there! lol
> 
> But Hypergamy and Misandry do exist, but it needs to be defined better before euphanisms get thrown around on the webs....


Oh yes, misandry definitely exists, and it is pathetic and gross. And I absolutely know people on forums who fit the bill. And I LOVE that my hubby is extremely masculine.

BUT I am not afraid to call out crap and woman-hating, and that is usually when I get the label. Like if a man cheats on his wife and she comes here, and you ask her how much she weighs....I'm GONNA call you out. lol Or if you start a sentence either overtly or implicitly "all women...." yeah, I'm gonna make fun of you lol


----------



## Rubix Cubed (Feb 21, 2016)

personofinterest said:


> Like if a man cheats on his wife and she comes here, and you ask her how much she weighs....I'm GONNA call you out. lol Or if you start a sentence either overtly or implicitly "all women...." yeah, I'm gonna make fun of you lol


 And in the case of another thread where none of those things happened and you STILL called them out. 


Just as you are not afraid to call it out when necessary (a very admirable trait by the way),
I'm not afraid to call it out when it is needlessly wielded like a cudgel to squelch a conversation, change the direction of a topic, or used as a strawman.


----------



## PigglyWiggly (May 1, 2018)

Rubix Cubed said:


> And in the case of another thread where none of those things happened and you STILL called them out.
> 
> 
> Just as you are not afraid to call it out when necessary (a very admirable trait by the way),
> I'm not afraid to call it out when it is needlessly wielded like a cudgel to squelch a conversation, change the direction of a topic, or used as a strawman.


I'm with you when you're right :grin2:


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> The first fallacy is the one about divorce disrupting parenting. NOT divorcing has probably disrupted more parenting than divorce ever has.


To say divorce doesn't disrupt parenting is a gross mischaracterization. 

That's not to say it's not the best alternative in some cases. It may well be less disruptive than continuing an unsalvagable marraige, but it will always be more disruptive than a marriage that works.


----------



## Rubix Cubed (Feb 21, 2016)

PigglyWiggly said:


> I'm with you when you're right :grin2:


 It would be unwise to be with me when I wasn't, now wouldn't it?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> To say divorce doesn't disrupt parenting is a gross mischaracterization.
> 
> That's not to say it's not the best alternative in some cases. It may well be less disruptive than continuing an unsalvagable marraige, but it will always be more disruptive than a marriage that works.


Then it is good that I didn't mischaracterize anything. Because I never said that. What I said was that not divorcing has probably disrupted more parenting than divorcing. Typically when a relationship deteriorates to the point that divorce is an option, it is often the better option than to "stick together for the kids". Kids are not stupid. They are very perceptive. So they see thru the charade of the happy faces the parents put on to try to fool them. Rather than growing up with at least one happy parent, they see two unhappy ones.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> Then it is good that I didn't mischaracterize anything. Because I never said that. *What I said was that not divorcing has probably disrupted more parenting than divorcing.* Typically when a relationship deteriorates to the point that divorce is an option, it is often the better option than to "stick together for the kids". Kids are not stupid. They are very perceptive. So they see thru the charade of the happy faces the parents put on to try to fool them. Rather than growing up with at least one happy parent, they see two unhappy ones.


Not divorcing comes in two flavors though. Not divorcing when the marriage is salvageable and not divorcing when it is not. The latter means divorcing is the less disruptive course of action, but that is not all not divorcing cases. Most not divorcing cases are marriages that are reasonably successful to begin or are salvageable with some effort. The marriages where people stick it out in spite of the deep and continual misery associated with doing so are the minority. So it follows that divorcing has _not_ prevented more disruption than not divorcing. 

And it's also likely true that while some people stick it out who shouldn't, there are also some who throw in the towel when it could be made better. In those latter cases as well, the divorce was the more disruptive option.

Clearly, there are cases, probably millions, where the divorce needs to take place and I wouldn't begin to argue otherwise. It just seems rather unfounded to say that that is some kind of majority of marriages with children.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Not divorcing comes in two flavors though. Not divorcing when the marriage is salvageable and not divorcing when it is not. The latter means divorcing is the less disruptive course of action, but that is not all not divorcing cases. Most not divorcing cases are marriages that are reasonably successful to begin or are salvageable with some effort. The marriages where people stick it out in spite of the deep and continual misery associated with doing so are the minority. So it follows that divorcing has _not_ prevented more disruption than not divorcing.
> 
> And it's also likely true that while some people stick it out who shouldn't, there are also some who throw in the towel when it could be made better. In those latter cases as well, the divorce was the more disruptive option.
> 
> Clearly, there are cases, probably millions, where the divorce needs to take place and I wouldn't begin to argue otherwise. It just seems rather unfounded to say that that is some kind of majority of marriages with children.


I understand you are arguing from a different perspective, but I never implied that there are not multiple scenarios. I said "most often" because there are usually reasons why it might be best to part company and move on. Nor have I ever said that it represents the majority of marriages with children. We are talking about situations where the option of divorce is being considered. Not all marriages, least of all, all marriages with children.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> I understand you are arguing from a different perspective, but I never implied that there are not multiple scenarios. I said "most often" because there are usually reasons why it might be best to part company and move on. Nor have I ever said that it represents the majority of marriages with children. We are talking about situations where the option of divorce is being considered. Not all marriages, least of all, all marriages with children.


I was admittedly being somewhat pedantic. I was pretty sure you were keeping your comparison within the realm of folks who are or at least should be considering divorce.


----------



## PigglyWiggly (May 1, 2018)

Ynot said:


> Then it is good that I didn't mischaracterize anything. Because I never said that. What I said was that not divorcing has probably disrupted more parenting than divorcing. Typically when a relationship deteriorates to the point that divorce is an option, it is often the better option than to "stick together for the kids". Kids are not stupid. They are very perceptive. So they see thru the charade of the happy faces the parents put on to try to fool them. Rather than growing up with at least one happy parent, they see two unhappy ones.


My daughter told me at 13 that she was glad her mother and I were divorcing. She said that it was obvious we were both unhappy and it felt like everyone had to walk around on eggshells. She also said that many of her friends wished their parents would divorce because all they did was argue. Kids are more resilient than we often give them credit for.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Ynot said:


> Life also didn't last 90 years for most people either. As I said earlier, both men and women were often married multiple times throughout their lives because spouses died and another one took their place.
> 
> We are for the first time facing a situation where we are not only living longer, but we are also living longer and healthier than before. Long term marriage and monogamy have NOT been the norm for the vast majority of the population for most of our history.
> 
> We also do not know just how monogamous our ancestors really were. We know what the societal ideal was, but we have no real idea how closely it was adhered to.


Not to mention if a man was rich and unsatisfied with his wife or wanted more of whatever he would just take another wife in a lot of the world for a lot of living history.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

Dusk said:


> Monogamy only ever meant one person at a time. The word means just that - married to one person. Nothing to do with length of marriage or married for life.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wrong. Monogamy means having one sexual partner for life in the original definition. The alternate definition that some folks like to confuse is really serial monogamy - one sexual partner at a time. 

"Till death do us part" now means "until I want to have sex with someone else".

You can thank birth control pills, feninism, and easy access abortions for the change.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

MAJDEATH said:


> Wrong. Monogamy means having one sexual partner for life in the original definition. The alternate definition that some folks like to confuse is really serial monogamy - one sexual partner at a time.
> 
> "Till death do us part" now means "until I want to have sex with someone else".
> 
> You can thank birth control pills, feninism, and easy access abortions for the change.


No actually it means being married to only one partner or having only one sexual partner. The "for life" part is only an assumption on your part.

I have previously stated, now, death is some far off time time relative to the past. Life expectancy continues to increase. When people only lived to be 35-40 years old "until death do us part" had a completely different implication than now when people routinely live to be 80 or more. We are simply outliving our emotions.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

BruceBanner said:


> Interesting stuff.
> 
> Source


I think they call it the 7 year itch. Or 4 years after childbirth might be about right...


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

MAJDEATH said:


> Wrong. Monogamy means having one sexual partner for life in the original definition. The alternate definition that some folks like to confuse is really serial monogamy - one sexual partner at a time.
> 
> "Till death do us part" now means "until I want to have sex with someone else".
> 
> You can thank birth control pills, feninism, and easy access abortions for the change.


\

Aaaaaaaand here it is folks: it's them wimmin's fault.

Yeah, THAT is the crap I call out. Not because I am a misandrist. But because it is incel/RedPill/MGTOW tripe.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> \
> 
> Aaaaaaaand here it is folks: it's them wimmin's fault.
> 
> Yeah, THAT is the crap I call out. Not because I am a misandrist. But because it is incel/RedPill/MGTOW tripe.


Well, you got to admit its much easier to cheat and get away with it if you don't have to worry about carrying another man's child. Doesn't stop some though...


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, you got to admit its much easier to cheat and get away with it if you don't have to worry about carrying another man's child. Doesn't stop some though...


LOL...and here we have exhibit B

It would be funny if it weren't so sad....

If all of us are so terrible, why not just have sex with other men and cut us out of the equation? Gay marriage is legal now, you know.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> LOL...and here we have exhibit B
> 
> It would be funny if it weren't so sad....
> 
> If all of us are so terrible, why not just have sex with other men and cut us out of the equation? Gay marriage is legal now, you know.


Men don't make good samwiches, though. LOL! Just Kidding!


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

personofinterest said:


> LOL...and here we have exhibit B
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why do you need to be married to be gay? That’s patriarchy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Men don't make good samwiches, though. LOL! Just Kidding!


I'll have you know my hubby make the BEST eg and bacon sandwich. He uses like a half a tub of butter.

But he can't compete with my chicken salad.......


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> Why do you need to be married to be gay? That’s patriarchy!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

I predict sometime in 2019 you will see Roe vs Wade overturned in the US, and traditional marriage (true monogamy) will increase. Now if we could just outlaw morning after pills.


----------



## BruceBanner (May 6, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> \
> 
> Aaaaaaaand here it is folks: it's them wimmin's fault.
> 
> Yeah, THAT is the crap I call out. Not because I am a misandrist. But because it is incel/RedPill/MGTOW tripe.


Are women not seen as the gatekeepers of copulation where you live?



MAJDEATH said:


> I predict sometime in 2019 you will see Roe vs Wade overturned in the US, and traditional marriage (true monogamy) will increase. Now if we could just outlaw morning after pills.


What makes you think Roe vs Wade will be overturned in 2019? Getting rid of the pill isn't going to solve much of anything. It would be more effective to delete Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter from this plane of existence and instill certain teachings.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

> Are women not seen as the gatekeepers of copulation where you live?


Not in my house. We allow each other equal access to the gate.

I gt it. There are cold women out there. There are dissatisfied princesses out there. There are also crappy men out there.

It is emotionally and intellectually lazy for one to abdicate their own life volition by blaming an entire gender for their problems. Even if they wrap it in pseudo-science and big words.


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

MAJDEATH said:


> "Till death do us part" now means "until I want to have sex with someone else".
> 
> _*You can thank birth control pills, feninism, and easy access abortions for the change*_.


I am curious is this really how you view things? I guess I don't think that those three things would make someone cheat. I've been around here a while and I've seen all kinds of things blamed for why women cheat. Even books like Eat Pray Love and 50 shades have been blamed for multiple affairs. I don't agree with this line of thinking. I feel like it comes from a place of believing that women are too simple to know what they want, or too innocent to fully understand sexuality and easily seduced. I am not sure why so many men can't place the blame where it truly lies. With the person that actually cheated on you. Society,books, bad boys, movies etc, don't have anything to do with it. People make choices and they are not always good choices.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

MAJDEATH said:


> I predict sometime in 2019 you will see Roe vs Wade overturned in the US, and traditional marriage (true monogamy) will increase. Now if we could just outlaw morning after pills.


I'm a bit puzzled by this. Do you believe that abortion being legal is a significant cause of divorce in the US?


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

I think of this every time I see "rotating Polyandry" in the thread title


----------



## BruceBanner (May 6, 2018)

ReformedHubby said:


> I am curious is this really how you view things? I guess I don't think that those three things would make someone cheat. I've been around here a while and I've seen all kinds of things blamed for why women cheat. Even books like Eat Pray Love and 50 shades have been blamed for multiple affairs. I don't agree with this line of thinking. I feel like it comes from a place of believing that women are too simple to know what they want, or too innocent to fully understand sexuality and easily seduced. I am not sure why so many men can't place the blame where it truly lies. With the person that actually cheated on you. Society,books, bad boys, movies etc, don't have anything to do with it. People make choices and they are not always good choices.


I think he's saying those three things encourage it. Since we're talking about adultery here's an interesting article I remember reading years ago. South Korea abolishes 62-year-old law banning adultery – shares in condom manufacturer surge


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rowan said:


> I'm a bit puzzled by this. Do you believe that abortion being legal is a significant cause of divorce in the US?


He is part of a group that feels they were cheated on because of society. They refuse to understand that cheating is a symptom of something wrong in the relationship and not because of cheap, easy abortions, pills or loosening of morals. Because then they would have to face their own demons - maybe they were too nice, maybe they were desperate to be in a relationship so they ignored the obvious, maybe they were living under false and erroneous assumptions. Whatever the reason they were cheated on, it is easier to blame some outside issue than to face your own problems.
None of this is to be taken as excusing or justifying someone who cheats, only to acknowledge that it is isn't due to abortions (which have been happening for as long as man has existed), pills (abortifacients have been around almost as long), or no fault divorce laws.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

From reading some of these posts, it is more than apparent that some people choose to accept fairy tales than reality. "Back in the good old days people married for life and never cheated!" Except life wasn't 90 years long back then and more often than not, while people were married "until death do us part", death of a spouse happened regularly enough that many were married multiple times. We also have no true, idea of exactly how much extracurricular activity was actually taking place back in the good old days! Only the myths that people were "faithful" which are usually employed by those who adhere to those "old fashioned" values that were supposedly responsible for that faithfulness. If only people would revert back to those "old fashioned" values everything in the world would be right again. Gimme a break!


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

Ynot said:


> We also have no true, idea of exactly how much extracurricular activity was actually taking place back in the good old days! Only the myths that people were "faithful" which are usually employed by those who adhere to those "old fashioned" values that were supposedly responsible for that faithfulness. If only people would revert back to those "old fashioned" values everything in the world would be right again. Gimme a break!


:iagree: This times a thousand. The good old days really weren't so good. I sometimes wonder if people really understand the history of man. Lots of poverty, death, violence, social unrest, and illness....and of course adultery. Those guys didn't have DNA tests or VARs back then!!!! Just saying...


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

ReformedHubby said:


> :iagree: This times a thousand. The good old days really weren't so good. I sometimes wonder if people really understand the history of man. Lots of poverty, death, violence, social unrest, and illness....and of course adultery. Those guys didn't have DNA tests or VARs back then!!!! Just saying...


Well, they didn't have social media, mothers/fathers/children glued to cell phones 24/7, craigslist/tinder apps to get some DL and birth control dispensed like gumballs.

Sure, Sally Homemaker may have been screwing the Mail Man or Milk Man while her husband was away and I'm sure it happened every now and then, but I'm also sure the fear of eternal damnation was well alive in the back of peoples mind more than today. Opportunity has increased and so has the fondness of modern day hedonism (self happiness before family happiness).


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> ReformedHubby said:
> 
> 
> > This times a thousand. The good old days really weren't so good. I sometimes wonder if people really understand the history of man. Lots of poverty, death, violence, social unrest, and illness....and of course adultery. Those guys didn't have DNA tests or VARs back then!!!! Just saying...
> ...


Yeah. Back in the mad men days it was great. Men screening around was just boys will be boys.

Good old days for sure....


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

No allusions here: the blame for cheating lies with the cheater- they made a decision. But contributing factors/reasons include social acceptance, availability of abortions and birth control, gov't replacing the husband, etc. Heck up until the 1970s doctors would only prescribe bc to verified married women.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

MAJDEATH said:


> No allusions here: the blame for cheating lies with the cheater- they made a decision. But contributing factors/reasons include social acceptance, availability of abortions and birth control, gov't replacing the husband, etc. Heck up until the 1970s doctors would only prescribe bc to verified married women.


Sorry, you're wrong.

I'm prolife, but your weird association between abortion and cheating women has mo basis in fact.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, they didn't have social media, mothers/fathers/children glued to cell phones 24/7, craigslist/tinder apps to get some DL and birth control dispensed like gumballs.
> 
> Sure, Sally Homemaker may have been screwing the Mail Man or Milk Man while her husband was away and I'm sure it happened every now and then, but I'm also sure the fear of eternal damnation was well alive in the back of peoples mind more than today. Opportunity has increased and so has the fondness of modern day hedonism (self happiness before family happiness).


Maybe "the fear of eternal damnation was well alive in the back of (some) people's minds more than today". But that didn't seem to stop anyone from doing what comes naturally to them. Despite what you think, the fear of eternal damnation didn't stop any priests from diddling altar boys 50 years ago, during those Golden Days. I mean if anybody knew about eternal damnation it was a Cathoholic priest.
No, more likely the fairy tale of loving devotion and faithfulness isn't an actual reflection of reality any more than any of the other fairy tales are about the "Golden Days"


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

MAJDEATH said:


> No allusions here: the blame for cheating lies with the cheater- they made a decision. But contributing factors/reasons include social acceptance, availability of abortions and birth control, gov't replacing the husband, etc. Heck up until the 1970s doctors would only prescribe bc to verified married women.


You are confusing visibility with reality. The reality is that it is just more visible now because of those things. Cheating has always happened and will continue to happen as long as there are marriages and/or committed relationships. It is not anything new. It did not suddenly start to happen because of any of those things. You are blame shifting.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

It didnt stop David from taking Bathsheba and sending her husband to die.

There is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> It didnt stop David from taking Bathsheba and sending her husband to die.
> 
> There is nothing new under the sun.


Yabbut back in the good old days, women knew their place, they kept a clean house, had your favorite drink ready for you when you got home, so you could enjoy it while you read the paper and she finished making dinner. Everybody lived in blissful harmony, everything was honky dory just like in Leave it to Beaver! Or so the fairy tale goes. Oh yeah, they also had the fear of eternal damnation in their minds which is why they never cheated and stayed committed for life. Never mind the anti-depressants and rampant alcoholism many of these same women suffered from.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> It didnt stop David from taking Bathsheba and sending her husband to die.
> 
> There is nothing new under the sun.


Not to mention his 18 wives and concubines. I am sure he had eternal damnation in his mind.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Ynot said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> > It didnt stop David from taking Bathsheba and sending her husband to die.
> ...


Nailed it


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Ynot said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> > It didnt stop David from taking Bathsheba and sending her husband to die.
> ...


What time period for rampant alcoholism and anti-depressant use are you referring to?


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

red oak said:


> What time period for rampant alcoholism and anti-depressant use are you referring to?


Anytime from the Neolithic era (when alcohol became a thing) through to today is applicable.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

personofinterest said:


> Sorry, you're wrong.
> 
> I'm prolife, but your weird association between abortion and cheating women has mo basis in fact.


Women who use contraception and have abortions are more likely to divorce and have relationships outside of marriage. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4536625/


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

MAJDEATH said:


> Women who use contraception and have abortions are more likely to divorce and have relationships outside of marriage. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4536625/


Dude, you need to read your own posts "Although there is less divorce among NFP users the reason might be due to their religiosity. " IOW the study didn't conclude that women who use contraception and abortions are more likely to divorce, just that women who use NFP may be more religious.
More quotes from your "proof":
"Providers of natural family planning (NFP) methods often mention that there is less divorce among couples who use NFP compared to couples who use artificial contraception. However, there is very little evidence and scant research to validate this statement. So too, there is little evidence of how use of the most common family planning methods (i.e., hormonal pill, condoms, and sterilization) and abortion effects marital life, marital separation, and divorce."


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

red oak said:


> What time period for rampant alcoholism and anti-depressant use are you referring to?


1950's and 1960's. You know, the good old days when men were men and women knew their place.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

Ynot said:


> You are confusing visibility with reality. The reality is that it is just more visible now because of those things. *Cheating has always happened* and will continue to happen as long as there are marriages and/or committed relationships. It is not anything new. It did not suddenly start to happen because of any of those things. You are blame shifting.


I like how you use the equivocation fallacy to say that cheating has always happened - as if the cheating percentages of all total marriages was the same in 1918 as it is today. Is that what your liberal college taught you? I hate to rain on your parade but the research doesn't support it. And I already stated clearly who the blame rests with. The better question is why would they want to cheat and what factors make it easier to cheat? 

Another example mentioned was the milkman/mail man sleeping with a housewife back in the 1950s. If all the wife's are home, how would this happen realistically? Everyone would notice a vehicle parked in the driveway for an extended period of time and/or see his coming and going into the house. Not to mention there would be a very high level of scrutiny on the men in these positions. But nowadays with the high numbers of women in the workforce and the ease of access to smart devices it is much easier to hide infidelity. To me it sounds like revisionist history.


----------



## Dusk (Oct 29, 2018)

If being more likely to cheat and divorce is the price women pay for being allowed to vote, own property, being protected somewhat from abusive partners, marital rape being illegal, being able to be economically independent I think that’s well worth it. 

It also means men can’t get away with being terrible husbands quite as easily as they used to because women actually have options. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Dusk said:


> It also means men can’t get away with being terrible husbands quite as easily as they used to because* women actually have options. *


I think the bolded is the part that @MAJDEATH doesn't like ... damn women, just can't control us anymore. :rofl:

P.S. this thread is ridiculous


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 23, 2017)

I'd like to see her study design. I'll bet she doesn't have one.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

MAJDEATH said:


> No allusions here: the blame for cheating lies with the cheater- they made a decision. But contributing factors/reasons include social acceptance, availability of abortions and birth control, gov't replacing the husband, etc. Heck up until the 1970s doctors would only prescribe bc to verified married women.


Um, you have been saying that birth control contributes to women cheating. So why didn't birth control contribute to wives cheating in the good old days when only verified married women (aka wives) were the only ones who could get birth control?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

MAJDEATH said:


> I like how you use the equivocation fallacy to say that cheating has always happened - as if the cheating percentages of all total marriages was the same in 1918 as it is today. Is that what your liberal college taught you? I hate to rain on your parade but the research doesn't support it. And I already stated clearly who the blame rests with. The better question is why would they want to cheat and what factors make it easier to cheat?
> 
> Another example mentioned was the milkman/mail man sleeping with a housewife back in the 1950s. If all the wife's are home, how would this happen realistically? Everyone would notice a vehicle parked in the driveway for an extended period of time and/or see his coming and going into the house. Not to mention there would be a very high level of scrutiny on the men in these positions. But nowadays with the high numbers of women in the workforce and the ease of access to smart devices it is much easier to hide infidelity. To me it sounds like revisionist history.


I have no idea what "liberal colleges" teach today, you'd have to ask your kool -aid dispenser about that. OTOH, there is no "equivocation fallacy". The fact is that people have always cheated. I could not care any less what percentage of people cheated in whatever year you choose. The fact remains that there was a percentage who cheated and I highly doubt today is the highest of all time. But in regards to our past, we simply do not know. It is simply more visible today than in the past.

As for why they choose to cheat and why they would want to cheat, the answers are many. Sometimes, their spouse is a POS. Sometimes they are not getting the attention they want at home. Sometimes, their spouse is abusive. I imagine a small percentage just want to. Regardless, cheating does not happen in a vacuum, there are typically reasons. But generally, cheating is a symptom of bigger issue, it is not normally the issue itself.

Finally in regards to "revisionist" history, I would ask that you apprise your self of some actual history and stop trying to apply today's standards to yesterday. That is when the real revisionism takes place.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Um, you have been saying that birth control contributes to women cheating. So why didn't birth control contribute to wives cheating in the good old days when only verified married women (aka wives) were the only ones who could get birth control?


You shouldn't ask questions that make some people think, it causes their heads to explode.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Red Sonja said:


> I think the bolded is the part that @MAJDEATH doesn't like ... damn women, just can't control us anymore. :rofl:
> 
> P.S. this thread is ridiculous


I agree, that it is the bolded part of that statement that Majdeath and his ilk do not like. Because if women just acted like he imagined they did in his mythical "good old days" (which probably coincides with the time when America was Great) then their lives would be great as well.
However, I disagree the thread is ridiculous. Some of the asinine statements are, but the thread itself is fascinating. I always enjoy seeing how little some people actually think and how reactive they are.
Read some of the other threads in CWI, you will see time after time, where some of these men (and women) simply refuse to recognize that they had any part in whatever happened to them. They would rather maintain their victimhood status than actually learn a lesson. Then when it happens the second or third time to them, they further justify their "woe is me" mentality. It isn't their fault - it is the world's!


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> MAJDEATH said:
> 
> 
> > No allusions here: the blame for cheating lies with the cheater- they made a decision. But contributing factors/reasons include social acceptance, availability of abortions and birth control, gov't replacing the husband, etc. Heck up until the 1970s doctors would only prescribe bc to verified married women.
> ...


Because they were monitored very closely by their doctor, husband, priest, school administrator, etc.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

MAJDEATH said:


> Because they were monitored very closely by their doctor, husband, priest, school administrator, etc.


So you thought it was better when only men could decide which women got birth control. Kind of like how women couldn't have credit cards unless their husband was on the account, etc.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

Ynot said:


> Red Sonja said:
> 
> 
> > I think the bolded is the part that @MAJDEATH doesn't like ... damn women, just can't control us anymore.
> ...


Once again, another confused argument between blame and contributing factors. Of course the other party is a contributing factor, sometimes the number 1 factor. But the blame always rest with the perpetrator.
Why do some posters continue to speak in absolutes? Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.

Research has shown that rampant use of unmonitored bc pills (with their high levels artificial homones) causes a significant change in women's behaviors, which is a contributing factor to infidelity. Natural family planning has been shown to be much more effective with less risks.
The beginning of this post talked about a change at the 4 yr, or 7 yr mark after marriage or the birth of a child. Maybe the 7 yr itch has something to do with hormones/chemical embalance in women. 

We were married with child in 1996. In 2003, my W was egaged in multiple relationships with men while I was separated from her, fighting our nations wars on the other side of the globe. She went to emergency medical several times due to medication imbalance issues during that time. Definitely a contributing factor, as well as fear that I might be killed and the separation for years.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

> Research has shown that rampant use of unmonitored bc pills (with their high levels artificial homones) causes a significant change in women's behaviors, which is a contributing factor to infidelity. Natural family planning has been shown to be much more effective with less risks.


*UN*biased actual quantitative research? Or Catholic/Duggar/RedPill research?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

MAJDEATH said:


> Once again, another confused argument between blame and contributing factors. Of course the other party is a contributing factor, sometimes the number 1 factor. But the blame always rest with the perpetrator.
> Why do some posters continue to speak in absolutes? Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.
> 
> Research has shown that rampant use of unmonitored bc pills (with their high levels artificial homones) causes a significant change in women's behaviors, which is a contributing factor to infidelity. Natural family planning has been shown to be much more effective with less risks.
> ...


Dude, READ YOUR OWN literature. It said, "Providers of natural family planning (NFP) methods often mention that there is less divorce among couples who use NFP compared to couples who use artificial contraception. However, there is very little evidence and scant research to validate this statement. So too, there is little evidence of how use of the most common family planning methods (i.e., hormonal pill, condoms, and sterilization) and abortion effects marital life, marital separation, and divorce"
Stop making unsupported and unsubstantiated claims based on your own anecdotal evidence. Your wife didn't cheat on you because of birth control pills. Your wife cheated on you because you were NOT THERE. IOW she wasn't getting attention at home so she sought it elsewhere. Face reality and stop using the world as your excuse.
Also what the heck is a Sith. Maybe you need to lay off the fantasy world and live in the real one for a while.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> *UN*biased actual quantitative research? Or Catholic/Duggar/RedPill research?


His own literature said "Providers of natural family planning (NFP) methods often mention that there is less divorce among couples who use NFP compared to couples who use artificial contraception. However, there is very little evidence and scant research to validate this statement. *So too, there is little evidence of how use of the most common family planning methods (i.e., hormonal pill, condoms, and sterilization) and abortion effects marital life, marital separation, and divorce*"
But what the heck, why bother with facts when you can avoid reality with fiction?


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Ynot said:


> His own literature said "Providers of natural family planning (NFP) methods often mention that there is less divorce among couples who use NFP compared to couples who use artificial contraception. However, there is very little evidence and scant research to validate this statement. *So too, there is little evidence of how use of the most common family planning methods (i.e., hormonal pill, condoms, and sterilization) and abortion effects marital life, marital separation, and divorce*"
> But what the heck, why bother with facts when you can avoid reality with fiction?


The reason there is less divorce in marriages where NFP is practiced is because almost all people who do that belong to religions/denominations where divorce is the ultimate sin from which one cannot be redeemed. There is a high correlation between people who use NFP and people who are either strict Catholic or belong to Duggar-family type churches. I mean look at Josh Duggar. He's a porn addicted pedophile, and his wife is still married to him!


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> The reason there is less divorce in marriages where NFP is practiced is because almost all people who do that belong to religions/denominations where divorce is the ultimate sin from which one cannot be redeemed. There is a high correlation between people who use NFP and people who are either strict Catholic or belong to Duggar-family type churches. I mean look at Josh Duggar. He's a porn addicted pedophile, and his wife is still married to him!


Yep, "Til death do us part!"


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

MAJDEATH said:


> Because they were monitored very closely by their doctor, husband, priest, school administrator, etc.


So now women are like little kids who need to be monitored lest we misbehave ... still :rofl:

You truly need to stop projecting your wife onto all womankind.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

The good news is, I can tell people I am an enforcer, and maybe I can intimidate them


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Red Sonja said:


> So now women are like little kids who need to be monitored lest we misbehave ... still :rofl:
> 
> You truly need to stop projecting your wife onto all womankind.


It isn't just his wife, it his entire view of the world. He refuses to acknowledge reality and wants to remain mired in his fairy tales of the good old days (that never existed in the first place).


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

MAJDEATH said:


> Because they were monitored very closely by their doctor, husband, priest, school administrator, etc.



:rofl:
Seriously do you make this stuff up on the spot?


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

MAJDEATH said:


> Research has shown that rampant use of unmonitored bc pills (with their high levels artificial homones) causes a significant change in women's behaviors, which is a contributing factor to infidelity. Natural family planning has been shown to be much more effective with less risks.
> The beginning of this post talked about a change at the 4 yr, or 7 yr mark after marriage or the birth of a child. Maybe the 7 yr itch has something to do with hormones/chemical embalance in women.


Wait, what?? Rampant use of unmonitored bc pills?? How the hell does that happen, when an exam is required to even get an rx for the damn things? ALSO an rx is only valid for a year, so follow up is required when its time for a new rx… so how the hell is this unmonitored??



MAJDEATH said:


> We were married with child in 1996. In 2003, my W was egaged in multiple relationships with men while I was separated from her, fighting our nations wars on the other side of the globe. She went to emergency medical several times due to medication imbalance issues during that time. Definitely a contributing factor, as well as fear that I might be killed and the separation for years.


Ahhh, so is THIS what keeps you in your marriage to your serial cheating wife? You convinced yourself that she cant help it because she is at the mercy of evil birth control pills?? 

Good lord....


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

@MAJDEATH I think both men and women are cheating more than before.


----------



## BruceBanner (May 6, 2018)

Ynot said:


> I agree, that it is the bolded part of that statement that Majdeath and his ilk do not like. Because if women just acted like he imagined they did in his mythical "good old days" (which probably coincides with the time when America was Great) then their lives would be great as well.
> However, I disagree the thread is ridiculous. Some of the asinine statements are, but the thread itself is fascinating. I always enjoy seeing how little some people actually think and how reactive they are.
> Read some of the other threads in CWI, you will see time after time, where some of these men (and women) simply refuse to recognize that they had any part in whatever happened to them. They would rather maintain their victimhood status than actually learn a lesson. Then when it happens the second or third time to them, they further justify their "woe is me" mentality. It isn't their fault - it is the world's!


What are you talking about? Nobody forces anyone to lie or be unfaithful. Stop spouting bull**** and go victim blame somewhere else. If a husband or wife is being abusive the victim should be looking for an escape not a way to get freaky with the neighbor since none of that will change the current situation.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

BruceBanner said:


> What are you talking about? Nobody forces anyone to lie or be unfaithful. Stop spouting bull**** and go victim blame somewhere else. If a husband or wife is being abusive the victim should be looking for an escape not a way to get freaky with the neighbor since none of that will change the current situation.


No, I think I will live in reality. You can continue to play victim for as long as you want. In case you don't understand, that cheating is an escape that can and does change a situation. I am sorry that you were cheated on, but the best thing you can do for yourself is to recognize your part in it and stop playing the victim. Man up and take charge of your life and stop being a door mat because of some idealistic fantasy you harbor.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> @MAJDEATH I think both men and women are cheating more than before.


Do you have any more evidence to support that than Majdeath does? Because so far the only evidence given has refuted virtually everything he has posted.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ynot said:


> Araucaria said:
> 
> 
> > @MAJDEATH I think both men and women are cheating more than before.
> ...


There is no evidence because people are never truthful in those surveys. Depending on how you ask the question or the sample you choose , you can get any result you want. For instance, marriage counselors claim they have an amazingly high success rate because they dont care about the couples that never call back for a 2nd appointment. 

But common sense will tell you that since most humans are heterosexual and you put women and men together in a work environment where they spend up to 8 hours or more together, instead there will be some romantic/sexual bonds formed ( far more than when it was all male workplaces). Plus, you have social media, mobile phones and dating apps that wasnt around in the past that can easily facilitate an adulterous relationship.

There is way more opportunity than in the past. Its that simple.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Anyway I think this post is about the 'walkaway wife syndrome' or the '7 year itch', not the good ole days...


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> There is no evidence because people are never truthful in those surveys. Depending on how you ask the question or the sample you choose , you can get any result you want. For instance, marriage counselors claim they have an amazingly high success rate because they dont care about the couples that never call back for a 2nd appointment.
> 
> But common sense will tell you that since most humans are heterosexual and you put women and men together in a work environment where they spend up to 8 hours or more together, instead there will be some romantic/sexual bonds formed ( far more than when it was all male workplaces). Plus, you have social media, mobile phones and dating apps that wasnt around in the past that can easily facilitate an adulterous relationship.
> 
> There is way more opportunity than in the past. Its that simple.


Um, yeah I know there is no evidence, but it doesn't stop anyone from asserting it despite the lack of. We simply do not know who was having sex with who in our past history, anymore than we know who is having sex with who today. Instead all we have are the people who have told us they have.

As for your work environment theory, I think you have a rather stilted view of the work environment back in the good old days. While today it is true that many men and women work together for up to 8 hours a day. In the past it was also true that men and women often spent time together working with each other for 12 or more hours a day. Furthermore while most work places were separate for men and women, they were not exclusively so. Normally the female majority work places had a man or two in charge of it. Or the male majority laces still had a few females serving as secretaries or other roles. The discrepancy in populations made work place dalliances more likely, not less. Again you are trying to apply today's norms to yesterdays reality. So no, it is really not that simple.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

OK, to get back on track with the OP. Tell us wives, do you feel the "urge to merge" at the 7 year or 4 year mark? If so, what causes that?


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> There is way more opportunity than in the past. Its that simple.


You are wrong.

Do feel free to read the 1888, 11 Volume autobiographical work called My Secret Life. By the anonymous author "Walter", although the man who wrote it may be Henry Spence Ashbee. Other suggestions include William Simpson Potter, Charles Stanley and William Haywood.

Anyway the point of it is that, from reading that work. It becomes apparent that there were lots of married women of differing classes. That were sometimes having sex with men, who weren't their spouses.

Likewise the history book called The Origins of Sex _A History of The First Sexual Revolution_ by Faramerz Dabhoiwala. Which mostly covers sexual relations in British society from the 17th century through the 19th century. Also makes it pretty clear with evidence from court documents, church documents, proclamations, letters, diaries, pamphlets and the like. That infidelity was a common occurrence throughout British Society (which included British colonies in North America and elsewhere as well).

To read those works and there are others, you would realise that infidelity from both men and women. Had been rampant in earlier times up through to the so-called prudish Victorian era.

Sexual infidelity is not new and has always been common.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Anyway I think this post is about the 'walkaway wife syndrome' or the '7 year itch', not the good ole days...


 No, this post, like various others, is a whole thread about how all of men's pain is the fault of women. It's pathetic.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> No, this post, like various others, is a whole thread about how all of men's pain is the fault of women. It's pathetic.


Let's be honest here. The thread is about SOME men's pain being the fault of women (and the BC pills and abortions they have). They would rather have the crutch of an excuse than face the shortfalls of their thinking.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ynot said:


> Let's be honest here. The thread is about SOME men's pain being the fault of women (and the BC pills and abortions they have). They would rather have the crutch of an excuse than face the shortfalls of their thinking.


Some of it maybe, but the topic in the thread does have some biological basis in many pair bonded mammals only stay together long enough to ween and get their offspring through toddlerhood, which follows the timeline for the 4 year itch (after birth). 

From Scientific America:
"But here's the key: although some species of birds and mammals bond for life, more often they stay together only long enough to rear their young through infancy and early toddlerhood. When juvenile robins fly away from the nest or maturing foxes leave the den for the last time, their parents part ways as well.

Humans retain traces of this natural reproductive pattern. In more contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, women tend to bear their children about four years apart. Moreover, in these societies after a child is weaned at around age four, the child often joins a playgroup and is cared for by older siblings and relatives. This care structure allows unhappy couples to break up and find a more suitable partner with whom to have more young.

In fact, serial pair bonding may have been beneficial to survival among our forebears because having children with more than one partner produces offspring with greater genetic variety and a wider range of skills. Hence, in the changeable environment of ancient Africa, some offspring would have had a better chance of enduring.

The four-year divorce peak among modern humans may represent the remains of an ancestral reproductive strategy to stay bonded at least long enough to raise a child through infancy and early toddlerhood. Thus, we may have a natural weak point in our unions. By understanding this susceptibility in our human nature, we might become better able to anticipate, and perhaps be able to avoid, the four-year itch."

This is all well and good, but why is it 75% of human females initiate divorce? Whats the biological imperative behind that?


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

> This is all well and good, but why is it 75% of human females initiate divorce? Whats the biological imperative behind that?


There are likely as many reasons as there are divorces. I initiated my divorce from a sexless man who ignored me, wouldn't keep a job, stonewalled, hated my family, and other such things. Am I lumped in with the gold-digger who got her man and her baby and her alimony and then split?

That stat is really meaningless if you think beyond how good it sounds to TheRedPill....


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Before the days of social media, where people can remain anonymous while they are trolling for affair partners, people could not disguise themselves, and they had to troll in person. They got a bad reputation for their flirtatious behavior. The idea of ruining one's reputation dampered many people's desire to cheat.

If you read enough Jane Austen, you learn that people's reputations were everything to them. If you flirted with the wrong person, your reputation could be ruined, so people controlled themselves. She was a critic of society in her day and used her characters to convey her ideas.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Araucaria said:


> Before the days of social media, where people can remain anonymous while they are trolling for affair partners, people could not disguise themselves, and they had to troll in person. They got a bad reputation for their flirtatious behavior. The idea of ruining one's reputation dampered many people's desire to cheat.
> 
> If you read enough Jane Austen, you learn that people's reputations were everything to them. If you flirted with the wrong person, your reputation could be ruined, so people controlled themselves. She was a critic of society in her day and used her characters to convey her ideas.



I'm thinking you are probably also a fan of Nathaniel Hawthorne.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

Araucaria said:


> Before the days of social media, where people can remain anonymous while they are trolling for affair partners, people could not disguise themselves, and they had to troll in person. They got a bad reputation for their flirtatious behavior*. The idea of ruining one's reputation dampered many people's desire to cheat.
> 
> *If you read enough Jane Austen, you learn that people's reputations were everything to them. If you flirted with the wrong person, your reputation could be ruined,* so people controlled themselves*. She was a critic of society in her day and used her characters to convey her ideas.


This is just conjecture.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> This is all well and good, but why is it 75% of human females initiate divorce? Whats the biological imperative behind that?


Because women have adapted to today's world, while many men continue to labor under the ideals of the past (aka the good old days). As more men become acclimated to the world we live in today (as opposed to that of the good old days), we will probably see exactly what we are seeing in younger people - fewer and later marriages, coupled with fewer divorces. Men will come to realize that yesterday's ideals do not apply to modern realities. Especially when marriage and divorce actually works to their detriment, as well as when the object of those ideals (women) no longer feel compelled to live by those same ideals themselves.
It really is no wonder that women react to the world today by filing divorce more often than men do. The real quandary is why men continue to cling to outdated ideas which no longer serve them.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

The one thing that has always confused me about studying sexuality is it's always so heavily focused procreation, recreational sex always seems to be treated as a lesser factor.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Tiggy! said:


> This is just conjecture.


Yes it is. Jane Austen wrote about a very specific segment of society. She did not write about, for instance, pioneers in the American mid west, immigrants to the new world, peasants of eastern Europe, slaves in the American south or elsewhere. To cite Jane Austen as the source of your knowledge of earlier society really does require a lot of conjecture.


----------



## BruceBanner (May 6, 2018)

Ynot said:


> No, I think I will live in reality. You can continue to play victim for as long as you want. In case you don't understand, that cheating is an escape that can and does change a situation. I am sorry that you were cheated on, but the best thing you can do for yourself is to recognize your part in it and stop playing the victim. Man up and take charge of your life and stop being a door mat because of some idealistic fantasy you harbor.


Lmfao. So because you have poor self-esteem and are still reeling from your wife leaving you everybody else should pull up their bootstraps and be a doormat and take responsibility for the actions of their unfaithful spouse and pretend to be some White Knight like you are? I've never even been cheated on so you can keep the speech/advice to yourself.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ynot said:


> Because women have adapted to today's world, while many men continue to labor under the ideals of the past (aka the good old days). As more men become acclimated to the world we live in today (as opposed to that of the good old days), we will probably see exactly what we are seeing in younger people - fewer and later marriages, coupled with fewer divorces. Men will come to realize that yesterday's ideals do not apply to modern realities. Especially when marriage and divorce actually works to their detriment, as well as when the object of those ideals (women) no longer feel compelled to live by those same ideals themselves.
> It really is no wonder that women react to the world today by filing divorce more often than men do. The real quandary is why men continue to cling to outdated ideas which no longer serve them.


You are assuming the only men that get divorced are chest beating cavemen. I don't know what you have observed, but I've seen everything from successful alphas to beta doormats with wife's cheating and/or divorcing them. But more so, the latter...jumping ship for that elusive happiness. 

If marriage and family is a revolving door, what the hell is the point? It just wreck lives and leave a bunch of innocent people picking up the pieces.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

BruceBanner said:


> Lmfao. So because you have poor self-esteem and are still reeling from your wife leaving you everybody else should pull up their bootstraps and be a doormat and take responsibility for the actions of their unfaithful spouse and pretend to be some White Knight like you are? I've never even been cheated on so you can keep the speech/advice to yourself.


Um, I am not the one with poor self-esteem, you are. And since you don't seem to understand, no one is saying any one is responsible for the actions of an unfaithful spouse. What I have been saying is that one needs to accept their part in the situation which lead to those actions. But then, you appear to be too caught up in your pain to understand that, hence your choice of a comic book character as a user name. As I said before, grow up and stop playing the victim.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> You are assuming the only men that get divorced are chest beating cavemen. I don't know what you have observed, but I've seen everything from successful alphas to beta doormats with wife's cheating and/or divorcing them. But more so, the latter...jumping ship for that elusive happiness.
> 
> If marriage and family is a revolving door, what the hell is the point? It just wreck lives and leave a bunch of innocent people picking up the pieces.


I am not assuming anything of the kind. Marriage and family are not a revolving door, unless you continue to cling to the ideals of the past, because the past is the past. We no longer live in that age. Marriage and family are evolving and will continue to evolve as we move away from simple survival as we lived for much of human history.


----------



## Rubix Cubed (Feb 21, 2016)

personofinterest said:


> Kind of like how women couldn't have credit cards unless their husband was on the account, etc.


 I know a mess o' womerns who shouldn't have a credit card ... period. Husband or no husband.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Tiggy! said:


> This is just conjecture.


Well, it is as good as any other guess. That is what we are all doing...guessing....aren't we? :wink2:


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Rubix Cubed said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of like how women couldn't have credit cards unless their husband was on the account, etc.
> ...


I could say the same about some men.

Your point?

You wanna go back to the 50s?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Ynot said:


> I am not assuming anything of the kind. Marriage and family are not a revolving door, unless you continue to cling to the ideals of the past, because the past is the past. We no longer live in that age. Marriage and family are evolving and will continue to evolve as we move away from simple survival as we lived for much of human history.


Even when survival is no longer in question (it actually hasn't been for some time, at least in the developed world), stability will remain prized by many. Lots of well off divorced people on this site. As far as I can tell, none of them really wanted it that way.


----------



## Rubix Cubed (Feb 21, 2016)

personofinterest said:


> I could say the same about some men.
> 
> Your point?
> 
> You wanna go back to the 50s?


 It was humor. Lighten up Francis.

I wasn't around in the 50's so couldn't say, but the cars sure were better.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Even when survival is no longer in question (it actually hasn't been for some time, at least in the developed world), stability will remain prized by many. Lots of well off divorced people on this site. As far as I can tell, none of them really wanted it that way.


Perhaps not, but then there was that evolving definition of marriage and family. Some of us prized it more that others. So here we are. What other choice do you have but to arrive at that conclusion. I know where you are coming from and I used to be there. But alas, life happened so here I am.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> Before the days of social media, where people can remain anonymous while they are trolling for affair partners, people could not disguise themselves, and they had to troll in person. They got a bad reputation for their flirtatious behavior. The idea of ruining one's reputation dampered many people's desire to cheat.


Actually the archival documentary evidence indicates that such behaviour was rampant despite the potential harm to ones reputation.

Even under the threat of death, in England during the 1500s. Church authorities lament the fact that death sentences and other extreme measures, did nothing to quell the rapacious desires of the populace.

Likewise in eras when there was little privacy, as evidenced through court documents. Adulterous fornication in the streets was a common occurrence, up through the 1800s in British societies.



Araucaria said:


> If you read enough Jane Austen, you learn that people's reputations were everything to them. If you flirted with the wrong person, your reputation could be ruined, *so people controlled themselves*. She was a critic of society in her day and used her characters to convey her ideas.


Yet Jane Austen lived in the time that became known as the "Age of Scandal", with many a scandalous and titillating tale, being published in the press about famed cuckolds, blackguards and mistresses.

Yet even in the face of scandal, court sanction and the like, *many people didn't control themselves at all*. As a consequence marital infidelity and adultery was rampant throughout British society regardless of ones social class.



> “I am proud to say that I have a very good eye at an Adultress,” boasted Jane Austen to her sister Cassandra on 12 May 1801.
> ...
> 
> At nearby Hurstbourne Park, residence of the Earl of Portsmouth, a very public adulterous relationship was turning the Earl into a cuckold. Jane Austen had known the Earl as a young boy when he had lived with her fam- ily at Steventon as one of George Austen’s pupils. As a young woman she occasionally attended balls at Hurstbourne Park. Mrs. Austen had com- mented when he lived with them on the backwardness of the little boy, and as he grew up the Earl’s mental condition worsened. In spite of his mental inca- pacity, however, he was married off in 1814 to Mary-Anne Hanson, daughter of the family lawyer. Locking up her mad husband and treating him with great cruelty (she had him whipped on a regular basis), Mary-Anne very soon brought her lover William-Rowland Alder into the house. Together they had three children. The Earl was formally declared insane only many years after Jane Austen’s death. Mary-Anne was then able to marry her adulterous lover (Letters [Notes] 564–65).
> ...


That Jane Austen had such an immense wealth of adultery to draw on, shows that instead of people showing restraint to protect their reputations. It was more a case of reputations be damned, so adultery and infidelity was enjoyed by a considerable number of men and women.

Also to paraphrase Walter from his autobiographical work "My Secret Life", Genteel women tended to save themselves for marriage. yet once married many had no problem at all, having extramarital affairs with different suitors as their fancy was tickled. Whereas lots of women from the servant classes, were often up for adultery both before and after marriage.

Of which it is to be noted that he mentions several pregnancies, where some wives kept the child despite their husbands not being the father. While going away (for an abortion) was also done, in his examples this being a thing for servant women who were unwed.

Anyway Walter had sex with a parade of other married women, which included a wife of an industrialist who bore one of his children, and other upper class women including an American wife enjoying a European Grand Tour without her husband. With plenty of married servants and wives of men in trades as well. In their homes, in bawdy houses, in his friends places, in stables, in cemeteries, in the fields, in streets, in majestic hotels, in trains, in horse drawn carriages on the way home from high society social functions on and on etc.

While ever people have sex drives and are attracted to others. Marriage in any era will certainly not temper the ardour for others from lots of men and women.

On the evidence it is a mistake to think that, infidelity is more common today than it has been in the past.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

You are probably right. The Bible says the days will become more evil, not less evil. I am mistaken, thank you for correcting me.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Araucaria said:


> You are probably right. The Bible says the days will become more evil, not less evil. I am mistaken, thank you for correcting me.


Then it is a very good thing that many do not take the Bible seriously.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Personal, you are right.

As Ecclesiates says, "there is nothing new under the sun."


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

Personal said:


> Actually the *archival documentary evidence* indicates that such behaviour was rampant despite the potential harm to ones reputation.
> 
> Even under the threat of death, in England during the 1500s. Church authorities lament the fact that death sentences and other extreme measures, did nothing to quell the rapacious desires of the populace.
> 
> ...


What archival evidence? Or is this what you wished history had shown?


----------



## Dusk (Oct 29, 2018)

Just look into the Shelleys and Lord Byron. Plenty of adultery to go around there. Free love and polyamory existed way before the 60s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Do the most basic, cursory research of the Roman Empire.

'Nuff said


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> Do the most basic, cursory research of the Roman Empire.
> 
> 'Nuff said


Indeed.

Pompeii proved to be quite the time capsule, with lots of what is now called pornorgraphy being found.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

MAJDEATH said:


> What archival evidence? Or is this what you wished history had shown?


Perhaps you missed this post, the second book has well cited notes and a good bibliography, with sources.



Personal said:


> Do feel free to read the 1888, 11 Volume autobiographical work called My Secret Life. By the anonymous author "Walter", although the man who wrote it may be Henry Spence Ashbee. Other suggestions include William Simpson Potter, Charles Stanley and William Haywood.
> 
> ...
> 
> Likewise the history book called The Origins of Sex _A History of The First Sexual Revolution_ by Faramerz Dabhoiwala. Which mostly covers sexual relations in British society from the 17th century through the 19th century. Also makes it pretty clear with evidence from court documents, church documents, proclamations, letters, diaries, pamphlets and the like. That infidelity was a common occurrence throughout British Society (which included British colonies in North America and elsewhere as well).


Plus you should find the following from the University Leeds of interest as well.



> *Sex and the 1700s*
> 
> Prostitutes, perversions and public scandals - the stuff of the 21st century tabloids was familiar to readers three centuries earlier, according to new research from the University of Leeds.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

MAJDEATH said:


> What archival evidence? Or is this what you wished history had shown?


Because we all know that back in the good old days, those women knew their place and never cast a glance in the direction of men other than their husbands. Give me a break, are you really this invested in avoiding reality? The post you are referencing contains multiple citations, what else could you possibly want?


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

All through human history many extreme things have been done to try to keep people from committing adultery. Chastity belts, genital mutilation, castration, burning, dousing with acid, stoning, banishment.

Even in fairly modern times in the US people have gotten slaps on the wrist and stirn reprimands for murdering their spouse's AP.

And yet adultery is live and well. 

While some may claim that adultery today is the result of decling family values and morality and the rise of technologies like the internet, burner phones and swiping right .... I think a lot if it once people realized that public stonings, being set on fire and castrations weren't stopping adultery, then maybe it is something that we all just new to learn to live with and try to manage the best we can at the time.

......because if being castrated and set on fire in the town square isn't stopping it, then maybe it's something that can't be stopped.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Human nature can't be changed. At least there is a wide spectrum of behaviors, from the admirable to the condemnable - as has always been the case. The excesses of human behavior can be hidden - or the topic avoided - though. While most of us may wish for better behavior from people, it is delusional to think it will ever happen, and futile to try to enforce it.


----------

