What Constitutes Cheating?

[fuji]

It is not "who were are" it is "what we are doing right now."

Perhaps you can explain the difference. You appear to believe in some sort of identity for us that is different than what we do?

My claim in the post you replied to was that this behavior is normal in our society. It plainly is.

It doesn't show that the trait is longstanding or advantageous, or if it is controlled by natural selection or any other evolutionary factor.

You are actually going to claim that infidelity is not long-standing behavior?

Really?

You've lost it.

As for the rest of your post it's again a classic RLD fallacy. You're pretending that my argument rests on a very specific theory of sexual selection that I never actually mentioned or referenced. The specific theory your articles challenged is the notion that sexual competition is meant to weed out bad genes, that is one theory on why individuals compete for mates. Nobody disputes that individuals compete. Nobody disputes that the competition is complex. Nobody disputes that there are winners and losers in that competition. What's disputed is why they compete, and what's accomplished by that competition.

My claim is simply that we compete, and that the competition is unfair. Whether we compete to weed out bad genes, or for some other reasons, is irrelevant to the point.

So again it's typical RLD, you reply to something that sounds like it's a reply to what I said, but you're actually refuting something unrelated, and then pretending that in some way invalidates my argument.

 

[Carling]

no double standards here as i told my wifey....go have fun, but don't let me catch you..same goes for me...catch me, you have very right to get rid of me...let's keep the secrets to ourselves..we're all human, and what a few drinks and /or bad mistakes we make, what matters is we love each other, and can't stand to be living with anyone else....and life goes on

 

[rld]

Perhaps you can explain the difference. You appear to believe in some sort of identity for us that is different than what we do?

I am happy to. At various times men have chosen to wear their hair short, at other times long. That is "what we are going right now" not something that is inherently human. The study you cited was a small one that offered a snapshot of what one group was doing at one point in time. You are trying to claim that represents "the human condition." It does not.

You are actually going to claim that infidelity is not long-standing behavior?

That is not what I have said. And since you clearly are ill informed on the subject you have fallen back to your oft repeated tactic of claiming someone said something they did not. It is an unfortunate and dishonest pattern of yours.

All you have done is claimed that you have access to a higher truth and that all others who do not follow your path are not living a full life. You have in a childish dictatorial fashion suggested anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.

When the topic turned to science, because you claimed it was evolutionary, you were bankrupt.

As usual your only argument is from egocentric narcissism.

It was my mistake to think that engaging you would produce anything other than nonsensical and intellectually dishonest comments.

 

[Sexucator]

What constitutes cheating to you? where do you draw the line? what would you do if you ever found out your partner cheated on you?

Full Service = Cheating
Massage parlour = not cheating

that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

 

[blackrock13]

It is not "who were are" it is "what we are doing right now."

The studies you show are a very small group of (presumably) Canadians. It is not cross-cultural or even widespread. More importantly it is a snapshot of time. It doesn't show that the trait is longstanding or advantageous, or if it is controlled by natural selection or any other evolutionary factor.

AC is a peice of the puzzle, but a proper scientific piece. They looked at certain biological traits that were suggested by some who talk about the evolution of sexual reproduction to suggest just what you suggest. And when proper scientific experimentation was done the presumptions turned out not to be so.

Kin selection or preference is another important part of evolutionary psychology and a huge hole was ripped in that theory in a recent article in Nature which showed statistically that if offered no explanation for behaviour of any scientific value.

Radical adaptionists have got their process backwards and keep trying to force the data to fit. They see an item and say because it can do X or Y, or might offer X or Y advantage that it must have evolved to do so. Then they leave the proper scientists to come in, do the hard work, and quite often prove them wrong.

It is like some people who show up at a multi-car crash and evolve a theory on how the crash happened without taking measurements or doing calculations and reconstructions. If it is obvious it might be right, but if not...it falls apart.

Right now, there is no scientific consensus on sexual reproduction and mate selection as they fit within evolutionary theory. And I just don't think you are authoritative enough to end that ongoing inquiry.

From the reference that you quote from Fuji, after a quick read, a couple of things stick out.

The study was quit small, and the age groups were very specific. Christ by that time I wasn't even married by 27 and had only had two lengthy relationships to that point. I don't count much under 4 months to be a substantial relationship.

I also notice that although a good number of said they 'THOUGHT' about cheating that group was ~50% more that those who actually did. That doesn't scream hardwired and evolutionary to me. I've thought about threesomes and gang bangs, but said nope, nadda, no way. I have no interest what so ever in them, nor have my SO's. Thinking is not doing it.

If that the number one reference he could put forward, It tells bundles about his position. It's in his head.

 

[A.J. Raven]

[SIZE=+2]The betrayal of a loved one's trust when it has been mutually agreed upon that neither partner will be physically or emotionally intimate with someone else.​

[/SIZE]

This extends to what is believed to be reasonably understood. I can only speak to my experience with men... some people will use the "I never agreed to that" line, when they fully knew the other person believed that their words or actions were equal to an agreement. If you treat someone as though they are your partner, it is reasonable for them to believe they are.

If you feel the need to hide it, it's cheating.

 

[blackrock13]

That is not what I have said. And since you clearly are ill informed on the subject you have fallen back to your oft repeated tactic of claiming someone said something they did not. It is an unfortunate and dishonest pattern of yours.

All you have done is claimed that you have access to a higher truth and that all others who do not follow your path are not living a full life. You have in a childish dictatorial fashion suggested anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.

When the topic turned to science, because you claimed it was evolutionary, you were bankrupt.

As usual your only argument is from egocentric narcissism.

It was my mistake to think that engaging you would produce anything other than nonsensical and intellectually dishonest comments.

Haha!

RID, someday when you're older and wiser, you will see the errors of your ways.

 

[rld]

Haha!

RID, someday when you're older and wiser, you will see the errors of your ways.

I am clearly a slow learner.

 

[OnlySex]

Cheating = When you get caught doing wrong. The key word is "caught"

Too much 'black or white' on the topic. I think should depend on the indiscretion: :

Cheating = best friend, sister, mother (MILF)
Naughty = secretary, neighbour, female gym member
Doesn't Count = MP, SP, out of town business hook-ups

Seems fair ....

 

[fuji]

The study you cited was a small one that offered a snapshot of what one group was doing at one point in time.

I await your evidence that infidelity has not been ever present in the human population. All the data we have so far says that it has. The amount of airtime it gets in manuscripts and stories from all eras of human history suggest that it's been ever present. Common sense too. The scientific studies checking the rate in the modern era simply serve to confirm what everyone has always known--humans regularly engage in infidelity.

You are trying to claim that represents "the human condition."

Yes. The same way that speaking a language represents "the human condition", even though we're plainly not born fluent. Culture and genetics mix together to form who we are.

You can't equate this to deciding to wear your hair long or short. It may have cultural elements, but they're more fundamental than that. Whether they are genetic, or whether they are fundamental in the way that speaking English is fundamental to who you are, is kind of irrelevant to the point.

Those behaviors are learned by us, whether genetically or memetically, for a good reason.

That is not what I have said.

Yes it is. It's exactly what you have said. You've picked up on an attack on one SPECIFIC theory of sexual competition and you have assumed that my position depends on exactly and only that theory. You've cited some books attacking that theory and then pretended that's meaningful. My argument does not depend on that specific theory. It depends only more generally on the claim that we compete sexually, and that the competition is fundamentally complex. Some of those arguments are also overly simplistic. Human beings are intelligent and can forecast the future. The reason why you get a huge reaction to "emotional" cheating, whether male or female, is because we're all capable of realizing that emotional cheating pretty quickly leads to sexual cheating. We don't actually have to wait for the sexual cheating to happen to react.

In fact, the difficulty in analyzing human behavior in this area--the proposed models are all to simplistic--is evidence for the second half of that point. As for the first part, nobody seriously disputes that individuals compete sexually with one another. What they dispute is why they do that, and to what extent males/females compete in different ways.

My argument does not depend on any particular theory of competition, such as the "sexual selection theory" (which is one particular version of that theory claiming that we are competing for the purpose of weeding out bad genes).

 

[rld]

I await your evidence that infidelity has not been ever present in the human population. All the data we have so far says that it has. The amount of airtime it gets in manuscripts and stories from all eras of human history suggest that it's been ever present. Common sense too. The scientific studies checking the rate in the modern era simply serve to confirm what everyone has always known--humans regularly engage in infidelity.





Yes. The same way that speaking a language represents "the human condition", even though we're plainly not born fluent. Culture and genetics mix together to form who we are.

You can't equate this to deciding to wear your hair long or short. It may have cultural elements, but they're more fundamental than that. Whether they are genetic, or whether they are fundamental in the way that speaking English is fundamental to who you are, is kind of irrelevant to the point.

Those behaviors are learned by us, whether genetically or memetically, for a good reason.



Yes it is. It's exactly what you have said. You've picked up on an attack on one SPECIFIC theory of sexual competition and you have assumed that my position depends on exactly and only that theory. You've cited some books attacking that theory and then pretended that's meaningful. My argument does not depend on that specific theory. It depends only more generally on the claim that we compete sexually, and that the competition is fundamentally complex. Some of those arguments are also overly simplistic. Human beings are intelligent and can forecast the future. The reason why you get a huge reaction to "emotional" cheating, whether male or female, is because we're all capable of realizing that emotional cheating pretty quickly leads to sexual cheating. We don't actually have to wait for the sexual cheating to happen to react.

In fact, the difficulty in analyzing human behavior in this area--the proposed models are all to simplistic--is evidence for the second half of that point. As for the first part, nobody seriously disputes that individuals compete sexually with one another. What they dispute is why they do that, and to what extent males/females compete in different ways.

My argument does not depend on any particular theory of competition, such as the "sexual selection theory" (which is one particular version of that theory claiming that we are competing for the purpose of weeding out bad genes).

Why I am not surprised at the drivel you post. Your unfounded arrogance knows no bounds. Honestly Fuji, nobody gives a shit what your theory is. Call me when it is published in a peer reviewed journal.

Until then it is simply your unfettered narcisism.

 

[fuji]

You fail to respond with any substance, and fall back on weak minded bluster.

Your earlier argument was a straw man argument that has failed. You posted references to critiques of one specific theory that I didn't even raise rather than the general claim that is essentially undisputed.

You were not able to cast doubt on the general claim that we are in unfair competition for sexual partners. You were unable to dispute that infidelity is a common human behavior, practiced by 40% to 75% of us. That's as far as research can take you in an ethical rebate, but you failed there.

Ethics and morality beyond that point become philosophical, and you have not even tried to take issue that it is impossible to come up with just moral imperatives to proscribe categorically unfair behavior.

 

[blackrock13]

Why I am not surprised at the drivel you post. Your unfounded arrogance knows no bounds. Honestly Fuji, nobody gives a shit what your theory is. Call me when it is published in a peer reviewed journal.

Until then it is simply your unfettered narcisism.

Sums it up quite well about FUJI.

 

[GPIDEAL]

[SIZE=+2]The betrayal of a loved one's trust when it has been mutually agreed upon that neither partner will be physically or emotionally intimate with someone else.​

[/SIZE]

In the context of the OP's question, this definition is the best so far.

 

[fuji]

Another post demonstrating black rocks weak minded approach to debating. Unable to put together an argument of his own he's limited to cheer leading idiotically for the losing side.

 

[HOF]

i have to correct you on fuji, by his own admission he is a classy guy, so i consider him a classy hypocrite.

lmao!

 

[HOF]

You might get a shovel upside the head, but I don't think it's cheating. I know you can't get arrested.

As for what I've been able to glean from quotes of Fuji's post, he a jerk, has been for a long time, and will be for the foreseeable future. He convinced himself that what he does is natural and expected, and wife is expected to live by a different standard. Somebody made a suggestion that she may be a blowup doll and I couldn't argue the point. He reminds me of those who used to say negroes were inferior and women were not fit to be doctors. Luckily, most of them have gone the way of the dinosaurs and we are a better society for it.

I saw the tittle of the thread and knew Fuji'd be on it like a fly on shite and loving the attention.

You got that right!

 

[fuji]

I have to correct you on fuji, by his own admission he is a classy guy, so I consider him a classy hypocrite.

Good. I agree. I am a hypocrite when it comes to sexual relationships. Very much so, and proud of it.

 

[mur11]

I have no idea why you're so proud of yourself for cheating fuji or why you're so proud to be a hypocrite. These are not things to be proud of. You're not the first person to cheat, or the last, so you cheating is pretty much the smallest, saddest, most mundane thing.

I do understand some of your points about sexual competition being unfair. I mean that describes about 80% of the people on this board and why they hobby. They can't get women through normal competitive means and so they have to resort to ways to tip the scales, like paying women to have sex with them. And maybe back in the olden days, before modern attitudes about relationships and decency were full formed, and it was all about survivial of the species, it was in the best interests of men everywhere to copulate with as many people as possible, regardless of attachment. But we've evolved now, and understand things like 'respect' and 'trust' and 'honesty' and realize that in some situations there's more than just sex and the selfish fulfillment of base needs (Odd to be saying on an escort message board, I know)

You equated somehow men who don't cheat with those who mutilate female vaginas, which I unfortunately do not have the creative vocabulary to properly put into words how execrable and ghoulish that sentiment is. At the end of the day you're locked into the simple fact that what you perceive as being 'strong' and 'virile' is instead, the efforts of a weak, spineless little man, and you can't face it, so you chalk your weakness up to some genetic pre-coding and use it to justify the behavior. The day is not long in coming when your wife will find out, and leave your ass, I'm sure

 

[Narg]

A lot of you seem to be under the misapprehension that you are actually having a debate with Fuji. Not so. A debate assumes the exchange of ideas, a willingness to listen to (or read) and consider others' views, use additional information provided by other debaters to reassess your own views and at least a theoretical acceptance of the possibility that you are wrong in some particular or other. None of these conditions applies to Fuji. He is clearly not willing ever to admit any error. Nor is he apparently ever willing to change his position on anything. Once he shares his views, he considers himself to be incontestably correct. Everything is black and white. You either accept Fuji's views, many of which are simply matters of opinion which cannot be proved or disproved empirically, or you are dismissed as some combination of moral or intellectual failure.

rld already referred to Fuji as arrogant and a narcisist. That's possible, but I doubt it. I'm an arrogant narcisist and I don't get that vibe off him. I think it's more likely that Fuji is simply very insecure in his real life. One of his coping strategies is to come on to an anonymous board and metaphorically throw his weight around explaining the moral and ethical failures of everyone who is not him. I initially challenged Fuji to cite a single example of any statement he made that he has subsequently admitted was wrong. My challenge was not accepted. I see no need to further feed Fuji's need for acclamation or dominance by pretending we're actually having a debate.