Infidelity, gender-related double standards, the other person, etc.

[Oleander]

I just have one question, really. In the case of infidelity where a woman cheats, why is it that men are always more prone to becoming aggressive towards the Other Man rather than to his significant other, the person who owed him complete fidelity, complete respect, complete love.

I've read so many posts on different websites pertaining to these situations, and the advice the men receive is always along the lines of sabotaging the other guy, beating him up, or any other ugly deed that can be done. Is it just me, or are the only two people in the position of owing their absolute fidelity the two who are in the relationship itself? Therefore, why would a man want to get even with the Other Man? It stinks of possessiveness, of a reaction from having something taken away from you rather than that source of happiness going out of its way to hurt you. It makes it look as though men are in constant competition for women, and their hurt feelings stem more from that loss of a novelty to that novelty betraying them.

[Seriously]

Probably dates back to cavemen. ;-) Though it's not exclusive to men, you ever listen to what women say they would do to another woman that comes between them and their man? Not pretty.

Me? I'm of the same mind as you. If someone cheats on me the other person is inconsequential, the person I am pissed at is the person I put my trust in who betrayed me. Unless maybe it's a close friend or relative, then I would feel betrayed by both of them.

[Samoan Corleone]

Yes, Oleander, good post. I feel that, as long as the sex between the person in the relationship and the person on the side is consentual, they're equally at fault.

[LionsPride]

I think they may be many reasons, but the most obvious to me is that if you convince yourself it was the other man's fault, it's easier to delude yourself into forgiving the women. If you thought she deserved half or more of the blame, then it's a lot harder to preserve one's innocence and pride. After all it's more livable to be angry at some stranger and blame them for their misdeeds then it is to look at your own relationship and feel the disappointment in the wilful actions of your partner and *gasp* the flaws in the relationship you might have to take the blame for. I mean, everything would be just peachy if that other guy had just kept his pants on right?

[Henry]

I just have one question, really. In the case of infidelity where a woman cheats, why is it that men are always more prone to becoming aggressive towards the Other Man rather than to his significant other, the person who owed him complete fidelity, complete respect, complete love.

I've read so many posts on different websites pertaining to these situations, and the advice the men receive is always along the lines of sabotaging the other guy, beating him up, or any other ugly deed that can be done. Is it just me, or are the only two people in the position of owing their absolute fidelity the two who are in the relationship itself? Therefore, why would a man want to get even with the Other Man? It stinks of possessiveness, of a reaction from having something taken away from you rather than that source of happiness going out of its way to hurt you. It makes it look as though men are in constant competition for women, and their hurt feelings stem more from that loss of a novelty to that novelty betraying them.

Rage is a rather healthy emotion to feel in response to being cheated on, and men who hit women are almost universally detested. Thus you get most or all of the rage projected onto another man, which is socially accepted and expected.

And, yes, men are (just like women) in competition for quality mates. Its why women put on makeup and men work their asses off at jobs they hate. I don't see how this means that a man is upset strictly over the loss of a novelty in the case of infidelity, as most people (men included) react far more negatively to infidelity than to a healthier ending of a relationship.

It may be a so-called double standard, but its probably not a significant one. Or would it be preferable if the man channeled that violent rage onto the woman?

[Vagrant]

I'd be angry at both. At the woman for destroying my trust, and at the man for knowingly cheating with a woman who was taken.

[SeaCzar]

This is a good question. It takes two to tango, as they say. To be honset, I wish I had caught my (ex) wife in bed with another guy. Our marriage was over for a good two years before the divorce, and had I caught her sleeping around, it would have cost me a Hell of a lot less money.

[Latro]

I'd be angry at both. At the woman for destroying my trust, and at the man for knowingly cheating with a woman who was taken.
What if he didn't know? What if she just went and screwed around behind your back? Serious question.

[acyckowski]

In a nutshell, because of the legal double-standard that women need more protection from violence than men. If you beat your adulterous wife, you're going to jail, all the property goes to her, and you'll never see your kids without a court-appointed chaperon. Then, while you're in jail, you'll miss your child support payments, and future wages will be garnished. If you beat the boyfriend, you might get a misdemeanor for disturbing the peace.

A simple fix is to repeal all the "battered wife" laws and bring equal-opportunity to the family court system. Once we're free of those dreaded double-standards and patriarchal notions that women are the weaker sex, we'll all be much better off, and adulterous wives will get their due.

Right?

[llBradll]

It would only bother me if I knew the other person, otherwise, I'd just tell the other person they're so lucky to get the "leftovers".

[Storm]

In a nutshell, because of the legal double-standard that women need more protection from violence than men. If you beat your adulterous wife, you're going to jail, all the property goes to her, and you'll never see your kids without a court-appointed chaperon. Then, while you're in jail, you'll miss your child support payments, and future wages will be garnished. If you beat the boyfriend, you might get a misdemeanor for disturbing the peace.

A simple fix is to repeal all the "battered wife" laws and bring equal-opportunity to the family court system. Once we're free of those dreaded double-standards and patriarchal notions that women are the weaker sex, we'll all be much better off, and adulterous wives will get their due.

Right?

Of course, there is the other arguably sexist law: Crimes of passion are typically given less punishment than cold-blooded murder. These law exist because when they were formed it was considered the highest violation of a man's property, to screw his wife.

[acyckowski]

Of course, there is the other arguably sexist law: Crimes of passion are typically given less punishment than cold-blooded murder. These law exist because when they were formed it was considered the highest violation of a man's property, to screw his wife.

I see what you're saying, but that one's applied pretty evenhandedly at the capital-offense level. If I shoot the boyfriend, then shoot the cheating b*****, I'm looking at 3rd degree charges for both.

That's fine, we'll get rid of that one, and while we're at it we'll strike down alimony.

[Storm]

I see what you're saying, but that one's applied pretty evenhandedly at the capital-offense level. If I shoot the boyfriend, then shoot the cheating b*****, I'm looking at 3rd degree charges for both.

That's fine, we'll get rid of that one, and while we're at it we'll strike down alimony.

Well, its origins were sexist. I don't know if I would consider it sexist today. Although there is an argument, not sure if I buy it, that the law is still sexist because men are more likely to act in a heat of passion than women, who are more likely to "plot" or at least to be perceived as "plotting." (Think of all those incidents in which a woman is viewed as "crazy" for her actions whereas a man acted "in a heat of passion.")

Alimony is suppose to be evenhandedly applied too. It's not exclusively men who have to pay it to women. Sex is irrelevant, it's who was supporting the other. I think if one party was working during the marriage, and the other party forewent a career and education to stay at home, then they deserve some alimony to help make them independent.

[BostonIan]

They're separate phenomena. One issue is the partner's infidelity, boxed and shrink-wrapped, set aside. The next issue is a man who would sleep with your wife and contribute to the wrecking of your family and your children's homelife. It's the highest dishonor, the greatest man-to-man disrespect.

Clearheadedly, without any emotion, without ever having been cheated on, without adultery ever having affected me, no overstatement, completely formed moral tenet: it's the "right of the husband" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) to visit any act of violence he chooses upon that man. When I'm president, laws will be rewritten, pardons will be a-plenty.

Strangely, just to complete the picture, me personally sleeping with another man's wife isn't as blisteringly taboo as I might be making it seem, it's more in the category of the type of of wrong that "I Wouldn't Do, But." If I slip and do, I'd stand by the "right of the husband", and respect a guy more if he did me some righteous violence as a result.

At this point, the talk of the double standard would become that women "can too" should be beaten and attacked for infidelity. I personally don't have to make that case - men and women are treated differently because they are different. Different brains, different bodies, different hormones, different biological functions, different behavior.

Different. There's no reason to treat the sexes equally unless equal-treatment is valued for its own sake.

[inscrutable]

It could be a way to attempt to restore masculinity.

[Rudy]

At this point, the talk of the double standard would become that women "can too" should be beaten and attacked for infidelity. I personally don't have to make that case - men and women are treated differently because they are different. Different brains, different bodies, different hormones, different biological functions, different behavior.

Different. There's no reason to treat the sexes equally unless equal-treatment is valued for its own sake.
Just to be clear, you're saying that a woman is less responsible than a man in this situation? If this is what you are saying, then you seem to be implying that women are less in control of their decisions than are men. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.

[BostonIan]

Just to be clear, you're saying that a woman is less responsible than a man in this situation? If this is what you are saying, then you seem to be implying that women are less in control of their decisions than are men. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.

Eh, mezza-mezza. I didn't make that point, but mainly to avoid the thread derailment into a heated separate argument. The point I intended to make was the literal text of the closing sentence. That said, you're the mod. Do you reallyreally want to know if I think women are less responsible for their actions than men?

[JustMel]

I don't believe that either side is entitled to raise their hands/fists or other appendages to the other in anger. If you've reached the point you can put your hands on one another in anger then your relationship has more issues than just infidelity.

Infidelity is not okay for either side and I've always thought that you should be more angry at your spouse/partner who cheats than the person they cheated with--male or female. If your wife cheats on you then it is her you should be mad at and have an issue with not the man she cheated with as she is the one that owes you her faithfulness. Same situation if the man cheats. With that being said if the other party knows the person is married and pursues them anyway then they become culpable as well. Do I believe that you should beat their ass or otherwise seek revenge? No. It's a temporary solution to a more permanent problem and doesn't really solve anything other than your immediate need for kicking someone's ass.

I speak from the standpoint of someone who has walked in on my husband cheating on me with some bimbo he met on the internet while I was at the hospital taking care of my dying grandmother who raised me. I didn't beat either of them. I just told them I hoped they'd be happy together, packed my shit and left. My husband walked in on his ex wife in bed on three separate occasions with three different men. He wouldn't leave her as he is Catholic. She eventually left him for a 19 yr old. Who then left her when the money ran out. He didn't beat the hell out of either of them. Since the two of us and our respective ex spouses all hung around together and have known one another since HS it was only natural that we commiserate together. Lo and behold we ended up together and BOTH of us can honestly say we never cheated on our exes while both of them cheated on us. His ex wife used to tell him all the time "I know I never have to worry about Mel and you screwing around because she's not your type". Apparently, she wasn't his type because we're still together. Every time we see her she talks about wanting him back----it's been more than 4 years.

The best revenge truly is living well.

Men want to strike out at someone when their wife has cheated because they feel cuckolded. Women feel the need to strike out because most of them can justify to themselves that they cheated because their husband didn't do this or that. If you want to cheat---leave first. If they cheat it's time to move on. If you want to try again that's your business and some have made a go of it. Most can't because as hard as it is to forgive them it's even harder to forget and you find yourself questioning every time they're late, on the phone, talking with someone of the opposite sex etc. It strains an already fragile relationship. I say once a cheat always a cheat. My ex actually told me the reason he cheated the second time was because I never forgot about the first one and since I always wondered even though I didn't accuse him of cheating he might as well just do it.





JustMel added to this post, 1 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Eh, mezza-mezza. I didn't make that point, but mainly to avoid the thread derailment into a heated separate argument. The point I intended to make was the literal text of the closing sentence. That said, you're the mod. Do you reallyreally want to know if I think women are less responsible for their actions than men?

I want to know because if you say yes it will be the most idiotic statement since "it wasn't me".

Women are just as responsible for their actions as men. Period. But then I also believe that if a woman hits a man she deserves to be hit back. If I were to swing at my husband I fully expect him to swing back. Women are raised that "boys don't hit girls" so they seem to think that gives them the right to hit a guy and he's supposed to take it. Bullshit. You're big enough to swing you're big enough to give and receive an ass whipping. BUT when it gets to that point----that you can both swing at the other--it's over or should be.

[aku chi]

Many men, myself included, are very averse to physically harming women; I think this is the crux of the issue. I don't think that I would succumb to assaulting a man who cheated with my hypothetical wife but I would never assault said hypothetical wife. Something hereditary or environmental or both makes me extremely averse to attacking a woman. I think that I would defend myself against a woman if she was threatening my life but it wouldn't be pleasant. I recognize the irony of my sentiments and my avatar. I assure you that I often feel uncomfortable even sparring with women in controlled martial arts settings.

[Stratego]

In a nutshell, because of the legal double-standard that women need more protection from violence than men. If you beat your adulterous wife, you're going to jail, all the property goes to her, and you'll never see your kids without a court-appointed chaperon. Then, while you're in jail, you'll miss your child support payments, and future wages will be garnished. If you beat the boyfriend, you might get a misdemeanor for disturbing the peace.

A simple fix is to repeal all the "battered wife" laws and bring equal-opportunity to the family court system. Once we're free of those dreaded double-standards and patriarchal notions that women are the weaker sex, we'll all be much better off, and adulterous wives will get their due.

Right?


What?

Not only is this argument morally repugnantl and misogynistic, it's weak. The thread is addressing one issue, infidelity, and this statement is bringing in a whole other set of issues, including domestic violence, which is still a considerable threat to women more so than men. Look at the numbers, according to the American Bar Association:

Prevalence of Domestic Violence

In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).

Source:
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, at iii (2000), available at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.

Source:
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000), available at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001.

Source:
Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 197838, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief: Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, at 1 (2003), available at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Intimate partners committed 3% of the nonfatal violence against men.

Source:
Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 197838, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief: Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, at 1 (2003), available at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims.

Source:
Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 197838, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief: Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, at 1 (2003), available at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.

Source:
Jacquelyn C. Campbell et al., Risk Factors For Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From A Multi-Site Case Control Study, 93 Am. J. of Public Health 1089, 1092 (2003), abstract available at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.

Source:
The Violence Pol'y Ctr., When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2002 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents, at 7 (2004), available at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Stats from U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:

Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.

84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.

Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.

Source:
Matthew R. Durose et al., U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 207846, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances, at 31-32 (2005), available at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


So excuse me if I don't agree that women need to "get" theirs---it's clear this is happening already, so I'll keep those laws, thank you.

[JustMel]

In a nutshell, because of the legal double-standard that women need more protection from violence than men. If you beat your adulterous wife, you're going to jail, all the property goes to her, and you'll never see your kids without a court-appointed chaperon. Then, while you're in jail, you'll miss your child support payments, and future wages will be garnished. If you beat the boyfriend, you might get a misdemeanor for disturbing the peace.

A simple fix is to repeal all the "battered wife" laws and bring equal-opportunity to the family court system. Once we're free of those dreaded double-standards and patriarchal notions that women are the weaker sex, we'll all be much better off, and adulterous wives will get their due.

Right?

As an adult who was a child and watched one parent shoot and kill the other in defense of me after he'd been beating her for 7 years I'm glad those laws exist. She took it until he turned on me. Furthermore, if the wife is adulterous and you're smart you don't beat her, you take her to court, keep the kids and the property while she pays you child support. A man doesn't resort to violence to prove his point. A boy does.

Here's a better solution; teach children that it's not okay to cheat and to have some morals about their commitments and you don't have the problem of either partner cheating.

[Henry]

As an adult who was a child and watched one parent shoot and kill the other in defense of me after he'd been beating her for 7 years I'm glad those laws exist. She took it until he turned on me. Furthermore, if the wife is adulterous and you're smart you don't beat her, you take her to court, keep the kids and the property while she pays you child support. A man doesn't resort to violence to prove his point. A boy does.

Here's a better solution; teach children that it's not okay to cheat and to have some morals about their commitments and you don't have the problem of either partner cheating.

The OP was complaining about the double standard when the double standard benefits women. He made the argument to point out an obvious problem with the OPs statements. He's not really arguing in favor of that, he's just pointing out that it benefits women so its rather silly to complain about the double standard.

Lets be candid here: my girlfriend hits me, I laugh. I hit my girlfriend, she going to suffer a fairly serious injury. So, yeah, a legal double standard is probably appropriate to keep people responsible for the actual physical result of their act.

[Rudy]

Eh, mezza-mezza. I didn't make that point, but mainly to avoid the thread derailment into a heated separate argument. The point I intended to make was the literal text of the closing sentence. That said, you're the mod. Do you reallyreally want to know if I think women are less responsible for their actions than men?

By all means; it's certainly on topic in this thread.

[JustMel]

The OP was complaining about the double standard when the double standard benefits women. He made the argument to point out an obvious problem with the OPs statements. He's not really arguing in favor of that, he's just pointing out that it benefits women so its rather silly to complain about the double standard.

Lets be candid here: my girlfriend hits me, I laugh. I hit my girlfriend, she going to suffer a fairly serious injury. So, yeah, a legal double standard is probably appropriate to keep people responsible for the actual physical result of their act.

You obviously haven't been hit by the right woman if you think that just because you're a man or because women tend to be smaller we can't give as good as we get.

[BostonIan]

Responding to break this ice, I'd guess the nature of your post could have quieted the thread.

As an adult who was a child and watched one parent shoot and kill the other in defense of me after he'd been beating her for 7 years I'm glad those laws exist.

That domestic violence is more prevalent in men, more severe when perpetrated by men, and therefor laws should be different all are true, but that conveniently reflects back to my point of equality being only an abstract. Men and women, different.

Furthermore, if the wife is adulterous and you're smart you don't beat her, you take her to court, keep the kids and the property while she pays you child support.

I'm not legal scholar, but my impression was that women tend to get the custody, house, and alimony regardless of any infidelity. "No fault divorce", right?

A man doesn't resort to violence to prove his point. A boy does.

I understand that was meant to be a bromide, but it's not literally accurate. Men are more violent in adulthood than youth, the vast majority of serious violence doesn't occur until after puberty. Violence is a part of manhood, it can either be channeled or repressed.

Here's a better solution; teach children that it's not okay to cheat and to have some morals about their commitments and you don't have the problem of either partner cheating.

Good idea, but that would imply that people aren't taught already that cheating is wrong, that that lessons taught in youth can be reliably and permanently installed, and that there isn't a primal factor that needs to be suppressed. Free will, self-control, and all that.

By all means; it's certainly on topic in this thread.

Alrighty, "a chauvinist's manifesto", on its way. I may start a new thread, it'll be too much of a derailment, even if it's not off-topic.

[Henry]

You obviously haven't been hit by the right woman if you think that just because you're a man or because women tend to be smaller we can't give as good as we get.

I'm sure there are some couples who each represent a roughly equal threat in the event of violence, but on the average, there's going to be a huge disparity.

Men are more biologically designed for violence: about 20% additional body weight on average, lower body fat levels, more muscle, a larger amount of fluid between the brain and the skull, lots of hormones that promote aggression, greater levels of height and reach, etc. So you may have an outlier-strong woman and an outlier-weak man who each represent an approximately equal threat in the event of violence, but on the average you're dealing with "LOL do it again" versus going to the hospital.

I don't really see why this is provoking a serious response. For most things, men and women have similar capacities. For some things, there are biological differences.

[Storm]

So what are we talking about here? I don't think there are double standard laws. You beat up your spouse, you are punished. The law doesn't care what you're DNA says.

[JustMel]

That domestic violence is more prevalent in men, more severe when perpetrated by men, and therefor laws should be different all are true, but that conveniently reflects back to my point of equality being only an abstract. Men and women, different.

A woman is much more likely to pick up an object to hit with which is usually a good equalizer.....:blank:

I'm not legal scholar, but my impression was that women tend to get the custody, house, and alimony regardless of any infidelity. "No fault divorce", right?

Wrong. More and more men are getting the kids today. Courts are moving away from the "mothers are better" mentalities in the interest of what's best for the child. Score one for the kids. No fault also doesn't imply that no one is at fault although in some cases that's exactly what it means. More often it means that you've decided to divorce and worked out an agreement on splitting and neither is being accused of adultery, etc. Even if one spouse cheated they will often divorce under the no fault clause and still fight custody in court. No fault is strictly for the dissolution of the marriage and in no way determines who gets the kids, house etc. Some states will only issue a no fault divorce if you've already worked out custody and property settlements between the two of you. No fault divorces are much cheaper so it's less expensive to say no one's at fault than to file under other circumstances and pay higher attorney's fees. Ex: in MS a no fault divorce with custody and property agreed upon is about $250-400. If filing on any other grounds you start at $1000.

I understand that was meant to be a bromide, but it's not literally accurate. Men are more violent in adulthood than youth, the vast majority of serious violence doesn't occur until after puberty. Violence is a part of manhood, it can either be channeled or repressed.

Actually I was referring to a state of mind. Men know how to control their anger where younger men are often rash.


Good idea, but that would imply that people aren't taught already that cheating is wrong, that that lessons taught in youth can be reliably and permanently installed, and that there isn't a primal factor that needs to be suppressed. Free will, self-control, and all that.

Unfortunately a lot of people aren't taught that cheating is wrong. A lot of people are taught to do what they want to do and damn the consequences. Most people don't teach their children that relationships take work and compromise. The ideal of "if it doesn't work just leave" is often more often taught than fidelity.





JustMel added to this post, 2 minutes and 28 seconds later...

I'm sure there are some couples who each represent a roughly equal threat in the event of violence, but on the average, there's going to be a huge disparity.

Men are more biologically designed for violence: about 20% additional body weight on average, lower body fat levels, more muscle, a larger amount of fluid between the brain and the skull, lots of hormones that promote aggression, greater levels of height and reach, etc. So you may have an outlier-strong woman and an outlier-weak man who each represent an approximately equal threat in the event of violence, but on the average you're dealing with "LOL do it again" versus going to the hospital.

I don't really see why this is provoking a serious response. For most things, men and women have similar capacities. For some things, there are biological differences.

I disagree as a woman is more likely to pick up an iron skillet or bat. Not to mention when you add in adrenaline even without a weapon a woman can put a man well past "LOL". I'm 4'10 my ex was 5'10.5 and he pissed me off and pushed me one night and I didn't even think about a pussy slap but swung with a closed fist and broke his nose. It was intentional and he didn't laugh.

[TheLastMohican]

A woman is much more likely to pick up an object to hit with which is usually a good equalizer.....:blank:
This is taking the arguments far from the topic. Henry's comment was an exaggeration, but there is truth in it: men are naturally capable of inflicting more harm than women. Bringing in weapons is missing the point. (Men are more likely to own and use guns, which are even better equalizers than cast iron skillets!) All that is irrelevant. What matters is that the biological advantage of men in physical confrontations is taken into account in our justice system (on an emotional level, if not written into the laws).

[Jonathan Brewer]

A woman is much more likely to pick up an object to hit with which is usually a good equalizer.....:blank:

While I'm not trying to discredit the ability of women to defend themselves, I don't think this statement really supports your argument much. Unless your intent is to kill the man and you are using an object suitable for the job (knife, gun, etc.), the use of an object in the fight is likely only to provoke him more. The probable result is he will take it away from you and use it against you.

I just have one question, really. In the case of infidelity where a woman cheats, why is it that men are always more prone to becoming aggressive towards the Other Man rather than to his significant other, the person who owed him complete fidelity, complete respect, complete love.

In a word: Pride. A lot of men still feel that their honor has been blemished by the other man. After all, if he hadn't shown interest the female involved couldn't have cheated. It also comes down to the animal instinct regarding the dominant male. If one male challenges another one's territory their is natural confrontation, even when the female is indifferent. Of course, that is an oversimplification. Suffice it to say that in such situations most men want to hurt someone and society views men hurting women as "unfair", while men hurting men is "normal".

In my opinion, it is all stupid. If you cheat on me, there will be consequences, but it is unlikely they will be directly physical. Violence and aggression rarely depend on logic.

[JustMel]

While I'm not trying to discredit the ability of women to defend themselves, I don't think this statement really supports your argument much. Unless your intent is to kill the man and you are using an object suitable for the job (knife, gun, etc.), the use of an object in the fight is likely only to provoke him more. The probable result is he will take it away from you and use it against you.



In a word: Pride. A lot of men still feel that their honor has been blemished by the other man. After all, if he hadn't shown interest the female involved couldn't have cheated. It also comes down to the animal instinct regarding the dominant male. If one male challenges another one's territory their is natural confrontation, even when the female is indifferent. Of course, that is an oversimplification. Suffice it to say that in such situations most men want to hurt someone and society views men hurting women as "unfair", while men hurting men is "normal".

In my opinion, it is all stupid. If you cheat on me, there will be consequences, but it is unlikely they will be directly physical. Violence and aggression rarely depend on logic.

My point was that women can "even the odds" as it were if they choose to. As for more men than women owning guns is concerned I saw some statistics somewhere (I'll look) that said that for handguns the division is fairly equal where shotguns and rifles are predominantly male owned. Of course those numbers only reflect the number of REGISTERED firearms which would change the whole equation.

I also wasn't advocating that a female pick up something and use it against a man--just pointing out that a female can even those odds provided she's good enough to keep position of the weapon she chooses. Men choose messy weapons: fists, guns and want immediate gratification by seeing blood etc. Women tend to wait and seek revenge later unless backed into a corner.

As to the pride angle---I agree totally. Men often seek to blame the other man. My husband is guilty of this. The guy his ex wife left with was 19. She was 32. He still hates the guy and we see him fairly often at different places and he still won't speak to him and the guy still tries to talk to him and make him understand he wasn't trying to take his wife etc just taking what was offered which doesn't help his case. BUT in this case he is mad at the other guy because he'd taken him in and given him a place to live so he wouldn't be on the street when his sister's husband threw him out. The other guys he caught her with he wasn't mad at the guy but at his ex wife. His extent of anger at one of those guys was to physically throw him out of the house naked with no car keys, phone or wallet and lock the door.





JustMel added to this post, 9 minutes and 1 seconds later...

This is taking the arguments far from the topic. Henry's comment was an exaggeration, but there is truth in it: men are naturally capable of inflicting more harm than women. Bringing in weapons is missing the point. (Men are more likely to own and use guns, which are even better equalizers than cast iron skillets!) All that is irrelevant. What matters is that the biological advantage of men in physical confrontations is taken into account in our justice system (on an emotional level, if not written into the laws).

A bullet can miss, I've never seen someone miss when weilding a cast iron skillet. However, snarkiness aside, you're lumping all men and women together and assuming that in any physical confrontation the male will win because he's biologically superior in physical confrontations but there are a lot of other factors. My nephew is with a girl that I have watched take his ass down. She's a lot bigger and stronger than he is and she has the physical advantage.

I still disagree that just because you have a dick you're biologically superior in all physical confrontations with women. Do I know that there are men who could take me in a physical altercation? Yes. Do I know that there are men--even some who are bigger than me that I can take in a physical altercation? Yes. You also have to consider the fact that a lot of women are intimidated by a male's size and physical strength which also gives him an psychological advantage on top of the physical one (if it's there). If you have a woman who isn't afraid of him because of his size and meets him toe to toe it has a psychological impact on him too.

I'm not scared of any man just because he's bigger than me. I grew up as the only girl in a neighborhood of boys so I never had the mentality that just because they're male they can take me. I'm normally the one that gets in between some guy and girl who are fighting.

[Vagrant]

What if he didn't know? What if she just went and screwed around behind your back? Serious question.

Then I wouldn't have any problem with him.

Instead my anger for the woman would be twofold.

[Jonathan Brewer]

Men choose messy weapons: fists, guns and want immediate gratification by seeing blood etc. Women tend to wait and seek revenge later unless backed into a corner.

Very true, this is one reason women killers have shown a preference for poisons.

BUT in this case he is mad at the other guy because he'd taken him in and given him a place to live so he wouldn't be on the street when his sister's husband threw him out.

Well, in a case like that I would be holding a grudge as well. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Then again, marrying a whore doesn't help.

However, snarkiness aside, you're lumping all men and women together and assuming that in any physical confrontation the male will win because he's biologically superior in physical confrontations but there are a lot of other factors.

Certainly. I bet money that a highly intelligent but frail woman could whip a monstrous stupid male brute any day. Also, I have known women who physically could have handed me my "you-know-what". However, I've known few people I would ever worry about out thinking me enough to win in a confrontation. In this day and age, battles are won through strategy, resources, and ingenuity. Why would personal confrontations be any different? That said, given the fact that most men and women are of equal intelligence, it is more common that a man would win in a physical altercation. My philosophy is to never make assumption based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, creed, blah, blah, blah. You get the picture. ;)


This is the same reason I don't shout out slurs when cut off in traffic. You may just get yourself shot.

[TheLastMohican]

However, snarkiness aside, you're lumping all men and women together and assuming that in any physical confrontation the male will win because he's biologically superior in physical confrontations but there are a lot of other factors.

No, I am not. I am describing the average, which is what determines people's emotional biases in society. Special cases do not invalidate this.

[JustMel]

No, I am not. I am describing the average, which is what determines people's emotional biases in society. Special cases do not invalidate this.

I still don't agree but I get that you're not stating a definite "it's always this way".

Then again, marrying a whore doesn't help.

Yeah.... If only he'd known then what he knows then he could have skipped that whole saga. I do find it comical that his ex is now complaining that her "boyfriend" is cheating on her.

[laserist]

I just have one question, really. In the case of infidelity where a woman cheats, why is it that men are always more prone to becoming aggressive towards the Other Man rather than to his significant other, the person who owed him complete fidelity, complete respect, complete love.
snip

Perhaps if the relationship was based on a rational foundation the infidelity would lead to a conversation about what their spouse felt was missing in their relationship, but man isn't a rational creature. Infidelity is a big button. It's hooked into a bunch of circuits. Some of them are among our oldest and most primitive hardwired processes. Guys aren't typically very good at understanding the impact their emotions have on their decisions when things are running smoothly. And this is fight or flight territory. Rationally and emotionally the relationship will never be the same. That said, it doesn't mean with some mutual effort that it can't get better. Of course giving up is the more likely option. I think women are more likely to feel trapped in a relationship without the option of leaving. People who cheat have motivations and it would be simplistic to think it's only sex. Infidelity isn't the issue it's a symptom of the issue...

[Oleander]

The OP was complaining about the double standard when the double standard benefits women. He made the argument to point out an obvious problem with the OPs statements. He's not really arguing in favor of that, he's just pointing out that it benefits women so its rather silly to complain about the double standard.

Lets be candid here: my girlfriend hits me, I laugh. I hit my girlfriend, she going to suffer a fairly serious injury. So, yeah, a legal double standard is probably appropriate to keep people responsible for the actual physical result of their act.

She ... she ... SHE, GODAMMIT! sigh.

[Synamon]

She ... she ... SHE, GODAMMIT! sigh.

Perhaps I'm the one who is confused, but I believe the "he" Henry was referencing in his comment to JustMel was acyckowski since it was acyckowski's sarcastic/ironic post that JustMel had responded to. Henry referred to you only as the OP (original poster).

[Henry]

She ... she ... SHE, GODAMMIT! sigh.

Perhaps I'm the one who is confused, but I believe the "he" Henry was referencing in his comment to JustMel was acyckowski since it was acyckowski's sarcastic/ironic post that JustMel had responded to. Henry referred to you only as the OP (original poster).

Correct, "he" was a reference to Acyckowski.

[Oleander]

Hah, oops. My bad!

[acyckowski]

Perhaps I'm the one who is confused, but I believe the "he" Henry was referencing in his comment to JustMel was acyckowski since it was acyckowski's sarcastic/ironic post that JustMel had responded to. Henry referred to you only as the OP (original poster).

Thank you, I am most definitely a he.

Now that the cat's out of the bag, thanks to all for supporting my hypothesis that we collectively want and need a double standard. As an old-school chauvinist, let me point out that men exist to protect women. Raising your hand to a woman is inexcusable; beating down your wife's boyfriend is unpleasant, but, well...hey, he's a man. He knew the deal, or should have. Tough luck if he didn't.

It never ceases to amaze me that modern western society screams bloody murder about pervasive Judeo-Christian misogyny in its own ranks, but just barely remembers to raise a token protest towards true misogyny in those Muslim parts of the world that are stuck in the 13th century. In the middle east, women are executed for adultery...is this the ideal we seek? It would certainly be consistent with the OP's call for justice directed at the spouse...

As for me, I refuse to participate in self-flagellation about gender inequality. Men and women are different, this much is obvious to three year olds, and I feel sorry for anybody who has been reeducated by the post-modern-transcendental-neoimpressionistic-whatever-the-groovy-buzzword "intellectuals." I will accept the notion that "men and women are the same" when they install urinals in the ladies' bathroom.

[Storm]

I will accept the notion that "men and women are the same" when they install urinals in the ladies' bathroom.

Too late:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Henry]

As for me, I refuse to participate in self-flagellation about gender inequality. Men and women are different, this much is obvious to three year olds, and I feel sorry for anybody who has been reeducated by the post-modern-transcendental-neoimpressionistic-whatever-the-groovy-buzzword "intellectuals."

I largely agree with you, but you really just need to add one sentence here to make this section slightly more defensible:

Although men and women may be different in some ways, on the most important public issues they are in the aggregate roughly equal in terms of aptitudes and abilites.

Without it, "Separate but equal" and all the negative connotations that go with that phrase are implied.

[DanteFalling]

The OP was complaining about the double standard when the double standard benefits women. He made the argument to point out an obvious problem with the OPs statements. He's not really arguing in favor of that, he's just pointing out that it benefits women so its rather silly to complain about the double standard.

Lets be candid here: my girlfriend hits me, I laugh. I hit my girlfriend, she going to suffer a fairly serious injury. So, yeah, a legal double standard is probably appropriate to keep people responsible for the actual physical result of their act.

Why would you put up with anyone hitting you? Women shouldn't hit men, just as men shouldn't hit women. There's something to be said for rough-housing/sparring, but hitting you out of anger, etc is wrong. Don't put up with that crap. If that's what she's doing, she has no respect for you as a person, no respect for herself, or both.





DanteFalling added to this post, 2 minutes and 11 seconds later...

Thank you, I am most definitely a he.

I will accept the notion that "men and women are the same" when they install urinals in the ladies' bathroom.

I occasionally use urinals. That doesn't mean pretty much anything other than sometimes I don't feel like sitting on a dirty toilet seat (oh, it also implies I have long legs).





DanteFalling added to this post, 8 minutes and 58 seconds later...

I just have one question, really. In the case of infidelity where a woman cheats, why is it that men are always more prone to becoming aggressive towards the Other Man rather than to his significant other, the person who owed him complete fidelity, complete respect, complete love.

I've read so many posts on different websites pertaining to these situations, and the advice the men receive is always along the lines of sabotaging the other guy, beating him up, or any other ugly deed that can be done. Is it just me, or are the only two people in the position of owing their absolute fidelity the two who are in the relationship itself? Therefore, why would a man want to get even with the Other Man? It stinks of possessiveness, of a reaction from having something taken away from you rather than that source of happiness going out of its way to hurt you. It makes it look as though men are in constant competition for women, and their hurt feelings stem more from that loss of a novelty to that novelty betraying them.

I've never understood this. Personally, I think I'd just attempt analyzing the situation but would have a difficult time ever showing interest in the spouse again, sexually or even as a human being. I don't really care much about the "other woman." I'm sure the situation changes if it is your "friend" or relative doing this, but I still don't understand why that would lessen the sense of betrayal by the wife/husband. In my brief experience, the types of male who feel this way are not only possessive but also look down on the woman they're with as if she were a child they enticed with a large candy. Some other man must be responsible for her "straying" because he must have tempted her away. I think this mode of thought comes into play when the male thinks he can't reach the woman intellectually. I've had exes ask my friends what my current boyfriend did for a living, etc. But they never seemed to approach the guy with anything but respect, then again, I try to make an effort to not commit infidelities, so I suppose that's a separate issue.

Females engage in this silly behavior also, and I think it attests to further strange thinking that the woman really isn't connected mentally to her mate. She is on a "level" with other women who are in a pack and establish pecking order amongst themselves instead of a real relationship with the person they're f*cking. Annoying.

[PortInStorm]

This is my problem with "MY wife/husband". Just because a person willingly committed to you doesn't mean you own them, thus cannot mean that someone else screwed with 'your property'.

That commitment was willingly offered and can be retracted at any time (should it be? No. But it can be). "MY wife" implies a sense of control, ownership. if wives and husbands could just get it through their heads that the other is a completely separate person with their own will, wants, and desires, then there should be no rage. There should only be personal decisions of whether to stay with the 'cheater' or go. There would be no cause for retribution to EITHER party. They were both independent individuals who chose to withdraw their commitment, amend that commitment, etc.

[TheLastMohican]

This is my problem with "MY wife/husband". Just because a person willingly committed to you doesn't mean you own them, thus cannot mean that someone else screwed with 'your property'.

Do you also object to referring to family members and friends as "mine" or "yours"? How else would you suggest we distinguish between ours and others'?

[Latro]

This is my problem with "MY wife/husband". Just because a person willingly committed to you doesn't mean you own them, thus cannot mean that someone else screwed with 'your property'.


That commitment was willingly offered and can be retracted at any time (should it be? No. But it can be). "MY wife" implies a sense of control, ownership. if wives and husbands could just get it through their heads that the other is a completely separate person with their own will, wants, and desires, then there should be no rage. There should only be personal decisions of whether to stay with the 'cheater' or go. There would be no cause for retribution to EITHER party. They were both independent individuals who chose to withdraw their commitment, amend that commitment, etc.
I think you may want to complain to a linguist then, because this is how English works. One's family member(s) and spouse(s) are related to oneself by the same linguistic concept (in English at least) as possession of an object. This is just how it worked out. Try a new language if you don't like it I suppose. Perhaps one with no formal concept of possession (and such languages do exist).

[PortInStorm]

TLM: that is the point- there is no "ours" or "others". We are all individuals. We share genes sure. But what about that makes for a more solid connection than say, sharing a workplace, sharing a university etc etc.

There does not need to be any delineation such as this...

And sure, this is how English works now- but it is an ever-changing language, so why not change this? You could also just say "the one who married me", etc. Awkward, but perferrable in my mind.

[Latro]

TLM: that is the point- there is no "ours" or "others". We are all individuals. We share genes sure. But what about that makes for a more solid connection than say, sharing a workplace, sharing a university etc etc.
It doesn't, linguistically. "My co-worker" or "my classmate" are very common constructions. This doesn't even address the fact that the family* is a very prominent sociocultural unit with profound sociocultural effects, and that this is a phenomenon that is observed in virtually every culture.

*Definitions of family admittedly vary quite widely from culture to culture.

And sure, this is how English works now- but it is an ever-changing language, so why not change this? You could also just say "the one who married me", etc. Awkward, but perferrable in my mind.
Yeah, and then you could start arguing that syntax is the wrong way to organize sentences, and we should go back to inflection, like in Latin, the root of >50% of our words (as English speakers). That doesn't mean anyone is going to have any idea what the hell you're saying if you decide to do that. Changing linguistics in appreciable ways is a difficult and complicated task, and one that, in a world of formal grammatical education, you very probably won't be able to achieve.

[PortInStorm]

Honestly, have no background in this stuff, nor interest in arguing about it. Just wanted to point out that for ME (which means you do not have to agree), "MY spouse" smacks of possession. For the record, I usually don't use 'my coworker', 'my schoolmate'- I usually say 'someone I work with', or 'someone from school' etc. because the former would feel too intimate and clingy.

Again, a PERSONAL view. Feel free to use "my ....." as you please.

[acyckowski]

Too late:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I stand corrected. It is now okay for a man to kick a woman's ass if she deserves it. ;)

[Storm]

I stand corrected. It is now okay for a man to kick a woman's ass if she deserves it. ;)

Well, I'd say it's now not OK to kick anybody's ass unless they pose an imminent threat to your physical person or the physical person of your loved ones.

That's just me, though. ;)

Far as I know, it's never really been okay in modern society to assault/kill another, even if they are sleeping with your spouse. You still go to jail. (Albeit for a shorter period of time).

[Macbeth]

Furthermore, if the wife is adulterous and you're smart you don't beat her, you take her to court, keep the kids and the property while she pays you child support.

FAIL

The cheating wife will get the kids and the house and the car and most of your money 99.9% of the time.

A man doesn't resort to violence to prove his point. A boy does.

This is just a silly anti-factual shaming tactic.

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it
with their lives and freedoms."

[Storm]

FAIL

The cheating wife will get the kids and the house and the car and most of your money 99.9% of the time.

Let's see what the real world has to say:

This source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) says that mothers get custody 70% of the time, meaning that 30% of the time they don't. 20% of the time, joint custody is awarded and less than 10% fathers get sole custody. It also says that 1991 statistics show that 40% of the time fathers are given no access to the children. I'd guess it's lower now since fathers are being given increased equality in this area. (I agree that it's probably still skewed in the woman's favor, but I couldn't say if that's a result of sexism or if it's more often than not that the woman really would make the better guardian. If it's due to sexism, that's a shame and should be dealt with).

Here are theUS census bureau statistics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) from March 2008 on children's living arrangements. Granted, we can't tell whether these children are living with one parent due to death, divorce or estrangement, but I still think it's still useful. The table you want to look at is 'C2.' As you can see, although there are far more single mother households than single father, the number is nowhere close to less than .01%. Actually, if you do the ratio it's 1 single father household to every 6.46 single mother household. In other words, 13% of all single parent households are headed by a father.

This is just a silly anti-factual shaming tactic.

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it
with their lives and freedoms."

You are confusing national level enforcement with personal level. Further, I disbelieve this quote. War and violence has probably settled more issues that end up the history books. Wars which are avoided aren't usually written about. Violence doesn't usually settle divorces, sold cars, held trials, or decided what's for dinner. If you physically hurt your cheating spouse or the person they cheated with, what have you "solved?"

[azelismia]

Honestly, have no background in this stuff, nor interest in arguing about it. Just wanted to point out that for ME (which means you do not have to agree), "MY spouse" smacks of possession. For the record, I usually don't use 'my coworker', 'my schoolmate'- I usually say 'someone I work with', or 'someone from school' etc. because the former would feel too intimate and clingy.

Again, a PERSONAL view. Feel free to use "my ....." as you please.



I never assigned that deep of a meaning to the word "my" when refering to others, it means this person has that relationship to me. it doesn't mean possession, just indication of that is where you stand and that is where they stand..

[PortInStorm]

Certainly- I agree that is how most people use the term.