MightyMate
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 2
Hahaha. Good one. Every woman cheated once in her life. Depends if You gonna be 1st one to not be cheaten or the 1st one to be cheaten por just new cheated one.
"She's Out of Your League"
You've said it a hundred times. Maybe a thousand. And every time you say it, you train your brain to freeze the next time she walks into the room.
Leagues are a myth invented by guys who are scared of women.
She's a person. She has bad breath in the morning. She picks songs she can't sing in the shower. She overthinks her own texts.
Walk over. Say something. The league dissolves the second you open your mouth.
do all women cheat?
- Thread starter joekerr31
- Start date
"She's Out of Your League"
You've said it a hundred times. Maybe a thousand. And every time you say it, you train your brain to freeze the next time she walks into the room.
Leagues are a myth invented by guys who are scared of women.
She's a person. She has bad breath in the morning. She picks songs she can't sing in the shower. She overthinks her own texts.
Walk over. Say something. The league dissolves the second you open your mouth.
mikeabundo
New Member
Women like stability. They'll burn the sheets with a Don Juan while keeping an AFC on a leash to pay the bills.
Bhekizwe
Don Juan
Sapphire couldnt have said it any better.
The liklehood of a woman cheating on you is inversely related to her interest level in you. What are the chances of a woman finding another man who can maintain an interest level higher than 97% within her proximity?Very slim.So the challenge is to the guy to be as interesting a person as he can
Royal Elite
Banned
The only difference between Jeffrey Durmer and your grandmother is a single decision. All humans beings have the capicity to commit every evil act under the earth.
The question is WILL all women cheat. If the answer is yes there wouldnt be a word called "slut" because all women would be one.
Bottom Line:
A woman with high morale standards will, while a woman with low morale standards wont.
"You Can't Argue a Woman Into Liking You"
You made your case like a lawyer. Stable job. Good guy. Ready for something real. All true. All irrelevant.
She weighed your points, nodded along, felt nothing — then fell hard for some tattooed bartender with a motorcycle and a gambling problem.
Logic is where attraction goes to die. The "22 Rules" work a level deeper, on the subconscious switches that decide within minutes whether you register as a MAN or as part of the furniture.
Stop presenting evidence. Start flipping switches.
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
Condition and opportunity, condition and opportunity.
Mate selection is a psycho-biological function that our millenias of evolution has hardwired into both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective psyches that we rarely recognize that we're subject to these motivators even when we continually repeat the same behaviors manifested by them. So saying that we're not subject to conditions we're not, or are only vaguely aware of is a bit naive.
It's simple Darwinian logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide it''s offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure it's survival -either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate her own genetics allow her to attract and who can provide long term security for her and their potential offspring. Thus women are the filters of their own reproduction where as men's reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest possible quantity of fertile females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic hosts for his reproduction (she's gotta be hot), but this criteria is certainly less discriminating than that for women (i.e. no ones ugly after 2am). This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; men posess 50 times the amount of testosterone women do and women produce substantially more estrogen and oxytocin than men.
That stated, both of these methodologies conflict in practice. For a woman to best ensure the survival of her young a man must necessarily abandon his method of reproduction. This then sets an imperative for him to pair with a woman who will satisfy his methodology. A male must sacrifice his reproduction schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. With so much genetic potential at stake on his part of the risk, he want's not only to ensure that she is the best possible candidate for breeding with, but also to know that his progeny will benefit form both parents involvement.
One interesting outcome of this psycho-biological dynamic is men's ability to spot their own children in a crowd of other children more quickly and with greater accuity than even their mothers. Studies have shown that men have the ability to more quickly and accurately identify their own children in a room full of kids dressed in the same uniforms than mothers of the child. Again, this stresses the subconscious importance of this genetic trade off.
Social Convention
To counter this subconscious dynamic to their own genetic advantage women initiate social conventions and psychological schemas to better facilitate their own breeding methodologies. This is why women always have the "perogative to change her mind" and the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men's behavior is constrained to a higher standard to "do the right thing" which is invarably to the advantage of a woman. This is why guys who are 'Players' and fathers who abandon mothers and children to pursue their innate reproduction method are villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise are considered heroes for complying with women's genetic imperatives.
This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as LJBF rejections, women's propensity for victimhood (as they've learned that this engenders martyr psychologies for men's breeding schedules) and even marriage itself.
Good Dads vs Good Genes
The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only sexually viable for a short window of time (generally their 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to it's environment (i.e stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.
Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic, so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man has, she must invent and constantly modify social conventions to keep the advantage in her biological favor.
Reproductive Schedules
This paradox then necessitates that women (and by defalut men) must subscribe to short term and long term schdules of mating. Short term schdules facilitate breeding with the Good Genes male, while long term breeding is reserved the Good Dad male. This is convention and the psycho-social schemas that accompany it is precisely why women will marry the Nice Guy, stable, loyal, (preferably) doctor and still fvck the pool boy or the cute surfer she met on spring break. In our genetic past a male with good genes implied an ability to be a good provider, but modern convention has thwarted this so new social and mental schemas were developed for women.
Cheating
For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to 'cheat'. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively. In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in an extramarital or pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That's not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the male provider is capable of supplying.
Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dillema. This form of 'cheating' relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security.
I want to stress again that women do not have some consciously recognized, master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it, rather the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. I fervently believe that for the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to it's influence.
For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she's able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring's survival with the best provisioning partner, this is an evolutionary jackpot.
The Cuckold
On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women's justifications for it. Or they become frustrated by the social pressures to 'do the right thing' and are shamed into martyrdom and committed by feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to stear clear of single mothers, etiher by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for - no matter how involved or uninvolved - another man's successful reproduction efforts with this woman.
The man in this position is (or at the very least interpreted as) a cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as her short term partner in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Gene father's progeny. It could be argued that he may contibute minimally to their wellfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man's genetic material in exchange for limited form of sexuality from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contibutes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology. It is simply not worth his effort to couple with single mother when compared to a woman without children.
Men understand this instinctively, which is exactly why single mothers need to state things like,
in order to preserve there own gentic viability and the viability of every other woman engaging in the same schema. Anything countering this schema is met with violent opposition as it has the potential to limit what is a very complex, but highly successful social dynamic for women in such a position.
Mate selection is a psycho-biological function that our millenias of evolution has hardwired into both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective psyches that we rarely recognize that we're subject to these motivators even when we continually repeat the same behaviors manifested by them. So saying that we're not subject to conditions we're not, or are only vaguely aware of is a bit naive.
It's simple Darwinian logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide it''s offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure it's survival -either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate her own genetics allow her to attract and who can provide long term security for her and their potential offspring. Thus women are the filters of their own reproduction where as men's reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest possible quantity of fertile females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic hosts for his reproduction (she's gotta be hot), but this criteria is certainly less discriminating than that for women (i.e. no ones ugly after 2am). This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; men posess 50 times the amount of testosterone women do and women produce substantially more estrogen and oxytocin than men.
That stated, both of these methodologies conflict in practice. For a woman to best ensure the survival of her young a man must necessarily abandon his method of reproduction. This then sets an imperative for him to pair with a woman who will satisfy his methodology. A male must sacrifice his reproduction schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. With so much genetic potential at stake on his part of the risk, he want's not only to ensure that she is the best possible candidate for breeding with, but also to know that his progeny will benefit form both parents involvement.
One interesting outcome of this psycho-biological dynamic is men's ability to spot their own children in a crowd of other children more quickly and with greater accuity than even their mothers. Studies have shown that men have the ability to more quickly and accurately identify their own children in a room full of kids dressed in the same uniforms than mothers of the child. Again, this stresses the subconscious importance of this genetic trade off.
Social Convention
To counter this subconscious dynamic to their own genetic advantage women initiate social conventions and psychological schemas to better facilitate their own breeding methodologies. This is why women always have the "perogative to change her mind" and the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men's behavior is constrained to a higher standard to "do the right thing" which is invarably to the advantage of a woman. This is why guys who are 'Players' and fathers who abandon mothers and children to pursue their innate reproduction method are villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise are considered heroes for complying with women's genetic imperatives.
This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as LJBF rejections, women's propensity for victimhood (as they've learned that this engenders martyr psychologies for men's breeding schedules) and even marriage itself.
Good Dads vs Good Genes
The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only sexually viable for a short window of time (generally their 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to it's environment (i.e stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.
Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic, so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man has, she must invent and constantly modify social conventions to keep the advantage in her biological favor.
Reproductive Schedules
This paradox then necessitates that women (and by defalut men) must subscribe to short term and long term schdules of mating. Short term schdules facilitate breeding with the Good Genes male, while long term breeding is reserved the Good Dad male. This is convention and the psycho-social schemas that accompany it is precisely why women will marry the Nice Guy, stable, loyal, (preferably) doctor and still fvck the pool boy or the cute surfer she met on spring break. In our genetic past a male with good genes implied an ability to be a good provider, but modern convention has thwarted this so new social and mental schemas were developed for women.
Cheating
For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to 'cheat'. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively. In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in an extramarital or pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That's not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the male provider is capable of supplying.
Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dillema. This form of 'cheating' relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security.
I want to stress again that women do not have some consciously recognized, master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it, rather the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. I fervently believe that for the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to it's influence.
For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she's able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring's survival with the best provisioning partner, this is an evolutionary jackpot.
The Cuckold
On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women's justifications for it. Or they become frustrated by the social pressures to 'do the right thing' and are shamed into martyrdom and committed by feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to stear clear of single mothers, etiher by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for - no matter how involved or uninvolved - another man's successful reproduction efforts with this woman.
The man in this position is (or at the very least interpreted as) a cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as her short term partner in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Gene father's progeny. It could be argued that he may contibute minimally to their wellfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man's genetic material in exchange for limited form of sexuality from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contibutes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology. It is simply not worth his effort to couple with single mother when compared to a woman without children.
Men understand this instinctively, which is exactly why single mothers need to state things like,
in order to preserve there own gentic viability and the viability of every other woman engaging in the same schema. Anything countering this schema is met with violent opposition as it has the potential to limit what is a very complex, but highly successful social dynamic for women in such a position.
MightyMate
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 2
Ive had sex with so many woman that are in LTRs that i dont belive in non cheating ones!
( . )( . )
Banned
Seems 44% of deluded fools here think if hes not laying the pipe properly shes not going to swing to another branch....LOL.
To all you male brain thinkers you seem to have forgotten chicks dont have the luxury of independance you as a man take for granted.
Sorry dudes, chicks wont let go of 1 branch until they have a firm grip on another. Thats just the way it is, accept it and let it go.
To all you male brain thinkers you seem to have forgotten chicks dont have the luxury of independance you as a man take for granted.
Sorry dudes, chicks wont let go of 1 branch until they have a firm grip on another. Thats just the way it is, accept it and let it go.
MightyMate
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 2
In tips section i made a good post about cheating.
"You'll Never Feel READY to Walk Over"
Next Monday you'll feel more confident. After the gym you'll feel more confident. After one more drink you'll feel more confident. After you get a better haircut, a better jacket, a better job.
You've been "getting ready" for two years.
She's standing ten feet away right now. She'll be gone in four minutes. No amount of preparation will manufacture the courage that only comes from moving your feet.
Walk over. Stumble through the first sentence. Let it be clumsy. Let it be imperfect. You will feel more alive in those ten seconds than you have all month.
frivolousz21
Master Don Juan
deleted due to age of poster.
CC
CC
Apologies to Moralists
The term "cheating" is hardly a neutral term. It is already laden with connotations of criminality, fraudulent dealing. An airline attendant explained why she had ended up with 4 boyfriends at one time. Her explanation was that she just hadn't gotten around to breaking up with some of them.
I had a girlfriend who told me that she needed psychological therapy because she had found out her boyfriend had sex with another girl. She herself had a track history of officiously dumping any boyfriend who didn't meet her fanciful suitability criteria.
I suppose my point is, in a high turnover environment it is futile to dwell upon concepts of commitment. Marriage maybe. But that too has become a high turnover environment. Some women have virtually no sex drive. I doubt whether they would be tempted to engage in "illicit sex" but its not because of any virtue.
Unfortunately the saying " a slut is someone who does it with everyone but you" makes sense. Its all plain kindergarten level jealousy.
The term "cheating" is hardly a neutral term. It is already laden with connotations of criminality, fraudulent dealing. An airline attendant explained why she had ended up with 4 boyfriends at one time. Her explanation was that she just hadn't gotten around to breaking up with some of them.
I had a girlfriend who told me that she needed psychological therapy because she had found out her boyfriend had sex with another girl. She herself had a track history of officiously dumping any boyfriend who didn't meet her fanciful suitability criteria.
I suppose my point is, in a high turnover environment it is futile to dwell upon concepts of commitment. Marriage maybe. But that too has become a high turnover environment. Some women have virtually no sex drive. I doubt whether they would be tempted to engage in "illicit sex" but its not because of any virtue.
Unfortunately the saying " a slut is someone who does it with everyone but you" makes sense. Its all plain kindergarten level jealousy.
( . )( . )
Banned
Re: Apologies to Moralists
Excellent post. "Cheating" such a sinistar and negative word but I guess thats exactly how society wants it.
I can't honestly say that 100% do cheat, but I really, truly believe that more women cheat than men.
I've really only been in the "game" again for a couple years, but really only been playing it for the last 6 months or so. This site really, really helped me out and is still.
But I've had at least 6 to 8 married women or LTR's anyway come on to me. I haven't done anything with any of them because I got cheated on in my marriage, so I can't bring myself to do that to another guy. Who knows though...long enough drought, good looking enough chick and I might have to do it.
But thats my 2 cents!!!
I've really only been in the "game" again for a couple years, but really only been playing it for the last 6 months or so. This site really, really helped me out and is still.
But I've had at least 6 to 8 married women or LTR's anyway come on to me. I haven't done anything with any of them because I got cheated on in my marriage, so I can't bring myself to do that to another guy. Who knows though...long enough drought, good looking enough chick and I might have to do it.
But thats my 2 cents!!!
The answer to this question can be proved logically if we assume certain conditions:
1. We are only talking about the "act " itself i.e sex; oral, anal vaginal.
kissing someone else???
etc.
2. We exclude non-physical contact, emailing someone, talking on the phone.
Purely plutonic???
3. We exclude certain disabled individuals:
A. Physically disabled women, someone who is a paraplegic or the like would have the least opprutunity to cheat.
B.Mentally disabled or retarded individuals.
If a severly retarded women kissed someone or had sex with someone outside of their boyfriend or spouse is that cheating?
What about a person with multiple personalities, or someone who is schizophrenic??
Think before you answer!!!
4. We exclude couple's who acknowledge themselves being in an open relationship. If the other partner agree's more power to them!
I've talked about this subject at length with men esp older men and almost all seem to agree that most any women is capable of cheating, but not all.
Also most older men tend to agree that women (nowadays) cheat more than men.
In fact stating that "anything" is always a certain way is absurd.
Finally, the old adage the exception proves the rule is apropos.
Sayno'
1. We are only talking about the "act " itself i.e sex; oral, anal vaginal.
kissing someone else???
etc.
2. We exclude non-physical contact, emailing someone, talking on the phone.
Purely plutonic???
3. We exclude certain disabled individuals:
A. Physically disabled women, someone who is a paraplegic or the like would have the least opprutunity to cheat.
B.Mentally disabled or retarded individuals.
If a severly retarded women kissed someone or had sex with someone outside of their boyfriend or spouse is that cheating?
What about a person with multiple personalities, or someone who is schizophrenic??
Think before you answer!!!
4. We exclude couple's who acknowledge themselves being in an open relationship. If the other partner agree's more power to them!
I've talked about this subject at length with men esp older men and almost all seem to agree that most any women is capable of cheating, but not all.
Also most older men tend to agree that women (nowadays) cheat more than men.
In fact stating that "anything" is always a certain way is absurd.
Finally, the old adage the exception proves the rule is apropos.
Sayno'
"How I Made Sure No Woman Ever Friend-Zoned Me Again"
She calls you when her car breaks down. When she needs help moving. When some guy she's actually dating treats her badly.
You're the listener. The reliable one. The guy who would treat her so much better, if she'd just open her eyes.
She won't. You trained her to see you as the low-effort option — the friend who requires zero risk and zero investment. Every favor dug the hole deeper.
The "22 Rules" break the pattern. You'll stop auditioning for a role she already cast and become the man she chases instead. It starts with Rule 1.
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
Re: Apologies to Moralists
I love a slvt. Nothing wrong with a slvt, so long as she's my slvt.
Brilliant.
I love a slvt. Nothing wrong with a slvt, so long as she's my slvt.
princelydeeds
Master Don Juan
women Cheat for all the same reasons that men cheat. They cheat because they are horny, curious, feeling lonely, feeling unappreciated, vindictive, insecure, egotistical, selfish, want revenge, and I could go on. I know women who have cheated on good looking guys who love them without being a pushover, with sum nerdy pu$$y of a guy. There is no one size fits all scenario as to why women cheat.
Cheating happens for a variety of reasons, some as simple as the opportunity to cheat was there and the right person presented himself. This is anecdotal but i had a one night stand with a chick who at teh time, didn't even know my name. Why did she do it? i think it was because she was horny and i was in the right place at the right time. She sexed me like a ***** for one night but the next day she acted like she didnt know me. Honestly, i think all she wanted was a good screw. I later met her guy and I know for sure he is very good to her. He doesn't seem lame but hey she got horny one night.
Cheating happens for a variety of reasons, some as simple as the opportunity to cheat was there and the right person presented himself. This is anecdotal but i had a one night stand with a chick who at teh time, didn't even know my name. Why did she do it? i think it was because she was horny and i was in the right place at the right time. She sexed me like a ***** for one night but the next day she acted like she didnt know me. Honestly, i think all she wanted was a good screw. I later met her guy and I know for sure he is very good to her. He doesn't seem lame but hey she got horny one night.
Djs want a woman who sleeps with them on the first or second date. When they get it and they end up exclusive, they wonder why she ended up"cheating" on them. We should be looking for women who won't put up with our crap and who won't sleep with us until we have a true commitment in place. But djs don't want a woman like that; they "next" those women. Then they are off to the next attention hor that walks by and bats her eyelashes, and will end up falling for her and her six other men. Djs should tackle the hard road that may mean forgoing sex for quite a while as courting with a true companion takes place..a woman who won't cheat will make you travel that hard road to be with her. They are worth it.
regards
regards
Bonhomme
Master Don Juan
Rarely say "none," "all," "never," or "always"...