feeling like he cheated on me

[prettylady]

Please Nina don't start an affair.
It is harder then ending the relationship with your husband.
The sneeking around will kill you. Take it from someone who was there. I am not proud of myself, but I liked this guy. He said his marrige was over I believed him. It took awhile for him to leave his wife and in the mean time we were stressed out all the time.
Lots of tears, doubt, shame, and way too much stress.
If this guy is so great he will wait. If you are so sure you want a divorce don't wait.
You need to take care of you NOW.
I hope you make the decision that is right for you.
Your friend,
Prettylady

[Lumina]

Originally Posted by simplynina

i know i should get a divorce before i start meeting other people. but, i am a little afraid of my husband and i don't know how to tell him.

If you're afraid how he'd react to your wanting a divorce, do you really want to find out how he'll react to your having an affair? If you need help getting out, then get it. Don't cheat and put yourself in more danger.

Getting the divorce will be hard at first, but eventually you'll likely find yourself feeling as free as a bird. Cheating will be easy at first, but eventually you'll wind up feeling trapped. Delay that gratification, girl. You'll thank yourself for it.

[sexcupid]

Originally Posted by Annaiis

Here's a suggestion which might be off the wall, but just might work, because in my experience the path you're going down is VERY LIKELY going to end with the end of your relationship ... If what he's doing is about being bad and having two women fighting over him, WHAT IF YOU TURNED OFF THE FUEL FOR THE FIRE BY SAYING "GO AHEAD HAVE YOUR FUN WITH HER"? Give him "permission" to have his affair! Stop fighting about it - join him in being "bad"!! - tell him that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and you now consider yourself free to have whatever outside relationships you want and you don't consider it his right to agree to it or even be told the truth about it.

At the worst, you'll split up, but I think he'll realize how BIG the risk to his relationship with you is in doing the "ok, so we can both cheat" thing, and it'll open his mind to coming to a mutually acceptable set of rules.

Totally in agreeance here. During conversations with some of the guys I used to work with, and the vast majority of them were married, basically their thoughts were I would leave my wife if she even thought about doing half of the stuff I have done to her.

Most men are NOT equal opportunists when it comes to having an "open" relationship. The two of you had guidelines set forth that were acceptable to both of you, now he is obviously WAYYYYY out of bounds.

Sorry I don't really have anything new to add to what the other posters are saying. However I do agree, if it's good for him then make him aware that you will also be finding other male "friends" to associate with. Maybe that will snap him out of the state of denial he seems so firmly planted in.

Good luck,
Maria

***edit: sorry I'm an idiot and jumped in on this thread a little too late****

[RaysWays]

OK, I guess I'll be devil's advocate. Understand I'm not taking a position, just making some counterpoint for discussion.

First, let's state the obvious - there is more going on than his friendship with this woman. There is stuff buried in the marriage, likely more stuff between her and him that you (Nina) know about.
But what is there between the two of you that you haven't mentioned, or are perhaps even unconscious of? What would he say privately to a close male friend about what is wrong? A very common issue here, mb yours mb not, is for women to be using sex to manipulate men (OMG!!!). Sex is a right of marriage, not bait for the woman to use to make the man obedient. Note culture, religion: Commandment against adultery is tougher on men, who are not monogamous by nature. It is very common for women to hold out or to play control games with sex inside of marriage. And outside, come to think of it... Where is the corresponding commandment Thou Shalt Not Hold Out? So men sometimes feel like 'outside' sex is the only way to have it without having being played.

The chorus of condemnation that descends on a male cheater rather comes from the attitude that male sexuality is trash and that men are horny cheating rats. Endorse male sexuality as natural, understand that men are not monogamous by nature -- and you'll see how vulnerable men are sexually. The CEO of Boeing recently lost his job over an office affair. This is not an idiot male who can't control himself - he would never be where he was without being very smart, competitive and disciplined. He is VULNERABLE, as are all men. So now look at any wandering male and see it as he very often does -- he may well feel that the only way to keep his family (esp when there are kids involved) are: abstain; have a difficult, unsatisfactory sex life in your marriage that opens you to manipulation (vulnerability!), or find a FB or lover for that part of your life. And to the woman's hurt over intimacy breached -- well, in the scenario above, she is the one who chose power over intimacy in sexual matters.
So, Nina, I don't presume at all that these are your issues, though they are very common. BUT... do look carefully and honestly (OUCH!!) at your own marriage and ask how you contribute(d) to what is happening.

Food for thought. Broccoli maybe, but food.

[ShellyM]

Originally Posted by simplynina

funny you should say all that. i am so seriously thinking of divorce. i don't even know why i was even trying to make it work. and he still isn't talking to her, i checked his phone bill, but i actually met someone else and he and i have been talking for about 2 weeks now and he has already made me feel more special than my husband ever has. i know i should get a divorce before i start meeting other people. but, i am a little afraid of my husband and i don't know how to tell him. but it feels a little good too, to do to him what he done to me. <EG> and the new guy knows that i'm married, so i am not lying to him.

Hey girl, I hope things turn out for you. I know that this new guy makes you feel like a woman again. He gives you attention, and makes you feel alive and sexual again. Hey, he may very well be the one. BUT you are still a married woman, and that is a plain fact. If you fear your husband that alone tells me personally that there is a problem. You should never feel fear of your husband, even with something like this. Do you have family that can help you? Now is the time to find your support group. NOW, I am not a counselor, and I am not telling you what you should do. You have to make that decision, and only you. BUT if you decide that divorce is what you need for yourself than you need to do it. Don't sit there for years stagnant wanting to do something. I can only give you my opinion, for what it is worth, because I am not a trained psychologist or counselor. But if he is still talking to this woman I can tell you that he really doesn't give a shit if you leave or not. I mean, you have expressly told him you don't like it. Then he calls on his phone, and he has to know you are going to check the bills! So, he is at the point where he doesn't care if you know or not. He flaunts her in your face as to say "what are you going to do about it"....if he is doing this with her it makes me wonder who else he is doing it with. Its a horrible situation, and I feel bad for you. But women do survive this sort of thing, and when they come through they are stronger for it. As far as the other guy goes........you have to be extremely cautious during this time girl. You are very, very vulnerable emotionally right now. And there are men out there who can tell women who are vulnerable. You need to proceed with extreme caution. My advice to my friend when she divorced was this: do NOT enter into a relationship right off of the bat, because emotionally you are looking for anyone to shelter you from the storm. You need to spend some time by yourself, and find yourself. You need to learn who you are and what you want, and then can proceed into a relationship from there.
Well girl, sorry that this is so long. Best of luck to you.

[EvilMJ]

Sorry Raysways but I don't buy into any of that.

I know LOTS of men who are happily married, feel no need to cheat and treat their wives with love and respect. The whole idea that men find it harder to be monogamous by nature is utter crap and to me a cop out. There are lots of cheating women out there, what's their excuse? I don't think it is a flaw of their nature, I think it is a flaw of their personality. If they don't feel they can commit to a realtionship such as marriage then they should never get married.

This goes the same with women as well, if a poster came to the board with a story in reverse of this one then the advice would be the same. This is not man bashing fest here, it is the condemming of a CHEATER ..male or female. I don't care how vulnerable the man is, there are very very few situations where I honestly feel sorry for him (or her the case may be). If you are that unhappy that you have to find that intimacy or sex outside the marriage, then leave the marriage. If you have children then staying for them is not helping either. Kids are very intuitive when it comes to their parents and their relationships, they are going to know when their parents are not happy together. (but that is a whole other subject)

Sure there are women who use sex as a tool for manipulation and ultimately I think they do suffer for it, as does their marriage.

I can appreciate what you are doing, throwing out some other scenario's or points of view here, so I am not doing this as a flame to you, just debating your points.
In this case we are dealing with a man who is cheating on and lying to his wife. Personally I feel there is no reason for her to continue in this relationship, she can't trust or respect him anymore, he doesn't love her (if he did there would be no cheating). Why continue?

Sure divorce is hard and painful, but continuing on like this would be worse.

[ShellyM]

Originally Posted by RaysWays

do look carefully and honestly (OUCH!!) at your own marriage and ask how you contribute(d) to what is happening.

I can agree with this, but only to a point. Of course, in every marriage there are 2 people. I admit it, I'm not an easy person to live with alot of the time, and Jay should be given a medal (don't tell him I said that though lol). BUT, I don't think that when the husband (or wife) is cheating on their spouse people should say that somehow perhaps she (or he) contributed to it in some way! Come on, that is ridiculous. Now, we are all supposed to be adults. And adults should be able to take responsibility for their own actions, and not push blame onto someone else. Her husband is cheating. He may not physically be screwing this woman, although I think if he isn't they are building up to that point. NOW, I'm not leaving that other woman out of the blame either. Nothing bothers me more than when a single person barges into a marriage and just disregards everything but their own wants and cares. Man, what happened to respect? Now, I'm not talking about swingers, because swingers are not cheating....everything is consentual and in the open. I'm talking about this situation. In my personal opinion the marriage is in deep, deep trouble. I don't know them, so I won't say any more about it. But I hate nothing more than to hear "if she were taking care of her man right maybe he wouldn't have to cheat"....I went OFF on my best friend when she said that to me. I think its a cop out, and crap. He is cheating, and Nina, you don't take the blame girl....and he and she will probably try and push it off on you. Make you feel like you somehow caused them to do this. Bologna.

[She_n_Jaybee]

Originally Posted by simplynina

funny you should say all that. i am so seriously thinking of divorce. i don't even know why i was even trying to make it work. and he still isn't talking to her, i checked his phone bill, but i actually met someone else and he and i have been talking for about 2 weeks now and he has already made me feel more special than my husband ever has. i know i should get a divorce before i start meeting other people. but, i am a little afraid of my husband and i don't know how to tell him. but it feels a little good too, to do to him what he done to me. <EG> and the new guy knows that i'm married, so i am not lying to him.

You're putting out the fire with gasoline Nina. If a divorce is the solution, deal with that first. Of course this new man has already made you feel more special than you husband ever has. Chances are that's his only goal. Well, technically his only goal is to get laid. He can say and do all those wonderful things because he doesn't have to pay the piper. Sure there's a chance he's Mr. Perfect that showed up just when you're in need. The knight in shining armor rescuing you from your husband the dragon. And a 3-legged mule may win the Kentucky Derby next year. The world is full of men looking for that woman in distress, because she's emotionally vulnerable (I spent a few years as one of those men). They can't understand how any man could think of cheating on someone like you. They can't believe any man wouldn't do anything in his power to make you happy. They just wish their (wife, girlfriend, ex, whatever) had been half the woman that you are. They are incredibly romantic and aren't really that interested in sex. They'd give it all up just to hold you close and make you feel loved. Does any of this sound familiar? Did you "meet" this man over the internet? If so, how many other women has he made feel more special? Once he's achieved his goal (gotten laid and destroyed your marriage) how much longer will he stick around? Another point to consider, if this new man is so fantastic why isn't he completely swamped with women? The "A good man is hard to find" saying has a lot of truth to it. Women tend to be very good shoppers. Somebody would have him under lock and key by now.

Sadly, I'll be shocked if you believe all of the above. I'll be even more surprised if you take this advice: Deal with your marriage problems first. If the proper solution is divorce, then get a divorce. Not with hate and screaming, but as two adults, understanding your lives will both be better spent going different directions. Give yourself time to be comfortably single. Believe that positive attention from a man is his way of saying "Will you fuck me?", and have sex with the ones you want. Not based on their bullshit, but purely on the physical attraction. Learn that you can get sex anytime, anywhere from almost anyone. Then you are ready to start looking for your true Mr. Right. The man who makes you feel special because to him you are special, completely uninfluenced by sex. The man who meets all your needs because you are his world. The way you are heading you're going to spend a lot of time just meeting other men's needs and you'll never find the true happiness I think we all deserve.

Damn, I sound like an ad for E-Hominy

[Lumina]

Originally Posted by She_n_Jaybee

Of course this new man has already made you feel more special than you husband ever has. Chances are that's his only goal. Well, technically his only goal is to get laid. He can say and do all those wonderful things because he doesn't have to pay the piper.

Excellent point.

[RaysWays]

Hmmm.. I was wondering what responses this would bring. Is there interest in a new thread on male v. female - how they view relationships differently?

Believe what you will; I say men are not monogamous by nature. They may choose to be so for a particular relationship, and I'm neither excusing or endorsing cheating by men or by women. But monogamy is a choice - males are programmed to inseminate females, and the commonest male fantasy is access to multiple females.

As far as Nina's situation, realizing this, if it describes hub, may actually reduce the discomfort she feels a little. My suggestion was that she start with a realistic assessment of what is going on. WHY is this going on outside? Why did it/does it continue after you made it clear you were not ok with it? Do you play a part in it? What?
You can't control what your partner does. It is his/her choice to comply or not with your wants. And if 'not', as seems to be the case here, what you CAN control is your own part in it, whatever that is - so seeing it is empowering, even when it is unflattering. If your only contribution is being 'co-dependent' by letting it continue, then your choice is to decide to live with it or not (assuming he doesn't comply with your wishes). Deciding not to 'live with it' can mean leaving or it can mean working on the marriage together.

Or, if, for example, there is a power struggle of some kind (I'm not saying there is, just finding an example), where sex and intimacy are damaged, you can choose to work on ending that if you think it will reduce the other problems. Understand -- I'm not accusing. I'm just pointing out the things you CAN control rather than focusing on him, who you can't. So-- see your power and use it effectively (and fairly). Also be realistic - perfect marriages don't exist outside of fairy tales. They involve give and take, agreements and disagreements, tolerance, growth, and learning ten gazillion times that you and spouse will often see the same thing totally differently, and honest proactive communication is the only thing that will close that gap. Some gaps are simply too big (like the importance of the World Series), so expect it and figure it's a 'give' rather than a 'take'. In real life, the kind of absolutism that EvilMJ espouses isn't useful or realistic. With some years, scars and calluses, you learn that there is more to compromise than the ones you make with your spouse - real life will never live up to your ideals, and you have to compromise with yourself as well.

Bottom line: look at what you can change, and if you can't tolerate his behavior, change something. Don't sit and stew about how he 'should' behave - it gets YOU nowhere and wastes your emotional resources. And be realistic about whether the consequences are preferable to the problems.

[RaysWays]

Well, technically his only goal is to get laid. SO?
The world is full of men looking for that woman in distress, because she's emotionally vulnerable (I spent a few years as one of those men).
AND MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, THIS IS WHAT SOME LESS THAN HONEST MALES DO BECAUSE WOMEN HOLD OUT TO CONTROL MEN. BOTH HE AND SHE ARE BEING EXPLOITATIVE. ONLY ONE OF THEM GETS CONDEMNATION.
Once he's achieved his goal (gotten laid and destroyed your marriage) how much longer will he stick around?
NOT LONG IF THAT IS REALLY HIS GOAL... BUT IT ISN'T, USUALLY - IT IS SEX. WHEN HER EXPECTATIONS FROM THOSE 'PROMISES' START TO APPEAR - THAT IS WHEN HE MOVES ON.

Women tend to be very good shoppers. Somebody would have him under lock and key by now.
READ THE FOREGOING CAREFULLY AND SEE IF YOU CAN FIND THE CONTEMPT FOR MALES, EVEN FROM A MALE.

Believe that positive attention from a man is his way of saying "Will you fuck me?", and have sex with the ones you want.
Not based on their bullshit, but purely on the physical attraction. Learn that you can get sex anytime, anywhere from almost anyone.

SO MR CREEP HAS TO BREAK HEARTS TO GET ANY, BUT SHE CAN "PICK THE ONES SHE WANTS" - "ANYTIME, ANYWHERE FROM ALMOST ANYONE".

DOES ANYONE SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN HERE? SMALL, LIKE THE GRAND CANYON? BUT REMEMBER - EVILMJ, LIKE MOST WOMEN, 'SELDOM HAS ANY SYMPATHY FOR THE MAN'. YUP - POWER CORRUPTS, BABY.

are special, completely uninfluenced by sex.
OR YOU COULD BE 'SEX-POSITIVE' AND SEE HIS SEXUAL ATTENTION AS A VALIDATION OF YOUR OWN DESIRABILITY. ALSO SEE IT AS A POWERFUL WAY OF SHOWING LOVE -THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT AND SATISFY HIS WANTS. JEEZ... DO YOU REALLY WANT A GUY WITH NO LUST AIMED AT YOU? BOOORING...

OH, YEAH -- I AGREE WITH SHE N JAYBEE, MOSTLY, ABOUT WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. THE ABOVE IS FOR THOUGHT ABOUT A SECOND DOUBLE STANDARD AND ABOUT HOW SCREWY THE ATTITUDES ABOUT MALE SEXUALITY REALLY ARE.
SEPARATE THREAD, ANYONE???

[She_n_Jaybee]

Originally Posted by RaysWays

Well, technically his only goal is to get laid. SO?
The world is full of men looking for that woman in distress, because she's emotionally vulnerable (I spent a few years as one of those men).
AND MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, THIS IS WHAT SOME LESS THAN HONEST MALES DO BECAUSE WOMEN HOLD OUT TO CONTROL MEN. BOTH HE AND SHE ARE BEING EXPLOITATIVE. ONLY ONE OF THEM GETS CONDEMNATION.
Once he's achieved his goal (gotten laid and destroyed your marriage) how much longer will he stick around?
NOT LONG IF THAT IS REALLY HIS GOAL... BUT IT ISN'T, USUALLY - IT IS SEX. WHEN HER EXPECTATIONS FROM THOSE 'PROMISES' START TO APPEAR - THAT IS WHEN HE MOVES ON.

Women tend to be very good shoppers. Somebody would have him under lock and key by now.
READ THE FOREGOING CAREFULLY AND SEE IF YOU CAN FIND THE CONTEMPT FOR MALES, EVEN FROM A MALE.

Believe that positive attention from a man is his way of saying "Will you fuck me?", and have sex with the ones you want.
Not based on their bullshit, but purely on the physical attraction. Learn that you can get sex anytime, anywhere from almost anyone.

SO MR CREEP HAS TO BREAK HEARTS TO GET ANY, BUT SHE CAN "PICK THE ONES SHE WANTS" - "ANYTIME, ANYWHERE FROM ALMOST ANYONE".

DOES ANYONE SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN HERE? SMALL, LIKE THE GRAND CANYON? BUT REMEMBER - EVILMJ, LIKE MOST WOMEN, 'SELDOM HAS ANY SYMPATHY FOR THE MAN'. YUP - POWER CORRUPTS, BABY.

are special, completely uninfluenced by sex.
OR YOU COULD BE 'SEX-POSITIVE' AND SEE HIS SEXUAL ATTENTION AS A VALIDATION OF YOUR OWN DESIRABILITY. ALSO SEE IT AS A POWERFUL WAY OF SHOWING LOVE -THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT AND SATISFY HIS WANTS. JEEZ... DO YOU REALLY WANT A GUY WITH NO LUST AIMED AT YOU? BOOORING...

OH, YEAH -- I AGREE WITH SHE N JAYBEE, MOSTLY, ABOUT WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. THE ABOVE IS FOR THOUGHT ABOUT A SECOND DOUBLE STANDARD AND ABOUT HOW SCREWY THE ATTITUDES ABOUT MALE SEXUALITY REALLY ARE.
SEPARATE THREAD, ANYONE???

First, you can use the Quote tags to differentiate between what I've said and what you have to say. It's much nicer than just typing all CAPS.

Now to get down to business. I don't write one-liners, I write paragraphs (usually incredibly long and boring paragraphs). When you take a partial sentence out, you are presenting my point of view out of context. If we want to do that I can note that since you said

Originally Posted by RaysWays

SCREWY

you relate more to Elmer Fudd than Bugs Bunny, indicating homosexual tendencies. However, that's an extreme example.

I'm unsure of your experience in these matters, so I will relate my own. Since part of my discussion focused on men's behaviour online: I bought my first PC in 1989. In 1990 hooked up a modem and got online. Most of that year was spent messaging, replying to forums on a primitive system (each single modem computer, called the next computer in the network to update on a daily basis. It would take most of a week for a message to cross the US and come back). My chatting days began in 1991, and 1992-1994, I probably averaged 30 hours/week chatting with a few hundred local people (in San Diego), I also met several hundred (mostly at meetings) and had sex with 12-15 women I met online. Several of those womenI sat with while they chatted, and I began to see the differences between the online behaviour of the sexes. In 1993, I expanded my experience to the internet and have been online since that time. I'm now 44 years old and have observed hundreds of hours of chatting from the female perspective (by sitting with them and reading) and thousands of hours from the male perspective.

When it comes to online activity I have confirmed to my own satisfaction two things: 1. I represent myself honestly, and do not intentionally mislead anyone. 2. I am definitely part of a small minority.

Because this has already become so long, I'll actually begin the discussion in another post.

[She_n_Jaybee]

RaysWays, you mentioned that men are not naturally monogamous. On one level I agree. A hunting/gathering society has to continue to grow to prosper. In this primitive precursor to civilization, men have the dangerous job of killing things that don't want to die. With only rocks and clubs as weapons, this means that the outcome was usually in question. The better a man became at this activity, the larger group he could support. That meant more wives which meant more children. Figure high infant mortality, plus the natural dangers, you needed the women to stay almost constantly pregnant. With the men at risk, women should outnumber them.

Now, our primitive man probably wasn't monogamous, at least not by choice. However, unlike most non-monogamous men today, his wives all lived in the same place. They all knew each other and were all part (not necessarily a happy part) of one big family.

Anytime you're ready to live under the conditions which created male-dominant polygamy, you'll have my blessing. Heck, I want to see you explain to a woman how you're going to provide for her by running down an antelope.

Things are different. Women are at least as capable as men at providing the necessities of life in the more civilized portions of the world. The image of man as the sole provider and woman as the homemaker is rapidly disappearing. This means that women can have an equal say on how they live their lives, and who the spend their time with.

My contempt isn't for males, it's for those who chose to flout their ignorance. The world has changed, the slaves have been freed, women have the right to vote, wake up to the world of today. Too many men feel that women should live the same life their grand or great grandmother lived. When that same man is willing to work his ass off outside, in any weather, 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, like them men of that time, then he's being fair. Otherwise, he's someone who has earned my contempt.

Originally Posted by RaysWays

OR YOU COULD BE 'SEX-POSITIVE' AND SEE HIS SEXUAL ATTENTION AS A VALIDATION OF YOUR OWN DESIRABILITY. ALSO SEE IT AS A POWERFUL WAY OF SHOWING LOVE -THAT YOU WILL ACCEPT AND SATISFY HIS WANTS. JEEZ... DO YOU REALLY WANT A GUY WITH NO LUST AIMED AT YOU? BOOORING...

Sex Positive? Sexual Attention as a Validation or your own desirability?? A Powerful way of Showing Love??? I can see we're going to have to start slow here. Sex is a physical act, period. Love is an emotion, the emotional condition where the health, happiness and well-being of another is more important than your own. If you require sexual attention to validate your desirability, you have no self-esteem, i.e. you have no desirability. You are merely a subsitute for your partner's hand. You mention the woman accepting and satisfying the man's wants, what about the woman's desires and needs?

When a man tells lies about himself and misleads a woman about his intentions just to get her to have sex with him, then yes he is a creep. He's scum and worthless in my opinion. If a man is upfront about himself and his intentions, he's just as likely to find women to have sex with. The difference is the women will typically be more attractive and emotionally more stable. They understand that sex is just that, nothing more. Sex and love can exist together, and my own experience says sex with love is much more satisfying than sex without love.

Reverse the roles. A woman that lies to get things, is no better than the man who does the same.

The "screwy attitudes about male sexuality" you mention certainly exist. The problem is, it's men that usually have them.

Originally Posted by RaysWays

OH, YEAH -- I AGREE WITH SHE N JAYBEE, MOSTLY, ABOUT WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. THE ABOVE IS FOR THOUGHT ABOUT A SECOND DOUBLE STANDARD AND ABOUT HOW SCREWY THE ATTITUDES ABOUT MALE SEXUALITY REALLY ARE.

Would a second double standard be a quadruple standard?

Of course there is a double standard. Men and women are different (I've checked), they think differently, and respond differently. Men are typically driven by basic needs, women are more complex. We want food, sex, sleep and things that make lots of noise. Women want to have their taste buds aroused, their passions fulfilled, to feel safe and secure in their dreams and things that satisfy their sense of touch or smell.

I think it boils down to many men being intimidated by a woman who can think for herself.

[Dooode]

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by She_n_Jaybee

RaysWays, you mentioned that men are not naturally monogamous. On one level I agree. A hunting/gathering society has to continue to grow to prosper. In this primitive precursor to civilization, men have the dangerous job of killing things that don't want to die. With only rocks and clubs as weapons, this means that the outcome was usually in question. The better a man became at this activity, the larger group he could support. That meant more wives which meant more children. Figure high infant mortality, plus the natural dangers, you needed the women to stay almost constantly pregnant. With the men at risk, women should outnumber them. Now, our primitive man probably wasn't monogamous, at least not by choice. However, unlike most non-monogamous men today, his wives all lived in the same place. They all knew each other and were all part (not necessarily a happy part) of one big family.

This sounds good but isn’t true. It is believed that neolithic men were in fact far more monogamous than polygamous. The nature of the environment, and society is such that men can’t afford polygamy and it made much more sense to pair bond. Sure polygamy and cuckolding would happen here and there, but the small settlements made even thing like cuckolding easy to discover. Some say that language was perhaps invented originally to gossip so men could keep an eye on their mates by asking their relatives if she was faithful. I don’t quite go that far, but men simply couldn’t afford to be polygamous (how many poor men are polygamous?) as there was no way to accumulate wealth. There is no bonus to being pregnant in the stone age if you don’t have a mate, women do have a say in this, in fact polygamy is more harmful to males than females genetically. After all if you have more than one wife and the sex ratio is 1-1, someone is going without. Male mortality may have been high, but so was female mortality, just think how scary childbirth would have been.

Anytime you're ready to live under the conditions which created male-dominant polygamy, you'll have my blessing. Heck, I want to see you explain to a woman how you're going to provide for her by running down an antelope.

That time would be any civilization including our own, though currently its only a far cry from where it used to be. Roman males were wildly polygamous and female slaves were used mostly for sex. This is why you could get a refund on a slave if she turned out to be pregnant or a non-virgin. This is also why household male slaves were so often freed. They were the Roman males illegitimate sons. Some empires like the Inca even had a legal number of wives per title. In every city the emperor had a harem of 1500 women. This went down to the lowest official. Other men had to do without. In medieval Europe male peasants often did not marry until they were in their late 30's, while the females were sent to work in the lords manner. What do you think they were doing there? It was a harem not unlike any sultan’s only a bit more of an open secret. Bastard children were often at official family events.

Things are different. Women are at least as capable as men at providing the necessities of life in the more civilized portions of the world. The image of man as the sole provider and woman as the homemaker is rapidly disappearing. This means that women can have an equal say on how they live their lives, and who the spend their time with.

But they can’t change their brains. Women are in part homemakers because thats what they are wired for, men break things because thats what we are wired for. Give fraternal twins, one boy one girl, equal toys, and the boys will play with the cars, gun, etc and the girls will play with dolls. Give a girl only male toys, she will treat it as if it were a living creature. Its how we are its how we evolved.

My contempt isn't for males, it's for those who chose to flout their ignorance. The world has changed, the slaves have been freed, women have the right to vote, wake up to the world of today. Too many men feel that women should live the same life their grand or great grandmother lived. When that same man is willing to work his ass off outside, in any weather, 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, like them men of that time, then he's being fair. Otherwise, he's someone who has earned my contempt.

The world has changed, or more fair to say civilization has changed, but WE have not changed. Males still seek out healthy young females for breeding potential (why is young beautiful) while women seek out status and power.

Sex Positive? Sexual Attention as a Validation or your own desirability?? A Powerful way of Showing Love??? I can see we're going to have to start slow here. Sex is a physical act, period. Love is an emotion, the emotional condition where the health, happiness and well-being of another is more important than your own. If you require sexual attention to validate your desirability, you have no self-esteem, i.e. you have no desirability. You are merely a subsitute for your partner's hand. You mention the woman accepting and satisfying the man's wants, what about the woman's desires and needs?

I hate to be agreeing with the guy, but sex appeal is perhaps the universal self-esteem builder. We are wired for it as we are all the children of ‘sexy’ parents. Those who don’t enjoy sex, or don’t worry about sex appeal have less children in the following generations. There is a fine line of course, I know I feel better about my self when I look better, but you need not have to prove it constantly by sexual conquest.

When a man tells lies about himself and misleads a woman about his intentions just to get her to have sex with him, then yes he is a creep. He's scum and worthless in my opinion. If a man is upfront about himself and his intentions, he's just as likely to find women to have sex with.

The creep part is of course true. The second part isn’t. If someone were a low status male, lying will be their only way to appear to have status (and women are more attracted to status, or self confidence if you will), these lies will be found out but briefly he will seem more attractive.

The difference is the women will typically be more attractive and emotionally more stable. They understand that sex is just that, nothing more. Sex and love can exist together, and my own experience says sex with love is much more satisfying than sex without love.

Reverse the roles. A woman that lies to get things, is no better than the man who does the same.

Women can’t lie like a man to get sex. It doesn’t work. Only the most low status male would be attracted to a female based on status. We are not wired for it, this is why you will more often find poor attractive females marrying rich males, than poor attractive males marrying rich women. In fact its been shown that the more successful a woman is the more they expect their men to be successful. So a woman can’t lie with words and get laid. She lies with makeup, surgery, and hair die to look younger. This is what men are really after as a whole.

The "screwy attitudes about male sexuality" you mention certainly exist. The problem is, it's men that usually have them.

Oh women have them too. Most people are unaware of their own innate nature, or use it for an excuse if they are aware. Saying men gain more genetically being a polygamist isn’t an excuse for leaving a string of bastard children across the country.

Of course there is a double standard. Men and women are different (I've checked), they think differently, and respond differently. Men are typically driven by basic needs, women are more complex.

This is you not understanding your nature. Men and women are sexually programmed for the SAME needs which is children in the next generation. We don’t think about it that way but thats why we are programmed as we are, because its worked best. Women are not more complex in needs, they just have different needs for seeing their seed is in the next generation. A man can have a few children a day if he is able, a woman is always limited by biology. As such her needs are different if she is to perform maximally in terms of children than a man.

We want food, sex, sleep and things that make lots of noise. Women want to have their taste buds aroused, their passions fulfilled, to feel safe and secure in their dreams and things that satisfy their sense of touch or smell.

Women are by nature more social, they also have better memories for details. You are being overly romantic here. Men may like fishing and women gardening as a stereotype and there is truth to it, but men also are great artists and chiefs and my wife likes baseball. Men are not basic creatures any more than females are complex ones.

I think it boils down to many men being intimidated by a woman who can think for herself.

Undoubtedly this is true, and I’m not trying to agree with a creep, but evolutionary biology is a field of specialty of mine and you made a few basic assumptions that don’t hold up to study. Men are in fact more polygamist than women, but pair bonding is as big a part of our makeup as polygamy. One reason theorized for why men like young women is that we are looking for a life long breeding partner. Men who liked 40 year old women didn’t leave many decedents so the majority likes younger. Also even in the most polygamist societies, men still had a ‘wife’ who was the head wife. She bore the heirs, she received the bulk of his wealth and she even would pick the junior wives at times. We ARE a monogamous species with opportunistic polygamy. It is estimated that at least 50% of all women cheat on their husbands at some point. Its also been shown that has high as 20% of all children in MODERN society are in fact not their ‘fathers’ child. What works in males for polygamy works for females in cuckoldry. Our genes conspire against us, and while a woman my marry a provider, she will often seek to have an affair with a ‘superior’ male. Of course no one thinks in genetic terms, but she knows what turns her on. Its even been shown that women who have affairs are slightly more likely to bear the child of the one shes having the affair with. Women who have affairs tend to do so at the peek of their fertility cycles and have more frequent orgasms than with their husband. The female orgasm itself is designed to retain sperm. Hell there is even a lot of proof that we are designed to fight the sperm of our genetic rivals in the vaginal canal. Men can’t even stop fighting with each other there

As a couple this applies to swinging, in that we are able to get out our polygamist urges (men are thought to cheat in 70% of marriages) and our wives get out their desire for other men in a positive way rather than the negative method of cheating. Instead of fighting our natural urges we welcome them.

This I think is why so many single men are such idiots in swinging. They are not desirable males, no females who they find attractive will have them, so they turn to swinging as an outlet, unfortunately their flaws follow them and they fail here too.

Finally this is an idea I’m just starting to see but I think I see why the man is the problem in swinging so often in a couple. By problem I mean the man is the unattractive one to the other wife. If women are in fact attracted by status by nature, an average man who is successful will seem very attractive to females, this would be gold digging of course, but its not conscious, its just like saying a guy likes big tits, its what turns them on without really thinking about. While this matters in a mate, it does NOT matter in swinging. So even though the wives husband is special and attractive to her, he is NOT attractive to the other woman who is not worried about his status but his looks (which is all you really get out of an online photo). Personality does mater more to women but that takes a while to discover, and is normally long after the swinging rejection.