Cheaters: Because Following your Girl Around is So Healthy

[Cassidy Peterson]

Cupcakes HD on youtube

Cassidy Peterson

Chahklet

If you don't have faith then just leave.

I always wonder why people don't do this.

Because more financial and booty options.

Yeah, but if you're only in it for the booty, and your options are "share the booty" or "no booty," why would you freak out about having to share if not sharing means you don't get any?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Hey, quit revealing our secret programs to the general public.

You hush now. talk2hand

[Roih Uvet]

Chahklet

PureCocainePureCocaine

Chahklet

People should be held accountable for cheating.

I guess that's one way to look at it. sweatdrop

Uh...sorry I don't mean by stalking them. I have bad memories of being cheated on. Why the ******** can't people either remain single or break up? It's so ******** stupid to drag another person through that bullshit because of lack of self control. I never had to stalk because it kind of just told on itsef. On the other hand, I was stalked while being completely faithful. So no, I don't approve of stalking. It's stupid. If you don't have faith then just leave.

Infidelity in a monogamous relationship is likely an evolved trait that has different motivations for women and for men. Males do not have the kind of limit on their reproductive output that women do; so men have an evolutionary imperative to sow their oats as much as possible. However, the ostensible guarantee that a male's wife will raise his children exclusively is evolutionarily appealing because it allows him the opportunity to invest heavily, at least into the kids that this woman produces. Hence, ******** your secretary on the side while marrying a maternal woman.

Females, on the other hand, not only have a very real limit on their reproductive output, which means they need a genetically high-quality sire for their children or else their children are unlikely to reproduce, and, therefore, their lineage ends. However, they are incapacitated while pregnant and childrearing, which means that they need to be taken care of, but the best-quality males are unlikely going to be willing to tend to any one female because of his greater sexual opportunity. Hence, marriage (or some similar institution) to a genetically subpar man who will care for her and running off to the genetically superior one when she gets the opportunity to obtain a sperm sample.

This creates an evolutionary imperative for both sexes to cheat for different reasons, but also an evolutionary imperative to catch one's partner; a genetically cuckolded male wastes resources on someone else's genetic material, whereas a provider male who develops an emotional attachment to another female is likely to use his material resources on this other female. Hence, preemptive jealousy and suspicion. Hence why everyone gets upset. Hence Maury shows about who the daddy be, and the subsequent chimping out that comes with this.

That's why people cheat.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Roih Uvet

Chahklet

PureCocainePureCocaine

Chahklet

People should be held accountable for cheating.

I guess that's one way to look at it. sweatdrop

Uh...sorry I don't mean by stalking them. I have bad memories of being cheated on. Why the ******** can't people either remain single or break up? It's so ******** stupid to drag another person through that bullshit because of lack of self control. I never had to stalk because it kind of just told on itsef. On the other hand, I was stalked while being completely faithful. So no, I don't approve of stalking. It's stupid. If you don't have faith then just leave.

Infidelity in a monogamous relationship is likely an evolved trait that has different motivations for women and for men. Males do not have the kind of limit on their reproductive output that women do; so men have an evolutionary imperative to sow their oats as much as possible. However, the ostensible guarantee that a male's wife will raise his children exclusively is evolutionarily appealing because it allows him the opportunity to invest heavily, at least into the kids that this woman produces. Hence, ******** your secretary on the side while marrying a maternal woman.

Females, on the other hand, not only have a very real limit on their reproductive output, which means they need a genetically high-quality sire for their children or else their children are unlikely to reproduce, and, therefore, their lineage ends. However, they are incapacitated while pregnant and childrearing, which means that they need to be taken care of, but the best-quality males are unlikely going to be willing to tend to any one female because of his greater sexual opportunity. Hence, marriage (or some similar institution) to a genetically subpar man who will care for her and running off to the genetically superior one when she gets the opportunity to obtain a sperm sample.

This creates an evolutionary imperative for both sexes to cheat for different reasons, but also an evolutionary imperative to catch one's partner; a genetically cuckolded male wastes resources on someone else's genetic material, whereas a provider male who develops an emotional attachment to another female is likely to use his material resources on this other female. Hence, preemptive jealousy and suspicion. Hence why everyone gets upset. Hence Maury shows about who the daddy be, and the subsequent chimping out that comes with this.

That's why people cheat.

Even assuming that's the case, why do woman cheat?

Also, if the best care takers aren't reproducing, wouldn't that mean men would be working towards a trend of being shittier and shittier caretakers, and thus wouldn't that mean, at some level, that there'd be no men left to be caretakers?

[Roih Uvet]

Suicidesoldier#1

Roih Uvet

Chahklet

PureCocainePureCocaine

Chahklet

People should be held accountable for cheating.

I guess that's one way to look at it. sweatdrop

Uh...sorry I don't mean by stalking them. I have bad memories of being cheated on. Why the ******** can't people either remain single or break up? It's so ******** stupid to drag another person through that bullshit because of lack of self control. I never had to stalk because it kind of just told on itsef. On the other hand, I was stalked while being completely faithful. So no, I don't approve of stalking. It's stupid. If you don't have faith then just leave.

Infidelity in a monogamous relationship is likely an evolved trait that has different motivations for women and for men. Males do not have the kind of limit on their reproductive output that women do; so men have an evolutionary imperative to sow their oats as much as possible. However, the ostensible guarantee that a male's wife will raise his children exclusively is evolutionarily appealing because it allows him the opportunity to invest heavily, at least into the kids that this woman produces. Hence, ******** your secretary on the side while marrying a maternal woman.

Females, on the other hand, not only have a very real limit on their reproductive output, which means they need a genetically high-quality sire for their children or else their children are unlikely to reproduce, and, therefore, their lineage ends. However, they are incapacitated while pregnant and childrearing, which means that they need to be taken care of, but the best-quality males are unlikely going to be willing to tend to any one female because of his greater sexual opportunity. Hence, marriage (or some similar institution) to a genetically subpar man who will care for her and running off to the genetically superior one when she gets the opportunity to obtain a sperm sample.

This creates an evolutionary imperative for both sexes to cheat for different reasons, but also an evolutionary imperative to catch one's partner; a genetically cuckolded male wastes resources on someone else's genetic material, whereas a provider male who develops an emotional attachment to another female is likely to use his material resources on this other female. Hence, preemptive jealousy and suspicion. Hence why everyone gets upset. Hence Maury shows about who the daddy be, and the subsequent chimping out that comes with this.

That's why people cheat.

Even assuming that's the case, why do woman cheat?

Also, if the best care takers aren't reproducing, wouldn't that mean men would be working towards a trend of being shittier and shittier caretakers, and thus wouldn't that mean, at some level, that there'd be no men left to be caretakers?

See the underlined as to why "woman cheat."

I didn't say that the best caretakers aren't reproducing. Your rebuttal makes no sense.

[SirPuzzle]

Glad I don't have a television.

[Chahklet]

Roih Uvet

Chahklet

PureCocainePureCocaine

Chahklet

People should be held accountable for cheating.

I guess that's one way to look at it. sweatdrop

Uh...sorry I don't mean by stalking them. I have bad memories of being cheated on. Why the ******** can't people either remain single or break up? It's so ******** stupid to drag another person through that bullshit because of lack of self control. I never had to stalk because it kind of just told on itsef. On the other hand, I was stalked while being completely faithful. So no, I don't approve of stalking. It's stupid. If you don't have faith then just leave.

Infidelity in a monogamous relationship is likely an evolved trait that has different motivations for women and for men. Males do not have the kind of limit on their reproductive output that women do; so men have an evolutionary imperative to sow their oats as much as possible. However, the ostensible guarantee that a male's wife will raise his children exclusively is evolutionarily appealing because it allows him the opportunity to invest heavily, at least into the kids that this woman produces. Hence, ******** your secretary on the side while marrying a maternal woman.

Females, on the other hand, not only have a very real limit on their reproductive output, which means they need a genetically high-quality sire for their children or else their children are unlikely to reproduce, and, therefore, their lineage ends. However, they are incapacitated while pregnant and childrearing, which means that they need to be taken care of, but the best-quality males are unlikely going to be willing to tend to any one female because of his greater sexual opportunity. Hence, marriage (or some similar institution) to a genetically subpar man who will care for her and running off to the genetically superior one when she gets the opportunity to obtain a sperm sample.

This creates an evolutionary imperative for both sexes to cheat for different reasons, but also an evolutionary imperative to catch one's partner; a genetically cuckolded male wastes resources on someone else's genetic material, whereas a provider male who develops an emotional attachment to another female is likely to use his material resources on this other female. Hence, preemptive jealousy and suspicion. Hence why everyone gets upset. Hence Maury shows about who the daddy be, and the subsequent chimping out that comes with this.

That's why people cheat.

I think you really went to the extremes to make up an excuse...

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Roih Uvet

Suicidesoldier#1

Roih Uvet

Chahklet

PureCocainePureCocaine

Chahklet

People should be held accountable for cheating.

I guess that's one way to look at it. sweatdrop

Uh...sorry I don't mean by stalking them. I have bad memories of being cheated on. Why the ******** can't people either remain single or break up? It's so ******** stupid to drag another person through that bullshit because of lack of self control. I never had to stalk because it kind of just told on itsef. On the other hand, I was stalked while being completely faithful. So no, I don't approve of stalking. It's stupid. If you don't have faith then just leave.

Infidelity in a monogamous relationship is likely an evolved trait that has different motivations for women and for men. Males do not have the kind of limit on their reproductive output that women do; so men have an evolutionary imperative to sow their oats as much as possible. However, the ostensible guarantee that a male's wife will raise his children exclusively is evolutionarily appealing because it allows him the opportunity to invest heavily, at least into the kids that this woman produces. Hence, ******** your secretary on the side while marrying a maternal woman.

Females, on the other hand, not only have a very real limit on their reproductive output, which means they need a genetically high-quality sire for their children or else their children are unlikely to reproduce, and, therefore, their lineage ends. However, they are incapacitated while pregnant and childrearing, which means that they need to be taken care of, but the best-quality males are unlikely going to be willing to tend to any one female because of his greater sexual opportunity. Hence, marriage (or some similar institution) to a genetically subpar man who will care for her and running off to the genetically superior one when she gets the opportunity to obtain a sperm sample.

This creates an evolutionary imperative for both sexes to cheat for different reasons, but also an evolutionary imperative to catch one's partner; a genetically cuckolded male wastes resources on someone else's genetic material, whereas a provider male who develops an emotional attachment to another female is likely to use his material resources on this other female. Hence, preemptive jealousy and suspicion. Hence why everyone gets upset. Hence Maury shows about who the daddy be, and the subsequent chimping out that comes with this.

That's why people cheat.

Even assuming that's the case, why do woman cheat?

Also, if the best care takers aren't reproducing, wouldn't that mean men would be working towards a trend of being shittier and shittier caretakers, and thus wouldn't that mean, at some level, that there'd be no men left to be caretakers?

See the underlined as to why "woman cheat."

I didn't say that the best caretakers aren't reproducing. Your rebuttal makes no sense.

I'm saying that if woman are inclined to reproduce with the, "genetically superior man", but be taken care of by a superior care taker, then there'd be a lot of people who's children then would be bad caretakers due to the genetics, like virtually all of them eventually. Assuming that's how it works. xp

[Dringdar]

Suicidesoldier#1

I'm saying that if woman are inclined to reproduce with the, "genetically superior man", but be taken care of by a superior care taker, then there'd be a lot of people who's children then would be bad caretakers due to the genetics, like virtually all of them eventually. Assuming that's how it works. xp

Well, genetics provide disease resistance, and other stuff that helps in survival. These are desirable traits which can be passed on through biology and sex. A tall, muscular male with a strong lower jaw, and a healthy glow, would be more appealing to a woman because his offspring would likewise pass on these traits. From an evolutionary perspective, offspring of this male would be stronger.

However, the ability to care for someone is probably more based on upbringing. Anyone can learn to take care of children, and raise a family, if they want to.

Basically, if a guy is getting a lot of sex, he's might not put as much value onto the intimacy of a relationship as a guy who only has had one partner. So, he invests time, energy and resources into that one woman who reciprocates his efforts. In other words, he takes care of her, as opposed to the first guy who beds her, and then walks out.

Hopefully that answers your question. sweatdrop

[PureCocainePureCocaine]

Roih Uvet

Suicidesoldier#1

Roih Uvet

Chahklet

PureCocainePureCocaine

Chahklet

People should be held accountable for cheating.

I guess that's one way to look at it. sweatdrop

Uh...sorry I don't mean by stalking them. I have bad memories of being cheated on. Why the ******** can't people either remain single or break up? It's so ******** stupid to drag another person through that bullshit because of lack of self control. I never had to stalk because it kind of just told on itsef. On the other hand, I was stalked while being completely faithful. So no, I don't approve of stalking. It's stupid. If you don't have faith then just leave.

Infidelity in a monogamous relationship is likely an evolved trait that has different motivations for women and for men. Males do not have the kind of limit on their reproductive output that women do; so men have an evolutionary imperative to sow their oats as much as possible. However, the ostensible guarantee that a male's wife will raise his children exclusively is evolutionarily appealing because it allows him the opportunity to invest heavily, at least into the kids that this woman produces. Hence, ******** your secretary on the side while marrying a maternal woman.

Females, on the other hand, not only have a very real limit on their reproductive output, which means they need a genetically high-quality sire for their children or else their children are unlikely to reproduce, and, therefore, their lineage ends. However, they are incapacitated while pregnant and childrearing, which means that they need to be taken care of, but the best-quality males are unlikely going to be willing to tend to any one female because of his greater sexual opportunity. Hence, marriage (or some similar institution) to a genetically subpar man who will care for her and running off to the genetically superior one when she gets the opportunity to obtain a sperm sample.

This creates an evolutionary imperative for both sexes to cheat for different reasons, but also an evolutionary imperative to catch one's partner; a genetically cuckolded male wastes resources on someone else's genetic material, whereas a provider male who develops an emotional attachment to another female is likely to use his material resources on this other female. Hence, preemptive jealousy and suspicion. Hence why everyone gets upset. Hence Maury shows about who the daddy be, and the subsequent chimping out that comes with this.

That's why people cheat.

Even assuming that's the case, why do woman cheat?

Also, if the best care takers aren't reproducing, wouldn't that mean men would be working towards a trend of being shittier and shittier caretakers, and thus wouldn't that mean, at some level, that there'd be no men left to be caretakers?

See the underlined as to why "woman cheat."

I didn't say that the best caretakers aren't reproducing. Your rebuttal makes no sense.

I dunno, dude, who actually thinks like that? "I need Roy's money but damn, I gotta have Jay's babies." Actually nah that sounds reasonable, save for the fact that nobody enters into an affair with the intention of having a baby.


And that'll teach yah to give them girls all that damn money.

[DarkSohisohi]

PureCocainePureCocaine

We should totally encourage spying on folks, right. I mean, s**t. That isn't gonna make people uncomfortable to watch.

Nah I keep seeing this ******** show on TV where they'll follow your significant other around and see who else they're ******** and put it all on TV.

Y'all are some scandalous ******** America.

We like our reality TV. . . Which is often staged. . . Because reality sucks a**.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Dringdar

Suicidesoldier#1

I'm saying that if woman are inclined to reproduce with the, "genetically superior man", but be taken care of by a superior care taker, then there'd be a lot of people who's children then would be bad caretakers due to the genetics, like virtually all of them eventually. Assuming that's how it works. xp

Well, genetics provide disease resistance, and other stuff that helps in survival. These are desirable traits which can be passed on through biology and sex. A tall, muscular male with a strong lower jaw, and a healthy glow, would be more appealing to a woman because his offspring would likewise pass on these traits. From an evolutionary perspective, offspring of this male would be stronger.

However, the ability to care for someone is probably more based on upbringing. Anyone can learn to take care of children, and raise a family, if they want to.

Basically, if a guy is getting a lot of sex, he's might not put as much value onto the intimacy of a relationship as a guy who only has had one partner. So, he invests time, energy and resources into that one woman who reciprocates his efforts. In other words, he takes care of her, as opposed to the first guy who beds her, and then walks out.

Hopefully that answers your question. sweatdrop

Even assuming that raising a family was easier than sleeping around and that empathy and compassion were primarily learned traits, eventually all you'd get is people who slept around all the time with the "superior genes" rather than the caretakers.

It seems, more like, you know, people are serial monogamists, who have multiple monogamous relationships in their life, and branch out to try to find the one person they want to be with, but don't necessarily, find it. There's transition periods and whatnot, between relationships, deciding on new relationships etc.

[Dringdar]

Suicidesoldier#1

Dringdar

Suicidesoldier#1

I'm saying that if woman are inclined to reproduce with the, "genetically superior man", but be taken care of by a superior care taker, then there'd be a lot of people who's children then would be bad caretakers due to the genetics, like virtually all of them eventually. Assuming that's how it works. xp

Well, genetics provide disease resistance, and other stuff that helps in survival. These are desirable traits which can be passed on through biology and sex. A tall, muscular male with a strong lower jaw, and a healthy glow, would be more appealing to a woman because his offspring would likewise pass on these traits. From an evolutionary perspective, offspring of this male would be stronger.

However, the ability to care for someone is probably more based on upbringing. Anyone can learn to take care of children, and raise a family, if they want to.

Basically, if a guy is getting a lot of sex, he's might not put as much value onto the intimacy of a relationship as a guy who only has had one partner. So, he invests time, energy and resources into that one woman who reciprocates his efforts. In other words, he takes care of her, as opposed to the first guy who beds her, and then walks out.

Hopefully that answers your question. sweatdrop

Even assuming that raising a family was easier than sleeping around and that empathy and compassion were primarily learned traits, eventually all you'd get is people who slept around all the time with the "superior genes" rather than the caretakers.

It seems, more like, you know, people are serial monogamists, who have multiple monogamous relationships in their life, and branch out to try to find the one person they want to be with, but don't necessarily, find it. There's transition periods and whatnot, between relationships, deciding on new relationships etc.

I'm of the opinion that humans are just one of those species that weren't intended to mate for life. Most animals don't. I don't think apes do. Its plenty easy to justify why our instincts call for us to sleep around. It'd be nice if we could just do it without anyone getting on our case about it.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Dringdar

Suicidesoldier#1

Dringdar

Suicidesoldier#1

I'm saying that if woman are inclined to reproduce with the, "genetically superior man", but be taken care of by a superior care taker, then there'd be a lot of people who's children then would be bad caretakers due to the genetics, like virtually all of them eventually. Assuming that's how it works. xp

Well, genetics provide disease resistance, and other stuff that helps in survival. These are desirable traits which can be passed on through biology and sex. A tall, muscular male with a strong lower jaw, and a healthy glow, would be more appealing to a woman because his offspring would likewise pass on these traits. From an evolutionary perspective, offspring of this male would be stronger.

However, the ability to care for someone is probably more based on upbringing. Anyone can learn to take care of children, and raise a family, if they want to.

Basically, if a guy is getting a lot of sex, he's might not put as much value onto the intimacy of a relationship as a guy who only has had one partner. So, he invests time, energy and resources into that one woman who reciprocates his efforts. In other words, he takes care of her, as opposed to the first guy who beds her, and then walks out.

Hopefully that answers your question. sweatdrop

Even assuming that raising a family was easier than sleeping around and that empathy and compassion were primarily learned traits, eventually all you'd get is people who slept around all the time with the "superior genes" rather than the caretakers.

It seems, more like, you know, people are serial monogamists, who have multiple monogamous relationships in their life, and branch out to try to find the one person they want to be with, but don't necessarily, find it. There's transition periods and whatnot, between relationships, deciding on new relationships etc.

I'm of the opinion that humans are just one of those species that weren't intended to mate for life. Most animals don't. I don't think apes do. Its plenty easy to justify why our instincts call for us to sleep around. It'd be nice if we could just do it without anyone getting on our case about it.

It's hard to determine exactly, especially with recent views and evidence on the subject, but most likely humans have more or less been in monogamous relationships for millions of years [1][2]. Humans have incredibly long upbringing times, like, it takes months to learn how to walk, when most creatures are born knowing how to do it. We rely predominately on our "higher thoughts" and cerebral cortex than we do on instinct, so most of what we do, from language to even walking, is learned. Without lots of care from our parents, we don't just have no chance of survival, we are basically dead until at least the age of four, and even then, asking a 4 year old to hunt and scavenge, especially with all we're allergic to or can't eat (can't eat raw meat, can't eat grass, can't eat most forms of bacteria in nature), is asking for more than what is realistically capable of them.

That more or less necessitates a stable family life, lots of investment into the family. But the pay off of course is the most inventive minds on the planet, and more importantly that we share this information.


Unlike, say, deer, who barely seem to notice when they're pregnant, or even giving birth, and live as a herd, with little higher thought other than "eat, eat, move and eat", are walking and eating within just a few hours of being born, humans, while they live communally, don't really live in herds so much as they do tribes. Nuclear families, mothers, father, grandfathers etc. If you don't raise your children up, their chance of success, with a single mother who can barely take care of herself during pregnancy, and take care of multiple children as it is, their chances of doing well are going to be pretty low. Hence, monogamy is an aspect involving raising children, and the best raisers passed those things don. Humans identify faces easily, can communicate and share easily because this is what leads to a successful society. We get upset because it's the opposite; we don't murder because that means eliminating more of your tribe, people whom you depend on. From a utilitarian perspective, if you kill say, your farmer, you starve to death when you can't get food. If you steal food, you either hurt you farmer sufficiently to where he starves to death, and you, not being a primary producer, do as well. There will always be those who do it, but, it's a far less efficient system. If we just killed each other, slept around all the time, there'd be none of us left. It is really is ingrained into our instincts not to want to hurt each other and whatnot.

It pretty much is human nature to raise your kids up, among lots of other things. However, nothing against people who don't. Pants aren't from nature, my iphone, I don't really care. But, nature is not a justification nor the premise for it. xp


These days, we don't really need monogamy to raise kids, since we live in abundance and surplus, and we can depend on siblings and family or friends to help, even the government, I.E. society in some cases. So there may be trend away from it simply because it's no longer necessary.

Humans seem to have a tendency to monogamous relationships and dislike cheating and what have you. My advice is to be upfront about it, maybe not rude or weird of anything, just say you're dating a lot of people and you enjoy it, don't know what your plans are on the future of a relationship. Seems easy enough.