Women

Adelina, women have double standards on infidelity

Adelina, your post displays a very common double standard I have seen with regard to infidelity.

If a man cheats on a woman with whom he is in a serious, monogamous relationship, 99% of all women won't ask for details - they simply label him a scum, a dirtbag, POS, etc....

However, if a woman cheats on a man with whom she is in a serious, monogamous relationship, the majority (but not all) of women will quickly ask, as you did, "What did he do to cause her to look elsewhere? He must have been really deficient in being a good significant other" and seek to blame the man and find an excuse for the woman. Women assume that other women who cheat were practically forced to do so by the faults and negative actions and shortcomings of the man.

Why the double standard? Why not agree that being unfaithful can be as awful of a betrayal as anyone can experience, without regard to genders of the cheater and the faithful partner?

While I agree that men tend to cheat more for reasons of physical attractiveness and pleasure, whereas women tend to cheat to feel wanted and gain affection, aren't both situations really ones in which the cheating partner is seeking to feel better about him/her self and is seeking an ego boost? When you look at the basic motivations behind cheating, isn't it really the same for both men and women?

It really bugs me that unfaithfulness and adultry are treated so lightly by television, movies, and Western society in general.** Americans are totally up in arms about the treason and betrayal of John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban (as they should be). Yet most of these same people feel only 20% of the outrage toward a cheating significant other. Why? To me, both sets of betrayals are pretty similar.



**Although I even more strongly condemn the reverse side of the coint, those barbarous African, central and south Asian customs where a woman suspected of infidelity (sometimes even just the totally non-consensual victim of ****) is burned alive or stoned by some mob of raving lunatics, ostensibly for reasons of "honor" or adherence to "religious" beliefs - what a load of total horsesh*t.

 

Re: Stop pointing fingers..

Brett, in our legal world, people that write or say things the way you do are known as "empty drums", lots of noice but unsubstantial noise nevertheless. I actually take offence to your comment because you have labelled me as double standard with my post. Please reread my post and note the following:

1) That post was written SPECIFICALLY to deal with the question posted by Matt and I was referring to the PARTICULAR incident that he was referring to. I was NOT making a GENERAL comment about women having good reasons for infidelity while men don't. Had Matt questioned about why a MALE friend of his dumped the GIRL and still expected to be friends with her, I would have offered the SAME advice!

2) I agree with you (IF YOU HAD BOTHER TO ASK) that infidelity, REGARDLESS of whether it being committed by men OR women should be condemned.

3) Maybe you personally deal with lots of women in your life that has such double standard that you alleged, but like I said to Matt, there's bad apples, and there's good apples. So don't go around grouping me into the same group based on a groundless generalisation and misinterpretation of my post.

4)So next time, I would appreciate it if you CHECK your facts and EVIDENCE before simply making baseless personal comments about other people, and labelling them without knowing where they are coming from.

Adelina

 

No, no. Matt, don't apologize. This is great stuff. A fist fight, and we are only in the 2nd round. I love it.

 

Well, that was a bit interesting and puzzling, to say the least.

Adelina, before I respond, would you like to take the opportunity to re-read my post as well as your response (both a bit more carefully) and perhaps reconsider your position and edit your last message?

 

Re: Adelina, women have double standards on infidelity

Let's break this down of what you've just said "Adelina, YOUR post DISPLAYS a very common double standard..."

Let's open this to the other BF posters..what do you think guys? What is Brett saying? In my humble opinion, I think he's saying that the CONTENT of my post displays a double standard. Given that the CONTENT of my post was written by me, as a reflection and expression of MY opinion, wouldn't that mean that Brett was saying that my views, being a reflection of who I am, is a double standard one?

Remember, people who read your post can only interpret your words literally from what it says. We are not mind readers and are not able to second guess what you truly mean beyond the words that you have put down. So accordingly, my position remains unchanged given all the above.

Also, if you go back to my post to Matt, which you have also quoted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by adelina76


Also, always remember that there's 2 sides to a coin. This girl you're talking about..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that I purposely mentioned "THIS GIRL you're talking about.." making my opinion and comments specifically directed to the particular girl in Matt's example and therefore, it should NOT be interpreted beyond my comment ABOUT THIS GIRL and in this PARTICULAR CONTEXT, or SITUATION. As I have stated previously, it is NOT a GENERAL comment and should not be interpreted as one, the way you have done. If you have wanted to start a general statement of how women cheats as well, then you SHOULD NOT have quoted my post and use it as a basis for your generalisation, because you then also group me in your generalisation, or at least by that generalisation, you have impliedly projected me as being part of that generalisation.

If there's any misinterpretation on my part of your intention through yourr post Brett, then I simply believe that it is due to the way you worded your post and not with the way I interpret it as like I said, people can only interpret from what you write down literally.

Enough said.

Adelina

 

Some poorly written hypocrisy

Ok, I asked you politely if you wanted to rethink your post, implying that there were more rational thoughts that you could have stated instead, but you chose not to. I will therefore respond.

I am at a complete loss to understand your written and emotional responses in all parts of your post, except your point number two. They simply make no sense when viewed in light of the context of this thread, your original post that I criticized, and the words of my post.

 

*looks at Brett pitifully*

The only thing I want to clarify from reading you post is that when I said "in the legal world" i.e, in the world of solicitors, lawyers..that's what I meant. Again, just like how if you bothered to "ENQUIRE" before you huff and puff about what you KNOW NOTHING about, then you would not have made silly and unsubstantial comments.

In regard to the rest of your post, you simply strenghten my belief that you are really, just a loud empty drum. Since you added nothing constructive to your last post other than nonsensical babbling with its content worth less than that of a load of absolute rubbish, your recent post simply is undeserving of a dignified reply.

My motive and intention in answering Matt's post is clearly spelled out through out my posts on this thread. Anyone that have actually bother to read my posts not only on this thread, but elsewhere would have been able to elucidate that I only have Matt's best interest at heart and that I am not the kind of person to attack others for no reason especially given the fact that I do not know Matt personally.

Only an ignorant and unintelligent person would fail to appreciate my genuine motive since it is as obvious as, say my age in regard to my nickname adelina76.

A

 

Relax Matt, no one is blaming you. We're just glad that u came back.

Since i have been in 'this' type of situation before(read the old badmintoncentral forum), please allow me to make some comments. Yes, some of the argument contents became harder and harder to follow as the debates goes further and further into depth. However, when one starts name calling another person like 'kiwi's throat' and 'Get off your high horse and get down closer to the ground, where there is more oxygen to help you reason better', then that person's logic (if there were any in the first place) and credibility goes out the door in a flash. At this point i don't even have to analyse the validity of each side anymore because it is obvious to me who is logical and whose's not in this case. BTW Brett, using your analogy, i think you are smelling the manure down there on the ground and adelina76 is breathing the oxygenated air.

To summarize, let me bring up my personal quote from the post #2473 on Jan 15, 2001, 12:11pm under the thread "Badly mishandle the situation".

XXX said : "But I see no reason to flame Brett either for speaking out, and eloquently so too.""

I then replied "In my book, speaking eloquently doesn't make that person right".
(PS: i made a typo back then and had replaced the word 'people' with 'person').
As you can see, i'm not a eloquent writer

 

This is all very interesting *scratches beard in thoughtful manner*

 

Poor old Matt! I can just imagine him sitting in front of his computer looking like a stunned mullet wondering what he's started!

 

To Adelina and Brett (mainly Brett):

First of all, I don't know any of you personally so I'm probably not biased
here. After reading your posts in this thread, I have the opinion that
Adelina's responses make perfect sense and are quite clear, especially
the ones that defend against Brett's accusations of her having
"a double standard". As for you Brett, I'm sorry but your posts don't
make any sense at all, and are mainly just repetitions of your
old arguments that didn't make sense in the first place and were
already refuted satisfactorily by Adelina. On top of it, your name-calling
and insults are uncalled for. You are way out-of-line and very unintelligent
in your postings.

Anyway, I hope both of you end this now; after all we're all supposed to
be a community of friends here.

wira

 

Wow. Are we all on the same planet?

In my years of observing people (we are all students of human nature, are we not?), I have come to the realization that virtually no stereotypes are so accurate or applicable that one should judge any groups of people based on that stereotype. Instead, people should judge people as individuals, not as a "typical member" of a group. Treating people based on stereotyping, rather than analysis of each person as an individual, is the basis for prejudice and bigotry.

However, I have also found that there a very, very few stereotypes that are quite accurate across a broad spectrum of the particular group. One of those stereotypes is that women are more sensitive to temperatures, particularly the cold, than men. I don't think I'll get much argument on that one. The second one, that I articulated in my first post on this thread, is that when women learn of a case of infidelity, the overwhelming majority of them make common assumptions. Those assumptions are that if the man cheats, he is a scum and if the woman cheats, the man must be partially to primarily to blame and there must be at least an excuse, if not a justification, for the woman's infidelity. If you are a woman and genuinely do not make these assumptions, then you have my apologies; I will give no apology to Adelina as any claim she may present that she was not making those assumptions was disproved by her post questioning what Matt/his friend might have done wrong, notwithstanding her one assertion that there can be bad seeds of both genders. This generalization I have made about women is not just my own fancy, based on a few personal observations, but is pervasive in Western society in all forms of the media, particularly entertainment. Any of you guys who have flipped through one of your female significant other's women's magazines, such as Cosmo, while waiting for your S.O. to dry her hair and do her makeup, should be able to confirm that infidelity is a common topic in most issues of those magazines and that I have described the typical female assumptions as set forth in those magazines fairly accurately.

Gender differences often become sore topics, but occasionally can involve interesting observations. Adelina certainly did not shy away from participating in these discussions, and was one of the chief proponents of them on this forum. My point was not to condemn her for being a terrible person, but to point out one of these observations on gender differences and show Adelina that she herself was guilty of holding one sort of generalized conclusions. My point was to continue an interesting discussion, not make a personal attack on Adelina. If my only concern here was to start a flame war with Adelina, would I have asked her if she wanted a chance to rethink her statements before I responded? That she took offense so significantly, shows to me that my comments were more poignant than she preferred and made her uncomfortable, not that I "inaccurately" accused her of anything.

I'll now briefly respond to the posts after my third one. As a general note, and this is a statement I've made time and again, before anyone responds in a critical fashion to anyone else's posts, be sure you have bothered to read them carefully and understand what the other poster has said or is trying to say. While Adelina claims that I did not read her posts carefully, I did do so, whereas her responses show she used much less care in responding to my posts. If she is upset that I did not interpret her posts in the correct fashion, I suggest she express herself in writing more clearly; I'm afraid I'm not fluent in hint-speak and can only interpret what she wrote, not what she meant. It is exceedingly ironic that she accuses me of this - I have no possible explanation for why she would do so, since no trace of an explanation appeared in her posts. My writing may not be concise but I do take significant efforts to be sure that it makes sense and is comprehensible to a person of at least average intelligence.

1. Adelina claims her reference to "legal" did indeed mean a reference to the justice system - what does that have to do with anything, let alone this thread? Will your next posts contain references to the medical and financial worlds? Maybe the zoological worlds?

2. In my third post under this thread, I addressed specific points of criticism with Adelina's post and provided explanations for my criticisms. In contrast, Adelina's criticisms (and those of several of the most recent posters) were bald statements of disagreement that spouted negative comments but provided no specific, articulated reasons to explain that criticism. In effect, what these sorts of comments boil down to are the prattle of six year olds on the playground: "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I? I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I? I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?"

3. For those who claim my comments make no sense and are "unintelligent," I suggest that you look inward as to the source of the comprehension problem. Some people like things spelled out for them in simple ten second sound bites. I don't cater to that sort of person, nor do I respect the fact that it seems that the American media (perhaps the media in most countries) does. If a person lacks the intellectual capacity to understand lengthier, more complex but clear statements, then any issue of intelligence lies with that person, not the statements. True, some points can and should best be made by concise statements, but that is not often the case and certainly not the case with the issues in this thread.

At this point, we've all stated basically everthing that can be said on this particular set of threads and I won't take up anymore of Kwun's disk space.

 

I feel for you man.
It took me 4 years to figure em out, kinda. I know I'm generalising a bit, but girls around high school age can be pretty manipulative, as well as wanting a lot of attention, and does that with whatever means. like this smiley :crying:

 

confuuuuuuusing

wow, this discussion about 'women' is pretty amazing, there were some heated arguments and stuffs (i dont bother to read it all tho)
funny, guys think why girls behave like girls, and now im thinking why boys behave like boys, and yea, i am trying to figure boys out too
ehhh, im too confused about boys maybe as confused as some of u about girls, maybe thats why i refuse to have any bf yet

the world is confusing (at least my world is)

cute thread