Are Women More Likely to Cheat During Ovulation?

  • Thread starter Math Is Hard
  • Start date
In summary: I'm laughing that it says the women are more likely to cheat if the other guys are more attractive than their own guy. :rofl: Does it really matter what stage of the cycle you're at to move on to a more attractive guy if the one you're with is not as attractive? If there's something you find less attractive about him in the first place, isn't that a bad sign right from the get-go?...Which would explain why I tripped and fell on the pool boy.327 times. :tongue2: Oh and, you need a taller pool fence.The article does mention that women are more likely to cheat during the fertile
  • #36
DocToxyn said:
With all due respect to my gender, will any of us ever "meet all selection criteria"?
I shouldn't have said "all", what I really meant to refer to is just these two criteria: "1) to acquire attractive genes; and 2) to acquire a good provider." Nevertheless, I suppose that one man (other than Michael Jackson) couldn't have all of the facial features represented in the line drawings previously mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
How about romantic? Why aren't men more romantic?
 
  • #38
Evo said:
How about romantic? Why aren't men more romantic?
Some of us are! o:)
 
  • #39
Astronuc said:
Some of us are! o:)
Yeah, all the married ones.

I want a funny, romantic, nice guy. :frown:
 
  • #40
Evo said:
How about romantic? Why aren't men more romantic?
Since I can only search my own heart I can only speak for myself, but I don't think that women really want to hear the answer to that question.
 
  • #41
Aether said:
Since I can only search my own heart I can only speak for myself, but I don't think that women really want to hear the answer to that question.
What's the answer?
 
  • #42
Evo said:
What's the answer?
First of all (leaving lots of room for personal growth, changes of mood, etc.) we are all who we are, and deserve to be respected (or not) for who we really are. Who do you, Evo, think that men (those who you are referring to here "Why aren't men more romantic?") really are?

I'm not trying to dodge your question, I will answer it if you work with me here.
 
  • #43
Aether said:
First of all (leaving lots of room for personal growth, changes of mood, etc.) we are all who we are, and deserve to be respected (or not) for who we really are. Who do you, Evo, think that men (those who you are referring to here "Why aren't men more romantic?") really are?
Who do I think that men really are? I don't understand the question.
 
  • #44
Evo said:
Who do I think that men really are? I don't understand the question.
Sorry. What do you think is (or may be) the answer to this question "Why aren't men more romantic?", or do you have no clue?
 
  • #45
Aether said:
Sorry. What do you think is (or may be) the answer to this question "Why aren't men more romantic?", or do you have no clue?
I have no clue. Of course, as Astronuc pointed out, some men are.
 
  • #46
Aether said:
Sorry. What do you think is (or may be) the answer to this question "Why aren't men more romantic?", or do you have no clue?
For the sake of argument, let's assume Evo does have a clue. After all she has demonstrated many time that she is bright, intelligent and well informed.

And besides, I'd like to know the answer too! :biggrin:

I think the question was somewhat rhetorical and perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps the question should be "Why aren't more men romantic?",

but let's go with the original question "Why aren't men more romantic?"
 
  • #47
Evo said:
I have no clue. Of course, as Astronuc pointed out, some men are.
Men can be quite romantic, but some of them may want to spread this out thinly over as many women (real or imagined) as possible without hurting anyone, whereas a woman may want a man to "spend" everything on her alone. Even if a man does not actually "act" on this impulse, it may be healthy to be able to acknowledge it.
Evo said:
Astronuc pointed out, some men are.
Of course. Some of this behavior is due to "nature", some of this behavior is due to "culture", and some of this behavior is due to "other" which includes logical decision making.
Astronuc said:
I think the question was somewhat rhetorical and perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
You have probably known her for much longer than I have, but it sounded like a real question to me. Sorry if I took it too seriously. :redface:
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Evo said:
How about romantic? Why aren't men more romantic?
The problem is with the question here. You're assuming there's a single answer that covers all "unromantic" men. I guarrantee that under sodium pentathol interrogation of any "unromantic" man you find you'll get a different honest answer in each case.
 
  • #49
zoobyshoe said:
The problem is with the question here. You're assuming there's a single answer that covers all "unromantic" men. I guarrantee that under sodium pentathol interrogation of any "unromantic" man you find you'll get a different honest answer in each case.
What's the zoobie view on this?
 
  • #50
Evo said:
How about romantic? Why aren't men more romantic?

Gas...?
 
  • #51
Aether said:
What's the zoobie view on this?
I guarrantee you that under sodium pentathol interrogation of any zoobie you pick you'll get a different honest answer.
 
  • #52
Leave it to MIH to find the topic for this thread--it makes me miss GD.

Moonbear said:
I'm laughing that it says the women are more likely to cheat if the other guys are more attractive than their own guy. :smile: Does it really matter what stage of the cycle you're at to move on to a more attractive guy if the one you're with is not as attractive? If there's something you find less attractive about him in the first place, isn't that a bad sign right from the get-go?
In primitive times rugged features were associated with being a good provider. Now we are attracted just for the sex :-p (at that time of the cycle only, of course).

zoobyshoe said:
I guarrantee you that under sodium pentathol interrogation of any zoobie you pick you'll get a different honest answer.
There are more? I thought you were a one-of-a-kind. Well at least a rare breed. :smile:
 
  • #53
Found it. :biggrin:

A recent study conducted by UCLA's Department of Psychiatry
has revealed that the kind of face a woman finds attractive
on a man can differ depending on where she is in her menstrual cycle.

For example: If she is ovulating, she is attracted
to men with rugged and masculine features.

However, if she is menstruating or menopausal,
she tends to be more attracted to a man with scissors
lodged in his temple and a bat jammed up his a$$ while he is on fire.

Further studies are expected.
 
  • #54
Evo said:
How about romantic? Why aren't men more romantic?
Because no matter how hard one tries, one can't be romantic enough! It's written here. (I've done my homework.)
 
  • #55
However, if she is menstruating or menopausal, she tends to be more attracted to a man with scissors lodged in his temple
Ah, OK. :rolleyes: I was trying to get the connection here. I thought it had something to do with 'red', based upon -
Red is romantic, because red is the color of love and passion. Consider roses. Red roses mean, "I love you."
from site link provided by EnumaElish

I imagine lots of red with the scissors lodged in one's temple.

Thanks for the clarification Evo. :rolleyes:

Remind me never to get on your wrong side. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #56
EnumaElish said:
Because no matter how hard one tries, one can't be romantic enough! It's written here. (I've done my homework.)
That's cute. Not completely accurate, but a starting place.
 
  • #57
Astronuc said:
Ah, OK. :rolleyes: I was trying to get the connection here. I thought it had something to do with 'red', based upon -
from site link provided by EnumaElish
I imagine lots of red with the scissors lodged in one's temple.
Thanks for the clarification Evo. :rolleyes:
Remind never to get on your wrong side. :biggrin:
It's true though. :rolleyes:
 
  • #58
Aether said:
Men can be quite romantic, but some of them may want to spread this out thinly over as many women (real or imagined) as possible without hurting anyone, whereas a woman may want a man to "spend" everything on her alone. Even if a man does not actually "act" on this impulse, it may be healthy to be able to acknowledge it.
As in Giacomo Casanova (real or fiction).

Aether said:
Of course. Some of this behavior is due to "nature", some of this behavior is due to "culture", and some of this behavior is due to "other" which includes logical decision making.
Or it is a matter of one being a selfish or self-centered git, as in those who may want to spread this out thinly over as many women as possible without hurting anyone. Usually someone(s) get hurt - as I have seen among friends and acquaintances all too often, and probably without exception.

Aether said:
Sorry if I took it too seriously. :redface:
Actually, there is some seriousness in the question. But you provided part of the answer.

Each individual has to be taken for who they really are. Hopefully, in relationships, especially in relationships involving romance (and hence strong emotion), one is honest and straightforward from the beginning. To be dishonest is to be cruel and disrespectful.
 
  • #59
Evo said:
That's cute. Not completely accurate, but a starting place.

I got a laugh out of Yellow roses mean, "Let's just be friends," which is synonymous with, "You are irritating, and I hate you." :smile: So you do not want to be wrong. Get her red roses, red ribbons, red balloons, red teddy bears, red puppies, and red tickets to the World Series, and . . . . :smile: Or maybe tickets to the Rose Bowl. :smile:
 
  • #60
Evo said:
It's true though. :rolleyes:
What's true, lot's of red or the reason that woman might want to lodge scissors in a man's temple? :rolleyes:

That is a really gruesome thought. However, I imagine a woman with PMS might just feel like wanting to do that some time.
 
  • #61
Astronuc said:
What's true, lot's of red or the reason that woman might want to lodge scissors in a man's temple? :rolleyes:
That is a really gruesome thought. However, I imagine a woman with PMS might just feel like wanting to do that some time.
I was just joking, The first time I saw that, Tsu had e-mailed it to me & MIH and I was NOT expecting anything like that and I just about choked. :biggrin:
 
  • #62
From EnumaElish's romance guide:

The Most Intrinsically Romantic Thing Ever

Based on the data above, the single most romantic thing in the universe can be calculated scientifically. It is, simply, a small red candle made out of chocolate and shaped like a teddy bear holding a heart with scribbles all over it that plays a tune when you wind it up. Toss her one of these at sunset on your way to a frat party, and you'll be able to stay out all night and still strengthen your relationship. :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #63
Evo said:
I was just joking, The first time I saw that, Tsu had e-mailed it to me & MIH and I was NOT expecting anything like that and I just about choked. :biggrin:
I thought so. :rolleyes: But, thanks for the confirmation. Nevertheless, a rather gruesome thought.

As for the Most Intrinsically Romantic Thing Ever :smile: :smile: :smile:

Unfortunately there are those who would actually try that. :rolleyes:
 
  • #64
SOS2008 said:
There are more?
You may be unaware of what a zoobie is. If you have a few minutes you can read the interesting link in my signature and then it ought to be clear. There are many zoobies and many different names for us.
 
  • #65
Astronuc said:
Or it is a matter of one being a selfish or self-centered git, as in those who may want to spread this out thinly over as many women as possible without hurting anyone. Usually someone(s) get hurt - as I have seen among friends and acquaintances all too often, and probably without exception.
I wasn't referring to "those who may want to spread this out thinly" there. What precentage of your friends and acquaintances (best guess) have been hurt by this? How did you form your opinions (e.g., "selfish or self-centered git"), religion, parents, born that way, live and learn?
 
  • #66
DocToxyn said:
With all due respect to my gender, will any of us ever "meet all selection criteria"?
Probably not (but neither would any woman...nobody's perfect). Though, I do suspect meeting the minimum criteria of being the one man that a woman doesn't find more attractive with scissors lodged in his temple while she is PMSing gives quite an advantage in the process of mate selection. :biggrin: I think there's some merit to the "If I haven't killed you within the first month of dating, you're a keeper" approach. :devil:
 
  • #67
Aether said:
I wasn't referring to "those who may want to spread this out thinly" there. What precentage of your friends and acquaintances (best guess) have been hurt by this? How did you form your opinions (e.g., "selfish or self-centered git"), religion, parents, born that way, live and learn?
The original quote I re-phrased.
Aether said:
Men can be quite romantic, but some of them may want to spread this out thinly over as many women (real or imagined) as possible without hurting anyone, whereas a woman may want a man to "spend" everything on her alone.
I don't see how someone doesn't ultimately get hurt. Would someone who spreads himself thin expect to conceal the various relationships? I suppose if one is simply dating many women, perhaps there is limited or lack of expectation.

At some point, a woman in a romantic relationship would likely expect an exclusive relationship (and in many cases the man would also), and that is how we have boyfriend/girlfriend, significant other, fiance, spouse.

As for my friends and acquaintances, probably the majority have had at least one relationship while they were single where the other party lost interest because something better came along. About half of couples I have known are now divorced.

As for my own views, maybe I was born with them, but certainly my parents and religious perspective have had a significant influence. My father is a Methodist minister and my parents are celebrating their 50th year of marriage. My parents probably have the best relationship I have ever seen. My grandparents were married for similarly long periods, and unfortunately, both grandmothers died prematurely for health reasons. I am in my 24th year of marriage.

As I passed through puberty, my parents and I had many discussions about sex and male/female relationships, and that perhaps had the greatest influence on my views. Before puberty (Grade 1-7), I had several girlfriends. After puberty, I took male/female relationships more seriously, and so I was much more reserved with women. At that point, I began to look for a wife.

Also, I did serious religious studies starting from about grade 7 through university, but I studied many religious practices, both eastern and western. I was very interested in the development of self-discipline and personal responsibility, and in the principle of 'reciprocity', which is an important element of any relationship. Also, I am not theistic in the traditional sense, nor am I atheistic.

Perhaps the term "selfish or self-centered git" is too harsh, but I have seen people think more of their own self-interest than that of others, and on that I was reflecting when I chose those words.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
Evo said:
How about romantic? Why aren't men more romantic?
Based on the romance guide, a truly romantic man is impractical and selectively blind; he has style, a strong memory, and no food on his head; he easily gets personal; he can afford time and he can construct mooshy pet names.
 
Last edited:
  • #69
As for pet names
To be romantic, you have to call each other names carefully crafted to make yourself and everyone around you throw up. This romance technique doubles as a passion meter way more accurate than those quarter eating machines in arcades; if you use these pet names and don't throw up, you're genuinely in love.

Here's how to construct your own pet name. Mix up the syllables "pook," "wee," "hon," "oop," and "ums," (never use the syllables "skuzz" or "elch"), rhyme a lot, and make liberal references to baked goods. For example, (WARNING! WARNING! TURN YOUR FACE AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER!), "Sweetie Pumpkin Pookums" is a perfectly acceptable and effective pet name, as are "Moopsie Cutie," "Hunny Wunny Cakes," and, for the extravagant, "Snookie Wookum Weetie Bunny Pie." (It may seem odd to novices that cooked rodents would be romantic, but they are.) For best results, speak these pet names with a big dumb grin, an admiring gaze, and a high-pitched squeal, and follow it up with an exaggerated sigh of dreamy contentment. The most important thing to remember about this is never ever do this in front of me.
:smile: :smile: :smile:

And he even supplies a pet name generator :rolleyes: - http://www.rinkworks.com/namegen/

Use this advice at your own risk / peril. :smile:
 
  • #70
EnumaElish said:
Based on the romance guide, a truly romantic man is impractical and selectively blind; he has style, a strong memory, and no food on his head; he easily gets personal; he can afford time and he can construct mooshy pet names.
No mooshy pet names, I have used terms of endearment such as "snake" & "lizard", that's about as mushy as I can take it.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top