Reply
Sun 5 Dec, 2010 01:50 pm
All joking aside, as I know that's what's going to come first. Women like to think when they're at work, their husbands are doing the right thing. Or his business meeting is really a business meeting and not an excuse to have a week from you to see another. Right? Prince charming with good intentions, no lies [or few], wants the best for you, and really has intentions and the drive to be faithful.
But is it really possible? From a men's point of view, or women with experience.
In addition, I've heard men are genetically programmed to leave their 'significant other' every four years, as this made creating/raising children easier in the beginning. I've noticed from others around me that their actions don't exactly prove that wrong. Men are very easily, from what I've seen also, able to get over break ups, fights, and similar things without the need to be pouty, upset, or heart broken. I know this isn't always true and men are not immune to heart break, but when a man says he is faithful, is he really being honest?
For you men who say you're faithful and you've been in a relationship for years, are you being honest or are you only honest most of the time?
I've heard that women have a biological need to reproduce with all men with perceived wealth, is that true?
More of my female friends have cheated than my male friends. Not that men are saints, but I think it's easier for women to find a willing partner. I have no reason to believe after 15 years my husband has strayed and I trust he has not.
@dyslexia,
No; I think wealthy, snobby men are a complete lost cause. Though the majority of women do believe that's high on their priority list.
@Green Witch,
I think it's about equal between the males and females that I know. The willing partner is a good point, but men normally don't have a problem stooping lower for sex from what I've noticed of friends. Afterall, many prositutes are female and not male for a reason I think. That's a whole other barrel of fish, though.
It's good to hear you trust your husband.
@Subliminal0,
All generalities are false.
@Subliminal0,
It's harder for a rich man to be faithful than to get a camel thru a needle
@Pemerson,
Thankfully I don't date the rich.
@Ragman,
Thanks Ragman, but that's not entirely helpful.
Well you wil be shocked to know that majority of man kind remains faithful towards its partners and monogamous.
Reasons? Understanding of togetherness (due to mutual benefits of any kind such as Love, Wealth, Fame, Security) towards partner and social pressure to work the marriage out.
@Subliminal0,
Quote:Is it Possible for a Man to be Faithful?
What a strange question to ask. Have you never known a faithful man?
I would also ask - Faithful to what? There are two parts to this - Faithful to his own internal 'values', and faithful to his partner (who) / what she brings to him (this is the 'what' part).
Once you define 'what' the man is to be faithful to (rather than just who. ie. who + what), you find that certain (or most) conditions of 'what' are will at times be broken or non-existant from the other party...sometimes for years on end.
Personally I think the idea of faithfulness is over emphasised in our society, but it is an endearing concept.
In the end we are responsible for our happiness. This is balanced by our wish to care for the happiness (not take responsibility for) of our 'other half'. This concept plays out in many different forms, depending on the make-up of both parties in the relationship.
Of course a man can to be faithful. It isn't something that just happens. Having sex is a choice. Of course it is possible.
The question should be why a man would want to be faithful. Somehow we have decided that monogamy over 30 or 40 or 50 years is a good idea. No one has ever come up with a good reason that this notion isn't completely ridiculous.
There is another question implicit here. If men are being unfaithful; who are they being unfaithful with? (It seems like there must be some women involved in this story somehow).
@Subliminal0,
Those last 3 replies cover this subject perfectly. My reply was intended as humor. Personally, I deplore generalities - generally speaking. As a faithful man all my life, and the son and brother of a man/men who was/were faithful, I resent such generality. In your profile you state you are 17, so your basis for such a generality is a handful of relationships at best.
I'll skip to the end. OP, get over yourself. Your experience is not representative of the entire species. I'm sorry you and your small circle of friends have had their feelings hurt, but that is hardly license to project your own insecurity upon others. You want to normalize your experience, and I understand that. Don't make a total ass out of yourself by trying to drag others down. Lest you wish to inherit the transgressions of others, don't project.
Get over it. Get over yourself. Move on. Grow up.
You won't care in 5 years let alone 10. If you do, then I suspect we'd find other areas of your life that are also full of people with genetic programming to your disadvantage.
A
R
T
@failures art,
I love how A2K is full of armchair psychologists who want to base their knowledge on a poster by a single post. Claiming I am insecure, that my insecurities stem from friends with bad experiences, that I judge entire genders, that I won't care in 5 years, and that I'm likely upset with genetic programming in other areas. My post told you all that? That's amazing; you should have your own TV show.
I'm not insecure. I've been in a faithful relationship for about 3 1/2 years. I'm not using my friends' relationships as a basis for all male actions and I'm not trying to be sexist. I'm not complaining and I do in fact have faith in the opposite gender. I'm not attacking genetics or choices, either. I was just curious about others' experiences/thoughts. That hardly makes me narcassistic or childish, and that also doesn't mean I'm projectng my insecurities onto other people. I would have to have them first, and I don't. A2K just gets worse every day.
@Ragman,
I understand; no worries. Many generalities tend to be negative so I can see your point. Everyone is an individual. I'm not basing anything that I said on my relationships. I know a person is never done learning and growing, so it would be rather shallow to base anything off my life any time soon. I was just curious on other's opinions about the subject. I wasn't trying to sound insecure or snobby about anything I said. That's just the hearsay that I've heard, and I wanted to know what other's thought. Apparently to people on A2K, asking an even slightly touchy question is a sin and makes me 'into myself.' I wasn't aware of this, but I guess assumptions are nothing new - not directed at you, of course.
@Subliminal0,
I think you are ignoring the original sin here; that the title to this thread could be considered offensive to men. Why don't you start a thread asking if it is possible for a woman to park a car? While a number of men are unfaithful, just a casual glance around should show you a number of men who have remained faithful for decades. Of course the press pays a lot more attention to those who are unfaithful, but looking at the last five Presidents for example, how many do you think remain(ed) faithful. The only one you'd reject would be Clinton. If you toss out a backhanded slap to half of your online community, expect to get some back.
@Subliminal0,
Subliminal0 wrote:
Thankfully I don't date the rich.
Why, what have you got against the rich?
It isn't a given that a rich man cheats, and more than it's a given a poor man won't.
I'm married to a man.
The man I'm married to is faithful.
Ergo, it is possible for a man to be faithful.
Next case.
@engineer,
I didn't mean the question literally, and that seems to be everyone's problem. Most the the A2K members take a question to literal extremes and get upset. Of course I know a man 'can' be faithful, but I was just curious about other's opinions. I hate how every thread turns into a poster explaining themselves instead of having a casual, non-bitchy thread. I just don't understand. If a question is so troublesome to a reader, they can simply not reply to it. A2K is going to have touchy subjects. If a viewer doesn't like it, they shouldn't be on it. I would treat a question about a female the same way I would any male. If women didn't like it, then they didn't. Just the same as if men don't like this question, they don't. I'm not here to walk on egg shells just so I can converse. The men on here don't need to turn this thread into a men's crusade.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace