Posts by feralranger

Joseph Rivera75 said:Thomas Nelson25

Why would a guy act all high and mighty about forgiving a woman he actually loves, especially when she’s reciprocating?
What's even the difference between genders here?
What reason should a cheated-on woman be "happy" to forgive? That she finally has someone to cook dinner for and clean up after?

It isn't merely a matter of my own rather limited observations—as I haven't exactly just landed on Mars—but rather stems from the specific research I previously cited...

To be precise, the study focused on standard jealousy—the kind that serves as a cornerstone for monogamy, as opposed to polyamory—rather than some sort of pathological dysfunction. Each of the five hundred-plus participants was asked to rate the intensity of their jealousy regarding certain scenarios; it was through this rating of jealousy levels that the statistical variance regarding gender and infidelity was established...

...the cohort consisted of 373 women and 153 men, with 369 participants being in a relationship while 157 were single. Their task involved first visualizing an emotional connection they currently hold, once held, or desire to have, and then imagining that their partner became interested in someone of the opposite sex. They were specifically asked to rate their level of jealousy in a scenario of sexual infidelity, described as follows: “Your partner in a serious relationship had sexual intercourse with another person, though you are certain no deep emotional bond was formed.”

As for emotional infidelity, the hypothetical situation was: “Your partner in a serious relationship formed an emotional bond with another person, though you are certain no sexual contact occurred.” The findings indicated that men exhibit greater jealousy toward sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity, whereas women demonstrate higher levels of jealousy regarding emotional betrayal. These disparities align perfectly with evolutionary hypotheses...

Furthermore, it stands to reason that in any study of jealousy, the questions must be framed in relation to a current "partner," rather than some former flame toward whom one feels nothing but indifference; after all, where there is indifference, love has vanished, rendering any discussion of jealousy—including the scenarios provided—entirely moot.

fadedheron said:Ugh... what a question.

When discussing romantic relationships, my definition of cheating includes any interaction with someone else that goes beyond simple friendship.

In practice, I wouldn't even grab coffee with someone if there was mutual attraction while I was already in a relationship or marriage. No texting, no touching, no hugging, no kissing...
I say this from experience; there were opportunities and invitations, and I declined them all.
To me, it’s just common sense.

I always maintained that I would never forgive infidelity. After all, why stay with someone who wants someone else?
However, I changed my stance after my husband cheated on me.
By then, we had been together for 12 years, and our marriage existed in name only.
So, I wasn't surprised, nor did it hurt much.

What actually caught me off guard was how my perspective shifted—that I eventually forgave him and was willing to try and repair the broken bond.

Theory is one thing; experience is quite another.

Theoretically speaking, my response would be this:

It’s because wanting another person doesn't inherently negate their desire for you—provided, of course, that you aren't actually prone to jealousy (assuming you truly aren't, and instead find genuine joy in the expansion of love rather than in conflict or warfare).

However, if you happen to be like most people out there, then it's quite obvious that you are possessive in that regard, making any version of love shared with a third party entirely unacceptable to you.

Thomas Nelson25 said:I mean, it's good to know the different types of love, but honestly, it doesn't really change the topic at hand.

Also, women tend to process cheating differently—they usually find ways to move past it easier.
Men handle it differently, and let's be real, they probably have a harder time getting over it.

Plus, it was female Homo sapiens who actually came up with monogamy, not the males.

According to various studies—which, if I may say so, align perfectly with my own observations—the majority of women exhibit higher levels of jealousy or possessiveness when it comes to emotional betrayal, whereas men are more reactive toward sexual infidelity. Of course, there is significant overlap between the two, naturally, and there are plenty of outliers, which is exactly what one would expect.

Thomas Nelson25 said:At the end of the day, it’s just monogamy versus whatever other ways people love, if those even exist.

Jealousy is just two sides of the same coin.
You being a guy probably means you've got an ego to deal with, too.

Monogamy, when contrasted with polyamory, inherently implies a certain level of jealousy or an exclusivity regarding third parties, which serves as the very bedrock of a monogamous relationship.

It is primarily a characteristic of the erotic sphere rather than philia; consequently, exclusive "monopolies" on friendship are quite rare, though I have observed that some individuals do indeed exhibit jealousy or possessiveness in that realm—for instance, I've noticed certain women becoming visibly agitated when their "best friend" decides to hang out with someone else instead...

Thomas Nelson25 said:Not really, though—people sacrifice themselves for total strangers all the time, let alone for someone they actually love.
So, cheating basically boils down to one of two things: either you lack self-control (being "tempted" isn't an excuse) or there just wasn't any real love there to begin with.

If the person you are dating (truly, mind you, rather than just paying lip service like most people do) wouldn't feel any jealousy—meaning they wouldn't suffer if you were to share an act of affection with someone else—then why would there be any drama at all, and why would we even bother calling it "cheating"?

The same logic applies in reverse.

coastalwalker9 said:It's a hypothetical scenario.
That was my approach, though I noticed some people getting quite defensive and argumentative about it, so I decided it was best to just delete my responses and move on.

When I take a moment to reflect upon myself and the world at large, I find that my own capacity for jealousy is somewhat lower than the average person's, though I have absolutely no desire to rely on tired clichés by claiming I am entirely immune to it—that would be dishonest.

If a relationship operates primarily within the sphere of *philia*, jealousy tends to diminish; however, if the bond is driven more by intense erotic passion, then that sense of exclusivity—and the resulting jealousy regarding third parties—becomes significantly more acute.

Furthermore, according to various psychological studies, there are distinct gendered patterns: men generally exhibit higher levels of jealousy regarding the physical act itself, whereas women tend to lean more toward emotional jealousy, though there is certainly overlap and plenty of outliers to consider.

I find myself once again compelled to address the topic of the day, though I must admit my enthusiasm for such trivialities remains perpetually low. It appears we are back at square one, circling the same drain of discourse that seems to define our collective existence. One might hope for a modicum of intellectual progression, yet here we sit, wading through the same predictable waters. Honestly, if this level of monotony continues, I may have to seek refuge in a particularly dense technical manual just to feel a flicker of stimulation. kaže:
I find myself pondering a rather uncomfortable dilemma today—perhaps it’s just the lack of caffeine, but I simply must ask: would you rather be the one pulling the strings through deception, or would you prefer to be the unsuspecting victim of someone else's machinations?🍿

The question itself is rather poorly constructed; it carries the flawed implication that one might actually desire both simultaneously, whereas the true distinction lies in determining which one we would genuinely prefer.

In any material transaction, there is always a party that suffers a tangible loss.

When we shift our focus to emotional connections, if jealousy—that bitter cocktail of negative emotions—is entirely absent, then there isn't really a "victim" to speak of, which makes the very concept of "infidelity" feel rather nonsensical.

This highlights a fundamental distinction between what we might call *philia* love—which, for most people, lacks that suffocating jealousy or possessiveness, and thus rarely invites terms like "betrayal"—and erotic love, which tends to be inherently jealous and possessive, leading people to reach for heavy labels like "cheating" whenever a third party enters the equation.

...besides, everyone seems to have their own peculiar little definition of what actually constitutes "cheating."

For the vast majority of people, it boils down to those most prone to jealousy and possessiveness, specifically focusing on the physical act itself.

However, if you ask anyone else, the line moves constantly; some individuals—and quite frankly, many of them—would argue that "infidelity" includes things like:

- a kiss (specifically a "French" kiss)
- a simple kiss on the lips without tongue
- dancing that leans a bit too heavily into erotic movement or touch
- texting that delves into deep emotional intimacy...
- and so on (it’s a moving target, really, as different people will list different offenses, and even genders tend to diverge here, since men and women often experience jealousy through slightly different lenses, despite the inevitable overlap)

Ultimately, depending on just how much someone struggles with possessiveness, any one of these actions could swing anywhere from being a "no big deal" moment to a full-blown, relationship-ending drama.

The whole concept of cheating is inextricably linked to the presence of jealousy; frankly, if one isn't prone to jealousy, there is absolutely no reason to resort to such a heavy, dramatic term as 'infidelity.'

When we consider Philia—that platonic, friendly component of love—most people aren't plagued by jealousy, which is why friendships don't demand exclusive monopolies, nor is it labeled a 'betrayal' when someone extends that affection to others. Granted, jealousy can still manifest in those dynamics, though it’s quite rare—occurring perhaps with a small minority of women, and even more seldom among men—specifically regarding a 'best friend' hanging out with someone else...

In stark contrast, when erotic love enters the equation, the vast majority of people become inherently jealous and possessive, clinging to the mindset of "it's only me and you, exclusively." Consequently, if that love is shared with a third party, people reach for harsh labels like 'cheating,' and it is precisely this sense of betrayal and jealousy that ignites the ensuing drama.

Someone who is truly devoid of jealousy and possessiveness wouldn't bother calling such an occurrence a "betrayal" or making a scene over it; instead, they might simply shrug and say it's 'no big deal,' operating under the belief that spreading love is always preferable to sparking conflict or war.

Most individuals will claim they "aren't jealous or possessive," but in roughly 99% of cases, that is merely a hollow platitude—one of those things people toss around because it sounds better, avoiding any deep reflection on the layers beneath their surface. We live in a world dominated by superficiality, where it is entirely expected that people will make such easy, empty declarations.

Unlike the romantic sphere, when dealing with Philia, these statements aren't usually just empty rhetoric, as most people in that realm genuinely lack jealousy, while only a tiny fraction actually experiences it.

ruggedscout76 As follows:
Z’s point was actually about the reaction itself. You don't necessarily have to show up just to see some spider, but you could at least say, "Hey, Mom's making lunch right now, I can't get to the window," instead of just ignoring the situation and letting a child chatter away in the background—because, let's be honest, they're always talking anyway (which is exactly how he perceives me constantly nagging him to get dressed, brush his teeth, or finish his homework).

It is absolutely vital that a child feels heard, simply because that sense of being acknowledged is what paves the way for meaningful communication later in life. If we teach them early on that their frantic cries of "I see a spider!" are trivial and can be brushed aside just because Mom is busy with something else, we are essentially setting a dangerous precedent. Very quickly, this logic will morph into the child believing that "Mark is hitting me during recess" is equally unimportant because Mom has other things to attend to. It’s a slippery slope, really, and one that leads to a very troubling breakdown in trust.

I find myself in complete and utter agreement with that sentiment.

That is a rather compelling argument you've presented, though I must admit, it also holds quite a bit of merit in its own right. To bring someone to their senses, or perhaps more accurately, to drag them kicking and screaming into a state of sudden, jarring awareness—that is the true challenge. The sheer possibility of such a connection is truly something to contemplate.

ruggedscout76 said:To pivot the conversation slightly...

Your post brought to mind a rather eye-opening moment with my little one back when he was about four years old and going through a phase where he seemed entirely indifferent to anything I said. I would ask a question, and there would be silence. I would make a comment, and nothing. It felt as though I were speaking into a void.
I found myself raising my voice and repeating questions a hundred times, until one day I decided that from then on, whenever I asked a question and received no response, I would say "beep"—a little auditory cue to remind him that I was actually addressing him.

So, he would be playing, I would ask something, he would give me nothing, I would say "beep," and then he would answer my question—meaning he had actually heard me, which was a clever little workaround. 🤣 It worked quite beautifully until, naturally, he being a child, started saying "beep" to me. 🐔

While I am busy preparing dinner, he will shout, "Mom, look at this!" or "Mom, look at that!" and anyone who has ever parented knows it is physically impossible to witness everything a child thinks is vital; even all the hours in the world wouldn't be enough. 🕺
Then he says, "beep." I just stare at him, bewildered, and he tells me, "Well, you aren't listening to me."

And truth be told, he was right. 🙂 Regardless of whether it felt particularly urgent to me to notice a tiny spider near the window while my rice was boiling over, it was important to him, and I had ignored him. In the same way, he doesn't view my adult questions as significant, so he ignores them because he is preoccupied with what matters to him: his play.

When I finally realized how many of those "beeps" occurred throughout the day, I was somewhat taken aback. 😲

That whole "beep" phase and game did wonders for our relationship, on both sides. 🕺

Since then, we often engage in similar things—establishing rules or games that apply equally to both of us. I have learned an immense amount from this, and I would venture to say he has learned just as much, if not more.

It is my belief that for a child's healthy development, playing with other children is essential; ideally, during those formative early stages, one would play with siblings, or failing that, with the neighborhood kids.

Pretending that a "Z" moment is tied to something existential—say, the preparation of lunch—is hardly a fair comparison to a "Z" triggered by a tiny spider near the window for an extended period. If a child doesn't learn at home that their "Z" cannot exist on the same plane as an adult's "Z," they will inevitably be forced to learn it in school, where the teacher simply won't be able to accommodate their specific brand of "Z" in the same way. Honestly, educators in the US are constantly complaining about the influx of increasingly undisciplined children who seem fundamentally incapable of grasping the basic dynamics of the adult-child relationship.

I am certainly not making any direct implications regarding you and your child, as what you have shared is merely a fragment taken from a much broader context that remains entirely unknown to me. I am speaking in generalities.

Anthony Martin2 said:Isn't it fascinating? That moment when a child makes a mistake—or finds themselves in a bit of a mess—but refuses to come forward for help because they're simply too overwhelmed by shame or fear of how a parent might react.

If there is genuine fear toward a parent, that is undeniably problematic, as upbringing should never be predicated on fear; however, shame is not inherently a negative thing—after all, the fact that modern society is currently overflowing with shameless fools is hardly a sign of civilizational progress.

To entire list of grievances should be expanded to include the fact that we essentially allow the media to act as the primary "educator" for our children.

We are currently witnessing a pervasive, large-scale decline in collective intelligence. Media moguls aren't even hiding it anymore; they basically argue that they produce and broadcast mindless drivel simply because that’s what generates the most clicks—they claim they are merely giving the public exactly what it craves. We have reached a truly absurd tipping point where the lower the quality, the higher the profit.

Children are being fed this sludge from their earliest years, and frankly, it would be nothing short of a miracle if the outcome were anything else. What we are left with is a massive population of intellectually stunted individuals, perfectly primed to swallow even more vapid content and utterly incapable of independent thought.

Tyler Watson82 said:I have a little philosophical inquiry for the intellectuals here...
In your estimation, is it superior to be wise and astute, albeit somewhat cold-hearted, or is it better to be warm and empathetic, even if one is a bit dim-witted?

Before one could even begin to tackle such a question, I suspect we would first need to establish some concrete definitions for these terms, ensuring we aren't all operating under wildly different interpretations of what "wisdom" actually entails compared to the other qualities mentioned.

If I may offer my own humble perspective, I find the notion that wisdom is compatible with being cold-hearted to be quite flawed, especially since you seem to be positioning it as the direct antithesis of being "warm."

One can certainly be cold, detached, and purely calculating—which might pass for cunning, perhaps—but true wisdom cannot exist in a vacuum of indifference; genuine wisdom inherently requires an awareness of others, creating a necessary equilibrium between one's perception of humanity and the internal balance of reason and emotion.

Edward Harris17 said:Thanks Sizfe, but I actually wrote that myself—I was just responding to Nicholas King.

I am fully aware that you likely intended it that way as well, but I felt an almost compulsive need to emphasize that there is a truly fundamental distinction at play here.

I suppose even that isn't quite "my cup of tea," if I'm being honest, yet I view such gestures among people who find them fitting with a certain degree of fondness. If it brings people joy, then fine... it is genuinely pleasant to see folks finding happiness in something that doesn't cause anyone else any harm...

Edward Harris17 said:She mentioned she wouldn't go around hugging random strangers on the street—which, honestly, makes total sense since you can't possibly know how people feel about physical touch. I think that's quite polite, actually. However, she then followed that up by saying she'd embrace someone who clearly shows they want one. Isn't that just a bit of a contradiction? It feels like she's talking out of both sides of her mouth.

I don't think Thomas Hernandez4 said anything incorrect, because from her perspective, we are looking at two entirely different scenarios. Forcing a hug on a complete stranger would be nothing short of aggressive, whereas responding to someone who is explicitly inviting affection is an entirely different matter altogether.

There is absolutely no contradiction here; we are dealing with two fundamentally distinct contexts.

Alex Morgan32 said:And you consider a business partner and a tennis partner to be the same thing? There are different types of partnerships.

I'm not going to descend to that level to explain it to you because it feels a bit pointless. I've stated my opinion, so feel free to call your lady whatever you like.

Good morning. Of course they aren't, which is precisely the point I am trying to make to you. It is for that very reason that such a "technical" term is utterly ill-suited for a relationship that—if one follows my particular line of thinking—ought to be rooted in love. That rather crude expression only emerged because... Through the process of Americanization—specifically via English influence—everything shifts.Honestly, we live in a country where they’ve gone ahead and legalized prenuptial agreements—essentially turning romance into a cold, calculated business merger rather than anything resembling actual love. It’s all about protecting assets and managing partnerships now, reducing human connection to nothing more than a series of strategic, premeditated transactions.

Alex Morgan32 said:And you consider a business partner and a tennis partner to be the same thing? There are different types of partnerships.

I'm not going to descend to that level to explain it to you because it feels a bit pointless. I've stated my opinion, so feel free to call your lady whatever you like.

Oh, you’re really going to say that to me? Honestly, I should have expected nothing less from you. 🤣 Oh, look at you, delivering wisdom from your lofty celestial heights. Truly, we are all blessed by such profound insight. LOL.

Alex Morgan32 said:Romance isn't dead—honestly, if it were, I don't know where we'd be. It’s really found in those small, everyday moments: a quick text, making sure you have your coffee exactly how you like it, a glass of wine, just a walk together... there are endless ways to show someone you care.
Personally, I live for those little gestures. But as for those big, public displays of affection? Like someone proposing at a concert or in the middle of a stadium... no thanks. That feels more like a performance for an audience than anything else. I’d much rather be asked during a random walk or a deep conversation—something spontaneous, maybe without even a ring, just something coming straight from the heart.

When it comes to what a relationship should actually be called, the word "partnership" carries the most weight for me. To my mind, being partners means being equals in everything—not just when it comes to intimacy or raising kids, but in every single aspect of life.

If my boyfriend or partner ever introduced me to someone as just a "mistress" or something similar, he’d be in serious trouble. 😁

Even if we were just dating, I'd prefer him to introduce me as a friend, or just by my name, rather than using some label like "girlfriend."

Oh, really? I suppose I should probably mention that to my potential business partner (the one I might actually launch a startup with) and my current romantic partner (the one I play tennis with) at the same time. Since "partnership" supposedly encompasses "everything," by that logic, she’d have an equal claim to my anatomy alongside my tennis racket. lol. I have a sneaking suspicion my girlfriend might take issue with such a broad interpretation of the contract. 😁

So, how exactly would a (romantic) message or letter sound under these terms?

It would likely start with something like: My dear partner... (has anyone ever actually written something quite that clinical? 🤔 )

northerntiger92 said:It’s not like the romance is dead or anything. Actually, I think it's still there. 🙂

It’s just that—compared to how things used to be—romance feels way less obvious to people looking for it nowadays. Why? Because we have a million ways to talk and hang out without even being in the same room. That whole "ritual" side of flirting has basically vanished—you know, back when there were actual rules for how and where you’d meet someone? Back when showing up with a bouquet was a given, or when the neighbors would give you a hard time through the window because they saw you heading out all dressed up and looking sharp...

Edit:
And about this whole debate over what to call people... Look, I live in a long-term domestic partnership, and I don't have any issue calling my partner my "partner" when I'm talking to folks who haven't met her. Usually, I just say "my wife"—mostly because it’s quicker and easier—but I've definitely had people push back on me before, telling me I can't call her my wife until I actually put a ring on her finger, so... 🙂

Trends, largely driven by media influence, generally seem to be drifting toward superficiality and the intellectual thinning of the masses... and accordingly, the situation appears "worse" if one views it strictly through the lens of their own neighborhood. Yet, at the very same time, information technology—precisely because of the factors you mentioned—enables a person to connect with someone incredibly distant, someone with whom our fathers and grandfathers would never have crossed paths in any previous era.

Morgan Newman7 said:Back to the topic of the day, I don't think we lost the thread... I still see stuff like "Ann, I love you" scrawled on a brick wall, or more mature signs of affection, like some guy walking down a street in Chicago clutching a bouquet of flowers. So, it really comes down to the individual... either you have that spark in you or you don't.

Usually, people go all out at the start of a relationship. Some folks just stop doing it, while others? It’s just who they are. They're just naturally more attentive.

The reality is that most people don't actually possess the capacity to "nurture" love; instead, they settle for mere "partnerships," even if they once functioned as true lovers or intimate friends. Once a relationship degrades to that level—or if it was nothing more than a partnership from the very start—any attempt at a "romantic gesture" feels awkward, misplaced, and frankly, quite grotesque.

But, as I mentioned before, I still highly recommend watching that documentary featuring Josip Lisac.