Here's the thing though: YOU'RE A GUY. You've been raped, but you're a GUY and being raped is different for a man and a woman.
It makes sense that cuckoldry would be more upsetting to you than having been raped, because evolutionarily speaking, a raped man loses what...?
Being raped, for a female, could very well be an evolutionary disaster. She could have to carry a pregnancy, give birth, and take care of a child, in bad conditions, and with no support or protection. From an evolutionary level it makes sense that we females would evolve more negative feelings and reactions and fears of rape than males would.
Therefore I think males should stop telling us about how [insert thing here] is worse than rape because they don’t understand. Men rate rape as much less upsetting than women do.
From The Evolution of Desire by David Buss:
"In one study, we asked women to evaluate 147 potentially upsetting actions that a man could perform. *Women rate sexual aggression on average to be 6.5, or close to the 7.00 maximum of distress.* No other kinds of acts that men can perform, including verbal and nonsexual physical abuse, are judged by women as upsetting as sexual aggression…
*Men, in sharp contrast…judge the group of sexually aggressive acts to be only 3.02… Other sources of distress, such as a mate’s infidelity and verbal or physical abuse, are seen by men as far more upsetting - 6.04 and 5.55 respectively - than sexual aggression by a woman.*
A disturbing difference between men and women is that *men consistently underestimate how unacceptable sexual aggression is to women. When asked to judge its negative impact on women, men rate it only 5.80 on the 7-point scale, which is significantly lower than women’s own rating of 6.5 [and even lower than their level of upset at infidelity]*…
The case of the Texas politician who said that if a woman cannot escape a rape, she should just lie back and enjoy it, is something that only someone who fails to understand the magnitude of the trauma experienced by women who are victims of sexual aggression could utter."
There are so many idiots here. About 500 comments and still not deciding you prefer which?Well, why don't you take it from a guy who's been through both? not technically cuckolded but cheated onI'd rather BE RAPED 100 TIMES than be cuckolded. When I was raped as kid ~15 years old, my stomach was upset for 3 days, was depressed for less than a week, and then life went on, not a very big deal. But after discovering my GF cheated on me, I was traumatized, 5 years and I'm still not OK. I have flashbacks, even hearing about the subject of cheating sends shivers down my spine, I have high blood pressure since, and probably I've developed PTSD. My plans for 5 years were shattered, I was so not OK that I canceled my PhD plan and stuck in shitty jobs because I couldn't find the motivation in me to pursue something decent. And this is coming from someone who was once a high achiever.So please men and women who say it is no big deal, stuff something in your obnoxious holes before babbling with this crap. I honestly suffered much as that if you said such to my face I would have shattered it.
There are many comments and I've not read them all. My apologies if this has already been covered.
>The lifetime boost to happiness that flows from a birth – for the mother around $8700, for the father $32,600.
Do you know if they ruled out the possibility that Aussie women value marginal *money* more than men do? Perhaps $8,700 out of the blue is a much bigger deal to women. I would predict at least some of this effect from both pay differences and the relatively dependent gender role women are expected to play. A small amount of money for a woman might feel like greater independence, security, and power, while to men it might feel like the prospect of a not especially impressive new toy. Men do not traditionally receive engagement rings with expensive stones on them because men don't need them. Recovering from disasters is economically easier for white cisgendered straight men than for anyone else. I highly doubt that the disparity is actually big enough to account for this, but it may at least be exaggerating the difference here. The article you site neither discusses this nor links to the original publication of the results, so I don't know whether we can dismiss this possibility.
>Roissy did a poll of his male readers; over 3/4 prefer rape to cuckoldry.
Similarly, rape is almost certainly not as frightening a prospect to most men as to most women. Men have spent relatively little time imagining it. Women, on the other hand, are taught from childhood not to walk alone at night, how to use pepper spray, and not to wear revealing clothing in certain parts of town. I actually think much of the psychological harm rape does, and probably *most* of the harm, results from the cultural construct rather than the physical activity. Otherwise, whether women would be equally afraid of getting mugged and beaten up would depend on whether they have access to emergency birth control. There's nothing magic about sex; there's just a very strong meme that women who have it are bad. Men face no such meme.
The whole "worth" comparison falls down once you realize that a dollar can't be worth the same to the average man as it is to the average woman. Not when there's such a large disparity in wealth and income.
So childless people, or adoptive parents, are negated? As if they didn't exist? Despite the enjoyment they get from their lives, and all the other lives they affect for better or worse in any manner not done through sperm and eggs? Wow.
I've been struck (temporarily) blind, knocked to the floor , and punched repeatedly in the face. I would way rather this happen again than lose even 300 dollars.
I don't know exactly where the amount of male bodily harm I would have to suffer comes to be something as bad as rape, but my rough typical mind fallacy estimate is having a leg broken, which I would rather have happen than be cuckolded. There are, in fact large lists of bad things I can say with very high confidence that I would rather have happen to me than be cuckolded.
It is a betrayal which people take seriously. And this whole "How dare you" shtick bugs me. We can compare the values of dust specks in the eye to decades of brutal torture, and our ability to do so doesn't make us bad people.
Not necessarily. Gain 32,000 from marriage with pr(~1), gain 1.8 x 32,600 from children in marriage with pr(0.5) (average children per woman in Australia, 51% of married couples have kids), minus divorce's 110,000 with pr(.4), comes out positive, at about 15,000.
Men can have kids out of marriage, sure, but social mores, cultural expectations, and loyalty/cuckodry concerns provide enough incentive to marry for kids.
The biological damage of raising a child that is not his is much more than a rape victims because at least she is investing in a child that is half hers.... if he never figures it out and all his children are impostors then then he is as biologically dead as if you had killed him.
Biological harm isn't actual harm (though it is predictive of how harmful something will be experienced as by the victim).
Consider a long-term fraud that costs the victim their livelihood, something that took many years to build, and then consider a violent assault from which the victim eventually recovers physically. We consider the latter more reprehensible; we sanction the offender more forcefully, blame the victim less (people avoid reporting fraud because they're ashamed to have fallen for it; this isn't a problem with aggravated assault), and in general consider it to be a greater crime.
If, when sex is added to the equation (sex-based fraud, sex-based violence), your perception of the relative severity of offense changes, isn't it possible that it's due less to majestic principles of philosophy, and more due to a propensity to consider violence done to female bodies to count less, and fraud perpetrated on male egos to count more?
While I agree with you that I don’t think less of a man who has been cuckolded, historically it has been considered shameful.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Order-cuckoldry-ca1815-French-satire.jpgThis picture shows cuckolded men growing horns. In fact, I once heard that it is where the whole make-devil-horns-on-your-classmate thing in photographs came from.
Historically and culturally, that's still a very provincial viewpoint, at least as far as the “shameful” character of a man's being cuckolded is concerned. As Paul Veyne writes in A History of Private Life concerning the Romans:
A woman was like a grown child; her husband was obliged to humor her because of her dowry and her noble father. Cicero and his correspondents gossip about the caprices of these lifelong adolescents, who, for example, might seize upon the absence of a husband sent to govern a remote province in order to divorce him and marry another. These women's antics nevertheless had real consequences for political relations among the nobility. Needless to say, it was impossible for a woman to make a fool of her lord and master. Cuckoldry (as we know it from Molière) was not a part of the Romans' conceptual universe. Had it been, Cato, Caesar, and Pompey would all have been illustrious cuckolds. A man was the master of his wife, just as he was the master of his daughters and servants. If his wife was unfaithful, the man did not thereby become a laughingstock. Infidelity was a misfortune, neither greater nor less than the misfortune of a daughter who became pregnant or a slave who failed of his duty. If a wife betrayed her husband, the husband was criticized for want of vigilance and for having, by his own weakness, allowed adultery to flourish in the city — much as we might criticize parents for overindulging or spoiling their children, allowing them to drift into delinquency and thus making the cities unsafe. The only way for a husband or father to avoid such an accusation was to be the first to publicly denounce any misconduct by members of his family. The emperor Augustus detailed the affairs of his daughter Julia in an edict; Nero did the same for the adultery of his wife, Octavia. The point was to prove that the man had no “patience,” that is, connivance, with vice. People wondered whether the stoic silence of other husbands deserved praise or blame.Because deceived husbands were aggrieved rather than risible and divorced women took their dowries with them, divorce was common among the upper class (Caesar, Cicero, Ovid, and Claudius married three times), and perhaps also among the urban plebs.Juvenal tells of a woman of the people who consults an itinerant soothsayer about whether she should leave her tavernkeeper husband to marry a secondhand clothing merchant (a prosperous profession in a time when the lower orders bought their clothing used). Nothing was more alien to the Romans than the biblical notion of taking possession of the flesh. Roman men did not hesitate to marry divorced women. The emperor Domitian remarried a women he had divorced, who had subsequently married another man. For a women to have known only one man in her life was considered a merit, but only the Christians would undertake to make such fidelity a duty and attempt to prohibit widows from remarrying.
> without numbers on payment for rape avoidance, this discussion is idle speculation.
Here's a starting point: the size of the martial arts/self-defense industry that caters to women. The overwhelming reason, when you ask such women carefully and cut through the rhetoric about exercise & fun, is that they fear abuse and sexual abuse such as rape in particular.
Dang, this is nuts.
Here's the thing though: YOU'RE A GUY. You've been raped, but you're a GUY and being raped is different for a man and a woman.
It makes sense that cuckoldry would be more upsetting to you than having been raped, because evolutionarily speaking, a raped man loses what...?
Being raped, for a female, could very well be an evolutionary disaster. She could have to carry a pregnancy, give birth, and take care of a child, in bad conditions, and with no support or protection. From an evolutionary level it makes sense that we females would evolve more negative feelings and reactions and fears of rape than males would.
Therefore I think males should stop telling us about how [insert thing here] is worse than rape because they don’t understand. Men rate rape as much less upsetting than women do.
From The Evolution of Desire by David Buss:
"In one study, we asked women to evaluate 147 potentially upsetting actions that a man could perform. *Women rate sexual aggression on average to be 6.5, or close to the 7.00 maximum of distress.* No other kinds of acts that men can perform, including verbal and nonsexual physical abuse, are judged by women as upsetting as sexual aggression…
*Men, in sharp contrast…judge the group of sexually aggressive acts to be only 3.02… Other sources of distress, such as a mate’s infidelity and verbal or physical abuse, are seen by men as far more upsetting - 6.04 and 5.55 respectively - than sexual aggression by a woman.*
A disturbing difference between men and women is that *men consistently underestimate how unacceptable sexual aggression is to women. When asked to judge its negative impact on women, men rate it only 5.80 on the 7-point scale, which is significantly lower than women’s own rating of 6.5 [and even lower than their level of upset at infidelity]*…
The case of the Texas politician who said that if a woman cannot escape a rape, she should just lie back and enjoy it, is something that only someone who fails to understand the magnitude of the trauma experienced by women who are victims of sexual aggression could utter."
There are so many idiots here. About 500 comments and still not deciding you prefer which?Well, why don't you take it from a guy who's been through both? not technically cuckolded but cheated onI'd rather BE RAPED 100 TIMES than be cuckolded. When I was raped as kid ~15 years old, my stomach was upset for 3 days, was depressed for less than a week, and then life went on, not a very big deal. But after discovering my GF cheated on me, I was traumatized, 5 years and I'm still not OK. I have flashbacks, even hearing about the subject of cheating sends shivers down my spine, I have high blood pressure since, and probably I've developed PTSD. My plans for 5 years were shattered, I was so not OK that I canceled my PhD plan and stuck in shitty jobs because I couldn't find the motivation in me to pursue something decent. And this is coming from someone who was once a high achiever.So please men and women who say it is no big deal, stuff something in your obnoxious holes before babbling with this crap. I honestly suffered much as that if you said such to my face I would have shattered it.
There are many comments and I've not read them all. My apologies if this has already been covered.
>The lifetime boost to happiness that flows from a birth – for the mother around $8700, for the father $32,600.
Do you know if they ruled out the possibility that Aussie women value marginal *money* more than men do? Perhaps $8,700 out of the blue is a much bigger deal to women. I would predict at least some of this effect from both pay differences and the relatively dependent gender role women are expected to play. A small amount of money for a woman might feel like greater independence, security, and power, while to men it might feel like the prospect of a not especially impressive new toy. Men do not traditionally receive engagement rings with expensive stones on them because men don't need them. Recovering from disasters is economically easier for white cisgendered straight men than for anyone else. I highly doubt that the disparity is actually big enough to account for this, but it may at least be exaggerating the difference here. The article you site neither discusses this nor links to the original publication of the results, so I don't know whether we can dismiss this possibility.
>Roissy did a poll of his male readers; over 3/4 prefer rape to cuckoldry.
Similarly, rape is almost certainly not as frightening a prospect to most men as to most women. Men have spent relatively little time imagining it. Women, on the other hand, are taught from childhood not to walk alone at night, how to use pepper spray, and not to wear revealing clothing in certain parts of town. I actually think much of the psychological harm rape does, and probably *most* of the harm, results from the cultural construct rather than the physical activity. Otherwise, whether women would be equally afraid of getting mugged and beaten up would depend on whether they have access to emergency birth control. There's nothing magic about sex; there's just a very strong meme that women who have it are bad. Men face no such meme.
The whole "worth" comparison falls down once you realize that a dollar can't be worth the same to the average man as it is to the average woman. Not when there's such a large disparity in wealth and income.
My god. What a mind-boggling reply. I thought of you better.
So childless people, or adoptive parents, are negated? As if they didn't exist? Despite the enjoyment they get from their lives, and all the other lives they affect for better or worse in any manner not done through sperm and eggs? Wow.
Biological harm is the ultimate actual harm. It negates his entire existence.
This is the best post in this thread. I don't trust strangers, I did trust my Cathy.
I've been struck (temporarily) blind, knocked to the floor , and punched repeatedly in the face. I would way rather this happen again than lose even 300 dollars.
I don't know exactly where the amount of male bodily harm I would have to suffer comes to be something as bad as rape, but my rough typical mind fallacy estimate is having a leg broken, which I would rather have happen than be cuckolded. There are, in fact large lists of bad things I can say with very high confidence that I would rather have happen to me than be cuckolded.
It is a betrayal which people take seriously. And this whole "How dare you" shtick bugs me. We can compare the values of dust specks in the eye to decades of brutal torture, and our ability to do so doesn't make us bad people.
Not necessarily. Gain 32,000 from marriage with pr(~1), gain 1.8 x 32,600 from children in marriage with pr(0.5) (average children per woman in Australia, 51% of married couples have kids), minus divorce's 110,000 with pr(.4), comes out positive, at about 15,000.
Men can have kids out of marriage, sure, but social mores, cultural expectations, and loyalty/cuckodry concerns provide enough incentive to marry for kids.
divorce rate: http://www.divorcerate.org/...child rate: wikipediakids in marriage rate: http://www.aph.gov.au/house...
For what it's worth, my mom once said that she'd rather be raped than lose her life savings. (She was born in 1948.)
The biological damage of raising a child that is not his is much more than a rape victims because at least she is investing in a child that is half hers.... if he never figures it out and all his children are impostors then then he is as biologically dead as if you had killed him.
Biological harm isn't actual harm (though it is predictive of how harmful something will be experienced as by the victim).
This prompts me to propose a thought experiment.
Consider a long-term fraud that costs the victim their livelihood, something that took many years to build, and then consider a violent assault from which the victim eventually recovers physically. We consider the latter more reprehensible; we sanction the offender more forcefully, blame the victim less (people avoid reporting fraud because they're ashamed to have fallen for it; this isn't a problem with aggravated assault), and in general consider it to be a greater crime.
If, when sex is added to the equation (sex-based fraud, sex-based violence), your perception of the relative severity of offense changes, isn't it possible that it's due less to majestic principles of philosophy, and more due to a propensity to consider violence done to female bodies to count less, and fraud perpetrated on male egos to count more?
While I agree with you that I don’t think less of a man who has been cuckolded, historically it has been considered shameful.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Order-cuckoldry-ca1815-French-satire.jpgThis picture shows cuckolded men growing horns. In fact, I once heard that it is where the whole make-devil-horns-on-your-classmate thing in photographs came from.
Historically and culturally, that's still a very provincial viewpoint, at least as far as the “shameful” character of a man's being cuckolded is concerned. As Paul Veyne writes in A History of Private Life concerning the Romans:
A woman was like a grown child; her husband was obliged to humor her because of her dowry and her noble father. Cicero and his correspondents gossip about the caprices of these lifelong adolescents, who, for example, might seize upon the absence of a husband sent to govern a remote province in order to divorce him and marry another. These women's antics nevertheless had real consequences for political relations among the nobility. Needless to say, it was impossible for a woman to make a fool of her lord and master. Cuckoldry (as we know it from Molière) was not a part of the Romans' conceptual universe. Had it been, Cato, Caesar, and Pompey would all have been illustrious cuckolds. A man was the master of his wife, just as he was the master of his daughters and servants. If his wife was unfaithful, the man did not thereby become a laughingstock. Infidelity was a misfortune, neither greater nor less than the misfortune of a daughter who became pregnant or a slave who failed of his duty. If a wife betrayed her husband, the husband was criticized for want of vigilance and for having, by his own weakness, allowed adultery to flourish in the city — much as we might criticize parents for overindulging or spoiling their children, allowing them to drift into delinquency and thus making the cities unsafe. The only way for a husband or father to avoid such an accusation was to be the first to publicly denounce any misconduct by members of his family. The emperor Augustus detailed the affairs of his daughter Julia in an edict; Nero did the same for the adultery of his wife, Octavia. The point was to prove that the man had no “patience,” that is, connivance, with vice. People wondered whether the stoic silence of other husbands deserved praise or blame.Because deceived husbands were aggrieved rather than risible and divorced women took their dowries with them, divorce was common among the upper class (Caesar, Cicero, Ovid, and Claudius married three times), and perhaps also among the urban plebs.Juvenal tells of a woman of the people who consults an itinerant soothsayer about whether she should leave her tavernkeeper husband to marry a secondhand clothing merchant (a prosperous profession in a time when the lower orders bought their clothing used). Nothing was more alien to the Romans than the biblical notion of taking possession of the flesh. Roman men did not hesitate to marry divorced women. The emperor Domitian remarried a women he had divorced, who had subsequently married another man. For a women to have known only one man in her life was considered a merit, but only the Christians would undertake to make such fidelity a duty and attempt to prohibit widows from remarrying.
> without numbers on payment for rape avoidance, this discussion is idle speculation.
Here's a starting point: the size of the martial arts/self-defense industry that caters to women. The overwhelming reason, when you ask such women carefully and cut through the rhetoric about exercise & fun, is that they fear abuse and sexual abuse such as rape in particular.