What do 'nerdy' guys like in girls?

[Evo]

I'm talking about a much larger time span than what happened to women last century.

I'm talking about all through history.

 

[DanP]

I'm talking about all through history.

I think it's a bit forced. As far as I know there where significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society. There are theories showing neolithic cultures in Europe as matriarchal, only being replaced by a patriarchal society at the beginning of Bronze Age.

Even later, in antiquity, when the situation of women was perceived as very hard, there where serious exceptions to this. For example the power which women enjoyed in Egypt.

And yeah, while in many societies it was somehow usual for parents to choose husbands for their daughters, I think this pretty much apply more severely to upper class only, where familial alainces where important.

Anyway, do you have some estimated numbers at how many of marriages from the last century for example where pre-arranged ? Some numbers would be great.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think it's a bit forced. As far as I know there where significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society. There are theories showing neolithic cultures in Europe as matriarchal, only being replaced by a patriarchal society at the beginning of Bronze Age.

Even later, in antiquity, when the situation of women was perceived as very hard, there where serious exceptions to this. For example the power which women enjoyed in Egypt.

And yeah, while in many societies it was somehow usual for parents to choose husbands for their daughters, I think this pretty much apply more severely to upper class only, where familial alainces where important.

Anyway, do you have some estimated numbers at how many of marriages from the last century for example where pre-arranged ? Some numbers would be great.

I can not claim any extensive knowledge in the area but from what I have read matriarchal societies were rather exceptional. And either way, even in a matriarchal society, women most likely had to accept what ever male physically bested any other suitors as opposed to what ever mate they desired. While males may have respected them and looked for their acceptance any male at any time could physically displace the previous suitor and become the only viable choice of partner. An alpha female does not necessarily possesses the same freedoms as her male counterparts. Legends of amazonian tribes that dominated their males, I am fairly certain, are primarily the product of fantasy.

It has nothing with intelligent design. You seem to believe that it does involve a design. No. It doesn't.

I do not believe Zoob is claiming you are supporting ID just that you are using a mixed up logic which most of us learned in school and which happens to feed the acceptance of ID.
He is right that by proper interpretation of natural selection the reproductive success of humans who enjoy sex is incidental. Those who enjoy sex will likely procreate more and produce more offspring who are disposed to the enjoyment of sex who will procreate more on ad infinitum. The drive is the enjoyment of sex and the reproductive success is incidental but reinforces the trait.

Its all too easy to get these things tangled up especially when one is focused on the general mechanism of evolutionary success.

 

[Proton Soup]

i believe there are matriarchal societies in Mexico, still. and from a show i saw long ago when television was still somewhat educational, the Zoe indigenous people of south america practice group marriages, where everyone has multiple wives/husbands. quite a lot of variation exists, and even lifelong (our supposed ideal) pairbonds are common in the animal kingdom.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

i believe there are matriarchal societies in Mexico, still. and from a show i saw long ago when television was still somewhat educational, the Zoe indigenous people of south america practice group marriages, where everyone has multiple wives/husbands. quite a lot of variation exists, and even lifelong (our supposed ideal) pairbonds are common in the animal kingdom.

Polygamy still requires social bonding and stable hierarchal family units as opposed to the simian Casanova who spreads his seed where ever his fancy may carry him.

 

[GeorginaS]

I think it's a bit forced. As far as I know there where significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society. There are theories showing neolithic cultures in Europe as matriarchal, only being replaced by a patriarchal society at the beginning of Bronze Age.

Even later, in antiquity, when the situation of women was perceived as very hard, there where serious exceptions to this. For example the power which women enjoyed in Egypt.

And yeah, while in many societies it was somehow usual for parents to choose husbands for their daughters, I think this pretty much apply more severely to upper class only, where familial alainces where important.

Anyway, do you have some estimated numbers at how many of marriages from the last century for example where pre-arranged ? Some numbers would be great.

The question thrown back at you, then. Some numbers and/or hard facts w/r/t this claim

significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society.

would be really helpful, because there's nothing in my knowledge base to support this.

 

[DanP]

Its all too easy to get these things tangled up especially when one is focused on the general mechanism of evolutionary success.

I subscribe to Richard Dawkin's theory that genes play a causal role in evolution.

 

[DanP]

The question thrown back at you, then. Some numbers and/or hard facts w/r/t this claim

significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society.

would be really helpful, because there's nothing in my knowledge base to support this.

We probably need an anthropologist to help us. Dono if there are any on the board.

 

[GeorginaS]

No. The distinction between sex drive and the fictional 'drive for reproduction' has to be understood and maintained. There is no 'drive for reproduction' or for passing on your genes. The intent behind looking for sex is to have pleasure. The fact this, incidentally, results in reproduction does not mean there is such a thing as 'drive for reproduction'. That's like saying since drinking often leads to hangovers people drink in order to get a hangover, that there is a 'drive to get hungover'.

Reproduction is not an accident due to the fact we feel good when we do sex. The whole behavior of having sex exist to serve reproduction.

That's a good point, zoobyshoe because most traditional teaching (or at least way back a thousand years ago when I was in school) taught that the drive was an evolutionary imperative to procreate. That's all cart before horse, though, isn't it?

When looked at and stated that way, though, it does then therefore mean that "evolution" has an agenda, as if it were some sentient being with ideas and a desire for a certain specific outcome. From that point, it's a very simple jump to ID. Natural selection has no such agenda.

Whereas if you consider it rationally (and no doubt there's science to back it up) creatures with the strongest sex drive -- and drive for pleasure -- would, as a bi-product, procreate more. Successful stuff survives. Period.

 

[Evo]

Anyway, do you have some estimated numbers at how many of marriages from the last century for example where pre-arranged ? Some numbers would be great.

I wasn't referring to the last hundred years, you brought that up. But you could look at the still ongoing practice of pre-arranged marriages in Asia and Africa.

 

[GeorginaS]

We probably need an anthropologist to help us. Dono if there are any on the board.

On what basis are you making the claims, then, about this:

significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society.

You need an anthropologist to prove your statements for you?

 

[DanP]

When looked at and stated that way, though, it does then therefore mean that "evolution" has an agenda, as if it were some sentient being with ideas and a desire for a certain specific outcome.

It doesn't have any agenda, not unless you invent one.

 

[DanP]

On what basis are you making the claims, then, about this:

significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society.

You need an anthropologist to prove your statements for you?

On exactly the same bases like Evo did in her claims.

 

[DanP]

I wasn't referring to the last hundred years, you brought that up. But you could look at the still ongoing practice of pre-arranged marriages in Asia and Africa.

Ok, what where you referring to then ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkin's theory that genes play a causal role in evolution.

Dawkins has interesting ideas regarding information theory and evolution. I think that there are also some interesting ideas (similar to ID) regarding an inherent drive among organisms to improve or evolve. In general though I think that Dawkins and most evolutionary biologists would disagree that genes actually drive people to procreate in any direct manner. I have read The Blind Watchmaker and I do not remember anything that would contradict this idea. I have not read The Selfish Gene though and from what I have heard of it the theories Dawkins discusses there may lead one to believe that genes act directly on their hosts with an "agenda".

Like I said, it is difficult to communicate the idea of an evolutionary mechanism without using words that seem to imply "purpose". I also think that it may be possible that some form of "self directed" evolution occurs. I do not think that this is very well supported by any evidence so far though.

 

[DanP]

. In general though I think that Dawkins and most evolutionary biologists would disagree that genes actually drive people to procreate in any direct manner.
.

I agree , genes do not do actually drive ppl in a direct manner. Nobody stated this.

In fact, I stated time and again in this thread that an "agenda" is not required in those theories.

I said, it is difficult to communicate the idea of an evolutionary mechanism without using words that seem to imply "purpose". I also think that it may be possible that some form of "self directed" evolution occurs. I do not think that this is very well supported by any evidence so far though.

Can you explain what you mean by "self-directed" evolution theories please ?

 

[Proton Soup]

Polygamy still requires social bonding and stable hierarchal family units as opposed to the simian Casanova who spreads his seed where ever his fancy may carry him.

you do have that in simian societies.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I agree , genes do not do actually drive ppl in a direct manner. Nobody stated this.

In fact, I stated time and again in this thread that an "agenda" is not required in those theories.

The idea that reproduction is the drive behind sex and sexual attraction seems to imply a direct link as opposed to the indirect link that enjoyment of sex (independent of a "desire to reproduce") leads to more reproduction and therefore is more evolutionarily successful.

Can you explain what you mean by "self-directed" evolution theories please ?

There are single celled organisms which seemingly "improve" themselves by actively swapping genes between existing organisms (as opposed to pairing via reproduction). It is the basis of basic organic neural nets which work on a problem and then swap out code with those nodes that are more successful at their blind attempt on the problem. There have been theories of other possible occurrences of gene swapping among more complex organisms but they have mostly been shown unlikely or not possible. The one I read about specifically was the idea that HERV (Human Endogenous Retro Viruses) may become active and swap DNA between hosts. Fairly out there and very much shot down.

This is getting even further off topic though.

 

[BobG]

This is getting even further off topic though.

True. Just to get back "on topic", nerdy guys prefer girls that are interested in ensuring there's a future for the human race.

 

[GeorginaS]

True. Just to get back "on topic", nerdy guys prefer girls that are interested in ensuring there's a future for the human race.

So. 28 pages in, have we come to any definitive conclusions yet? I can't figure out whether or not I qualify. :grumpy:

 

[Char. Limit]

Nerdy guys are like other guys, just with intelligence.

Thus, they will probably want intelligent mates as well...

 

[DanP]

So. 28 pages in, have we come to any definitive conclusions yet? I can't figure out whether or not I qualify. :grumpy:

We won't get any definitive conclusions on this.
What I think is significant is that (male POV) :

- males prefer good looking women (being clean and neat is a big, big plus too)
- "good looking" is a relative term, and works with brackets. That's it, you will go for the category you find most attractive in your "league". It's the safest path, provides biggest success rates, and it's cushioning the "ego". What exactly is your league and how you end up being (self)assigned to a certain bracket might very well be a combination of physical traits and psychological processes.

That would be just about everything for the "Tarzan and Jane sleep together this evening/week/month"

For an actual long term relationship there is obviously much more to it, but I think it's safe to say that the generality "birds of a feather flock together" holds true.

Given the diversity of human behaviors it is impossible to give particular answers to this. A successful long term relation is a never ending negotiation.

 

[DanP]

Very true. I have a former friend that looks a lot like Robert Shaw, and he always cultivated that look. He is a rounder and a cheat, and he tried using me (without my consent) as an alibi when he came to Maine to work (which he did) and cheat (which he did) on his wife, whom I loved dearly as a friend. She called one evening asking to speak to my "friend" because he had gotten an offer on a muscle-car that he had restored, and when I told her that I hadn't seen him for weeks, she said "oh" in a tone like I had just gut-punched her.

(All I ll write here is a personal POV. It should not be considered an excuse for cheating behaviors. )

I have mixed feelings on the issue of cheating.

1. Addressing the fact that good looking persons are more likely to stray.

The question here is: Are good looking man behaviorally more inclined to cheating, i.e is there a trait who makes good looking persons cheaters ? Or it is because a good looking person is actually exposed to to much much more opportunities to cheat than a mediocre looking persons. So what does actually the statistic that good looking ppl stray more reflects ?

(The difference would be "some man are inclined to cheating" vs "all man are roughly equally inclined to cheating, but some get more opportunity to do so" )

2. In the case you illustrate here Turbo, one thing is clearly wrong. The fact that your friend used you without your consent to cover his tracks is pretty much irresponsible and I will add stupid.

3. Cheating is pretty much a personal thing between 2 persons, and without knowing the insides of the relation in question I will not cast any kind of blame. Only god and the 2 of them knows what happens in their household.

Not satisfied with your spouse? Be a real human being and cut off the relationship BEFORE you act on your impulses and cheat.

4. Sometimes you cheat even if you are very satisfied in your spouse. You don't want the relationship to end, and you genuinely care about your spouse. And I don't speak about egoistical reasons like "ill stay in this half assed relation till I find something better" (although this is extremely common too, especially in transitory relations, where you realize
that happily ever after won't work). I talk about genuine interest into your relation.

There are families where cheating was involved, but they have extremely solid relations which last of over 20 years, and they are very happy with each other. I realize this is not the norm, though.

Many ppl find way around this getting involved with persons very similar to them , and building open relationships. That's it, they kinda set up some rules, and keep sleeping with other persons too, but they keep observing the common rules.

5. I agree that in most of the cases the right thing to do what what you said. Be a real human being and end the relation before cheating.

6. IMO cheating is about decisions, and the burden of the decision is to the person who is actually involved in a relation.

I cannot subscribe to the popular opinion that a person who sleeps with married man / women can be considered a "home-wrecker". The "free" person owns no allegiance whatsoever to the spouse of the cheater.

This is why I find hilarious that a part of society demands that the mistresses of Tiger Woods apologize to his wife. Sorry, they did nothing wrong, and they owe no allegiance to her.

Of course there might be pathological cases where a person will serially get involved with married persons, ruins their marriage , dumps the victim, and moves to another target. But this pathology and not is not what usually happens.

 

[Pinu7]

Boobies.

End of thread.

 

[Magellan7t]

I cannot subscribe to the popular opinion that a person who sleeps with married man / women can be considered a "home-wrecker". The "free" person owns no allegiance whatsoever to the spouse of the cheater.

This is why I find hilarious that a part of society demands that the mistresses of Tiger Woods apologize to his wife. Sorry, they did nothing wrong, and they owe no allegiance to her.

By this line of reasoning, because I don't know you and have made no promises not to rob you blind, I would have nothing to apologize for if I chose to do it. It would be nice to know you'd bear me no grudge.

The mistresses wittingly and willingly did Tiger Woods' family an injury which could have easily been avoided. Tiger Woods carries more responsibility to his family and has more to be sorry for, but the women he slept with were also in the wrong.

If the roles were reversed and the actions of the mistresses were reciprocated against them downstream, I'm sure they'd be unhappy about it. The purview of fair play extends well beyond upholding contractual obligations.

What this boils down to is the Golden and Silver Rules. These are fundamental logical and ethical ideas that small children are able to grasp.

 

[DanP]

By this line of reasoning, because I don't know you and have made no promises not to rob you blind, I would have nothing to apologize for if I chose to do it. It would be nice to know you'd bear me no grudge.

This logic is flawed. First, sleeping around is not a criminal offense in any democratic society I know off today. Robbery / armed robbery are legally incriminated.

Second, even if you accept the comparison, in this case you can only compare Tiger to the perpetrator and you can only incriminate him, and not other persons.

The mistresses wittingly and willingly did Tiger Woods' family an injury which could have easily been avoided. Tiger Woods carries more responsibility to his family and has more to be sorry for, but the women he slept with were also in the wrong.

Tiger Woulds is the only one who owed any allegiance whatsoever to his wife. The women he slept with where not related / friends with Erin. They did not owed any allegiance.

Also, psychologically, the bulk of stress (injury) caused is directly attributable to Tiger, and not to 3rd party persons.

Blaming any other person for his actions is a shift of responsibility, a thing which I profoundly dislike, and which unfortunately I see more and more often.

Third, the situation is by no means so easily avoidable as you seem to make it. If X doesn't sleep with me, this doesn't mean all women will reject me, especially when you benefit the status and power Tiger has. It's simple.If a woman is uninterested, 10 others will be ready to step in the open spot. If he wants to sleep around, he *WILL* have always have a good pool to choose from. And this leaving aside escorts.

Forth, ppl get hurt in life all the time. It's a play-field out there.t.

If the roles were reversed and the actions of the mistresses were reciprocated against them downstream, I'm sure they'd be unhappy about it. The purview of fair play extends well beyond upholding contractual obligations.

Actually, you have no mean of determining where a cheated upon women will place the blame. You have your own mental processes and your inference of what other women would do in assigning blame are heavily biased by this.

And fair play ? Where ? I fail to see any around :P

What this boils down to is the Golden and Silver Rules. These are fundamental logical and ethical ideas that small children are able to grasp.

Ethics changes all the time. 100 / 60 years ago rigid adherence to "golden rules" robbed the women of many fundamental rights. Fortunately, today we recognize the right of a woman to an abortion. A simple example of how ethics evolve, as society change.

It's time to sober up, and change the "ethics" in assigning imaginary blames. The core of society has gone way too sensible and soft.

 

[Char. Limit]

Wait, an abortion? I thought you were talking about cheating spouses... Where does an abortion come in?

Also, I feel sorry for Tiger. I'm quite sure that if Annika Sorenstam was found to be involved in dozens of affairs, there would be not nearly as much coverage, and many people would place the blame on the men for "willfully doing Annika Sorenstam's family an injury."

I also happen to believe that Americans spend too much time focusing on celebrities in general. Of course, there isn't a thing I can do to change that.

 

[DanP]

Wait, an abortion? I thought you were talking about cheating spouses... Where does an abortion come in?

It comes in when you appeal to "Golden rules". Luckily some of humans had the power to break the status quo of "golden rules" and make the society advance. It;s just an example what terrible things happen when you adhere to rules you consider to be immutable. You reject humans the most basic rights possible.

 

[Magellan7t]

This logic is flawed. First, sleeping around is not a criminal offense in any democratic society I know off today. Robbery / armed robbery are legally incriminated.

Second, even if you accept the comparison, in this case you can only compare Tiger to the perpetrator and you can only incriminate him, and not other persons.

If it were illegal, they'd be getting prosecuted, rather than criticized. But legality is neither here nor there.

The other persons would be co-conspirators and separately charged.

Tiger Woulds is the only one who owed any allegiance whatsoever to his wife. The women he slept with where not related / friends with Erin. They did not owed any allegiance.

Yes, no allegiance is owed on their part, but they're still at fault.

Also, psychologically, the bulk of stress (injury) caused is directly attributable to Tiger, and not to 3rd party persons.

I agree with this.

Blaming any other person for his actions is a shift of responsibility, a thing which I profoundly dislike, and which unfortunately I see more and more often.

I see what you're saying, but I think you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is the responsibility is shared. Tiger deserves most of the blame, but the mistresses have some to own as well.

Transference of blame bothers me, too.

Third, the situation is by no means so easily avoidable as you seem to make it. If X doesn't sleep with me, this doesn't mean all women will reject me, especially when you benefit the status and power Tiger has. It's simple. If you a women is uninterested, 10 others will be ready to step in the open spot. If he wants to sleep around, he *WILL* have always have a good pool to choose from. And this leaving aside escorts.

No one would argue he would have an easy time of getting women into bed. This has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that he'll be tempted more often than most men. The situation is easily avoidable because either party can simply choose not to have sex with the other. People are blamable for their actions because they have the ability to choose.

Forth, ppl get hurt in life all the time. It's a play-field out there.t.

Yes, there's always risk. Murder is a constant of society - this doesn't make it okay.

Actually, you have no mean of determining where a cheated upon women will place the blame. You have your own mental processes and your inference of what other women would do in assigning blame are heavily biased by this.

She would most likely blame both people; however, the point was that no one likes to be cheated on.

And fair play ? Where ? I fail to see any around :P

Yes, the world is unfair. That's hardly an argument.

Ethics changes all the time. 100 / 60 years ago rigid adherence to "golden rules" robbed the women of many fundamental rights. Fortunately, today we recognize the right of a woman to an abortion. A simple example of how ethics evolve, as society change.

Eh? Do you know what the Golden Rule is?

It's time to sober up, and change the "ethics" in assigning imaginary blames. The core of society has gone way too sensible and soft.

If English isn't your first language, "sensible" generally means to be of sound judgment. "Sensitive," would fit more closely with your meaning.

If we were talking about blaming video games and TV for school shootings, I'd agree with you. In this case, where there is consent between the two people, I believe there's blame to be owned by both.

 

[Magellan7t]

It comes in when you appeal to "Golden rules". Luckily some of humans had the power to break the status quo of "golden rules" and make the society advance. It;s just an example what terrible things happen when you adhere to rules you consider to be immutable. You reject humans the most basic rights possible.

The Golden Rule is a specific philosophical idea: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Silver Rule is closely related as the negative: "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

They're pretty closely related to the Harm Principle, which is all about maximizing personal liberties without harming others. Politically, it would probably be described as civil libertarianism.

 

[Char. Limit]

The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would wish that they treat you.

Also, I don't think the right to an abortion is "one of the most basic rights possible". I'm not going to argue about whether said right is right or wrong (I don't want to start a flame war, and I'm not sure where exactly I stand), but it is also not basic.

If a man (or a woman; they aren't perfect either) cheats on their spouse, and their lover knows of the marriage, the lover as well as the cheater are at fault.

 

[Magellan7t]

Also, I feel sorry for Tiger. I'm quite sure that if Annika Sorenstam was found to be involved in dozens of affairs, there would be not nearly as much coverage, and many people would place the blame on the men for "willfully doing Annika Sorenstam's family an injury."

I also happen to believe that Americans spend too much time focusing on celebrities in general. Of course, there isn't a thing I can do to change that.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for a man who lives so comfortably, but he will get more attention for this than the millions of others who do the same thing. One of the downsides of life in the public eye. Personally, I'm not focused specifically on Tiger's case, but DanP's ideas instead.

I agree that Americans spend what seems like an unhealthy amount of time obsessing over the lives of celebrities.

 

[DanP]

I agree with this.I see what you're saying, but I think you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is the responsibility is shared. Tiger deserves most of the blame, but the mistresses have some to own as well.

I personally would never blame any 3rd person if my girlfriend would cheat on me. In fact, I am not sure I would even blame her. Because, really no one is to blame. There is no blame in being yourself, whatever that means. And if by being herself means cheating, so be it. I am not into the business of changing life partners thinking and action patterns, life is too short for this. I would just move away to another relation.

EDIT: I realize that the sensibility to various form of stress is largely individual, and there might be persons who might have a hard time coping with cheating.

Cheating is about decisions. She / he decided to cheat in a relationship. If it happens and you find it disturbed you, you should make a cold analysis of what you want, and act accordingly.

Do you know what the Golden Rule is?

A largely fuzzy ethic system which is anchored into religious beliefs. Unfortunately, I can't say I value it too much, since in Western World religious beliefs led to paradoxical situations, in which 'ethic' was largely unilateral from a sex point of view. I think
we can thank to religious/church influences the fact that women couldn't vote or have an abortion till very late in modern times. While the principle was sound, It's practical implementation was a joke.

 

[Magellan7t]

I personally would never blame any 3rd person if my girlfriend would cheat on me. In fact, I am not sure I would even blame her. Because, really no one is to blame. There is no blame in being yourself, whatever that means. And if by being herself means cheating, so be it. I am not into the business of changing life partners thinking and action patterns, life is too short for this. I would just move away to another relation.

EDIT: I realize that the sensibility to various form of stress is largely individual, and there might be persons who might have a hard time coping with cheating.

If we were talking about organisms without intellect, such as insects, you would be right - they simply are what they are. People, on the other hand, make choices which they have to account for. People who aren't fit to account for their actions are generally wards of someone who can.

Cheating is about decisions. She / he decided to cheat in a relationship. If it happens and you find it disturbed you, you should make a cold analysis of what you want, and act accordingly.

An android or a sociopath might handle it just that way. Betrayal of trust is much more difficult than that for most, especially where the welfare of children is involved.

A largely fuzzy ethic system which is largely anchored into religious beliefs. Unfortunately, I can't say I value it too much, since in Western World religious beliefs led to paradoxical situations, in which 'ethic' was largely unilateral from a sex point of view. I think
we can thank to religious/church influences the fact that women couldn't vote or have an abortion till very late in modern times. While the principle was sound, It's practical implementation was a joke.

As an atheist who cares very little for religion and superstition, I don't think it's reasonable to throw away a good principle just because it has ties to a religious philosophy. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[DanP]

If we were talking about organisms without intellect, such as insects, you would be right - they simply are what they are. People, on the other hand, make choices which they have to account for. People who aren't fit to account for their actions are generally wards of someone who can.

I believe humans are what they are. I'm not saying that it's impossible for a human to change and grow. I say that they must change from free will.I don't ask for change in my partners. I've chosen the generic "her" because she was what I liked and desired. It would be hypocritical to con a woman into a relationship and then demand change. If you discover later that she is not what you want, move on.

As for accounting. In the case of cheating she (my partner) is only morally accountable to me (her SO). And even that it;s questionable, since you don't own another human. If I decide that it's really her right to enjoy her sexuality, her life and be happy, why would you hold her accountable for ? Who or what gives you the right ?

Society can only pretend so much. Namely, not breaking the laws of the realm. The way in which some persons choose to express their sexuality, as long as it doesn't break the criminal code, should not be any concern for the society at large.

An android or a sociopath might handle it just that way. Betrayal of trust is much more difficult than that for most, especially where the welfare of children is involved.

Different humans cope in different ways with perceived or real betrayal of trust. I give you that.

While I do believe that is best for children under a certain age to grow up in a tied family, I am not the adept of the theory that parents should stay in a "empty love" (that it , commitment only without any other forms of intimacy) for the sake of the children. You can go on your own paths in life and enjoy it, and still be a very responsible parent.

It may be difficult in certain legislative systems with idiotic divorce rules, and certainly lack of money (generally speaking, resources) is a serious issue, and IMO it accounts for most of the couples who had their relation gone south and are still married.

Also, I feel the term "sociopath" is used way too easy those days. You don't have to be a sociopath to take a damn decision. In the end, any human involved in such a situation *will* have to take a decision. It's unavoidable. taking decisions without spending time with a shrink doesn't make you sociopath. You have to choose whatever you want to save the relationship or end it. ideally you should make the decision as soon as possible, but also
in "cold blood".

As an atheist who cares very little for religion and superstition, I don't think it's reasonable to throw away a good principle just because it has ties to a religious philosophy. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

As I said, the principle sounds good. But it's fuzzy, since what I would not like done unto me is certainly not identical with what you would not like done onto you. We will most likely agree in most ethical problems, but I am sure we would also find more than enough grey territory and contention points.