Are Women More Likely to Cheat During Ovulation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Is Hard
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Recent research from UCLA and the University of New Mexico indicates that women may be more likely to cheat during their most fertile phase, particularly when their current partner is perceived as less attractive than other men. This phenomenon is linked to evolutionary factors, suggesting that women have evolved to seek out more genetically favorable partners at certain times in their menstrual cycle. The discussion highlights the complexity of attraction, noting that love and physical attraction can be distinct, and that finding others attractive does not necessarily lead to infidelity. Participants humorously debated the implications of this research, including the challenges of tracking ovulation and the societal perceptions of romantic behavior, while also touching on the nature of relationships and the expectations surrounding romantic gestures. The conversation reflects a blend of scientific inquiry and lighthearted banter, emphasizing the multifaceted nature of attraction and relationships.
  • #61
Astronuc said:
What's true, lot's of red or the reason that woman might want to lodge scissors in a man's temple? :rolleyes:
That is a really gruesome thought. However, I imagine a woman with PMS might just feel like wanting to do that some time.
I was just joking, The first time I saw that, Tsu had e-mailed it to me & MIH and I was NOT expecting anything like that and I just about choked. :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
From EnumaElish's romance guide:

The Most Intrinsically Romantic Thing Ever

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use this advice at your own risk / peril. :smile:
 
  • #70
EnumaElish said:
Based on the romance guide, a truly romantic man is impractical and selectively blind; he has style, a strong memory, and no food on his head; he easily gets personal; he can afford time and he can construct mooshy pet names.
No mooshy pet names, I have used terms of endearment such as "snake" & "lizard", that's about as mushy as I can take it.
 
  • #71
Evo said:
No mooshy pet names, I have used terms of endearment such as "snake" & "lizard", that's about as mushy as I can take it.
Are you sure you are not secretly longing for wooshie mooshie cutesie names? :rolleyes:
 
  • #72
EnumaElish said:
Are you sure you are not secretly longing for wooshie mooshie cutesie names? :rolleyes:
Ack gag yuck

NOOOOOOO!

No snookie wookums.

I wouldn't mind be affectionately referred to as "bloated llama". :!)
 
  • #73
Evo keeps it simple. She just calls all her pets "Roger".
 
  • #74
Evo said:
No mooshy pet names, I have used terms of endearment such as "snake" & "lizard", that's about as mushy as I can take it.

Ooooh, Evo, you're getting me all excited.:!) :!) :-p :biggrin:
 
  • #75
I guess "frog", "toad" and "newt" would send Doc over the edge. :rolleyes:

"Ya big toad, you" - Hmmm, it does have a ring to it. :biggrin:

"Newtie wootie" :smile: :smile: :smile:

"Froggy woggy" :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #76
Astronuc said:
The original quote I re-phrased.
OK, I'm not sure that it makes any difference, but I just want to be sure that you realize who I was referring to there.

Astronuc said:
I don't see how someone doesn't ultimately get hurt. Would someone who spreads himself thin expect to conceal the various relationships? I suppose if one is simply dating many women, perhaps there is limited or lack of expectation. At some point, a woman in a romantic relationship would likely expect an exclusive relationship (and in many cases the man would also), and that is how we have boyfriend/girlfriend, significant other, fiance, spouse.
What does the "mechanics" of relationships have to do with "Why aren't men more romantic?"? Isn't this a different topic entirely?

Astronuc said:
As for my friends and acquaintances, probably the majority have had at least one relationship while they were single where the other party lost interest because something better came along.
Boo...hoo... :cry: ...too bad... that's how evolution and "free markets" work.

Astronuc said:
About half of couples I have known are now divorced.
Of the half who are still married, what percentage are happy and content?

Astronuc said:
As for my own views, maybe I was born with them, but certainly my parents and religious perspective have had a significant influence. My father is a Methodist minister and my parents are celebrating their 50th year of marriage. My parents probably have the best relationship I have ever seen. My grandparents were married for similarly long periods, and unfortunately, both grandmothers died prematurely for health reasons. I am in my 24th year of marriage.
As I passed through puberty, my parents and I had many discussions about sex and male/female relationships, and that perhaps had the greatest influence on my views. Before puberty (Grade 1-7), I had several girlfriends. After puberty, I took male/female relationships more seriously, and so I was much more reserved with women. At that point, I began to look for a wife. Also, I did serious religious studies starting from about grade 7 through university, but I studied many religious practices, both eastern and western. I was very interested in the development of self-discipline and personal responsibility, and in the principle of 'reciprocity', which is an important element of any relationship. Also, I am not theistic in the traditional sense, nor am I atheistic.
Thank you for sharing this, Astronuc. :smile: With respect to religious concepts of "the flesh", do you suppress your own "flesh" or "nature" (what do you call it?)? If so, by what authority do you do this (e.g., "the Bible says to do this, so I do this", for example)?
 
Last edited:
  • #77
Evo said:
I wouldn't mind be affectionately referred to as "bloated llama". :!)
Okay, cuddly woolly li'l ms. llama... :biggrin:
 
  • #78
Aether said:
What does the "mechanics" of relationships have to do with "Why aren't men more romantic?"? Isn't this a different topic entirely?
I was responding to the comment that -
Aether said:
Men can be quite romantic, but some of them may want to spread this out thinly over as many women (real or imagined) as possible without hurting anyone, whereas a woman may want a man to "spend" everything on her alone. Even if a man does not actually "act" on this impulse, it may be healthy to be able to acknowledge it.
I don't think the statement "Men can be quite romantic," is supported by the remainder of the text. The rest of the text is really about men desiring many women, whereas a woman might want an exclusive relationship. That has more to do with sexuality than romance. Sex and romance are two completely different aspects of human relationships. Romance may lead to sex, but one can certainly have sex without romance.

For me a sexual relationship requires a reciprocal commitment, and in my case a permanent commitment, as in marriage. But that's me. Others, including many friends seem to treat sex more casually in that there is no commitment involved, but rather it seems that momentary pleasure is the main objective.

Aether said:
Boo...hoo... ...too bad... that's how evolution and "free markets" work.
Well that's one way of looking at it. Most of the women I dated lost interest or were perhaps impatient with me - usually they wanted something more than just a platonic relationship. I felt terrible, but not guilty, because I could not be what they wanted. In all of one case, the women initiated the relationship. Besides my wife, the one other relationship I initiated stalled when I learned the woman was married (although separated). Over a three year period, we remained friends (platonic relationship) while she tried to work out whether or not she was going to get a divorce. After 3 years, my wife came along, and I went to tell the other woman I was getting married, at which point the other woman informed me she was getting a divorce. That was a very difficult moment. I made the right choice and married the woman to whom I have been married for nearly 24 years.

Aether said:
Of the half who are still married, what percentage are happy and content?
I really don't know. Perhaps the older couples, like my parents and some others I know, are pretty much happy and content. Others are not so. There were at least four couples which broke up in the last year, and I had thought all four were pretty stable. I think there is a higher level of discontent among younger couples, but I cannot quantify it. On the other hand, I have seen older couples who live fairly separate lives, even sleeping in separate rooms.

Aether said:
With respect to religious concepts of "the flesh", do you suppress your own "flesh" or "nature" (what do you call it?)?
I suppose before I got married, I suppressed or controlled my sexual desire - by choice. There is no authority but my mind and conscience. The Bible, as other texts, are simply books containing ideas, opinions, and examples on ethics and morality about which one can contemplate and make decisions or choices as to one's behavior.
 
  • #79
Astronuc said:
I don't think the statement "Men can be quite romantic," is supported by the remainder of the text. The rest of the text is really about men desiring many women, whereas a woman might want an exclusive relationship. That has more to do with sexuality than romance. Sex and romance are two completely different aspects of human relationships. Romance may lead to sex, but one can certainly have sex without romance.
I only spoke of a selfless desire to give, but you have interpreted this as a selfish desire to take. Why is that, Astronuc?

Astronuc said:
I suppose before I got married, I suppressed or controlled my sexual desire - by choice. There is no authority but my mind and conscience. The Bible, as other texts, are simply books containing ideas, opinions, and examples on ethics and morality about which one can contemplate and make decisions or choices as to one's behavior.
The reason I asked is that if you were suppressing your natural feelings, as is often done for religious reasons, then your personal experiences and opinions on the subject might need to be interpreted in that light to be understood.

Thank you again for sharing this, Astronuc. :smile:
 
  • #80
Aether said:
I only spoke of a selfless desire to give
So THAT'S what romance is! That must make Mother Theresa the most romantic person of all time!:-p

All kidding aside, I truly don't even know how romance can be defined. Seems very subjective. Do we just "know it when we see it"?
 
  • #81
I always pictured romance as going through extensive length to make the other person happy, without invading their privacy.
 
  • #82
Aether said:
OK, I'm not sure that it makes any difference, but I just want to be sure that you realize who I was referring to there.
What does the "mechanics" of relationships have to do with "Why aren't men more romantic?"? Isn't this a different topic entirely?
Boo...hoo... :cry: ...too bad... that's how evolution and "free markets" work.
Of the half who are still married, what percentage are happy and content?
Thank you for sharing this, Astronuc. :smile: With respect to religious concepts of "the flesh", do you suppress your own "flesh" or "nature" (what do you call it?)? If so, by what authority do you do this (e.g., "the Bible says to do this, so I do this", for example)?
Wow, Aether, I'm sorry for whatever happened in your life, you always seem so bitter. Maybe stepping back and not taking everything so personally would help. :smile:

Let's not attack people for sharing their feelings.
 
  • #83
Smasherman said:
I always pictured romance as going through extensive length to make the other person happy, without invading their privacy.
That's really good. :approve:
 
  • #84
Math Is Hard said:
So THAT'S what romance is! That must make Mother Theresa the most romantic person of all time!:-p
She was VERY cool. :cool:

Math Is Hard said:
All kidding aside, I truly don't even know how romance can be defined. Seems very subjective. Do we just "know it when we see it"?
Here's a definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Romance

I'm thinking more in terms of "2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful: " as a way of life (Mother Theresa does qualify for this IMHO), and if it leads to "1. a. A love affair" :-p then that's great. However, isn't it true that "a love affair as a way of life" is usually much more of a woman's dream than a man's?
 
  • #85
Evo said:
Wow, Aether, I'm sorry for whatever happened in your life, you always seem so bitter.
Nothing happened in my life to make me bitter, and I do not mean to come off that way at all. Would you mind picking one example from that list and explaining to me how it seems bitter to you, and then I'll explain what I mean by it? Perhaps the one about "boo..hoo..." is an obvious candidate, but that statement is the truth.
Evo said:
Maybe stepping back and not taking everything so personally would help. :smile:
I will try to keep that in mind. :smile:

Evo said:
Let's not attack people for sharing their feelings.
I didn't mean to attack anyone, ever (well, maybe once or twice, but only with a good reason). I apologize profusely if it seemed otherwise.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
Aether said:
Nothing happened in my life to make me bitter, and I do not mean to come off that way at all. Would you mind picking one example from that list and explaining to me how it seems bitter to you, and then I'll explain what I mean by it? Perhaps the one about "boo..hoo..." is an obvious candidate, but that statement is the truth.
Ok, I'm glad, you seemed unhappy. I'll pick one tomorrow. :biggrin:

I didn't mean to attack anyone, ever (well, maybe once or twice, but only with a good reason). I apologize profusely if it seemed that way.
You don't need to apologize, just don't think everyone has a hidden agenda, most do, just not everyone. :-p Plus, I'm the only one allowed to be bitter and pick on people here.
 
  • #87
I think Aether and Evo are in love.
 
  • #88
it's about time.
 
  • #89
*throws rice at Evo and Aether*

Enjoy it while it lasts, you crazy kids.
 
  • #90
zoobyshoe said:
You may be unaware of what a zoobie is. If you have a few minutes you can read the interesting link in my signature and then it ought to be clear. There are many zoobies and many different names for us.
Ah...I have heard of your kind, but not by the name of zoobie. So you have decided to make yourself known in the virtual world. Do you hope humans will learn to understand you and not destroy your kind? I wouldn't trust them--please be careful dear zoobie.
Aether said:
I'm thinking more in terms of "2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful: " as a way of life
Wow, that's working for me.

About the scissors in the forehead... Do men fantasize about their wives dying?