If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Scientists say a woman can tell if a man is cheating just by looking at him, and don't you try to deny it, you bastard, they KNOW what they know   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 80
    More: Unlikely, University of Western Australia, mate choice, Biology Letters, scientists  
•       •       •

3157 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Dec 2012 at 3:51 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-05 12:47:08 PM  
Well, that depends. Is she looking at him while he's cheating?
 
2012-12-05 01:01:36 PM  
I'm only cheating in my heart, baby.
 
2012-12-05 01:16:27 PM  
Trust but verify.

d.yimg.com
 
2012-12-05 01:25:30 PM  
People see what they want to see.
 
2012-12-05 01:35:41 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Well, that depends. Is she looking at him while he's cheating?


It wasn't me.
 
2012-12-05 02:10:45 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Well, that depends. Is she looking at him while he's cheating?


Cuckold?
 
2012-12-05 02:39:45 PM  
Many cheaters have bad poker faces. Thanks, Ric Romero!
 
2012-12-05 02:47:25 PM  
FTA: "More masculine-looking men (were) rated as more probable to be unfaithful and having a sexual history of being more unfaithful."

This is crazy. So what they're saying is that if a man looks more attractive and thus has more options that he's more likely to cheat? Get out!
 
2012-12-05 03:11:45 PM  
Well, one of the best ways to make your woman scream while you are having sex is to call her up and tell her what you are doing.
 
2012-12-05 03:53:06 PM  

kbronsito: Pocket Ninja: Well, that depends. Is she looking at him while he's cheating?

It wasn't me.


One of the best bits in Raw.
 
2012-12-05 03:54:28 PM  
And I thought it was the smell.
 
2012-12-05 04:04:06 PM  

MayoSlather: FTA: "More masculine-looking men (were) rated as more probable to be unfaithful and having a sexual history of being more unfaithful."

This is crazy. So what they're saying is that if a man looks more attractive and thus has more options that he's more likely to cheat? Get out!



You couldn't read just one more sentence in TFA? Seriously, this was the very next line after your quote:
Attractiveness was not a factor in the women making the link.

In other words, women were making the judgment based off of male facial features which are common to men with high testosterone levels. Those high testosterone levels also correlate with a higher likelihood of cheating, so they were able to guess which men were more likely to cheat with some reasonable degree of accuracy.

But the attractiveness of the man's face (which usually is predicated on other attributes, such as facial symmetry) didn't appear to be a factor in the decision making.
 
2012-12-05 04:08:29 PM  
Well, once again, scientists are complete farktards. Let's see the two most glaring signs of idiocy in these conclusions:

Men with unfaithful partners risk raising another man's child,

there is no reason why this would be a "risk" in most societies.


while women with unfaithful partners risk losing some, or even all, parental and other resources to competitors.


There is no society where raising children is the job of only 2 people. In all cases, either grandparents, polygamy, or extended families making up the difference. There is no reason for anyone to think this is a sensible fear.

What utter bullshiat. Gillian Rhodes at the ARC Centre is spreading around!
 
2012-12-05 04:09:36 PM  
Baby, I don't care what you think you see on that video, that isn't me. Now who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?
 
2012-12-05 04:11:42 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: there is no reason why this would be a "risk" in most societies.


I'd venture that the 'risk' is at the abstract genetic/resource management level. If I have to spend resources on some random stranger's kid, then those are resources that my own genetic offspring don't get, thus reducing my overall reproductive fitness.

This is why I don't have/like/want kids. I'd rather spend all my resources on my self, and all my genetic material on your mom.
 
2012-12-05 04:13:25 PM  
Geek tab? You guys wish...
 
2012-12-05 04:15:42 PM  

MayoSlather: FTA: "More masculine-looking men (were) rated as more probable to be unfaithful and having a sexual history of being more unfaithful."

This is crazy. So what they're saying is that if a man looks more attractive and thus has more options that he's more likely to cheat? Get out!


That's actually not what they said happened. Well, it happened to the guys - men assumed the prettier a girl is the bigger cheater she is. Women assumed the more masculine a man is, the bigger cheater his is - the note here is that masculine doesn't always equal attractive or handsome. The take away - women assume pretty boys are more faithful.
 
2012-12-05 04:15:51 PM  
I work from home. My wife is a stay-at-home mom. If we were cheating on each other, we'd have to be awfully discreet about it.
 
2012-12-05 04:17:46 PM  

Lord Dimwit: I work from home. My wife is a stay-at-home mom. If we were cheating on each other, we'd have to be awfully discreet about it.


We are.
 
2012-12-05 04:18:06 PM  
Am I missing something? 34 versus 34 is a pretty small sample size. Especially for international news.
 
2012-12-05 04:19:03 PM  

Spad31: Lord Dimwit: I work from home. My wife is a stay-at-home mom. If we were cheating on each other, we'd have to be awfully discreet about it.

We are.


DAD?!?!
 
2012-12-05 04:19:16 PM  
DRTFA but I'm guessing it was something along the lines of "because he's a man."
 
2012-12-05 04:20:28 PM  

Odd Bird: Geek tab? You guys wish...


Lolz.

Should have been the only post on this thread.
 
2012-12-05 04:33:17 PM  
My friend was going to surprise his girlfriend with a trip to Mexico, where he was going to propose to her. He asked me whether he should go through with the surprise or just tell her.

"Surprise her dude, don't tell her anything." I said.

She could tell he was keeping a secret from her, so she accused him with 100% certainty of cheating on her. After a huge fight he told her about the now canceled trip to Mexico and she still feels like a total biatch about it.

Lesson: You don't know shiat ladies.
 
2012-12-05 04:33:24 PM  

MayoSlather: FTA: "More masculine-looking men (were) rated as more probable to be unfaithful and having a sexual history of being more unfaithful."

This is crazy. So what they're saying is that if a man looks more attractive and thus has more options that he's more likely to cheat? Get out!


Wishful thinking, that's all it is.
 
2012-12-05 04:37:22 PM  
"IS cheating"? Like, "Is currently engaged in extra-relationship hanky-panky"? Are we talking only about marriage?

I need a definition here. Is a guy who once cheated on a girlfriend while they were both in middle school (Johnny kissed Sara on the playground, but Marcy's his girlfriend) considered "unfaithful" for the purposes of the study? A guy who has cheated on every woman except the one he married - is he "unfaithful"?

Did they only measure the binary difference - e.g. between "those who cheated, even once" and "those who never cheated on so much as a Fark News Quiz"?

// full disclosure: I cheated on a gf in college. We broke up the day after that (I didn't tell her about the cheating; the relationship was doomed anyway), and I consider it to be my single greatest moral mistake. To many women, "once a cheater, always a cheater", but that's insane, right? This study wouldn't have labeled me a "cheater", right?
 
2012-12-05 04:39:48 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Well, once again, scientists are complete farktards. Let's see the two most glaring signs of idiocy in these conclusions:

Men with unfaithful partners risk raising another man's child,

there is no reason why this would be a "risk" in most societies.


while women with unfaithful partners risk losing some, or even all, parental and other resources to competitors.

There is no society where raising children is the job of only 2 people. In all cases, either grandparents, polygamy, or extended families making up the difference. There is no reason for anyone to think this is a sensible fear.

What utter bullshiat. Gillian Rhodes at the ARC Centre is spreading around!


It's been a risk ever since humanity discovered agriculture and got into the habit of property ownership.

Once humans figured out agriculture they started staying in one spot. Eventually, people became dependent on those farm plots...maybe from a couple generations that didn't do as much hunting or gathering and passed on less knowledge to future generations. Also less density of animals in the immediate area surrounding human settlements since they quickly learn to avoid that noisy, smelly mess. So less prey to hunt too.

Also, it's more bang for your effort to mass grow few crops because the growing process and land can be systematically managed for a mass of the same plant. By this point in human history, everyone is accustomed to only a few types of crop, forgot how to hunt enough shiat to live on, and realize that it's hard work to walk far so let's just stay in this area maaaaaan my legs are tired.

All of a sudden, crops have insanely massive value. They're so valuable they're nearly that societies link to survival. So it's now a huge advantage to own control over farmland. Humans are pretty devious, so everyone either fights or does hard negotiation to get a piece of it. Part of this devious plot is to convince people of the value of your trinkets...and use them as leverage in these negotiations.

Awww yehhhhhh SON now we have limited wealth and resources. SCORE ONE FOR HUMANITY.

Raising kids takes money....gotta get some food, clothes, shelter, whatever it takes to raise those little shiats. Each kid puts pressure on a family, unless that family can have some control over food supply. They can use those kids as free labor. Ever wonder why old farming families always seem to have a million kids?

Now the plot thickens because olden day priests wrote up sacred texts for their bibles and shiat. They claimed God said that you have to give a dowry to marry some ho. That's just because the ho's family wants some compensation for losing that awesome free labor. There's lots of other junk in those sacred texts that helps facilitate humans farking each other over quietly under the guise of contracts/religion.

Fast forward to today, and I guess people get pretty pissed if they have to give away money for a kid that's around from nothing they did.

If I had to guess, I'd assume that hunter gatherer era humans were polyandrous and/or polygamist. One more person for your tiny tribe is a huge bonus, so it'd be good to ensure that everyone is farking everyone. No worries about food assuming your tribe recently found a good area for hunting and gathering.
 
2012-12-05 04:47:58 PM  

torusXL: They claimed God said that you have to give a dowry to marry some ho. That's just because the ho's family wants some compensation for losing that awesome free labor.


Sorry little caveat here.

Boys in the family are just as much labor help as the hos. I guess since human culture is that the male line is accustomed to passing down the family name, families assume the guy will stay loyal to the family?

Man I don't know. Maybe it's not just about the free labor, but humanity quickly learned that getting laid is worth a whole lot of money. Gay dudes sure got smart pretty quick in human history.

Us humans are pretty creepy little farksters.
 
2012-12-05 04:50:09 PM  
It is probably because of all the smiles and general enjoyment of life.
 
2012-12-05 04:52:36 PM  
It's because most guys think they're

img69.imageshack.us

but the reality is more like

img42.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-05 04:59:25 PM  
I've been flat out accused of cheating on someon next summer. She punished me for something I hadn't done yet.

I've also been beaten around the head by that farking Little Black Book movie: "People are creatures of habit." Because I'd had a casual encounter while I was single, apparently I was going to be having constant casual encounters while in relationships. You can't argue with something that illogical. Well, you can, but you won't get anywhere.

This happened with two successive girlfriends. They both harped on about it so much (on zero evidence, I might add - I have something of a White Knight complex, and loyalty to the source of thy nookie is a big part of that) I finally asked them if they knew what a self-fulfulling prophecy was.

Fortunately my current girlfriend is amazing and not a bundle of insecurities.

Guys, if she doesn't respect herself enough to be confident, she's going to assume you don't either. If she thinks you're a bad boyfriend, and your instinct it to prove her wrong, you're better off proving her right.
 
2012-12-05 05:02:21 PM  

PirateKing: Bennie Crabtree: there is no reason why this would be a "risk" in most societies.

I'd venture that the 'risk' is at the abstract genetic/resource management level. If I have to spend resources on some random stranger's kid, then those are resources that my own genetic offspring don't get, thus reducing my overall reproductive fitness.


My brother-in-law shoots blanks, so my sister had to use a sperm donor for their two children.
My cousin was cuckolded by his first wife, and didn't find out about it till months after the birth.

In both cases, the husbands were raising children that were not their own. The difference is one scenario was a voluntary burden, the other was not.
 
2012-12-05 05:02:23 PM  

Drain: My friend was going to surprise his girlfriend with a trip to Mexico, where he was going to propose to her. He asked me whether he should go through with the surprise or just tell her.

"Surprise her dude, don't tell her anything." I said.

She could tell he was keeping a secret from her, so she accused him with 100% certainty of cheating on her. After a huge fight he told her about the now canceled trip to Mexico and she still feels like a total biatch about it.

Lesson: You don't know shiat ladies.


Near Christmas, Valentine's Day or her birthday:
gf - what did you do last night?
me - ran some errands, gamed, a bit of cleaning
gf - what kinds of errands?
...etc.
I've been through this with a couple of women, reasons for the followup questions differ between them; they just like talking and are interested, they're henpecking, they're insecure and suspicious about everything. Sometimes a combination of the above.

After 47 years and a desire to minimize the pain in my life, I just tell them "it's Christmas/VD/BD so stop asking" (though phrased a bit gentler. sometimes)
 
2012-12-05 05:04:00 PM  

mongbiohazard: MayoSlather: FTA: "More masculine-looking men (were) rated as more probable to be unfaithful and having a sexual history of being more unfaithful."

This is crazy. So what they're saying is that if a man looks more attractive and thus has more options that he's more likely to cheat? Get out!


You couldn't read just one more sentence in TFA? Seriously, this was the very next line after your quote:
Attractiveness was not a factor in the women making the link.

In other words, women were making the judgment based off of male facial features which are common to men with high testosterone levels. Those high testosterone levels also correlate with a higher likelihood of cheating, so they were able to guess which men were more likely to cheat with some reasonable degree of accuracy.

But the attractiveness of the man's face (which usually is predicated on other attributes, such as facial symmetry) didn't appear to be a factor in the decision making.


Touché, admittedly skipped over that while skimming the tiny article. There is still an argument there along this line of thought though, and it's highly likely there is a simple conditioned logic there as opposed to an innate super power given by estrogen. That is to say that general attractiveness isn't the same as being sexually attractive. Someone may be symmetrical, but the more features that are distinctly male may be more sexually attractive. Thus more options = more cheating, or the Chris Rock hypothesis.
 
2012-12-05 05:11:31 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: PirateKing: Bennie Crabtree: there is no reason why this would be a "risk" in most societies.

I'd venture that the 'risk' is at the abstract genetic/resource management level. If I have to spend resources on some random stranger's kid, then those are resources that my own genetic offspring don't get, thus reducing my overall reproductive fitness.


My brother-in-law shoots blanks, so my sister had to use a sperm donor for their two children.
My cousin was cuckolded by his first wife, and didn't find out about it till months after the birth.

In both cases, the husbands were raising children that were not their own. The difference is one scenario was a voluntary burden, the other was not.


True, but I think the risk is at a more fundamental level. In both cases, those husbands had their reproductive/evolutionary fitness reduced. The one because he was unable to reproduce at all, and the other because of the resources 'wasted' on some other dude's offspring.

Voluntary or involuntary doesn't really enter into it, since we're discussing things at a much lower/more fundamental level than the petty wants and desires of humans.

Even the word 'cuckold' comes from the bird that sneaks its own eggs into some other bird's nest, thus ensuring its own reproductive success at the expense of the other species.
 
2012-12-05 05:12:42 PM  

Dr Dreidel: "IS cheating"? Like, "Is currently engaged in extra-relationship hanky-panky"? Are we talking only about marriage?

I need a definition here. Is a guy who once cheated on a girlfriend while they were both in middle school (Johnny kissed Sara on the playground, but Marcy's his girlfriend) considered "unfaithful" for the purposes of the study? A guy who has cheated on every woman except the one he married - is he "unfaithful"?

Did they only measure the binary difference - e.g. between "those who cheated, even once" and "those who never cheated on so much as a Fark News Quiz"?

// full disclosure: I cheated on a gf in college. We broke up the day after that (I didn't tell her about the cheating; the relationship was doomed anyway), and I consider it to be my single greatest moral mistake. To many women, "once a cheater, always a cheater", but that's insane, right? This study wouldn't have labeled me a "cheater", right?


I wouldn't say off hand that you "cheated" you knew the relationship was over, had some fun and moved on from that relationship immediately..

did you hook up with that nights snogging partner immediately afterwards? did the next relationship work out the same way?

if so, I would call you a serial Monogomist rather than a cheater.
 
2012-12-05 05:30:13 PM  
Quick article summary: If you are a woman and an unfamiliar, attached male is checking out your tits and ass, he might just be a cheater.
 
2012-12-05 05:33:42 PM  
Only if she gets to define what constitutes "cheating."
 
mjl
2012-12-05 05:38:26 PM  

Spad31: Lord Dimwit: I work from home. My wife is a stay-at-home mom. If we were cheating on each other, we'd have to be awfully discreet about it.

We are.


????!!!??? Hang on she said I was the only one in her life!
 
2012-12-05 05:52:33 PM  
Because there's exactly ZERO chance that she's a paranoid psycho biatch who needs drama to make her life complete.
 
2012-12-05 05:53:24 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I cheated on a gf in college. We broke up the day after that (I didn't tell her about the cheating; the relationship was doomed anyway)


I didn't cheat on my girlfriend...we retroactively broke up ;-)
 
2012-12-05 05:53:29 PM  
If your man is hot and/or rich enough to do better than you he probably is while you aren't looking

If your man would probably never land another girl as hot as you he probably isn't
 
2012-12-05 06:05:43 PM  

Oldiron_79: If your man is hot and/or rich enough to do better than you he probably is while you aren't looking

If your man would probably never land another girl as hot as you he probably isn't


This applies to girls too. And whatever other label they LGBTOMGWTFBBQ comes up with.


Whoever your mate is probably isn't going to be satisfied with just you if they're much more desirable than you. They will get attention. They'll probably stray.

Meanwhile if they're much less attractive than you, chances are they're gonna spend 110% of their effort to keep you around. No time to cheat. No attention to tempt.

If it's a push, that's where you find monogamy. Kind of a Mexican Stanoff With Genitals, or MSWG. (mouse wig?)
 
2012-12-05 06:05:59 PM  

Cerebral Knievel: Well, one of the best ways to make your woman scream while you are having sex is to call her up and tell her what you are doing.


That sounds a little like rodeo sex. While banging the wife, tell her you banged her sister and see if you can stay on for 8 seconds.
 
2012-12-05 06:09:33 PM  
I have a high testosterone face but have never cheated. Take THAT, science!
 
2012-12-05 06:17:46 PM  

LoneWolf343: Only if she gets to define what constitutes "cheating."


This.

"You thought about her! You were emotionally unfaithful."
"How do you even know what I'm thinking?"

CSB: As I'm reading this thread, I just got a spam email claiming to be from Ashley Madison, the married dating site.

/apparently I have a wire transfer for USD 55,694.28
//I wonder what happens when I click this link that doesn't go to either ashleymadison.com or the site the body of the message references
///*)*^%$&*^&)NO CARRIER
 
2012-12-05 06:49:45 PM  

Psycoholic_Slag: Odd Bird: Geek tab? You guys wish...

Lolz.

Should have been the only post on this thread.


Hahahahaha geeks can't have sex! That joke is so new and awesome and has never been used before!
 
2012-12-05 06:49:50 PM  
For some reason my ability to spot a guilty person at a glance makes me unqualified for jury duty.
 
2012-12-05 07:01:56 PM  

mongbiohazard: In other words, women were making the judgment based off of male facial features which are common to men with high testosterone levels. Those high testosterone levels also correlate with a higher likelihood of cheating, so they were able to guess which men were more likely to cheat with some reasonable degree of accuracy.


Absolutely faithful:
ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2012-12-05 07:07:14 PM  
I knew when one of my ex's was cheating on me. I could taste the pussy on her mouth.
 
Displayed 50 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report