X

Cookies on SurvivingInfidelity.com®

SurvivingInfidelity.com® uses cookies to enhance your visit to our website. This is a requirement for participants to login, post and use other features. Visitors may opt out, but the website will be less functional for you.

more information about cookies...

Return to Forum List

Return to General

SurvivingInfidelity.com® > General

You are not logged in. Login here or register.

Wives chosen for reliability = plan B?

Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11

AbandonedGuy posted 5/8/2019 14:56 PM

It's impossible to validate the statement, "I could've prevented their cheating", because someone who doesn't cheat is not a cheater and we can't qualify if someone is or isn't a "potential cheater" anyway. We don't live inside other people's heads and there's no ISO-certified "Cheater Meter" to see how close they came to critical levels (i.e. starting an affair).

Even if I believed that cheaters in the world, potential cheaters, are just walking around waiting for their significant other's behavior to trigger their own cheating behavior, I'd much rather force their hand and have them reveal their shitty nature than to continuously walk on eggshells and "be the best man that she needs" for the rest of my life. How can I be a good SO if I'm constantly worried that she's been surreptitiously setting up backup plans like some kind of dictatorial spymaster and I'm one false move away from this fickle bitch sidelining my ass for some swarthy adventurer who wears loafers with no socks?

Hg65 posted 5/8/2019 15:02 PM

Cheatstroke, I personally do not care how tall anyone is...I was just guessing, given his ego, that he was going to be bothered by it...

I used *asterisks* and “average “ to refer to a previous post saying “most men are average.” My whole post was a response to that.

ETA: that was the reason I went for his height... he can’t do anything about it. I wanted him to feel that... a lot of us are stuck with physical aspects we can’t change. She just had a baby for fuck’s sake.

I was gunning for bear.

BTW, my husband is not a big guy. At all... I thought he was the hottest greatest thing I ever set eyes on. Until he cheated.

[This message edited by Hg65 at 3:09 PM, May 8th (Wednesday)]

BraveSirRobin posted 5/8/2019 15:05 PM

If your BMR (base metabolic rate) is 1000 kcal a day or 2000 kcal a day makes a difference, but, if you eat 800 kcal (first person) or 1800 kcal (2nd person) guess what? You'll both lose weight at exactly the same speed and have the same exact result from a diet.
Except that - guess what? - one of those women gets to feel like she is starving all the time, and the other does not, for the same behavior. And if 800-kcal woman chooses not to live on a starvation diet, then she is judged to be letting herself go, and we mourn for the poor husband who is deprived of the hot wife every man naturally wants.

Rideitout posted 5/8/2019 15:21 PM

Except that - guess what? - one of those women gets to feel like she is starving all the time, and the other does not, for the same behavior. And if 800-kcal woman chooses not to live on a starvation diet, then she is judged to be letting herself go, and we mourn for the poor husband who is deprived of the hot wife every man naturally wants.

Both of these people are, in fact, starving themselves. That's what a diet is, it's starving your body of the fuel it needs so that it'll use the reserves. Could one person feel it more than the other? Absolutely. But I don't think that's based on BMR (at least, I've never seen anything that indicates it is). My BMR is pretty high, and I feel like I'm starving sometimes even though I'm eating more than (gaining weight) my BMR requires. And that's a lot of food!

Is it harder for some people than others? I really have no idea, none of us do. What we do know is that obesity is a relatively new thing, so, in some ways, I'd put forth that indicates that we all, genetically, have the capability to control those urges. We didn't have a drastic shift in genetics in a few generations where we did have a drastic shift in obesity. Yes, foods today are more calorie dense and less fulfilling. Nobody with even moderate means has to eat those foods. It's a choice. And people 100 years ago all seemed to be able to, regardless of BMR, eat an amount of food that wouldn't lead to obesity. This is a societal change, not a change in genetics that suddenly results in everyone having a lower BMR.

KingRat posted 5/8/2019 15:22 PM

As someone who went to school nutrition, I’m not even going to touch on the oversimplification of calories in, calories out. Calories are very important but it’s not as simplified as bro science presents it.

Rideitout posted 5/8/2019 15:31 PM

As someone who went to school nutrition, I’m not even going to touch on the oversimplification of calories in, calories out. Calories are very important but it’s not as simplified as bro science presents it.

Oh no.. Please don't do that. Even if you don't present the entire medical library on weight gain/loss, if it's "not that simple" please, give people the path to weight loss (or gain) from a trained nutritionist? Is it, for example, possible to gain fat if you take in 1000 cals a day but burn 2000? Will 1000 cals a day of sugar with 2000 cals a day of burn make me lose less/more weight? If there a way to eat 10,000 cals a day, burn 2000 and lose weight? Because, if there is, please, please, I think many/most of us would love to know!

DragnHeart posted 5/8/2019 15:36 PM

Seriously how did this go from woman being plan A or B to dictating that no one should ever be overweight....Ever...

I'll refrain from.what I want to say just to avoid the mod dungeon but dammit piss off. If a heavier set woman isn't attractive to you so be it. But don't be telling any woman to lose the baby fat right after popping out a kid just so she's Hot again. Fuck that shit.

NotTheManIwas posted 5/8/2019 15:37 PM

bro science

Really?

As someone who went to school nutrition, I’m not even going to touch on the oversimplification of calories in, calories out.

Why not? I mean, you've gone there with a condescending comment for another poster who spent time explaining his understanding of the subject.

How about you educate us.

KingRat posted 5/8/2019 15:57 PM

Sure bud. But I don’t hold lectures for free ; ). The key is figuring out the bioavailability of the macro which is what a calorie is based on. If I had 100 calories of peanut butter vs 100 calories of peanuts, the unprocessed peanuts are not going to be as easy for my body to breakdown and depending on genetic factors, the net result will be different based on how much of the macro nutrients your body is able to absorb. So in a sense CICO is relevant, it’s just that our bodies aren’t machines and there are genetic and environmental variables that determine the net calories in not the the label on the package. Hormones play a huge role in how our bodies store fat. Insulin is a great examples, that is a much more nuanced lecture. Have to sign up for my class for that one ; )

Sorry rio for the broscience comment. That was shitty of me.

[This message edited by KingRat at 4:07 PM, May 8th (Wednesday)]

AbandonedGuy posted 5/8/2019 16:06 PM

I'm aware of that relationship with CICO, different bodies process differently, etc. But I'm curious--assuming kcal is found via bomb calorimeter, does that mean that "calories" attributed to a portion of food would in fact be "max calories"? As in, a body can absorb up to that amt or less but not more? So if someone is counting calories, they're at risk of, at worst, starving themselves more than they initially planned? Or am I way off?

NotTheManIwas posted 5/8/2019 16:10 PM

Have to sign up for my class for that one

Nope, not gonna do it. Here's the thing, are you going to tell me that portion control isn't the primary determinant of weight loss/gain?

Sidenote: The wifey lost 120 lbs as of 3 years ago. No gym membership; just eating less and walking 1 hour per day with the dogs. This, after decades of lambasting me with "I'm big boned" and the like. (I remember one particularly argument in our 30's when she became incensed because I commented on the large chicken fried steak meal that she ordered at the restaurant)

Now she will, in contrite fashion, see someone overweight and murmur "portion control."

IDK, guess I'm particularly sensitive to this when all I ever wanted was the best reasonable version of her, and then decades later when as a 50 something, she's looking smoking hot, she parries my attention away in preference for ego kibbles from other men.

So, yeah, your condescending comment regarding oversimplification struck a nerve, bud.

ETA: "bud" on the last sentence

[This message edited by NotTheManIwas at 4:12 PM, May 8th (Wednesday)]

AbandonedGuy posted 5/8/2019 16:24 PM

I will say that in my experience, CICO is just fine to control your weight. It's sort of like the difference between how many decimal points you use when Pi is in an equation: 3.14, 3.14159, or 3.14159265359...

The first one is fine for most people. Most body types. You find the number of calories you need to maintain your weight and you start cutting. I lost 42 lb in 4 months because of two things: counting calories (1800-2200 kcal per day) and eating low carb (20-50 g per day). I kept it off because I built a lot of muscle during and right afterward. Aaaaand I gained it all back as soon as I stopped giving a shit about what goes into my body and how much force I exert on my muscles. Then I lost another 30 from the Divorce Diet (thanks Divorce Diet!).

The second pi accurate to 5 decimal places is great for most scientific calculations. This is when you're a bodybuilder or a fighter who needs to make weight or whatever. You hire a nutritionist and a trainer and they start implementing different hardcore approaches to weight loss or body modification. Most of us don't need to apply this level of understanding of biochemistry. Most of us aren't training to be Olympic athletes or record-breakers.

The last one is for people of the future who are benefiting from a thousand years of scientific data on nutrition, who receive injections from their phones to maintain a specific ratio of water, macros, vitamins, minerals, and Soma.

HoldingTogether posted 5/8/2019 16:39 PM

Holy fuckballs!

I look away for a couple hours and this goes from infidelity talk to a debate about height and nutrition/weight loss. There is just nothing all of us can’t argue about is there?

It’s a bummer to because I thought we were segueing into a really pointed and constructive discussion about futility of trying to control others actions. A topic that relates to infidelity directly and that some people seem like they really need to explore.

Masterful deflection btw those people!

HT

KingRat posted 5/8/2019 16:39 PM

Here's the thing, are you going to tell me that portion control isn't the primary determinant of weight loss/gain?

That and lifestyle. The comment was regarding a pregnant woman who presumably put on a few pounds and was in a healthy weight range to begin with. If someone is obese, CICO is a great way to measure weight loss. Where CICO breaks down is when people enter the healthy weight range.

Anyone can achieve 10% bodyfat, but not everyone's path way is the same. There are people who do struggle to maintain a healthy weight who are not obese and still count calories.

My comment was made and apologized. When someone says they have never experienced a problem with then state its as simple as CICO, I'm just saying it's not that simple. I'm very lean, however, I have to really work to maintain that.

Sorry if my comment triggered you, bud.

Loukas posted 5/8/2019 16:42 PM

I was thinking the same, HT.

KingRat posted 5/8/2019 16:43 PM

But I'm curious--assuming kcal is found via bomb calorimeter, does that mean that "calories" attributed to a portion of food would in fact be "max calories"

Yes. But manufactures use the Atwater system today to measure k. So it's more nuanced than traditional sealing food in container then heating water until food was burned to calculate the energy based on the rise in the water temperature.

NotTheManIwas posted 5/8/2019 16:50 PM

Sorry if my comment triggered you, bud.

Apology accepted, bud.

Ok, now we can get back to...

I thought we were segueing into a really pointed and constructive discussion about futility of trying to control others actions. A topic that relates to infidelity directly and that some people seem like they really need to explore.

Murkywaters posted 5/8/2019 16:53 PM

some men can be ‘happy’ with plain women because they look after them. - That’s not constructive it misogynistic

So misogynistic is just a synonym for a male POV now? If not, is it that a man can't actually be happy with a plain looking woman or the idea that plain looking women exist that's the misogynistic part. I don't understand.

onthefence123 posted 5/8/2019 17:17 PM

A woman can start a thread wondering why men might resent being chosen because they are a good provider, and that is perfectly OK, it is “legitimate” for women to care about that.

Let a man suggest that looks, or sex, has anything to do with it, and watch out. This thread has “toxic masculinity,” “misogyny” (a couple of time), “haters,” “damaging” posts (and all apparently overlooked by some who have “read the fucking room.”)

You are not comparing the same points here. The "it" in this statement: Let a man suggest that looks, or sex, has anything to do with it, is not about feeling like plan B which was the discussion in the previous thread and was in this one. Everyone was fine discussing the topic until we were told to "own our man." The reactions came from the statement made that women need to keep their husband's belly full and give 'em sex/bj's or whatever, the exact quote is too far back and don't feel like hunting it down. This is your "it" and not the topic of feeling like plan B.

When the discussion turned to "How to Keep Your Man from Straying" and not about being plan B, that's when the shit hit the fan.

Again, to reiterate, no blame is on the BS, whether they were doing something or not doing something, there is nothing to prevent what happened. Marriages are meant to weather the storms, and we all thought that our spouses held that same belief. We were all in the same marriage, living it, loving it, or hating it, right beside our WSs, and yet, we did not cheat.

The problem resides with the cheater, not with the betrayed.


[This message edited by onthefence123 at 5:20 PM, May 8th (Wednesday)]

seekers posted 5/8/2019 17:27 PM

emergent8 I just peed myself. That translation!!Best ever!

Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11

Return to Forum List

Return to General

© 2002-2020 SurvivingInfidelity.com ®. All Rights Reserved.     Privacy Policy