quote:

I did a search for the word "cheater"
I went back 100 occurences.
In 2 cases, a woman was denigrated. Both times by a male poster.

2 of our regular female posters admitted to having done so in the past. Noone said shit.

In threads where people were just talking about the term without any particular person in mind, the words "She" and "Domme" never appeared once.
"He, Him or Dom" was always present.

One thread was particularly telling. A single Dominant was seeing a married woman. HE was the one who was scum. No one said squat about her.
Are you going to keep on about there is no huge bias among posters here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I explained my parameters. I used the first 100 occurrences of a certain word "cheater".

You went looking and found what you wanted to find and ran back here with it. Note the search parameters "cheat + Husband"

Do you honestly think that if I expanded the search to "cheat, cheater, adultery and cheating" and looked at the first 100 results, I would find different data?

I'm sick in bed, got nothing better to do, and am interested in the data results, so I'm going to take on that task and find out.

A couple more questions about your methodology though, because a preliminary search of the first dozen has brought up some questions:

- Are you only counting instances in which the poster themselves uses the word in question, or are you also counting posts in which the word was in the quote the post replies to?
- If the topic of cheating was brought up in relation to a specific person/poster of either gender, and a person of either gender replied condemning cheating in general, did you count that as condemning, or neutral?
- If a poster of either gender condemned cheating in general, not specifically in relationship to an instance of a specific person, did you count that at all?

Thanks... results to follow at some later point in time...

Have fun.
Remember to choose gender neutral search words so as not to skew the resultseither way.
I hope you feel better soon.

quote:

I did find a couple of female forum regulars who admitted cheating in the past but no repercussions at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

I did a search for the word "cheater"
I went back 100 occurences.
In 2 cases, a woman was denigrated. Both times by a male poster.

2 of our regular female posters admitted to having done so in the past. Noone said shit.

In threads where people were just talking about the term without any particular person in mind, the words "She" and "Domme" never appeared once.
"He, Him or Dom" was always present.

One thread was particularly telling. A single Dominant was seeing a married woman. HE was the one who was scum. No one said squat about her.
Are you going to keep on about there is no huge bias among posters here?

While your results may show that posters are more likely to label a man "cheater" than a woman, because your methodology does not included all possible derogatory terms for cheaters, you cannot use it to make conclusions about a m/f bias.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

I did find a couple of female forum regulars who admitted cheating in the past but no repercussions at all.

Possibly because they put it in a "it was wrong and I won't do it again" frame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar



I'm using the search words you suggested: cheat, cheater, adultery, cheating

I may add 'infidelity' in too, depending on how conclusive the results are after the first few word searches.

Your answers to my questions about the methodology you used would be very helpful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar



I'm using the search words you suggested: cheat, cheater, adultery, cheating

I may add 'infidelity' in too, depending on how conclusive the results are after the first few word searches.

Your answers to my questions about the methodology you used would be very helpful.

Any questions you have, please feel free to ask.
I used to have to play with stats a lot in grad school.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

A couple more questions about your methodology though, because a preliminary search of the first dozen has brought up some questions:

- Are you only counting instances in which the poster themselves uses the word in question, or are you also counting posts in which the word was in the quote the post replies to?
- If the topic of cheating was brought up in relation to a specific person/poster of either gender, and a person of either gender replied condemning cheating in general, did you count that as condemning, or neutral?
- If a poster of either gender condemned cheating in general, not specifically in relationship to an instance of a specific person, did you count that at all?

quote:

I actually just found posts with the word in them and then read the post to determine who was being spoken of and by whom and in what tone.
It wasn't who was being labeled a "Cheater" it was the tone of the replies and who was replying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar



A couple more questions about your methodology though, because a preliminary search of the first dozen has brought up some questions:

- Are you only counting instances in which the poster themselves uses the word in question, or are you also counting posts in which the word was in the quote the post replies to?
- If the topic of cheating was brought up in relation to a specific person/poster of either gender, and a person of either gender replied condemning cheating in general, did you count that as condemning, or neutral?
- If a poster of either gender condemned cheating in general, not specifically in relationship to an instance of a specific person, did you count that at all?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar



A couple more questions about your methodology though, because a preliminary search of the first dozen has brought up some questions:

- Are you only counting instances in which the poster themselves uses the word in question, or are you also counting posts in which the word was in the quote the post replies to?
- If the topic of cheating was brought up in relation to a specific person/poster of either gender, and a person of either gender replied condemning cheating in general, did you count that as condemning, or neutral?
- If a poster of either gender condemned cheating in general, not specifically in relationship to an instance of a specific person, did you count that at all?

When I found the word, I'd read the post to determine the following
Who is the alleged cheater? m or f
Who is talking about them? m or f
Is the tenor of the post supportive, negative or neutral?

An example . This thread, post 3
"Start with a copy of The Joy of Sex book and add from there. Once you get her reading, then bring up the subject of bringing another female into the mix."

Male accused, male respondent positive response

Post 6 " Give her credit for her intelligence. Be honest. Provide unbiased information. Ask for a delayed reaction. Have all your ducks in a row. Be prepared for refusal. Accept your life as it is for you chose it to begin with."

Female respondent, positive advice

Post 34 " you are a lousy lay because you're LAZY, expecting HER to do all the work.
Maybe if you got down and got BUSY your wife would finally be interested in having sex with you"

I'd call that a negative response.

I don't gauge a respondent's reaction to cheating.
I gauge the response to the alleged cheater.

If they offer sincere advice, it's positive. "Why don't you try to get your spouse on board by bringing her to a munch?"
If they insult the person, call them names or make comments about their abilities or morals, "You and all like you are scum and you suck in bed is why she won't fuck you" it's negative.

If they respond to another person or say "ya know, that's not a good idea" I'd say neutral.

You can, of course, have your own criteria


Best of luck.

quote:

So do you honestly think the fact that she was a young cute female and he is an older male had nothing to do with the tenor of the answer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar



Thanks, that helps a lot.

If you search on a word like "cheating" in the first 100 instances of that word occurring, there will be a lot of duplicate thread links.

So did you go for the first hundred threads in which the word occurred, the hundred instances of the word per post, or the first hundred instances of the word divided by the number of unique threads brought up in that search and then checked all the replies on all the threads brought up in that first hundred instant list?

Or something else?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

I did a search for the word "cheater"
I went back 100 occurences.
In 2 cases, a woman was denigrated. Both times by a male poster.

2 of our regular female posters admitted to having done so in the past. Noone said shit.

In threads where people were just talking about the term without any particular person in mind, the words "She" and "Domme" never appeared once.
"He, Him or Dom" was always present.

One thread was particularly telling. A single Dominant was seeing a married woman. HE was the one who was scum. No one said squat about her.
Are you going to keep on about there is no huge bias among posters here?

While your results may show that posters are more likely to label a man "cheater" than a woman, because your methodology does not included all possible derogatory terms for cheaters, you cannot use it to make conclusions about a m/f bias.

I actually just found posts with the word in them and then read the post to determine who was being spoken of and by whom and in what tone.
It wasn't who was being labeled a "Cheater" it was the tone of the replies and who was replying.
In a couple of cases, some folks said "I was a cheater" so I'd look at the post and see what folks said about it.
With our 2 female regulars who said that, the attitude was something like "Really? I'd never have guessed Let's go find a noob to lynch"

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
It's rarity here that anyone makes an admission. Even with pitchforks, torches, and shotguns --- those flying in formation won't cop to their underlying emotions, prejudices, and bias. To them, their conduct is rational and justified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

So do you honestly think the fact that she was a young cute female and he is an older male had nothing to do with the tenor of the answer?

It's rarity here that anyone makes an admission. Even with pitchforks, torches, and shotguns --- those flying in formation won't cop to their underlying emotions, prejudices, and bias. To them, their conduct is rational and justified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple


Is it possible that the more muted reaction the women posters you're
referring to had more to do with them being regulars than them being
women. That people go softer on a person they "know" isn't that strange.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
No matter the reason, it's hypocrisy.

If something is evil, it's evil no matter who does it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

If its being excused on the basis of knowing or liking
versus not knowing them or not liking I agree its hypocritical.

I don't categorize adultery as evil even with my sensitivities to it.
It can be anything from a tragic mistake to asshole selfishness
and a host of other things. But I think it would rarely reach
the level of evil.