Another Stupid Unfaithful Wife
June 10th, 2010 by The Babe
How stupid can you get? Suzanne Corona, a Batavia, New York wife has been charged with adultery by local police.
Police say an officer saw Corona and 29-year-old Justin Amend having sex on a park picnic table, in view of children and other adults, in broad daylight.
“He had a shirt, and his pants were down,” Officer Eric Hill said.
Corona and Amend were charged with public lewdness, but Corona is also accused of adultery, becoming the 13th person in New York state history to face the charge.
The cheating wife has her own take on the incident…..
“We were not naked on a picnic table – we were sitting there on the bench, fully clothed. His pants were on, my clothing was on,” Corona said. “Yes, it was inappropriate to behave in that manner in a public area.
“His genitals were exposed, perhaps, by the zipper, but that’s it – but no one would see that. I want to make clear to everyone nothing was out there, nothing was showing,” she said.
Joseph Corona, the husband, says he’s sad and hurt, but he forgives his wife.
“I’ve got 40-some more years to spend with my wife, [and] I’m not going to throw it away over one incident,” he said. “I wish that the charges were dropped and that we could resolve this as man and wife. It’s more of a private matter.”
Technorati Tags: New York, adultery, cheating wife
Another Look At Presidential Candidates Views On Infidelity
May 17th, 2010 by The BabeBased on what we know now – John Edwards / Rielle Hunter Bill Clinton / Monica Lewinsky scandals and the purported affair between Barack Obama / Vera Baker, I thought you might find interesting to take Another Look At Presidential Candidates Views On Infidelity.
Couric asks
“Whether They Can Understand Voters Who Don’t Feel Comfortable Supporting A Candidate Who Cheated”
Here are some of their responses:
The Question by Katie Couric:
Harry Truman said, quote, “A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other.” Many people say they don’t feel comfortable supporting someone who’s not remained faithful to their spouse. Why should they?
————————-
Barack Obama
Obama: Why should they not –
Couric: Support someone who isn’t faithful. In other words, people feel uncomfortable. Is that appropriate? Or, you know, how do you feel about that?
Obama: Well, I … you know, I do think that public morality … and private morality are not sum — you know, or not equivalent. You know, we — some of our greatest presidents haven’t always been terrific husbands. And some who have been wonderful husbands have been rotten presidents.
So, you know, I think that other countries have typically taken a little more casual on approach when it comes to the personal lives … of elected officials. And I think that there has to be some space for privacy. I will say this.
I do think that I’m very proud of the relationship I’ve got with Michelle, and the work and the value that I’ve put into it. And I hope it does say something about my character, the strength of my marriage. But, you know … if I was — had a wonderful marriage but didn’t have good ideas in terms of providing health care for every American or repairing the damage that’s been done to our foreign policy by George Bush, then my marriage alone shouldn’t qualify me … for being president.
Couric: Should infidelity qualify someone, or should infidel …
Obama: Disqualify.
Couric: … infidelity disqualify someone?
Obama: You know … I’m very cautious about applying strict moral rules to … or a blanket universal rule to … people. Because, you know, I mean, there are some people who might say that the fact that, you know, I indulged in drugs when I was young, disqualifies me. I mean, there are a lot of ways that you can apply that kind of morality. What I’m always hopeful of is that people are judge our public servants based on their passion, their commitment, their public integrity, how they operate with that public trust. And, you know, if we start getting too sanctimonious about some of these issues then there aren’t going to be that many people who are able or willing to serve.
————————-
Hilary Clinton
Clinton: Well, I can certainly understand why some people would feel that way, and … that is their perfect right to do so. But I think … would be a tough standard for most of American history to be able to meet, when we look at people who have made a big difference in our country.
I think there’s more to someone’s honor and integrity, and to their public service. I think sometimes we confuse the private and the public in ways that are not necessarily useful. So, of course, it’s a deeply personal matter that I take personally. But I think on the public stage, there are a number of people who have represented our country, led our country, accomplished great achievements on behalf of our country who might have some challenges in their personal life, but have made a great contribution.
————————-
John Edwards
Couric: So how important do you think it is in the grand scheme of things?
Edwards: I think the most important qualities in a president in today’s world are trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And certainly that goes to a part of that. It’s not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.
Couric: So you think it’s an appropriate way to judge a candidate?
Edwards: Yeah. But I don’t think it’s controlling. I mean, I think that, as you point out, there have been American presidents that at least according to the … stories we’ve all heard, that were not faithful, that were in fact good presidents. So I don’t think it controls the issue. But I think it’s certain … something reasonable for people to consider.
————————-
John McCain
McCain: You know … that’s an area that I never get into. Because I think that people make judgments, and you can judge other people. I’m not very good at that. And so, I think it’s up to each person’s personal view of the individual, and … everybody has a different view.
I say that because you and I know that there have been some leaders in American history — latest information about Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I happen to still think that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an important president at a time in our history when we needed some courage. And so … that’s just frankly, a judgment that I leave to others.
————————-
Bill Richardson
Richardson: Well, I think this is … if you’re — if you’re not faithful to your wife, you’re not faithful to the country, to your ideals. You’re not faithful to the spirit in which Americans trust their political leaders. And they expect them to … have a sense of honor.
Nobody’s perfect. I’ve been married to Barbara for 35 years. We’ve had our differences, our difficulties, but we’ve stayed together. But I think being faithful is … an essential component of any relationship. It’s whether a voter can trust you to … be thinking about the common good as opposed to personal ambition or anything else.
Couric: Do you think infidelity is reason enough not to vote for someone?
Richardson: I don’t think so. I think that, you know, infidelity is … a serious problem in any marriage. But, you know, everybody sins. And it’s whether you’re forgiven, whether you forgive yourself, whether you have faith in God. You know, perfection … is something that politicians, they should not stand themselves for perfection. Nobody’s perfect.
————————-
Mitt Romney
Couric: Well, what do you think of people who base their judgment at least partially on a candidate’s ability to remain faithful to his or her spouse?
Romney: You know, I let people look at me any way they want to. I’m not gonna give advice to the American people in which aspects of a person’s life they look at. After all, the president of the United States is gonna be under a microscope. He will be. The first lady will be. The whole family will be. Every mistake will be open to the world. In some respects, you respect the nation.
In some respects you represent an example to the children of America. So we’re gonna get looked at in all sorts of ways. And I’m not gonna try and counsel the American people as to what to look at. I know they look at my faith, for instance. And I’m happy to have them do so. Some are critical. Some are positive. It’s just part of the package. And take me as … the whole character that I am.
Couric: Do you think that people shouldn’t vote for candidates if they are — commit adultery, for example?
Romney: I think people should be able to do what they want to do. And express their own views when they get into the … voting booth. I’m not gonna tell them how to … do that. And I know that people will, again, take their own counsel.
————————-
Fred Thompson
Couric: Do you think it’s an appropriate way to evaluate a candidate?
Thompson: Everybody’s gotta make up their own mind about that. I think that you can evaluate a candidate any way you want to. It’s a free country. There are a lot of things that go into it. When we elect a president, we’re electing the leader of the free world. We’re facing tremendous challenges ahead. I don’t think we’ve come to terms with the nature of the threats against us, really in terms … of radical Islam and the things we’ve got to do and the threats to the economy with the growing retirement population, things that, of that nature.
So, nobody’s perfect. Everybody has weaknesses and has made mistakes one time or another in life. But everybody’s gotta decide for themselves what they want to consider that go into making up. The leader is going to have to deal with these problems of the country.
————————-
Mike Huckabee
Huckabee: I can. If you violate the promise that you made to the one person on earth to whom you’re supposed to be closest to, and this vow was made in front of your families, your closest friends, and God, and you don’t keep that, then can we trust you to keep a promise that you made to people you don’t even know?
Huckabee: I don’t think it means that a person can’t be a good president. Obviously, there have been some great presidents who had personal issues. I think that’s going to be true of all leaders. Nobody’s perfect. Nobody. Me, anybody else. We all have flaws.
One of the things that I think I’ve learned most about life, particularly from my experience of having been a pastor, is that the people that you think are the best people on earth? Well, they’ve got some secrets sitting in there, about some pretty dark spots.
And the people you think are the dregs of the earth, there’s some qualities there. May not be on the surface, but they’re there. The capacity to make great decisions is not always the same as the capacity to make really good personal decisions.
But it does come to the matter of, I think, whether the general population will trust you, and that if what you’re saying is really true. They may believe that what you do is a good thing. It’s just they don’t, they may not believe that what you say is necessarily the truth.
————————-
Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani: Sure, I can. Absolutely. You know, they look the every single part of us. And the … only thing I can say to people is I’m not perfect, you know? And I’ve made mistakes in my life. And that … not just in that area. In other areas and I try to learn from it. I try to — I feel sorry about them. I try to learn from them so I don’t repeat them.
Sometimes I even repeat them and … you try again. I mean, you … so — I have a, maybe a more generous view of human beings and a more generous view of life. I mean, it comes from growing up as a Catholic. I mean, we’re all sinners. We’re all struggling. We’re all trying hard. We ask for forgiveness, and then we try to improve ourselves again. And I’ve — relate to other people that way. Relate to the world that way.
Technorati Tags: CBS News, Katie Couric, John Edwards, Rielle Hunter, Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, affair, Barack Obama, Vera Baker, Infidelity, Hilary Clinton, American presidents, John McCain, Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney, president of the United States, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani
Adultery Leaves A Trail Of Broken Hearts And Marriages
December 29th, 2009 by The Babe
Adultery was once considered a sin – or at least a secret. Not online. The Internet dating craze is blazing a trail of broken marriages thanks to dozens of sites inviting participants to identify themselves as “not so happily married,” “married but that shouldn’t matter” or even, “married but we swing.”
Studies show some 30 percent of online dating visitors are married – and recent research by the University of Florida reports that what starts out as flirting and cybersex quickly escalates into the real thing.
The Internet became an easy escape for “Barbara,” a 43-year-old married New Yorker who dated about 60 men in three years until she met Steve, who’s also married – but now sneaking around with Barbara. “We see each other once or twice a week,” she says. “We have a lot in common, have a great time together and the sex is phenomenal.”
She says a cold husband sent her surfing for more. “There was no warmth or any physical affection,” she says glumly. She tried cajoling her husband into seeing a marriage counselor, but after only one visit, he refused to return. She didn’t want a divorce because of their 7-year-old daughter, so she posted an ad in one of the adult dating sites online.
“I’m not interested in jeopardizing my marriage or anyone else’s,” she told The Post. “I just wanted to find someone special I could click with.”
Other women interviewed by The Post say they’ve been searching for deeper emotional relationships than their husbands are able to give – but aren’t ready to leave.
“I guess the sex just isn’t what it used to be when we first met,” says Nicole, 28, a married New Yorker.
“I miss the feeling of sex being new and exciting. It’s addicting.”
Addiction is something Chris Samuels, the co-director of a sexual addiction treatment center in Greenwich Village, understands all too well.
She’s treated many married and unmarried patients who’ve gotten caught up in Internet lust.
“Its power is almost trance-inducing,” she says. “You can troll these sites and have a fantasy ready and waiting. Cybersex can provide a quick and powerful high. It’s like crack cocaine to sex addicts.”
Alfred, 49, is a self-described Internet Lothario who says he’s been “swinging” for 23 years.
Before going online, he would post ads in “swinger magazines,” sometimes waiting two to four months to set up a first meeting. Now his desires can be gratified almost instantly by posting ads online.
“While I’m open to a relationship, I’d prefer someone I can meet for no-strings mutual sexual pleasure on a continuing basis,” he says.
Alfred’s new online ads generally attract several interested women (“I’m a seller in a buyer’s market,” he says proudly).
He usually hooks up with married women, but says there are plenty of singles who don’t mind that he’s already spoken for.
Unfortunately, while these spouses are sowing their wild oats, there’s likely to be someone at home who’s getting hurt.
John LaSage, 43, from California, could attest to that – his wife left him and his two teenage daughters to take off with an Internet boyfriend.
The experience led him to create chatcheaters.com – a Web site designed to help dissuade potential cheaters and to comfort those who’ve been hurt by them.
“Chatting is OK, cheating is not,” says LaSage.
“People should realize how quickly relationships can form online. Flirting can lead to real-world affairs.”
If you suspect your spouse of having an online affair, “Bring the issue out into the open,” he says.
“Look out for the warning signs” – like excessive Internet use, new email accounts, turning off the computer when you walk in the room.
“If you just want a sexual hit, you can masturbate a lot quicker than having an affair,” she says.
“But it’s about gratification. They want someone to find them attractive, someone to want them passionately.”
But not every married person who’s gone the online route has found the affair of their dreams.
Wayne, a 49-year-old man from New Jersey, complains that his inbox is usually cluttered with undesirable partners and a fair share of transsexuals and cross-dressers.
But that may be just the ticket for a 34-year-old Lower East Side “Rockerdude” who advertises online that he’s hoping to make sweet music with men, women – and anything in between.
“Yes, I am married, but we have a very liberal, open-minded relationship – so be brave,” he writes.
Technorati Tags: Adultery, Internet dating, adult dating, swinger
Christmas And The Single Person
December 17th, 2008 by The Babe
Did you know that more than 47% of US households are headed by unmarried individuals? The American Association for Single People projects this figure will continue to rise in the coming decade. Therefore, if you are single you are not alone. And … if you have single adults in your social circle, don’t assume alone means “lonely.”
As Christmas approaches and we start making holiday plans, here are some things to keep in mind.
- Perception One: That it’s terrible to be alone for the holidays.
- Reality: This is mostly a projection of married people who fear the unknown or could not tolerate being alone before they were married. The reality is that single people who observe what goes on at holiday get-togethers between couples, 50% of whom are destined to be divorced at some point, think there are worse things than being single.
- Perception Two: That single people are desperate to be invited over for Christmas dinner.
- Reality: Single people have myriad options and no one to consult. I can go on a cruise, stay home in my bathrobe and declare it a non-holiday, do meaningful volunteer work at the homeless shelter, invite friends over, or get a dinner reservation at a hotel. Or I can accept any one of the numerous invitations I get. Contrary to what you might think, we single people are popular at the holidays. Most of us have accomplished social skills and are welcome additions at holiday gatherings
- Perception Three: Single people don’t know what to do for holidays.
- Reality: We’re used to planning our social lives actively, good at generating options, used to making unilateral decisions, and accomplished “mixers.” We’re pros!
- Perception Four: Anyone who’s single is fair-game to perform certain social tasks during the holiday celebration.
- Reality: We like to be cherished guests, just like everyone else. “Can you come for Christmas dinner. I need some help with Aunt Edna?” is not an invitation. If your family doesn’t get along and you’re inviting the single person to “throw a steer in with the bulls,” that’s not nice either. It’s your problem; solve it yourself.
- Perception Five: Single people are available to do certain physical tasks.
- Reality: This isn’t an invitation either: “Can you come over early and help out in the kitchen. I’ve got my hands full.” What about her husband? Her sisters? As best-friend, yes; as the only working-guest, absolutely not.
- Perception Six: That the only “happy” way to spend the holidays is if you are a couple or part of a family.
- Reality: If that were so, half the articles on the Internet this time of year wouldn’t be about how to cope with family at the annual holiday get-togethers.
- Perception Seven: That single people are miserable during the holidays.
- Reality: Yes, it can be difficult if it’s their first Christmas after a divorce or after a spouse h as died, but the majority of single people are no more miserable than anyone else, and perhaps less so. Since being single (with grown children), I’ve had the same levels of pleasure, the same good and better holidays, but there’s one thing for sure – I’m more rested, and that in itself goes a long way.
So if you’re thinking about including a single person in your family gathering, make sure it’s because you want them there, not to fulfill a function or because you think they’d be miserable if it weren’t for your invitation. A guest is a guest, whether they’re single or married, and good manners prevail.
Sex And The City
December 16th, 2008 by The BabeLaumann and his staff at the university examined how race and sexual orientation play a role in forming relationships and how multiple sexual partners and jealousy also work into the equation. Among other things, they found that, between the ages of 18 and 59, those surveyed cohabited an average of nearly four years and were married about 18. The rest of the time — an average of about 19 years — they were dating or alone, with no steady companion.
Researchers interviewed 2,114 people in the Chicago area from 1995 to 1997, as well as police officers, clergy and social workers. They also took an in-depth look at neighborhoods with predominantly black, Latino and gay populations.
Divorce was, of course, one of the big reasons so many people were single. But so was the fact that many young people are putting off marriage — sometimes because of school, but also because many are approaching the institution of marriage more warily.
Laumann and his colleagues say markets also are often defined by racial group, neighborhood and sexual orientation.
- Young, upper-income people on Chicago’s north side were more likely to meet their partners at school or work.In Latino neighborhoods, for instance, family, friends and the church played a more important role in forming partnerships among those surveyed.
- Women surveyed were, for instance, less likely to meet a partner through work, church or other “embedded institutions” as they got older — making it more difficult to find someone. Laumann says that may be due, in part, to the fact that men in their 40s often sought women who were at least five to eight years younger.
- Many gay men in the survey focused largely on transactional relationships, while lesbians were far more interested in relational connections.
- Researchers also addressed the issues of multiple partners and jealousy. Overall, 23 percent of men and 31 percent of women said they experienced jealous conflict at some point during their relationships.
- And researchers found that cohabitation resulted in more jealousy — and physical violence — than it did among married couples.
- Men were more likely than women to have more than one sexual partner.
- Among those surveyed, 20 percent of men and 6 percent of women said they’d had sex with at least one other person during their most recent relationship.
“What’s going on now is making the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s pale in comparison,” says Eli Coleman, director of the Program in Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota. He called Laumann’s work the most comprehensive since that of acclaimed researcher Alfred Kinsey, who surveyed people about sex in the 1940s.
Still, Laumann and his staff found that social services, the church and law enforcement have been slow to address this latest sexual revolution.
For instance, they found no shelters in any of the studied communities for gay domestic abuse victims. And most churches they examined were not good at “giving guidance about how you manage a stable, but non-married relationship,” Laumann says.
“It’s not approved. It’s not talked about,” he says. “Or they just look the other way.”
Technorati Tags: University of Chicago, single, dating, sex, Chicago, Latino
What If Clinton Admitted He Loved The Blowjob
December 4th, 2008 by The Babe
What if Clinton had said he loved the now famous blowjobs he received from Monica Lewinsky?
By Karen Cook at The Village Voice
It’s hard not to be furious with Bill Clinton. Not because he fucked—or sucked, or got sucked by, or spurted all over—Monica, or because he cheated on Hillary, or because he lied to the country. The First Adulterer’s real crime is that he didn’t take advantage of his wrecked presidential image by also blowing American sexual hypocrisy to smithereens.
Read his lips: “Yes, I had sex, I enjoyed it, I did exactly what I wanted to do, and you all should be so lucky. You guys wanna impeach me for getting a blowjob? Go right ahead.” If Clinton had dared to say something so nakedly honest, maybe we wouldn’t have had to ask if he was merely asserting his masculinity when he decided to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan. Lies and half-truths can get ugly, especially if you have to send friends, colleagues, and an entire government out to cover up on your behalf.
Integrity, alas, has always been far too revolutionary a concept for politics. Some pols even like to argue that it’s detrimental to effective leadership. Many of Clinton’s signature compromises were built on sexual hypocrisy (just ask Joycelyn Elders or gays in the military). Even after admitting to Gennifer Flowers and dodging Paula Jones, he’s still making a public show of going to church, Hillary in one hand and a Bible in the other.
Clinton bows his head about apparently consensual sex at the same time that a whorehouse is busted in New Jersey and half the businessmen in town are on the premises. When New York cops are getting caught using a brothel. And as ever, politicians are keeping mistresses on the side, or they’re ditching their dying wives, or they’re really gay, but so what? The joy of being a guy is getting to do what a guy gets to do. What’s the point of being Horatio Alger if you can’t reap the rewards?
For men in America, the reward is clearly unbridled sex. Wilt Chamberlain beds 20,000 women. Teddy Kennedy reportedly has intercourse on a table in the secluded room of a posh Washington restaurant. Rock stars gorge on an unending feast of groupies. (Superstar women, by contrast, earn the privilege of bearing children out of wedlock.) The entire capitalist apparatus is set up to sell women as reward: what’s the come-on in the bottom of all those liquor-ad ice cubes? Why do you need some sultry babe to sell a car? Why wouldn’t you want to be like John Kennedy, anyway? Who wouldn’t want to fuck Marilyn Monroe?
Not surprisingly, the media has decided that the drama in the Clinton scandal revolves around women: Hillary’s heartbreak, Monica’s welcoming lips, Tripp’s betrayal, Goldberg’s dirt, Currie on the cross. Indeed, the only time male sex gets called into question is when it somehow fucks up a career. On those rare occasions when the luck of the double standard runs out, the rest of the male establishment snaps to attention. If a guy needs nookie so bad it’s about to cost him his job, something freakish must be going on: it’s for moments like this that terms like sex addict and compulsion were invented. But Clinton’s no sex addict: he’s just another guy who thinks success gives him an inalienable right to whatever he desires.
There is a compulsion that links Clinton to other pols at the center of sexual scandal—not the lascivious behavior, but the childish, self-destructive acting out that starts up when it seems they might really be held responsible for their actions. Back when men were men, it was understood that they could preach monogamy unto death in public and keep a harem in private. Progressive politicians, with their prowoman agenda, pay lip service to a world in which there must be a little more accountability than that. Which is why the guys who behave most bizarrely when they get caught in flagrante delicto tend to be liberals.
First, of course, was candidate Gary Hart, who opened the door on every politician’s bedroom by taunting the media with cries of “Come and get me.” And then there was Senator Bob Packwood, defending the feminist agenda by day and pinning women to his desk by night. Amazingly, Packwood also pulled a Hart. Congress demanded his diaries, and he complied, but kept on writing them, admitting his own lies and cover-up. And, if a recent Drudge Report is to be believed, Clinton fits the same mold: he goes on TV and says he made a mistake, but he allegedly wears Monica’s tie while doing it. As one Drudge source said, that could be construed as Clinton’s “finger to the world.”
But it’s no surprise he’s enraged. In his set, vows are something that can be winked at—unless the little woman is cheating on you. Being suddenly held to the sexual rhetoric that tells Clinton he can only have sex with one woman for the rest of his life must make him want to slit his throat. Hell hath no greater fury than a person whose privileges are suddenly denied. What if you’re a hot young stockbroker and they give you a lousy seat at Le Cirque 2000? What if you’re trying to hail a taxi and they treat you like a black person and won’t pick you up? What if you’re a man who thought that the whole point of power is to get laid and then it turns out you can’t do it anymore? Clinton’s fury was the only authentic emotion in his speech. He’s as angry as every single other Angry White Male we’ve seen over the years.
The president is pissed. Where does Starr get off telling him what to do? How come the most powerful man in the free world can’t get the sexual privilege god gave a jock? Marv Albert’s going back on the air, for god’s sake! Athletes can still get away with raping women! And the president can’t get a blowjob? (Probably the only comparable case of denied privilege in sports is O. J. Simpson’s—like Packwood, he seems to flirt with the idea of confession, and like Clinton, he’s utterly mystified that anything could tarnish his golden glow. But even in this society, murder is going too far. For that, you’ve got to sell the mansion.)
If only Clinton had called a blowjob a blowjob, he might have started an adult conversation about sex, relationships, power, and privilege. He might have helped remake America as a nation that could have real scandals, like Italy or Japan. He could have disrupted the narrative of Hillary as victim and sparked a more intelligent discourse about the possibility of a union in which the bonds may not be primarily sexual. It would be fascinating to hear Hillary discuss such a marriage, except that she too is wedded to fake story lines. She may have replaced the previous months’ incessant hand-holding with an equally suspect distance, but that’s most likely just Bill’s scripted punishment. When she permits his redemption, will the whole country follow suit?
Clinton could have contributed something really useful to the public exchange in that speech of his. But no. And so the same old tired songs play nauseatingly on.
Technorati Tags: blowjobs, Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton
You Are Probably Dating A Liar
July 14th, 2008 by The BabeLiar Lair – pants on fire!
Experts say, more than 90 percent of people lie in their online dating profiles. You can’t be shocked at the numbers. After all, what does it hurt to stretch the truth a little? Well sometimes more than a little.
Men tend to lie most about their relationship status. Why else do you think we have so many popular adult dating catering to cheating husbands? They also lie about their income and their education.
On adult dating sites such as Adult Friendfinder you’ll find men lying about the size of their penis. GASP! The lying bastards.
They also lie about their height. This little tidbit has been researched worldwide and it’s a common phenomenon. Usually men overestimate their height by at least an inch. (They must be using the same measuring tape when they give you the size of their penis.)
Because being six feet tall seems to be a benchmark for men, men who are shorter than six feet have a strong desire to present themselves as taller than they really are. But men who are six feet or taller don’t feel the same need to lie. Men who are 5′11″ only lie by one inch, but men who are 5′10″ will sometimes lie by two inches so they can hit that magical six foot mark.
Women Are Liars Too!
We’re not letting the single women off the hook. Their biggie is lying about their weight. The ladies tend to deduct more weight depending on their age. For the 20 something crowd five pounds will do. Once the women hit the magic 30 or 40 mark they’re liable to deduct up to fifteen pounds. Many online dating services are now changing the way they handle the issue of weight, asking for a general body type (i.e. thin, athletic, a little overweight, etc.) instead of an actual weight.
You won’t be shocked to find out that the majority of women online are lying about their age. Usually they’re only taking off a few years.
Women don’t tend to lie about their relationship status they way men do. All in all (except for the weight issue) they tend to be more honest.
So what have we discovered. Not only do men and women lie about their marital status, it appears they lie about everything else too. Keep the lights off in the bedroom
Find Yourself A Secret Lover!
Technorati Tags: online dating, relationship, adult dating, cheating husbands, penis, single women, online dating services
Italians Cheat During Their Lunch Hours
April 7th, 2008 by The BabeOnly in Italy… A psychology magazine interviewed more than 1,000 Italians between the ages of 20 to 60 only to discover that many working Italians are more interested in cheating on their partner at lunchtime than grabbing something to eat.
It seems that lunch (between 12:30 and 2:00) accounted for one in three acts of adultery. Regardless of the location, whether in the car, the office or restaurant restroom, it has to be over and done with quickly while everyone else is out to lunch.
One in two of those quizzed claimed to have steadfastly resisted the temptation of sexual infidelity during the course of 2007. Those who were cheating on their partners said they tended to do so with work colleagues or with chance acquaintances.
The only thing I ever “get” for lunch is heartburn but the “getting it over quickly” could probably be applied to most men I know!
Technorati Tags: Italy, Italians, adultery, sexual infidelity, cheating
Cheating? Delete Those Emails
August 23rd, 2007 by The BabeComputers and mobile phones, the survey reveals, are the new “smoking guns” in relationship breakdowns.
And, some wronged partners don’t even need to go looking for evidence, for four percent of those caught out accidentally forwarded a message from their lover to their partner.
There is a difference when it comes to the ages as well.
People in their 50s are more likely to be caught out with a text or email, than 18 to 24-year-olds who are more likely to clear their inboxes regularly, thus destroying the evidence.
“People seem to forget their internet and mobile phone can become a library of undercover love,” The Sun quoted a spokesman, as saying.
Cheating Spouses Are Being Nabbed by Private Investigators
May 2nd, 2007 by The BabeAccording to a survey reported in London’s Daily Mail this week, the number of
The survey, based on interviews with 100 divorce lawyers, reveals that nearly one in five couples involved in divorce cases hired an investigator – with a third more women than men using their services. The cuckolded spouse is now faced with a dilemma. If an investigator proves your fears unfounded, what does it say about the state of trust in your marriage in the first place?
That may be because men are more likely than women to be having an
Hiring an investigator may cost thousands of dollars, but in England an impending House of Lords ruling could turn family law on its head by allowing the conduct of both parties in a marriage to be taken into account when deciding upon financial settlements. Hard evidence, it seems, may soon convert to cash.