HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » 7 Signs That a Woman is C...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:45 PM

7 Signs That a Woman is Cheating

So you think you have found the woman of your dreams. All is going well... or is it? What are the signs that your partner might be cheating? Read on to learn about some things you can look for, or may have already seen and have been ignoring or brushing aside.

1. Phone Calls
Has she been getting more private phone calls lately? Does she leave the room to talk on the phone more than before? When you ask her about a call, does her response seem genuine, or does it seem that she is not being truthful about who is on the other end?

Any change in phone calls including frequency of calls, time of day, tone of voice or a change in text messaging habits could all signify that she is cheating. Listen for the signs more carefully if you think any of these things are true. When she answers the phone now, does she drop her volume or suddenly sound as flirtatious as when you were first dating? If it seems like her phone habits are changing and you cannot understand the changes, you may be witness to an affair.

2. Dates with Girlfriends
Is she spending more time with her girlfriends than in the past? Are there lots of evenings out with the girls, when there were almost none just a short while ago? When you ask her who she will be with, does the answer sound sincere?

...


http://www.yourtango.com/experts/jenny-jack/7-signs-woman-cheating-expert

36 replies, 3076 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply 7 Signs That a Woman is Cheating (Original post)
Major Nikon Nov 2012 OP
villager Nov 2012 #1
OffWithTheirHeads Nov 2012 #2
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #4
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #6
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #7
TreasonousBastard Nov 2012 #9
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #10
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #13
TreasonousBastard Nov 2012 #23
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #24
TreasonousBastard Nov 2012 #25
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #27
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #14
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #20
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #22
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #31
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #32
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #28
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #33
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #34
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #35
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #36
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #5
marasinghe Nov 2012 #3
loli phabay Nov 2012 #8
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #11
loli phabay Nov 2012 #15
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #12
MicaelS Nov 2012 #16
loli phabay Nov 2012 #17
MicaelS Nov 2012 #18
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #19
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #21
Hemp_is_good Nov 2012 #26
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #29
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #30

Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:53 PM

1. indeed. Ex-wife filled the bill on a few of these. Hence, "Ex."

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:00 PM

2. Maybe it's possible to like (or love) more than one person at a time.

The older I get, the more I think this need to posses your mate is more societal brainwashing than reality. The idea that at a young age, you find the love of your life and from that day on, you find no one else attractive and no one else finds you desirable is just unrealistic. I wish I had figured this out 40 years ago. My life would have been so much easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OffWithTheirHeads (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:14 PM

4. Not only is it possible, it certainly happens in all sorts of situations

If I were King I would do away with the institute of marriage completely, or at least the role the government plays. The idea that the government needs to underwrite and subsidize marriage is a worn out concept that serves no useful purpose other than discrimination. If the government is empowered to license marriages, they are also empowered to NOT license marriages. If people want a traditional marriage, there are plenty of non-governmental organizations that provide such services. If people want a legal contract, they can have one without the government playing any role other than mediating disputes which the government already does for most other types of contracts. You'd think the GOP would be all over this. What is more intrusive than having the government involved in your love life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:20 PM

6. I've received some less than favorable comments in the past

 

for suggesting what you are describing.

People assumed I was trying to destroy marriage just so gays couldn't have it, even though I clearly explained that had nothing to do with it (as long as the state is sponsoring marriages it should be available to all consenting adults).

I merely pointed out that the government shouldn't cover this issue at all, and thus shouldn't even be in the position to discriminate.

Like if the government gave permission for people to date but decided black men couldn't date white women. Would the solution be to create a new law saying that is ok (since it was obviously discriminatory) or would it be to eliminate that practice altogether and let people do as they want?

As I said it didn't go over well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:41 PM

7. The vast majority of homosexuals don't have it to begin with

Even the ones that do have a half-fast solution because their marriage doesn't apply to anything federal and doesn't reciprocate to most other states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:03 AM

9. I was yelled at the same way for...

saying I'm not for marriage for everyone, but for no one.

Sounded like marriage equality to me-- no one gets married. Who could argue with that?

The state does not marry you, but certifies a contract or agreement between two people of any gender that takes care of all the legal ramifications marriage currently does. And personal or sexual relationships are not spelled out-- just the things like who can sign stuff at the hospital and who gets to decide if one dies intestate...

But, it seems that even while marriage is successful less than half the time, it is still a social or religious obligation that most people insist is necessary. For them, they can have a wedding at a religious institution, a secular wedding chapel, or any such place designated for such ceremonies that id not legally binding but socially important. Let it have the legal equivalent of First Communion or bar Mitzvah.

Marriage was instituted primarily to certify paternity a few thousand years before DNA analysis and grew from there. There is no good reason for it to exist in its present form today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:27 AM

10. True love is impossible without a signature from the county record keeper

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:26 PM

13. The good reason is, lots of people like it.

I think blanket proclamations about what other people "should" be doing to organize their lives, are generally part of the problem, not the solution. Sure, lots of marriages don't work out. So what? People get married, people get un-married. The frantic semantic scrambling around the word "marriage", which has, after all, an established dual identity as BOTH a religious institution and a civic one, is mostly to accomodate the hard feelings of fundamentalist dinosaurs who don't like "Gay Marriage" as an idea.

Tough shit.

And arguing that the 'solution' to these asshats bigotry is to do away with a civic institution that most people like, is not a solution at all.

I would never argue that marriage is for everyone, or anyone 'should' or 'should not' get married. I do believe that certain moralistic promotions, like the goofy idea that "you should not fuck until you're married", tend to lead towards people marrying too early or for the wrong reasons. But, marriage works for some people. Life is all about YMMV. Where all these people get the energy and inclination to tell other people how to arrange their affairs, is beyond me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:20 PM

23. Whoa! I am not advocating the abolition of marriage...

although I personally see no use for it. That kind of talk is as silly as talk about abolishing the automobile or prime rib dinners-- it just ain't gonna happen. I might like to see it abolished, but there's no point in making a serious argument that way.

However, as a point of discussion and with the slimmest possibility of the beginning of a movement, I'm simply saying that, although still very popular, marriage is actually obsolete and there are better ways to deal with whatever is dealt with in marriage. I am fully aware that hardly anyone agrees with me (although more would if their wives would let them).

Marriage, as it stands today, does have advantages for many-- even though it is really a relic and just a bad habit.

Like smoking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:31 PM

24. I don't agree. I think it's a fine arrangement for those who want it.

Not for everyone, and certainly best enjoyed by the people who are enthusiastic participants.

Sort of like the Grateful Dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:38 PM

25. That's pretty much what I was saying...

get married if you want to, but take the legal obligations out of it.

FI, I am not now married and and have no kids and because of that have no one to pass on, say, surgery if I am out of it.

If I were gay, I could demand marriage assuming a legal partner would deal with these things. But I'm not and don't have a girlfriend at the moment to hook into marriage so I'm screwed and have no one to deal with my affairs while I'm alive but unconscious. After I'm dead, I have the executor of my will who can do as the will says, but still has, say, no authority to dispose of my body if some hitch arises. There's guardians and stuff, but that gets ridiculous at some point and doesn't entirely solve the problem.

So, take all this legal stuff out of marriage and leave marriage as a completely voluntary act with few legal consequences while allowing me to contractually assign someone (and of course it could be a spouse if one is available) to deal with the legal crap a spouse does. Besides putting divorce lawyers out of business, it would allow us more choices in how to deal with our own lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:36 AM

27. One thing, though. I think kids change the playing field.

And I think that is some of the grounds on which a unique legal relationship called marriage is, or can be, based from a civic perspective.

And since LGBT families exist just as much as all other kinds, it's another reason for full marriage equality.

JMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:28 PM

14. Because that's a goofy suggestion, and I'm really not sure who it is supposed to benefit.

Other than people who simply want to make a point.

Marriage is well-established as a civic and legal institution. Of course your suggestion didn't go over well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:58 PM

20. It's not a goofy suggestion

 

a lot of people enjoy mandatory prayers in public schools. Is it really hurting anyone to continue this practice?

Well yeah kinda because it's a nonessential blending of the public and the church and is inherently discriminatory.

Why should people who choose to pair off in ways historically approved of by the church be granted special rights and privileges?

Marriage is well-established as a civic and legal institution


Again, no different than putting the 10 commandments outside of public institutions.

Or having prayer in public schools.

Or any number of silly religious based notions we're supposed to be moving away from.

The contractual benefits of a marriage can be achieved without a marriage. Let anyone who wishes say they are married following whatever ceremony they choose.

Let the state do what it does well: enforce contracts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:36 PM

22. There is a civic, legal, nonreligious institution called "marriage".

You want to tell people who are voluntarily entering into that civic, nonreligious arrangement, that no, they can't do it anymore, or you want to change the name.

That has nothing to do with "mandatory", it has nothing to do with "religious", it has nothing to do with any of that.

It's a goofy suggestion, and it's going nowhere. So good luck with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:45 PM

31. The entire thing was religious in origin

 

we later stripped it of it's religious basis (to some degree) while maintaining the trappings.

If you wanted to have mandatory school prayer but watered it down to "some deity of your choice" I'd still consider that inappropriate at a public school.


You want to tell people who are voluntarily entering into that civic, nonreligious arrangement, that no, they can't do it anymore, or you want to change the name.


Not at all.

They can enter in to whatever arrangement they choose.

And call it whatever they want.

People can't live together and call themselves married without a signature from the county clerk blessing their holy union? I suspect that isn't true.


That has nothing to do with "mandatory", it has nothing to do with "religious", it has nothing to do with any of that.


Government really ought to stay away from religion. Especially popular expressions of it. We don't generally have to worry about the minority religions forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

It's a goofy suggestion, and it's going nowhere. So good luck with it.


Lot's of suggestions were goofy and doomed to fail at one point.

Saying we'd have a black president was pretty goofy and impossible at one point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #31)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:30 PM

32. You're really all over the map with the logic in this one, 4.

It's the old "ah, you've got feet... You know who else had feet? hitler, that's who" logical fallacy.

Marriage is a civic and legal institution. It has nothing to do with religion unless one wants it to. I agree wth you about government staying away from religion- in the words of Dr. gonzo, believe me, no ones bigger- but your argumnt here is like saying that the first books were originally developed for religious purposes, so therefore no one should read.

I dont know if you have ever been married, but if you have, you probably went to a county office and filled out some paperwok for a marrige license. If you did, you would have noticed that there is nothing religious about that procedure or that document, nor is there any religion involved in parental cutody or filling out a joint tax return- two of the more significant legal aspects to the civic institution we call marriage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 07:35 AM

28. I'm not for doing away with marriage, but I don't think the government should be in that business

There's no reason why marriage can't continue as a well established civic and legal institution. If you want to have a 3rd party "bless" your marriage, knock yourself out. If you want to sign a contract that legally binds you to your significant other, knock yourself out. Neither of these things requires or should require the government's permission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #28)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:31 PM

33. If it is a "legal institution", then the government is involved.

Laws = government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #33)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:52 PM

34. My question is why


Why does the government need to issue a license to get married? What purpose does that serve other than the potential and the realization of an end-around to the equal protection clause?

Think about it this way. If the government had no involvement in marriage and never did, would we want the government involved in our marriages? Would you petition your members of congress stating that you and your significant other have a really great thing, and you have a burning desire for government interference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #34)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:59 PM

35. Honestly? Because there are tax, property advantages, it simplifies various legal matters to be

Treated as a unit, and particularly when kids are involved it makes a certain amount of sense for those reasons as well as a few others.

None of them have anything to do with a relationship being a great thing, or moral or religious matters, to my mind. More about practical day to day logistcal shit of being a functional adult in 21st century America.

And I'm happily married, so there's that for my peronal perspective on the matter. If I had never been married, or had been married then divorced (particularly messily) i fully acknowledge I might have a different take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #35)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:03 PM

36. I get all of that from owning a house

No license from the government required.

Just sayin'

And oh yeah, I'm in my 26th year of marriage to my first and only wife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OffWithTheirHeads (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:17 PM

5. Sure, but it should be open knowledge to all involved

 

If one partner assumes monogamy and the other doesn't the one who doesn't should perhaps mention that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:07 PM

3. if you can stand the smell, you might do the humane thing & go over post this for the freepers.

give them a heads up, on why most of their wives & girlfriends were acting this way, for these past few months -- once they'd decided to vote for Pres. Obama; & against the sour gRapes party.


and apologies for side-tracking your thread; i'm still semi-hysterical with relief, over the results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 10:55 PM

8. rule number one is make sure your phones dont sync or get a throwaway

 

My mother in law borrowed my wifes phone and unknown to me our phones synced leaving my mother in law looking at listings for prostitute one and two and strippers one to three and two listings for meth dealers. The wife understood but the mother in law was apoleptic over it even when the wife told her they were work contacts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:28 AM

11. What kind of work are you in?

 

I can think of a few possibilities.

Lawyer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:39 PM

15. criminal intelligence they were all sources

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:17 PM

12. That sounds like something out of one of those Hangover movies.

"Where'd the monkey come from?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:50 PM

16. I would have paid $100 to have heard that conversation.

"But MIL, it's ALL business, no pleasure, I swear!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:54 PM

17. trust me the voicemail I got involved my testicles in a plastic bag

 

I was like wtf as I had no idea what the hell happened

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:59 PM

18. "My testicles in a plastic bag"

OMG, that is too much!

You realize that is going to cause a copycat thread?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:39 PM

19. I had that experience once

My wife woke me up out of a deep dead sleep once yelling words I had never heard her utter and all of them were directed at me. At first I thought she had discovered the bodies in my rented storage space. Nope. Come to find out she had taken a nasty dip into the pool of the crapper and it was somehow my fault because I had evidently left the toilet seat up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:02 PM

21. Good thing she got outraged first

 

then found out the facts later.

That could have been embarrassing for her . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:13 AM

26. Has anyone else noticed that women almost NEVER apologize for (wrongly) attacking men?

 

physically or verbally?
or am I insane?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hemp_is_good (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 07:57 AM

29. I don't know if they are any better or worse in that regard than men

Nobody likes to publically admit when they are wrong, even if they admit it to themselves. That's human nature.

The difference is that it's socially acceptable for women to attack men, both physically and verbally. So women stand a far lower chance of ever being held socially or legally responsible for such actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hemp_is_good (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:32 PM

30. I'd agree with Major Nikon

 

women are no more or less prone to irrational attacks and reluctance to apologize than men.

They are however more accepted by society when they do.

/get mad and punch your wife, spend the next five years in jail. Get mad and punch your husband, spend the next 5 minutes laughing about it with your friends. We have a major double standard when it comes to violence between genders that cannot be explained away with mere physical differences (a very large and strong woman may be stronger than a weak man to the degree an average man is stronger than an average woman. However we would still view a large woman beating a small man differently than we would an average man beating an average woman, despite comparable disparities in strength/size).

//likewise if a man starts verbally abusing a woman in public there's a good chance he will be beaten up. A woman verbally abusing a man in the exact same manner will elicit snickers from onlookers and jokes about "what he must have done" to deserve it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread