AliEnvy
Refugee
Seems to me if biology is the rational for that behaviour to make marriage last for men, maybe they should.
What's good for the goose...
New Book Says Nannies Turn Boys Into Future Adulterers
- Thread starter MrsSpringsteen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Seems to me if biology is the rational for that behaviour to make marriage last for men, maybe they should.
What's good for the goose...
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
given the striking difference i've seen between male/male and female/female relationships, i don't think that attitudes towards sex are purely social constructs. largely, perhaps, but simply because biology doesn't provide a totalizing narrative for why men the way that they are doesn't mean that it doesn't have any influence at all.
AliEnvy
Refugee
I think what I'm trying to get across is that the biological infuences are largely similar between men and woman and the social constructs of sexuality, monogamy and morality that hold male "wickedness" in opposition to female "virtue" does neither gender any favours.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
I wouldn't quote that link if I were you. I've visited the love-shy.com forums before, and there are some crazy mofos over there. I mean, literally insane, psycho, loony, crazy people.
They seem to think that, just because they're men, they're entitled to a woman. And they say horrible things about women who join the site (you can't be love-shy! You're a woman, so therefore you can get sex whenever you want!), advocate rape and murder, and glorify people like that gym shooter who shot a bunch of women because he wasn't getting any (they considered him somewhat of a hero.)
Hang on. I am absolutely not advocating anyone visit any forum and only just read about this alleged loveshy 'condition' today from a London Times article. I have never visited this forum you refer to and don't plan on it either.
Agreed so have I.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
and i agree, mostly, but i think that there are biological factors we can't quite get around.
how many female Republican politicians troll women's rooms looking for cunnilingus?
UberBeaver
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
Does this book have pictures?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
AliEnvy
Refugee
^ 
You mention seeing such striking differences in same-sex relationships. Could it be that following the biological impulse for a same-sex partner often manifests in an amplification of the expected societal gender roles with respect to monogamy?
Just a thought.
You mention seeing such striking differences in same-sex relationships. Could it be that following the biological impulse for a same-sex partner often manifests in an amplification of the expected societal gender roles with respect to monogamy?
Just a thought.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
^
You mention seeing such striking differences in same-sex relationships. Could it be that following the biological impulse for a same-sex partner often manifests in an amplification of the expected societal gender roles with respect to monogamy?
Just a thought.
i think a lot of it has to do with a sexuality that develops in closets and shadows and almost requires impulsivity for it to have any expression at all.
however, things do get funny. i didn't want to be known as a slut. do many hetero men worry about that?
AliEnvy
Refugee
Ahh, gay men and hetero women have more in common than love of shopping.
Good question. I wonder if any here will answer it.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Ahh, gay men and hetero women have more in common than love of shopping.
are you comparing a sexuality that develops in a closet and that is almost universally degraded by all aspects of society to female heterosexuality?
though i absolutely agree that women and gays have the same enemy: sexism. because homophobia is an expression of misogyny, and if your boyfriend hates gays, ladies, he probably hates you too.
AliEnvy
Refugee
What you had said about closets and shadows speaks of sexual repression which yes, is an experience shared by many hetero women.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i think the comparison is starting to strain. we can blame the same overarching enemy, but my guess is that the lived-in experience of gays vs. women is really very different.
AliEnvy
Refugee
Meh, I think you were taking me a little too seriously...I made the comparison along with the shopping comment. 
Shades of similarity, not sameness.
Shades of similarity, not sameness.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Irvine511 said:
AliEnvy said:
Speaking objectively, I'd say it depends on age group - in one's late teens or early-to-mid twenties the male slut type is viewed as someone almost to emulate - the 'Jack-the-lad' character, as it's known here. The Casanova type that is the heterosexual male slut would certainly be envied to an extent by his peer group, at that stage. He would always have the best stories and though he would have plenty of failures his success-to-failure ratio would be something he'd happily boast about. I've know a few of these types, in the end, most of them just settle down and breed, basically.
But if someone is still pursuing that type of promiscuous behavior if they're married with kids and in their thirties or older, I think society would look down on such an individual - although, granted, not to the same extent as a gay male or straight woman who is pursuing a similar lifestyle.
AliEnvy
Refugee
Definitely the marrieds, but what about the 30+ bachelor? Is being a man-whore an image problem past the "prime" years?
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Well, yes and no. Certain males of my acquaintance in the 30+ bracket still 'play the scene' - and for the most part do it more successfully than me, frankly - for example I have this friend who is around my age and is a bachelor like myself, but in general more successful with women, and what he does is deliberately target and hone in on women that are 'emotionally needy'. It seems a bit cynical, and it is actually incredibly cynical; but, as I said, it's a relatively successful strategy for him.
At the end of the day, and granted, this is a bit of a generalisation - but my theory is that most women want to be the love of their partners' lives, and most men want to be the exact same thing, but males play around a bit more and are granted the remit by 'society' to sow their wild oats a little bit more than women are granted such remit. Some of this is societally determined, but as Irvine was saying earlier on in the thread, maybe some of it is also innately biological.
But I'm far from an expert on any of this stuff.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
For me it was always a normal thing that both men and women had a number of relationships before finding the one to settle with. It was the exception that it was the first or second love.
My father was pretty much the opposite of me when it comes to that. He had quite a number of relationships. But my mother also had maybe five or so. That was pretty much the norm, and still is for most people I know. But I wouldn't know of anyone ever making some comment on that.
But I think, and am not alone on that, that there is basically two types of people: the head type and the heart type. The head type is friends who can go to the disco, talk up a guy or girl and have a short-term thing with them without getting "lost" in that, ie. when it breaks up after a few days they don't really suffer much. But for them it's also harder to get a long-term relationship.
Then there is the heart-type people, like me or a good friend of mine, for whom a relationship means much more "investment" of the heart. So it usually also needs longer to build That often makes it harder to start a relationship (especially when shyness gets in the mix), but those are more long-term and well, not more honest I'd say, but deeper emotionally. If that doesn't work out, either right from the beginning or at a later point, they suffer from lovesickness more strongly.
And of course there is everything in between.
My father was pretty much the opposite of me when it comes to that. He had quite a number of relationships. But my mother also had maybe five or so. That was pretty much the norm, and still is for most people I know. But I wouldn't know of anyone ever making some comment on that.
But I think, and am not alone on that, that there is basically two types of people: the head type and the heart type. The head type is friends who can go to the disco, talk up a guy or girl and have a short-term thing with them without getting "lost" in that, ie. when it breaks up after a few days they don't really suffer much. But for them it's also harder to get a long-term relationship.
Then there is the heart-type people, like me or a good friend of mine, for whom a relationship means much more "investment" of the heart. So it usually also needs longer to build That often makes it harder to start a relationship (especially when shyness gets in the mix), but those are more long-term and well, not more honest I'd say, but deeper emotionally. If that doesn't work out, either right from the beginning or at a later point, they suffer from lovesickness more strongly.
And of course there is everything in between.
AliEnvy
Refugee
By "successful" you mean gets lucky, yes? I guess that answers the original question. Apparently not an image problem for men.
What do the ladies here think?
I'm no expert either, but I will reiterate that I view the biology excuse as exactly that, an excuse.
But for fun, generally speaking, if men can't be monogamous and woman are serially monogamous and divorce rates are 50%+ or whatever it is (demanded by women usually based on bad behaviour by men), what does that mean for our current model of monogamy? Is there a happy medium?
And where does it leave this?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i think this is an interesting question. what good is monogamy? traditionally, monogamy was likely enforced -- sometimes with the threat of death -- in order to prevent the birth of illegitimate children, and to reduce the possibility that a man might be raising another man's child. as well as a form of enforcing the notion of ownership of a female.
we've largely done away with all that now. sure, there are notions of ownership, for both partners, but it's nothing legal, at least in a bodily sense, and contraception has removed the unintended pregnancy risk to, what, 1%? less?
so why then is monogamy important, if we've reduced it's most drastic consequences?
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I asked for opinions-but it's really not necessary for me to "take on board" anything in FYM. Unless you're actually trying to insinuate that I don't think women cheat? Not by a long shot, and I said so in the beginning. So you use that quote and refer to the "threadstarter" for whatever reason. And I said the theory of the book is a joke to me-so I don't get the point of you quoting the second quote there.
You seem to have a habit of making these leaps- but anyway
Similar threads
