Illusion of Choice For Guys in a Relationship

Post Reply New Topic

Refer to this thread:
viewtopic.php?t=271420&start=15#p6376477

How do guys have the illusion of choice in a relationship. You said I misunderstood and you didn't want to explain because you didn't want to hijack the thread. I started a new thread. Guzzle, can you and others explain what you meant here please and can we discuss this further if you do not mind?

There is a misconception among those who inhabit a place of privilege, it goes something like this: I am direct about what I want and never try to get what I want by using means that appear to be manipulative or passive in nature. This misconception goes further and holds that those who use passive means to get what they want, because they aren't direct, are more likely to get what they want (via trickery.) This misconception can (note: can, not is) be exacerbated by the spectrum, since the typical communication style for someone on the spectrum is very direct and people on the spectrum find it very difficult to respond to passive types of communication. That said, people on the spectrum who are in a position of privilege are still accountable for this misconception.

I am sure you can see the flaw in their logic - if someone cannot be direct about what they want because of their status or social station, obviously they are worse off than a privileged person who can be direct. They may sometimes get what they want, but at best, being passive or manipulative takes four times the effort whic reduces its power; in fact, unsuccessful attempts at being indirect are usually punished severely (where the person who is able to be direct will simply be refused.) I think, also, people of privilege focus on the relatively (compared to the less privileged person) few times they don't get what their objective, and forget they normally they get what they want without thinking about it - that's what privilege means, it's usually invisible to the people who have it.

People who hold this belief forget - for the sake of this argument we'll say that women - risk physical harm even using indirect means. Wives whose husbands won't give them money are often beaten for getting a job to earn it themselves. Women who indirectly refuse sex by claiming headaches (instead of saying "I don't want to" ) are sometimes raped by their partners.

A privileged person will say "well, I'm not an abuser or a rapist" as an example of how in their case, the rules of privilege don't apply. If that is true, why does the less privileged person have to work so hard at being indirect? There are other consequences for being direct - maybe not severe, like beatings or rapes, but for instance, knowing that direct requests are always refused, or having to "pay" by doing something to "earn" what they asked for.

Of course, the women who are direct about what they want - let's say women who go to the police for a restraining order to directly stop her partner from violence - are frequently killed; statistics show that, at best, protective orders reduce - but don't eliminate - violence. In other words, having lived with a father who held this belief - I can attest that no matter how put-upon he felt, how much he felt he was being manipulated by my mother or other women - he was the most privileged person in our household as he was the only one of us who was not living in fear.

Momsparky, I don't get it. What did all of that have to do with what I said to Guzzle and her response? What was she trying to get at with me? To me, her comment came out of left field and had nothing to do with what I said.

This is my interpretation of what Guzzle was saying. Guzzle made it seem like that her daughter had all of this Omnipotent power which is not true. I will use employment in place of this. One can make all of the moves like dress up for an interview, obtain skills, etc, etc but an employer can still choose not to hire you.

The concept of getting a date is similar. One can do everything necessary but the guy may still say no and vice versa. In America, we have this extreme internal locus of control based philosophy that makes us all seem like Q from Star Trek.

Our control of our lives is limited by constraints which a number of people for whatever reason I can't seem to grasp seem to deny. I simply questioned and challenged her extreme internal locus of control philosophy because when one uses logic, looks at the empirical evidence and uses common sense does not hold up.

Even the idea of privilege gives validity to my counter argument against this extreme internal locus of control that she and other people seem to have in which "one can do anything he sets his mind to", personal responsibility which is a corollary to this, and any individual can over come any and obstacles which is certainly not the case. The logic and belief of American society and other people who go by this makes no sense. I'm not saying there is no truth I'm saying that I refute people's belief that this internal locus of control is absolute and one can overcome all obstacles.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding and if I am will someone please clarify?

How are we in control of our destinies?

[crossposted with Cubedemon]
This was an excellent and quite moving explanation of your thoughts about privilege, momsparky.

I think it may be a few steps removed from Cubedemon's question.

I am thinking the bits that are missing are something like:

The idea that men only have the illusion of choice is based on the premise that women are able to control men through passive, manipulative means.

Specifically, the idea seems to be that women are able to compel a man to "choose" to date them.

I think this is based on the idea that women can use sex appeal to control men. There are elements of truth in this, but only elements. As a general statement, it is deeply mistaken.

I think your comments about privilege and the dangerous position of the less privileged person are relating to that idea of indirect feminine power.

I cannot help but think of the situation of dark skinned people in the US these days. The ideas about power and privilege are applicable.

I may be totally off, but I am reading Guzzle's comment completely differently, and not in such a "deeper meaning" way.

To me, Guzzle is simply responding to Cubedemon's assertion that the GUY would have to choose to date HER, as if the HER had no say in the matter. The GUY may want to date HER, but it is the HER who has the choice.

I am missing half of my response above. I followed the link to read the other post, and when I went back, I hit submit, but somehow it was missing part of what I said and now I don't have time to finish what I said right now! Carry on without me!

But she can't choose not to respond to his overture if he never makes it. What Guzzle said makes no sense unless it presupposes that she has the power to make him choose her first. Or maybe I just didn't see another meaning in it.

[Edited to add]
You also should look at the lyrics of the song that guzzle posted in reply:


http://www.metrolyrics.com/female-of-th ... space.html

The other half of my post had to do with the "myth of the beguiling female." In my experience, there are an equal number of men who exert "discreet influence" over women as there are women who exert "discreet influence" over men. They just do it differently. In my experience, there are also an equal amount of "beguile-able" men and women. There are also an equal amount of women who are unable to beguile as men who are unable to beguile.

Depending on your overall life philosophies, either we all have an illusion of choice, or we all have an illusion of being subject to fatalism. Or it falls somewhere in between. But many people utilize various techniques of persuasion in everyday life that influence the "choices" that other people make. Cubedemon, you could probably drive yourself crazy by trying to construct a mental framework to hang it all on. There is no simple rule for it.

My first response was better thought out, but of course I can't exactly remember it now and I don't have time, so that is the cliff's notes version

Well, in ye olde times it wasn't considered proper for a woman to express an interest in a guy. So she had to come up with ways to draw his attention without him realizing that's what she was doing. The hoped-for result was that he would fall in love with her and think that it had just happened out of the proverbial clear blue sky.

But this is not ye olde times. Women and men can, you know, talk to each other and say whatever they have the courage to say to one another.

I'll try...

I'm no good with subtlety though..

There is a joke that men have a brain and a penis but have only enough blood to run one at the time.
Women on the other hand have plenty of blood to run both their sexdrive and brain at the same time.
Which is why some women might think of their chores in the middle of lovemaking.
And after it is all over they will lie there and he will say sweet words to which she replies that she still has to pick up the suits from the dry cleaners!
A guy will ask a woman out either using his brain or be ruled by his sexdrive whereas the woman will have decided the moment she sets eyes on him wether he will be a one night stand or is worth further exploring.

Spot on, there was a deeper meaning to the statement that I tried to stay away from so as to not derail the thread which is why I added the comment it was worthy a thread of it's own.

My comments are not about dating but what cubedemon is saying and has repeatedly said in the past:
I think that you are misunderstanding this whole thing about trying to do something based on what you call internal locus of control.
Just because I try to do something doesn't mean that I will for sure, as of course there are many outside factors beyond my control. No one is saying that there are not.
But if I try more than I don't try, and I put myself into more situations in which there is a chance for me to get what I try for, then I am more likely to succeed towards what I want, either job or relationship or whatever, than the alternative of not trying, not trying at my full capacity, not pushing to increase my capacity.
That is the control that I have over myself: I can only try, but what happens as a result depends on more than what I alone do.
However, it is still worth it to me to try, because I have more chance and growth if I try than if I don't try.

This was what I was writing about - the idea that women somehow have "control" because they often have to use indirect ways (beguiling) to get what they want.

I posted this in the wrong thread so I deleted it and moved it here where I intended it to be:



I am almost afraid to wade into this, but yet, here I am. There is a line of thought that is very strong amongst certain circles that women have it much easier in the dating arena. I don't know if that was the meaning, but I am inferring this.

Each sex has certain challenges, some the same, and some different, due to different cultural expectations for men and women.

A lot of why some men think it is super easy for women is that men are expected to be the initiators, and women typically are only expected to either accept or reject overtures. Some men think that having to put themselves out there is the more emotionally risky role. A counter argument to that, is that women are left to feel desperate if they do not get any overtures to accept or reject, and many still tend to think that women who initiate are desperate as well, b/c if they must not be getting any offers. Being restricted to only those who offer a date is a much narrower level of choice then being able to make the initial choice of the offer itself.

I really hate the whole man vs. woman, who has it easier in dating thing, b/c in reality both sexes are constrained in different ways. Men are expected by their peers to pursue "hotties" regardless of their own cultural status, and often their own standards, and also often feel they are entitled to a hottie as though a woman were a prize or a trophy.

Women are expected to get lots of offers, and to be able to pick and choose among them to in order to prove their cultural worth.

This whole alpha male/alpha female thing is a disservice to most people, as individuals, is dehumanizing to all concerned, and in a certain way acts as a social Darwinist construct to limit dating opportunities for those of both genders who for whatever reasons do not conform to social standards.


----

Adding that although things are not so bad as it used to be, I still detect an attitude of critique regarding women who court in direct ways. I presume this is less severe with the younger generation but have no direct knowledge.

Okay, so we've established then that none of us have true control of the outcome and there are outside factors beyond our control. Here is my next question that I wish conservatives and personal responsibility advocates would answer.

If one has no control of the outcomes and there are outside factors beyond our control then why are people lauded for lack of personal responsibility if they do x, y, z and inadvertently it puts them into dire straights? I'm not talking about drugs, drinking etc.

Let me give an example. There are college students who went to college, got the degree and still can't get a job. The impression that they had like I had was all one had to do was go to college and one could get a job. Why are they called whiners and entitled?

To me, they thought they had all of the parameters known. Why are they being punished for unknown, unknowns? Why punish people for things they could not have known? I don't get it nor understand?

I'm always told one is never to blame any external entities x no matter the circumstances. Why? What is the reasoning behind this? Why is one never allowed to blame society no matter the case?

I don't understand what you are talking about.
It make no sense to me.
Going to college doesn't automatically mean getting a job.
One has to try hard to get a job, perhaps many failures in the process.

Also, who said that one has no control of the outcomes?
One doesn't have full control of the outcomes, but that doesn't mean no control at all.
Let's say that I want to be good at something, and I spend a lot of time developing that skill, and I become good at it, perhaps that will help me get a job or keep a job if I have that skill.
I had control over what I spent my time doing, as I could have many things other than developing that skill and not developed that skill, and when I had an opportunity to use that skill, I didn't have it and didn't get or keep the job.
In my research, I could stick to the safe path of what I know how to do, or I could try something wild and crazy and new, and the outcomes for me will be different depending on what I chose to do.
On the negative side, I could choose to not do my homework if it is tedious or difficult or I feel like I can't get it together and don't try to do it or I would rather do lots of other things instead, but there might be negative consequences for that behavior, and if I show a pattern of such behavior, I will be partially controlling my educational outcome in a negative way.