Friendzone

Post Reply New Topic

They might TALK about it---but are they capable of DOING it?

I talked about sex when I was nine years old. I used to pretend to have sex with my "wife" when we played house. I imitated, very generally, intercourse.

I was, definitely, not capable of DOING it, though.

This thread has gone on a very strange tangent.

That's WrongPlanet for you!

I think that they did, some were real perverts. A friend was even doing stuff with his gf at 13-14.

I owe AR15000 a reply that Captch kept stopping. I'm going to try breaking it up. First, a recap. AR15000 said:

In many western countries, non-monogamy is increasingly common. Even though polygamy isn't legal in the UK that I know of, highly desirable men and women are often in "open relationships" where they are effectively polyamormous. The corollary you are presuming is that there must be 1-to-1 pairing between men and women. Increasing acceptance and prevalence of non-monogamy(as there is in my country) means that people can sleep with multiple people instead of being pressured by society to settle down with one partner.

In societies where polygamy is legal and widespread, like Saudi Arabia, you have a large percentage of the male population that has NO CHANCE of getting a woman because the high status men get all the women. Such a situation really *could* happen in the west if monogamy is completely abrogated. Yes as I ALREADY SAID BEFORE women DO ask men out but very few men get openly asked out IRL.

You're all over the place.

My point that women ask men out was in response to yours that 'dating roles are not interchangeable'. And yet, women ask men out. This would suggest there is some 'give' on the matter, some lee-way, and that it is not set in stone (or our chromosomes).

You're right that only monogamous relationships are recognised in law in the UK. And I'm aware non-monogamy/polyamoury goes goes on. Are you saying it goes on to such an extent that it seriously affects the number of women available? Do you not think that both men and women have a crack at polyamoury?

My assumption is that polygamy - which is not the same as polyamoury - has been largely instituted in strongly patriarchal societies, and that it only allows for a man to have many wives, rather than a woman many husbands. How such a thing would play out in the open, liberal societies in the west is another matter. If, indeed, it ever gets to that point. It certainly hasn't yet.

I assumed our discussion was over present conditions in dating and coupledom in open, western societies. Of course, I can only really speak of the UK, as this is where my observations and experiences are drawn from. But then, I would expect any difference at the level of innate biology to be the same anywhere.

I have not heard anything from you as to why the number of heterosexual men and women looking for a monogamous relationship wouldn't be pretty much the same. As I said, within the population there'll be homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and some non-monogamy (I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the threat from separatist feminist lesbians...). But I haven't heard anything from you as to why any of these, or something else not brought up yet, would significantly affect the number of women available compared to the number of men.

In raw numbers, there may well be an imbalance that leaves a few hundred thousand of a given gender without a partner - as I noted earlier, in the UK women outnumber men. But that raw number is simply not enough of a percentage to make a practical difference at the level of the individual.

The cliche, of course, is that men don't want to commit, and have trouble trying to sleep around, and that women want to commit, and have trouble finding a man who wants to do so. Is this what you're aiming at? Even if you are, we then have two differently gendered imbalances on our hands, rather than just the one you suppose.

To reiterate. I am not saying men don't have difficulties in dating. They sure do. What I am saying is that women also have difficulties. I don't know why this is such a scandalous idea to so many.

[Fin]

Dating and mutual attraction are complex social interactions based around numerous intangible factors that cant be forced or tricked into working.

It's not a "market" or a job interview.........

It's not a "game" with a strict set of rules that must be followed.........

It's hard to think of a bigger mood killer then going into a date acting like it's a job interview and you're trying to "get picked" for a relationship and yet I see it time and time again on this forum. You don't go into a job interview acting like it's a date do you?

No, it is not what I'm implying at all.

What I'm aiming at is that monogamy is artificial and was created as a cultural practice to promote some semblance of equity in the mating market. And moreover it gives every male the chance to get a female. More often than you think, it is WOMEN who often don't want to commit and men who seek commitment.

In societies where there is non-monogamy, a small percentage of men get all the women and a large percentage of men end up with nothing. People say that cannot happen here, but it can.....And there are already indicators that it's headed in that direction.

What are these indicators exactly?

Monogamy is not 'artificial'. As to commitment, I was talking about the social cliche, not actual practice.

We were talking about dating under real-world lived conditions right now - or at least, I was - not whatever dystopian fantasy future you can cook up. If you want to talk about things as they are, go for it. I'm not all that interested in predicting relationship practises of the future.

kraftiekortie

"New York(city) has an estimated 230,000 more single women than men"

Perhaps this is why women are more picky where I live then where you live.

I think its polygamy that is artificial and was created as a cultural practice as a means to treat women as essentially slaves. Its not as if the idea was the man has a loving intimate relationship with each woman, it was more a status symbol based on how many 'wives' a man has...these wives cannot just divorce the man because they belong to him to have sex with and treat as he pleases. I do not see any indicators that things are headed in that direction on any kind of significant scale.

I could see people becoming more open to the idea of multiple partner relationships but it wouldn't be the same as traditional polygamy since all parties would be consenting and men could have multiple female partners whilst woman could have multiple male partners. Even then though I don't think it would become the norm...I certainly don't want to add more romantic partners to me and my boyfriends relationship me and him are good with just each other.

You are wrong. Monogamy requires a woman to commit to a man when she soon starts to realize that there are men out there who are as attractive if not even moreso than the man she's committed to. Monogamy is not practiced in many tribal societies. What you are talking about is the kind of polygamy that occurs in patriarchal societies(like muslim cultures). But in matriarchal cultures, non-monogamy is commonplace. There are societies where men do not raise their children and child rearing is entirely the domain of women. And in such a culture there really is no incentive for a woman to commit to single man.

Nor for a man to commit to a single woman. It seems the set-up in such a place is along the lines of 'it takes a village to raise a child'.

Monogamy also requires a man to commit to a woman when other women may take his fancy. The traditional workaround has been the affair. Though society has seen fit to come up with 'serial monogamy' as another workaround to cultural changes, I don't think a move to a polyamorous society is likely to be on the cards anytime soon.

Where are these 'matriarchal' (as you call them) cultures, and what do they have to do with your notion that women in western cultures have it 'easier' than men?