The First Date Shag Consequences..

metrovelvet

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

The biological argument of the male ensuring the parenthood of his children is not something that is conscious, more likely an adaptation which proved to be an issue for our ancestors (especially in past centuries when such information was more difficult to obtain, and contraceptive methods were either primitive or nonexistent). The female equivalent is the choosing of a "provider" type male, a man who will provide resources and security for her during childbrith and the subsequent raising of family. I don't think people would be so quick to snub this explanation; a disadvantage females have in mating strategies is giving birth to children without a committed father providing valuable resources.

Of course past promiscuity does not equate to infidelity, but nonetheless the perception of this would be enough to set alarm bells off in the unconscious male brain, "Will this woman be faithful to me?", etc.

The question is, is this thinking (and the value of purity) due to hard-wired programming that a woman perceived as promiscuous could mean us raising kids that aren't biologically our own? Or, is it that men desire "pure" affection from women in relationship scenarios? (Mama/ho complex)

I think women would have the same concern tbh. If a man has a long history of sleeping around then she might wonder about his ability to be faithful. I dont know how much girls like to share, whether it be time, loyalty, or resources.

Someone told me that there is a theory around low motility in men, that its an evolutionary product of female promiscuity. A percentage of the sperm move sideways and circularly instead of straight forward so as to knock out sperm from other sources.

As for the madonna/whore complex, I do think it exists no matter how educated and above it all people think they are. They don't like to think the same woman who gives them head is the same one to later kiss their kids goodnight.

magneticimpulse

who cares, i just want to meet a man on a date i feel sexual with. im really getting fed up going on dates and there being no chemistry what so ever.

show me the man, show me the man that makes me want to have sex!!!

metrovelvet

magneticimpulse wrote: »

who cares, i just want to meet a man on a date i feel sexual with. im really getting fed up going on dates and there being no chemistry what so ever.

show me the man, show me the man that makes me want to have sex!!!

Yeah I think there is a sexual apathy in the air. I think its the end of the sexual revolution.

Post coital fatigue on a widespread level.

Wibbs

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I was reading the game by neil strauss the other day - you know pick up artist stuff. I was just thinking how stupid, may I say it, male behaviour is.

1. Men really enforce the idea that if you sleep with them too early you are a slut.
2. Women then don't sleep with men easily for fear of being seen as a slut.
3. Men then call women prickteases and spend loads of time perfecting their 'game' to get through women's anti-slut defenses (a real pick up artist term)
4. Then Either Sleep with the woman or complain they're not getting enough sex (they are not getting enough sex because they call women sluts when they do get it)
5. Call them a slut if they give in too early in the game.

Not all men,but alot.


And so the feckin social stigma game of men starts again.

BTW ladies I would really recommend you google pick up artist sites, and especially google the term "anti-slut defense",

When you read it Its so true! I think if enough ladies start to realise the game techniques men use, the whole game might come to a stop once and for feckin all.

Yea but while I think the PUA stuff is guff overall, there are some interesting aspects to it. From both the male and female side. Mostly as a large scale social experiment and why American women in particular due to culture may respond more readily to it. Anyhoo... With respect I think you may be missing the point(or Im missing yours) regarding the anti slut defence. What he's actually saying is that he agrees with you. That men are being stupidly judgemental about women's sexuality while at the same time complaining they're not getting some and how women know this and resist. Now his angle(and 99% of PUA) is more along the lines of dropping their resistance, rather than changing your own head, but having read a fair bit of this PUA stuff the odd PUA guy was all about dropping the judgement.

The other aspect of PUA that fascinated me is how few men it seems understand women's dating/sexual cues and need some seminar/DVD/Book to figure it out. That and how many women don't get male cues(though they're better at it). It's surprising that with something as important as reprduction you would think the genders would understand each others differences? Then again my mad theory is that for so long culture has provided the answers and rigid ones too about all this. Now because that influence is lesser and men and women are not as rigidly controlled and we're back to basics, back to nature as it were, many men and women are adrift.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It's all about what a man finds attractive. Simple as. Some men like a woman to dress up in stillettos and step on their balls, who am I to judge what turns a man on.

You have outlined in the above quote what you find repellent. How are you any more justified in judging a man that is attracted to being teased by a women and who enjoys waiting to have sex, than a man is in judging you for sleeping with him mere hours after you met him?

Answer:

You're not.

The fact of the matter is that this is an ideal that has persisted through differing eons, cultures, religions... etc. Seemingly isolated societies have been found to of adopted similar ideals about sex, women and purity. There are always exceptions throughout history, but never the less, even in our modern era of homogeneous sexes, it still remains.

The fact that it has persisted so strongly would lead me to believe that there is more to it than merely consciously choosing to think this way.

Pretty much my take. The reasons behind it may no longer be as much in play, but culture/biology has yet to catch up.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think women would have the same concern tbh. If a man has a long history of sleeping around then she might wonder about his ability to be faithful. I dont know how much girls like to share, whether it be time, loyalty, or resources.

Exactly. There may even be more confusion there too. A guy who has slept around is clearly attractive to women so thats in his favour, but at the same time his resources may be shared with other women and their kids. In general and very broadly I would say that women slightly prefer a man with more experience than them and men prefer women with less.

As for the madonna/whore complex, I do think it exists no matter how educated and above it all people think they are. They don't like to think the same woman who gives them head is the same one to later kiss their kids goodnight.

Yea it defo does with some men. Like I said earlier I reckon the ones who see their mothers as above all that. Perfect beings, their own personal virgin mary are the worst for this. They grow up seeing women as special and different beings, not quite human. If their first girlfriend knocks that idea on the head, the more sensitive men to this notion then may equate Mammy/madonna and all the rest sluts to one degree or other. It would be my humble that a man's default setting is largely influenced(other than by his own nature) by just two women, his mammy and his first real romantic/sexual partner. They set the stage.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yeah I think there is a sexual apathy in the air. I think its the end of the sexual revolution.

Post coital fatigue on a widespread level.

maybe or our expectations have been so ramped up and our sense of entitlement for those expectations has soured the milk somewhat. We're also bombarded with the cultural ideal in so many more ways and more insidious ways than in the history of humanity. Like the guy who turns down women because they don't look like Kelly Brook, even though he looks like Mel Brooks.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

maybe or our expectations have been so ramped up and our sense of entitlement for those expectations has soured the milk somewhat. We're also bombarded with the cultural ideal in so many more ways and more insidious ways than in the history of humanity. Like the guy who turns down women because they don't look like Kelly Brook, even though he looks like Mel Brooks.

I think the whole thing has gone completely arsedways with facebook and internet dating. Everything is refracted now through text messages and electronic media, there is barely anything left of the three dimensional relationship, barely any space, barely any privacy, barely any mystery,barely any scent, and soon barley any touch, and the erotic cant thrive in such an environment.

Underscoring subtly all of this, is that we are treating each other as a means to an end, whether that end is sex or security.

Darlughda

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It's all about what a man finds attractive. Simple as. Some men like a woman to dress up in stillettos and step on their balls, who am I to judge what turns a man on.

You have outlined in the above quote what you find repellent. How are you any more justified in judging a man that is attracted to being teased by a women and who enjoys waiting to have sex, than a man is in judging you for sleeping with him mere hours after you met him?.

There's a world of difference between engaging in a kink as part of the sexual act or build up, and judging a woman who is eager to have sex, regardless of how eager you are to have sex yourself.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that this is an ideal that has persisted through differing eons, cultures, religions... etc. Seemingly isolated societies have been found to of adopted similar ideals about sex, women and purity. There are always exceptions throughout history, but never the less, even in our modern era of homogeneous sexes, it still remains.

The fact that it has persisted so strongly would lead me to believe that there is more to it than merely consciously choosing to think this way.

However, this ideal seems to have been created at some stage in history, due to anxiety over ensuring paternity, and the madonna/whore complex-(even if this was coined by Freud?) is central to this, stretching back throughout the development of the patriarchal Abrahamic-Judaic religions.

But it is still a created ideal, to ensure control of women's reproduction.

There are also arguments that humans have an older natural impulse that is polyamorous and polygamous. Before the idea of 'purity' in a woman was invented and idealiased.

The Corinthian

Darlughda wrote: »

However, this ideal seems to have been created at some stage in history, due to anxiety over ensuring paternity, and the madonna/whore complex-(even if this was coined by Freud?) is central to this, stretching back throughout the development of the patriarchal Abrahamic-Judaic religions.

But it is still a created ideal, to ensure control of women's reproduction.

I don't think it is as simple as that, as it has already been pointed out that many women would shy away from men who were or had been promiscuous, because such a man is less likely to be faithful, more likely to leave the woman for another and thus less stable as a future provider.

Naturally, attitudes towards male promiscuity have been more liberal, but even so men's reproduction (or commitment to act as a provider) has been pretty strictly controlled; the often devastating consequences of divorce for men being an example of this and more historically circumcision is also something that appears to have developed as a means of controlling men's reproduction.

Given this, the Abrahamic religions were always pretty anti-sex and certainly anti-women (the story of Lot and his daughters comes to mind). However I do think it simplistic to consider it one sided - control of reproduction has developed on both sides - there's (or was) almost certainly more control over women, but that does not mean that it is not practiced on men too.

There are also arguments that humans have an older natural impulse that is polyamorous and polygamous. Before the idea of 'purity' in a woman was invented and idealiased.

I thought that the biological and anthropological consensus was that we're serial monogamists, and that we tend to form monogamous bonds that last only long enough for the child to be somewhat independent (the seven year itch).

That's not to say that we cannot have life-long monogamous, polyamorous or polygamous relationships either.

Personally, I believe the number of partners that one has had is not necessarily a good indicator one way or another - the devil is in the detail. For example, one may have only ever had a very small number of sexual partners in their lives, but follow a pattern of monogamy for 2 - 5 years, which ends in infidelity and then moving onto the next monogamous relationship.

The chances of a life-long relationship with someone like that are just as low, if not lower, as with someone who has slept with the whole rugby team.

Wibbs

Darlughda wrote: »

However, this ideal seems to have been created at some stage in history, due to anxiety over ensuring paternity, and the madonna/whore complex-(even if this was coined by Freud?) is central to this, stretching back throughout the development of the patriarchal Abrahamic-Judaic religions.

But it is still a created ideal, to ensure control of women's reproduction.

I dunno about created. Evolved maybe, but it evolved for various reasons. Primarily I would argue biological and while we're at it women also try to control or use their sexuality/reproduction for their own ends. Naturally enough too.

There are also arguments that humans have an older natural impulse that is polyamorous and polygamous. Before the idea of 'purity' in a woman was invented and idealiased.

Yea but that's also buying into the "before the fall" notion and doesn't bear much scrutiny in any culture so far researched. It seems as far as we can tell in our evolutionary history that humans use more complex patterns of reproduction and are more flexible than the other great apes, but pair bonding and serial monogamy* on the surface at least is the order of the day(with side branches of polygamy and more rarely Polygyny). I say on the surface as "bits on the side" leading to offspring seem to be underlying this to some degree(DNA studies going way back and current genetic studies which show a number of men raising children not their own). And since males couldnt be sure of paternity or even a woman's fertility(or their own) until very recently, this made them more suspicious of female sexuality/reproduction and they sought to try to control it to a greater or lesser extent. This double standard(and it does exist) is an extension of that. If you add in male gender confusion and sexual ego then you get the extremes of hypocrisy mentioned in the thread. But even without them I still think for many many men there is at least some undercurrent of this.

Not just with regard to paternity either. I would say a more modern one might be guys not wanting to be fathers, but the woman deciding for them. As someone on another thread on that subject said, if there was an effective male pill, there may well be fewer "accidents" occurring. While many men and women would welcome the male pill, I suspect some women would be up in arms about what they would see as an assault on their choices(and it would be debatable enough).

In any event I also think some of the differences of opinion on this first date shagging thing is down to something more mundane. Personal preference. A man can be mature socially and sexually, not hypocritical and prefers not to get busy early on, so seeks that out in a partner(ditto for a woman). They don't have "hangups" or any of that. It's a personal preference and if they aren't hypocritcal like you've said then that's fine in my book.

My personal preference in all this? I really couldnt give a crap about the sexual aspect, more the underlying psychological makeup that might be unattractive to me. I could well fall in love with someone I slept with on a first date as I could someone I didnt sleep with for six months. Indeed of the two women I have fallen for, the first we slept together early on(3rd date IIRC) and the second it was nearer six months after we met and snogged. The former had a very low "number" of previous and the latter a higher one so on a personal experience score, how quick one gets busy is no great indication. Though TBH I might well be more cautious of someone I literally just met hours and whom I knew nada about previously suggesting sex. Like I say that's just me. I would be cautious simply because I consider a potential long term partnership one of the most important relationships I can enter into, so while my crotch and heart would be in play so would my head. I would consider mutually understood ONS's an entirely different thing. They would be all about my crotch so to speak. And yes I have made my excuses when I was in line for a ONS, but saw they were thinking maybe more, as I would think it unfair to them(and me).



*like TC just wrote, though I would call it more the 4 year itch, not 7. Enough for lots of sex at the start to fall pregnant, the emotional bond is at its strongest and the baby increases this in both, but if they split at the 4 year mark the child is weaned and more independent.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I believe the number of partners that one has had is not necessarily a good indicator one way or another - the devil is in the detail. For example, one may have only ever had a very small number of sexual partners in their lives, but follow a pattern of monogamy for 2 - 5 years, which ends in infidelity and then moving onto the next monogamous relationship.

The chances of a life-long relationship with someone like that are just as low, if not lower, as with someone who has slept with the whole rugby team.

This and I have seen those pretty much exact examples played out like that. The latter no doubt labelled "slut" by many(men and women) is often a way better bet than the former example.

magneticimpulse

oh for gods sake...will any man ever grow a brain?? seriously, ive not had sex for 2 years, the man that makes me remotely feel sexual i will jump on him as so far ive just met people who are not compatable with me.

jumping into bed with that guy...are you saying im a slut?

was i a slut when i lost my virginity in a ONS?

god these stupid minds games are fecked up

The Corinthian

magneticimpulse wrote: »

oh for gods sake...will any man ever grow a brain??

In fairness, that's a little offensive - you'll note that many 'men' here have had opinions that do not all fall into the virgin-whore camp.

seriously, ive not had sex for 2 years, the man that makes me remotely feel sexual i will jump on him as so far ive just met people who are not compatable with me.

jumping into bed with that guy...are you saying im a slut?

No, but you do sound a bit desperate

magneticimpulse

The Corinthian wrote: »

In fairness, that's a little offensive - you'll note that many 'men' here have had opinions that do not all fall into the virgin-whore camp.

No, but you do sound a bit desperate

fancy a shag?

haha i aint desperate for sex...im wondering where has all the chivalry gone?

southsiderosie

magneticimpulse wrote: »

fancy a shag?

haha i aint desperate for sex...im wondering where has all the chivalry gone?

I think chivalry exists, but it tends to go on hiatus on Saturdays between 8pm and 2am.

The Corinthian

magneticimpulse wrote: »

fancy a shag?

What makes you think you're even remotely my type

haha i aint desperate for sex...im wondering where has all the chivalry gone?

That's a totally different can of worms... but suffice it to say that it began to vanish around the time that we began to stop thinking of women as the 'weaker sex'.

fergalr

magneticimpulse wrote: »

oh for gods sake...will any man ever grow a brain??

Hearing people say things like 'will any man' etc. I might have gotten offended once.
Now my reaction is somewhere between a resigned 'oh piss off' and a sigh.
Honestly, thats just not how the world works. Sexes are not homogeneous groups, and thinking of them as such just isn't useful.

magneticimpulse wrote: »

im wondering where has all the chivalry gone?

What do you even mean by this?

If you are looking back at an age of previous sexual conservatism in Ireland with rose-tinted glasses, don't forget about things like the magdalene laundries; this society didn't treat women all that well in the past.

magneticimpulse

fergalr wrote: »

Hearing people say things like 'will any man' etc. I might have gotten offended once.
Now my reaction is somewhere between a resigned 'oh piss off' and a sigh.
Honestly, thats just not how the world works. Sexes are not homogeneous groups, and thinking of them as such just isn't useful.



What do you even mean by this?

If you are looking back at an age of previous sexual conservatism in Ireland with rose-tinted glasses, don't forget about things like the magdalene laundries; this society didn't treat women all that well in the past.

they might as well be homogeneous!!! with all my friends being lesbian and gay, doesnt some to be acceptable anymore for men and women to get it on!!!

if they do...theres a load of holy bull**** rules along with it...when is it acceptable to shag, who and when is it acceptable to get married and have kids...

Im happy being Asexual, hell of a less complicated life

Wibbs

Funny enough I have noted among gay mates and acquaintances really stable very long termers that seem to keep the excitement for longer. I noticed this a couple of years back. So what? thought I at the time, but for gay men anyway if they are on the "scene" no strings nookie is usually more on the table than for the average straight person. So you would think the temptation aspect might be higher, but it really doesnt seem to be. Or appears less than with many of the straight relationships I've known. Had this convo a couple of times with those couples (L&G) and a few times they have mentioned that hetero relationships of late appear like a lot more hassle to them looking in. One guy after my last big split was bemoaning the drama involved and if you met this lad.. He's flamboyantly (and brilliantly) dramatic. It would be like Ozzy Osbourne suggesting "you seem fond of the drink oul son". You would take notice. Probably just the folks I know though Still... *sneaks off to LBGT forum for pointers *

That aside though I have noticed myself a much wider gulf between men and women in the last 15 years say than I noticed when I was first on the dating scene. Not all of course and the majority hook up as they always have but there does seem to be more suspicion afoot than I recall. may be my fevered imaginings, but then again look at the phenomena of the marriage strike in male americans(and elsewhere) http://wikibin.org/articles/marriage-strike.html I certainly know way more men today who would be serious naysayers as far as getting hitched goes than years ago.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough I have noted among gay mates and acquaintances really stable very long termers that seem to keep the excitement for longer. I noticed this a couple of years back. So what? thought I at the time, but for gay men anyway if they are on the "scene" no strings nookie is usually more on the table than for the average straight person. So you would think the temptation aspect might be higher, but it really doesnt seem to be. Or appears less than with many of the straight relationships I've known. Had this convo a couple of times with those couples (L&G) and a few times they have mentioned that hetero relationships of late appear like a lot more hassle to them looking in. One guy after my last big split was bemoaning the drama involved and if you met this lad.. He's flamboyantly (and brilliantly) dramatic. It would be like Ozzy Osbourne suggesting "you seem fond of the drink oul son". You would take notice. Probably just the folks I know though Still... *sneaks off to LBGT forum for pointers *

That aside though I have noticed myself a much wider gulf between men and women in the last 15 years say than I noticed when I was first on the dating scene. Not all of course and the majority hook up as they always have but there does seem to be more suspicion afoot than I recall. may be my fevered imaginings, but then again look at the phenomena of the marriage strike in male americans(and elsewhere) http://wikibin.org/articles/marriage-strike.html I certainly know way more men today who would be serious naysayers as far as getting hitched goes than years ago.

Just wait till there's a sex strike, Lysistrata style.

fergalr

magneticimpulse wrote: »

they might as well be homogeneous!!! with all my friends being lesbian and gay, doesnt some to be acceptable anymore for men and women to get it on!!!

Our views of the world are always much more local than we think.
We only really see in any real depth into the parts of the social network immediately next to us. We have to go on vague impressions to get a wider view. (Or posts on boards, but I'm not sure if you want to class them as deep insight).

Anyway, they really aren't homogeneous. There's quite a diversity of opinion even on this thread.

magneticimpulse wrote: »

if they do...theres a load of holy bull**** rules along with it...when is it acceptable to shag, who and when is it acceptable to get married and have kids...

Honestly, from my perspective, there are a lot of people that don't pay much attention to this sort of thing.

magneticimpulse wrote: »

Im happy being Asexual, hell of a less complicated life

I don't know about being asexual, but from the perspective of a long term relationship, I think being single looks much more complicated to me. I think single people spend more energy thinking about it, and, dare I say it, making it complex, trying to define or discuss rules or protocols.

pablohoney87

Dunno if its been said yet but

A key that opens a thousand locks is considered a master key.
A lock that opens for a thousand keys is considered a sh!tty lock.

fergalr

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Dunno if its been said yet but

A key that opens a thousand locks is considered a master key.
A lock that opens for a thousand keys is considered a sh!tty lock.

Yeah, that was said on the first page actually.

It was stupid then, and its stupid now.

Men aren't keys and women aren't locks.

pablohoney87

Not sure you understand.
Its called an analogy.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analogy

fergalr

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Not sure you understand.
Its called an analogy.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analogy

Could you look up 'begging the question' for me as well?

pablohoney87

fergalr wrote: »

Could you look up 'begging the question' for me as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
There ya go. Its called wikipedia/google.
Pretty easy to use actually.

fergalr

pablohoney87 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
There ya go. Its called wikipedia/google.
Pretty easy to use actually.

Ah, thanks a million. It means what I think it means.

What I was getting at, is that if for the 'analogy' to be relevant, you have to first assume that men are more like keys, and women are more like locks; presumably, in that men are trying to get women to sleep with them, and women are trying to sleep with as few men as possible, or 'ration' themselves somehow.

But that's what is at issue in this thread. What is under discussion is *why* it someone should think that women have to somehow 'ration' themselves sexually.

I, and others, are arguing that there's no good reason for that.
Some people are arguing to the contrary - or, at least, providing a biological or evolutionary basis for why such perceptions exist.


But the analogy you provided is only meaningful if we have already decided that women are more like locks and men are more like keys.
Which is what is actually under discussion.

Hence, the using this analogy as an argument is actually begging the question -

"a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."

(thanks for the link).


Thats why it was stupid on the first page, and stupid now.

I am arguing that men aren't (metaphorical) keys and women aren't (metaphorical) locks.

You could argue to the contrary, but just introducing an analogy that already assumes the truth of your perspective on what we are discussing doesn't add anything.

Goduznt Xzst

fergalr wrote: »

I am arguing that men aren't (metaphorical) keys and women aren't (metaphorical) locks.

While the analogy doesn't hold much weight, I can see how it originated.

This has already been mentioned, but it is easier for a woman to find a man for sex than it is for a man to find a woman for sex. It's why "techniques" for PUA's exist for men and, afaik, they don't for women.

Lets ignore nightclubs and bars for a second. Lets take somewhere innocuose like, say, a Dunnes Stores.

If a fairly handsome man walked in, dressed to show off his physique, and just approached single women shopping and asked them if they'd like to have sex in the changing room how many do you imagine would agree to this proposition?

Lets reverse it, and a beautiful women walks in, amazing body, tight dress, low cut top and approaches single men asking to have sex with them in the changing room.

Do you imagine the number of men that would agree to this would be higher?

fergalr

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

While the analogy doesn't hold much weight, I can see how it originated.

This has already been mentioned, but it is easier for a woman to find a man for sex than it is for a man to find a woman for sex. It's why "techniques" for PUA's exist for men and, afaik, they don't for women.

Lets ignore nightclubs and bars for a second. Lets take somewhere innocuose like, say, a Dunnes Stores.

If a fairly handsome man walked in, dressed to show off his physique, and just approached single women shopping and asked them if they'd like to have sex in the changing room how many do you imagine would agree to this proposition?

Lets reverse it, and a beautiful women walks in, amazing body, tight dress, low cut top and approaches single men asking to have sex with them in the changing room.

Do you imagine the number of men that would agree to this would be higher?

I agree with you that, all other things being equal, it certainly would.

Certainly, from what I see of the world, there's a very strong tendency this way in society in general; I definitely wouldn't deny that.

Furthermore, I can think of many reasons why society might be like this - many already covered on this thread.

Perhaps its originating from some less rational, more primitive parts of our brain, genetically programmed; or maybe its 'memes' that have just come down culturally -- but, in a less stable, less evolved, pre-contraception society, where its all about pro-creating effectively, then there is a natural asymmetry of scarcity to male vs female procreation.
Simply, women have to be selective about who they get impregnated by, because it removes their ability to pro-create for 40 weeks, where as men do not have the same pressure - for men, the more women they have sex with, the better their chances of viable offspring.

But - while these may be reasons explaining why people have the biases and hangups they do, they are not good logical reasons for having these biases in today's world!

Most sex today is not done with the goal of procreation - people typically use contraception for the express purpose of not having babies - so whatever the scarcity origins, they aren't applicable to a discussion on high level rational behaviour today. Further, its not generally the case that guys are running around trying to make as many women pregnant as possible- and hence why they are sleeping with people. (I'm sure some are, but I don't think its a primary rational force!).


Hence my position - I can see why there's an asymmetry that's come down through our culture, or our genetics (who knows which); but its no longer rational in today's world.
Further, whatever way the majority of people might like to justify their view of why they perceive - and even enforce - this asymmetry, I'd be willing to bet its typically not originating in a rational position - its probably just baggage from times before. Because most people carry a lot of psychological baggage.


So, while I see why people use the analogy, and even why they find it compelling, I think its stupid; both in terms of the conclusions it leads to, and the means of argument for those conclusions.
Because, it really is just circular logic to start talking about locks and keys when we're talking about whether an 'old fashioned double standard' should still apply.


Also, we had it on page 1

Jesus Wept

28064212 wrote: »

That aside though I have noticed myself a much wider gulf between men and women in the last 15 years say than I noticed when I was first on the dating scene. Not all of course and the majority hook up as they always have but there does seem to be more suspicion afoot than I recall. may be my fevered imaginings, but then again look at the phenomena of the marriage strike in male americans(and elsewhere) http://wikibin.org/articles/marriage-strike.html I certainly know way more men today who would be serious naysayers as far as getting hitched goes than years ago.

Unfortunately rather than make marriage and divorce equitable, the solution in this country from the higher ups is to impose marriage on cohabiting couples, which is just mental.

Anyhow on topic, I've read 'double standard' 40 times or so.
It isn't a double standard, it's a standard - for some.

A double standard would be if you were bisexual and you would willingly have a one night stand with one gender and be willing to have a relationship afterwards, but you wouldn't be willing to do so with the other gender having had a one night stand.
That would be a double standard.
This is just a standard that some people hold, like it or lump it.

And it can apply to both genders, one more consciously than the other.

Maguined

I would definitely agree with those points about this being an instinctive thing in men for ensuring any potential children are more likely to be your own. These instincts would have been crept their way into the brain well before the invention of paternity tests. Just because paternity tests exist now does not wipe away generations of instinct however, you also see this is womens attitude to dating.

The search for the "provider" male is pretty redundant these days as we are supposed to have an equal society with women earning almost as much as men however I would say the vast majority (just my personal experience) of women would still expect the man to pay for the first date. This was even on a recent thread with some women saying they could be having a fantastic date with a man and everything is going well but if when the bill comes the man wanted to split it then she would no longer have any interest in him.

I do not think these are double standards, merely as one poster said just plain standards, sure they might not make much sense a lot of the time but when you are talking about someones personal preferences they don't really need to. You do not owe another human being anything regarding your own personal dating life apart from honesty.