Do women treat married men differently?

shoos

Piliger wrote: »

You're 100% right. But what you have to realise, and probably do anyway, is that men are different than women, completely. They always will be. Young men, and even older ones :P have hormones that make them have one goal always 'in sight'. It may not be the top top priority in a conversation, but it will always be on the list ... somewhere. Even if he knows it will probably never happen.

The trick is to accept that and then learn to live with it and work with it. Most guys enjoy the frisson that is part of the chat with a lady even if sex is not on the top of the list. The 'maybe I do and maybe I don't .... and maybe she will and maybe she won't' is a super important part of most men's chemistry.

Some women find this off putting and difficult to absorb. But many women learn this very quickly and then have no trouble having conversations that allow for a little flirting, and being confident they can walk away and keep control. Of course there is nothing anyone can do about the small percentage of men who are just ignorant and thick ... who take any kind of flirting as a YES. Copping to that quickly must be one of the most difficult things for a women, I imagine.

I understand when you fancy someone and you have that excited feeling when you're talking to them, wondering if they fancy you back and if it's going somewhere and what not. But you make it sound like guys get that with every single female. Like once there's a vagina present, they're only thinking about scoring it. And I've a lot of male friends and really don't think that's true. And like jaffacakesyum said earlier, I'm 100% certain I would be severely told off if I described men the way you did to any of the guys I know.

To be honest I don't want to just "accept that" men are going for the sex all the time every time because I know that's not true, and I'd be selling them a bit short if I thought that. Not to mention lose a few friends.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

Your implication - that men can make themselves the same as women, if they chose to, is appallingly naive.

No I never implied that. What I said is that society has evolved precisely because we have learned as a species to modify our natural behaviour. Take a toddler, for example, who sees a toy he or she likes that belongs to someone else - they'll automatically take it because instinctively they want it. That same toddler will be taught, conditioned, that this is not acceptable social behaviour, and that they must suppress that instinct.

Boys and girls are conditioned differently. Boys are taught not to cry, not to show emotional weakness, while girls are almost encouraged to do so. Girls instead taught to reject 'easy' sex while boys are, if anything, taught that 'easy' sex is an admirable trait in a male.

Now consider if boys were not taught that showing weakness is bad, or girls were not taught that 'easy' sex made them 'sluts', throughout society. You'd certainly start seeing far closer similarities in behaviour between the genders in a generation or two, if that happened - however, closer does not mean the same as there will still be underlying physiological differences.

As is the suggestion that to recognise that men are fundamentally different to women is a sexist concept.

Last time I checked, I have a penis and women have vaginas. Men are going to be significantly taller and stronger than women on average. Women get pregnant and have breasts. Men have lots more testosterone, women estrogen.

This does not mean that this means that these differences doom each gender to inflexible roles within society, but it does mean that each may have a natural 'edge' over the other that must be overcome through social or artificial means - and how big that 'edge' is in the first place is open to debate; in many cases it's very minor indeed, IMHO, and there are plenty of women who would naturally make better soldiers than most men and men who would make better child carers than most women.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

No I never implied that.

Well imho that is essentially what you did imply.

What I said is that society has evolved precisely because we have learned as a species to modify our natural behaviour. Take a toddler, for example, who sees a toy he or she likes that belongs to someone else - they'll automatically take it because instinctively they want it. That same toddler will be taught, conditioned, that this is not acceptable social behaviour, and that they must suppress that instinct.

Firstly now you are talking about behaviour and not desire and intent. A change of subject. Secondly I believe that you grossly overstate the amount of 'modification' that is possible. In a perfect world you may be right ... but in the real world .. nope.
And it goes without saying - I would imagine - that we are talking generalities here. There are plenty of women and men at the differing ends of the spectrum where their desires and behaviours are fairly indistinguishable.

Boys and girls are conditioned differently. Boys are taught not to cry, not to show emotional weakness, while girls are almost encouraged to do so. Girls instead taught to reject 'easy' sex while boys are, if anything, taught that 'easy' sex is an admirable trait in a male.

Yet these behaviour modifications have a very mixed track record of success. There are base instincts in our genes that cannot be modified so easily. This is the same argument I have heard for decades about bringing up little girls to play with mechano and guns, and little boys to be touchy feely and play house. Lots of young parents, including myself, start out planning to create an even playing field and think that this can be done. It just doesn't work.

Now consider if boys were not taught that showing weakness is bad, or girls were not taught that 'easy' sex made them 'sluts', throughout society. You'd certainly start seeing far closer similarities in behaviour between the genders in a generation or two, if that happened - however, closer does not mean the same as there will still be underlying physiological differences.

You are painting with broad broad brushes and then stretching your conclusions. While the broad theme of your point is correct - the truth is that the differences are still fundamental and significant ... on the whole.

Last time I checked, I have a penis and women have vaginas. Men are going to be significantly taller and stronger than women on average. Women get pregnant and have breasts. Men have lots more testosterone, women estrogen.

Ok ok with the sarcasm ..:cool:

This does not mean that this means that these differences doom each gender to inflexible roles within society,

Again with the change of subject. 'Role in society' is a very very different thing.

. . . . but it does mean that each may have a natural 'edge' over the other that must be overcome through social or artificial means - and how big that 'edge' is in the first place is open to debate; in many cases it's very minor indeed, IMHO, and there are plenty of women who would naturally make better soldiers than most men and men who would make better child carers than most women.

Again the essence of your point is fair .. but your recognition of the significance of these differences is grossly underestimated. The fundamental differences are and will remain significant and fundamental. We think differently, we communicate differently, our brains are wired differently as proven by a heck of a lot of recent research. Does that mean we are chalk and cheese ? It depends on the context. Against the animal kingdom we are incredibly alike. But in the context of the subject under discussion, we have major differences that cannot be wished away for politically correct reasons.
And to be honest I really fail to grasp why this modern obsession with trying to force both genders to be more and more and more alike. It is an agenda adopted by the feminist movement where they chose to label men as essentially dysfunctional and nasty and aggressive and domineering. They follow this agenda and have succeeded in getting this theme adopted across a lot of the politically correct society. I don't buy it and I don't believe most ordinary people buy it either. Men have characteristics that can be less than desirable in a modern society, and women can have them too. Human's evolved in a very different environment. But the answer is not to try to force them into the same mould. The solution is to treat each gender's weaknesses differently and celebrate our differences and complimentary natures.

The Corinthian

I understand where you're coming from, but I did preface everything I've written by saying that this is what "I prefer to believe"; so I'm clearly stating that I am expressing an opinion on a hypothetical scenario, which while there is evidence against, there is also evidence for.

Behaviour can be modified, that much should not be in dispute. To what level I can't say because this is a question that's been debated for over a century now, however I never suggested that "men can make themselves the same as women", only that behaviour could be modified in both to make them far more similar - in theory, because in practice it would likely be a are more complex and likely multi-generational endeavour.

On top of which I always acknowledged that physiological differences would still remain, effectively affecting behaviour.

I don't believe that men and women will ever behave identically. But I do believe that many behavioural traits can be modified; they already are. And this could well in the future, if applied, result in a much narrower behavioural gap between the genders - it's already happened to a great degree in the last century.

So I'm not entirely certain what you're disagreeing with me on. If you genuinely think I was expousing that "men can make themselves the same as women", then I'd agree, but I didn't. I'm not entirely certain either why you've brought in behaviour vs desire vs intent into the discussion either, or suggested that by doing so I am changing the topic.

And finally, I was not being sarcastic. I can assure you that I have a penis...

Daveysil15

shoos wrote: »

Have to back up jaffacakesyum on the catch 22 that sometimes goes on in pubs and clubs.

Most of the time if I get talking to someone in a bar, they ask for my number or conversation takes an uncomfortable flirty turn, I tell them nicely that I actually have a boyfriend and they'll react grand with a "that's no problem, hope you have a good night". Fine.

But sometimes, they'll react with some aggression and anger because in their eyes just from talking to them, I've apparently led them on. And just like jaffacakesyum mentioned, I'm not flirting with them, I can't flirt anyway for my life, just having a nice normal conversation.

I noticed this immediately when I first started going out at 18 and I remember my friends and I having conversations about it at the end of the night because we'd all have experienced it. After it happened a couple of times, I put my guard up. If a guy started talking to me at a bar I'd reply politely but try get back to my friends, to which you'd sometimes get a "Jesus Christ, I was only trying to talk to ya", "stuck up bitch" etc. etc. Can't win.

That's why when a guy mentions he has a girlfriend you can just relax. There's none of this "crap, if I talk to him he might get the wrong impression and think I'm leading him on, but if I don't talk to him he's going to think I'm completely up myself thinking all guys want me". The girlfriend/wife introduction gets rid of all of that. You can just relax and have a conversation with no worries.

Just because a guy has a girlfriend, that doesn't mean he won't be interested in you or get the worng impression. Some guys do cheat on their partners, so you'd still need to be careful.

I agree with the rest of your post, especially the catch 22 situation. It's almost like the chicken and egg conundrum. Which came first; the pervert or the prick tease? Unfortunately so many people are just conditioned that way. They assume any guys making an approach are only after one thing, and the girls are stuck up for not reciprocating the chat.

I remember reading in another thread about guys who are only after the ride, and somebody said that you're only a perv if the woman is not interested. So you approach 10 women, 9 of them are dismissive, regardless of what your intentions are - maybe you just want to chat. But then you meet one who wants the same thing and everything is fine and dandy.

The Corinthian

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I remember reading in another thread about guys who are only after the ride, and somebody said that you're only a perv if the woman is not interested. So you approach 10 women, 9 of them are dismissive, regardless of what your intentions are - maybe you just want to chat. But then you meet one who wants the same thing and everything is fine and dandy.

That's actually often the strategy in countries like Italy. Guys will hang around tourist areas and attempt to chat up the foreign girls, repeatedly being told to piss off. But that one time in ten or twenty where the interest is reciprocated there's little doubt as to what's going on. I almost believe that the reputation that Italian men have for this is almost cultivated so as to speed up the process.

mfceiling

Back to the OP's point and i reckon in some cases it's true.

I've a friend who's brother lives in New York. Married man, couple of kids, and a few quid in the bank. Every time he goes out for a few beers he gets chatted up a couple of times by single women - either looking for drink or blatantly asking for the ride. He's not a man for straying but will be polite and offer them a drink, all the time staying in his own company.

One night he was asked by a twenty something if he was interested in going back to hers. He replied no thanks i'll be heading home to herself. He then asked her what interest she had in him (he's an average looking chap no Brad Pitt). She replied that she always looks for married men in their late 30's early 40's - reason - less likely to have any STD's and more likely to have a few quid in their pocket plus they wouldn't be hassling her during the week in case the missus found out!!

batistuta9

iptba wrote: »

I read before that women are more attracted to men who other women find attractive. However, most women I imagine aren't interested in a trying to have a relationship with a married man.

I've read something similar to this as well but it was that if an average looking man is in a relationship with a woman who's deemed good looking, other women will be attracted to that man too. more than they would be if that same average looking man was single

Daveysil15

batistuta9 wrote: »

I've read something similar to this as well but it was that if an average looking man is in a relationship with a woman who's deemed good looking, other women will be attracted to that man too. more than they would be if that same average looking man was single

Or more importantly, if he's been single for a long time. Some will think there's something wrong with him. If he's just out of a relationship he may appear more attractive too.

batistuta9

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Or more importantly, if he's been single for a long time. Some will think there's something wrong with him. If he's just out of a relationship he may appear more attractive too.

yeah the single for a long time probably has some truth in it as well

but for the average man with the good looking girlfriend, being seen as more attractive to women I think it's something like them wondering how he managed to get this good looking girlfriend in the first place:
His personality
is he funny
good in bed
have money
whatever...
and it makes him more attractive than if he was single

Weathering

Bit if a joke marriage if you're newly wed and worrying how other women will treat you

Weathering

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Or more importantly, if he's been single for a long time. Some will think there's something wrong with him. If he's just out of a relationship he may appear more attractive too.

So someone who is single a long time has something wrong with them? How shallow. Maybe some people don't want a other half for the sake of it and are happy on their own until the right person comes along.

So we should all settle for scraps encase someone thinks we're weird. All singletons better get themselves in to a false relationship quick to save face

Sure we'd all rather be fake than weird

Three Seasons

Weathering wrote: »

Bit if a joke marriage if you're newly wed and worrying how other women will treat you

I think you're making a few assumptions.

When did I say I worry about it.

I find it interesting to consider if Vitali Klitcshko could beat a peak Muhammad Ali.

Doesn't mean I worry about it.

So try to engage your brain before you post.

Weathering

Three Seasons wrote: »

I think you're making a few assumptions.

When did I say I worry about it.

I find it interesting to consider if Vitali Klitcshko could beat a peak Muhammad Ali.

Doesn't mean I worry about it.

So try to engage your brain before you post.

Well you obviously cared enough to ask? If you found your wife asking will men treat her different on here I don't think you'd be too happy.

Boxing comparisons now...how strange. Any who quote and reply again if u want but i won't be back in this dull thread and keep kidding yourself. Gl to your wife

pwurple

Piliger wrote: »

You're 100% right. But what you have to realise, and probably do anyway, is that men are different than women, completely. They always will be. Young men, and even older ones :P have hormones that make them have one goal always 'in sight'. It may not be the top top priority in a conversation, but it will always be on the list ... somewhere. Even if he knows it will probably never happen.

The trick is to accept that and then learn to live with it and work with it. Most guys enjoy the frisson that is part of the chat with a lady even if sex is not on the top of the list. The 'maybe I do and maybe I don't .... and maybe she will and maybe she won't' is a super important part of most men's chemistry.

:rolleyes: So this "frisson" that is always present, tell me more! Is this "frisson" appearing, even with say... your mother, grandmother, or siblings, or random passing female children? It's always on the list, is it not?

Give me a break and put that old chestnut away. Men are not mere unthinking robots being dragged around by their penis. It's something the media love to hawk though, so the gullible might believe it.

By the way, women think about sex a good bit too. Gasp! Just not usually with people they find unattractive.

ToxicPaddy

Weathering wrote: »

Well you obviously cared enough to ask? If you found your wife asking will men treat her different on here I don't think you'd be too happy.

Boxing comparisons now...how strange. Any who quote and reply again if u want but i won't be back in this dull thread and keep kidding yourself. Gl to your wife

Mod Note:
Ok no need for personal insults, the OP asked a genuine question so lets keep it civil.

If you find this thread dull, please feel free not to post here again

Piliger

pwurple wrote: »

:rolleyes: So this "frisson" that is always present, tell me more! Is this "frisson" appearing, even with say... your mother, grandmother, or siblings, or random passing female children? It's always on the list, is it not?

Give me a break and put that old chestnut away. Men are not mere unthinking robots being dragged around by their penis. It's something the media love to hawk though, so the gullible might believe it.

By the way, women think about sex a good bit too. Gasp! Just not usually with people they find unattractive.

If you believe all that ... so be it. Whatever.

pwurple

Piliger wrote: »

If you believe all that ... so be it. Whatever.

Yeah, we all know women NEVER think about sex. All women would be virgins unless they are duped or tricked into it.

Pug160

To be fair, there are some men who would shag anything with a pulse, especially with drink in them. I'm ashamed to say it but I used to be one of them until I decided to acquire some self respect. But I have known guys who are very picky when it comes to women.

Also, there are certainly some women out there who are sex crazed as well - make no mistake about it. But they generally go unnoticed due to the fact women can be much more discrete than men due to the advantage of being a woman.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

Yeah, we all know women NEVER think about sex. All women would be virgins unless they are duped or tricked into it.

Personally, I think women think about sex just as often as men. The only reason they don't show it as much is in part because, as gatekeepers to sex, they don't have to worry about getting it, but mainly because they're brainwashed not to admit to it from an early age.

I mean seriously; I'll have to admit that I really do feel sorry for women in this regard. As kids, it's drummed into them not to be 'sluts'. Good girls don't do that sort of thing. You know, as a guy the priests didn't even mention to us that sex outside of marriage is technically a mortal sin - bet girls didn't get the same speech.

I was sixteen or seventeen when I finally figured this out. I was under a bridge with my then girlfriend, fooling around and doing things to her genitalia, while she was clearly enjoying the experience. Out of the blue she says "I don't know why I let you do this to me" - I stopped, taken aback for a moment. Then finally I responded "because you enjoy it". She blushed and went silent.

It was then that I realized that where it comes to men and women we're not all that different where it comes to sexual desire - different hardware same software - only women do have to carry that dreadful 'slut' luggage; the culmination of a thousand comments and social cues in their upbringing to utterly beat down any sexual passion they may have and condemn them to a life of abdicating responsibility for their horniness to someone else - otherwise they'd be whores if they'd sought sex, after all.

Sorry girls, as much as I complain about men's rights a lot of the time, you did get the short straw on that one.

Daveysil15

The Corinthian wrote: »

It was then that I realized that where it comes to men and women we're not all that different where it comes to sexual desire - different hardware same software - only women do have to carry that dreadful 'slut' luggage; the culmination of a thousand comments and social cues in their upbringing to utterly beat down any sexual passion they may have and condemn them to a life of abdicating responsibility for their horniness to someone else - otherwise they'd be whores if they'd sought sex, after all.

Very nicely put.

It's worth pointing out however, that while women get the 'slut' label for sleeping around, men often get the 'creep' label for seeking it - unless of course he meets a woman who want's the same thing. Then they can be sluts and creeps together and it won't matter.

Piliger

pwurple wrote: »

Yeah, we all know women NEVER think about sex. All women would be virgins unless they are duped or tricked into it.

Amazing. You have real deep insight.

iptba

Info on a study that looked at how frequently (young) men and women think about sex, for what it's worth:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201112/how-often-do-men-and-women-think-about-sex

I always found it amazing that anyone believed the "men think about sex every seven seconds" (or anything close to it).

Pug160

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Very nicely put.

It's worth pointing out however, that while women get the 'slut' label for sleeping around, men often get the 'creep' label for seeking it - unless of course he meets a woman who want's the same thing. Then they can be sluts and creeps together and it won't matter.

I know not all women are the same, but if a man is very handsome he can get away with things some men can't get away with. There are situations where a girl might label a guy she doesn't fancy a creep, but not label the handsome guy the same way, for doing the exact same thing.

Playboy

The Corinthian wrote: »

It was then that I realized that where it comes to men and women we're not all that different where it comes to sexual desire - different hardware same software - only women do have to carry that dreadful 'slut' luggage; the culmination of a thousand comments and social cues in their upbringing to utterly beat down any sexual passion they may have and condemn them to a life of abdicating responsibility for their horniness to someone else - otherwise they'd be whores if they'd sought sex, after all.

Sorry girls, as much as I complain about men's rights a lot of the time, you did get the short straw on that one.

Sorry but I dont agree. I think conditioning only partially explains the differences in male and female sexual behaviour. Sexual behaviour differs between male and females due to hormones, genetics, evolved strategies and social conditioning. Women may think about sex as much as men but they likely think about it differently.

jaffacakesyum

Pug160 wrote: »

I know not all women are the same, but if a man is very handsome he can get away with things some men can't get away with. There are situations where a girl might label a guy she doesn't fancy a creep, but not label the handsome guy the same way, for doing the exact same thing.

Same thing can be said for men. I knew a guy was unfortunate enough to have a bit of a stalker who...let's just say wasn't very pretty. Was obsessed with him, always trying to get him in the sack. If she was a model, he definitely wouldn't have found the whole thing as annoying, and probably would have had a new fúck buddy for a while!! Granted, even if she was gorgeous there would be no sort of proper relationship as she was a bit of a psycho, but still, attractiveness does definitely determine where you are on the 'creep' scale for both men and women in my opinion, but particularly you see it attached to men, as they are more often than not the ones who make the first move.

The Corinthian

Playboy wrote: »

Sorry but I dont agree. I think conditioning only partially explains the differences in male and female sexual behaviour. Sexual behaviour differs between male and females due to hormones, genetics, evolved strategies and social conditioning. Women may think about sex as much as men but they likely think about it differently.

Back to the old nature vs nurture debate... of course physiological differences play a part, but that does not mean that a very significant part of the difference in behaviour is down to socialization.

This is best evidenced by the change is sexual behaviour in women both since the development of the pill and as a result of evolving role models. The former suddenly made casual sex significantly more available, as sex would no longer result in pregnancy - then much of this was of course reversed with the advent of AIDS. Increased availability of abortion has had a similar effect. The latter can be exemplified in post-Spice Girls UK culture, where the rise of 'ladishness' by women there has resulted in a significant shift twoards increased sexual aggression by them, in this regard.

Physiological factors will always be there also, but to deny the overwhelming effect of socialization, would be to ignore the very big change in sexual behaviour in women in the last forty-five years.

clairefontaine

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Same thing can be said for men. I knew a guy was unfortunate enough to have a bit of a stalker who...let's just say wasn't very pretty. Was obsessed with him, always trying to get him in the sack. If she was a model, he definitely wouldn't have found the whole thing as annoying, and probably would have had a new fúck buddy for a while!! Granted, even if she was gorgeous there would be no sort of proper relationship as she was a bit of a psycho, but still, attractiveness does definitely determine where you are on the 'creep' scale for both men and women in my opinion, but particularly you see it attached to men, as they are more often than not the ones who make the first move.

And age too. Some of these shananigans are ok when you are young, but as you get older just look sleezy, even the typical bar pick up. You know... dirty old man... mutton dresssed as lamb... that kind of thing.

Playboy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Back to the old nature vs nurture debate... of course physiological differences play a part, but that does not mean that a very significant part of the difference in behaviour is down to socialization.

This is best evidenced by the change is sexual behaviour in women both since the development of the pill and as a result of evolving role models. The former suddenly made casual sex significantly more available, as sex would no longer result in pregnancy - then much of this was of course reversed with the advent of AIDS. Increased availability of abortion has had a similar effect. The latter can be exemplified in post-Spice Girls UK culture, where the rise of 'ladishness' by women there has resulted in a significant shift twoards increased sexual aggression by them, in this regard.

Physiological factors will always be there also, but to deny the overwhelming effect of socialization, would be to ignore the very big change in sexual behaviour in women in the last forty-five years.

Nature/Nurture is a tricky one and I admit I havent kept up to date with the latest offerings. I do remember that as of a few years ago the debate was starting to swing very heavily towards nature due to a lot of the advances in genetics. People like Pinker wrote some excellent stuff on the topic.. I think the Blank slate was the book that pushed me towards the nature end of the spectrum. I do think though social constructionism (which seems to a favourite of feminists) tends to be radically over stated in terms of its importance.

The Corinthian

Playboy wrote: »

Nature/Nurture is a tricky one and I admit I havent kept up to date with the latest offerings.

Personally I believe, and from what I've read this is the currently accepted position in the scientific community, that it's a mixture of both, with nature often giving a predisposition and nurture either triggering it - or not; depending on that nurture.

Certainly, a lot of the tabula rasa stuff that's been doing the rounds is dreadfully theoretical nonsense, but neither do I believe that we are doomed to be slaves to our DNA. If we were, all men would be rapists.

In the case of female sexual behaviour, you do have to admit that there is plenty of historical evidence that points to it not being immutable, even if there may be limits to that mutability.