Do women treat married men differently?

Three Seasons

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Why would all men be rapists?

The Corinthian

Three Seasons wrote: »

Why would all men be rapists?

Fair enough, that would be an exaggeration.

The point I'm making is that how we are socialized does make a big difference; one need only look at the difference in behaviour between people of different cultures, or the behaviour of toddlers (who are still undergoing their socialization) or, in the most extreme case, the behaviour of feral children.

This is not to say that genetics can be ignored, as ultimately their effect remains in the background even if we try to socialize it away. An interesting example of this is how women will tend to become 'bitchier' about other women when they are in the most fertile part of their cycle. Possibly the best historical example of the limits of the tabula rasa was communism, in that it fundamentally sought to socialize aspects of self interest in the human psyche when redefining society - and ultimately failed.

Nonetheless, changing socialization can and does make a huge difference to how people behave on average, despite genetics.

Returning to the OP, if women are more 'friendly' to married men, there may be some evolutionary cause for this; an attached man has been 'proven' to be of worth, against an unattached man who has not or may even have been repeatedly rejected by potential mates. However, there are numerous other explanations for this too; it is a taboo, which is always going to be an attraction in itself to many, and as was pointed out, an attached man is far less likely to be sexually aggressive, which can make interaction far more relaxed for a woman who would otherwise have to at least be on her guard if she is not attracted herself.

My own conclusion is that it has not exactly been demonstrated here that women will be more 'drawn' towards married men to begin with. And even if it were, there are so many plausible reasons for this that there probably is no single motive for this and may even prove to be a mixture of them, or begin with motive and become another after time.

Pug160

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.

I agree to an extent. But I think women seem to have a more severe defence mechanism, which ultimately makes their rejection seem crueler. But the reason for that is, as you say, the fact that men generally make the first move, so women presumably become conditioned to be more abrupt, in an attempt to make their lives a bit easier.

iptba

Pug160 wrote: »

I agree to an extent. But I think women seem to have a more severe defence mechanism, which ultimately makes their rejection seem crueler. But the reason for that is, as you say, the fact that men generally make the first move, so women presumably become conditioned to be more abrupt, in an attempt to make their lives a bit easier.

Norah Vincent talks about the rude/similar rejections and put-downs from women she had to put up when she was dressed up as a man in:

Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man [Paperback] Norah Vincent

I can't find the extract I read on it. Here's a briefer piece on it which perhaps gets the point across:

Ned's whistle-stop tour of modern manhood also takes him to a Roman Catholic monastery, a lap-dance club, a men's consciousness-raising group and on a series of awkward dates with women. (Amusingly, Vincent is utterly astounded by the amount of rejection and hauteur that heterosexual men put up with.)

Daveysil15

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

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.

I doubt too many men would consider a woman a 'creep' for showing an interest in them, even is she's unattractive. A nuisance maybe, but some men may actually consider it flattering. As you say, its usually up to the men to make the first move, so they're not going to be as defensive when they get approached because it doesn't happen as often.

The difference between sluts and creeps, is that nowadays its more acceptable to be promiscuous and its not as stigmatised as it once was. Whereas it will more than likely never be acceptable to be a creep.

jaffacakesyum

Pug160 wrote: »

I agree to an extent. But I think women seem to have a more severe defence mechanism, which ultimately makes their rejection seem crueler. But the reason for that is, as you say, the fact that men generally make the first move, so women presumably become conditioned to be more abrupt, in an attempt to make their lives a bit easier.

Yeah I agree. And, I know this is only a limited observation, but I think it's mainly against heterosexual men. As a bisexual female, I often approach women and have never been cruely turned down. Turned down, for sure, but not cruely. Although maybe I am not as sensitive to being rejected as a lot of men appear to be judging from threads on boards.ie (and that's not a criticism - you have to be thick skinned when it comes to dating!). I wonder do gay guys turn down other men as abruptly as women do to heterosexual males.

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I doubt too many men would consider a woman a 'creep' for showing an interest in them, even is she's unattractive. A nuisance maybe, but some men may actually consider it flattering. As you say, its usually up to the men to make the first move, so they're not going to be as defensive when they get approached because it doesn't happen as often.

The difference between sluts and creeps, is that nowadays its more acceptable to be promiscuous and its not as stigmatised as it once was. Whereas it will more than likely never be acceptable to be a creep.

Lol, just ignore my example so :pac: I genuinely disagree. Women will definitely be considered creeps if they're not attractive.

As for your last point, I think in general sex has become more acceptable, as in we're not in the 50s anymore getting married and settling down at 18. That said, I don't think "being a slut" (whatever that means) is more acceptable at all. Unfortunately, lots of "slut shaming" still evident, wheras men are still considered "players".

I agree it will never be acceptable to be a creep and thank God for that!

Three Seasons

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yeah I agree. And, I know this is only a limited observation, but I think it's mainly against heterosexual men. As a bisexual female, I often approach women and have never been cruely turned down. Turned down, for sure, but not cruely. Although maybe I am not as sensitive to being rejected as a lot of men appear to be judging from threads on boards.ie (and that's not a criticism - you have to be thick skinned when it comes to dating!). I wonder do gay guys turn down other men as abruptly as women do to heterosexual males.



Lol, just ignore my example so :pac: I genuinely disagree. Women will definitely be considered creeps if they're not attractive.

As for your last point, I think in general sex has become more acceptable, as in we're not in the 50s anymore getting married and settling down at 18. That said, I don't think "being a slut" (whatever that means) is more acceptable at all. Unfortunately, lots of "slut shaming" still evident, wheras men are still considered "players".

I agree it will never be acceptable to be a creep and thank God for that!

A creep is basically someone who is unatteactive being sexual, an attractive person being sexual is sexy.

kiffer

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yeah I agree. And, I know this is only a limited observation, but I think it's mainly against heterosexual men. As a bisexual female, I often approach women and have never been cruely turned down. Turned down, for sure, but not cruely. Although maybe I am not as sensitive to being rejected as a lot of men appear to be judging from threads on boards.ie (and that's not a criticism - you have to be thick skinned when it comes to dating!). I wonder do gay guys turn down other men as abruptly as women do to heterosexual males.

Maybe you are more thickskined... or maybe women treat women differently to how they treat men... at the very least you have novelty on your side. Assuming we're talking about the same approach situation at all.

You've never gotten the Roll-eyes and look away response to "Hi", never been told to **** off or simply ignored? Good for you...

kiffer

Three Seasons wrote: »

A creep is basically someone who is unatteactive being sexual, an attractive person being sexual is sexy.

I think it probably requires some amount of incompetence as well... the failure to catch or care about the reactions of people.
Also requires a lack of charisma.
Creepiness isn't the same as just not being attractive even if attractive people can get away with higher levels of creepiness.

Lolita77

Irish women don't notice wedding rings anyway. And married men seem to have a problem telling women who show interest that they are married. So to answer your question: women won't treat you different, it's you who will have to treat them differently

Daveysil15

Lolita77 wrote: »

Irish women don't notice wedding rings anyway. And married men seem to have a problem telling women who show interest that they are married. So to answer your question: women won't treat you different, it's you who will have to treat them differently

Only Irish women?

beks101

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.

I think for women it goes more like:
unattractive woman = psycho bItch from hell
attractive woman = forward hot woman, deadly

I've seen it before too many times. Some guy has an "obsessed scary stalker" versus a guy got "lucky" with some "kinky hot bird" that incidentally really wants to shag them.

I don't treat married men differently, only that I might not flirt with them as much in a pub/club setting as they're pretty obviously off limits. I'm not turned on by the "taboo" of them being off limits, I think that in itself is some misinformed idea fuelled by the actions of the few women who make it their business to bed married men.

jaffacakesyum

kiffer wrote: »

Maybe you are more thickskined... or maybe women treat women differently to how they treat men... at the very least you have novelty on your side. Assuming we're talking about the same approach situation at all.

You've never gotten the Roll-eyes and look away response to "Hi", never been told to **** off or simply ignored? Good for you...

Nope. Have certainly made a tit of myself and have hit on straight women and been unsuccessfull in that they make their cue to exit; some uncomfortable experiences but mainly no trouble. I don't know whether it's a woman-hitting-on-woman situation that's different or if it's just my attitude to approaching that's different.

kiffer wrote: »

I think it probably requires some amount of incompetence as well... the failure to catch or care about the reactions of people.
Also requires a lack of charisma.
Creepiness isn't the same as just not being attractive even if attractive people can get away with higher levels of creepiness.

Actually that's a very good point. It is really about the way in which you approach someone and not just your looks which will determine how creepy you come across :pac:

beks101

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I don't know whether it's a woman-hitting-on-woman situation that's different or if it's just my attitude to approaching that's different.

Probably both to varying degrees.

But I think it's mainly a frequency thing. It's not every day or every night that you get hit on by a woman, whereas it can be with men; it can happen repeatedly throughout the night.

I've been hit on once in my life by another woman and my reaction was flattered surprise, bemusement, I was a bit chuffed to be honest! Whereas with guys you don't have that novelty factor, it's just another guy you have to turn down, though that obviously doesn't forgive any blatant rudeness or hostility.

jaffacakesyum

beks101 wrote: »

Probably both to varying degrees.

But I think it's mainly a frequency thing. It's not every day or every night that you get hit on by a woman, whereas it can be with men; it can happen repeatedly throughout the night.

I've been hit on once in my life by another woman and my reaction was flattered surprise, bemusement, I was a bit chuffed to be honest! Whereas with guys you don't have that novelty factor, it's just another guy you have to turn down, though that obviously doesn't forgive any blatant rudeness or hostility.

Very true. Although asides from straight women, it's not a novelty for gay/bi women to be hit on but again, maybe it's a mixture of them not being as hostile to me as they would to a man due to past experiences, and my aproach technique...haha sounds like I think I'm an expert at this when it's really not the case :pac:

But to be honest, a lot of men do get rude rejections and I do feel for them. It's something I'd imagine most women don't have to deal with. But a lot of men also have very poor social skills in my opinion. I think the very "Men are sex-obsessed creatures" attitude that was highlighted earlier in this thread does nothing for men (or women) in these situations. The sooner people realise that men and women aren't so different, the easier it will be for both sexes in the whole chat-up/dating regard, I think. I know the guys I've enjoyed chatting to most aren't the ones who try the PUA crap or the OTT flirting/compliments or the sleazy "omg you're a woman i want to shag you" stuff, it's when they talk to me like they'd talk to a normal person, man or woman. But with an extra bit of charm

Daveysil15

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Very true. Although asides from straight women, it's not a novelty for gay/bi women to be hit on but again, maybe it's a mixture of them not being as hostile to me as they would to a man due to past experiences, and my aproach technique...haha sounds like I think I'm an expert at this when it's really not the case :pac:

But to be honest, a lot of men do get rude rejections and I do feel for them. It's something I'd imagine most women don't have to deal with. But a lot of men also have very poor social skills in my opinion. I think the very "Men are sex-obsessed creatures" attitude that was highlighted earlier in this thread does nothing for men (or women) in these situations. The sooner people realise that men and women aren't so different, the easier it will be for both sexes in the whole chat-up/dating regard, I think. I know the guys I've enjoyed chatting to most aren't the ones who try the PUA crap or the OTT flirting/compliments or the sleazy "omg you're a woman i want to shag you" stuff, it's when they talk to me like they'd talk to a normal person, man or woman. But with an extra bit of charm

Or an extra bit of attractiveness? If you thought the person was unattractive would that extra bit of charm still work?

I agree about the talking to someone like a normal person. The PUA and OTT flirting/compliments would work more often for an attractive person though. You'd rarely see a fat unattractive PUA guru giving seminars. It just wouldn't be very plausible.

Some men who practice the PUA techniques could approach 50 women, one of them says yes and then he's like, "Woah... this thing actually works."

beks101

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Or an extra bit of attractiveness? If you thought the person was unattractive would that extra bit of charm still work?

Extra charm can equate to extra attractiveness for many women tbh. We're not quite as visual. Unless he's been very badly beaten with the ugly stick, or has some particular physical trait that you find unappealing...overweight, bad teeth whatever...it's as much about demeanour, confidence, humour as anything else.

I can recall times I've found myself talking to some absolute ridebag of a man and just thinking "good GOD how do I get away", and then the countless boyfriends/flings/whatevers I've had where they weren't on my radar at all until they stood beside me and started pulling the absolute piss with me.

But I guess that's another thread

Pug160

beks101 wrote: »

Extra charm can equate to extra attractiveness for many women tbh. We're not quite as visual. Unless he's been very badly beaten with the ugly stick, or has some particular physical trait that you find unappealing...overweight, bad teeth whatever...it's as much about demeanour, confidence, humour as anything else.

I can recall times I've found myself talking to some absolute ridebag of a man and just thinking "good GOD how do I get away", and then the countless boyfriends/flings/whatevers I've had where they weren't on my radar at all until they stood beside me and started pulling the absolute piss with me.

But I guess that's another thread

It is my understanding that women are in fact as visual as men - at least initially. I thought that charm and confidence etc only made a difference once a woman got to know a man through time. That's probably the single biggest difference in men and women actually. A woman can become attracted to a man she wasn't initially attracted to, but it's unusual for a man to become attracted to a woman he doesn't initially find attractive.

I've read a lot of candid articles on this from women and this seems to come up quite often. As for rejections, I think another factor is that some men seem to scare women - even men that the woman may find handsome. This is much less likely to happen if it's another woman approaching.

beks101

Pug160 wrote: »

It is my understanding that women are in fact as visual as men - at least initially. I thought that charm and confidence etc only made a difference once a woman got to know a man through time.

Not in my experience as a woman. Of course you need that jolt of attraction initially to get you there, that's just how dating works. But personally a spark of personality, a big laugh on the other side of the room, cheeky innuendo and a sense of fun factor into the equation to the point where I've ended up with guys who I wouldn't have thought were physically my "type" quite often - actually I would say most commonly - in the past.

There's no getting around the visual thing of course, and there's certain characteristics that I seem drawn towards, height, a broad physique etc. I live in Canada, I've dated a lot of pretty boys, but jesus, I don't think there's anything in the world quite as attractive as a funny, charismatic man. Irish men usually bode quite well on this front IME

The Corinthian

Pug160 wrote: »

A woman can become attracted to a man she wasn't initially attracted to, but it's unusual for a man to become attracted to a woman he doesn't initially find attractive.

Don't think that's entirely true. I do think that neither gender will become attracted to someone they positively find unattractive (repulsed from), either can based upon the other person's character traits become attracted to them. It might be less commonplace for men to do this, but that doesn't mean it's unusual either.

mood

Three Seasons wrote: »

As a recently married man I'm curious if women are going to be treating me differently. I'm aware that women are are quick to notice if a man has a wedding ring or not.

So to the married men, have you noticed subtle differences in how women behave around you?

Why would you be worried about this? If you are happy with your wife and have no intention of cheating why would this even enter your head?

Three Seasons

mood wrote: »

Why would you be worried about this? If you are happy with your wife and have no intention of cheating why would this even enter your head?

Has there been a change to the dictionary lately where curious now means worry?

Lots of things enter my head. Do dogs mind when lampshades are put around their neck for example? I'm not particularly worried about it, just curious.

mood

Three Seasons wrote: »

Has there been a change to the dictionary lately where curious now means worry?

Ok.

Why would you be curious about this? If you are happy with your wife and have no intention of cheating why would this even enter your head?

I think it's a odd think for a recently married man to think about.

Three Seasons

mood wrote: »

Ok.

Why would you be curious about this? If you are happy with your wife and have no intention of cheating why would this even enter your head?

I think it's a odd think for a recently married man to think about.

Many would think it's odd to be curious why stewing beef is cooked longer than fillet steak. Some may find it odd to be curious how dogs evolved from wolves common ancestors, how does that just pop into your head unless you want to breed dogs? Yet that is one of many questions I have pondered. I find women and their behaviours often times intriguing, I have an opportunity to see if there is any differences for myself, I find that interesting. I also find it interesting how cheating and sex seems to be the first thing that pops into people's heads when "women's behaviour's changing" is mentioned. There are many behaviours in interested in, do they tend to hold you in more respect, less respect? Are they more friendly, less friendly on average? Are they more likely or less likely to look you in the eyes? Are they more or less likely to invite you for a game of croquet? Etc etc but the assumption from people seems to be focused on the sexual aspect.

You suspect I'd have to have cheating on my mind to think about this? Why not suspect that I'm fearing sleazy women trying to come on to me now that I'm married?

Neither of the above would be true. In merely curious.

In the words of Einstein;

"Don't think about why you question, simply don't stop questioning. Don't worry about what you can't answer, and don't try to explain what you can't know. Curiosity is it's own reason. Aren't you in awe when you contemplate the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvellous structure behind reality?
And this is the miracle of the human mind- to use it's constructions, concepts and formulae as tools to explain what man sees, feels and touches. Try to comprehend a little more each day. Have holy curiosity."

People aren't all the same, I welcome diversity.

Do you have anything to add on the thread topic?