What "Rules" Need To Be Revised Or Thrown Out? (male, young)

[George Dynamo]

ALL OF THEM should be thrown out.

These rules are the cause of so many divorces, angry people, and misery.

[boodhabunny]

As sexual beings we all respond emotionally and sexually to different triggers.

If being the pursuer was an effective strategy for me I would be all for it. If being the more aggressive initiator created interest and arousal in my partner and me, I see no harm in it.

But can I help it if being the initiator turns me off? If I were required to court a man I am afraid my libido would dry up like the Sahara Desert. And I can also say with a great deal of confidence that my husband would not have been interested in me if I took the lead role away from him. I think it would make him shrink, if you catch my drift.

[onihC]

Originally Posted by JustJulia

You don't think there are any women who lament not being married or not having a boyfriend?

This is the thing I don't quite get. Women will do it all for the career they want to pursue, the country they would like to visit on vacation, that job, etc. Even if it involves taking risks, but walking up to a guy is terrorizing? I could also understand if we were living back in medieval times.

Sure, there might be some women who lament that her knight in shinning armor didn't pick her up in his steed but wouldn't that be her loss for not doing something more than just sitting there with her hands on her lap?

People have different motives for what they do. I'm not going to pretend that there aren't any women who do expect the princess treatment, but that is not the sole reason women choose to be in traditional relationships

There are many other perks for women when it comes to traditional dating practices. Can't think of any perk for men for being traditional really.

Again, I know you believe that women just sit around smiling and being waited on

Look at how many women oppose to dating rules, google these topics, etc. And women strongly support the idea that dating should be kept traditional. Still, none of that is seen as sexist but have a man say that he wishes his wife was traditional and took care of housechores while he read the newspaper and he will be seen as a sexist person.

There have been many threads created by men who wish that women were more feminine and traditional. They long for the days when women wore dresses every day, along with stockings and high heels

I thought men wanted to see a woman who looked presentable, in shape, attractive to his eyes, etc. A woman wearing long dresses with stockings seems far from it but, sure, there might be some men like that.

You expect women to engage in risk by asking men out and doing other nontraditional things. Why not expect men to engage in similar risk and sit back and wait?

Because women don't seem to be motivated to take the initiative, take a guy out, take care of expenses (since date #1), buy him an engagement ring, propose marriage, etc. Women rather have men do all that for them and leave it like that.

You seem to challenge women to change, change, change, but why don't I ever see you challenging men to change? They are engaging in the same behaviors you admonish us for

Guys that participate in this thread and others seem to support the idea that there needs to be a change to the so called dating rules. So we're all for change that benefits BOTH, not just women as dating rules go. How many women are supporting the idea that dating rules should go?

There are downsides, too. If you can only say yes or no, you never really get to choose where to go or what to do. Men also benefit. Those who appreciate traditional roles like how this kind of relationship makes them feel. You'll have to appeal to those men to change

That's right. Add the rules you would like to go and add them to the list . I like to say "yes yes yes" to a woman who takes me out so I don't really see anything bad about that as much as my girl agreeing to where I will take her out. That is, both in the receiving end, not just her as dating rules go.

Initiative - I've told you many times that I've asked men out and paid their way. I've also explained how reciprocation works in traditional dating

That's good . So you've taken "risks" and lived just fine, right?

Proposal, ring - This depends on the couple. Some men are not comfortable being proposed to, nor would they like an engagement ring. Others won't mind. Others don't like rings at all or don't buy them for various reasons

I wonder if women could live without an engagement ring as well.

Chivalry - Again, this is gentlemanly conduct. You can no more ask a woman to be gentlemanly than I can ask a man to be more ladylike

And chivalry is something that benefits you because it just focuses on how well a man treats and honors a woman and that's it. It has nothing to do with taking care of a woman's expenses. A woman can do that for me and that doesn't necessarily make her a gentleman, just a woman with courtesy, manners, giving, someone who believes in equality, and so on. If you think about it, isn't it a sexist practice? Isn't it something comparable to racism where a person "deserves" to be treated better just because of his/her skin color? Women can offer chivalry just fine without loosing their femminity. I'll give you an example. I am accustomed to opening my girl's door, among other things, regardless of being able to open it with the keychain control. I go, open the door, take her hand, and she sits in my car, I close the door softly. I walk to my door and as I get there, she stretches from the inside, and pushes it open. There, as simple as that, offering chivalry as well . I can go on with more examples of mutual chivalry unlike a girl I dated a month or two ago where we parked and she stayed inside the car waiting for me to walk to her side of the door to open it. Or have her a few steps away from me and have her wait on the restaurant's door until I catch up so I can open it for her. Expecting a man to open her doors, pull her chairs, etc. It's like a man expecting her to go to his place to wash his dishes, dust off his table, etc.

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by JustJulia

There have been many threads created by men who wish that women were more feminine and traditional. They long for the days when women wore dresses every day, along with stockings and high heels.

Don't worry, JJ. When equality finally reigns, not only will women finally buy engagement rings for men, act with chivalry, guide men across puddles and drape their dainty pink sweaters over their, alas, too broad shoulders when it gets cold, but men too will wear dresses all day with stockings and high heels. None will do for the other what the other won't do right back. And at night, happy lovers will enjoy penetrating each other vaginally.

[11thHour]

Originally Posted by Redisca

Don't worry, JJ. When equality finally reigns, not only will women finally buy engagement rings for men, act with chivalry, guide men across puddles and drape their dainty pink sweaters over their, alas, too broad shoulders when it gets cold, but men too will wear dresses all day with stockings and high heels. None will do for the other what the other won't do right back. And at night, happy lovers will enjoy penetrating each other vaginally.

This post illustrates the problems with pointless rules. You are using traditional expectations as a measurement of how 'manly' someone is. So being a real man means fulfilling arbitrary, and pointless, rules? If a man doesn't do these things, he's not a man and if a woman does, she is a man, apparently. It proves the point that these rules only complicate matters.

Ok let's stick to rules then. From now on women are expected to pursue men, take the initiative, buy the dinners, open the doors, buy the ring and make the proposal. Men will be handsome and bless you with their company. Ridiculous, right? So why isn't it ridiculous the other way around?

These expectations serve no purpose. There should be none. Men may choose to pursue, and so may women. That's fine. But to expect the man to always do it isn't. To expect women to not propose isn't either. Do whatever you like, rules be damned, and drop the traditional expectations.

[Urban Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Redisca

Don't worry, JJ. When equality finally reigns, not only will women finally buy engagement rings for men, act with chivalry, guide men across puddles and drape their dainty pink sweaters over their, alas, too broad shoulders when it gets cold, but men too will wear dresses all day with stockings and high heels. None will do for the other what the other won't do right back. And at night, happy lovers will enjoy penetrating each other vaginally.

Hmm...

While I understand that you ARE being half-facetious with this (because Lord knows some of the most vociferous men in such threads are WHINERS who want the best of both worlds, Betty Crocker in sexy garters catering to their every whim demurely AND loathing her for not thinking for herself)... I think 11th hour may have made a good point: It seems kind of automatic to reverse the roles in what reads -- whether you meant it that way or not -- "Okay, if YOU won't be the men I guess WE'LL have to be strong enough women while you BECOME women" (complete with eye-roll).

I'm sorry, but that's simply NOT fair -- and I'd prefer your response to that not be "life isn't fair" because if that IS your response then that same response can effectively negate every point you've ever defended in these forums -- ever. I know very well life isn't fair. The automatic bent of your response does not diminish that you still have a valid point, but I suspect two points were made -- one unconsciously.



It's something I said in another thread very recently which was set upon MOST vociferously by a few gals and it's something I've said many times in my life and will stick by because for better or worse it's TRUE:

For all the decrying of the double standards out there, men and women are judged by different criteria -- BY both men and women.


Your automatic response said it all: If you're going to whine, we'll placate you until you have a vagina too. *eyeroll*

Please -- reread your response, boil it down to meaning and then tell me I'm wrong.


I'm not even saying you're wrong to have made that response; quite RIGHT, in fact -- I simply hope you stop and think about HOW you said it, how quickly to compare men to women was the form of ridicule, when for a man to do the same might well have been offensive to you.

Since when is "being a woman" supposed to be the quick-draw form of insult, BY a woman? And once more, I'm sorry -- if you say men caused this and you only said it because you've been conditioned, you'll be missing an enormous, giant, mega-huge, uber-mondo point, Redisca. That point is the insult ONLY works because there ARE different expectations of each gender, the bottom line being that men ARE supposed to be men...

...and if men ARE supposed to be men, then... (it's not a hard blank to fill in at all, is it?)


I've gotten to know you over the length of many, many posts for quite a few months now and I know bloody well you haven't a stupid bone in your body, no matter what some of the masculist melon-heads in here may think. I also know you're only human and while the vast majority of arguments you make herein are well-considered, concise and extraordinarily sensible and well worthy of real respect... once in a while there's a knee-jerk which bears considering.


As for why your response is (at least with regard to this) RIGHT:

Some of you guys who are adamantly defending these "points" (*MY eyeroll now* ) seriously...


Put on your big-girl panties and stop worrying about "rules" set by women. Follow "rules" set by yourselves and if those "rules" don't work then MAN UP and figure out what you're doing wrong.


I know; I've BEEN the target of THOSE women, the ones who actually demand an engagement ring requiring several months' salary and if you don't want to "put out" then you're not a REAL man; the ones who demand chivalrous acts which could only be met by mythological and quite superhuman figures; the ones who TAKE without giving back. They're REAL and they're OUT THERE.


Now I'm going to give you dudes a little secret. It's the most valuable thing any of you have EVER heard and you're spineless IDIOTS if you fail to pay attention, because from here on out, we separate the men from the boys. That's right, this will be spoken of in hushed and reverent tones around the campfire for years to come:


The women who behave that way? The very women you're in here lamenting, who are, for all the various spins we put on it, TAKERS rather than SHARERS despite their laborious exhortations regarding their feminine character?

Those are not WOMEN, those are SPOILED LITTLE GIRLS AND THEY ALWAYS WILL BE, and it's up to YOU, Mr. Macho Britches, to learn to wade through the muck of life along with the rest of us and TELL THE DIFFERENCE.



I understand this is a forum for thoughts and debates, and despite that most of it is useless, semantic NOISE every once in a while something is said that makes someone else THINK.

But this thing you're doing where the wimmins is the Devil and you're so frustrated you can't figure a way out? It's not only unbecoming, Redisca had this part dead-on: It's pantywaist.



Double standards ARE wrong and should be dealt with when recognized; but social conditioning is SLOW to overcome biology, even if the key element in that biology is the BRAIN.

- Don't like the way the women you encounter treat you? Stand taller and they won't be able to step on you.

- Don't like the way they talk to you? Talk sense, and if they don't see it, walk away -- there are plenty more out there.

- Still believe women are "the choosers"?

For that one, go home, sit alone in the dark and think about why you're not the chooser, then go out and UN-F*** yourself and your attitude, because YOU'RE the one doing something incredibly wrong.



STILL can't get over it? Then it's for the best if you never reproduce.

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by Urban Sasquatch

While I understand that you ARE being half-facetious with this (because Lord knows some of the most vociferous men in such threads are WHINERS who want the best of both worlds, Betty Crocker in sexy garters catering to their every whim demurely AND loathing her for not thinking for herself)... I think 11th hour may have made a good point: It seems kind of automatic to reverse the roles in what reads -- whether you meant it that way or not -- "Okay, if YOU won't be the men I guess WE'LL have to be strong enough women while you BECOME women" (complete with eye-roll).

That's not what I was saying at all. 11th Hour didn't get it either. Which, I admit, is my fault for not explaining.

As far as I am concerned, there are only two "rules" in dating: (1) whatever constitutes a date should be fun for both, not a chore or hoops to jump through; and (2) neither owes the other anything. Oh, and big expenditures of money are a major turn-off. I don't believe I am unique in this, and I would venture a guess that the majority of people think this way.

I went into my snarky mode because I was reading through this thread in disbelief, wondering if I haven't been living in some parallel universe. There is very little that has been said in regard to these "rules" that I can recognize as real human behavior from my own experience. Maybe the place I live in is an oasis, and people everywhere else are totally different. Maybe it's the fact that bars and clubs were never a significant part of my social life. I don't know, I acknowledge the possibility that my experience is utterly skewed, but I doubt it. Virtually everything that has been said here, by both men and women (but especially by the men who complain about so-called "rules") makes human beings sound like automatons, who behave in impossibly rigid, highly scripted ways, and must follow their brutally narrow "programming" or face agony. (Sort of like Robocop. No, actually exactly like Robocop.)

In reality, actual human behavior is fluid and highly varied. The "rules" that have been talked about here, to the extent they exist at all, are at most very loose "guidelines" that do not place significant limitations on behavior. Take asking a woman out, for instance. People here make it sound as if men routinely ask complete strangers out totally cold, without the slightest idea as to whether their advances are welcome; and that they are the only ones to ever make advances. In reality, what usually happens is that the man asks the woman out at the tail end of some back-and-forth flirtation, which starts out quite safe, with plenty of opportunities for backing out without anyone losing face (or money); and it's not at all clear to me that men are the ones who initiate that flirtation most of the time. It's similar with proposing marriage. Honestly, how many men propose without knowing, for a fact, that the answer will be "yes"? Given that over half of all couples live together at the time of the proposal, it is merely a romantic gesture in all but a small number of cases. The actual decision is made mutually before then, often negotiated over a long period of time, often after the woman brings up the perilous subject of marriage first.

As for engagement rings, I agree that they are a silly idea, especially very expensive ones, along with big splashy weddings. However, the solution to that isn't to reverse the expectations, having women buy men engagement rings and having men dress up like tea cozies, but to date women who aren't heavily invested in either idea. There are a lot of us out there. Which, of course, comes back to your point about men who clamor for "traditional" women while simultaneously complaining when these women impose, well, traditional expectations on them.

Claiming that women should be "chivalrous" is ridiculous, because chivalry, as its very name implies, is a gendered concept in and of itself. Normal human courtesy and consideration should be exercised by both genders -- and usually is exercised by normal people -- whether on a date or anywhere else; and yes, I live in a place where not holding the door for the person behind you is considered terribly rude regardless of gender. I wince any time "chivalry" is mentioned on CD, because the implication is that the only time men do not act like rude, inconsiderate *******s is when they are trying to get into a woman's pants, and only towards her. And even then, it's just way too much trouble. This is not the world as I know it, and if this is how men really behave in other places -- rude and inconsiderate unless on a date, and still chafing from the effort -- I can only say I am very surprised.

I don't think it's customary, either, for women to expect men to demonstrate their worth through physical confrontation with other men over her "honor" -- another aspect of classical chivalry -- though I suspect that may vary by cultural and social background. At the same time, I suspect that in those sections of society where women expect men to make such brutish displays of stereotypical violent masculinity, men expect them of each other. And while I won't deny that there may be some women who expect men to display storybook valor in cinematic ways, they are not the norm, and men who object to such ridiculous expectations aren't forced to date these women.

People here make it sound as if whatever gendered behaviors still exist in dating are terrible, onerous burdens, while in fact, they are merely small gestures that are performed with the minimum of trouble or expense. So no, I wasn't saying that women should fill the role of men while men become women -- only that the idea of achieving equality by reversing the "rules" that, for the most part, don't even exist in the first place is, well ridiculous.

[JustJulia]

I'm interjecting here to say that I do not endorse specific dating rules, like "wait three days before calling her back so she doesn't think you are too interested" and "pretend to be busy when he asks you out so he thinks you are popular and attractive," at all. I think "rules" like that are dumb. What I have been responding to are accusations that traditional dating benefits only women and that there are no drawbacks for women who date this way.

[fleetiebelle]

Originally Posted by Redisca

Don't worry, JJ. When equality finally reigns, not only will women finally buy engagement rings for men, act with chivalry, guide men across puddles and drape their dainty pink sweaters over their, alas, too broad shoulders when it gets cold, but men too will wear dresses all day with stockings and high heels. None will do for the other what the other won't do right back. And at night, happy lovers will enjoy penetrating each other vaginally.

I guess that sounds better than the androgynous haircuts and the unisex clothing that I was envisioning for such equal times.

[Urban Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Redisca

That's not what I was saying at all. 11th Hour didn't get it either. Which, I admit, is my fault for not explaining.

As far as I am concerned, there are only two "rules" in dating: (1) whatever constitutes a date should be fun for both, not a chore or hoops to jump through; and (2) neither owes the other anything. Oh, and big expenditures of money are a major turn-off. I don't believe I am unique in this, and I would venture a guess that the majority of people think this way.

I went into my snarky mode because I was reading through this thread in disbelief, wondering if I haven't been living in some parallel universe. There is very little that has been said in regard to these "rules" that I can recognize as real human behavior from my own experience. Maybe the place I live in is an oasis, and people everywhere else are totally different. Maybe it's the fact that bars and clubs were never a significant part of my social life. I don't know, I acknowledge the possibility that my experience is utterly skewed, but I doubt it. Virtually everything that has been said here, by both men and women (but especially by the men who complain about so-called "rules") makes human beings sound like automatons, who behave in impossibly rigid, highly scripted ways, and must follow their brutally narrow "programming" or face agony. (Sort of like Robocop. No, actually exactly like Robocop.)

In reality, actual human behavior is fluid and highly varied. The "rules" that have been talked about here, to the extent they exist at all, are at most very loose "guidelines" that do not place significant limitations on behavior. Take asking a woman out, for instance. People here make it sound as if men routinely ask complete strangers out totally cold, without the slightest idea as to whether their advances are welcome; and that they are the only ones to ever make advances. In reality, what usually happens is that the man asks the woman out at the tail end of some back-and-forth flirtation, which starts out quite safe, with plenty of opportunities for backing out without anyone losing face (or money); and it's not at all clear to me that men are the ones who initiate that flirtation most of the time. It's similar with proposing marriage. Honestly, how many men propose without knowing, for a fact, that the answer will be "yes"? Given that over half of all couples live together at the time of the proposal, it is merely a romantic gesture in all but a small number of cases. The actual decision is made mutually before then, often negotiated over a long period of time, often after the woman brings up the perilous subject of marriage first.

As for engagement rings, I agree that they are a silly idea, especially very expensive ones, along with big splashy weddings. However, the solution to that isn't to reverse the expectations, having women buy men engagement rings and having men dress up like tea cozies, but to date women who aren't heavily invested in either idea. There are a lot of us out there. Which, of course, comes back to your point about men who clamor for "traditional" women while simultaneously complaining when these women impose, well, traditional expectations on them.

Claiming that women should be "chivalrous" is ridiculous, because chivalry, as its very name implies, is a gendered concept in and of itself. Normal human courtesy and consideration should be exercised by both genders -- and usually is exercised by normal people -- whether on a date or anywhere else; and yes, I live in a place where not holding the door for the person behind you is considered terribly rude regardless of gender. I wince any time "chivalry" is mentioned on CD, because the implication is that the only time men do not act like rude, inconsiderate *******s is when they are trying to get into a woman's pants, and only towards her. And even then, it's just way too much trouble. This is not the world as I know it, and if this is how men really behave in other places -- rude and inconsiderate unless on a date, and still chafing from the effort -- I can only say I am very surprised.

I don't think it's customary, either, for women to expect men to demonstrate their worth through physical confrontation with other men over her "honor" -- another aspect of classical chivalry -- though I suspect that may vary by cultural and social background. At the same time, I suspect that in those sections of society where women expect men to make such brutish displays of stereotypical violent masculinity, men expect them of each other. And while I won't deny that there may be some women who expect men to display storybook valor in cinematic ways, they are not the norm, and men who object to such ridiculous expectations aren't forced to date these women.

People here make it sound as if whatever gendered behaviors still exist in dating are terrible, onerous burdens, while in fact, they are merely small gestures that are performed with the minimum of trouble or expense. So no, I wasn't saying that women should fill the role of men while men become women -- only that the idea of achieving equality by reversing the "rules" that, for the most part, don't even exist in the first place is, well ridiculous.

Now, given all of THAT --

Please ignore any overtures of gestures on the part of JustJulia and consider running away with me. I'll be a man and you be a woman and we'll hammer out all the stupid stuff as we go along, preferably without the interference of anyone else of either gender.

'Cos everything you just said there, that makes sense, perfect sense to me. It's NOT what I've encountered a great deal of the time out there, but it DOES make perfect sense and is precisely what any reasonable, functioning human-fraggin'-being would want in a partner and mate.