Why do many women rush to "define" a relationship? (single, cheating)

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by le roi

ok. so you're saying that personal experience leads you to believe this.

i am not convinced, but that's fine.

Okay -- What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong? I always find that it's a nice cut-through-the-crap question. If NOTHING would prove your beliefs wrong, then we have nothing to discuss. Suffice it to say, it's a well-known fact that most people talk trash about single mothers and unmarried women, and that parents routinely pressure daughters about not being married. And while it's easy to ignore the incessant carping of two or three people, or five, or ten, or a hundred -- if it's a constant barrage of arguments about how you should or shouldn't live your life, over a period of many years, virtually from birth, it sure is sufficient to train people to conform their lives to the expectations of the majority.

Originally Posted by le roi

wtf? it was a question, and a rather simple and polite one at that. no need to get all new york-ish on me.

It wasn't a question. What evidence do YOU have to prove that women are biologically "designed" to crave marriage or motherhood?

[stan4]

Originally Posted by le roi

oh cry me a river.

people talk about everything. that is what they do. you will not convince me that "people talking" constitutes significant societal pressure.

i'm more inclined to think that women instintively love babies and cherish motherhood across all societies. crazy, i know.



since women have been economically productive in our society for at least 100 years now, seems to me like your response points toward biology and/or instinct as the driving factor behind women's need to pair up and marry.

1. You will never know if you aren't subjected to it. And I agree...most things you can blow off. But this is really ingrained in society and fewer things are more stressed and 'important' and harped on than a woman's 'need' to get married and give birth.

2. Totally flawed premise. And, btw, what does cherishing motherhood and loving babies have to do with getting married?

[cdgoldilocks]

Defining boundaries in ANY relationship is a normal, healthy thing. When you start a job, don't you define the salary, the hours worked, what is expected before you agree to take the job? I see defining a relationship as a similar thing. I need to know in a relationship what I should expect. It makes things VERY clear for both parties involved.

I distinctly remember dating a fun, great guy before I met my husband. He had just gone through a messy divorce and had two children. I had a child from a prior long term relationship as well that did not end well. He told me up front that he was not ready for a serious relationship. I really respected him for that. I wasn't sure WHAT I wanted out of life, as I had been through a lot and was honest with him. We dated for about 6 months, and at that time we decided to part ways. He was honest with me then too. He thought I was a great girl, more of a "marrying" kind. He honestly just wanted to play the field and have something a bit more superficial for awhile. There was no drama, no mess. I think a lot of our amicability had to do with honest communication from the very beginning.

I cannot speak for all women, as we are all different. However, I think most people want honesty. The more honest you are with a woman, the less drama you will have down the line. If you are upfront from the get go that you do NOT want a relationship, then she can TRY to cause drama later, but you were upfront and she doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[onegreatnurse]

Originally Posted by miu

It seems to me that in recent years, if a woman doesn't question the man's intentions early on, she gets taken advantage for just sexual favours. When the man isn't asked by the woman to think about the seriousness of the dates, he usually defaults to an FWB mode. And later on it becomes the woman's fault for not saying that she wanted to be considered as a possible girlfriend rather than just a mere plaything. And with most men, they would never turn away a woman's interest and offered sexual favours. In terms of who they are willing to have a love relationship or marriage with, their standard are higher. But a man will never be honest with a woman and come right out and say that she's a "butterface" and isn't girlfriend material, and only good enough for an FWB.

Well put. I have to agree with this. And guys know it and pretend it's because women after one date are asking about marriage and kids so after all they don't want to lay all their cards on the table and therefore have to give non-committal answer.

WRONG, they are definitely looking to see how long they can get away with FWB...but after 8 or 9 months of that crap, I think it's legitimate for a woman to start asking herself and her partner where the relationship is going...sorry but how much time do you think a woman should be wasting on all you wonderful men who have just so much to offer us at any age, whether we're in our 20's or not?

[le roi]

Originally Posted by Redisca

Okay -- What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

You could start by pointing out some societies where women are under no societal pressure to marry or pair up.

Then, perhaps, I could understand that our society is to blame. However, if all societies have this characteristic, then it seems more likely that this is just a trait of our species.

Originally Posted by Redisca

Suffice it to say, it's a well-known fact that most people talk trash about single mothers and unmarried women, and that parents routinely pressure daughters about not being married.

I don't know what single moms have to do with this, but it is not a fact that "most people talk trash about single mothers and unmarried women." It may be a fact that some people do. It may be your opinion that most people do.

Originally Posted by Redisca

It wasn't a question.

It wasn't a question? How do you figure? Here it is again:

Originally Posted by le roi

do you know of any societies where women appear to feel no pressure to marry, or elicit a commitment from a man?

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by le roi

You could start by pointing out some societies where women are under no societal pressure to marry or pair up.

No one is speaking against "pairing up". The love of sex has nothing to do with the desire to get married. Neolithic societies had no concept of marriage. Since neolithic people lived much closer to nature than civilized societies, it would actually be more consistent with your argument that the pressure to marry isn't "natural".

Originally Posted by le roi

Then, perhaps, I could understand that our society is to blame. However, if all societies have this characteristic, then it seems more likely that this is just a trait of our species.

You cannot make that conclusion unless you test against a control group -- i.e. a society whose members aren't raised to be afraid of singlehood. Marriage rates are falling in countries where the stigma of singlehood for women is fading -- notably in Western Europe.

Originally Posted by le roi

I don't know what single moms have to do with this, but it is not a fact that "most people talk trash about single mothers and unmarried women." It may be a fact that some people do. It may be your opinion that most people do.

Sure, it's a fact. Your own statements, which imply that it's "unnatural" for a woman not to want to get married or to have children contribute to the pressure on women to conform to societal expectations of proper behavior.

Originally Posted by le roi

It wasn't a question? How do you figure? Here it is again:

Okay, it's a question in a grammatical sense. But inasmuch as it is rhetorical, it's really a purported statement of fact.

[le roi]

Originally Posted by Redisca

No one is speaking against "pairing up". The love of sex has nothing to do with the desire to get married. Neolithic societies had no concept of marriage. Since neolithic people lived much closer to nature than civilized societies, it would actually be more consistent with your argument that the pressure to marry isn't "natural".

"Pairing up" is choosing a monogamous partner. Desire for sex and desire for marriage may or may not enter into it.

History in the News: Neolithic Nuclear Family Discovered

It appears that neolithic people did have an instinctive concept of the nuclear family. Marriage is irrelevant, since neolithic people predate the sort of governments that would sanction marriage today.

You cannot make that conclusion unless you test against a control group -- i.e. a society whose members aren't raised to be afraid of singlehood. Marriage rates are falling in countries where the stigma of singlehood for women is fading -- notably in Western Europe.

No, I disagre. The control group would be societies who aren't afraid of singlehood, not societies who were raised not to be afraid of singlehood. No such society exists that I am aware of, not even in western Europe.

As far as the alleged "single stigma" goes, we don't know that this is the cause of falling marriage rates in western Europe. I just returned from vacationing in North-western Europe, I happened to think that the women were very aggressive and the men were passive, coy, even effeminate. I even had a long conversation with an attractive 30-something in Ghent who'd just asked her boyfriend to marry her.

Sure, it's a fact. Your own statements, which imply that it's "unnatural" for a woman not to want to get married or to have children contribute to the pressure on women to conform to societal expectations of proper behavior.

I never said or implied that it was unnatural. I do not use that word, "natural", because it is meaningless to me.

I said that I think women are biologically predisposed to want a long-term partner. I fail to see how this belief is contributory towards "societal pressure," because I see nothing wrong with anyone who falls outside this observation. I'd go as far to say that I have never once stigmatized single women.

Okay, it's a question in a grammatical sense. But inasmuch as it is rhetorical, it's really a purported statement of fact.

Now that's just dishonest. There was nothing rhetorical in my question; it sought an answer.

I suspect that you saw the logical conclusion of answering the question -- which is that no such society exists -- and that this conclusion contradicts your personal beliefs/experience, where pressure was put on you to marry.

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by le roi

It appears that neolithic people did have an instinctive concept of the nuclear family. Marriage is irrelevant, since neolithic people predate the sort of governments that would sanction marriage today.

On the other hand, having children with multiple sexual partners is better in the genetic sense. So in that respect, biology "predisposes" people of both genders to be polyamorous.

Spartans, by the way, were not monogamous. Although technically there was such a thing as monogamous marriage, wives were encouraged to have children with other Spartiates, as well.

Originally Posted by le roi

No such society exists that I am aware of, not even in western Europe.

None of it proves, however, that the desire for a committed relationship is congenitall in nature.

Originally Posted by le roi

As far as the alleged "single stigma" goes, we don't know that this is the cause of falling marriage rates in western Europe. I just returned from vacationing in North-western Europe, I happened to think that the women were very aggressive and the men were passive, coy, even effeminate. I even had a long conversation with an attractive 30-something in Ghent who'd just asked her boyfriend to marry her.

Men in the Western civilization have always been reluctant to get married. I know this because I was a medievalist in my other life. I've read plenty of polemics on marriage (by men), and the consensus was always that marriage is best avoided. The fact that marriage rates in Europe began to fall significantly in the latter part of the 20th century can only be attributed to the decreased stigmatization of women for singlehood and single motherhood.

Originally Posted by le roi

I said that I think women are biologically predisposed to want a long-term partner. I fail to see how this belief is contributory towards "societal pressure," because I see nothing wrong with anyone who falls outside this observation. I'd go as far to say that I have never once stigmatized single women.

I never suggested that you pillory women -- but the constant affirmation of traditional gender roles by numerous people, and furthermore, attributing those traditional gender roles to biology does put pressure on people to conform to those roles, so as not to be regarded as freaks.

[le roi]

Originally Posted by Redisca

On the other hand, having children with multiple sexual partners is better in the genetic sense. So in that respect, biology "predisposes" people of both genders to be polyamorous.

Spartans, by the way, were not monogamous. Although technically there was such a thing as monogamous marriage, wives were encouraged to have children with other Spartiates, as well.

I can see how that would've been appealing to the men who ran that society.

None of it proves, however, that the desire for a committed relationship is congenitall in nature.

proof? no, you're right, my statements don't prove that.

The fact that marriage rates in Europe began to fall significantly in the latter part of the 20th century can only be attributed to the decreased stigmatization of women for singlehood and single motherhood.

so.. where is your proof?

I never suggested that you pillory women -- but the constant affirmation of traditional gender roles by numerous people, and furthermore, attributing those traditional gender roles to biology does put pressure on people to conform to those roles, so as not to be regarded as freaks.

oh? do you have proof?

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by le roi

I can see how that would've been appealing to the men who ran that society.

Actually, of all the Greek city-states, Sparta was most liberal in its attitudes towards women. Spartan women may not have "run" that society, but they certainly had a lot of liberties compared to women in, say, Athens.

Originally Posted by le roi

proof? no, you're right, my statements don't prove that.
so.. where is your proof?
oh? do you have proof?

Oh, did I hit a nerve. To claim that something is a consequence of biology -- that's a scientific statement of fact. Science imposes very particular requirements with respect to substantiation of scientific claims. You can't just pick some sexist practice and claim that it exists because it's "biological", for lack of a better justification.