Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would this be much of a problem if it were socially acceptable for women to use men for sex until a man wants a relationship; especially when he is between girlfriends.
From one perspective, it could cure a perceived problem with men and commitment issues.
The latter part is an inherent problem with Capitalism and a natural unemployment rate. We could solve that problem through market friendly means and unemployment compensation that conforms to the federal at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.
I was just joking as these are the two most common stereotypes that are birthed in gender bashing threads.
I'm sure there are many women out there who possess the ability to have meaningless sex (and it still be hot sex too). Cheers to them. There are people who don't though. Furthermore, I don't particularly condone the idea of using anyone for simply sex. There should at least be a basis of mutual like behind it, although this would naturally present problems on the non-commitment front. It also doesn't help that society has placed as expiration date on women and therefore women after a certain age are told to "forget about marriage, you're too old" as the men their own age are chasing after 26 year olds (this circumstance is not always true, but it does seem to be a reoccurring theme). So by your account, women should have sex "like a man," casually and NSA, until one of their bed partners decides he wants commitment. However, if that never happens, then they will ultimately reach an age (and number of bed notches) where men decide they'd rather have the younger Betty Sue as their wife, and then it's all "thanks for playing, but sorry - you lose." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I've never liked the idea of routine casual sex. Sure, a little random dalliance here and there doesn't hurt anyone, but if one night stands right after the other are what compose a person's dating life - Houston, we might have a problem in the future (unless commitment is something you want no part of whatsoever).
The latter part is NOT a problem of Capitalism or an unemployment rate. It is instead the result of two things: a.) the existence of blatant gold-diggers - they put men on their guard, and b.) the fact that some men refuse to understand that financial stability is a very attractive factor because no one wants to spend their marital life arguing about whether they should pay the electric or telephone bill.
I also, would like to see a breakdown of the figures but I am not aware of anyone who categorizes the stats as such.
We are anecdotes. Do you live in the burbs? I saw it myself. I was extremely hesitant because of that fear and I was not hooking up and getting sex because of my belief. I am sure men who are getting sex are even less willing to take this risk because it does happen.
Risks are involved in many areas of life. People do it to start businesses, climb mountains, drive cars, etc. but so little is put into relationships. This, my friend, is why the views on marriage continue to be skewed.
And yes, I do live in the suburbs, I am not overweight and I plan on having and enjoying sex until I take my last breath.
So, let those without the pioneering spirit flounder in the pits of misery and fear...just don't pull the rest of us into it with you. We are not all the same.
Seriously. Why bother getting married if you are in a relationship that works? Or if you can't stay faithful? Is it or would it be because your girlfriend is pressuring you?
Divorce is costly, and child custody is a nightmare. Please detail your reasons why it's worth getting married, or why it's not. And also, if it's due to girlfriend pressure.
The only reason to get married is for tax purposes and perhaps legal benefits like if you're a vegetable after a bad accident or something. Then again that's what living wills are for. So that takes us back to taxes, which is the sole benefit to marriage. Contrasted with all the risks one faces with modern marriage and divorce laws I think it's a small price to pay to keeping your future bright and clear.
I think the more options/opportunities a man has (ie: the better catch he is) the more likely he is to cheat, unless he has a self-control of steel. Of course, this really applies to humans in general, but I still believe men are more likely to cheat because of their sense of entitlement, ego, and "because they can" then women are.
Please feel free to correct/enlighten me (intelligent ideas - this is not directed towards you, mrstewart - only )
I think you're right BUT I also think that these type of men milk the situation (to continue the "cow" metaphor, sigh... ) IF these men didn't have a wifey at home who wants to "stand by her man" and if these men were simply in an LTR with no legal contract, fully understanding that there was nothing to keep his partner from cheating, too, might that not give him pause?
Forbidden fruits are the sweetest. I roll my eyes at all of these "OMG, he/she is CHEATING!" threads because of the drama and control they represent. A lot of people seem to feed off that nonsense. There is a MUCH better, much more sane way -- STOP licensing relationships.
-- Take responsibility and quit using the legal system to sanction and referee relationships. You may have to license a dog but we do NOT have to license relationships, for Pete's sake. Be with whomever you want because you love that person, not because you signed a legal document and are being held to it.
-- Without a "license" and vows to hold over another's head, people actually have to try to make the other happy and keep the relationship healthy. And if it does become toxic, separating and moving on is easier -- not a way to claim another person's property or demand payments and punish him or her in court for extended periods of time.
-- Relationships would be more about love and less about "corporate mergers." Do you know any couples who clearly aren't compatible but are stuck together because of their business arrangements and material goods? I do, and it's sad.
The only reason to get married is for tax purposes and perhaps legal benefits like if you're a vegetable after a bad accident or something. Then again that's what living wills are for. So that takes us back to taxes, which is the sole benefit to marriage. Contrasted with all the risks one faces with modern marriage and divorce laws I think it's a small price to pay to keeping your future bright and clear.
Not true. There are over 1000 benefits available to married couples, that are inaccessible to singles and domestic partners. Most of them are complicated and hidden - you wouldn't think of it unless you get stuck in the situation and realize you're screwed. Most of them are federal. One of them actually refused to federally insure money in trusts if the beneficiary was not a relative. There are hundreds of these little catches in the laws which benefit married people and hurt the unmarried. If people get married and STAY married, there is a lot of legal security. The laws need to be changed to equal rights and benefits to ALL citizens. So you're screwed if you don't marry and if you get divorced - the only solution is to stay in your marriage whether you want to or not. The laws, as they are written, are bad for everyone.
I suppose not but the animal world is full of coy females because of the comparative reproductive investment. Males will always be the relative horn dogs until we go the way of the seahorse.
Surely not. I think once women reach a threshold of material for their social economic class they will seek male commitment, intelligence drive, and physical attractiveness etc. Otherwise old men with money would have all the young women they like. My wife was being chased by a wealthy banker.
Sorry I needled you there, it was just a bit funny...
Would men have the same, perceived, commitment problems claimed by women of men, if they were using men for sex until a man wants a relationship?
I agree with you that women would not be perceived in the manner they currently are if they could receive unemployment compensation for being naturally unemployed.
If the same holds true for men, many men could pursue an opportunity cost of buying milk at their convenience and potentially buying a cow if it is a good investment; under the assumption that a cow will require a barn if not a house.
Not true. There are over 1000 benefits available to married couples, that are inaccessible to singles and domestic partners. Most of them are complicated and hidden - you wouldn't think of it unless you get stuck in the situation and realize you're screwed. Most of them are federal. One of them actually refused to federally insure money in trusts if the beneficiary was not a relative. There are hundreds of these little catches in the laws which benefit married people and hurt the unmarried. If people get married and STAY married, there is a lot of legal security. The laws need to be changed to equal rights and benefits to ALL citizens. So you're screwed if you don't marry and if you get divorced - the only solution is to stay in your marriage whether you want to or not. The laws, as they are written, are bad for everyone.
Very true. The laws are discriminatory and need to be changed.
However, as it stands now, getting married is a big risk, too. Aside from the philosophical objections I have to relationships being "licensed" by the state to be valid, I have some very practical issues with it, as well.
I own my home. It's cute and humble, but it's all mine, no mortgage. If I were to get married, however, and things didn't work out over time, the man could actually claim rights to a share of my home that I bought MYSELF before I even met him. If he fixed some things or took care of the lawn and garden, he could present his case and get something out of it.
That is WRONG. When I was younger and stupid, an abusive man displaced me and our son from our home. I will NEVER allow another man, no matter how kind and sincere he seems, to potentially displace me again. It's simply not worth it.
That is WRONG. When I was younger and stupid, an abusive man displaced me and our son from our home. I will NEVER allow another man, no matter how kind and sincere he seems, to potentially displace me again. It's simply not worth it.
I'm happy that you are on your guard. This is the same thought process many men are using and it's these kinda scenarios many men are trying to desperately avoid. Your house is yours and yours alone. Don't you ever let a man manipulate you or try and displace you again. I'm glad that you are protecting yourself by all means necessary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
) IF these men didn't have a wifey at home who wants to "stand by her man" and if these men were simply in an LTR with no legal contract, fully understanding that there was nothing to keep his partner from cheating, too, might that not give him pause?
When I was younger and stupid, an abusive man displaced me and our son from our home. I will NEVER allow another man, no matter how kind and sincere he seems, to potentially displace me again. It's simply not worth it.