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.
This is totally stupid. Why the F are women getting married if the feelings for the significant other are not 100% certain. I just don't get it. Wait, I do get it.
Because women are often capable of being 100% certain that they can have a happy and fulfilling life with a man who loves them more then they love him.
It has to do with feeling secure and deriving contentment from that. It also has to do just a wee bit with power. Harsh, but true.
See--and again, this is just a general sense of things as I've seen them--knowing that a man loves you more than you love him provides a sense of security for many women. They can be content with that, with just knowing they have just a smidge of an upperhand in the heart department. That is far more likely to express itself in fidelity, commitment, and dedication to the marriage in a woman than it is in a man.
Call me jaded, cynical, unlucky, whatever you like, but I've never met a man who could resist the temptation to take advantage of and exploit any power he had in any situation, particularly romantic relationships.
In fact, maintaining the status quo with double standards depends on it.
Do you really want to open up this can of worms, Fox?
Because I can give you several good reasons for it, all stemming from two things: The way boys are still raised with a sense of entitlement that girls are not, and the way this entitlement tends to lead men to take women for granted once they know a woman is devoted to them.
In short, if a woman loves you 75%, she's most likely not going to cheat on you. If a man loves you 75%, he's giving that other 25% to someone else.
And now I am donning my asbestos suit for the flames that are sure to come my way, but that's the truth as I've seen it.
I'll add an asbestos hat, too, because I'm not so sure any relationship is even-steven, at least not all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avienne
Because women are often capable of being 100% certain that they can have a happy and fulfilling life with a man who loves them more then they love him.
It has to do with feeling secure and deriving contentment from that. It also has to do just a wee bit with power. Harsh, but true.
See--and again, this is just a general sense of things as I've seen them--knowing that a man loves you more than you love him provides a sense of security for many women. They can be content with that, with just knowing they have just a smidge of an upperhand in the heart department. That is far more likely to express itself in fidelity, commitment, and dedication to the marriage in a woman than it is in a man.
Call me jaded, cynical, unlucky, whatever you like, but I've never met a man who could resist the temptation to take advantage of and exploit any power he had in any situation, particularly romantic relationships.
In fact, maintaining the status quo with double standards depends on it.
Do you really want to open up this can of worms, Fox?
Because I can give you several good reasons for it, all stemming from two things: The way boys are still raised with a sense of entitlement that girls are not, and the way this entitlement tends to lead men to take women for granted once they know a woman is devoted to them.
In short, if a woman loves you 75%, she's most likely not going to cheat on you. If a man loves you 75%, he's giving that other 25% to someone else.
And now I am donning my asbestos suit for the flames that are sure to come my way, but that's the truth as I've seen it.
I'll add an asbestos hat, too, because I'm not so sure any relationship is even-steven, at least not all the time.
Why would any self-respecting person want to marry someone they only love 75%? They're cheating themselves out of that other 25% of the relationship.
I suspect the very concept will become less of an issue the more empowered women become in other areas of life.
That's probably why so many of them are putting off marriage until later in life, or deciding to can it altogether. Men don't like to hear this, but historically, it would seem that women have tended to "settle" more than men because they needed the financial security and wanted to avoid the stigma of being an "old maid." If a man proposed and he was basically a decent guy, better say yes because you never know when another one will come along, much less ask, and you need to get to making those babies, ma'am. Men had all the power, because men did all the asking, and women had to wait until men asked to get started on a "real" life--one with a house, kids, and modern appliances. Heck, men traditionally had all the power from the minute they got a woman's phone number. Plenty of oldies written about and for women sitting by the phone waiting for it to ring.
I suspect the very concept will become less of an issue the more empowered women become in other areas of life.
That's probably why so many of them are putting off marriage until later in life, or deciding to can it altogether. Men don't like to hear this, but historically, it would seem that women have tended to "settle" more than men because they needed the financial security and wanted to avoid the stigma of being an "old maid." If a man proposed and he was basically a decent guy, better say yes because you never know when another one will come along, much less ask, and you need to get to making those babies, ma'am. Men had all the power, because men did all the asking, and women had to wait until men asked to get started on a "real" life--one with a house, kids, and modern appliances. Heck, men traditionally had all the power from the minute they got a woman's phone number. Plenty of oldies written about and for women sitting by the phone waiting for it to ring.
Ahh, I'm only commenting from a current perspective. I could see it being completely different 50 or 100 years ago. I would be absolutely shocked to see a confident woman in today's society say that she wanted to only love her husband 75% as much as he loved her.
Because women are often capable of being 100% certain that they can have a happy and fulfilling life with a man who loves them more then they love him.
It has to do with feeling secure and deriving contentment from that. It also has to do just a wee bit with power. Harsh, but true.
See--and again, this is just a general sense of things as I've seen them--knowing that a man loves you more than you love him provides a sense of security for many women. They can be content with that, with just knowing they have just a smidge of an upperhand in the heart department. That is far more likely to express itself in fidelity, commitment, and dedication to the marriage in a woman than it is in a man.
Call me jaded, cynical, unlucky, whatever you like, but I've never met a man who could resist the temptation to take advantage of and exploit any power he had in any situation, particularly romantic relationships.
In fact, maintaining the status quo with double standards depends on it.
Ok, But do you really think any man would like to live with a woman who doesn't fully love him? That kind of thinking just comes across as selfish. I wouldn't want to waste my time being with a person who doesn't fully love me 100%.
To me it seems women who believes that the man should love more than the woman, basicly couldn't care less if their husband/boyfriend just left.
Ahh, I'm only commenting from a current perspective. I could see it being completely different 50 or 100 years ago. I would be absolutely shocked to see a confident woman in today's society say that she wanted to only love her husband 75% as much as he loved her.
You would be shocked? You seem new to this section of the forum, CT (forgive me if I'm wrong), but we had a whole string of threads a few weeks ago on Lori Gottlieb, and how women should stop being so dam choosy and start marrying the first guy who offers a ring, as long as he's not a serial killer. Women get criticized for settling (because that implies venality), and we get criticized for only wanting to marry for love (because that implies that we are child-like). Either way, it comes down to us being obligated to love whoever wants to be loved. Women are much better off today than 100 years ago, but we still get mixed messages. I happen to be in the camp that's in agreement with Schopenhauer's observation that marriage halves one's rights and doubles one's responsibilities, and the only reason to go into it would be huge buckets of love -- but I can't tell you how many times I've seen that idea slammed here on CD.
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.
