Stringing men along? (From "Dating People You Can Barely Comm.."

Life Dating & Relationships
61

There is GiT’s singular example, but i am sure we won’t find evidence that men are generally any more upfront about their intentions than women. But we find overwhelming evidence that there is a history of men blaming women for their inability to control themselves (something that i think is natural, by the way).

(Interesting that nobody has commented yet on the lenghty excerpt about that research, the results of which one can also interpret to mean that people have in general little knowledge of, and control over, their own intentions to start with.)

62

[quote=“yuli”]Interesting that nobody has commented yet on the lenghty excerpt about that research, the results of which one can also interpret to mean that people have in general little knowledge of, and control over, their own intentions to start with.[/quote]Exactly! That’s why I posted the article about casual hookups and how the author of the article says that our bodies become “hooked on” another person like drugs by sharing a sexual experience and that’s the thing that screws with our brains even if we only intended to have a casual hook up in the beginning. Recently, I watched the romantic comedy “No Strings Attached” with Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman…(wow what a body…on both of them) and the movie revolves around the same theme that casual sex can’t remain casual sex. Anyone else see it?

63

But it appears that some people can keep it casual or these conflicts would not arise.

64

bismarck: I actually don’t care if someone insults me or not (I wasn’t insinuating that I wanted divea cautioned because I’m actually in favour of free speech and the internet being a bit of a free for all). I was just getting into a semantic point. Anyway, I’m willing to drop that point if it’s getting too heated.

Petrichor: When mentioning nerds being strung along, you’ll also note that I said the nerd was being dishonest with himself (and is ultimately to blame for being too weak to walk away when he’s clearly not getting what he wants). I actually don’t really care about the nerd who won’t help himself. I was merely holding a mirror up to the meme about womanising men taking advantage of women and saying there’s a counterpart to that.

BigJohn: This is where I have a problem with your argument though. Are women (or at least this one) indeed the fairer sex and need to be wrapped in cotton wool? At what point do we say that adults are adults and so entitled to make certain decisions, be it with respect to relationships, handling money, voting or anything else, but in being so empowered, must also accept responsibility for the outcomes (even if unintended, though I think the probable outcome was extremely certain based upon how explicit I had been about my intentions) of their actions? If I want to get in a boxing ring and I am made aware of the risks involved and what may or may not happen, to what extent do I have a right to complain if the other guy punches me on the nose? To what extent do I have a right to pick up a stool and hit him because I couldn’t attain my objective within the rules? This is why I have a problem with how the woman reacted. It’s not that she didn’t get what she wanted. It’s not that she was upset by that. It’s not even that she tried to change the rules of the game afterwards. I realise people will try all of those things on, and to some extent, I say, “game on!” It’s that I called her on that and she still went crazy. Are you saying that this woman wasn’t capable of giving informed consent? Are you saying that it’s reasonable for her to change the rules of the game and that it’s not reasonable for me to request that we adhere to the original rules that we both agreed upon?

I actually don’t think people can be relied upon to behave rationally a lot of the time, but how does that gel with applied philosophy or applied economics on a daily basis? Surely that would imply either a laissez faire free for all or the need for some sort of benevolent dictator or oligarchy, because obviously, suffrage doesn’t work unless people have to bear responsibility for their actions, yet I’d be pretty sure that a lot of people would have real objections to that. This is my major problem with how most people think though: they hobble together some kind of grab bag of whatever world views/personal ethics/political philosophies suit them at the time (rather than thinking through a whole bunch of seemingly disparate issues and connecting a thread) and there’s rarely any kind of internal consistency to that. That’s why, despite he and I more often than not having diametrically opposed views on ethics, metaphysics and so on, Fortigurn is perhaps my favourite poster at this site. If nothing else, he has a well thought out, highly consistent way of thinking. As I mention below, steelersman is also another person I dig for his process, rather than his outcome.

Gao Bohan: Is your objection specifically that I called the/a woman a silly bitch (though not at the time – at the time I stated my case rather calmly and then kind of scratched my head and shrugged my shoulders about it) or is it my choice of words? For instance, if I had called a man a stupid bastard, would you find that objectionable?

steelersman: I know you and I lock horns on one particular issue, but even on that, I do see where you’re coming from and appreciate your process, even if not your outcome.

65

yuli: I have commented about it, or at least about the same issue and irrationality several times already, including my previous post. So what do where does that lead us then? If we acknowledge that people don’t have as much control over what they think or how they act as they think they do, then do we limit their behaviour? How? Do we make this like Iran or Saudi Arabia? Even if that were to work (which, obviously, it doesn’t – it’s well known that people from Saudi Arabia either keep their vices underground or simply go abroad to more “liberal” countries, such as the UAE, to indulge in them), who becomes the morality police, and aren’t they also irrational?

I mean, either people have sexual freedom (and must bear the complicated aftermath of that) or they don’t.

We could say this about the subprime mortgage driven GFC, people’s right to eat fast food or a whole slew of other issues. Can we protect people from themselves, and should we?

66

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]yuli: I have commented about it, or at least about the same issue and irrationality several times already, including my previous post. So what do where does that lead us then? If we acknowledge that people don’t have as much control over what they think or how they act as they think they do, then do we limit their behaviour? How? Do we make this like Iran or Saudi Arabia? Even if that were to work (which, obviously, it doesn’t – it’s well known that people from Saudi Arabia either keep their vices underground or simply go abroad to more “liberal” countries, such as the UAE, to indulge in them), who becomes the morality police, and aren’t they also irrational?

I mean, either people have sexual freedom (and must bear the complicated aftermath of that) or they don’t.

We could say this about the subprime mortgage driven GFC, people’s right to eat fast food or a whole slew of other issues. Can we protect people from themselves, and should we?[/quote]

GuyINTaiwan, I think in reality there is no solution. I imagine that this issue has been going on since the time humans started to live on earth. Sex leads to emotional attachment. There is plenty of research to back that up. There may actually be no such thing as completely casual sex. People want sex and try to engage in casual sex but it often leads to one party feeling cheated or taking advantage of. Even if the two parties do not want a relationship beyond sex, one partner will get angry when the other one wants less sex/ get involved with a third party. People have emotions that cannot be controlled.

Really nothing can be done. Therefore, I conclude that people should have freedom to fuck up their own lives. But if possible people should try to be upfront about their intentions not that it will lead to the desired outcome when the relationship is over.

67

steelersman: I agree, but other posters don’t seem to. I’m wondering what their solutions would be.

68

The boxing ring is about hurting people; sex is not - or should not be - about hurting people.

Love and sex are emotional and as you said, we cannot always expect people to be rational about it, even if we can.

What should have been done? Well, in an ideal world, you would have felt sorry for hurting her feelings and not have called her a bitch. But that’s just my opinion.

69

Oh. My. God. Substitute paragliding/ice skating/riding go-carts for boxing and crashing for punch on the nose. Is that better?

Okay, so people can’t be rational about things. How does that answer my question about whether people should or should not be held responsible for their actions and the implications (in a whole lot of areas) for society?

I didn’t call her a bitch to her face, though she made all sorts of wild claims about me and called me all sorts of things at the time. Anyway, let’s get this straight. She tried to change the rules of the game and I hurt her feelings by not allowing her to change the rules of the game? What, are we all four years old here?

Me: “I’m playing soccer. If you decide to play with me, then we’re playing soccer, not rugby. Okay?”
Her: “Okay.”
She tries to pick the ball up and run with it.
Me: “Hey, you can’t pick up the ball and run with it. Remember how I said we would play soccer, not rugby, and you agreed to that?”
Her: “WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!”
You: “GuyInTaiwan, you’re so mean.”

Oh. My. God.

70

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”] I’ve already stated that if guys are friends with women then it means those guys either find them unattractive, have a better offer or know the woman is off limits.

[/quote]

You forget the other option, which is they are quite happy with simply being friends. Teenage boys may not be able to just be friends with a girl, but most mature men and women are perfectly capable of friendship with no ulterior motives.

71

[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“GuyInTaiwan”] I’ve already stated that if guys are friends with women then it means those guys either find them unattractive, have a better offer or know the woman is off limits.

[/quote]

You forget the other option, which is they are quite happy with simply being friends. Teenage boys may not be able to just be friends with a girl, but most mature men and women are perfectly capable of friendship with no ulterior motives.[/quote]

Where’s that lil thumbs up button when you need it?!?

I’ve got guy friends that I’m attracted to but have chosen never to sleep with. I assume men have the same power of discretion and can be friends with an attractive woman but choose never to sleep with her.

72

cfimages: Teenage boys and girls may not be able to admit that they’re not self-aware and lie to themselves, but most mature men and women are perfectly capable of admitting that they are in far less control of themselves than they think and that they lie to themselves about that with regularity.

Non: If they really found the other person attractive and were given the opportunity, they’d jump their bones in a heartbeat. Do you also think people follow the law because it’s the right thing to do?

You, of all people, given another thread you recently started, are hardly in a position to talk about self-control.

73

[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]
BigJohn: This is where I have a problem with your argument though. Are women (or at least this one) indeed the fairer sex and need to be wrapped in cotton wool? At what point do we say that adults are adults and so entitled to make certain decisions, be it with respect to relationships, handling money, voting or anything else, but in being so empowered, must also accept responsibility for the outcomes (even if unintended, though I think the probable outcome was extremely certain based upon how explicit I had been about my intentions) of their actions? If I want to get in a boxing ring and I am made aware of the risks involved and what may or may not happen, to what extent do I have a right to complain if the other guy punches me on the nose? To what extent do I have a right to pick up a stool and hit him because I couldn’t attain my objective within the rules? This is why I have a problem with how the woman reacted. It’s not that she didn’t get what she wanted. It’s not that she was upset by that. It’s not even that she tried to change the rules of the game afterwards. I realise people will try all of those things on, and to some extent, I say, “game on!” It’s that I called her on that and she still went crazy. Are you saying that this woman wasn’t capable of giving informed consent? Are you saying that it’s reasonable for her to change the rules of the game and that it’s not reasonable for me to request that we adhere to the original rules that we both agreed upon?
[/quote]

The boxing ring is about hurting people; sex is not - or should not be - about hurting people.

Love and sex are emotional and as you said, we cannot always expect people to be rational about it, even if we can.

What should have been done? Well, in an ideal world, you would have felt sorry for hurting her feelings and not have called her a bitch. But that’s just my opinion.[/quote]

Why should Guyintaiwan be sorry?

Do I need to be sorry ever time my personal outlook on life does not match with others.

74

[quote=“steelersman”][quote=“BigJohn”]
The boxing ring is about hurting people; sex is not - or should not be - about hurting people.

Love and sex are emotional and as you said, we cannot always expect people to be rational about it, even if we can.

What should have been done? Well, in an ideal world, you would have felt sorry for hurting her feelings and not have called her a bitch. But that’s just my opinion.[/quote]

Why should Guyintaiwan be sorry?

Do I need to be sorry ever time my personal outlook on life does not watch with others.[/quote]

No, but you should be sorry (according to my values, at least) when you have inadvertently caused hurt to a person, especially one you have been close with.

75

BigJohn: Please answer the questions.

Did I, or did I not, disclose what the rules of the game were? Yes or no?

Was she, or was she not, an adult capable of making her own decisions in life? Yes or no?

Did she, or did she not, agree to the rules of the game? Yes or no?

Did she, or did she not, try to change the rules of the game once we had begun playing the game? Yes or no?

76

[quote=“steelersman”]
You may or may not agree but these two situations are not completely the same. In the cases of the man having the power that have been mentioned, the man was upfront about his intentions. The cases in which a nerd fell for a woman, the woman was not straight forward about her intentions.

It boils down to whether being forward and honest resolves someone of responsibility in a relationship when they are in the position of power?[/quote]

Have a look at the first post on this thread:

Women often say one thing, yet a great many of them do a completely different thing, yet when guys call them on that, they’re told they can’t understand because they’re not women or the women offer handfuls of examples of when the nice guy in school did get the girl. This is because women, from their perspective, don’t stop to consider that for every nice, nerdy guy they have fucked, they’ve strung along about fifty other such guys in complete blissful ignorance. Guys know this because for many guys (or their close friends or other men around them), they have been on the other end of that 50:1 ratio in anything but blissful ignorance. Some of you know that you’re doing it, though a great many more of you don’t, but you’ve all led on dozens of nerds. In fact, you’ve probably got two or three you’re doing it to right now that you don’t even know about.

You’re right. The situations aren’t completely the same. In one, the guy is completely aware that the woman may have feelings for him, in fact, he actually asks her to sign a contract not to fall in love with him :loco: . In the other, the woman has no idea of the man’s feelings but apparently they’re still to blame for the situation - ‘we’ don’t stop to consider despite the fact that ‘we’ don’t even know about it.

According to this, all women have a biological destiny beyond their control to be cockteasers.

It’s like stepping back into the 70’s.

77

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]
Non: If they really found the other person attractive and were given the opportunity, they’d jump their bones in a heartbeat. Do you also think people follow the law because it’s the right thing to do?

You, of all people, given another thread you recently started, are hardly in a position to talk about self-control.[/quote]
Haha :bravo: I bet you bring up past arguments in current arguments with your wife too :wink:
Good point- if the jumping of the bones could take place in a vacuum (ie, no one would remember it the next day, there would be no consequences, no one would get hurt) then, yes, absolutely.
However, most grown ups can acknowledge the physical attraction, enjoy the possibilities in their mind (mmmmm what would it be like if we did) but also acknowledge the possible consequences, and do nothing about the physical attraction in real life. I have tons of guy friends where this is the case. Why, I was alone, at night, in close physical proximity with a guy I’m super attracted to just a few weeks ago (different from the one I wrote that thread about :blush: ) and I did nothing (and didn’t let him do anything) because I know and like his girlfriend.
I like having friends I’m attracted to, and I like to think I give them the same ego strokes that they give me- but when it comes to actually acting on that attraction, we can control ourselves. Besides, imagining things when you’re all by yourself is fun and doesn’t hurt anyone :laughing:

78

There IS a reason men PAY professionals for sex. Its because you do it once and then next time you are onto another. Theres no entanglement. The transaction is transparent to both parties.

79

Petrichor: You also miss that this thread was split off from another thread and I said that I was merely holding up a mirror to the meme of what constitutes relationship advice and truth. I have repeatedly stated that the nerd being strung along is actually the person at fault because he can’t see that the woman isn’t interested in him. If she lays it on the table and says that then he is completely at fault. It’s completely black and white then and the woman is in no way at fault. That’s why I provided full disclosure in my own case precisely so that it would be black and white.

80

Actually, as any man will tell you, we often lose an argument, even when we know we’re right, just to keep the peace.

I brought it up because it’s a credibility issue. If I declared to one and all that I had gone bankrupt, do you think I would have any credibility in then saying most people are able to manage their finances? Well, maybe most people are able to manage their finances, but that “most people” wouldn’t include me, and I’m sure that people would have an issue with my credibility.

This entire thread is a seething morass of people feeling as though their feelings, even when backed by poor logic, contradictions and so on, constitute a valid argument. I understand that people are social animals and when someone yells “sabre-toothed tiger!” everyone runs and climbs the nearest tree and then has a laugh afterwards about how silly they were when one guy says he was just pulling their legs. Likewise, I understand that it’s important for people to feel good with one another and all pat each other on the backs about how lovely they all are rather than be right or seek the truth (and I understand this makes me and certain other posters at this site pariahs or considered grumpy old bastards at times), but it hardly constitutes rationality.

I also, back somewhere in this thread or the one it was split from, said that I’m not having a go at people individually because I understand that we (including I) are all irrational a lot more than we care to admit. I’m not trying to insult you, and I’m sorry if it came out that way. I’m trying to highlight an inconsistency in what you’ve said (and done) on two different occasions.

[quote]Good point- if the jumping of the bones could take place in a vacuum (ie, no one would remember it the next day, there would be no consequences, no one would get hurt) then, yes, absolutely.
However, most grown ups can acknowledge the physical attraction, enjoy the possibilities in their mind (mmmmm what would it be like if we did) but also acknowledge the possible consequences, and do nothing about the physical attraction in real life. I have tons of guy friends where this is the case. Why, I was alone, at night, in close physical proximity with a guy I’m super attracted to just a few weeks ago (different from the one I wrote that thread about :blush: ) and I did nothing (and didn’t let him do anything) [color=#FF0000]because I know and like his girlfriend.[/color]
I like having friends I’m attracted to, and I like to think I give them the same ego strokes that they give me- but when it comes to actually acting on that attraction, we can control ourselves. Besides, imagining things when you’re all by yourself is fun and doesn’t hurt anyone :laughing:[/quote]

Have I not repeatedly stated that people can be friends with someone they find attractive when they know that person is off-limits?