Relationship Woes and Advice 22: In Which Two Problems Prevent Each Others' Solution

[Pheehelm]

...sorry? Mine was meant only as an observation about a small number of individuals, not a criticism of a large group. Shouldn't really have said "a lot" up there. Probably doesn't measure up to "a lot." I think you're reading more condescenscion into my post ("lol," "stupid," also "things") than I intended, but if I came across that way, I apologize. (For what it's worth, I was going to attribute it to sexist social conditioning and not to female hypocrisy. I don't know if you think that's any better of me.)

Anyways, for my part, if a female-that-likes-males wants to wait for a male to kiss her, I'm down with that. I'm all for free choice in these matters.

[Serpentine]

I didn't address something earlier properly.

To be honest I'm not entirely sure what you mean to say by this. Do you mean to argue that there are no differences in what society generally expects of men and women or something else?

No. I meant to say that the sweeping generalisations that were being made ("girls wait for guys to kiss them, because they think it's the guy's job to do so") are not universal, nor even likely representative. Because I do not believe that it is a rule that girls wait for guys, and even if they do disproportionately do so the claimed reasons for it are unlikely to be accurate.

edit @ ^: I'm glad to hear it. Really. But even if you're right, have they told you that the reason they wait for the guy to kiss them is because it's "his job"? Or could it have been one of the reasons I gave, or any number of other possibilities? Unless they're specifically waiting for the guy to do it because he's a guy, there is no irony there.

[arguskos]

Anyways, for my part, if a female-that-likes-males wants to wait for a male to kiss her, I'm down with that. I'm all for free choice in these matters.

Best thing I've read in this thread in weeks.

Also, Pheehelm, you're around again! Good to see ya about.

EDIT: It occurs to me that I may as well weigh in on the current raging firestorm of a debate. I'd hazard that there is a decent amount of bias running around, but such is to be expected in discussions that lie at the crossroads of sexual activity and gender. I might suggest everyone take 15 minutes, go get a drink and a sandwich, then come back at this one with clear eyes and level heads, lest everything get uglier than it already has. There's no need to smack one another with the heavy clubs of labeling and accusations. Let's all be friendly (this applies to everyone).

Oh, and so there's some real content here: I basically agree with Phee on this one. Let folks do as they will in terms of making the first move.

[The Succubus]

I think the problem is that by asking, it takes a lot of the tension out of that pre-kiss moment. The thing is though, the tension is kind of exciting - where one of you has to take a gamble and either have their hearts crushed or dreams come true.

By asking, it turns kissing from a fun, thrilling and exciting battle of wills into something mechanical and pedestrian. It's something I've seen go both ways but ultimately, the best kisses are ones done out of passion, rather than empathy.

[dehro]

Yes it's comedy, no I don't mean to say anything by it, no it doesn't prove anything. it's fun though

[Form]

If in general men are expected to be assertive, then that can be (depending on the social environment) a mild advantage in favour of women as it is likely to be make it a bit easier to find a mate. But yes, it also depends on how assertive women are viewed. Depending on the social environment, women may have 2 options available to them (passive and assertive) whilst men may only have 1 (assertive). This is not a value judgement, nor do I mean it as such. I've never said it applies to all women everywhere either.

This does not mean women are 'mean' or 'unfair' or whatever. And I feel I should once again point out I've never said or implied that women are consciously or maliciously exploiting this.

I'll admit I did initially not consider how assertive women are viewed by society and what negative consequences a women could suffer by taking an assertive approach. In my experience assertiveness seems to work for girls, but this can indeed vary between different social circles and locations. I guess this counts as personal bias, fine. It is fine to contribute to the discussion by pointing out this negative effect for women, but seriously, misogyny? You want to argue that my perception might be skewed? Fine, but don't say/imply that I'm saying or suggesting all women are hypocrits.

I don't know why you're reading sweeping value judgements or accusations of hypocrisy into my posts, because I don't think they're there and I don't mean for them to be there either.

I've said my piece and I still don't think I've said anything offensive. Could we please leave it at this? I'm tired of this whole damn thing.

[Reluctance]

If in general men are expected to be assertive, then that can be (depending on the social environment) a mild advantage in favour of women as it is likely to be make it a bit easier to find a mate. But yes, it also depends on how assertive women are viewed. Depending on the social environment, women may have 2 options available to them (passive and assertive) whilst men may only have 1 (assertive). This is not a value judgement, nor do I mean it as such. I've never said it applies to all women everywhere either.

This does not mean women are 'mean' or 'unfair' or whatever. And I feel I should once again point out I've never said or implied that women are consciously or maliciously exploiting this.

I'll admit I did initially not consider how assertive women are viewed by society and what negative consequences a women could suffer by taking an assertive approach. In my experience assertiveness seems to work for girls, but this can indeed vary between different social circles and locations. I guess this counts as personal bias, fine. It is fine to contribute to the discussion by pointing out this negative effect for women, but seriously, misogyny? You want to argue that my perception might be skewed? Fine, but don't say/imply that I'm saying or suggesting all women are hypocrits.

I don't know why you're reading sweeping value judgements or accusations of hypocrisy into my posts, because I don't think they're there and I don't mean for them to be there either.

I've said my piece and I still don't think I've said anything offensive. Could we please leave it at this? I'm tired of this whole damn thing.

And yet, you go on the defensive as soon as she utters the magic word "misogyny".

It's like when your kid sister learned certain choice four-letter words. You don't try to sit down and explain why they're not for polite company. You realize that she's doing it precisely because it gets her attention, and resolve to stop giving it to her until she's ready to act in a mature, responsible fashion.

[Serpentine]

Alright, for the last time: Form, I was not, and never was, specifically targetting you. The entire discussion, which consisted of about half a dozen people, stank of misogyny to me. Yes, you contributed to it - significantly less than pretty much every person involved. You made the discussion more misogynistic in tone in the same way that a raindrop makes the ocean wetter. Hell, for all the biases I detected when I went back and looked properly, I was still totally fine with your post. I am less so that I've had to constantly defend my opinion on the matter from someone who was barely even included in it.
And yeah, I do think the discussion contained misogyny, and I've explained exactly where and how your specific post contributed to that. If you disagree, that's just fine, but that's how it came across to me.
If we want to talk about how social expectations of gender roles impact relationships in practice, great! But how about we look at all sides of it (everyone), do so without assuming exploitation or hypocrisy (Pheehelm*, Reluctance) on the part of any party, and just not bring "old women can't afford to be fussy" (Reluctance) into it at all?

*I'm fine with your explanation, I just want to make sure my issues are attached to their sources

[Moonshadow]

{{scrubbed}}

[rogueboy]

I know I'm late to the party, and everyone's more or less said their piece, but I'm going to be foolish and add my own anyways.

First off, I agree with Serp that there was a (mild) misogynistic-type undertone to many of the posts in question. However, it also seems like that was enough of an undertone that one almost had to be looking for it for there to be significant issue with it.

And now I've probably pissed everyone off, after everyone seemed to be done...

Then again, the northeast is significantly less religious than the rest of the US, and I think a lot of the "women are supposed to be sexually pure" crap stems from "No sex till marriage" religious views. Those societies have accepted "boys will be boys" but haven't moved forward enough to get the other side of that.

This was an interesting comment to me, because I'm from the NW (Seattle, specifically) and am currently in central PA for graduate school, and am seeing a LOT more religious 'activity' (for lack of a better term) than I did growing up. Out of curiosity, I decided to look up how religious different portions of the country are. The results are that WA, OR, NV, AK, and the New England states are the 10 least religious states in the country. Unsurprisingly, the bible belt, plains states, and Utah make up the 20 most religious states in the country. Your reference to the northeast (which I think of as ending somewhere around PA, OH, MD, and arguably the Virginias), specifically as it being less religious than other areas of the country (the northwest, which I think of as WA, OR, AK, and arguably ID) thus seemed wrong, based on my observations of WA and PA. However, I suspect that this is simply a definition thing, as the New England states are much less religious than the other areas I lump in with the northeast.

tl;dr: Definitions are important in any debate, much like your post originally suggested.

For anyone curious, here is where I pulled the info from.

Edit: OK, Moon, that just REEKS of misogyny. Or at least a strong bitterness towards women,* based on the last line. I don't think anyone has said anything about women who sleep around (within or without a "proper" relationship), which means that your defining such as being a slut is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, regardless of personal opinions towards that.

*which is actually pretty much the dictionary definition of misogyny... "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women" (dictionary.com)

[Astrella]

{{Scrubbed}}

...
Yay, slut-shaming.
And your last sentence doesn't even make any sense, unless all these women are having sex with a very limited group of people.

[Thufir]

{{Scrubbed}}

[noparlpf]

{{Scrubbed}}

I'm kind of with Astrella here. I haven't been closely following the recent discussion, but this one post stuck out to me as not making much sense, and mostly being for "slut-shaming".
A "slut" is literally a "promiscuous woman" or "a prostitute". The latter is a bad thing because the entire institution is terrible and in many cases the women involved are not involved voluntarily. As for the former, if there's nothing wrong with men having sex with multiple people without being in a committed relationship, there's nothing wrong with women doing the same. That's just basic common sense.
Evolutionarily, there's no benefit to promiscuity among men or women, nor is there a real benefit to life-long pair bonds. Temporary committed relationships are best, until the child is old enough that the female's family can share the burden of raising it without it needing to be constantly held and attended.
Physiologically, sex is not really easier for either party.

[Moonshadow]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Marillion]

...There is just so much wrong with everything you have said.

[noparlpf]

I just can't even. SO much sexism and prejudice. Just because a small minority of idiots manages to stand out by their extreme behaviour doesn't mean everyone else is like they are.

[Ceric]

...

[citation needed]

Really, where does this come from? Personal anecdotes? Friends' anecdotes? Mass media?

[rogueboy]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Serpentine]

Wow.
...
I'ma gonna go right ahead and let other people handle that one.

So, before the dreaded "m-word" (which clearly was a mistake to use, as it sadly eclipsed my point), there was a "shall we move on from the". So with that in mind:

I know it's an incredibly trite change of topic, but I really am curious to know the answer: how many times has everyone been in love? Not in lust, infatuated with or had a crush on, but been in love? Supplemental questions: how old are you, and how many relationships have you had?
I've always been thinking that I don't fall for people as often as others do, but I've never actually asked anyone. So... now I'm doing so.

[Logic]

Wow.
...
I'ma gonna go right ahead and let other people handle that one.

So, before the dreaded "m-word" (which clearly was a mistake to use, as it sadly eclipsed my point), there was a "shall we move on from the". So with that in mind:

I know it's an incredibly trite change of topic, but I really am curious to know the answer: how many times has everyone been in love? Not in lust, infatuated with or had a crush on, but been in love? Supplemental questions: how old are you, and how many relationships have you had?
I've always been thinking that I don't fall for people as often as others do, but I've never actually asked anyone. So... now I'm doing so.

*Good job steering the thread away from LOCKED territory*
Thrice in love, thrice in a relationship. Ages 18-20, 23, 24-28 (presently.)

[Moonshadow]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Marillion]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Moonshadow]

{{Scrubbed}}

[rogueboy]

Rogueboy wrote a great rebuttal, but I'm going to try to address things he may not have thought of.

Glad to hear you liked my rebuttal, Marillion! And yeah, most of what you said is something that either didn't occur to me, or I was too busy getting caught up on what I saw as a confusing statement to notice and respond to.

Wow.
...
I'ma gonna go right ahead and let other people handle that one.

So, before the dreaded "m-word" (which clearly was a mistake to use, as it sadly eclipsed my point), there was a "shall we move on from the". So with that in mind:

I know it's an incredibly trite change of topic, but I really am curious to know the answer: how many times has everyone been in love? Not in lust, infatuated with or had a crush on, but been in love? Supplemental questions: how old are you, and how many relationships have you had?
I've always been thinking that I don't fall for people as often as others do, but I've never actually asked anyone. So... now I'm doing so.

I doubt I'm quite the target you were looking for here, Serp, but I'll chime in with the interest of changing our topic to something less lock-worthy, as Logic put it.

I have never been love. Quite probably related to the fact that I have had 0 relationships, of course.* Currently 24 (will be 25 by the end of the month). Am 0-for-4 (5? I feel like I'm forgetting one...) when I ask someone out.

*I have another lead that looks promising, although I'll have to wait until this weekend for her to be back in town so I can continue trying to change my relationship number (wow, that's a terrible, terrible way to think about it... )

[Serpentine]

Good luck Rogueboy!

#6 is relevant here (although sadly neither especially well-written nor as detailed and comprehensive as I'd like it to be). Also, it's none of anyone's damn business how much sex anyone chooses to have.

[Logic]

Also, it's none of anyone's damn business how much sex anyone chooses to have.

Well, I am of the opinion that it is in the best interest of both parties to share information on that topic. Some people are prudes, and won't sleep with someone with a multitude of previous partners, some need their relationship to be clearly defined, some need monogamy, etc.

[Serpentine]

Well, I am of the opinion that it is in the best interest of both parties to share information on that topic. Some people are prudes, and won't sleep with someone with a multitude of previous partners, some need their relationship to be clearly defined, some need monogamy, etc.

The first two, I'm not inclined to be concerned with. The second two, that's fine, and I also think it is good to talk about these things with a potential partner. However, they don't get to decide that a person should have more or less than they have, or have had.

[Logic]

The first two, I'm not inclined to be concerned with. The second two, that's fine, and I also think it is good to talk about these things with a potential partner. However, they don't get to decide that a person should have more or less than they have, or have had.

Well, someone can decline to enter into a relationship for any reason they see fit. Even if their reasoning is absurd. If someone wants to hold number of partners against a prospective partner, that is their business, and their own loss.

[Serpentine]

It's still their own business and no one else's how much sex they have. "It's none of anyone's business" doesn't mean "they should keep it secret"
Frankly, in my opinion, if someone rejects someone because they've enjoyed happyfuntime activities with multiple people previously, they're better off without.

[Logic]

It's still their own business and no one else's how much sex they have. "It's none of anyone's business" doesn't mean "they should keep it secret"

Perhaps you and I are talking about different things.