Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: SandySandfort on May 22, 2012, 08:45:51 pm

Title: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: SandySandfort on May 22, 2012, 08:45:51 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/24/us-women-beauty-idUSTRE52N5O920090324
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on May 22, 2012, 10:06:59 pm
heh. Imagine that. Women are complex.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: sam on May 22, 2012, 11:40:07 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/24/us-women-beauty-idUSTRE52N5O920090324

Asking women what they want, will get you bad information.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on May 22, 2012, 11:51:38 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/24/us-women-beauty-idUSTRE52N5O920090324
Asking women what they want, will get you bad information.

If you were any less predictable, you just wouldn't be sam.  ;D

Women are people. People are individuals. Trying to lump any set of individuals like this will get a complex set of answers.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Eddie T on May 26, 2012, 09:58:05 am
download Anatomy of Female Power by the Nigerian poet Chinweizu here at http://therawness.com/AFP.pdf (http://therawness.com/AFP.pdf).

very few people understand the dynamics of heterosexual relationships. cultures may change, but the principles are still the same.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: dough560 on May 26, 2012, 01:20:31 pm
Without variety, life would be boring.  Differences, male and female make it interesting.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on May 28, 2012, 05:47:37 am
The half of young women willing to marry the ugly millionaire is of course scary (unless you're an ugly millionaire), but then, the question answered to was not of a specific ugly millionaire, but of a generic (hence personality-less) ugly millionaire. In that case the question they were really asked is really this : "Could there exist an ugly millionaire such, that you would marry him?"
Of course, that means that all the ones who answered no are very shallow people... but being young, that is to be expected.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: SandySandfort on May 28, 2012, 08:03:42 am
The half of young women willing to marry the ugly millionaire is of course scary (unless you're an ugly millionaire), but then, the question answered to was not of a specific ugly millionaire, but of a generic (hence personality-less) ugly millionaire. In that case the question they were really asked is really this : "Could there exist an ugly millionaire such, that you would marry him?"
Of course, that means that all the ones who answered no are very shallow people... but being young, that is to be expected.

I think your analysis is wrong for several reasons. As I recall, the question was not, "Would you marry an ugly man because he is a millionaire," but "would you be willing to marry an ugly rich man."

Many mothers tell their daughters, "Honey, it's just as easy to love a rich man as a poor one." So the questioned as asked, leaves open the existence or absence of love. If a young woman had two suitors, a rich ugly one and a poor handsome one, and if she had equal affection for both, the obvious choice would be rich/ugly over poor/handsome, n'est-ce pas?

Besides, marrying for good looks is shallow. Marrying for money is at least rational.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Corydon on May 28, 2012, 09:28:05 am
Besides, marrying for good looks is shallow. Marrying for money is at least rational.

Sure, if you discount the importance of sex in a marriage.  But all the research I've ever seen has been pretty clear that sexual compatibility is one of the most important factors in maintaining a healthy marriage.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on May 28, 2012, 09:49:14 am
Besides, marrying for good looks is shallow. Marrying for money is at least rational.

Sure, if you discount the importance of sex in a marriage.  But all the research I've ever seen has been pretty clear that sexual compatibility is one of the most important factors in maintaining a healthy marriage.
Do you belong to the look-but-don't-touch school of lovemaking? Coz, otherwise looks have every little to do with sexual compatibility. Not if both parties know what they're doing at least.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Corydon on May 28, 2012, 09:57:56 am
Do you seriously not believe that looks play a role in attraction, and that attraction plays a role in sexual compatibility?
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: customdesigned on May 28, 2012, 10:13:37 am
The half of young women willing to marry the ugly millionaire is of course scary (unless you're an ugly millionaire), but then, the question answered to was not of a specific ugly millionaire, but of a generic (hence personality-less) ugly millionaire. In that case the question they were really asked is really this : "Could there exist an ugly millionaire such, that you would marry him?"
Of course, that means that all the ones who answered no are very shallow people... but being young, that is to be expected.
1) A millionaire is not much these days.  Billionaire should be the goal.
2) In 1 Kings 1, Abishag marries King David:
   When King David was very old, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. So his attendants said to him, “Let us look for a young virgin to serve the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.”  Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful young woman and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The woman was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no sexual relations with her.

This was actually a win, win solution.  David didn't live very long after this marriage, and the girl was still young and very beautiful after he died - and fantastically rich by the standards of the day.  She had more royal suitors than she knew what to do with.

So a young woman marrying a *really* old and *really* rich man (or vice versa) makes a lot of sense - provided you like them as a person well enough to live pleasantly with them (despite diminished sexual attraction).
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: SandySandfort on May 28, 2012, 07:09:00 pm
Do you seriously not believe that looks play a role in attraction, and that attraction plays a role in sexual compatibility?

They play a part, but it is very minor compared to pheromonal attraction (or repulsion).
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: wdg3rd on May 28, 2012, 09:28:19 pm
Do you seriously not believe that looks play a role in attraction, and that attraction plays a role in sexual compatibility?

They play a part, but it is very minor compared to pheromonal attraction (or repulsion).

Dunno about pheremones and my sinuses are really messed up this weekend while I've been in mourning.

None of my wives and none of my interim girlfriends would ever pass the entrance exam for a beauty pageant.  Happens that my particular fetish is intelligence.  Each of my three wives was smarter than me which kind of begs the question of their intelligence since they settled for me.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on May 29, 2012, 02:02:11 am
Their fetish doesn't have to be the same as yours... ;) in fact, relationships where both have the same fetish (e.g. good looks) might not last as well as more complementary couplings.

As a side note, before you mentioned that, I had never even considered that some people out there might actually have beauty pageant applicability as a partner criterion... ick, ick-ick-ick!!!
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: mellyrn on May 29, 2012, 12:57:15 pm
One person's wow is another's meh is another's ugh.

There's a big ol' goofy guy
Dancing with a big ol' goofy girl --
Oooo, baby,
It's a big ol' goofy world. (http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/prine-john/its-a-big-old-goofy-world-10879.html)
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: macsnafu on May 29, 2012, 01:01:25 pm
One person's wow is another's meh is another's ugh.

There's a big ol' goofy guy
Dancing with a big ol' goofy girl --
Oooo, baby,
It's a big ol' goofy world. (http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/prine-john/its-a-big-old-goofy-world-10879.html)

Not to mention there's usually a difference between what one wants in the opposite gender and what one can actually manage to get.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on May 30, 2012, 01:19:40 am
One person's wow is another's meh is another's ugh.

There's a big ol' goofy guy
Dancing with a big ol' goofy girl --
Oooo, baby,
It's a big ol' goofy world. (http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/prine-john/its-a-big-old-goofy-world-10879.html)

Not to mention there's usually a difference between what one wants in the opposite gender and what one can actually manage to get.


And even that becomes insignificant when we consider that there is always a difference between what one wants in the opposite gender and what one THINKS one wants in the opposite gender. (Exchange "the opposite gender" with "a partner" for greater precision, folly is not a heterosexual exclusive ;D)
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: quadibloc on June 03, 2012, 05:00:38 pm
Men tend to value good looks the most; women place more value on a gentle touch, and they have had to be concerned, historically, with a man's ability to function as a provider.

That men and women start out with different desires is not a reason to criticize either one; it's how ethically we act to fulfill our desires that is what matters.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Eddie T on June 07, 2012, 04:21:29 pm
Besides, marrying for good looks is shallow. Marrying for money is at least rational.

depends on the gender. men and women are psychologically hardwired differently with opposing biological goals. men chase beauty, women chase status. men seek sex, women seek commitment. in other words, men want sex with beautiful women while women want to get married to high status men. hence, for women, sex is a means to an end, while for men, sex IS the end.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Eddie T on June 07, 2012, 04:23:40 pm

Do you belong to the look-but-don't-touch school of lovemaking? Coz, otherwise looks have every little to do with sexual compatibility. Not if both parties know what they're doing at least.

sex isnt possible if the woman is so unattractive that just the thought of her kills any erection.

Their fetish doesn't have to be the same as yours... ;) in fact, relationships where both have the same fetish (e.g. good looks) might not last as well as more complementary couplings.

As a side note, before you mentioned that, I had never even considered that some people out there might actually have beauty pageant applicability as a partner criterion... ick, ick-ick-ick!!!

i had no idea that pursuing good looks is a fetish. is it unnatural for men to not want ugly children?

and selecting for beauty pageant participants is a recipe for disaster, as the women who make their livelihood off their physical appearance are such high maintenance that its more of headache than can possibly be imagined. theres a quote that perfectly describes it, "no matter how beautiful a woman is, someone somewhere is tired of f***ing her." its much more sensible to select for a women whos attractiveness puts her in that class, but has an occupation outside of  marketing/entertainment.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Eddie T on June 07, 2012, 04:28:41 pm
Men tend to value good looks the most; women place more value on a gentle touch, and they have had to be concerned, historically, with a man's ability to function as a provider.

That men and women start out with different desires is not a reason to criticize either one; it's how ethically we act to fulfill our desires that is what matters.

you actually think women place value on something like "gentle touch"? how do you then explain the success of novels like Story of O, and its modern day equivalent, 50 Shades of Grey? there is no outrage, not even by the crazed feminists. just universal acclaim, with women reminiscing of the men theyve dated who made them feel the same as the protagonist in both novels.

its really a wonder how straight men who are intelligent enough to understand and embrace anarcho-capitalism do not understand the female sex at all.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 07, 2012, 04:48:59 pm
its really a wonder how straight men who are intelligent enough to understand and embrace anarcho-capitalism do not understand the female sex at all.

No, it really isn't. Every woman is unique, and they have, as you point out, different motivations than men. They also think in entirely different ways than men, ways that to us sometimes seem completely illogical, even "crazy". These intuitive leaps aren't "bad", but they can seriously confuse men who follow different logic paths.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: ELeeMacFall on June 07, 2012, 06:00:50 pm
Of course the article doesn't answer the question of what women want, but I can help find the answer by kicking off a process of elimination.

What women don't want:

1. Me
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on June 08, 2012, 02:29:41 am
Of course the article doesn't answer the question of what women want, but I can help find the answer by kicking off a process of elimination.

What women don't want:

1. Me
Yeah, a defeatist attitude is the number one universal turn-off.  :D  :D  :D
To make your chances of getting a woman even smaller (bear with me), you should grow embittered and start blaming them for not wanting you.
To improve (!) even on that, you should start a habit of whining about all this, as often as you can and in as inappropriate forums as possible...

Oh, wait, you got all that down pat, already.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: mellyrn on June 08, 2012, 07:16:34 am
Near as I can tell, I'm the only XX posting on the forum.  What I don't get is people bright enough to enjoy good science fiction who don't (seem to) get that when you have two huge populations, and the centroid of a given trait for one differs from the centroid of the other by, say, less than half-sigma, there isn't much that can be meaningfully said about the differences between the two groups on that point.

What "women" want is what any human being wants:  having one's individuality respected.

fwiw, I couldn't read "The Story of O"; I started it, skimmed early bits, cut to the end, and wish I were not even the same species, or even genus, as the author.  And I have met XY types who wanted to feel like O, but I suppose you'd say they were not "real" men?  :P
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: mellyrn on June 08, 2012, 08:02:59 am
Once upon a time I attended this huge seminar, with something like 800+ participants.  One evening we had a guest speaker who, without bothering to introduce his topic, started right off with a male beauty contest. 

We had to subdivide into regions, and pick a semifinalist from each, and then choose one from them.

Some of the guys really got into it, posing, whipping off shirts and throwing them to the audience; a lot just hated it, and stood there with their arms severely folded, waiting for the point of it all.  Some of the women cut loose with wolf-whistles and hooting.

Finally, though, we had our winner -- a guy I thought was pleasant enough in looks but not anything to write home about.

And our speaker stepped forward and said, "399 guys have just had the experience of being rejected solely on the basis of looks."  He pointed out that our culture is such that, while before the contest, women may fight like cats in a sack, afterwards the losers console one another with "You totally deserved to win, I can't believe they didn't pick you" kinds of things.  Our guys here in the seminar, however, had no such network and were having to not only deal with the rejection, but do so alone.

But we were just getting started.  With all the guys up on the stages, there were plenty of seats empty, so Speaker had the women fill in the middle section -- according to income:  6-7 figure incomes in the front rows, and falling off after that.  Considering I worked as a shift supervisor in a pizza joint at the time, I was surprised to find that I was not in the very last row (though I was in my row alone):  there was one woman behind even me.

Oh, jeez, I think, I can see where this is going.  Sure enough, Speaker said that when he gave the word, we women were to attempt to "pick up" a guy and see how far we could get in 20 minutes.

I'm an introvert anyway.  And I'm feeling quite worthless all the way in the back; I totally wrote off approaching any of the semifinalists, let alone the winner.  I get it, I'm thinking, and I'm just going to sit this one out.  Thanks anyway.

"And if you're thinking about not playing," Speaker announced, "you're already playing."

Aww, f uck!  Busted!  Well, I was at the seminar at all to get out of my comfort zone, so I scrunched up what few guts I had, cast about for guys physically nearby, and --

The woman behind me stood up and launched into some speech about wanting to see what this looked like from "back here".  She had zero income as such -- she was independently wealthy.

And Speaker told her (without actually laughing in her face) that if she was really interested in what things were like from the bottom of the economic heap, she would have played it through; as it was, just as the game was about to begin, she was standing up to announce, "I'm more valuable than you think I am!"

So then game was on.  I decided to play Ms. Nice Guy, on the grounds that, if the guy I approached didn't like me, well, that was his loss.  Speaker afterwards confirmed that, yep, that's quite a common guy strategy.

So I picked out a guy -- a good-looking guy, too, in my opinion better than Mr. Seminar-pageant-winner -- and invited him for a drink of water out of one of the coolers by the ballroom doors.

Long, uncomfortable ("introvert", right?) story later, I got much "farther" than I dreamed I could -- we walked out onto the beach together and he let me put my arm over his shoulders (which was funny as he was rather taller!)  Still, I was ever so grateful for the bell that called us back in.

We heard later of one couple who actually had to be called back out of the room of one of them.

The post-mortem was fascinating.  Few women wanted to speak up; those who had the guts, admitted being ashamed of acting exactly like guys they despised for acting like that. . . .

The guys were great; they shocked and surprised themselves and had no problem admitting it.  One of them pretty much summed it up with:  "This [trolling for babes] is what I do!  And, here I'm all like, 'What do they want from me?'" and he mimed recoiling like a heroine in a melodrama, which was funny and he meant it.  Another guy, one of the semifinalists, said the rich women "were so pushy!  It was like they thought they could just buy you or something!"   Which is, so I hear, something that pretty women tend to get from rich guys.

So there we were, us XXs and XYs, and each individual one of us quite spontaneously acting like the opposite sex.  And the only thing that changed was the dynamic of a) who gets valued for what and b) who pursues whom.

In other words, those behaviors are not sex-linked; they are artifacts of the circumstances.

If you're interested in this further, Speaker was Warren Farrell, author of Why Men Are the Way They Are (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Are-Way-They/dp/042511094X), which title was, I believe, intended to fox women into reading it.

If you're fond of thinking that you always know why you do what you do, you won't like it.  If you recognize that we're all driven by unexpected and unsuspected forces, internal and external, you'll learn a lot.  I highly recommend it, but I especially recommend it for the women in your lives.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: happycrow on June 08, 2012, 08:29:00 am
Great post, Mellyrn.

I was going to go all Arthurian, and respond to the OP with "what women want is to have their way."  But my wife's idea of having her way is Grand Tea, and one of my best friend's ideas of that (Transylvanian gal) is to stand in the kitchen while everybody eats at the table.  And God help you if you go into her kitchen without permission....definite "culture counts" going on.

Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Another Scott on June 08, 2012, 08:58:54 am
That's quite fascinating! Thanks for sharing, Mellyrn.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: macsnafu on June 08, 2012, 09:17:54 am
While there are certain unavoidable biological differences between men and women, I think most people under-rate the impact that culture has on our gender traits and expectations.  Of course, it's hard to see when you're inside that culture--you grew up in it and have lived in it all your life.  Men and women tend to think and act differently because that's what our society expects of them.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: macsnafu on June 08, 2012, 09:21:10 am
Of course the article doesn't answer the question of what women want, but I can help find the answer by kicking off a process of elimination.

What women don't want:

1. Me

Here's an important point:  you only have to find one woman, and who cares what all the other women think of you?
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on June 08, 2012, 01:21:39 pm
Of course the article doesn't answer the question of what women want, but I can help find the answer by kicking off a process of elimination.

What women don't want:

1. Me

Here's an important point:  you only have to find one woman, and who cares what all the other women think of you?

Someone wrote, of the wisdom gained, which led a protagonist to stop cheating on his wife: "You can't be something for everybody".

And that's the truth, all the what-ifs are just distractions. And no, quantity cannot replace quality. Those who run around trying to get fulfillment through quantity never get it. They get a lot of other things though, trouble and STDs mostly.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 08, 2012, 02:19:18 pm
And that's the truth, all the what-ifs are just distractions. And no, quantity cannot replace quality. Those who run around trying to get fulfillment through quantity never get it. They get a lot of other things though, trouble and STDs mostly.

There's a flipside to this, though, that the heart wants what the heart wants. It's perfectly possible to fall for someone, while still being deeply in love with someone else. Many hearts have been broken over our strange obsession with monogamy.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: mellyrn on June 08, 2012, 02:37:37 pm
Quote
the heart wants what the heart wants. It's perfectly possible to fall for someone, while still being deeply in love with someone else. Many hearts have been broken over our strange obsession with monogamy.

True, that.  And who wants somebody staying out of legal duty and pretending love, while actually being in love with someone else?
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on June 08, 2012, 03:07:37 pm
And that's the truth, all the what-ifs are just distractions. And no, quantity cannot replace quality. Those who run around trying to get fulfillment through quantity never get it. They get a lot of other things though, trouble and STDs mostly.

There's a flipside to this, though, that the heart wants what the heart wants. It's perfectly possible to fall for someone, while still being deeply in love with someone else. Many hearts have been broken over our strange obsession with monogamy.
That may be, but there are wants, and then there are needs, and there are think-wants and think-needs.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 08, 2012, 03:11:49 pm
And that's the truth, all the what-ifs are just distractions. And no, quantity cannot replace quality. Those who run around trying to get fulfillment through quantity never get it. They get a lot of other things though, trouble and STDs mostly.

There's a flipside to this, though, that the heart wants what the heart wants. It's perfectly possible to fall for someone, while still being deeply in love with someone else. Many hearts have been broken over our strange obsession with monogamy.
That may be, but there are wants, and then there are needs, and there are think-wants and think-needs.

When dealing with emotions, there isn't much difference in those categories. ;)
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 08, 2012, 03:16:02 pm
Quote
the heart wants what the heart wants. It's perfectly possible to fall for someone, while still being deeply in love with someone else. Many hearts have been broken over our strange obsession with monogamy.

True, that.  And who wants somebody staying out of legal duty and pretending love, while actually being in love with someone else?

Ugh. I'd rather have someone who loves me AND some other guy (or gal), than someone who resents my presence... talk about unhealthy family environment.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on June 08, 2012, 03:33:40 pm
And that's the truth, all the what-ifs are just distractions. And no, quantity cannot replace quality. Those who run around trying to get fulfillment through quantity never get it. They get a lot of other things though, trouble and STDs mostly.

There's a flipside to this, though, that the heart wants what the heart wants. It's perfectly possible to fall for someone, while still being deeply in love with someone else. Many hearts have been broken over our strange obsession with monogamy.
That may be, but there are wants, and then there are needs, and there are think-wants and think-needs.

When dealing with emotions, there isn't much difference in those categories. ;)

Oh, there is. The think-wants are your id trying to fuck you over. The think-needs are even worse.
I may think I need five snickers bars, too. Or even want them. But if I go along with fooling myself into taking them, I will just feel terrible (even with no guilt).
And love is no different.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 08, 2012, 03:47:35 pm
Oh, there is. The think-wants are your id trying to frack you over. The think-needs are even worse.
I may think I need five snickers bars, too. Or even want them. But if I go along with fooling myself into taking them, I will just feel terrible (even with no guilt).
And love is no different.

So long as you can differentiate between hormonal infatuation and lust (I guess those would be your think-want and think-need, respectively), and actual love, go for it.

The person who signs a contract with no exit clause AND a no-compete clause is a pretty big fool, if you ask me. (thankfully, my significant other agrees... people tend to get violent over that sort of opinion)
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: ELeeMacFall on June 08, 2012, 06:16:43 pm
Of course the article doesn't answer the question of what women want, but I can help find the answer by kicking off a process of elimination.

What women don't want:

1. Me
Yeah, a defeatist attitude is the number one universal turn-off.  :D  :D  :D
To make your chances of getting a woman even smaller (bear with me), you should grow embittered and start blaming them for not wanting you.
To improve (!) even on that, you should start a habit of whining about all this, as often as you can and in as inappropriate forums as possible...

Oh, wait, you got all that down pat, already.

Do you always respond to people's jokes with patronizing lectures?
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 08, 2012, 06:24:08 pm
Do you always respond to people's jokes with patronizing lectures?

Just the ones he doesn't get. ;)
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on June 09, 2012, 07:11:29 am
Do you always respond to people's jokes with patronizing lectures?
I was patronizing? Shoot, I was aiming for scathing  >:(  ::)
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on June 11, 2012, 09:59:22 am
Quote
the heart wants what the heart wants. It's perfectly possible to fall for someone, while still being deeply in love with someone else. Many hearts have been broken over our strange obsession with monogamy.

True, that.  And who wants somebody staying out of legal duty and pretending love, while actually being in love with someone else?

On the flip side, how can one truly claim to love another yet insist on denying them the pleasure and joy of others?
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Killydd on June 11, 2012, 12:13:31 pm
Some people just aren't comfortable sharing things that are truly personal to them, including people.  Others wish for happiness all around.  As long as they don't conflict, it works out well.  When those two wishes conflict, there's trouble.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 11, 2012, 12:16:18 pm
Quote
the heart wants what the heart wants. It's perfectly possible to fall for someone, while still being deeply in love with someone else. Many hearts have been broken over our strange obsession with monogamy.

True, that.  And who wants somebody staying out of legal duty and pretending love, while actually being in love with someone else?

On the flip side, how can one truly claim to love another yet insist on denying them the pleasure and joy of others?

Exactly. To quote Heinlein (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/robert_a_heinlein.html#EBFVgKCD2GtMe0hV.99):
Quote
Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own... Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: wdg3rd on June 11, 2012, 10:08:35 pm

Exactly. To quote Heinlein (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/robert_a_heinlein.html#EBFVgKCD2GtMe0hV.99):
Quote
Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own... Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

I prefer the short form "The more you love, the more you can love".

Lisa had more lovers than I did.  A given, she was prettier than I am.  I disapproved of exactly one of them, because he was a jerk who bragged of military experience he didn't really have.  She dropped him fairly quickly and not because of my disapproval, she knew real veterans (her father was Navy CB all through WWII, OSS [yes, a "spy" in Europe arranging for some folk to make court appearances at Nuremberg] after he was invalided out from only getting halfway across the beach at Iwo, USAF during Korea and spent a year and a half as a guest of the PRC at a resort in Manchuria, then a few years at Thule cooling down -- then he finally settled down and married his high school sweetheart then Lisa happened unexpectedly to their and later my joy).

Honest, I'm not suicidal.  That would piss her off.  I have support of many friends, hers, my few and mutual.  It's been two and a half weeks.  I'm drinking, but it's at maintenance level, not getting shitfaced like I did the first weekend (she died May 25, my birthday was May 26, I'd been sober a year and a half).

Sorry to bum folks out.  really sorry.  But "the more you love, the more you can love".  It's the way we lived.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 11, 2012, 10:55:51 pm
Sorry to bum folks out.  really sorry.  But "the more you love, the more you can love".  It's the way we lived.

Sounds like she was a great gal. You're a very lucky guy.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: wdg3rd on June 11, 2012, 11:39:01 pm
Sorry to bum folks out.  really sorry.  But "the more you love, the more you can love".  It's the way we lived.

Sounds like she was a great gal. You're a very lucky guy.

Luckier than I deserved.  Her mother on her deathbed in '92 said I was the first boyfriend worth a shit and made me promise to take care of her.  Did the best I could (not as good as she deserved, she deserved big-ass rubies and emeralds and I've only seen those in museums).

Hope to do a little memorial up at Porcfest.  Hope to have Naomi with me (my first wife in an ancient polyandry, she's the widow of Mike Moslow, they introduced me to one of his "ex" lovers when I came to the east coast {they occasionally went at it like crazed weasels until not long before we lost Mike a couple years back} for support.  Would  dump a bottle of single malt into a campfire (she didn't drink much but that's what she liked best) but she'd hate the waste so I'll have whoever shows up filter it through their kidneys first.

I'll probably scatter her from one of the Kangamagus Highway overlooks.  Those were her favorite views.  It's probably illegal.  So what, let them arrest me.  No New Hampshire jury would convict me.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on June 11, 2012, 11:54:31 pm
Ach, sorry to hear it, and good that you're hanging in there.
All things end, savor the good, endure the bad - only way to beat life, innit?
An it harm none - your way is as good as mine.
I am happy with monogamy - some people enjoy infatuation, I don't.
I feel/need no confirmation of my desirability, nor of my ability to conquer.
It'd be a pointless distraction for me.
I realize that monogamy can be a shackles, but if it harms neither, it harms neither.
If it might feel like it harms the would-be third wheels, I say tough cookies.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 12, 2012, 12:26:41 am
I am happy with monogamy - some people enjoy infatuation, I don't.
I feel/need no confirmation of my desirability, nor of my ability to conquer.
It'd be a pointless distraction for me.
I realize that monogamy can be a shackles, but if it harms neither, it harms neither.
If it might feel like it harms the would-be third wheels, I say tough cookies.

No offense, but you have no idea what Poly is about. It's not at all about infatuation or nor ability to conquer. No more than monogamy is about keeping one person all to yourself. Monogamy is loving one person. Poly is loving more than one person. That's all.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: mellyrn on June 12, 2012, 07:46:42 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs7E8HSgQy4

"A couch where four can snuggle up
Suddenly isn't big enough . . ."

One of my guy's girlfriends shared the above with me.  Alas, she's taken up with a more exclusive sort of guy now.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on June 12, 2012, 12:09:18 pm
I am happy with monogamy - some people enjoy infatuation, I don't.
I feel/need no confirmation of my desirability, nor of my ability to conquer.
It'd be a pointless distraction for me.
I realize that monogamy can be a shackles, but if it harms neither, it harms neither.
If it might feel like it harms the would-be third wheels, I say tough cookies.

No offense, but you have no idea what Poly is about. It's not at all about infatuation or nor ability to conquer. No more than monogamy is about keeping one person all to yourself. Monogamy is loving one person. Poly is loving more than one person. That's all.

Your definitions are confusingly loose.  "Monogamy" means married to one (or possessing one); "poly" simply means many.  Loving many is "polyamory", where "polygamy" means married to many (or possessing many).

Given that marriage may be loveless, "polygamy" (and "monogamy") may be wholly unrelated to love.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 12:38:08 pm
I am happy with monogamy - some people enjoy infatuation, I don't.
I feel/need no confirmation of my desirability, nor of my ability to conquer.
It'd be a pointless distraction for me.
I realize that monogamy can be a shackles, but if it harms neither, it harms neither.
If it might feel like it harms the would-be third wheels, I say tough cookies.

No offense, but you have no idea what Poly is about. It's not at all about infatuation or nor ability to conquer. No more than monogamy is about keeping one person all to yourself. Monogamy is loving one person. Poly is loving more than one person. That's all.

Your definitions are confusingly loose.  "Monogamy" means married to one (or possessing one); "poly" simply means many.  Loving many is "polyamory", where "polygamy" means married to many (or possessing many).

Given that marriage may be loveless, "polygamy" (and "monogamy") may be wholly unrelated to love.

Yep, I think I could go for some polyamory without the polygamy!

 :P
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 12, 2012, 03:19:24 pm
Your definitions are confusingly loose.  "Monogamy" means married to one (or possessing one); "poly" simply means many.  Loving many is "polyamory", where "polygamy" means married to many (or possessing many).

Given that marriage may be loveless, "polygamy" (and "monogamy") may be wholly unrelated to love.

Yes, my words were imprecise. I doubt anyone reading them didn't know what I meant, however. Polyamory is necessarily, at the moment, not Polygamy, for the same reason that most homosexual couples can't get married. I used monogamy to mean a monogamous (including unmarried couples) relationship, and Poly to refer to a Polyamorous one.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on June 12, 2012, 03:58:01 pm
This is all too complicated for me. From now on, I'm going to be strictly origamous.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 12, 2012, 04:38:12 pm
This is all too complicated for me. From now on, I'm going to be strictly origamous.
:D
Watch out for papercuts!
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: ex-Gooserider on June 13, 2012, 02:39:33 am
I'd settle for most any flavour of amory at this point... :-*  One of the bummers of SCI is that certain things don't work right any more.... :'( 

Still love the GF, and we get along OK, but there are certain things that there just isn't any substitute for...

(There was a survey of several year post-injury SCI patients, with the question of what ONE function would they want back, assuming a "cure" that was only good for one function...  Sex beat out walking on the "top 10" list...)

ex-Gooserider

Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 13, 2012, 03:14:00 am
(There was a survey of several year post-injury SCI patients, with the question of what ONE function would they want back, assuming a "cure" that was only good for one function...  Sex beat out walking on the "top 10" list...)

Agreed! But walking is easier to provide. In fact, I saw an exoskeleton pair of legs that are controlled by brainwaves that are letting people walk again. Getting sexual function back would require actually bypassing the injury... Doable, in theory, but very difficult in practice. Still, it's only a matter of time. Heck, we'll probably have the ability to straight up repair the damage in not too long. Hang in there, buddy, medical science is working on it.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on June 13, 2012, 12:54:10 pm
Polyamory is necessarily, at the moment, not Polygamy, for the same reason that most homosexual couples can't get married.

Nonsense; they can most certainly get married.  The issue is whether or not the members of the subset of gangs known as "government" recognize it or not.

Quote
I used monogamy to mean a monogamous (including unmarried couples) relationship, and Poly to refer to a Polyamorous one.

And thus compared apples ("-gamy" -- marriage) and oranges ("-amory" -- love).

Of course to be complete, one should also include peaches ("-fidelity" -- restriction to a set of sexual partners), which are different still.

Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on June 13, 2012, 01:38:06 pm
Incidentally, I think that polygamy, due to the existing of the converse term polyandry, mostly refers to situations where a male has claim to a number of females... sadly the -gamy suffix is very old-fashioned in its meaning. Any kind of -gamy (apart from my Origamy) means "possession of woman by man".
Polyandry of course sucks donkey balls... and I'm not saying this because I'm a guy.
Polyandry actually (in practice) means that a female is the time-share property of several males, leading to a tripled workload, tripled "conjugal duties", etc. etc.... and of course, three times the number of children are expected (though the wife will probably die trying to produce them).
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on June 13, 2012, 01:51:31 pm
Incidentally, I think that polygamy, due to the existing of the converse term polyandry, mostly refers to situations where a male has claim to a number of females... sadly the -gamy suffix is very old-fashioned in its meaning. Any kind of -gamy (apart from my Origamy) means "possession of woman by man".
Polyandry of course sucks donkey balls... and I'm not saying this because I'm a guy.

The inverse of polyandry (Male/Female N:1 -- or perhaps N:0)  is polygyny (Male/Female 1:N, or perhaps 0:N).  Both are subsets of polygamy (which is generally Male/Female M:N).

Quote
Polyandry actually (in practice) means that a female is the time-share property of several males, leading to a tripled workload, tripled "conjugal duties", etc. etc.... and of course, three times the number of children are expected (though the wife will probably die trying to produce them).

In some practice; it would be an error to assume that this is universal. 
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: customdesigned on June 13, 2012, 01:59:21 pm
And, to bring this back to EFT, do we have a marriage proposal in the offing?  Or just a boring actual business proposal?
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on June 13, 2012, 02:12:32 pm
I know that technically polyandry is part of a complementary subset, however, the general behavior of language is that a set that divides into complementary binary constituents is named in use according to the maxim of economy: Of the subsets only the "marked" (i.e. notable, unusual) variant is fully distinguished from the parent set: So, polygynous couplings (grouplings  ::)) aren't actually called polygynous, they're being called polygamous - since it is understood that a polyandrous groupling would be named as such (being the notable, unusual variant).

All these "gamousities" are names for traditional cultures of coupling, that's their real use, to describe traditional ways (meaning, old-fashioned, male-dominate, ownership-based) of marriage. So, well, the traditional marriage types are all particularly tasking of the female. Having that compounded by having multiple males and one female is highly likely to be worse than all the other forms of gamicity. It could be that there are some instances that aren't but I haven't heard of it.
Ironically, the multiple wives scenario is often reviled by feminists because they interpret it to mean that one man is equal to (worth) several women. They usually fail to see that in terms of traditional marriage being a work camp for the woman, having multiple women to one set of chores is actually not so bad...
Not that the specific cultures of polygynous marriage don't do their damndest to make up for and obliterate this benefit.

(Yes, I admit it, I enjoy making up these terms on the fly :D)
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 13, 2012, 02:40:27 pm
I used monogamy to mean a monogamous (including unmarried couples) relationship, and Poly to refer to a Polyamorous one.

And thus compared apples ("-gamy" -- marriage) and oranges ("-amory" -- love).

Of course to be complete, one should also include peaches ("-fidelity" -- restriction to a set of sexual partners), which are different still.
I appreciate your dedication to the English language, and the proper use of same. However, modern usage of "monogamy" has morphed to include all monofidelous relationships. I debated including a parenthetical statement after "Polyamorous one" along the lines of (including those who have had non-state weddings and commitment ceremonies, etc), but I couldn't get the right wording. That one is sufficient, I suppose.

But my imprecise language doesn't invalidate my point.

Monogamy is marrying one person, polygamy is marrying more than one person.
Monamory is loving one person, polyamory is loving more than one person.
Monofidelity is sleeping with one person, polyfidelity is sleeping with more than one person.

Since both marriage and fidelity can certainly be present without love, I'll limit my discussion to -amory. I'll restate my case, using the more precise language:

Polyamory is not at all about infatuation or nor ability to conquer, nor proving that "I still got it". No more than monamory is about keeping one person all to yourself. Monamory is loving one person. Polyamory is loving more than one person. That's all.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: customdesigned on June 13, 2012, 02:50:19 pm

Since both marriage and fidelity can certainly be present without love, I'll limit my discussion to -amory.


I'm not sure if I agree or disagree until you define "love".
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 13, 2012, 02:57:40 pm
Since both marriage and fidelity can certainly be present without love, I'll limit my discussion to -amory.
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree until you define "love".

I did that already, or rather, I let Sv. Heinlein do it for me. I'll repeat:
Quote
Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: wdg3rd on June 13, 2012, 03:12:15 pm

Polyandry of course sucks donkey balls... and I'm not saying this because I'm a guy.
Polyandry actually (in practice) means that a female is the time-share property of several males, leading to a tripled workload, tripled "conjugal duties", etc. etc.... and of course, three times the number of children are expected (though the wife will probably die trying to produce them).

It worked for my first marriage for longer than my own parents' "until death do us part" monogamy.  No children were ever planned and none happened.  Happened that two men loved one woman and had great respect for each other (happened to have been fast friends since early teens).
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 13, 2012, 03:23:28 pm
And, to bring this back to EFT, do we have a marriage proposal in the offing?  Or just a boring actual business proposal?

I never really looked at it that way, but you're right, the way he phrased it could be a marriage proposal, but as there's been no (visible) romance between the two, I don't find it too likely that it's anything but a business proposal, especially given the title of the arc.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: mellyrn on June 13, 2012, 05:41:27 pm
Quote
having multiple women to one set of chores is actually not so bad...

Hell, yeah!  I deeply, deeply appreciate my guy's girlfriends.  Despite what sam says, I've never had much libido, and see no reason why my guy should have to "keep down" with me.  He has good taste in women, so I get extra friends.

Quote
Ironically, the multiple wives scenario is often reviled by feminists because they interpret it to mean that one man is equal to (worth) several women.

Strange it is, since I see the same thing as evidence of the expendability of men.  One hard-lovin' man to 1000 women -- by the time he gets back around to the first one, if she conceived, birthed & suckled successfully, she's ready to go again (from a purely reproductive outlook).

But I like men so I think, being technically expendable means that you're kept around because you're actually wanted.

Quote
Happened that two men loved one woman and had great respect for each other (happened to have been fast friends since early teens).

Awww, that is totally adorable!  Thank you, or something.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on June 13, 2012, 06:32:33 pm
It worked for my first marriage for longer than my own parents' "until death do us part" monogamy.  No children were ever planned and none happened.  Happened that two men loved one woman and had great respect for each other (happened to have been fast friends since early teens).

Yeah, I can understand and imagine that, but like I said, the terms are really for traditional patterns (and those are usually quite harsh, since traditionally, life was hard and then you died).
I think modern and advanced arrangements between people who climb above the mere culture would probably need new terms to describe them.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: wdg3rd on June 13, 2012, 08:23:42 pm
Quote
Happened that two men loved one woman and had great respect for each other (happened to have been fast friends since early teens).

Awww, that is totally adorable!  Thank you, or something.


Adorable wouldn't be a term I'd use, but thank you or something.

Things broke up when Bill went sociopathic on us.  Spent their legal anniversary (I wasn't legal) holed up it the bedroom with a 16-year-old daughter of some SCA friends.  (Legally married her later, had his vasectomy reversed and they've apparently raised a passle of born-again kids).  (Bill had been as atheist as me when we met and throughout our mutual experiences, but he was more obnoxiously protestant than I'd been raised when he tracked me down and emailed me in the late 90s, my name being easy to find and his common as mildew so I can't check how he is since that email exchange went away when a hard drive self-destructed).

The whole time we were married was risky as hell.  For much of it all three of us were in the USAF and "Don't ask don't tell" wasn't even a concept.  And until I got out, it was a part-time thing since while they were stationed together I was stationed elsewhere and that wasn't close.  Though there was one happy time when I had a three week TDY to the base they were at, the rest of our time together was when they or I could take leave and that was only a few weeks per year.  Until I got out and could go permanent.  Risk still existed since they were still in (she'd signed up for six years, he'd re-enlisted).  And of course, I was technically in the "inactive reserve" for a few years.  If we'd been busted, there would have been unpleasantness.

Then Bill screwed everything up, I wound up back in Los Angeles with my future second wife, Naomi's six ended and she returned to the east coast.  Ten years later I got back in touch with Naomi, spent some (celibate) time with her and Michael and they introduced me to one of his "ex" lovers.  (Mike and Lisa still went at it like crazed minks every now and then until we lost Mike a couple years back).  (And whatever four or so people do behind closed doors is none of Jerry Falwell's or the government's business whatever those assholes would prefer).

Waiting for a call back from Naomi.  Just got Lisa's ashes home.  Hoping she'll go with me up to New Hampshire so I can scatter Lisa from a viewpoint she loved, the Kangamagus Highway facing the Presidential Range of the White Mountains.  Probably pull Lisa's dad out and scatter him a few miles along, though I suspect he'd have preferred to be scattered where the janitor of a Hamburg brothel would have to sweep up the mess (the man had some stories).
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: sam on June 14, 2012, 12:27:49 am
It worked for my first marriage for longer than my own parents' "until death do us part" monogamy.  No children were ever planned and none happened.  Happened that two men loved one woman and had great respect for each other (happened to have been fast friends since early teens).

This usually works out in favor of one man, and to the disfavor of all the others.  The chick bangs one guy, while the others orbit hoping for leftovers.  The orbiters hope that when the one man blows the relationship up, mistreats the chick, which he usually does, the chick will start giving them the sex they deserve, but, when the relationship with the one man blows up, she does not, and instead finds some other way to self destruct.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: myrkul999 on June 14, 2012, 12:49:38 am
This usually works out in favor of one man, and to the disfavor of all the others.  The chick bangs one guy, while the others orbit hoping for leftovers.  The orbiters hope that when the one man blows the relationship up, mistreats the chick, which he usually does, the chick will start giving them the sex they deserve, but, when the relationship with the one man blows up, she does not, and instead finds some other way to self destruct.

That the way it worked in all of your Poly relationships, is it? ::)
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: Andreas on June 14, 2012, 03:44:38 am
Why did the chick cross the road?


To get away from Sam  :D  :D  :D

Srsly, if people are that fond of poultry, they should get each their own.
Title: Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT?
Post by: ex-Gooserider on June 15, 2012, 02:13:22 am
If folks haven't seen it, the Church of All Worlds had a very famous article called "A Bouquet of Lovers" which was very good at describing how to do a poly relationship in a reasonably safe way, both emotionally and medically...  Should be easily findable w/ Google...

People might disagree with it, but it seemed pretty reasonable to me, and definitely worth a read if considering any flavour of "poly" (other than "ester" :P)

ex-Gooserider