underpants Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 My goodness, Everyone's underpants got in a knot over the word 'test'. Is not dating and relationships a series of tests in a sense? How you deal with situations or attractions. How you communicate with each other and more importantly how you listen. I will agree that to intentionally try to bambozzle someone is in bad taste. To do so with an ulterior motive is dishonest. However, if there is an issue both partners have a choice in how to proceed. Some relationship hurdles are easy to work through. Others challenge (or test) one of the parties and sometimes that influences the other party and their decision making process. Some hurdles are dealbreakers and result in termination of the relationship. All hurdles being subjective.
blackbird Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 My goodness, Everyone's underpants got in a knot over the word 'test'. Is not dating and relationships a series of tests in a sense? How you deal with situations or attractions. How you communicate with each other and more importantly how you listen. I will agree that to intentionally try to bambozzle someone is in bad taste. To do so with an ulterior motive is dishonest. However, if there is an issue both partners have a choice in how to proceed. Some relationship hurdles are easy to work through. Others challenge (or test) one of the parties and sometimes that influences the other party and their decision making process. Some hurdles are dealbreakers and result in termination of the relationship. All hurdles being subjective. There are tests, and there are tests. The important difference I see is whether the people in the relationship are seeing something as a test -- a challenge -- for them to weather together as a team, or a test that one person is giving to the other person, separated.
Trimmer Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 (edited) I will agree that to intentionally try to bambozzle someone is in bad taste. To do so with an ulterior motive is dishonest. That's it for me right there. I agree that we are constantly testing each other. I fully expect a woman, after a date with me, to go home and ask herself: how do I feel about this evening? What kind of a listener was he? How did he handle that wierd situation in front of the restaurant? How did he treat the waiter?.... And at the same time, as I'm brushing my teeth that evening, I'm also going through a review of results from all of the ad hoc "tests" that life threw in front of us during the evening. That is largely the point of dating. Dating is experimental - you throw some stuff at the wall and see what sticks. You try some stuff, and you observe the results. I don't even mind a real test being put out there: she suggests her favorite restaurant, to see if I like the same kinds of foods as she. She introduces me to friends to see if we get along... Even if I'm not fully aware of these "tests", I'm still OK with them - I still see them as honest. The part where I bristle is exactly the point you state above: where a "test" is put out there with a deceptive premise, designed for the purpose of seeing if it will entrap me. An intentionally inaccurate picture of the world is painted - not just a little off, but fully the opposite of reality - and I am watched for the right response. I'm not worried so much about my "falling for it", as I don't think I would, so I'm not even insulted at the possibility of being entrapped. My concern is the deceptive painting of the world. As I think someone pointed out already, that fails my test. Edited February 15, 2008 by Trimmer
underpants Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 I'm not worried so much about my "falling for it", as I don't think I would, so I'm not even insulted at the possibility of being entrapped. My concern is the deceptive painting of the world. As I think someone pointed out already, that fails my test. I cut you post short. However I feel like I will post soon under your unedited version. All of which was great. Also, perhaps, in my leap of empathy. A wise post(s) from a soul that has felt the skid marks and pressure of a bus being rolled over them. Better and a bus survivor (tunnel explorer) that has been able eventually to stand up and realize that they can walk away...remarkably unharmed, and healed through an overall wisdom. See others for who they are. To play fair is to let them see you for who you are.
Trimmer Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 See others for who they are. To play fair is to let them see you for who you are. There you go... It so often happens that I spend hundreds of lines and tens of paragraphs saying something, and someone else comes along and wraps it up in two sentences. There you go.
shadowofman Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 I think the whole point of this test, whether it is manipulative or not, is to determine the sexual orientation of your potential partner. It is a big issue in every relationship and it deserves special concideration. Lets take the monogamous woman's perspective just for arguements sake. And let us assume that half of all potential and available men are promiscuously oriented. The other half would prefer a monogamous relationship. How is one to know if you are a compatable couple. Half of all men are monogamous and will admit to this, because, well they would have no reason to lie about it. The other half, when asked, might give a variety of answers. 1) Some (few) will be completely honest and admit that one woman will never be enough for them. They will have learned throughout their life, that you will never find a girl this way. 2) Some will, in the excitement of this new relationship, convince themselves one of two things. I can be monogamous for this girl, or she will eventually become interested in threesomes (or whatnot). These men will either lie and say they are interested in monogamy, assuming that the woman is asking because she is interested in monogamy as well. 3) Some men will automatically claim monogamy, and with total intention, live a life of the "cheater". This is the easiest, most selfish route, and the one most taken. So the trick is seperating the real monogamous men, from the 2nd and 3rd types. An important point, both these types are already being manipulative. So what is the best way to catch this fact without wasting years in a relationship that will eventually cause pain?
Trimmer Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 So what is the best way to catch this fact without wasting years in a relationship that will eventually cause pain? An excellent question for discussion. If I might suggest a further condition, though: I'm a self-identified member of your monogamy-capable-and- preferred group (demonstrated from the beginning right to the end of an 18-year relationship, 13-years married, if you request my credentials...) I would suggest that in your "what is the best way" question, you consider that you would like to screen out the "bad ones", but at the same time, without compromising the "good ones." My premise is that a test that may be quite effective at weeding out the non-monogamous ones may also kill off (or sicken, or at least infect) many of the good ones. The insecticide that sickens you when you eat the crop, the stick of dynamite thrown into the lake that kills the invading predators, but also everything else within a thousand yards, a cure that may be worse than the disease... So consider, when you are trying to weed out the bad ones, that there's a 50-50 chance that you've got one of the good ones in front of you... What can you do to preserve some of the purity of a possible future relationship if that turns out to be the case?
shadowofman Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 Exactly, so I am asking, can this test be applied to all without "infecting" the good ones? I think it can if done carefully and correctly.
Trimmer Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 Exactly, so I am asking, can this test be applied to all without "infecting" the good ones? I think it can if done carefully and correctly. When you say "this test" are you talking about the "pretending you are open to an open relationship when you really aren't" test? Or when you asked "what is the best way" were you opening the floor for alternate suggestions? If you're talking about the deceptively based "how about an open relationship" test, I just think that test, as stated, has to at least plant some weird seeds... If I'm one of the ones you would want to keep, then after passing the test, either: (1) I know you tried to trap me, or (2) I'm pretty sure you tried to trap me, or (3) I'm clueless, but I now believe and quietly worry that you are interested in an open relationship, or (4) I'm clueless, and I discuss with you why you are so willing to have an open relationship. At this point, you can continue to deceive me in some way, or admit that you are actually not, in which case, we slide back to (1): now I know you tried to trap me. I guess the question is, are these dynamics worth the benefit you get from running the test?
shadowofman Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 I am asking if there are any alternative methods of discovery. And also stating that I think there are none. Other than that it is total trust, and a possible wasted year, or two, or twenty. Or you could just let them expose themselves as they are prone to do. Claim your monogamous nature, but never stress or demand or act jealous, what have you. When the promiscuous man then suggests some sort of promiscuity, you'll recognize the deal breaker. The point here is not to create an environment where he already knows not to ask. Won't catch the 3rd type though.
Miyamoto Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 This is a great thread. Everything depends on the relationship itself. There are guy and girl swingers who don't mind sharing. Myself, I feel like I could do that, but I was perfectly happy being sexually monogamous with my ex. I don't know anyone, single or not, who doesn't see someone of the opposite sex that gets their blood going at some point in time. No one person has the monopoly on attractiveness. It just depends on what you do with it. Is your partner ok with it? Then do it. If not, and you love them, then don't. It's all about communication to me.
older_no_wiser Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 I agree completely that people should be honest up front. But then, things and people do change. I used to find it extremely difficult to be monogamous. I thought I always would. But with my last partner, I was totally monogamous for 9 years. it wasn't an effort. Iwasn't "trying" - it was just that nobody else interested me. Not ever. Not once. And even after 9 years, just having him in my company meant I had eyes for nobody else. We also both agreed that the bond that we felt we shared, grew stronger - which in turn made the bed even better - the longer we focused inwards on us as a couple. That to have done anything with anybody else would instantly have killed the quality of what we had. And neither of us wanted to take that risk. I also have male friends who have known since the day the married that they had no intention of being faithful. And haven't been. Why bother? Why not be open and find somebody who shares your point of view????
shadowofman Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Typically, the guy that never has any intention of being faithful is the same that demands fidelity from his partner. He would not be able to enter into an open relationship, because he has that biological need to possess. Probably unable to empathsis with women at all, at least one he thinks he possesses. A chauvinist or whatever. Same goes for women that will call a cheating man a pig in an instant, and then the other moment sleep around. This is not a gender specific trait. These people carry a need to be promiscuous and a need to possess. Nature's catch 22 of human sexuality.
Trimmer Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Typically, the guy that never has any intention of being faithful is the same that demands fidelity from his partner. He would not be able to enter into an open relationship, because he has that biological need to possess. Probably unable to empathsis with women at all, at least one he thinks he possesses. A chauvinist or whatever. So at the same time as you think there is no preferable alternative to "the test", and that it can be used well if "done carefully and correctly," you also grant that it will fail to catch the majority of cheater types (in your types 2 and 3), who will either detect it outright, or naturally deceive anyway... So how is it worth doing?
shadowofman Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Well, maybe its not worth doing. I think there are other ways of determining a chauvanist other than this test. It is the type 2 that is the trickest one, because these men don't really know themselves enought.
cutegirl Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 I agree with everything Shadowman said. Shadowman, you explained my reasoning for these tests; it's to avoid the guys who lie to themselves perhaps about being able to be monogamous and guys who pretend to be monogamous because they know that's the way to get the girl. Trimmer, you also have very good points. The tests can backfire because if I tested a "good guy" now he might think that I want an open relationship or become aware of the fact that I tested him. I think often I might have "tested" guys but without even planning to do it, it somehow just happened naturally, it was more of a way to try and "fish" out someone's true intentions because I know a lot of guys can hide their true intentions in order to get what they want. I feel that sometimes you have to dig a bit to find the truth. I have never analyzed the pros and cons of these "tests" in detail though and I gained some new perspective reading the pros and cons etc (Trimmer) and reading Shadowman's reasoning of the purpose of conducting these tests...
shadowofman Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 I think as long as you are completely honest about it after your questions, there would be no harm.
mental_traveller Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 I agree with everything Shadowman said. Shadowman, you explained my reasoning for these tests; it's to avoid the guys who lie to themselves perhaps about being able to be monogamous and guys who pretend to be monogamous because they know that's the way to get the girl. You don't need to pretend to be monogamous to get the girl. The guy I know who has the most success with women is very open about having multiple girlfriends - he has about 4 or 5 girlfriends on the go, they all know he is not monogamous, and don't mind.
mortensorchid Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 Women are just as likely to cheat as men are. In fact, I think there is a double standard when it comes to cheating. Men cheat and it's a bit more accepted, but when women cheat it's considered a terrible thing. But, women can get away with it a bit more because we're a bit slicker.
shadowofman Posted February 25, 2008 Posted February 25, 2008 I don't think women cheating is concidered more terrible than when a man cheats. I think women are more likely to stay with cheating men. I also think women are more likely to cheat because of a lack of emotional/romantic attention in a relationship, whereas men are more likelyto cheat for emotionless sexual gratification.
Recommended Posts