Mrlonelyone Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) I see statements like this on here allot when the issue of a man who is with a GF confronting a single man comes up. http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3724363&postcount=32 I think most men would steer clear of that for fear of having their faces beat in upon discovery. Why is there an assumption that a man with a BF would win a fight? Why say that? Why assume that a man with a GF is going to beat up a man without a GF? The BF may just loose. How many women have said "I have a boyfriend" to Mike Tyson? Edited November 11, 2011 by Mrlonelyone
zengirl Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 I guess my questions are different. . . Why would anyone want to fight a girl's boyfriend so he can hit on her? Why would any girl want two guys to get into a physical fight over her and why would any guy want a girl who wanted that? That said, I don't think the assumption is always that said man would LOSE a fight. Just. . . more like. . . in a fight, usually both people get hurt (very few are uneven enough to be one-sided), so . . . why bother?
Author Mrlonelyone Posted November 11, 2011 Author Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Why would anyone want to fight a girl's boyfriend so he can hit on her? Why would any girl want two guys to get into a physical fight over her and why would any guy want a girl who wanted that? To that I can only go back to the old standby of evolutionary psychology and triune brain theory. Some folks handle their personal life with their R-complex and limbic system. Instinctive, sefish, emotional, and illogical it's like Pon Farr on Vulcan.* Why do some met get off on the idea of a cat fight? Same reason? . I guess what I'm looking for is an alternative to that kind of logic on this. Here's something interesting. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080602214132.htm Men Fighting Over Women? It's Nothing New, Suggests Research ScienceDaily (June 2, 2008) — Men may usually settle it over a drunken brawl in the pub or perhaps a verbal spat -- but new evidence has shown for the first time that fighting over women in prehistoric times could have been worse than that. A mass grave of skeletons investigated by Durham University-led researchers suggests that neighbouring tribes from prehistoric times were prepared to brutally kill their male rivals to secure their women. Let's not forget the mythic rape of the sabine women at the founding of Rome. Edited November 11, 2011 by Mrlonelyone
oaks Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 To that I can only go back to the old standby of evolutionary psychology and triune brain theory. This again? *yawn* I'm not sure who you're dating, but I'd like to think that I'm dating more highly evolved women who aren't just a bundle of involuntary nerve twitching and hormonal responses.
Author Mrlonelyone Posted November 11, 2011 Author Posted November 11, 2011 Oaks. I'm sad to say that an ascended being like yourself feels that way about your mamalian origins. Surely you make whoever you date twitch...in that certain way every once in a while. he he he.
oaks Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Oaks. I'm sad to say that an ascended being like yourself feels that way about your mamalian origins. Surely you make whoever you date twitch...in that certain way every once in a while. he he he. Oh, yes. While I can reduce her to twitching, if I'm lucky, I'd like to think that she's more than that, like I said.
serial muse Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 I see statements like this on here allot when the issue of a man who is with a GF confronting a single man comes up. http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3724363&postcount=32 Why is there an assumption that a man with a BF would win a fight? Why say that? Why assume that a man with a GF is going to beat up a man without a GF? The BF may just loose. How many women have said "I have a boyfriend" to Mike Tyson? I think you're over-analyzing. The implied assumption is not that the BF has stronger fighting skills. The implied assumption is merely that the BF has more invested, and therefore potentially more interest in fighting, period. There really isn't more to this.
zengirl Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Right. And it's kind of a lose-lose, because even if the girl is turned on by fighting (rare enough), she may just be happy her BF fought for her, regardless of the victory, and he may just get an awesome, "Thanks for standing up for me!" BJ or whatever people do in your weird theory that reduces us to mere animals (which we are, but we are so much more!), even if he doesn't beat you to a bloody pulp. So, where's the gain for the other guy, really? I'm thinking it's PRETTY damn rare that a girl leaves with another guy besides her BF for another because some other guy beat him up, and those girls are probably with guys with some fighting skills if they're at all desirable to anyone. . . since that's apparently what they go for.
EasyHeart Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Why is there an assumption that a man with a BF would win a fight? Why say that? Why assume that a man with a GF is going to beat up a man without a GF? The BF may just loose. How many women have said "I have a boyfriend" to Mike Tyson?i don't think there's any assumption that the BF is necessarily a better fighter. The assumption is that the non-BF would either get cold-cocked or would have no reason to fight. "Gimme three steps, gimme three steps mister and you'll never see me no more."
Woggle Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Because if he loses that fight he knows she is leaving with the other guy.
Nexus One Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Mrlonelyone, are you implying a guy should fight in order to win over a girl who already has a boyfriend? Fights in the real world are not like gentlemen's fights in Star Trek. Have you ever witnessed violent fights? Broken noses, dislocated jaws, people getting nearly choked to death, etc. Not to mention the lawsuits and jail time that could follow. Edited November 11, 2011 by Nexus One
dasein Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 The guy whom she leaves with is the winner in one sense, so maybe that's what they are talking about.
Mme. Chaucer Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Anyway, I don't think that first post you linked to really meant to illustrate a fight, with the boyfriend winning. It was more like some guy won't stop hitting on your girlfriend, so you go over and punch him in the face. I didn't get the idea that a real mano a mano fight was implied by that post.
Author Mrlonelyone Posted November 12, 2011 Author Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) Mrlonelyone, are you implying a guy should fight in order to win over a girl who already has a boyfriend? I trying to explain the oft repeated "her boyfriend will beat you up". This is heard here and elsewhere. I posited my tried and true evolutionary hypothesis, that when it comes to mating, most of what we do is beyond our concious control. We may feel in control but be about as in control as deer in rutting season. Fights in the real world are not like gentlemen's fights in Star Trek. Have you ever witnessed violent fights? Broken noses, dislocated jaws, people getting nearly choked to death, etc. Not to mention the lawsuits and jail time that could follow. Yes of course I have seen real violent fights. I live in one of the inner ring suburbs of Chicago IL. Not quite ghetto, but not white picket fences either. Wait, Spock trying to cut Kirk in half, then practically rape that woman was gentlemanly? The point was that in real life in our own way, we are just as unreasonable about who we choose and how we choose them. Our, higher brain is very good at rationalizing the irrational and random things we do. @Dasein That could be, could be. However suppose the BF backs away from a confrontation. What happens when the woman is like those on here who say they need the man to make them feel "safe and protected"? Someone who gets his @$$ beat or who runs from a fight can't really do that. Edited November 12, 2011 by Mrlonelyone
Mme. Chaucer Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 An angry guy with adrenaline pumping has an advantage over a happy guy cluelessly messing around with a young lady, in most cases.
Author Mrlonelyone Posted November 12, 2011 Author Posted November 12, 2011 Yeah... I think both guys would have a fair amount of adrenaline pumping. There are some warrior societies, famously the spartans, who thought that a man with a wife was less motivated to win a fight.
Woggle Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 A wife is not really the issue. A person with more to lose will do the most protect it. You try to take away what I worked hard for and it will be over my dead body.
Author Mrlonelyone Posted November 12, 2011 Author Posted November 12, 2011 That may explain their reasoning. Not that it really works out that way since who wins a fight has allot more to do with training, physical conditioning, and possibly proficiency with weapons and tactics than motivation.
Andy_K Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 That may explain their reasoning. Not that it really works out that way since who wins a fight has allot more to do with training, physical conditioning, and possibly proficiency with weapons and tactics than motivation. I would tend to agree with Mme Chaucer. The guy who's being cheated on has motivation, anger, adrenaline, etc. The guy who's just been caught doesn't want to fight at all. He's not mentally or physically ready for it, and unless he's had good warning - which is unlikely in these situations - he's going to be at a disadvantage. He's probably not even going to try to hurt the other guy until he's already been hurt himself. Who wins a fair fight is about training, conditioning, etc. But this sort of situation is never a fair fight, and most of the time you couldn't even call it a fight - more like one guy assaulting another.
Recommended Posts