Double-Standards in Dating

[njoylife]

No, I don't generally consider them such. Plenty of other women don't either.

 

Or may be my observations are not so accurate Who knows, in the end it may be all up to the person. Hard to prove.....We have to question 1000 guys/girls same age range this same question and then see what's the truth hahaha :D Any website for polls?

[njoylife]

Talk to any male player and there is a trail of broken hearts he has left behind. There is a lot of overlap.

 

What if the girls were searching for exactly this, a casual sex and were happy and there is not a single broken heart?

 

Or may be "player" has the meaning of promising a girl a relationship but dumping her after? In that case yes.

But for me a player doesn't have to be a dickhead and lie to women, he is a player just because women like him and he has a lot of sex due to his qualities.

Lying and promising something is another story.

[autumnnight]

Talk to any male player and there is a trail of broken hearts he has left behind. There is a lot of overlap.

 

That is true. That overlap group is the one I sometimes call "women who are naive who want a relationship."

 

I used to be that woman. All it took was one master player to cure me. And he didn't even have to sleep with me. He was that good

[PrettyEmily77]

What if the girls were searching for exactly this, a casual sex and were happy and there is not a single broken heart?

 

Or may be "player" has the meaning of promising a girl a relationship but dumping her after? In that case yes.

But for me a player doesn't have to be a dickhead and lie to women, he is a player just because women like him and he has a lot of sex due to his qualities.

Lying and promising something is another story.

 

Scenario 1 = consensual casual sex. No one is a player?

 

Scenario 2 = prime azzhole.

 

Successful with women =/= player, IMO. A guy doesn't have to sleep with a ton of women to be successul / charming / appealing to women.

 

I personally put no value whatsoever in the number of women a guy may or may not have slept with. His character is more important than that to me, but I know plenty of women who would not approach a high number guy with a barge pole.

[William]

Noting a trend in wordsmithing which LoveShack.org is now actively working to reverse, I'll point to a directive in another thread and bookmark it as applicable in this thread as well, since I noted the topic drifting into adjectives regarding individuals or groups of individuals versus double standards in dating:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/dating/544524-dating-woman-who-has-slept-around-6.html#post6511406

 

These reminders of policy regarding language generally delineate where and when we note such language which contravenes our guidelines of discussion and hence direct members to limit such language and remain focused on the topic, here double-standards in dating, and treat all groups and individuals in a respectful manner.

 

Members of course are free to not read or ignore our directives; regardless, the rules remain and violating them leaves members open to sanction. Thanks for your participation and please continue the discussion on double standards in dating.

[Quiet Storm]

That's fine... both autumn and Quietstorm, but the rest of us don't have to buy into these stereotypes or coddle others that do.

 

 

I suppose people are free to conclude that biology dictates everything, but I believe that societal factors play a bigger role, and that's where it's up to everyone not to support double standards or those who have them... because basically, that's where it all starts. It all starts with what we, as a society, choose to support or not support.

 

 

To me, someone who has double standards is character flawed and lacking in integrity... simple as that.

 

Whether you believe the feelings are biological, societal, emotional or character related- I think certain double standards create anger and passionate responses because they are deeply engrained feelings that aren't usually changed by facts, examples, articles, science, etc.

 

I understand the frustration, though, because many stereotypes frustrate me, as well. I could name 50 honest, law abiding, tax paying people in Baltimore, but many people will still assume their all criminals on welfare. Just like we could show 50 women with high numbered pasts who are faithful wives now, but many men would still judge them. Or line up 50 hot short guys for a short girl who is only attracted to talk guys. Or 50 awesome broke guys who can't afford dinner but have many positive traits. Sometimes there comes a point where trying to prove things and change people is like talking to a wall- and that's creates the anger, frustration and "hypocrite!" posts.

 

It's not that we should coddle people who have double standards, it's just acceptance of reality. Should I get myself worked up about the opinions of people who really don't matter to me? Is it better to try to change opinions and prove a person's worthiness? Or better to just accept that these people aren't worth your time and surround yourself with people who already value and respect you? The answer to that varies depending on the individual.

[Rejected Rosebud]

I don't think that having a preference even a really strong one for something that is very different from yourself is a gender based double standard. For example a fat guy wanting a girl with a perfect figure or a waitress wanting to date a doctor.

 

where it becomes a double standard is when it becomes a universal trope like: It's okay if a guy has a "high number" but it's different for a girl, or it's a guys duty to pay for dates because he is a guy, stuff like that.

[Pull n Pray]

I mean, naturally men would also like women that are liked by many other men, it's just natural to like to most appealing people, if my girlfriend is hot, she is hot, she's gonna be much wanted. Same applies for guys. But I doubt that just the knowledge that a man is wanted, increased attraction. The thought in both men and women goes like : He/She is very wanted, he must have something other people like, may be I will also like him, so it's like a social thingy that increases your value. But it's same for both genders.

 

According to this study, it is not the same for both genders.

 

"But single women showed a distinct preference for mate poaching. When the man was described as unattached, 59 percent of the single women were interested in pursuing him. When that same man was described as being in a committed relationship, 90 percent were interested."

[autumnnight]

According to this study, it is not the same for both genders.

 

"But single women showed a distinct preference for mate poaching. When the man was described as unattached, 59 percent of the single women were interested in pursuing him. When that same man was described as being in a committed relationship, 90 percent were interested."

 

One study. I don't really care; it still doesn't apply to me.

[jen1447]

Here's how I see it. The woman is requiring the man to posses an attribute (average or above average height) that she herself does not posses. She has just as much a right to pursue a tall man as a promiscuous man has to pursue a low-partner-count woman. They are both applying double-standards. The source of the standards (inherent vs. past choices) is not relevant.

The source of the standards is entirely relevant bc it demonstrates volition/discretion, which is sth that can be faulty, whereas innate physical traits can't. Double standards are born from the ability of ppl to make decisions about things and exercise volition. They don't just happen.

 

The woman has no inherent obligation to date short men just bc she's short, and she's entitled to her preferences. She hasn't actually contradicted herself just by being a short person who likes tall ppl. The man's criteria tho is a behavior, not a physical trait, and a behavior that he himself violates, i.e. a double standard. He contradicts himself by requiring partner-number standards that he doesn't abide by himself.

 

Really don't see why this is so hard to grasp.

[Shining One]

I don't think that having a preference even a really strong one for something that is very different from yourself is a gender based double standard. For example a fat guy wanting a girl with a perfect figure or a waitress wanting to date a doctor.

 

where it becomes a double standard is when it becomes a universal trope like: It's okay if a guy has a "high number" but it's different for a girl, or it's a guys duty to pay for dates because he is a guy, stuff like that.

By this reasoning, there are no double-standards because there are plenty of exceptions to "universal tropes".

[Els]

By this reasoning, there are no double-standards because there are plenty of exceptions to "universal tropes".

 

A trope is a figure of speech, not a reality. Someone using the figure of speech is practising a double standard regardless of whether or not there exist exceptions to his trope in reality (and of course they exist, in fact most generalizations hold little water, but I digress).

 

I don't get why you keep ignoring this point.

[Pull n Pray]

The source of the standards is entirely relevant bc it demonstrates volition/discretion, which is sth that can be faulty, whereas innate physical traits can't. Double standards are born from the ability of ppl to make decisions about things and exercise volition. They don't just happen.

 

The woman has no inherent obligation to date short men just bc she's short, and she's entitled to her preferences. She hasn't actually contradicted herself just by being a short person who likes tall ppl. The man's criteria tho is a behavior, not a physical trait, and a behavior that he himself violates, i.e. a double standard. He contradicts himself by requiring partner-number standards that he doesn't abide by himself.

 

Really don't see why this is so hard to grasp.

 

So by your rationale, women who don't want to date men who cry as much as they do are being hypocritical since crying is a behavior. Correct? And the waitress who prefers to date men with ambitious careers?

Edited August 27, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Fix link

[jay1983]

According to this study, it is not the same for both genders.

 

"But single women showed a distinct preference for mate poaching. When the man was described as unattached, 59 percent of the single women were interested in pursuing him. When that same man was described as being in a committed relationship, 90 percent were interested."

 

That would explain the heavy volume in the OM/OW section.

[jen1447]

So by your rationale, women who don't want to date men who cry as much as they do are being hypocritical since crying is a behavior. Correct? And the waitress who prefers to date men with ambitious careers?

 

^ Not sure what you're referring to since your link doesn't work, but the determining factor would indeed be volitional or discretionary behavior that contradicts the standard, not simply "behavior" (walking, eating, etc.).

Edited August 27, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Fixed quote link and attribution

[kilgore]

^ Not sure what you're referring to since your link doesn't work, but the determining factor would indeed be volitional or discretionary behavior that contradicts the standard, not simply "behavior" (walking, eating, etc.).

 

It does seem like you're making a fairly obvious point. The push back is confusing

[William]

Regarding the linked thread that wasn't working, I fixed it. No determination on relevance though. Busy doing other stuff. If any issues, alert us. Thanks.

[RedRobin]

I get it. It's a growing trend I see these days that a woman cannot be criticized, but its open season on men. Gotcha.

 

 

Not really. What she's saying is that you can't help how you were born (tall, short, black, white, etc) but you can choose how many people you sleep with.

 

 

I'm not quite as on board with her definitions of double standards though... If a shorter than average woman won't date a shorter than average guy (let's say that makes him similar height to her), then yea, that seems like a double standard and hypocritical to me.

 

 

But hey, I personally don't go walking around with a check list. I'm white... I'm not opposed to dating black men at all, but I've met maybe one or two in my life that I was attracted to... and lots more of them were attracted to me than the other way around. They might assume (incorrectly) that it was due to their color, but it wasn't. I wish I could explain it, but I really can't. That's how a lot of people's preferences are. Most people don't put a lot of thought into them or couldn't explain it even if they tried.

[RedRobin]

Whether you believe the feelings are biological, societal, emotional or character related- I think certain double standards create anger and passionate responses because they are deeply engrained feelings that aren't usually changed by facts, examples, articles, science, etc.

 

I understand the frustration, though, because many stereotypes frustrate me, as well. I could name 50 honest, law abiding, tax paying people in Baltimore, but many people will still assume their all criminals on welfare. Just like we could show 50 women with high numbered pasts who are faithful wives now, but many men would still judge them. Or line up 50 hot short guys for a short girl who is only attracted to talk guys. Or 50 awesome broke guys who can't afford dinner but have many positive traits. Sometimes there comes a point where trying to prove things and change people is like talking to a wall- and that's creates the anger, frustration and "hypocrite!" posts.

 

It's not that we should coddle people who have double standards, it's just acceptance of reality. Should I get myself worked up about the opinions of people who really don't matter to me? Is it better to try to change opinions and prove a person's worthiness? Or better to just accept that these people aren't worth your time and surround yourself with people who already value and respect you? The answer to that varies depending on the individual.

 

I'm not real sure where this angry rant or the post about biology that included me came from (since I never even mentioned biology).

 

Bottom line, whether we like it or not, we can't control other people, their preferences, or what we perceive to be their hypocrisy. That is reality. It has nothing to do with thinking for myself or lack of intelligence. It has to do with observation and living in the real world.

 

I'm 5'10" My powers of observation tell me that men prefer petite women - even men who are 6'4".

 

Guess what? No matter how much I rant or pontificate or belittle them....those men are not going to have some epiphany, dump their petite girlfriend, and come after me (especially after I bitched at them). It is what it is.

 

There are some men who DO like 5'10" women, so instead of acting as if tall men dating short women is a moral issue, I'll use my energy to appeal to those men who like tall women.

 

Not about biology; it's about reality and emotional intelligence.

 

 

Great, glad at least one of you isn't supporting the bio-directive line of thinking.

 

 

I personally don't think double standards are inevitable. Claiming it is about 'reality' is like saying... oh, all humans are murderers at heart because lots are. Or, that there is nothing we can do to stop people from killing each other.

 

 

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not comparing those with double standards to a murderer, but I do believe having them is just as much a choice as those who choose other bad behaviors. And since this is a thread about double standards, it seems the appropriate place to be 'angry' about those who hold them or enforce them or excuse them.

[Woggle]

I don't believe in the biology thing but many people have deeply entrenched views that no amount of logic and preaching will change. As long as they hurt nobody they have the right to decide who they will and won't date.

[SummerDreams]

Many of us have dating preferences that are double-standards. We expect something from a partner that we ourselves do not bring to the table.

 

I dont even know what this means. Who said that couples should be alike, have the same personalities, looks, ways of thinking etc? In fact nature made it this way that the people that are not alike are attracted by each other. A man doesnt have to be obese to be attracted to curvy girls. A woman doesnt have to be tall to prefer tall guys, and so on and on. This is why they call it "preferances", because they are unique for each individual.

[todreaminblue]

I dont think it really matters what society expects as normal or right....i think what really matters is if the couple together want to make it work....and then whatever differences occur...can be used in a positive way and as another poster said supplement and compliment each other is another idea i like........what would i know though.......this is only a personal opinion...and i am not one to easily fit in society wise....but then...dont know if i really want to fit in ......and be found wanting....

 

 

i think ill just be with a guy who does compliment me who maybe is a bit more stable than sometimes i feel...someone who can be by my side..........no matter what society is doing or who is dating who

 

 

.and a guy who is gentle and understanding of my flaws as i would be of his....we all have them..and i would want to support my guy in being the best he could be no matter his financial status or looks or height for that matter.,..i would expect the same back...society can go suck a lemon...its rather nice with salt.....deb

[Pull n Pray]

^ Not sure what you're referring to since your link doesn't work, but the determining factor would indeed be volitional or discretionary behavior that contradicts the standard, not simply "behavior" (walking, eating, etc.).

 

So you don't think crying is volitional? For me, holding back tears is an easier feat than turning down sex with an attractive woman. Maybe men and women are just different in that way.

 

And of course I have no volitional control of my inability to develop romantic feelings for a woman I know to be promiscuous. I guess I could decide to propose marriage to her in spite of my lack of feelings, but that wouldn't do either of us any good. And I suppose since promiscuous women are romantically unappealing to me, I could make an effort to no longer have casual sex myself. But what would be the point of that? Should a woman who finds male crying unappealing make an effort to avoid crying herself simply to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy?

[SolG]

Biological determinism does not exist in a vacuum. Yes, it exists; but genetic predisposition is heavily influenced by epi-genetics. If that were not so, ALL standards of physical beauty would be universal throughout time and location and from individual to individual. This--although there are key marker consistencies--of course isn't true. Because both individual experience and context play a role (from pre-birth btw). And that's just one of many examples I could cite.

 

Check out Sapolsky's study on what happens to a troupe of primates when all the Alphas die from food poisoning. It is absolutely possible to change what may otherwise be presumed as innate biological programming in as little as one generation if the context and cultural reinforcement is compelling and strong enough.

 

What part does evolution play precisely? In simple terms evolution is adaptation of biology and behaviour over time to maximize survivability. And a key part of species survivability is reproduction, and the imperative to produce the strongest genetic copies of ourselves in the most thrive-conducive context we can create.

 

And for most of human history that has meant men seeking out the healthiest mates they can find based on genetic markers aka 'beauty', and characteristics that will make them good nurturers, whom they also guard to ensure it's their genetic material that is reproduced. And women have sought out men who also display healthy genes (height, strength, etc) and characteristics that will make them a good provider and protecter for progeny. And culture has grown around these factors, reinforcing behaviour, which in turn influences the biology over generations, which in turn reinforces the culture, which reinforces the behaviour... You cannot separate the genetic from the epi-genetic in terms of influence. They are interrelated. And have been congruent and relatively constant over time... Only because the context hasn't really changed enough to drive cultural and behavioural change in this dimension.

 

But post-industrial revolution... Wow! The human context has changed dramatically and at a pace not seen ever before in the history of our species. How we survive, what we do to survive, reproductive control, women's emancipation, globalisation, individualism, etc, etc, etc... Plus the rise of science and our ever increasing understanding of what drives us.

 

We ARE changing. This very thread is a testament to that. Not so long ago in our species' history we wouldn't have been lamenting the 'double-standard', because there was only one standard. Our biological imperatives will also change, are changing, in response to contextual and cultural change over time. It's what we do

 

And remember that wonderful pre-frontal cortex that we have! We all have the ability to understand what drives us. And in doing so exert varying levels of influence and control over our thoughts and bevahiour. No one is a slave to biology in terms of behaviour other than to the extent that they choose to be.

 

Read the science! All of it! Not just the sound bites and tag lines.

[SolG]

Just want to add a post script to my last; specifically about behavioural choice. Of course, where genetics produce pathology... This of course limits the degree of choice available to the individual on a sliding scale commensurate to the degree of pathology (more pathology, less choice).