I Am Not an Easy Man

C2 Wrote:In my experience male/male friendships and/or 'associations' (possibly wrong word) are easy and tend to be the result of common interests and/or common goals - expedient might cover it.

Friendship is easy because our expectations are lower.  Even though, we are more at ease around our friends because our expectations are lower, we put more effort into our friendships for same reason.  We don’t expect them to admire us without reserve or stick by us no matter what. Friendship offers us what romanticism associates with love.

Syne Wrote:There's also a certain camaraderie between men. Since men promote the best among them (man-crush, loyalty, etc.), there's a kind of collective tacit male agreement on which gain social status.

That’s because our "culture" is obsessed with the ideas of romantic love—with falling in love, not being in love. Our concepts of love and romance are cultural constructs and conventions created mostly through the media, religious teachings, and fiction.

We have a romantic ideal in which we turn to one person to fulfill an endless list of needs: to be my greatest lover, my best friend, the best parent, my trusted confidant, my emotional companion, my intellectual equal. And I am it: I'm chosen, I'm unique, I'm indispensable, I'm irreplaceable, I'm the one.—Esther Perel

Syne Wrote:There's little evolutionary psychology for men to share such relationships with women, or vice versa, and from what I understand, that kind of thing may even be foreign between women (outside of jealousy).

Or perhaps, men use that as an excuse for their mate guarding tactics.  We like to play golf, too, but it does change the dynamics in which other competing males may be present.

(May 29, 2018 04:28 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

Syne Wrote:There's also a certain camaraderie between men. Since men promote the best among them (man-crush, loyalty, etc.), there's a kind of collective tacit male agreement on which gain social status.

That’s because our "culture" is obsessed with the ideas of romantic love—with falling in love, not being in love. Our concepts of love and romance are cultural constructs and conventions created mostly through the media, religious teachings, and fiction.

We have a romantic ideal in which we turn to one person to fulfill an endless list of needs: to be my greatest lover, my best friend, the best parent, my trusted confidant, my emotional companion, my intellectual equal. And I am it: I'm chosen, I'm unique, I'm indispensable, I'm irreplaceable, I'm the one.—Esther Perel

That's quite the non-sequitur, from male camaraderie to romantic love. It's like it doesn't even matter what you use as a springboard for whatever you want to say at the moment.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:There's little evolutionary psychology for men to share such relationships with women, or vice versa, and from what I understand, that kind of thing may even be foreign between women (outside of jealousy).

Or perhaps, men use that as an excuse for their mate guarding tactics.  We like to play golf, too, but it does change the dynamics in which other competing males may be present.

Again, what does one have to do with the other? Since the camaraderie among men isn't generally shared between men and women, men guard their mates from rivals? Doesn't follow.

(May 30, 2018 12:17 AM)Syne Wrote: That's quite the non-sequitur, from male camaraderie to romantic love. It's like it doesn't even matter what you use as a springboard for whatever you want to say at the moment.

No, not really. That’s why there’s no camaraderie between men and women.

Syne Wrote:Again, what does one have to do with the other? Since the camaraderie among men isn't generally shared between men and women, men guard their mates from rivals? Doesn't follow.

You wouldn’t want to bring someone that you’re interested in to play golf with your friends because it changes the dynamics. All the men would start acting up because they feel like they have to impress someone of the opposite sex. Good ole self-promotion. You know how you men are.

In fact, your continuous touting leads me to believe that you’re single, and yet, here you are telling us what women want. Funny!

I don’t think that we can differentiate our motives from social forces or intrinsic sex difference when it comes down to the things that we may want. It’s woven into the fabric of daily life.

Maybe we’re not so choosey after all. Social and biological observations suggest that men are more promiscuous, but they fail to mention that female primates, when in heat, constantly present themselves to any approaching male.

"Another, more recent, hypothesis is that concealed ovulation is an adaptation in response to a promiscuous mating system, similar to that of our closest evolutionary relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees."

You are NOT the father!—Maury Povich

According to biblical scriptures, men are easily deceived. Desire deceives. She doesn’t know you, nor you, her—a suitable place to lodge your fantasies, eh? Maybe it’s this passion for a falsified other that men continuously seek. Yes, that’s it—some form of exaltation.

Throughout history, it is men that have primarily written about what it means to be a woman, but their writings celebrate men. They recorded their deeds through self-glorification. We’ve been working side-by-side since the beginning but you’d never know it from reading history.

Syne Wrote:There's little evolutionary psychology for men to share such relationships with women, or vice versa, and from what I understand, that kind of thing may even be foreign between women (outside of jealousy).

You don’t think that we have women crushes, cooperate, or band together in order to fight for something? Do you think that our rights were just given to us by men?

(May 30, 2018 03:44 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(May 30, 2018 12:17 AM)Syne Wrote: That's quite the non-sequitur, from male camaraderie to romantic love. It's like it doesn't even matter what you use as a springboard for whatever you want to say at the moment.

No, not really.  That’s why there’s no camaraderie between men and women.

So romantic love, especially as opposed to being in love, is what precludes camaraderie between men and women? Again, that doesn't follow. Camaraderie between men seems to exist due to similarity, and cooperation, in survival strategies. I'm not sure if female survival strategies share an analogue among them, or if females have been considered a greater survival threat to each other.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Again, what does one have to do with the other? Since the camaraderie among men isn't generally shared between men and women, men guard their mates from rivals? Doesn't follow.

You wouldn’t want to bring someone that you’re interested in to play golf with your friends because it changes the dynamics.  All the men would start acting up because they feel like they have to impress someone of the opposite sex.  Good ole self-promotion.  You know how you men are.  

I know that the quality of the company I keep would not seek to make moves on another's love interest. I can't speak to the quality of men you associate with.

Quote:In fact, your continuous touting leads me to believe that you’re single, and yet, here you are telling us what women want.  Funny!

Touting of what? That men and women can't generally be platonic?
This sounds like backlash from either the fact that most women aren't even aware of what they really want or projection of your "friendship is better than love" mood.

Quote:I don’t think that we can differentiate our motives from social forces or intrinsic sex difference when it comes down to the things that we may want.  It’s woven into the fabric of daily life.

You can think whatever you like, but if you can't justify it, it's not valid reasoning.

Quote:Maybe we’re not so choosey after all.  Social and biological observations suggest that men are more promiscuous, but they fail to mention that female primates, when in heat, constantly present themselves to any approaching male.

Why, do you feel comparable to an ape?

Quote:According to biblical scriptures, men are easily deceived. Desire deceives. She doesn’t know you, nor you, her—a suitable place to lodge your fantasies, eh?  Maybe it’s this passion for a falsified other that men continuously seek.  Yes, that’s it—some form of exaltation.

I'm not aware of that in the Bible. Maybe you could show me where. In the meantime:

And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became sinner. - 1 Timothy 2:14
She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it. - Proverbs 5:6

Fantasies are harmless, but it's sounding increasingly like you've been hurt.

Quote:Throughout history, it is men that have primarily written about what it means to be a woman, but their writings celebrate men.  They recorded their deeds through self-glorification.  We’ve been working side-by-side since the beginning but you’d never know it from reading history.

History has been largely brutal, and men have shouldered the brunt of fending off that brutality. Just factual.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:There's little evolutionary psychology for men to share such relationships with women, or vice versa, and from what I understand, that kind of thing may even be foreign between women (outside of jealousy).

You don’t think that we have women crushes, cooperate, or band together in order to fight for something?  Do you think that our rights were just given to us by men?

I know women are much more catty, and much less likely to support each other. Just look at the percentage of women in the country versus women in political office. Most of what may pass as cooperation and woman-crushes (just look at how obscure that term is compared to man-crush*) is masked jealousy.
What does that have to do with the non-sequitur of women's rights? Just working up to a misandrist screed, or is this just the average simmer?


*Among their own gender, men tend toward envy (two-party) while women tend toward jealousy (three-party).

(May 30, 2018 05:34 AM)Syne Wrote: So romantic love, especially as opposed to being in love, is what precludes camaraderie between men and women? Again, that doesn't follow.

Yes it does.  Like C2 said, you're forced to give up opposite sex friends once you're married.  This idealistic idea of love assumes that one person is supposed to meet all of your needs.

syne Wrote:Camaraderie between men seems to exist due to similarity, and cooperation, in survival strategies. I'm not sure if female survival strategies share an analogue among them, or if females have been considered a greater survival threat to each other.

Survival strategies include sharing food, protecting children, and looking out for each other.  We do it all the time.  Probably more so than men.

Syne Wrote:Touting of what? That men and women can't generally be platonic?

No.  Just your everyday run of the mill self-promoting BS.

Syne Wrote:Why, do you feel comparable to an ape?

I could ask you the same thing because you're always using evolutionary psychology to justify your claims. We’re classified with the great apes.  We’re primates.  Darwin drew several parallels between primate behavior and humans.  

Syne Wrote:I'm not aware of that in the Bible. Maybe you could show me where. In the meantime:

And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became sinner. - 1 Timothy 2:14
She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it. - Proverbs 5:6

Well according to 1 Timothy 2:12-14 that’s why you’re not supposed to listen to us and that’s why god said that you shall rule over us.  

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The way I figure it, if Adam was present when the serpent beguiled eve then he was deceived by the serpent, too.  If not, then eve withheld that information, and he was deceived by eve.

Syne Wrote:History has been largely brutal, and men have shouldered the brunt of fending off that brutality. Just factual.

Brutality? We’ve fended off plenty. Thank you very much.  

Syne Wrote:I know women are much more catty, and much less likely to support each other. Just look at the percentage of women in the country versus women in political office. Most of what may pass as cooperation and woman-crushes (just look at how obscure that term is compared to man-crush*) is masked jealousy.

*Among their own gender, men tend toward envy (two-party) while women tend toward jealousy (three-party).

Give me a break. Here we go with the sexually biased term 'catty' again. What, men don’t compete?  Men aren’t cruel to each other.  They don’t rip on other men? Of course they do.  They also resort to violence. Our discussion about incels revolve around the belief that men are owed sex, and endorse violence against sexually active women and more sexually successful men. Both women and men are jealous when someone of the same sex is perceived as a threat to the relationship.

IMHO, traditionally, the males do the asking.  Females don’t want to give off too many signals of being sexually receptive because males suffer from paternity insecurity, or so the 'ape' story goes.  Men think sexually aggressive women are more likely to cheat.  However, this behavior is socially acceptable for men.

Someone like you might say that it’s biological. While someone like me, would say that it’s traditional, (a social role), norms as conceptualized by people in a social situation.  Even though there may be more equality between the sexes, social norms, or (what was it that you said?) oh, yeah—bucking the trend is a more difficult.

Edit...

If the roles were reversed like in the film, and men were approached by more women, I don’t think they’d accept every offer.  They might even be considered choosier than females, because if we've approached you, we’ve already chosen you.

(May 30, 2018 03:06 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(May 30, 2018 05:34 AM)Syne Wrote: So romantic love, especially as opposed to being in love, is what precludes camaraderie between men and women? Again, that doesn't follow.

Yes it does.  Like C2 said, you're forced to give up opposite sex friends once you're married.  This idealistic idea of love assumes that one person is supposed to meet all of your needs.

That's because most people realize opposite sex friendships can rarely be 100% platonic on both sides. All it takes is the right amount of alcohol or vulnerability to upset that delicate balance. Do you really think asexual camaraderie exists between the sexes before marriage? If not, then romantic love has nothing to do with camaraderie, and same-sex friends are supposed to fill the gap partners cannot. If so, you may be a bit naive.

Quote:

syne Wrote:Camaraderie between men seems to exist due to similarity, and cooperation, in survival strategies. I'm not sure if female survival strategies share an analogue among them, or if females have been considered a greater survival threat to each other.

Survival strategies include sharing food, protecting children, and looking out for each other.  We do it all the time.  Probably more so than men.

Since the survival of women has relied more on social status, other women are social threats, which hinders camaraderie. Men, OTOH, perceive other men more as physical threats, allowing relatively unencumbered social interactions.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Touting of what? That men and women can't generally be platonic?

No.  Just your everyday run of the mill self-promoting BS.

So you think self-confidence is a bad thing, or something you're supposed to lose in a relationship? O_o

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Why, do you feel comparable to an ape?

I could ask you the same thing because you're always using evolutionary psychology to justify your claims. We’re classified with the great apes.  We’re primates.  Darwin drew several parallels between primate behavior and humans.  

LOL! I'm don't need to going back beyond the evolutionary psychology of the human species, because every species has unique behaviors. If you can't differentiate humans and apes (comparing women with apes in heat), that's your problem.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:I'm not aware of that in the Bible. Maybe you could show me where. In the meantime:

And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became sinner. - 1 Timothy 2:14
She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it. - Proverbs 5:6

Well according to 1 Timothy 2:12-14 that’s why you’re not supposed to listen to us and that’s why god said that you shall rule over us.  

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The way I figure it, if Adam was present when the serpent beguiled eve then he was deceived by the serpent, too.  If not, then eve withheld that information, and he was deceived by eve.

So, nothing in the Bible about men being easily deceived, huh?
Nowhere does it say Adam was present when the serpent deceived Eve. Nor that Eve told Adam where the fruit came from:

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. - Genesis 3:6

Big difference between being convinced to do wrong and being slipped a mickey...unless you think roofie victims are somehow morally equivalent to the guy who slipped it to them.
At least judging by your usual inability to rationally justify your opinions, it seems there is some wisdom in not following the blind.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:History has been largely brutal, and men have shouldered the brunt of fending off that brutality. Just factual.

Brutality? We’ve fended off plenty. Thank you very much.  

No, women have historically suffered brutality, not successfully fended it off...until the advent of guns.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:I know women are much more catty, and much less likely to support each other. Just look at the percentage of women in the country versus women in political office. Most of what may pass as cooperation and woman-crushes (just look at how obscure that term is compared to man-crush*) is masked jealousy.

*Among their own gender, men tend toward envy (two-party) while women tend toward jealousy (three-party).

Give me a break. Here we go with the sexually biased term 'catty' again. What, men don’t compete?  Men aren’t cruel to each other.  They don’t rip on other men? Of course they do.  They also resort to violence. Our discussion about incels revolve around the belief that men are owed sex, and endorse violence against sexually active women and more sexually successful men. Both women and men are jealous when someone of the same sex is perceived as a threat to the relationship.

IMHO, traditionally, the males do the asking.  Females don’t want to give off too many signals of being sexually receptive because males suffer from paternity insecurity, or so the 'ape' story goes.  Men think sexually aggressive women are more likely to cheat.  However, this behavior is socially acceptable for men.

Someone like you might say that it’s biological. While someone like me, would say that it’s traditional, (a social role), norms as conceptualized by people in a social situation.  Even though there may be more equality between the sexes, social norms, or (what was it that you said?) oh, yeah—bucking the trend is a more difficult.

Edit...

If the roles were reversed like in the film, and men were approached by more women, I don’t think they’d accept every offer.  They might even be considered choosier than females, because if we've approached you, we’ve already chosen you.

"Catty" has no male equivalent for a reason. Men do compete, but they're not as concerned with social status. Women compete for social status while men largely compete for dominance, whether through resources or violence.
Pathetic incel beliefs seem to be a result of their emasculated inability to compete. Yes, jealousy can occur in both sexes, in relationships, where vulnerability can expose insecurity. But generally, single, mentally-healthy men don't display the jealousy that single women do. That jealousy accompanied by the male tendency to violence is a recipe for disaster.
Women aren't overly sexually receptive because it lowers their status, among both men and women. A woman who displays indiscriminate sexual selection loses social status and mate value. Things that are rare or hard to obtain are always more valuable. Men think sexually aggressive women are easy and offer less value.

Role theory just ignores any origin to behavior prior to the realm of sociology. It can't explain how those roles formed or how they are so consistently maintained. Evolutionary psychology does both. Again, in the most sexually egalitarian societies, gender differences are greater...not erased.

If men were approached by more women, they would take evolutionary advantage of the greater opportunity to reproduce. They wouldn't accept every offer, but they also don't approach every woman. There are plenty of women a decent looking guy knows he is preselected by. Those low-status/value mates do not make them choosier...unless the the guy is already low-status/value.

You’re just pulling shit out of your ass now and according to evolutionary psychology, here’s why?

Did Adam know that he was eating the forbidden fruit?

Methinks so. 

And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

(May 31, 2017 02:46 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: syne what expereince do you have with mixing with women socialising with them ?
have you ever had a female best friend whom there is no sexual interest ?

You never answered her question.  Have you?  I have or so I thought.

Just look at poor C2.  He's married and his only friends are birds.  

And now you’re saying that men aren’t as concerned with status?  Whatever, dude.

The Bible Wrote:And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

An early (the first?) example of the craven wimp. Mrs C2 and myself retain individual stupity (usually mine) but whatever it is we deal with it together - it is a contract we made - we married each other for better or worse. If Adam (and Eve) were thrown out of Eden because he was a total weasel then fair enough - but don't blame Eve for having a weasel for a fuck buddy(EDIT..Was she given any choice?) . Ok, having a weasel for a fuck buddy is unwise (EDIT2 - any choice given?) - maybe Eve should have been chucked out for that reason - but not individually punished for taking the apple.

---

"Thou shalt have no other God but me." - try telling that to a alpha male or female.

(May 30, 2018 10:46 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: You’re just pulling shit out of your ass now and according to evolutionary psychology, here’s why?

Did Adam know that he was eating the forbidden fruit?

Methinks so. 

And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

(May 31, 2017 02:46 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: syne what expereince do you have with mixing with women socialising with them ?
have you ever had a female best friend whom there is no sexual interest ?

You never answered her question.  Have you?  I have or so I thought.

Just look at poor C2.  He's married and his only friends are birds.  

And now you’re saying that men aren’t as concerned with status?  Whatever, dude.

Oh, I get that women often do like to throw things when they're angry, but I'll take your word for what they'll resort to flinging, given a lack of options.
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/TX05IYVB_nc
And a mild-mannered Canadian at that.

Ah, more Biblical ignorance. Adam certainly realized what it was after he ate it, when god ask him.

Is RU a woman? I guess the avatar led me to believe RU was gay. So...lesbian...ally...just likes rainbows and unicorns? Didn't I just say men and women can't generally have mutually platonic friendships? Granted, that may also be a product of intelligent people being more selective of their friends. But I've just never seen an example without one at least slightly crushing on the other.

I didn't see any refute of men being less concerned with social status. Was there supposed to be some?

(May 30, 2018 11:28 PM)confused2 Wrote:

The Bible Wrote:And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

An early (the first?) example of the craven wimp. Mrs C2 and myself retain individual stupity (usually mine) but whatever it is we deal with it together - it is a contract we made - we married each other for better or worse. If Adam (and Eve) were thrown out of Eden because he was a total weasel then fair enough - but don't blame Eve for having a weasel for a fuck buddy(EDIT..Was she given any choice?) . Ok, having a weasel for a fuck buddy is unwise (EDIT2 - any choice given?) - maybe Eve should have been chucked out for that reason - but not individually punished for taking the apple.

---

"Thou shalt have no other God but me." - try telling that to a alpha male or female.

No, they were purportedly exiled from Eden for disobeying god (ignorance being no excuse), but effectively exiled due to their newly acquired knowledge.

No, they were purportedly exiled from Eden for disobeying god (ignorance being no excuse), but effectively exiled due to their newly acquired knowledge.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-05-30