Quote :

"here's 2 theories in biology, the one you spoke of, which men use to defend their "roaming" behavior, and another theory about how men are more likely to impregnate a woman if they stay with her, guaranteeing that their genes are passed on, and then taking care of the child to adulthood to further guarantee their genes passing on."

clearly men are summed up in 2 categories


btw kids - keep your chit chat shit in chit chat

1/29/2008 10:19:04 AM

Quote :

"and the rest of the time fill their time with having fun. Maybe it just boils down to utter selfishness."

seeing as how you're the only person who can live your life, i see nothing wrong with doing what makes it pleasant for you.

1/29/2008 10:20:57 AM

and apparently for some people that means making other people miserable.

1/29/2008 10:24:45 AM

if your life is so meaningless that your happiness or lack thereof is determined by someone else's maturity or lack thereof, perhaps you need to reevaluate your own level of maturity instead.

1/29/2008 10:28:24 AM

Quote :

"There's 2 theories in biology, the one you spoke of, which men use to defend their "roaming" behavior, and another theory about how men are more likely to impregnate a woman if they stay with her, guaranteeing that their genes are passed on, and then taking care of the child to adulthood to further guarantee their genes passing on."

Well yeah, if a guy stays with a woman long enough, he'll eventually impregnate her, so that is kind of self fulfilling, unless you meant to say:

Quote :

"another theory about how men are more likely to impregnate stay with a woman if they stay with impregnate her"

But, at the risk of sounding racist, lets look at probably the most atavistic and socially un-constrained corners of America, poor urban areas. There, you have an extremely high number of unwed mothers simply because the men are allowed to get away with it.

Now, I'm not saying it is healthy for a man to have a harem of wives and a bunch of children he barely pays for, especially now when the survival of the species isn't dependent on population growth, but old habits die hard.

1/29/2008 10:33:14 AM

perhaps the reason you're single is your own doing, not your percieved behaviors of men.

1/29/2008 10:46:06 AM

No, that couldn't be it.

It NEVER is. The is always someone or something else to blame.

1/29/2008 10:49:09 AM

i thought this thread was about

1/29/2008 11:02:40 AM

Quote :

"For the guys I have had long term relationships with (and I don't find this out till later in the relationship b/c they're on good behavior in the beginning) it's not just a hobby, it's what they do, like children. Children go to school because they have to, do their homework because they're told to, do chores when they're threatened with punishment, and the rest of the time fill their time with having fun. Many guys (and probably women too) stay in this mentality. Sure, when they're single they'll do just enough to not become completely disgusting, but once in a relationship, they'll start mooching off the other person if you let them. Maybe it just boils down to utter selfishness."

sounds like you suck at relationships and you are one selfish @#$%.

1/29/2008 11:13:44 AM

Quote :

"theory about how men are more likely to impregnate a woman if they stay with her, guaranteeing that their genes are passed on, and then taking care of the child to adulthood to further guarantee their genes passing on."

Actually I believe that a man staying with a woman for a prolonged period increases the survival chances for the offspring- seeing as how human babies have a very long growth period before they can become independent. The theory behind love is that couples feeling compelled to stay together for a lifetime ultimately have greater breeding success.

Quote :

" There are reasons to conclude that romance as well was shaped by the unsentimental hand of evolution. We humans don't have a monopoly on oxytocin and other molecules linked to feeling in love. Love may switch on reward pathways in our brains, but other animals have similar--if simpler--reward pathways too. Martie Haselton, a psychologist at UCLA, is exploring the forces that may have shaped those more primal attributes into modern love. She believes it all comes down to the long-term health of children. Haselton calls romantic love a "commitment device," a mechanism that encourages two humans to form a lasting bond. Those bonds help ensure that children survive to reproductive age, getting fed and cared for by two parents rather than one. "Natural selection has built love to make us feel romantic," she says. In her experiments, Haselton finds evidence for love as an adaptation. She and her colleagues have people think about how much they love someone and then try to suppress thoughts of other attractive people. They then have the same people think about how much they sexually desire those same partners and then try again to suppress thoughts about others. It turns out that love does a much better job of pushing out those rivals than sex does. Haselton argues that this effect is exactly what you'd expect if sex was a drive to reproduce and love was a drive to form a long-term commitment. This sort of research does not degrade love any more than understanding optics degrades a sunset. Just because romance has an evolutionary history doesn't mean it's identical to what other animals experience. Our ancestors branched off from the other apes several million years ago and have taken their own evolutionary journey since. Falling in love may be natural, but that doesn't mean it's not exceptional. "

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1704665,00.html

1/29/2008 11:17:58 AM

I am content and often happy by myself, and in fact, I'm going to try and stay single for longer this time, because yeah, I like having someone else around who fills the role of friend, partner and sex companion, but as soon as a relationship starts getting into the realms that I consider "serious" it goes from a partnership to a dependency.


lol, yes, that must be it, I must be selfish because I want a partner instead of a parasite. It was all my fault, why didnt I see it before?

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 11:26 AM. Reason : d]

1/29/2008 11:25:15 AM

Stop dating CS students?

1/29/2008 11:28:01 AM

^^of course, you're never doing anything wrong

^cs=csc? CSCs, ftw!

1/29/2008 11:29:46 AM

CS as in CSC yes.

And definitely not 'ftw.'

1/29/2008 11:31:48 AM

To me, it just seems like you're getting upset over the fact that you haven't found the right person for you yet. Most people go through some duds before finding the kind of partner you're looking for. That's why you break up. Not everyone can find the person they're meant to be with right off the bat.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 11:32 AM. Reason : CSCs ftw.]

1/29/2008 11:31:49 AM

Quote :

"lol, yes, that must be it, I must be selfish because I want a partner instead of a parasite. It was all my fault, why didnt I see it before?"

we all know thats bullshit. There is a pattern here. You have one failed relationship after another because being a woman, you're just selfish.

1/29/2008 11:32:21 AM

I think you're just hanging out with the wrong guys. I know lots of people my age (25, myself included) who are very responsible and mature.

maybe try looking in another spot?

1/29/2008 11:32:36 AM

to sum it up, you want a guy who's into video games and anime and shit, but is also a grown man who is career and goal minded.

can't have your cake and eat it too honey....jus sayin.

1/29/2008 11:35:12 AM

(ie: not EB1 or EB2)

1/29/2008 11:35:14 AM

Quote :

"To me, it just seems like you're getting upset over the fact that you haven't found the right person for you yet. Most people go through some duds before finding the kind of partner you're looking for. That's why you break up. Not everyone can find the person they're meant to be with right off the bat."

Thank you, that's probably very true, but it is disturbing to me to see such a trend in the guys I know.

1/29/2008 11:42:11 AM

Thank you, that's probably very true, but it is disturbing to me to see such a trend in the guys I know choose.

1/29/2008 11:50:29 AM

partner instead of a parasite? i had to laugh at that considering the first post of the thread implied you wanted a man with "financial independence"...perhaps so you could be parasitic off of him?

1/29/2008 11:50:34 AM

Quote :

"Thank you, that's probably very true, but it is disturbing to me to see such a trend in the guys I know."

Then know different men, instead of bitching about the ones you've chosen thus far.

By and large, this generation's female is utterly worthless, but I've somehow managed to have some DAMN fine people as friends, who also happen to be female. And that's from the pool the shitty gender offers.

Given that the males are, as a whole, slightly less worthless, it'd be an easier task for you to find some who are worth knowing. Quit bitching about the caliber of man you know if you're too lazy to get to know some who worth a shit. It's not hard.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 11:58 AM. Reason : lkjfd]

1/29/2008 11:55:22 AM

/message_topic.aspx?topic=498858
/message_topic.aspx?topic=502749
are you sure its not you thats the problem

1/29/2008 11:59:30 AM

Oh this just got interesting.

1/29/2008 12:11:07 PM

also allow me to oversimplify this shit

Quote :

"Not so long ago, the average mid-twentysomething had achieved most of adulthood's milestones – high school degree, financial independence, marriage and children"

individually

Quote :

"high school degree"

college is kind of the norm nowadays with more and more people getting grad degrees afterwards...you'd prefer your man to just have a high school degree? or do you want him to have his 'high school degree' of 2008, which is at minimum a college degree

Quote :

"financial independence"

more school = more tuitition = less time to work a job

again this is simply a byproduct of our societal paradigm shifting to a trend of more school...society nowadays more than ever encourages higher learning..."not so long ago" there might've been more emphasis on working

Quote :

"marriage and children"

they go together, assuming we're talking about kids in wedlock...but again, as society has encouraged more schooling (college degree, MBA, PhD, etc) as the norm, it has also emphasized more rights for women...women can do anything...women can go to med school instead of being a housewife...women can have careers just like men can...course how the fuck are the guys in question supposed to be married with kids in their mid 20s when all the mid-20 women are in grad school and working careers?

in summation, the author of this story is an ice cold chicken

1/29/2008 12:19:22 PM

Which brings up a very good point:

Why are chickens so much like penguins?

1/29/2008 12:21:06 PM

I was just looking through your classifieds thread because it seems to be relevant to your feelings here, and I saw:

Quote :

"However, my friend was seeing someone... they'd been talking for a few weeks and had been on a couple dates. They went to the beach together over the break and, simply put, he was lazy! Made no effort to impress her-- didn't offer to help cook dinner or take her out or help clean up, just sat around watching tv. Even fooling around in bed he made only half-hearted efforts to turn her on and get her off."

which makes me wonder about the way you're handling your guy situation. This is your friend, not you, but the way you phrased it shows you expect your potential boyfriends to do everything you want without being asked. Guys aren't mind readers, and they're for the most part less intuitive than women like you seem to expect them to be.

If you say "Hey, will you help me do ___" and they say no, that might be a cause for alarm, but there's no way for a guy to just know exactly what you want all the time. Sure, it would be nice to offer to help cook dinner, but there's no harm in you asking for some help if it's not offered.

Not trying to bash you here, but I just wanted to point out that maybe your idea of laziness and lack of motivation is just a guy not reading your mind.

1/29/2008 12:36:18 PM

I basically agree with everything Skwinkle's said in this whole thread.

For the sake of TWW, I'm willing to ignore some of the more gratuitously misogynistic comments you dunderheads decided to make. I will, however, discuss this one:

Quote :

"Thirty years ago, a woman could pretty much expect to "marry up" financially, but with women rapidly closing the pay gap and actually over-taking men as a percentage of many professional classes, it is harder and harder for them to find a man they see as a "provider." Women are biologically inclined to seek a man who can support her and her offspring through child-bearing / rearing. Sixty years of feminist theory isn't going to change thousands of years of evolutionary programming."

Sure it can. If I know that I can provide for myself (and any child I'm willing to have), where's the need for a "provider"? I mean, people in general need to feel loved and supported by a mate, that's nothing new. The revolutionary idea is that I, as a woman, can provide for myself. That doesn't mean I don't want a guy around to love me or for me to love, it just means that I don't necessarily need him to be proactive about making all the money for the household.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't need to see a guy as my "provider." That rhetoric alone is almost offensive. I admit I don't like some dude who'll sit on the couch all day and just not get a job when he's capable of doing so, but as long as he's doing something, I don't need him to be trying to "provide" above what I know I'm capable of providing for myself.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2008 12:38:11 PM

Quote :

"And in fact, you go to employers, and they're starting to express concern now with the parents who will phone HR, saying, "But my little Susie or little Johnny didn't get the performance evaluation that I think they deserve,"' Crane says."

I laffed

1/29/2008 12:41:47 PM

Quote :

"Sure it can. If I know that I can provide for myself (and any child I'm willing to have), where's the need for a "provider"? I mean, people in general need to feel loved and supported by a mate, that's nothing new. The revolutionary idea is that I, as a woman, can provide for myself. That doesn't mean I don't want a guy around to love me or for me to love, it just means that I don't necessarily need him to be proactive about making all the money for the household. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't need to see a guy as my "provider." That rhetoric alone is almost offensive. I admit I don't like some dude who'll sit on the couch all day and just not get a job when he's capable of doing so, but as long as he's doing something, I don't need him to be trying to "provide" above what I know I'm capable of providing for myself."

i don't think anyone is arguing you specifically aren't capable of providing for yourself but there are plenty of women who just want to be a housewife and stay at home with the kids - this isn't possible without a man (or a female in some relationships) to support them in doing just that - until that goes away some of the points made are valid even though they are broad generalizations which we all know have exceptions - it's rarely acceptable for a guy to do the househusband thing

1/29/2008 12:54:26 PM

Quote :

"But I don't want a guy who has no ambition for anything better, who's content going to work and doing nothing but playing computer games"

I work when I must, play when I can, and take care of my responsibilites. What more do you want? I think we all know the real issue is that you're upset about your exes and you want to find a common dysfunction to explain why they let you down.

In any case, for the ladies looking for "mature" men in their thirties, think about what you're doing. Wouldn't you be pretty jaded if you had to work until you were 30+ to be appealing?

1/29/2008 1:03:00 PM

Quote :

"broad generalizations"

I mean, he flat-out said:

Quote :

"Sixty years of feminist theory isn't going to change thousands of years of evolutionary programming."

I'm just saying that that's fundamentally NOT applicable to every woman (as he claims it must be, since it's "evolutionary programming"). Most certainly not to the ones who want to do something other than their prescribed household motherly duties (of which there are quite a few: I almost tend to doubt that there are a majority of nonworking stay-at-home moms out of all these women he tried to describe). But why the fuck should any of this "evolutionary" theory come into any of the discussion about what any woman wants to do with her life?

Who's doing the providing just shouldn't be an issue, but he tried to make it out like women have no choice but to accept that we all want "providers" because we're evolutionarily programmed that way.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2008 1:04:45 PM

So, basically it sounds like no other women in this thread have ever had a relationship(s) where the boyfriend is a man-child.

Fine, nevermind, end thread.

Quote :

"By and large, this generation's female is utterly worthless, but I've somehow managed to have some DAMN fine people as friends, who also happen to be female. And that's from the pool the shitty gender offers."

I have never heard such crap in my life. It sounds like you're ashamed to be female. I know there's good and bad of both genders, but damn if I haven't ever heard such a broad generalization from a female unless it was from some religious nut.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 1:26 PM. Reason : btw]

1/29/2008 1:23:37 PM

Quote :

" But why the fuck should any of this "evolutionary" theory come into any of the discussion about what any woman wants to do with her life? "

Because how you act is largely determined by how you evolved.

1/29/2008 1:31:51 PM

Quote :

"Wouldn't you be pretty jaded if you had to work until you were 30+ to be appealing?"

1/29/2008 1:32:21 PM

Quote :

"I have never heard such crap in my life. It sounds like you're ashamed to be female. I know there's good and bad of both genders, but damn if I haven't ever heard such a broad generalization from a female unless it was from some religious nut."

Part of why you haven't heard it is because
1) most people attempt some form of tact
2) a good many people don't want to admit that they're lacking somehow.

And no, I'm not ashamed to be female - that's fucking awesome (minus the not being able to pee standing up part). But being like the majority females is a problem, and a few reasons why
- they vapid, and don't properly appreciate or value education and drive (the whole 'it's cool to be stupid' mentality)
- few have been raised well, to truly care for others and be compassionate
- there's an alarming lack of responsibility at all, but this isn't limited to the female gender. They typically just manifest it in more noticeable ways
- girls are cranky and petty, at best. You do something small, but wrong, to a girl, and she'll remember it three months from now. Do a similar slight to a guy, and he's like 'huh?' by evening, if he even notices it at all. Yes, I'm speaking from experience here.


Maybe two generations ago, women would have annoyed me just as much. I don't know. But I do know that the decline in good parenting has turned a large number of young adults these days into complete wretches (I mean, you're complaining about this for the dudes...), but when choosing a gender to designate as 'better' in terms of whose company I'd rather spend my free time in, it's men. All my female friends happen to be more like dudes, or in the case of miska, girly, but with a DAMN good head on their shoulder, which is not exactly a hallmark of women these days.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 1:45 PM. Reason : k]

1/29/2008 1:44:56 PM

Quote :

"So, basically it sounds like no other women in this thread have ever had a relationship(s) where the boyfriend is a man-child. Fine, nevermind, end thread."

yes, we have had relationships with "man-child[ren]." The difference is saying "grow up or goodbye" instead of letting it impede our own growth.

& ^

kthx.

1/29/2008 1:58:43 PM

Quote :

"I'm just saying that that's fundamentally NOT applicable to every woman (as he claims it must be, since it's "evolutionary programming")."

I didn't claim that. Every species has a wide variation within them, I'm speaking in broad generalizations . . . as we must when discussing large groups of animals.

Nothing I said was to imply that women were incapable of doing anything other than childbearing, just that people often forget that, first and foremost, we're animals, and we have atavistic urges that drive our every-day activities. It doesn't mean that individuals who desire to transcend them cannot at least attempt to do so, (I personally have no desire to marry a woman who isn't independent) but to ignore them and say that the very evolutionary traits that perpetuate the species are suddenly null and void because someone wrote a book about female liberation is asinine. Asinine I say.

1/29/2008 2:13:15 PM

SO YOU ARE SAYING WOMEN ARE ANIMALS?!?

1/29/2008 2:33:57 PM

precisely

1/29/2008 2:52:18 PM

your mom's one hell of an animal

1/29/2008 2:53:16 PM

Not all women want kids. Not all women want to be married. Some are hornier than most guys. Some don't mind having a boyfriend that makes less money.

Only problem is that most guys can't get past society and their friends telling them that all women are frigid money hungry bitches that wanna have a kid in order to get 18 years of access to their paycheck.

1/29/2008 3:06:32 PM

Quote :

"Only problem is that most guys can't get past society and their friends telling them that all women are frigid money hungry bitches that wanna have a kid in order to get 18 years of access to their paycheck."

No matter what "theory" is in play here, that's just good old-fashioned close-mindedness. (Not accusing the poster of close-mindedness btw, but those who hold to the aforementioned viewpoint.) Assuming that all women, or all men for that matter, are all one specific way is the lazy way out. In some folks' cases it may be borne out to some degree by experience, but generally, it's something of a cop-out to just say "fuck it, all ______ are _______ and there's nothing I can do about it but complain."

Ladies and gents, keep an open mind. Only then will you be paying attention when someone who defies these negative images walks by...

1/29/2008 3:50:46 PM

1/29/2008 4:13:19 PM

Quote :

"Because how you act is largely determined by how you evolved."

I, individually, did not evolve in the scientific sense of the word. Outside of basic needs (which are obviously still as important today as then), how mankind has evolved has certainly made an impact. It does not, however, tell me how I'm going to act or what kind of guy I need.

Quote :

"I didn't claim that. Every species has a wide variation within them, I'm speaking in broad generalizations . . . as we must when discussing large groups of animals."

Well calling it "programming" and talking about women and men in gigantic scoping terms is obviously going to lead me to the wrong conclusion on that count. The problem with generally speaking about anything is that you're bound to be wrong on some point.

Quote :

"Nothing I said was to imply that women were incapable of doing anything other than childbearing, just that people often forget that, first and foremost, we're animals, and we have atavistic urges that drive our every-day activities. It doesn't mean that individuals who desire to transcend them cannot at least attempt to do so, (I personally have no desire to marry a woman who isn't independent) but to ignore them and say that the very evolutionary traits that perpetuate the species are suddenly null and void because someone wrote a book about female liberation is asinine. Asinine I say."

I never suggested these urges were null and void, I just know that there are women out there who (omg! imagine!) haven't had children and put all their work towards something else: they're not some kind of anti-woman just because they haven't "followed thousands of years of evolutionary programming." And good for them, if that's what they wanted to do.

It's far too simplistic to say that women only want to make babies and men only want to spread their seed, and you agree. So sure, a book on female liberation can make someone think differently about their role in life. I never suggested it obliterates the validity of entire system, but thank god it gave each individual something to think about.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 4:21 PM. Reason : fine]

1/29/2008 4:14:42 PM

Quote :

"I, individually, did not evolve in the scientific sense of the word. Outside of basic needs (which are obviously still as important today as then), how mankind has evolved has certainly made an impact. It does not, however, tell me how I'm going to act or what kind of guy I need. "

Actually:

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20071228-000001.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20071228-000002.xml

1/29/2008 4:26:16 PM

didn't read this, but i guess i'm in the wrong generation:

14yo - working part time at a vet (because i wanted to be one at the time)
16yo - assisting in surgeries, making 3x minimum wage (i thought it was a big deal)
19yo - IT manager of a 14-store restaurant chain making 9x minimum wage/hour
22yo - freelance web company takes off, $50k/year in contracts (in addition to job above)
25yo - graduated from undergrad, still has company above, working full time while finishing up my master's

paid my way through college (scholarships and grants helped, and my parents contributed when they could)...it's not quite bragging (well, it is, kinda), but i don't think i fall into the "lazy boy" category

1/29/2008 5:07:40 PM

Two observations:

1) There's definitely a maturity gap between American and European college kids. From my 6 months on exchange at state, I put it down to the higher drinking age, the expense of college education and kids having to depend on their parents and misc cultural differences.

I read recently that most Americans don't consider you to be an adult until you're at least 24.

Over here you're treated as an adult from age 18 up and you're expected to act like one. At least half of the students where I went to college were from outside the city, were supporting themselves with jobs they did full-time during the summer and depended on their parents very little. And if they failed a year of college, they had to work hard to earn money to pay for a repeat year (repeat years aren't free).

I don't think it helps either that for professions like medicine and law in the US you have to do a postgraduate degree before you can even start working. Here, you do your undergrad in medicine or law and then you go straight into interning. You still have the equivalent exams, etc., but you can be a lawyer or a doctor by age 22/23.

You couldn't end up more than 10k in debt after college either (and the 10k is usually from traveling the world after graduating).

2) Of the guys I went to high school with, they run the spectrum from very mature to completely immature (all aged 26). Broadly, I'd divide them into four groups: very ambitious/mature, somewhat ambitious/mature, drifters and wasters.

In the very ambitious group:

a: is in the USMC, training to be a fighter pilot, married, two kids, with a third on the way
b: bought his own bar at age 25 and is very successful, but isn't married and doesn't plan to get married any time soon
c: a few years away from being a cardiologist, wants to get married and have kids by 30

Somewhat ambitious:

a: has a girlfriend, a decent job, no thoughts of marriage
b: married, no kids, good corporate job, but happy not to progress quickly
c: no girlfriend or occasional girlfriends, decent career, doesn't want to get married until he's in his 30s

Drifters: guys who are still in college, slowly working through a masters or PhD, or who still haven't really decided what they want to do and are in jobs they don't like, or doing part-time work that isn't career-related.

Wasters: guys in shitty jobs (or not working), shitty apartments, who like to drink most nights of the week, maybe are in a fledgling band and probably spend half their time stoned.

In all four groups, some still like to play video games and are childish by some standards and very mature by others.

I'd say men described by sylvershadow would be mostly wasters. My advice would be to look for guys outside your ideal and you're likely to find someone who still likes geeky stuff, but doesn't look like a walking stereotype.

1/29/2008 5:11:13 PM

Quote :

"My advice would be to look for guys outside your ideal and you're likely to find someone who still likes geeky stuff, but doesn't look like a walking stereotype."

Sensible advice there. Paying attention?

1/29/2008 5:18:24 PM