Permission for an affair
It's the new fall style
Could anyone here imagine someone actually getting away with an article like that endorsing men having affairs?
Look even at the opening paragraph. It isn't a woman's fault. They are "overscheduled." Their husbands, "inattentive." Further on in the article it is even remarked that it is the "logical" outcome.
Why does this constantly happen with these weird double standards? Men who cheat are "dogs." Women are "logical, treating inattention, and just soothing their needs.
Maybe it is just me, but this article really sounds like an endorsement of infidelity for women. It also seems to take join in the fact that if men were the oppressor and acted badly, that when women do it, it is empowering and proper.
Nick
Could anyone here imagine someone actually getting away with an article like that endorsing men having affairs?
Look even at the opening paragraph. It isn't a woman's fault. They are "overscheduled." Their husbands, "inattentive." Further on in the article it is even remarked that it is the "logical" outcome.
Why does this constantly happen with these weird double standards? Men who cheat are "dogs." Women are "logical, treating inattention, and just soothing their needs.
Maybe it is just me, but this article really sounds like an endorsement of infidelity for women. It also seems to take join in the fact that if men were the oppressor and acted badly, that when women do it, it is empowering and proper.
Nick
Comments
I'll read the article.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I agree with your general point against double standards, but you have the wrong double standard, Nick. Women who cheat are usually "lying slutty bitches" or some variation. Men who cheat are usually regarded as "players" or some variation. Isn't that obvious to most of us posting here, though?
I'll read the article.
That's more of a junior/high school double standard.
Originally posted by cooop
That's more of a junior/high school double standard.
I agree. It's sophomoric. But that doesn't mean it's not prevalent-- and it doesn't mean the sentiment behind the language I used isn't widespread. In fact, it's one of the most common double standards out there.
I thought the article was dumb as well, for the same reasons as Nick, but it didn't strike as much of a chord with me. I must say, though, that TV shows like "sex and the city" certainly push to the front the ideal of the metropolitan lady as a loose, manipulative floozie.
And don't get me started about the "womens'" cable channels. It seems like everything on them is about some chick getting raped, and then having to recover. I don't know which is worse -- promoting the concept of a strong woman as a victim or as a mischevious siren.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
It seems like everything on them is about some chick getting raped, and then having to recover.
Well, part of that is because of how common it is. Sexual assault on women is indeed very common, with something like 1 in 6 US women being a victim of rape or attempted rape at some point in their lives.
Oh, and there's no question that it is more socially acceptable for a man to have multiple partners than for a woman to, and that really goes for most of the world.
Originally posted by giant
Well, part of that is because of how common it is. Sexual assault on women is indeed very common, with something like 1 in 6 US women being a victim of rape or attempted rape at some point in their lives.
Oh, and there's no question that it is more socially acceptable for a man to have multiple partners than for a woman to, and that really goes for most of the world.
There is an another difference with man and women. Men like to claim to their friends they have adventures, women are more secrets for this.
Originally posted by trumptman
It's the new fall style
Could anyone here imagine someone actually getting away with an article like that endorsing men having affairs?
Look even at the opening paragraph. It isn't a woman's fault. They are "overscheduled." Their husbands, "inattentive." Further on in the article it is even remarked that it is the "logical" outcome.
Why does this constantly happen with these weird double standards? Men who cheat are "dogs." Women are "logical, treating inattention, and just soothing their needs.
Maybe it is just me, but this article really sounds like an endorsement of infidelity for women. It also seems to take join in the fact that if men were the oppressor and acted badly, that when women do it, it is empowering and proper.
Nick
I have a different lecture of this article. In the three first years of a love relation, the brain is under the stimulation of a huge amount of various neuromediators, who bring you in this strange state that is called love.
After some years, this neuropsychic state disappear, and the love "passion" disappear. At this stage, it can be transformed for something more intellectual, a different love, called tender. But this transformation recquiere attention to the other, and it's not a mandatory process. If this process do not work, it will lead to a total lack of sentiment and divorce.
Some others people are only interested by the love passion, this particular neuropsychic state, and are truly addictive. This kind of people cannot stay more than a couple of years with the same person : she or he have to changer of partner periodically. That's why some person have been married so many times.
I see more this article, like an illustration of this situation, than anything else. If you don't feed the fire of love, it will disappeared sooner or later.
Originally posted by giant
Well, part of that is because of how common it is. Sexual assault on women is indeed very common, with something like 1 in 6 US women being a victim of rape or attempted rape at some point in their lives.
That's clearly a doctored number, a result of varying definitions of rape. The one used to yield that number is clearly not the one I use. A lot of women claim that they have been "raped" after they get drunk, engage in promiscuous behavior, yet somehow find themselves in a compromising position. I'm not saying it's OK, but it's far from the violent rape that is used as a poster child for all of these "rapes." Furthermore, modern, promiscuous lifestyles of women are as much to blame, if not more to blame, for that artificially high number.
I think both are despicable and reprehensible.
At the same time if a couple is married and have decided together that sex with other partners is allowed, I have no problem with that.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
"players" aren't really cheaters. I think a big criteria for being a player is being a bachelor.
Typical response..from a player! (
Originally posted by Splinemodel
That's clearly a doctored number, a result of varying definitions of rape.
I doubt it. I've known quite a few women from all sorts of backgrounds that have had some sort of molestation/sexual assault experience. Because of past jobs of mine, I've also seen quite a few studies (and there are many, many, many) on it trying to determine the percentage of population, and while that number varies, the common element is that it's usually a pretty high number. I was surprised when I first started looking into it, too, but it's pretty clear that it's fairly common, perhaps even more common than studies show. Note, too, that this includes sexual abuse during childhood, which is not as totally uncommon as popular consciousness accepts.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I have a different lecture of this article. In the three first years of a love relation, the brain is under the stimulation of a huge amount of various neuromediators, who bring you in this strange state that is called love.
After some years, this neuropsychic state disappear, and the love "passion" disappear. At this stage, it can be transformed for something more intellectual, a different love, called tender. But this transformation recquiere attention to the other, and it's not a mandatory process. If this process do not work, it will lead to a total lack of sentiment and divorce.
Yeah, I agree, though I've never heard it put in that physiological fashion.
I think it's no coincidence that the divorce rate rose at the same time as the "me generation" attitudes increased. If you marry primarily for "love" (i.e., because you feel passionate love), then it's only natural that after a few years those feelings are going to dissipate, and then you're going to say "I'm not in love any more, and therefore I should get divorced/have an affair." If we think of marriage as more of a social institution for stability and children and all that, rather than solely for love, then I think there's less of a problem.
About the double standard that Nick raises - like in a lot of these cases, the double standard probably arises from the fact that men and women really are different.
Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah, I agree, though I've never heard it put in that physiological fashion.
I think it's no coincidence that the divorce rate rose at the same time as the "me generation" attitudes increased. If you marry primarily for "love" (i.e., because you feel passionate love), then it's only natural that after a few years those feelings are going to dissipate, and then you're going to say "I'm not in love any more, and therefore I should get divorced/have an affair." If we think of marriage as more of a social institution for stability and children and all that, rather than solely for love, then I think there's less of a problem.
About the double standard that Nick raises - like in a lot of these cases, the double standard probably arises from the fact that men and women really are different.
That"s it.
I think that the physiological studies of love are interesting for the understanding of union.
no, no double standard here folks. move along.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I have a different lecture of this article. In the three first years of a love relation, the brain is under the stimulation of a huge amount of various neuromediators, who bring you in this strange state that is called love.
After some years, this neuropsychic state disappear, and the love "passion" disappear. At this stage, it can be transformed for something more intellectual, a different love, called tender. But this transformation recquiere attention to the other, and it's not a mandatory process. If this process do not work, it will lead to a total lack of sentiment and divorce.
Some others people are only interested by the love passion, this particular neuropsychic state, and are truly addictive. This kind of people cannot stay more than a couple of years with the same person : she or he have to changer of partner periodically. That's why some person have been married so many times.
I see more this article, like an illustration of this situation, than anything else. If you don't feed the fire of love, it will disappeared sooner or later.
The primary chemical neuromediator that has been associated as the "love" chemical is Oxytocin.
Produced when somebody touches our skin (and we like it) and suspected as part of the mother-child breastfeeding bond. And IIRC, the research does show that most people 'lose the feeling' about two years out. Not sure if some habituation or tolerance builds up or if the net oxytocin buzz from contact decreases as the bloom wears off the first flowering of a relationship (which to me makes more sense from an evolutionary standpoint). Vasopressin also plays a factor, and the monoamines are involved in some lustful stages. See the BBC story with more detailed chemical 'recipe'
Even the Economist has reported on the chemical man behind the curtains of love.
A lot of women claim that they have been "raped" after they get drunk, engage in promiscuous behavior, yet somehow find themselves in a compromising position. I'm not saying it's OK, but it's far from the violent rape that is used as a poster child for all of these "rapes." Furthermore, modern, promiscuous lifestyles of women are as much to blame, if not more to blame, for that artificially high number.
talksense101
the article is a waste of space.
I gotta tell ya, reading this response made me a little sick.
I didn't really find the article to be endorsing a double standard, because really, you could write a very similar article about men and I don't think it would cause a big deal.