Wow, a “women are evil” thread, right here on the Dope. Who’da thunk?
I know lots of people who ended up dating and even marrying their friend’s date. It’s a common way to meet people, I’d have to think.
Orange you glad he’s not the grapist?
I haven’t noticed either sex doing it more than the other.
The men I’ve seen ‘stealing’ other men’s girlfriends seemed to have the attitude that ‘the relationship was over anyway’ while the women who made a habit of doing it had this weird self esteem issue where they thought it made them special if they took a man from someone else, like it proved they were ‘better.’
They’re all screwed up. People who think relationships are a game where you ‘steal’ other people are stuck in a stage of childhood most of us left behind already.
In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, women are more likely to chase after a guy that’s in a relationship than men would, but as far as I know I’ve never had a **friend **do that, male or female. I don’t have many female friends, but I trust them all to respect our relationship.
I used to work in a large organisation where there was a “code” that you didn’t chase other guys wives, or work mates who were married.
It worked only if the people wanted to adhere to it.
LOL! I actually quite enjoyed The Grapist. I thought he(?) was harmless and silly, and generally so random that it was kind of like finding a pearl in an Oyster whenever he showed up to do his dastardly deeds.
I think some white-out is necessary. 
I don’t think it’s a “women are evil” thread at all. I think it’s a “women who are inclined to steal men, thus already not respecting boundaries, as opposed to men who are inclined to steal women, thus already not respecting boundaries, are they more aggressive and less inclined to stop?” thread. But all of that doesn’t fit succintly in the title.
It is possible that I have not understood just how woman-hating this thread is, however. I don’t mean that sarcastically, I mean sometimes you really don’t see the obvious.
I agree with caveat_lector that evolutionary factors should be considered. I would expect men to be more likely to try to have sex with other men’s girlfriends, since it’s the actual act of copulation that spreads the man’s genes–and he gets the added bonus that the other guy is providing care for the woman who is not even really having his children.
On the other hand, women hunt for the best combination of investment and genetic quality that they can get. Because of this, women ought to have stronger incentives to steal boyfriends, because they’re very much interested in the actual relationship–the affection, the gifts, the meals bought and payed for, etc.
That’s how I was leaning. I know a few guys who have slept with a friend’s ex, but not dated them. I know a few girls who have dated a friend’s ex. Once again, it’s all personal experience, not some scientifically studied data, but still.
I have no idea how to respond to the OP myself, but to comment on this line of query, I can point you to a book: The Moral Animal by Robert Wright (Amazon link). Wright lays out a primer on the emerging science of evolutionary psychology - it describes how what we have codified over time as “right” and “wrong” moral positions have emerged as the most successful evolutionary strategies. So - he is stating (or arguing that EvPsych states) that morals are a byproduct of Darwinian forces.
So the behaviors of males and females w/r/t poaching mates can be played out against this backdrop. He specifically delves into mating approaches and societies that are monogamist vs. polygynist (i.e., multiple females to one male) - how those structures emerged given the characteristics of those societies and how the trend moves to favor monogamy as certain community structures are achieved.
It really makes all of our ethical/moral backing-and-forthing look kinda silly in the face of clear underlying evolutionary forces…
I didn’t read anything you posted, due to the obnoxious nature of it. Just thought I’d let you know for next time.
Unfortunately, a lot of Evolutionary Psychology is not science and Wright argues a lot of things in his book that Evolutionary Anthropologists and other Evolutionary scientists find laughable. We have a copy of that book in our library at our field site and I don’t think a single one of us have read it without complaining about some aspect of it.
Be careful about individuals who explain things through evolutionary history which can be more easily explained through culture.
Sorry for the hijack, but briefly: okay, I am always open to having my ignorance fought. Can you point to any writing that summarizes the arguments against the points in Wright’s book? I’d like to read that…
Carry on.
since we are all whipping out anecdotes…
The three women of my past aquaintance who were poachers were more the “catch and release” type - generally, they did not want a relationship, they just wanted to prove that they could have him if they wanted. In two of those cases it was more aimed at one-upping me.
On the other hand, in my younger days I frequently got a lot of the sort of guy, who when told that I was in a relationship offered that they wouldn’t tell if I didn’t. Only once can I recall someone actively poaching with a relationship in mind, although one or two said if I was ever free they would be interested in hearing about it.
So, no idea, although my experiences indicate that there is a lot more sexual poaching than relationship in both the men and women I’ve known, and the reasons are more likely to be determined by gender than the actions.
I dated a guy for a year in college long-distance. We started dating immediately after he and a good friend of mine broke up after casually dating for two weeks (he initiated the break up because he wanted to date me).
What struck me as bizarre was how the friend pretty much completely ignored me after the guy and I broke up a year later, yet she was friendly to me the whole year we dated. At one point during the year, she broke down and told me how I’d hurt her, but I think the truth was that nobody (including myself) knew how she was practically in love with the guy, whereas it appeared casual to everyone else, myself included. I didn’t deliberately hurt her, and he made the choice to freely leave her, I didn’t ask her or so much as pressure him to.
I still don’t know why she had any right to be angry; they all attended this tiny liberal arts school and most of the group of a dozen of them had hooked up with (not slept with, but made out/groped) each other in various states of drunkenness. Here I was, on the up and up, dating a guy who liked me and who I liked, and I’m the one whose behavior is inexcusable?
Either way, I think it’s 50/50, but women who do pretend their motives are pure, whereas men pretty much know they’re doing somewhat admonishable thing. But I don’t see a problem with it to begin with, since it always takes two to tango.
Who needs a right to be angry when the person you love leaves you for a friend?
I miss The Grapist.
According to “Man Code”, it is fair game to hook up with a girl your friend is interested in up until the point where they are seriously dating/married. Or at least until someone closes the deal. For example, if you are hitting on a girl, it’s perfectly acceptible (if somewhat assholish) for me to swoop in and take her away from you. It’s just friendly competition and my friends and I have all done it to each other at some point. She’s not property, it’s not anyone’s fault if she likes the other guy better.
One you have closed the deal, hooking up with that girl would be considered “sloppy seconds” and most guys would then back off at that point. I’m not sure of the statute of limitations on sloppy seconds. It might be 24 hours or up to a week or more.
Once they are a couple, you are crossing some serious lines by hooking up with a friend’s girl. A habitual line-stepper typically has some issues where he needs to prove something to everyone and it is a good way to get your ass kicked. And other guys would view this as “not cool”.
My general sense is that women care less about that sort of stuff. Is there such thing as “Chick Code”?
For old times’ sake.