Several things got me thinking along these lines. The first was watching shows like “Blind Date,” and “Singled Out.” I don’t date much lately, but I watch these shows both to live vicariously and to learn what not to do.
But I began to notice a trend. At the end of the evening, when they ask each person if they would ever go out with the other again, there was a real disparity between the male and female answers. The guys almost always said they would do it again. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say more than 90% of the guys responded like so.
And the women? The ratio there was 50-50, at best. And they never seemed to give very specific reasons. The most common seemed to be “he’s not my type.”
The other thing that got me thinking was a thread I started right here on the SDMB about who initiates breakups more often. That thread didn’t have an overwhelming response, but it seemed that I was unusual in being a man who had initiated most of my own breakups.
So what gives here? Based on this mild empirical evidence, it seems women are much more picky about us guys than the other way 'round. Why is is this? Does anyone disagree?
I saw a standup routine once where the guy was talking about this same thing. He said, a guy can pull up to a stoplight, look in the rear view mirror, see the woman driving the car behind him, figure out what she looks like from the neck down, fall in love, get married, and have three kids, all in the time it takes the light to turn green. Women need to have more concrete information about guys before they begin to get interested; things like, say, names.
IMO, I would say yes, but I don’t necessarily know that pickier would be the right term. I think women in general need more of a sense of who the man is as a person, who he was, and who he will be before they commit themselves in any fashion. Whether this committment is a marriage, a long term relationship, or even just giving away her phone number, there’s a sense of trust involved with all of these situations that must be upheld by both parties.
One thing I’ve noticed in my own relationships and in those of my peers is that the women generally become most unhappy in the relationship when they feel that their SO doesn’t ‘know them’ as a person, the way we try to get to know them. I asked my husband when we first met whether he felt that there was a specific person out there for him, or if he felt he was equally capable of falling in love with any of a variety of certain types of women. At the time it disturbed me to hear that he didn’t think that there was just one out there, that he could just as easily fall in love with a number of different types of people.
I think a lot of what you’re witnessing falls in the category of ‘women having preconceived notions of what they want in a man’. Whether this is a good thing or bad thing is still up for consideration.
Dunno – I think guys are pretty picky, only it’s not as obvious because they tend to be the ones who initiate dates. That means they go through the initial weeding out process before they ask a woman out, often without her being aware of the fact. In situations where a man would get rejected if the roles were reversed, women simply get ignored, which tends not to register as much with either party.
The blind date shows you mention kind of throw a wrench into that theory, but on the other hand, they don’t bear all that much relationship to reality anyway.
I used to love watching Blind Date on my lunch break. Even if the girl had run over the dude with the car, kidnapped his puppy, and poured beer on his head…
Guy: I definitely think there was some chemistry. I’d go out with her again in a second.
Of course it’s true. It is due to a primal instinct - women are looking for a stable father/hunter/provider with good genes for their offspring. A woman has to override her instinct to sleep around. Men are the opposite - those bees just want to pollenate all the flowers to keep their genes going. Please don’t ask me to provide a link - I’m feeling mighty lazy and am conserving clicks.
Yeah, it’s a sticky situation to be in that requires some understanding on both sides. In my past experience, I had to realize that I wasn’t going to find a guy that ever truly understood all my wants, needs and desires, and at the same time my SO had to realize that there was more to me than just what I chose to reveal. It’s tough when you realize that you may never find someone who you connect with on every single level, but at the same time it gives you the freedom to be a unique person, both together and apart from your SO.
SouthernSky is mixing metaphors (bees don’t pass on their genes by pollenating flowers) but is basically right on. Guys are fussy about girls only on the (rather rare) occasions when they can afford to be. The general rule is that if it squats to pee, they’re interested.
Of course, when it comes to getting married, a different face of things may be seen.
Boy XJET, good thing I wasn’t your huysband, as I think love itself is an artificial construct created to serve a biological function. I finally decided this after all my friends started “falling in love” as soon as they felt the 'ole biological clock ticking.
Well, like I said, at the time it disturbed me. I think you’re partially right, in that a lot of what we take for love is borne of hormones and chemical interactions within the body, and other factors include behaviors and characteristics that we are attracted to in a mate. The point I was trying to get across is that I and alot of other females are under the impression that one day we’re going to find a man that is unlike any other man, a man that will instantly understand every bit of our deepest inner being, a man that will think we are truly an incredible and unique specimen, a man that will love every last detail of our inner personality and that will anticipate all our needs and desires.
The truth that I had to learn the hard way is that that man doesn’t exist. For anybody. But at the same time, I can’t let myself settle for just anybody who I happen to get along with. I want to at least try and re-create as much of that ideal as is realistically possible. I think my husband and I reach a happy medium in that department. Does that make sense?
I agree with what your husband said, XJET and personally find it hard to believe that there’s anything disturbing about it. I seriously doubt that with all the people in the world that there is only one who could possibly satisfy me in every possible way. Actually, I doubt there are any women who could satisfy me in every way, and if there are, the odds against my meeting one are too high to bother worrying about. To me, it’s all about finding someone who you relate to on the most important levels, and the rest will work itself out.
…Not that this widens the pool all that much, appearantly.
Maybe this has to do with the factoid stated in the OP that women are appearantly so much more likely to lose interest in their man and leave him, but I personally can’t afford to invest my entire emotional security in the One when she probably doesn’t exist, and even if she did, would appearantly consider leaving me if she decided that I didn’t know her in all the ways that she thinks she knows me.
Ah, I didn’t see your last post before I posted my reply!
The last paragraph makes perfect sense, and is pretty much what I was getting at in my own post. I just really want to know where this “psychic boyfriend” expectation comes from.
Well, not to generalize the genders (although we’re all doing more than our fair share of that here) but I think that in general girls in adolescence tend to be a lot more introspective than boys are, and so we naturally assume that boys are the same way. Girls are inundated with messages on ‘knowing who you are’ and ‘discovering your inner self’ and we’re very much concerned with becoming the ideal woman we believe we should be. Also, if and/or when we’re exposed to romantic situations, either from television or in books, it’s always presented in a manner that shows the man wooing the woman, mindful of her needs and wants, almost to the point of worship. We’re shown sappy stories of princesses waiting to be rescued, heroes who do noble deeds for their ladies’ honor, and men who are entranced and bewitched by mysterious yet humble women. Or maybe that’s just my adolescence :wally
I think you’re onto something there, XJET**. Another way women get all psyched up about finding THE ONE is from our friends and sisters. Women talk about relationships so freakin’ much that we get all kinds of weird ideas. For example, Jim talking to his best friend about our marriage:
Friend: How’s it going?
Jim: Great.
Me talking to my best friend about our marriage:
Friend: How’s it going?
Me: Well, it’s going pretty good. You know, once you get to know a guy, he’s…blah blah blah for about 2 hours.
Which isn’t all bad, though. Women compare a lot of notes and figure out what’s pretty normal and what just isn’t that way, too.
Hey, wasn’t this thread all about generalizing the genders right from the OP?
It’s interesting that you highlight “becoming the ideal woman we believe we should be” as a difference in the sexes. (No, I’m not saying that men go around trying to be the ideal woman… well not all men. :D) See, there is certainly an ideal male that there is social pressure to become. It’s just not generally one that you have to be introspective about ‘discovering your inner self’ to become, and it’s certainly not the male that you describe as the ultimate woman’s fantasy.
I’m sure it wasn’t just your adolescence, but I’ve met a couple of women who have complained to me that they don’t go for the kind of guy who is mindful of their wants and needs to the point of worship. They have a word for him that starts with “spine” and ends with “less.” I’ve also met ones who complain that they don’t want to be rescued because they’re certain that the kind of guy who wants to “rescue” her is only interested in her as something to rescue to make himself feel more manly. So yeah… there’s all kinds of people out there.
Well. This thread has taken an unexpected, but certainly not unwelcome, direction.
Finally I hear something that could help me make sense of the second thread I referenced in my OP. I was an incredibly introspective young man. I’m not just evaluating myself – other guys who knew me even said so. I think it was partly my personality, partly my peculiar upbringing. But whatever the reasons, the end result is that I don’t think I approach relationships the way most men do. It’s quite possible my internal though processes are more along feminine lines than masculine ones. Nobody seems to be aware of this but me though. I am externally not the least bit effete. Or, if I am, no one has ever dared say so.
**
I think there is an important, buried fact here; the person or persons who ultimately decides the “ideal” is not the same for both genders. Of course, there is peer pressure amongst both genders, but feminism has a strong strain of individual empowerment. The very words used in the above passage implies it: “discover your inner self,” “concerned with becoming the ideal woman” – singular.
What is the male equivalent to this? If one even exists, I have never seen it in action. I remember nothing from my childhood or young adult life that ever suggested any other path for a young man but public tests of manhood whose value was to be openly judged by his peers. Things like excelling at sports, serving in the military, getting a hot girlfriend, etc. Discovering your “inner self”?? That shit was for girls. (So to speak.)
My own experience backs this up. I was a normal guy in general who got great grades and never hassled anyone in my early high school career. But I got a very obvious boost up the social ladder of my school when I started playing football, and was good at that as well. I had finally passed a test that “mattered.”
**
I have spent years trying to understand this phenomenon. Does anyone have any idea where it comves from? The numbers of young women taken in by this romantic fairy tale is seemingly immense, but, as you said, it bears no resemblance to objective reality.
Why, then, is this myth perpetuated? Who is responsible for it? I don’t think men are. After all, this scenario requires the man to do most of the work of “wooing.” Granted, it puts women in a passive role and gives men control, more or less, over the romantic flow. But of what worth is that? We don’t live in feudal times. A woman can opt out of a relationship any time she chooses. This concept of “male control” is therefore shown to ultimately be illusory.
Not only that, but by encouraging women to be passive receptors to male advances, this scenario robs both men and women of whatever input the woman can provide.
See, that’s the thing. A lot of men think with their nads, so they presume women do the same thing.
I don’t disagree there is a biological component in the initial rush, or in the selection process, but there’s a lot more to it than just a biological function.
