When a married woman STILL seeks attention

[Woggle]

People can be social and friendly with people of the opposite sex but that is a huge difference from flirting.

[Restless_Journeyman]

oh, and way to skew my words AGAIN - i do want to find a spouse, just not one who is of higher socioeconomic standing than i am. i'm not interested in money, i'm interested in equal and complementary love. therefore i am not HYPERGAMOUS. which is what the reply was in relation to.

 

Only someone who has never wanted for much would say they're not interested in money. Those of us who have may not be OBSESSED with it, but lets not pretend that money doesn't help a lot, or that given two otherwise identical guys you wouldn't go for one over the other if he made twice as much.

 

I'm sure this isn't quite what you meant here but I would like to point out - especially to those men and women who are still seeking a partner - that no single person will ever meet ALL your needs. If you expect that, most relationships will be doomed to failure.

 

That isn't really inimical to my point, nor am I really in disagreement. It's unrealistic for any one person to provide everything you need and if someone were to really try, they'd probably get burned out in relatively short order.

 

Still..Some women need someone to tell them they're sexy and their husband isn't doing so, some women need to relax and stop worrying and flirting helps them, some women just need to convince themselves that they're still "got it" and nothing their husband says will help there, and yes some women need to get laid and their husband isn't doing so or isn't doing a good job.

 

It can start at flirting, but it can also end there very easily.

 

There can be a lot of reasons though that a woman would flirt without ever doing anything more. There are also a lot of reasons that a woman might cheat, but I'm of the view that if you act like someone worthy of her respect and take care of her well (in and out of the bedroom) a woman isn't very likely to cheat on you.

[thatone]

i'm only quoting this because i think it is absolutely ridiculous that you have stooped to lumping me into "one of those women" when all i've done is express an opinion different to yours. you have no idea what i'll be in 7 or 8 years, thankfully.

 

see that's where you're missing the point.

 

it's not "those women" it's "most women". you're not better than they are. they're not better than you are. everyone's opinions on what they find important in life changes when they get past 30, men and women alike.

 

women who haven't had marriage and children yet, but whose friends and sisters have, suddenly want marriage and children, which means they will be taking extended periods of time off from their career. if they can afford to, by virtue of marrying someone who is capable of providing for a family on a single income, a very high number of them will quit their career entirely at least until their kids are in school.

 

i don't deny the fact that a waitress married to a laborer won't have a choice, she will have to work and leave the kids in daycare. but a woman who can choose will not, because her opinions changed, she values raising her children more than her job in the vast majority of cases.

 

that's why women who waited until they're 30 or beyond to have children because they were going to grad school and working in their 20s won't marry someone beneath them in financial status except in very rare circumstances. by doing so they limit their options.

 

to summarize all of this, while you may not care that who you date is beneath you in goals and aspirations and ambition now, you WILL change your mind when you want children, otherwise you will also be limiting your options. it's a simple fact.

[LittleTiger]

People can be social and friendly with people of the opposite sex but that is a huge difference from flirting.

 

I disagree. It is very difficult to draw a line between the two.

 

There are as many places for that line to be drawn as there are people on this planet.

[Woggle]

I disagree. It is very difficult to draw a line between the two.

 

There are as many places for that line to be drawn as there are people on this planet.

 

If you are talking to a member of the opposite sex in a way you would never talk to a member of the same sex then it is flirting. Would you feel the same way about this if the genders were reversed. In another thread women are crucifying a man who simply looked at another woman but somehow this behavior is okay?

[LittleTiger]

If you are talking to a member of the opposite sex in a way you would never talk to a member of the same sex then it is flirting. Would you feel the same way about this if the genders were reversed. In another thread women are crucifying a man who simply looked at another woman but somehow this behavior is okay?

 

Yes, it works both ways - at least for me it does.

 

I don't do anything I wouldn't be happy with my partner doing too.

[Intergalactic]

see that's where you're missing the point.

 

it's not "those women" it's "most women". you're not better than they are. they're not better than you are. everyone's opinions on what they find important in life changes when they get past 30, men and women alike.

 

women who haven't had marriage and children yet, but whose friends and sisters have, suddenly want marriage and children, which means they will be taking extended periods of time off from their career. if they can afford to, by virtue of marrying someone who is capable of providing for a family on a single income, a very high number of them will quit their career entirely at least until their kids are in school.

 

i don't deny the fact that a waitress married to a laborer won't have a choice, she will have to work and leave the kids in daycare. but a woman who can choose will not, because her opinions changed, she values raising her children more than her job in the vast majority of cases.

 

that's why women who waited until they're 30 or beyond to have children because they were going to grad school and working in their 20s won't marry someone beneath them in financial status except in very rare circumstances. by doing so they limit their options.

 

to summarize all of this, while you may not care that who you date is beneath you in goals and aspirations and ambition now, you WILL change your mind when you want children, otherwise you will also be limiting your options. it's a simple fact.

 

thank you for your enlightening view, thatone. i'm definitely going to leave this alone now, because you don't agree with me and you clearly don't believe my opinion is worth squat so i don't believe there's any point in continuing to argue the point. we have completely differing views - luckily for me, the person i choose to marry will have similar views to mine because it wouldn't ever work otherwise.

 

i disagree with almost everything you have said in this thread, including in this post since i have seen the complete opposite of what you are saying, but i'm glad it's working so well for you.

[Intergalactic]

Only someone who has never wanted for much would say they're not interested in money. Those of us who have may not be OBSESSED with it, but lets not pretend that money doesn't help a lot, or that given two otherwise identical guys you wouldn't go for one over the other if he made twice as much.

 

it's not that i'm not interested in money - i am, i love money and i want money because i want a comfortable life filled with the things i dream of happening. it's that i don't want someone else's money. i have the means, education and intelligence to make my own way in the world, make my own money, and i will. therefore i am not interested in finding a spouse who will provide FOR me. i'd like to find someone who can co-provide for children we may have, if possible, but that is very different to wanting to find someone whose money i can rely on.

 

therefore, i do not believe i am hypergamous, as entropy3000 so kindly referred to me as.

[Movingthrough]

 

It just means they get an emotional high out of watching men look at their

bodies and knowing men are attracted to them.

 

I do think they are more

likely to cheat though.

 

 

The reality is, if they do stuff like this its because that aspect is not being covered in their current relationship. Most people become very into the person they are with, but when that starts to get boring or old, they look for the attention elsewhere. This is the problem, instead of addressing the issue with their partner, they look for the answer in someone else which ultimately leads to cheating.

[Entropy3000]

The reality is, if they do stuff like this its because that aspect is not being covered in their current relationship. Most people become very into the person they are with, but when that starts to get boring or old, they look for the attention elsewhere. This is the problem, instead of addressing the issue with their partner, they look for the answer in someone else which ultimately leads to cheating.

 

Yes. It is a symptom of a problem.

[LittleTiger]

Yes. It is a symptom of a problem.

 

I disagree. What some people are forgetting is that women and men are different.

 

One of the things that women learn from a very early age is that they are valued based on their looks (I'm sure most people wouldn't argue with that). Not only are they valued by men based on their looks, they are valued by the whole of society based on their looks. You'll never see a woman with grey hair and a furrowed brow in a lead romantic role in a movie - or even reading the news!

 

As a result, women feel good when people look at them admiringly, especially men, it's in our genes. Unfortunately for many women this becomes the most significant part of their identity - being beautiful and attractive to men. If that's how she is, then it's a big ask to expect your wife to give up a part of her identity just because you don't want other men to look at her.

 

Women are like peacocks attracting a mate - they are supposed to make themselves look as physically attractive as possible - that's what being a woman is in a lot of ways. It's really no different from a man behaving like a man - making himself appear as confident and successful as possible - by being charming or having a good career, a smart suit and a fat wallet - because that's what attracts more women.

 

The difficulty is that nobody asks a man to stop behaving like a man just because he gets married. A lot of men here seem to be suggesting that a woman should stop behaving like a woman. An attractive woman doesn't stop being attractive just because she has a ring on her finger. The only behaviour a man can reasonably ask a woman to stop after marrying him is having sex with other men - just as she expects him to stop having sex with other women. Anything else is just unfair.

 

If a woman dresses slutty and flirts with lots of men before she gets married, you either have to accept that she'll carry on doing that for most of her life, or you don't marry her.

 

It works both ways too, just in case anyone thinks I'm being sexist. If a man is a charmer, a player or a 'ladies man', just because a woman manages to 'catch' him doesn't mean she should expect him to suddenly only have eyes for her.

[whichwayisup]

I was wondering, if a woman who is married or spoken for, still acts like she really needs attention, (ie - dressing skantily, flirting with other men, etc) does it mean her current relationship might be on a downward slope?

 

Typically, a happily married woman or taken person, would not do this, right?

 

Either she is insecure and needs the attention from various men to feed her ego, make her feel good about herself or she is unhappy in her marriage. one can have a good marriage though and STILL need the attention of others. Or she has issues.

 

Look but don't touch.

[Entropy3000]

I disagree. What some people are forgetting is that women and men are different.

 

One of the things that women learn from a very early age is that they are valued based on their looks (I'm sure most people wouldn't argue with that). Not only are they valued by men based on their looks, they are valued by the whole of society based on their looks. You'll never see a woman with grey hair and a furrowed brow in a lead romantic role in a movie - or even reading the news!

 

As a result, women feel good when people look at them admiringly, especially men, it's in our genes. Unfortunately for many women this becomes the most significant part of their identity - being beautiful and attractive to men. If that's how she is, then it's a big ask to expect your wife to give up a part of her identity just because you don't want other men to look at her.

 

Women are like peacocks attracting a mate - they are supposed to make themselves look as physically attractive as possible - that's what being a woman is in a lot of ways. It's really no different from a man behaving like a man - making himself appear as confident and successful as possible - by being charming or having a good career, a smart suit and a fat wallet - because that's what attracts more women.

 

The difficulty is that nobody asks a man to stop behaving like a man just because he gets married. A lot of men here seem to be suggesting that a woman should stop behaving like a woman. An attractive woman doesn't stop being attractive just because she has a ring on her finger. The only behaviour a man can reasonably ask a woman to stop after marrying him is having sex with other men - just as she expects him to stop having sex with other women. Anything else is just unfair.

 

If a woman dresses slutty and flirts with lots of men before she gets married, you either have to accept that she'll carry on doing that for most of her life, or you don't marry her.

 

It works both ways too, just in case anyone thinks I'm being sexist. If a man is a charmer, a player or a 'ladies man', just because a woman manages to 'catch' him doesn't mean she should expect him to suddenly only have eyes for her.

 

 

I think most of the "disagreement" we have for the most part in discussing this is the degree of the behavior. We all have something in mind. One would hope that there are some boundaries to this. If not then yeah there is reason to disagree.

 

For me anyway, there is single behavior and married behavior. Absolutely changes that are "expected" to behavior must be discussed and agreed upon before marriage. Moreover as the relationship progresses boundaries must be reassessed, communicated and agreed to.

 

I do think it is silly for a man to expect a woman to be able to change much if she is really into slutty behavior. That said many men want a lady in the streets but a freak in the bed.

 

But the deal is this if a woman cannot respect her man enough to keep from putting her self out there, then he flat is in for some really bad times and IMHO should see that if this is important to her that they are not compatible and should send her on her way.

 

But again, I think we all have different pictures in out heads. In general though if the "lady" is putting out the vibe to other guys that they have a chance with her, then I say a boundary is being crossed. She should pick up on that and dial it wayyyyy back.

 

I guess if one has a trophy wife that is just about her looks then they got what they wanted. I am sorry but while a good looking woman is great to look at, I am really only truly turned on by a woman who has intelligence and a personallity. Sure I love the looks. But the dangerous ones ... are the ones who can carry on a conversation and can draw you in. They can be very hot in their own way without dressing slutty. Those that have to dress slutty are compensating for something lacking.

 

Also sex is a continuum. Not a single explicit act. So sex starts with the flirting. Otherwise it is just playing just the tip. It is very fair if the two are comitted and really into each other. Otherwise this behavior is a symptom of the bigger problem. There has to be boundaries set somewhere in that coninuum otherwise the seduction that many play will end up in infidelity along the way. Like and EA if not PA.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Entropy3000

[Entropy3000]

Either she is insecure and needs the attention from various men to feed her ego, make her feel good about herself or she is unhappy in her marriage. one can have a good marriage though and STILL need the attention of others. Or she has issues.

 

Look but don't touch.

 

Look but don't touch is a reasonable boundary for many to start with. Not the be all and end all but part of the foundation. Game is all about testing the woman's boundaries and methodically getting "compliance". The touch starts off in a very subtle manner and in ways as not be threatening, BUT the intention is exactly threatening to blow past the barriers in a well thougt out dance. Also saying "I am married" is not going to be anything but an increasing of your value to his advances. So touhing can happen very quickly. If your saying no with your lips and yes with your actions then there is an issue.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Entropy3000

[LittleTiger]

For me anyway, there is single behavior and married behavior. Absolutely changes that are "expected" to behavior must be discussed and agreed upon before marriage. Moreover as the relationship progresses boundaries must be reassessed, communicated and agreed to.

 

This could be the main reason that you and I can't agree on this topic. I don't believe in 'single' behaviour and 'married' behaviour. People are who they are and nobody should ever expect someone to change because they're 'married' - it's just a ceremony and a legal document, no brain surgery of any sort involved.

 

If anyone expects their partner to be different once they've agreed to a committed relationship then, most of the time, they'll just be heading for heartache.

 

Of course, I might be incredibly naive here. I was always a 'good' girl when I was younger - I still am I guess, though no longer a girl. I had my fair share of men but I never slept around or dressed like a slut. With me, what you see is what you get and I won't change for anyone. But then I never needed to because I have, and always have had, a huge amount of respect for myself and others.

 

Perhaps, with so many people having casual sex and multiple partners these days, it may be fair to ask them to certain behaviours after marriage - but you still can't be surprised if they don't.

 

Setting boundaries within a relationship is always a good thing, but I think, if you pick the right person in the first place, with similar beliefs and values, the boundaries are pretty much decided from the word go.

[Entropy3000]

This could be the main reason that you and I can't agree on this topic. I don't believe in 'single' behaviour and 'married' behaviour. People are who they are and nobody should ever expect someone to change because they're 'married' - it's just a ceremony and a legal document, no brain surgery of any sort involved.

 

If anyone expects their partner to be different once they've agreed to a committed relationship then, most of the time, they'll just be heading for heartache.

 

Of course, I might be incredibly naive here. I was always a 'good' girl when I was younger - I still am I guess, though no longer a girl. I had my fair share of men but I never slept around or dressed like a slut. With me, what you see is what you get and I won't change for anyone. But then I never needed to because I have, and always have had, a huge amount of respect for myself and others.

 

Perhaps, with so many people having casual sex and multiple partners these days, it may be fair to ask them to certain behaviours after marriage - but you still can't be surprised if they don't.

 

Setting boundaries within a relationship is always a good thing, but I think, if you pick the right person in the first place, with similar beliefs and values, the boundaries are pretty much decided from the word go.

 

Ah, yes we disagree. I believe in a different level of comittment within marriage. I am not allowed to go bang someone else any more just because I am being me.

 

When a person is "single" they are free to do anything, anytime with anyone. Within a marriage that would not even pass for an open marriage. That is just single behavior.

 

BTW, we don't have to agree.

I do agree one needs to select the right person. I encouarge men however to not put up with bad behavior. They will regret it if they do. That goes for women too.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Entropy3000

[LittleTiger]

Ah, yes we disagree. I believe in a different level of comittment within marriage. I am not allowed to go bang someone else any more just because I am being me.

 

When a person is "single" they are free to do anything, anytime with anyone. Within a marriage that would not even pass for an open marriage. That is just single behavior.

 

BTW, we don't have to agree.

O do agree one needs to select the right person. I encouarge men however to not put up with bad behavior. They will regret it if they do. That goes for women too.

 

I believe strongly in commitment within a marriage too - I'm not allowed to go bang someone else and neither is my partner.

 

But then I've never wanted to go around 'banging' guys anyway, unless I was in a committed relationship and he's never wanted to go around 'banging' women outside a committed relationship either.

 

We both had the same values when we were single as we do now - hence our 'single' behaviour is the same as our 'married' behaviour (although we're not actually married).

 

If you want someone who values commitment and monogamy, then you pick someone who has always valued commitment and monogamy - not someone who dresses or acts like a slut or a player.

 

Seems obvious to me.

Edited June 17, 2011 by LittleTiger

[Entropy3000]

I believe strongly in commitment within a marriage too - I'm not allowed to go bang someone else and neither is my partner.

 

But then I've never wanted to go around 'banging' guys anyway, unless I was in a committed relationship and he's never wanted to go around 'banging' women outside a committed relationship either.

 

We both had the same values when we were single as we do now - hence our 'single' behaviour is the same as our 'married' behaviour (although we're not actually married).

 

If you want someone who values commitment and monogamy, then you pick someone who has always valued commitment and monogamy - not someone who dresses or acts like a slut or a player.

 

Seems obvious to me.

 

This makes total sense. Life is just not always that simple. The rigors of marriage and the influences of "friends" and so on can effect people. Good people. We all can stray. I believe in the couple looking out for each other. I had an EA going on and was so much in the fog it took my wife calling me out on it to get things right. I love her so much for this. I did not "think" I was in an EA. It was not until I got out of the fog that I realized I was.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Entropy3000