Double-Standards in Dating

[Pull n Pray]

But to boil it down, isn't it hypocritical to reject someone for having too many sex partners if you yourself have had more?

 

Would it be hypocritical to reject someone for being too short and not making enough money even if that person was taller than you and made more money than you?

[kilgore]

Would it be hypocritical to reject someone for being too short and not making enough money even if that person was taller than you and made more money than you?

 

I think it would

[Pull n Pray]

No. Both - the valuing specifically -are acts of volition. The woman's number of partners is also.

 

So do you think we can choose which qualities make us sexually and romantically attracted to someone? Through shear willpower, we can counter the forces of evolution? Do you believe in evolution?

[Pull n Pray]

I think it would

 

If it is hypocritical to desire in a mate features and qualities that you yourself don't possess, then it would be hypocritical to have desire for the opposite sex.

[kilgore]

If it is hypocritical to desire in a mate features and qualities that you yourself don't possess, then it would be hypocritical to have desire for the opposite sex.

 

Not really. What is hypocritical is to hold the other person up to a standard of behavior that you yourself can't meet

[Pull n Pray]

Not really. What is hypocritical is to hold the other person up to a standard of behavior that you yourself can't meet

 

I agree that it would be hypocritical to morally condemn someone for behaviors that you yourself also engage in. But deciding not to date someone is a long way from morally condemning them.

 

It is perfectly fine if a woman is not romantically attracted to men who cry as much as she does. It would be hypocritical if she were to refer to these men as spineless crybabies.

 

It is perfectly fine if a man is not romantically attracted to women who have had as many sex partners as himself. It would be hypocritical if he were to refer to these women as worthless whores.

[Toodaloo]

I think it very much depends on what a person wants and needs in a relationship to feel loved.

 

Some prefer to show love by earning money and caring for their loved ones financially, some like to care for them physically, some are emotionally astute some have more prevailant skills in other areas. What works for one couple will not work for another.

 

I don't think you can quantify it or put a "rule" to it.

 

As for Woggles comment that women are always happy as long as they get what they want same goes for men!

 

Its about team work and complimenting each other. Not some bloody game to see who can earn the most or do the most washing up...

[elaine567]

Hypocrite

noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

 

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

 

 

Nothing there suggests that a man who is fat and seeks a thin bride is a hypocrite, he is only a hypocrite if he preaches a fat doctrine and tells all the men he meets to marry fat women and then chooses a thin bride, or preaches fat is beautiful and he himself is on a permanent weight loss diet.

 

The use of the word hypocrite is wrong, when used re women who seek monied men when they are poor, short men seeking tall women, short women seeking tall men etc. - being a hypocrite is about belief systems and attitudes and NOT about physical characteristics and inescapable facts.

[Shining One]

As the OP alluded to, there is a double standard when it comes to double standards.

I wish I had thought of wording it this way.

No. To break it down again, man uses volition in exercising a preference, which is a judgment of another volitional act - the woman's number of partners. Woman uses volition in exercising a preference, which is a judgement of an innate trait - the man's height, not another volitional act. The woman is simply applying a preference. She has no moral duty as a short woman to date short men. The man tho is contradicting himself and applying a double standard by requiring a behavioral trait that he himself violates.

Here's how I see it. The woman is requiring the man to posses an attribute (average or above average height) that she herself does not posses. She has just as much a right to pursue a tall man as a promiscuous man has to pursue a low-partner-count woman. They are both applying double-standards. The source of the standards (inherent vs. past choices) is not relevant.

Nothing there suggests that a man who is fat and seeks a thin bride is a hypocrite, he is only a hypocrite if he preaches a fat doctrine and tells all the men he meets to marry fat women and then chooses a thin bride, or preaches fat is beautiful and he himself is on a permanent weight loss diet.

 

The use of the word hypocrite is wrong, when used re women who seek monied men when they are poor, short men seeking tall women, short women seeking tall men etc. - being a hypocrite is about belief systems and attitudes and NOT about physical characteristics and inescapable facts.

I stand corrected on the use of the word hypocrisy. However, the point remains: Some double-standards are socially accepted and others are not.

 

 

I hesitate to use this example since it's a common hot-button issue for me, but it fits the thread: Two people are set up on a blind date. They have dinner and the check comes. The man does not offer to pay for the woman and the woman does not offer to pay for the man. One of them is labelled "cheap" and the other is not, despite the fact that both performed the exact same action.

 

Please, do not derail this into a "who should pay" debate. This is just an example of a socially accepted double-standard.

[elaine567]

I hesitate to use this example since it's a common hot-button issue for me, but it fits the thread: Two people are set up on a blind date. They have dinner and the check comes. The man does not offer to pay for the woman and the woman does not offer to pay for the man. One of them is labelled "cheap" and the other is not, despite the fact that both performed the exact same action.

 

Two people are set up on a blind date. They have first date sex. One of them is labelled "cheap", a ho and an whore, and the other is not, despite the fact that both performed the exact same action.

[Shining One]

Two people are set up on a blind date. They have first date sex. One of them is labelled "cheap", a ho and an whore, and the other is not, despite the fact that both performed the exact same action.

Great example of another common double-standard!

[Els]

I hesitate to use this example since it's a common hot-button issue for me, but it fits the thread: Two people are set up on a blind date. They have dinner and the check comes. The man does not offer to pay for the woman and the woman does not offer to pay for the man. One of them is labelled "cheap" and the other is not, despite the fact that both performed the exact same action.

 

As I mentioned before, it is the labeling and judging that makes this a double standard, not the preference. Labeling someone 'cheap' or 'a whore' etc when they did the same thing as you, is a double standard. Preferences on the other hand, are free for all as long as they do not involve calling the other party derogatory names.

 

To be honest though, this board seems to be much more accommodating of the 'numbers' double standard than the 'paying' one. Almost all of the threads involving a woman who enjoys being treated to dinner tend to result in her being lambasted to such an extent that I would've thought she stole his bank PIN and cleared a million dollars out of his account if I didn't read the opening post.

[njoylife]

Two people are set up on a blind date. They have first date sex. One of them is labelled "cheap", a ho and an whore, and the other is not, despite the fact that both performed the exact same action.

 

Great example of another common double-standard!

 

It's interesting with these double standards.

 

If we categorize the man and a woman dating under a category of humans/people, then it's a double standard, since the same action is judged differently for two humans. Humans are the same. Hence the double standard.

 

Now, if we go into detail, we will see that these two humans are not both the same gender. So we can go into deeper differences between males and females physiology, psychology etc. Then we should ask the question, should all kind of behavior displayed by different genders by treated absolutely the same by society? If there is even one single exception to this answer, then this would mean that different genders are expected to behave differently according to gender, since they are different. Thus we can't speak about double standards.

 

It all depends on how one approaches the issue.

Edited August 26, 2015 by njoylife

[elaine567]

To be honest though, this board seems to be much more accommodating of the 'numbers' double standard than the 'paying' one. Almost all of the threads involving a woman who enjoys being treated to dinner tend to result in her being lambasted to such an extent that I would've thought she stole his bank PIN and cleared a million dollars out of his account if I didn't read the opening post.

 

It tends to be mostly all about lambasting women though. Women it seems do little right, and the "double standards" accusation tends to be levelled against women regarding many dating situations.

The numbers game gets played a lot too, if the message is not "I hate the hos", it is about "How can I get over her past?"

It is remarkable how that mentality seeps into so many areas of the forum.

[Woggle]

That's fine... both autumn and Quietstorm, but the rest of us don't have to buy into these stereotypes or coddle others that do.

 

 

I suppose people are free to conclude that biology dictates everything, but I believe that societal factors play a bigger role, and that's where it's up to everyone not to support double standards or those who have them... because basically, that's where it all starts. It all starts with what we, as a society, choose to support or not support.

 

 

To me, someone who has double standards is character flawed and lacking in integrity... simple as that.

 

So do I but I choose not to date them and women who don't like double standards should choose not to date men who have them but we won't change their minds. You can scream and shout about it until you lose your voice but people will still have their views and at the end of the day that is their right. I would rather they be open about it instead of being PC and having it creep up later on. Let people know what they are dealing with and they can take or leave it.

[road]

It does not matter why people will or will not date another person.

 

 

It is their right to chose what they like and reject what they do not like.

 

 

We forget evolution and history have taught us when it comes to selecting mates.

[candie13]

Not really. What is hypocritical is to hold the other person up to a standard of behavior that you yourself can't meet

it's not hypocritical, it's a personal choice. it's not like they refuse to hire women who have had a certain number of partners.

 

Those men simply refuse to date such women. Perfectly ok. Some men would date and string those women along for years and then decide to dump them and marry someone else more in line with their expectations. That's what I have a problem with. Stringers, liars etc.

 

As long as those men are upfront about their expectations and they keep it personal, it's perfectly ok to go after whatever it is that they want, including blue eyes black hair midgets, if such is their desire.

[lino]

Thank you all for the responses thus far. I think Quiet Storm covered the topic nicely. I've been following the Dating a woman who has slept around.... thread in which the promiscuous man / chaste woman double-standard is prevalent. Unfortunately, that thread was ruined due to lots of name-calling which drew people away from discussing the double-standard itself.

 

 

 

I understand why double-standards exist. People "like what they like". The question posed here is why some double-standards are socially accepted while others generate "hate". From my point of view, I see no difference in the following:

• 5'3" Woman rejects a 5'8" Man for being too short.
  
• 20-partner-count Man rejects a 15-partner count woman for having too many partners.
  

Each person is following their preferences. One is socially-acceptable and the other is hypocrisy. Why?

 

One of those isn't a double standard. Women like men that other women want and hence men who sleep around are of a higher value than those who don't.

 

This is independent of men's preferences.

 

The height thing is certainly a double standard in the modern age. Maybe 10,000 years ago it had some relevance.

[elaine567]

One of those isn't a double standard. Women like men that other women want and hence men who sleep around are of a higher value than those who don't.

 

In your dreams...

[Woggle]

In your dreams...

 

While I don't share that view I have never known a player that struggled with women. Some women want what another woman has or what she wants. It's common for women to want social proof when deciding whether or not to choose a man. If other women find him attractive he has passed some sort of vetting process.

[njoylife]

I mean, naturally men would also like women that are liked by many other men, it's just natural to like to most appealing people, if my girlfriend is hot, she is hot, she's gonna be much wanted. Same applies for guys. But I doubt that just the knowledge that a man is wanted, increased attraction. The thought in both men and women goes like : He/She is very wanted, he must have something other people like, may be I will also like him, so it's like a social thingy that increases your value. But it's same for both genders.

 

But having sex is different I guess. How women react to the knowledge that that a certain guy has slept with 50 women and how guys react to a certain woman who slept with 50 women? That's the important detail

 

To my observations and experience guys generally consider these girls non girlfriend material but at the same time very sexually appealing.

And girls, have no problem considering a guy who slept with 50 girls a boyfriend material.

 

Why is that? I'm not saying all people are like this, this is just from observations and conversations.

Edited August 26, 2015 by njoylife

[autumnnight]

It's not metaphysical at all.

 

 

It's dogma. Some people want to believe we are all genetically programmed so that they personally don't have to think for themselves.

 

 

For lots of people, they really can't wrap their brains around the concept of diversity.

 

 

... and lots of people are on a power trip when looking for another person to spend time with. or seems like that. I don't see how this one up man ship, and idea that 'everyone wants the best for themselves no matter how ****ty a partner they are or what they bring to the table' has anything to do with truly connecting with someone.

 

 

Sure, if you can delude yourself into thinking you seriously have something to offer that other person you aspire to fine. Or if you are the kind of person who can lie long enough to reel someone in... lots of people play that game. Me? Maybe I've just never wanted to lie to myself like that. That's why I've always looked for a partner, and if I aspired for a certain type of partner, I adopted the behaviors of that person or persons in order to have a better chance of attracting them.

 

 

In that respect, having double standards not only indicate a lack of character, but also laziness.

 

I'm not real sure where this angry rant or the post about biology that included me came from (since I never even mentioned biology).

 

Bottom line, whether we like it or not, we can't control other people, their preferences, or what we perceive to be their hypocrisy. That is reality. It has nothing to do with thinking for myself or lack of intelligence. It has to do with observation and living in the real world.

 

I'm 5'10" My powers of observation tell me that men prefer petite women - even men who are 6'4".

 

Guess what? No matter how much I rant or pontificate or belittle them....those men are not going to have some epiphany, dump their petite girlfriend, and come after me (especially after I bitched at them). It is what it is.

 

There are some men who DO like 5'10" women, so instead of acting as if tall men dating short women is a moral issue, I'll use my energy to appeal to those men who like tall women.

 

Not about biology; it's about reality and emotional intelligence.

[autumnnight]

While I don't share that view I have never known a player that struggled with women. Some women want what another woman has or what she wants. It's common for women to want social proof when deciding whether or not to choose a man. If other women find him attractive he has passed some sort of vetting process.

 

Your confusing women who want to sleep with a hottie with women who want a real relationship.

 

I'm not the "sleep with the hottie everyone wants" kind of woman, so a man who has been around the block 50 times doesn't impress me.

[Woggle]

Your confusing women who want to sleep with a hottie with women who want a real relationship.

 

I'm not the "sleep with the hottie everyone wants" kind of woman, so a man who has been around the block 50 times doesn't impress me.

 

Talk to any male player and there is a trail of broken hearts he has left behind. There is a lot of overlap.

[Els]

And girls, have no problem considering a guy who slept with 50 girls a boyfriend material.

 

No, I don't generally consider them such. Plenty of other women don't either.