Sorry, dear I was ovulating

[EnumaElish]

No mooshy pet names, I have used terms of endearment such as "snake" & "lizard", that's about as mushy as I can take it.

Are you sure you are not secretly longing for wooshie mooshie cutesie names?

 

[Evo]

Are you sure you are not secretly longing for wooshie mooshie cutesie names?

:yuck: Ack gag yuck :yuck:

NOOOOOOO!

No snookie wookums. :yuck:

I wouldn't mind be affectionately referred to as "bloated llama". :!)

 

[Math Is Hard]

Evo keeps it simple. She just calls all her pets "Roger".

 

[DocToxyn]

No mooshy pet names, I have used terms of endearment such as "snake" & "lizard", that's about as mushy as I can take it.

Ooooh, Evo, you're getting me all excited.:!) :!) :tongue2:

 

[Astronuc]

I guess "frog", "toad" and "newt" would send Doc over the edge.

"Ya big toad, you" - Hmmm, it does have a ring to it.

"Newtie wootie" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"Froggy woggy" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Aether]

The original quote I re-phrased.

OK, I'm not sure that it makes any difference, but I just want to be sure that you realize who I was referring to there.

I don't see how someone doesn't ultimately get hurt. Would someone who spreads himself thin expect to conceal the various relationships? I suppose if one is simply dating many women, perhaps there is limited or lack of expectation. At some point, a woman in a romantic relationship would likely expect an exclusive relationship (and in many cases the man would also), and that is how we have boyfriend/girlfriend, significant other, fiance, spouse.

What does the "mechanics" of relationships have to do with "Why aren't men more romantic?"? Isn't this a different topic entirely?

As for my friends and acquaintances, probably the majority have had at least one relationship while they were single where the other party lost interest because something better came along.

Boo...hoo... ...too bad... that's how evolution and "free markets" work.

About half of couples I have known are now divorced.

Of the half who are still married, what percentage are happy and content?

As for my own views, maybe I was born with them, but certainly my parents and religious perspective have had a significant influence. My father is a Methodist minister and my parents are celebrating their 50th year of marriage. My parents probably have the best relationship I have ever seen. My grandparents were married for similarly long periods, and unfortunately, both grandmothers died prematurely for health reasons. I am in my 24th year of marriage.
As I passed through puberty, my parents and I had many discussions about sex and male/female relationships, and that perhaps had the greatest influence on my views. Before puberty (Grade 1-7), I had several girlfriends. After puberty, I took male/female relationships more seriously, and so I was much more reserved with women. At that point, I began to look for a wife. Also, I did serious religious studies starting from about grade 7 through university, but I studied many religious practices, both eastern and western. I was very interested in the development of self-discipline and personal responsibility, and in the principle of 'reciprocity', which is an important element of any relationship. Also, I am not theistic in the traditional sense, nor am I atheistic.

Thank you for sharing this, Astronuc. With respect to religious concepts of "the flesh", do you suppress your own "flesh" or "nature" (what do you call it?)? If so, by what authority do you do this (e.g., "the Bible says to do this, so I do this", for example)?

 

[EnumaElish]

I wouldn't mind be affectionately referred to as "bloated llama". :!)

Okay, cuddly woolly li'l ms. llama...

 

[Astronuc]

What does the "mechanics" of relationships have to do with "Why aren't men more romantic?"? Isn't this a different topic entirely?

I was responding to the comment that -

Men can be quite romantic, but some of them may want to spread this out thinly over as many women (real or imagined) as possible without hurting anyone, whereas a woman may want a man to "spend" everything on her alone. Even if a man does not actually "act" on this impulse, it may be healthy to be able to acknowledge it.

I don't think the statement "Men can be quite romantic," is supported by the remainder of the text. The rest of the text is really about men desiring many women, whereas a woman might want an exclusive relationship. That has more to do with sexuality than romance. Sex and romance are two completely different aspects of human relationships. Romance may lead to sex, but one can certainly have sex without romance.

For me a sexual relationship requires a reciprocal commitment, and in my case a permanent commitment, as in marriage. But that's me. Others, including many friends seem to treat sex more casually in that there is no commitment involved, but rather it seems that momentary pleasure is the main objective.

Boo...hoo... ...too bad... that's how evolution and "free markets" work.

Well that's one way of looking at it. Most of the women I dated lost interest or were perhaps impatient with me - usually they wanted something more than just a platonic relationship. I felt terrible, but not guilty, because I could not be what they wanted. In all of one case, the women initiated the relationship. Besides my wife, the one other relationship I initiated stalled when I learned the woman was married (although separated). Over a three year period, we remained friends (platonic relationship) while she tried to work out whether or not she was going to get a divorce. After 3 years, my wife came along, and I went to tell the other woman I was getting married, at which point the other woman informed me she was getting a divorce. That was a very difficult moment. I made the right choice and married the woman to whom I have been married for nearly 24 years.

Of the half who are still married, what percentage are happy and content?

I really don't know. Perhaps the older couples, like my parents and some others I know, are pretty much happy and content. Others are not so. There were at least four couples which broke up in the last year, and I had thought all four were pretty stable. I think there is a higher level of discontent among younger couples, but I cannot quantify it. On the other hand, I have seen older couples who live fairly separate lives, even sleeping in separate rooms.

With respect to religious concepts of "the flesh", do you suppress your own "flesh" or "nature" (what do you call it?)?

I suppose before I got married, I suppressed or controlled my sexual desire - by choice. There is no authority but my mind and conscience. The Bible, as other texts, are simply books containing ideas, opinions, and examples on ethics and morality about which one can contemplate and make decisions or choices as to one's behavior.

 

[Aether]

I don't think the statement "Men can be quite romantic," is supported by the remainder of the text. The rest of the text is really about men desiring many women, whereas a woman might want an exclusive relationship. That has more to do with sexuality than romance. Sex and romance are two completely different aspects of human relationships. Romance may lead to sex, but one can certainly have sex without romance.

I only spoke of a selfless desire to give, but you have interpreted this as a selfish desire to take. Why is that, Astronuc?

I suppose before I got married, I suppressed or controlled my sexual desire - by choice. There is no authority but my mind and conscience. The Bible, as other texts, are simply books containing ideas, opinions, and examples on ethics and morality about which one can contemplate and make decisions or choices as to one's behavior.

The reason I asked is that if you were suppressing your natural feelings, as is often done for religious reasons, then your personal experiences and opinions on the subject might need to be interpreted in that light to be understood.

Thank you again for sharing this, Astronuc.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I only spoke of a selfless desire to give

So THAT'S what romance is! That must make Mother Theresa the most romantic person of all time!:tongue2:

All kidding aside, I truly don't even know how romance can be defined. Seems very subjective. Do we just "know it when we see it"?

 

[Smasherman]

I always pictured romance as going through extensive length to make the other person happy, without invading their privacy.

 

[Evo]

OK, I'm not sure that it makes any difference, but I just want to be sure that you realize who I was referring to there.
What does the "mechanics" of relationships have to do with "Why aren't men more romantic?"? Isn't this a different topic entirely?
Boo...hoo... ...too bad... that's how evolution and "free markets" work.
Of the half who are still married, what percentage are happy and content?
Thank you for sharing this, Astronuc. With respect to religious concepts of "the flesh", do you suppress your own "flesh" or "nature" (what do you call it?)? If so, by what authority do you do this (e.g., "the Bible says to do this, so I do this", for example)?

Wow, Aether, I'm sorry for whatever happened in your life, you always seem so bitter. Maybe stepping back and not taking everything so personally would help.

Let's not attack people for sharing their feelings.

 

[Evo]

I always pictured romance as going through extensive length to make the other person happy, without invading their privacy.

That's really good.

 

[Aether]

So THAT'S what romance is! That must make Mother Theresa the most romantic person of all time!:tongue2:

She was VERY cool.

All kidding aside, I truly don't even know how romance can be defined. Seems very subjective. Do we just "know it when we see it"?

Here's a definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Romance

I'm thinking more in terms of "2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful: " as a way of life (Mother Theresa does qualify for this IMHO), and if it leads to "1. a. A love affair" :tongue2: then that's great. However, isn't it true that "a love affair as a way of life" is usually much more of a woman's dream than a man's?

 

[Aether]

Wow, Aether, I'm sorry for whatever happened in your life, you always seem so bitter.

Nothing happened in my life to make me bitter, and I do not mean to come off that way at all. Would you mind picking one example from that list and explaining to me how it seems bitter to you, and then I'll explain what I mean by it? Perhaps the one about "boo..hoo..." is an obvious candidate, but that statement is the truth.

Maybe stepping back and not taking everything so personally would help.

I will try to keep that in mind.

Let's not attack people for sharing their feelings.

I didn't mean to attack anyone, ever (well, maybe once or twice, but only with a good reason). I apologize profusely if it seemed otherwise.

 

[Evo]

Nothing happened in my life to make me bitter, and I do not mean to come off that way at all. Would you mind picking one example from that list and explaining to me how it seems bitter to you, and then I'll explain what I mean by it? Perhaps the one about "boo..hoo..." is an obvious candidate, but that statement is the truth.

Ok, I'm glad, you seemed unhappy. I'll pick one tomorrow.

I didn't mean to attack anyone, ever (well, maybe once or twice, but only with a good reason). I apologize profusely if it seemed that way.

You don't need to apologize, just don't think everyone has a hidden agenda, most do, just not everyone. :tongue: Plus, I'm the only one allowed to be bitter and pick on people here. :grumpy:

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think Aether and Evo are in love.

 

[The_Professional]

it's about time.

 

[honestrosewater]

*throws rice at Evo and Aether*

Enjoy it while it lasts, you crazy kids.

 

[SOS2008]

You may be unaware of what a zoobie is. If you have a few minutes you can read the interesting link in my signature and then it ought to be clear. There are many zoobies and many different names for us.

Ah...I have heard of your kind, but not by the name of zoobie. So you have decided to make yourself known in the virtual world. Do you hope humans will learn to understand you and not destroy your kind? I wouldn't trust them--please be careful dear zoobie.

I'm thinking more in terms of "2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful: " as a way of life

Wow, that's working for me.

About the scissors in the forehead... Do men fantasize about their wives dying?

 

[Aether]

*throws rice at Evo and Aether*
Enjoy it while it lasts, you crazy kids.

So, my girlfriend says to me this morning "...have you gotten all of the rice out of your hair yet?" ...then she shows me how she's downloaded this thread into her PDA. [tex]\Longleftrightarrow[/itex]

She likes Astronuc's tales of marriages with happy endings, and she says that I don't sound bitter until I get to here: "Of the half who are still married, what percentage are happy and content?". Yeh, I guess I am a little bitter about what has become of "marriage". As I recall, the statistics (from Shere Hite, and possibly out of date - 1987) are that ~10% of couples are actually happily married; ~80% of men have cheated after five years, and ~70% of women have.

About the scissors in the forehead... Do men fantasize about their wives dying?

I suppose that guys like Scott Peterson have done that, but I've never heard anyone confess to such a thing.

 

[Moonbear]

I have my own definition of romantic...it's whatever your partner does that makes you laugh or smile when you started out in a bad mood. It's an important survival skill. Really, bringing flowers or chocolate is nice on the first few dates or on anniversaries, but not particularly memorable. It's when you don't expect anything and someone just knows how to do what it takes to put you back in a good mood on a bad day that sticks in your memory as making that person special. And it doesn't even require much, just a hug or an extra hand with the household chores so you can unwind and relax on a day when you're feeling overwhelmed. What I think makes it count as "romantic" is when your partner recognizes you need some perking up without you having to tell them. Of course, that just seems to be part of knowing someone you're in a relationship well enough to be able to communicate without words.

 

[honestrosewater]

So, my girlfriend says to me this morning "...have you gotten all of the rice out of your hair yet?" ...then she shows me how she's downloaded this thread into her PDA. [tex]\Longleftrightarrow[/itex]

Sorry, I didn't even know equivalence was defined on smileys.

 

[Evo]

It's when you don't expect anything and someone just knows how to do what it takes to put you back in a good mood on a bad day that sticks in your memory as making that person special.

Yep, it's the little, thoughtful things, that don't cost anything and don't take much time that mean so much.

 

[Astronuc]

I only spoke of a selfless desire to give, but you have interpreted this as a selfish desire to take. Why is that, Astronuc?

It's the "selfless desire to give" about which I (and perhaps most or all of the women around here) have a problem. IMO, that's total c**p. You might also clarify what type of relationships this man is 'selflessly giving'. If a man is participating multiple and concurrent intimate or other romantic relationships, especially without the knowledge of the women involved, then I am highly skeptical (actually cynical) that he is motivated by selfless consideration. If the relationships are just platonic, and rather than romantic, he is simply being kind, courteous, thoughtful, considerate, then that is an entirely different scenario. However, any man who spreads himself around is usually incapable of committing to one woman. In that case, I would recommend women do not become involved that such man.

I have also seen women behave in this way. I would stay clear of such women. In either case, it's rather sad to see.

I have no doubt that there are men in this world who think they are god(s) gift to women, and believing (deluding) as such, they feel compelled to spread themselves thinly (superficially ?).

My responses to your questions are based on observations of and comments from men and women, friends and acquaintances, particularly from those from the same failed relationship.

I always pictured romance as going through extensive length to make the other person happy, without invading their privacy.

Not necessarily extensive, but now and then one might put in a big effort, such as arranging a weekend or overnight get-away for two at a nice place.

I concur with Moonbear and Evo - it's the things (often little, sometimes big) that one does for one's partner/spouse/s.o. It's a demonstration of one's deep and abiding affection for the other.

As I recall, the statistics (from Shere Hite, and possibly out of date - 1987) are that ~10% of couples are actually happily married; ~80% of men have cheated after five years, and ~70% of women have.

Those stats seem a bit high. I have heard between 50-75% for men and 30-35% for women, but the proportion of women seems to have increased in the last decade or so. I have heard that 60% of first marriages in the US fail, often due to infidelity. Rather sad.

 

[Aether]

Wow, Aether, I'm sorry for whatever happened in your life, you always seem so bitter.

Oh, I think I know what you're talking about now. Since my screen name is "Aether" and this is "Physics Forums", and because of the "controversial" nature of some of the topics that I am interested in, then I always feel like I'm in a defensive posture because of that.

You might also clarify what type of relationships this man is 'selflessly giving'.

1) Soldiers dying in Afghanistan, and Iraq; 2) scientists devoting their lives to benefit humanity; 3) rock stars; 4) politicians; 5) clergy; 6) anyone else who sacrifices to "make a difference". The insatiable drive to self-sacrifice, to be "great", and the will to actually achieve this, is what is being defined here as "Romance": "2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful:". Other men might express this drive for "glory" as a love of sports for example, but not me.

If a man is participating multiple and concurrent intimate or other romantic relationships, especially without the knowledge of the women involved, then I am highly skeptical (actually cynical) that he is motivated by selfless consideration.

I said that I "only spoke of a selfless desire", not that every man has achieved this or maintains this at all times. "Selflessness", like a black-belt in karate, is a high-level of achievement/performance.

If the relationships are just platonic, and rather than romantic, he is simply being kind, courteous, thoughtful, considerate, then that is an entirely different scenario. However, any man who spreads himself around is usually incapable of committing to one woman. In that case, I would recommend women do not become involved that such man.
I have also seen women behave in this way. I would stay clear of such women. In either case, it's rather sad to see.
I have no doubt that there are men in this world who think they are god(s) gift to women, and believing (deluding) as such, they feel compelled to spread themselves thinly (superficially ?).

Whatever does this have to do with the question "Why aren't men more romantic?".

 

[Astronuc]

1) Soldiers dying in Afghanistan, and Iraq; 2) scientists devoting their lives to benefit humanity; 3) rock stars; 4) politicians; 5) clergy; 6) anyone else who sacrifices to "make a difference". The insatiable drive to self-sacrifice, to be "great", and the will to actually achieve this, is what is being defined here as "Romance": "2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful:". Other men might express this drive for "glory" as a love of sports for example, but not me.

What does this have to do with the question "Why aren't men more romantic?", particularly rock stars and politicians??

 

[Evo]

What does this have to do with the question "Why aren't men more romantic?", particularly rock stars and politicians??

Yeah, I'm not following this train of thought either.

 

[Aether]

What does this have to do with the question "Why aren't men more romantic?", particularly rock stars and politicians??

These are extreme examples of men seeking the adoration of people, particularly women, on a large scale. In the case of a politician they can also say that they are focused on "making a difference".

If a man is participating multiple and concurrent intimate or other romantic relationships, especially without the knowledge of the women involved, then I am highly skeptical (actually cynical) that he is motivated by selfless consideration.

I didn't mean to imply this. When I said "Men can be quite romantic" I was thinking more in terms of: "2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful: " as a way of life. This part of what I said is just basic biology: "but some of them may want to spread this out thinly over as many women (real or imagined) as possible..."; I'm talking about "seeking approval" here, and not necessarily anything more than that. This part "without hurting anyone" represents a self-imposed constraint on behavior. Each man deals with these facts of life in his own way. If a man is a romantic in the way that I am describing, then there may be some hope for his becoming interested in also being more romantic in the domestic sense.

The question (I think) that everyone is really interested in is: "Why don't men put more effort into making their relationships great?", or "Why don't they nurture these relationships as much as women do, or even lift a finger sometimes?". I know. But the answer to the question of "why aren't men more romantic" is that they (the salvagable ones at least?) are focused on being "great" at something else (the bigger the better), and the drive to do this seems (to me) to be an extension of their sex drives. Anyway, as I said, since I can only search my own heart I can only speak for myself.

 

[Aether]

Those stats seem a bit high. I have heard between 50-75% for men and 30-35% for women, but the proportion of women seems to have increased in the last decade or so. I have heard that 60% of first marriages in the US fail, often due to infidelity. Rather sad.

"70% of women married five years or more are having sex outside of their marriages." -- S. Hite, Women and Love, p. 856, 1987.

"89% of married women keep their affairs secret and/or are never "found out (or at least never confronted by their husbands)" -- S. Hite, Women and Love, p. 861, 1987.

"76% of married women having affairs are rather matter-of-fact about their double lives and do not feel guilty." -- S. Hite, Women and Love, p. 862, 1987.

What does this have to do with the question "Why aren't men more romantic?", particularly rock stars and politicians??

"Men take love as a secondary factor in their lives--their careers are more important and the area they can get most admiration." -- S. Hite, Women and Love, p. 86, 1987.

"Men like to play knights rescuing the princess or saving the queens from the men whose ***** they just want a goood excuse to stomp anyway. Maybe we're just staus symbols or good-luck charms. Maybe they're into idol worship and simply are looking for someone beautiful enough to glorify." -- S. Hite, Women and Love, p. 87, 1987.

 

[Evo]

"70% of women married five years or more are having sex outside of their marriages." -- S. Hite, Women and Love, p. 856, 1987.
"89% of married women keep their affairs secret and/or are never "found out (or at least never confronted by their husbands)" -- S. Hite, Women and Love, p. 861, 1987.
"76% of married women having affairs are rather matter-of-fact about their double lives and do not feel guilty." -- S. Hite, Women and Love, p. 862, 1987.
"Men take love as a secondary factor in their lives--their careers are more important and the area they can get most admiration." -- S. Hite, Women and Love, p. 86, 1987.
"Men like to play knights rescuing the princess or saving the queens from the men whose ***** they just want a goood excuse to stomp anyway. Maybe we're just staus symbols or good-luck charms. Maybe they're into idol worship and simply are looking for someone beautiful enough to glorify." -- S. Hite, Women and Love, p. 87, 1987.

Sounds like a very biased book. I disagree with it.

 

[Aether]

Sounds like a very biased book. I disagree with it.

I have read it all, and I think that Shere Hite is heavily biased by feminist ideology. However, it's the best "scientific" data that I have on this subject.

 

[NorrisP]

you relly understood aether meant ? i got in a completely diffent way

 

[EnumaElish]

Evo was right on target when wrote "bias," as the following (lengthy) excerpt from an intro. stat. textbook attests:

A survey is sometimes used to determine the views of a well-defined group of
people. If Shere Hite’s 4500women consisted of most or all “women chief executives
of major corporations,” we would be interested in the views of the group for their own
sake. How did Hite get her women? She sent out 100,000 questionnaires to a variety
of women’s groups ranging from feminist organizations to church groups and garden
clubs.
Basically, the 4500 were just those who replied and thus form a group too illdefined
to be of any interest in itself. Were the 4500 representative of American
women in general, as Hite appeared to believe? First she sent out her questionnaires
to women’s groups. As Time stated, this strategy “means she was getting mostly one
kind of person—‘joiners’.” People who are unhappy or unsatisfied may be more likely
to be “joiners,” perhaps because they need more companionship outside of the marriage.
We call this type of problem, in which the population being sampled is an unrepresentative
subgroup of the population of interest, selection bias. An even more
important problem with the Hite study, however, is the fact that only 4.5% of those
surveyed responded. Time quoted Regina Herzog, of the University ofMichigan’s Institute
for Social Research, as saying, “Five percent could be any oddballs. We get pretty
nervous if respondents in our own surveys go under 70%.” Respondents to surveys
differ from nonrespondents in one important way: they go to the trouble of filling
out what in this case was a very long, complicated, and personal questionnaire. They
may well differ with respect to the issues under study as well. This type of problem
is called nonresponse bias. Time quoted pollster Hal Quinley as saying, “If sex was
not very important then the woman wouldn’t answer. If it was a burning issue, she
would.”
The sampling design of the Hite study was more complicated than portrayed in
our description of it to date. After the first 1500 responses, Hite made a comparison
between her respondents and the general U.S. female population and then tried to
fill the gaps to ensure a sample that was fairly representative by age, geographic location,
education levels, religion, and economic status. For example, the proportions of
Roman Catholics and Protestants in the sample were roughly the same as the proportions
in the general population. Does this make us feel happier about the results? Not
really.What matters is that we want a sample whose members are representative with
respect to their level of satisfaction with their love relationships. Every subgroup of
the population has dissatisfied members. If we are still tending to get disproportionate
numbers of dissatisfied people from each subgroup, then obtaining a sample that
is representative with respect to these other demographic variables or characteristics
has not helped us.
By drawing on other polls, the critics argued that Shere Hite’s women were not
representative. Some of the polls were conducted by reputable polling agencies while
others were conducted by magazines. For example, a Woman’s Day survey of 60,000
women and a New Woman survey of 34,000 women were quoted by Time. We have
to be careful here. Magazine and newspaper polls are sometimes readership polls in
which the survey questions are printed in the publication and interested readers send
in the completed questionnaires (self-selection). Such polls are plagued by precisely
the same problems as those of the Hite study—a population sampled that is not the
population of interest, low response rates, and atypical respondents. Time quoted
Hite as admitting she didn’t conduct a truly scientific study. “It’s 4,500 people. That’s
enough for me.” Having a large number of respondents is of no help. If the sample isn’t
representative, we are obviously no better off with a sample of 60,000 or 100,000, or
even 1 million respondents, than we are with 100.
The biases mentioned above would ensure that a certain portion of the female
population ruled themselves out of being surveyed by the method used. This group
of women could not be represented in the final sample. Clearly any sensible sampling
method must, at the very least, allow any woman from this group to have the same
chance of being selected as any woman not in the group. Applying this to every possible
group, what is needed is a random sample, namely one in which every woman
in the population has the same chance of being selected. If the randomly selected
sample was too small, then certain groups of women may not be represented simply
by chance. However, if the survey was large enough, the sample would be representative
in the sense that the makeup of the sample would reflect the makeup of the
population.

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks EnumaElish - pretty much as I expected. It would seem the population on which those statistics are based are heavily biased. I doubt one would find the women of the Southern Baptist Convention represented.

I agree with Evo's comments.

My wife had the book in a box in the basement. It and some other old books recently went into the garbage. I believe my wife got the book from a friend, who expressed some sympathy for the feminist position.

I'd have to say that the statistics seem in contrast to my wife and most women I know.

Years ago, one of my wife's friends told me I should read the book. She however has been divorced and had a string of bad relationships, so I can't really put a lot of faith in the book.

Besides the statistics quoted seem to have little to do with why men aren't more romantic. I have to wonder why the statistics were mentioned in the first place.