Are Women More Likely to Cheat During Ovulation?

[zoobyshoe]

What's the zoobie view on this?

I guarrantee you that under sodium pentathol interrogation of any zoobie you pick you'll get a different honest answer.

 

[SOS2008]

Leave it to MIH to find the topic for this thread--it makes me miss GD.

I'm laughing that it says the women are more likely to cheat if the other guys are more attractive than their own guy. Does it really matter what stage of the cycle you're at to move on to a more attractive guy if the one you're with is not as attractive? If there's something you find less attractive about him in the first place, isn't that a bad sign right from the get-go?

In primitive times rugged features were associated with being a good provider. Now we are attracted just for the sex (at that time of the cycle only, of course).

I guarrantee you that under sodium pentathol interrogation of any zoobie you pick you'll get a different honest answer.

There are more? I thought you were a one-of-a-kind. Well at least a rare breed.

 

[Evo]

Found it.

A recent study conducted by UCLA's Department of Psychiatry
has revealed that the kind of face a woman finds attractive
on a man can differ depending on where she is in her menstrual cycle.

For example: If she is ovulating, she is attracted
to men with rugged and masculine features.

However, if she is menstruating or menopausal,
she tends to be more attracted to a man with scissors
lodged in his temple and a bat jammed up his a$$ while he is on fire.

Further studies are expected.

 

[EnumaElish]

How about romantic? Why aren't men more romantic?

Because no matter how hard one tries, one can't be romantic enough! It's written here. (I've done my homework.)

 

[Astronuc]

However, if she is menstruating or menopausal, she tends to be more attracted to a man with scissors lodged in his temple

Ah, OK. I was trying to get the connection here. I thought it had something to do with 'red', based upon -

Red is romantic, because red is the color of love and passion. Consider roses. Red roses mean, "I love you."

from site link provided by EnumaElish

I imagine lots of red with the scissors lodged in one's temple.

Thanks for the clarification Evo.

Remind me never to get on your wrong side.

 

[Evo]

Because no matter how hard one tries, one can't be romantic enough! It's written here. (I've done my homework.)

That's cute. Not completely accurate, but a starting place.

 

[Evo]

Ah, OK. I was trying to get the connection here. I thought it had something to do with 'red', based upon -
from site link provided by EnumaElish
I imagine lots of red with the scissors lodged in one's temple.
Thanks for the clarification Evo.
Remind never to get on your wrong side.

It's true though.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

As in Giacomo Casanova (real or fiction).

Of course. Some of this behavior is due to "nature", some of this behavior is due to "culture", and some of this behavior is due to "other" which includes logical decision making.

Or it is a matter of one being a selfish or self-centered git, as in those who may want to spread this out thinly over as many women as possible without hurting anyone. Usually someone(s) get hurt - as I have seen among friends and acquaintances all too often, and probably without exception.

Sorry if I took it too seriously.

Actually, there is some seriousness in the question. But you provided part of the answer.

Each individual has to be taken for who they really are. Hopefully, in relationships, especially in relationships involving romance (and hence strong emotion), one is honest and straightforward from the beginning. To be dishonest is to be cruel and disrespectful.

 

[Astronuc]

That's cute. Not completely accurate, but a starting place.

I got a laugh out of Yellow roses mean, "Let's just be friends," which is synonymous with, "You are irritating, and I hate you." So you do not want to be wrong. Get her red roses, red ribbons, red balloons, red teddy bears, red puppies, and red tickets to the World Series, and . . . . Or maybe tickets to the Rose Bowl.

 

[Astronuc]

It's true though.

What's true, lot's of red or the reason that woman might want to lodge scissors in a man's temple?

That is a really gruesome thought. However, I imagine a woman with PMS might just feel like wanting to do that some time.

 

[Evo]

What's true, lot's of red or the reason that woman might want to lodge scissors in a man's temple?
That is a really gruesome thought. However, I imagine a woman with PMS might just feel like wanting to do that some time.

I was just joking, The first time I saw that, Tsu had e-mailed it to me & MIH and I was NOT expecting anything like that and I just about choked.

 

[Evo]

From EnumaElish's romance guide:

The Most Intrinsically Romantic Thing Ever

Based on the data above, the single most romantic thing in the universe can be calculated scientifically. It is, simply, a small red candle made out of chocolate and shaped like a teddy bear holding a heart with scribbles all over it that plays a tune when you wind it up. Toss her one of these at sunset on your way to a frat party, and you'll be able to stay out all night and still strengthen your relationship.

 

[Astronuc]

I was just joking, The first time I saw that, Tsu had e-mailed it to me & MIH and I was NOT expecting anything like that and I just about choked.

I thought so. But, thanks for the confirmation. Nevertheless, a rather gruesome thought.

As for the Most Intrinsically Romantic Thing Ever

Unfortunately there are those who would actually try that.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There are more?

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.

 

[Aether]

Or it is a matter of one being a selfish or self-centered git, as in those who may want to spread this out thinly over as many women as possible without hurting anyone. Usually someone(s) get hurt - as I have seen among friends and acquaintances all too often, and probably without exception.

I wasn't referring to "those who may want to spread this out thinly" there. What precentage of your friends and acquaintances (best guess) have been hurt by this? How did you form your opinions (e.g., "selfish or self-centered git"), religion, parents, born that way, live and learn?

 

[Moonbear]

With all due respect to my gender, will any of us ever "meet all selection criteria"?

Probably not (but neither would any woman...nobody's perfect). Though, I do suspect meeting the minimum criteria of being the one man that a woman doesn't find more attractive with scissors lodged in his temple while she is PMSing gives quite an advantage in the process of mate selection. I think there's some merit to the "If I haven't killed you within the first month of dating, you're a keeper" approach.

 

[Astronuc]

I wasn't referring to "those who may want to spread this out thinly" there. What precentage of your friends and acquaintances (best guess) have been hurt by this? How did you form your opinions (e.g., "selfish or self-centered git"), religion, parents, born that way, live and learn?

The original quote I re-phrased.

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.

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.

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. About half of couples I have known are now divorced.

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.

Perhaps the term "selfish or self-centered git" is too harsh, but I have seen people think more of their own self-interest than that of others, and on that I was reflecting when I chose those words.

 

[EnumaElish]

How about romantic? Why aren't men more romantic?

Based on the romance guide, a truly romantic man is impractical and selectively blind; he has style, a strong memory, and no food on his head; he easily gets personal; he can afford time and he can construct mooshy pet names.

 

[Astronuc]

As for pet names

To be romantic, you have to call each other names carefully crafted to make yourself and everyone around you throw up. This romance technique doubles as a passion meter way more accurate than those quarter eating machines in arcades; if you use these pet names and don't throw up, you're genuinely in love.

Here's how to construct your own pet name. Mix up the syllables "pook," "wee," "hon," "oop," and "ums," (never use the syllables "skuzz" or "elch"), rhyme a lot, and make liberal references to baked goods. For example, (WARNING! WARNING! TURN YOUR FACE AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER!), "Sweetie Pumpkin Pookums" is a perfectly acceptable and effective pet name, as are "Moopsie Cutie," "Hunny Wunny Cakes," and, for the extravagant, "Snookie Wookum Weetie Bunny Pie." (It may seem odd to novices that cooked rodents would be romantic, but they are.) For best results, speak these pet names with a big dumb grin, an admiring gaze, and a high-pitched squeal, and follow it up with an exaggerated sigh of dreamy contentment. The most important thing to remember about this is never ever do this in front of me.

And he even supplies a pet name generator - http://www.rinkworks.com/namegen/

Use this advice at your own risk / peril.

 

[Evo]

Based on the romance guide, a truly romantic man is impractical and selectively blind; he has style, a strong memory, and no food on his head; he easily gets personal; he can afford time and he can construct mooshy pet names.

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

 

[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?

Ack gag yuck

NOOOOOOO!

No snookie wookums.

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.:!) :!)

 

[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"

"Froggy woggy"

 

[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!

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!

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" 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. Plus, I'm the only one allowed to be bitter and pick on people here.

 

[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. \Longleftrightarrow[/itex]<img src="https://www.physicsforums.com/styles/physicsforums/xenforo/smilies/oldschool/devil.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" /><br /> <br /> She likes Astronuc&#039;s tales of marriages with happy endings, and she says that I don&#039;t sound bitter until I get to here: &quot;Of the half who are still married, what percentage are happy and content?&quot;. Yeh, I guess I am a little bitter about what has become of &quot;marriage&quot;. 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.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="SOS2008" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> SOS2008 said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> About the scissors in the forehead... Do men fantasize about their wives dying? </div> </div> </blockquote>I suppose that guys like Scott Peterson have done that, but I&#039;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. \Longleftrightarrow[/itex]<img src="https://www.physicsforums.com/styles/physicsforums/xenforo/smilies/oldschool/devil.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" />

Sorry, I didn&#039;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.