For women in their 30s and up mainly

[Batya33]

but sexual impulses are strong, and I do think that women often misunderstand men in this regard (and vice versa)."

 

 

I don't think anyone disagrees about the strength of sexual impulses, just about the degree to which you think all men act on them while in a committed relationship.

 

I agree we shouldn't debate that point but just to understand your point do you then also believe that women shouldn't be hired for full time jobs that require leadership since PMS triggers strong impulses in most women - of irritability, emotional outbursts, etc which according to your theory would make it impossible for a woman, for at least a few days a month, to be able to function at work, particularly in a leadership position? I don't mean that in an argumentative tone just trying to understand your link between impulse and action.

[JadedStar]

There is a difference between being realistic and being cynical. As was once said, a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

Cynical is thinking all men are pigs and only out for one thing.

 

Realistic would be more thinking that some men are that way but there are some who are not.

 

That said I'd say Cimmie is cynical because she thinks ALL men are going to do her wrong.

[Cimmie]

do you then also believe that women shouldn't be hired for full time jobs that require leadership since PMS triggers strong impulses in most women - of irritability, emotional outbursts, etc which according to your theory would make it impossible for a woman, for at least a few days a month, to be able to function at work, particularly in a leadership position? I don't mean that in an argumentative tone just trying to understand your link between impulse and action.

 

I don't think we are comparing like with like here. As far as I am aware, PMS is not classified as a disability. It isn't a mental handicap and shouldn't make anyone incapable of rational thought or leadership skills.

 

I am not saying that the sexual drive is a disability and disqualifies men in any other way than for a monogamous union.

 

But we only have to look to our own experiences and those of our friends and families to see that many men are unfaithful and many men are attracted by younger women and by sexual variety. I'm not saying that ALL of them INVARIABLY act on these impulses, but a significant proportion of them do. My point is that to protect yourself from the devastation of finding you have sunk your heart into someone and they have been unfaithful to you, is not to sink your heart into them in the first place. Always leave open in your mind the very real possibility that this person may cheat.

 

To me it is irrational to trust to the extent that you think your partner would never be unfaithful. It's the mistake too many women have always made. My argument was that the only way of avoiding the damage that results is not to get into something you aren't prepared to drop at short notice, to work on your friendships (much more enduring than sexual alliances) and have financial and emotional independence. That's the only insurance against infidelity that has any meaning.

[Cimmie]

That said I'd say Cimmie is cynical because she thinks ALL men are going to do her wrong.

 

I don't think all men are going to do me wrong, I would just not trust to monogamy again. I call it having a de-romanticised or disabused view of the male gender.

 

Why should a man stay faithful to me? Just because I want him to? That's wishful thinking.

[Cimmie]

There is a difference between being realistic and being cynical. As was once said, a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

That was Oscar Wilde. But I do know the value of faithfulness. The man I was with placed no value on it. I'm not talking about my values, I'm talking about the values of a great many men, who put sexual adventure and variety and ego-fulfillment above the feelings of their girlfriends/wives and children.

[JadedStar]

Men are attracted to any good looking woman Cimmie. That does not mean all men will act on their impulses.

[Batya33]

I've learned to never say never. And I think the PMS analogy was apt, because it's the same assumption that someone will act on impulse rather than staying loyal (in this case to an employer as opposed to a partner).

 

But after "never say never" I choose to live a full life, to me that means opening my heart to someone I trust, with all those risks. If I live with the possiblity of unfaithfulness then I also have to live with the possibility that I could be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow. I could be - I am well aware of that - but - at least from my perspective, it's a sin to live that way because it's so limiting.

 

We all draw the line at what we will risk - and the lines are often arbitrary. Who am I to say that two years dating a faithful, loving man means that he will be that way for two more years much less 20 or 40? And who am I to judge that someone else thinks it's ok to move accross the country and give up independence based on knowing someone two weeks, as someone on this forum has decided to do?

 

A flaw in your presumption is that all women don't have eyes wide open. Some don't, it's true - they live in denial because they're very needy for a man - but if you presume that generally women know the risks of opening themselves up to love and potential commitment - and they decide to take that risk in certain circumstances, who are we to judge?

 

And I know I have judged, on this forum, when I've read what seems to be outrageous plans to risk it all for a near stranger. I guess at certain extremes we can all agree, i.e. "I've known him 5 years and we are in our 30s - is it too soon to marry him?" but most of the time it's a gray area.

[Sunshine75]

I've skimmed most of this thread and thought I posted, but maybe I didn't? lol

 

Anyway, I don't see anyone as a threat to a relationship except for the 2 people in it.

 

If a guy is gonna cheat, he'll cheat whether it's with someone younger and/or more attractive, or older and/or less attractive. The difference is, if a guy is a cheater, the younger and/or attractive woman will hold greater sway for him than someone he is less attracted to.

 

I've known both types of men - those who will cheat, and those who won't. Those who won't, wouldn't even if you threw them into a pit of naked Playboy Bunnies because they have too much respect for themselves, their partners, and their relationship to do so. Those who will cheat don't need a Playboy Bunny. Any woman other than their partner will do, but the Bunny is more fun.

 

I don't buy the whole "impulse" thing and people cheating because they couldn't control themselves. There are many steps along the way towards sexual infidelity. Any of those steps could be the point where they turn around and go back.

 

The point where you meet someone you're attracted to, whether or not you befriend them, how often you put yourself in close proximity with them, how close/intimate you become with them, once you're alone with them and attracted to them - whether or not you touch them, whether or not you kiss them, whether or not you continue to move forward, whether or not you unbutton your pants, whether or not you put on the condom, etc.

 

There are too many steps to getting to the actual intercourse and at any time you could turn around. If a person chooses not to turn back, then that was their choice. Not their genetic or hormonal birth right.

[RayKay]

Exactly.

 

I think it is a jump to assume women whom choose to open themselves up to love are being naive. I am very aware of the risks that relationships can fail - be it by cheating, by a partner dying, by just not wanting to be in one anymore.

 

I would say relationships are more likely to fail when one (or both) partners out of fear hold back from really experiencing the depths of intimacy and growth together (which happens if you view a relationship as something to "drop at short notice").

 

I see it this way. You can stand behind the wall out of fear of what lays beyond it (the possibility of being hurt) and thereby never experience what can happen when you DO take the risk (the joys as well). Or you take the risk, and also find there are great rewards in doing so.

 

I am someone whom values highly my independence, my friends, my personal interests, my own individual goals and needs whether I am in a relationship or not. However, part of the wonderful joys of life is also learning to love someone deeply and building together that foundation of trust and respect and moreover mutual love. I am not a dependent person, but I see no shame in saying I do depend on my partner as he depends on me in certain respects....and that is because of that trust and respect.

 

If circumstances ended in us no longer being together, I have to say from experience it would not be because I did not give it my best....and I certainly would not be stopped from giving my best in the future either. I would not let a man whom did not deserve me in the first place, prohibit me from loving or being loved deeply in the future.

[JadedStar]

I could not live a life without some risks taken.

 

A life that is way too safe is boring and I would die out in it.

No one knows if they will ever be cheated on or not, but to not take that chance and rob yourself of love in the meantime is a bit severe.

 

I would rather live, let's say for example, ten years happy and then the rug pulled out from under me, vs living ten years lonely and unhappy.

[Maya_A]

As Batya says "never say never", though I think the more we heal ourselves within, the less likely we are to attract those who for whatever reason might be "flaky" around staying monogamous. And if we do come accross one that doesn't feel right early on, instead of rationalizing because we want so much to believe in "the dream", one can step away where it doesn't feel right.

 

If someone knows they have a lot of unhealed inner turmoil/issues where they tend to attract certain types over & over (i.e. unfaithful types), the risk in dating may not be worth it until they have spent some time alone to heal & grow within.

 

For those fairly comfortable within, there is always a risk but yes, it is always worth taking.... Whether the relationship works out or not, there is so much learning to be had, and some really happy/good memories & life experiences as well.

 

I believe that through all of our lives, no matter what our experiences, we need to try our best to find the courage to keep opening the door to our hearts...

[DN]

If you are someone who values being in a happy, committed and faithful relationship with a partner and is less happy being alone then you have a choice.

 

Either be single and less happy. No risk of something worse.

 

Or take a chance on happiness with a partner and risk unhappiness if your partner is unfaithfull.

 

It's a simple choice really. Not an easy one for some people but it is simple.