Why are women so fickle in love?

[Angie7F]

Its just compatibility.
With the right person it works out ok

 

[Dragonbums]

What options?

If I were to go back even 100 years the only opportunity I would be becoming a professional baby maker.

Well luckily we haven't gone back 100 years. And anyway basically what AccursedTheory said, wooing a mate is mostly a male thing. Not all the time, but it's more often then not.

I think it has a name in biology "sexual selection."

I understand that. I guess I was trying to make a point that it's not exactly rosy on the ladies side. Seeing as that was all the "real" power she had in her life anyways.
I wasn't trying to deny it or anything.

 

[Aramis Night]

science shows that there is not a big difference in brain.. or genes..
one broken x chromosome is the whole difference... (even genetically similar twins are not exactly the same. they have often a different character.(and after birth you have these epi-genetic modifications) so genes are not god. not everything. And if it they where, would it matter?quote]

I don't bring this up to take away from your overall point, but it really bugs me when I see blatant lies like this being paraded as evidence. The fact that there is a huge difference in grey/white mater distribution in male vs. female brains as well as the rather large discrepancy in neurons between the genders is a huge difference(19 billion for women vs. 23 billion for males). Men have on average around 20% more neurons in their brains than females do and it is not because of brain size difference since that would only account for a 10% difference, since men tend to have brains that are 10% larger than women's. Now you could argue that this doesn't translate out to any differences in mental capability, but it does seem unlikely to be the case or why would the differences exist at all? It just does seem like men have more internal wiring. But perhaps there is something about men's brains that forces them to require the additional wiring.

 

[TheEvilGenius]

Because women are people and people are stupid.

 

[Lieju]

I don't bring this up to take away from your overall point, but it really bugs me when I see blatant lies like this being paraded as evidence. The fact that there is a huge difference in grey/white mater distribution in male vs. female brains as well as the rather large discrepancy in neurons between the genders is a huge difference(19 billion for women vs. 23 billion for males). Men have on average around 20% more neurons in their brains than females do and it is not because of brain size difference since that would only account for a 10% difference, since men tend to have brains that are 10% larger than women's. Now you could argue that this doesn't translate out to any differences in mental capability, but it does seem unlikely to be the case or why would the differences exist at all? It just does seem like men have more internal wiring. But perhaps there is something about men's brains that forces them to require the additional wiring.

Given that women have more white matter, which connects the neurons, doesn't that mean women have more 'wiring'?

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

Male and female brains do differ (on average men have more neurons, women have those neurons working faster), but I suspect there are plenty of people who don't fit neatly into categories.
Also this is kinda a touchy subject for me since I'm a woman who likes math and as a kid I was always told I wasn't actually good at math and that I wasn't 'girly' enough.

So I really dislike generalisations about men and women.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I don't think it's just women, but as a heterosexual man, I'm not really sure how any of them but myself really act in a relationship.

I will say though, women tend to gravitate towards romance much more than men do, and in my opinion, romance is total horse shit. I'm not talking about love or conventional relationships or anything as challenging as that, I'm talking about actually being "romantic." I love my girlfriend. Love spending time with her, love talking to her, love just being around her. We have good communication, good chemistry, and as a result our relationship for the last 2 years has been great. That's what should be the foundation of a relationship.

The actual wooing and courtship is really just shallow crap that only serves to impress. It rarely conveys any actual meaning or emotion. On the occasions where I do feel obligated to grit my teeth through it it just feels dishonest. A casual "I fucking love you" while hanging out on the couch playing borderlands is a hundred times more sincere than some cleverly phrased mushy profession of love doing battle against my gag reflex.

But that's the thing, a lot of girls think that's what love is, or at least that romance is much more essential than it should be.

 

[Echopunk]

I've been very unlucky in relationships in that I've never been in a stable healthy one. My girlfriends and flings never wanted me for me, they wanted me for any one of several specific purposes. Someone to protect them from an abusive ex they were still in love with, someone to make the person they really wanted to be with jealous, a dumb piece of meat they could use as a sex toy until someone with more money came along. You name it. The only time a girl didn't have some relatively obvious agenda, I ended up breaking up with her when I found out she had lied about some important things.

Fundamentally, men and women are competitors instead of companions. In a situation with limited resources, they can become outright enemies quite easily. Men seem to evolve more towards physical strength. We're usually larger and sturdier. Women are usually more intelligent and manipulative. Why are women fickle? They are fickle because all the nice neanderthal girls were probably killed off by the introverted neanderthal boys who still lived in a cave with their mother after twenty winters.

I've had a girl who would straight up ignore me when I tried to talk to her on account of a minor argument, but who would then essentially demand help/support when a crisis landed on her doorstep. I've had a girl lie to me and try to keep me in the dark about a lot of things going on in her life, ostensibly just to keep me around as a possible plan B.

At this point, it doesn't surprise me any more. I haven't even tried being in a relationship in years, because it is like grief counseling or psychotherapy at this point - just someone reading from a script and trying to categorize my responses to decide whether I'm good enough for right now, never, or forever.

Short answer? Women are fickle because guys are assholes.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Funny how you are already jumping to the FEMINAZIS! boot camp, when the life of a woman was just as dull and and restrictive as a life of a man.

Nope. I specifically said feminist bullshit. The most relevant thing you said there was 'just as dull and and restrictive'. Just as. Life sucked ass for everyone 100 years ago. That's the point I was trying to make:

You were likely to die in childbirth? I was likely to die at work.
You had to stay at home with the kids? I had to do hard manual labour all day to feed those kids.
You weren't allowed to join the army and fight a war? I fucking well had to go fight a war.
You had no economic value? My entire human worth was how much money I could bring in.

Things were worse for women 100 years ago? I'd call it more or less even...

 

[Aramis Night]

I don't bring this up to take away from your overall point, but it really bugs me when I see blatant lies like this being paraded as evidence. The fact that there is a huge difference in grey/white mater distribution in male vs. female brains as well as the rather large discrepancy in neurons between the genders is a huge difference(19 billion for women vs. 23 billion for males). Men have on average around 20% more neurons in their brains than females do and it is not because of brain size difference since that would only account for a 10% difference, since men tend to have brains that are 10% larger than women's. Now you could argue that this doesn't translate out to any differences in mental capability, but it does seem unlikely to be the case or why would the differences exist at all? It just does seem like men have more internal wiring. But perhaps there is something about men's brains that forces them to require the additional wiring.

Given that women have more white matter, which connects the neurons, doesn't that mean women have more 'wiring'?

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

Male and female brains do differ (on average men have more neurons, women have those neurons working faster), but I suspect there are plenty of people who don't fit neatly into categories.
Also this is kinda a touchy subject for me since I'm a woman who likes math and as a kid I was always told I wasn't actually good at math and that I wasn't 'girly' enough.

So I really dislike generalisations about men and women.

More connections could make for a tighter circuit, which would account for some parts of the brain communicating faster to others. But given how the brain works via electrical impulse, and electrical impulses work at a static speed regardless of gender, the notion that one gender has faster working neurons wouldn't make sense based on speed of impulses. As to how any of this affects behavior is something still being investigated in scientific circles. It is a bit premature for this to even be entering the arena of gender war one way or the other until we have the facts all in. While I do find the subject interesting, I don't have to take some scientists word on if someone is an idiot. I can tell that by behavior of that individual and I'm happy to continue judging on a case by case basis.

As for this being a touchy subject to you or anyone is irrelevant. Many facts in life do not favor me, but I see no benefit in ignoring them simply because they might make me uncomfortable. It isn't as though scientists discovering that there is in fact a flaw in the make up of one genders brain or another will suddenly turn you into an idiot or genius. If in fact they were to discover a flaw in the male brain, I would be pushing for a solution to my shortcomings, not pretending it isn't true. We can't allow ego to get in the way of human advancement if we are ever to advance.

 

[Korolev]

Everyone is biased when it comes to personal relationships. I'm sure you genuinely believe women are more fickle in love, because that's your experience. I'm sure plenty of women believe exactly the opposite.

As someone who has never dated and probably never will (I'm a medical student - I have about zero time to spend on dating), I have to say that, from my observations of relationships between men and women among family and friends, both men and women are equally stupid, unrealistic, fickle and emotional when it comes to relationships. EVERYONE has been influenced by TV and Hollywood and unrealistic expectations. It's probably always been that way, to be honest, since history began.

Both sides cheat, both sides think that they are the "reasonable" one, both sides think that the other overreacts. Of course, EVERYONE thinks that they are in the right. That's human nature - it's normal to think that you are the good guy and the other side is the bad guy, even though that may not be the case.

You know, from what I've observed, when relationships break apart, sometimes there is no "good" side or "bad" side. Sometimes there is no one to blame except mutual incompatibility. Take for instance, a fellow med student who was dating a bio-student. The biostudent wanted to spend more time together, whereas the Med student couldn't because, well, they're studying medicine. The relationship didn't work - the Med student cried "Why can't you understand that I don't have that time!?" The Bio-student cried "Why can't you understand that I need to spend more time with someone I love?!" Neither side was at fault - their needs and commitments were entirely reasonable - they just couldn't be together. Their lives and personalities and chosen career paths made a relationship impossible. Neither side was to blame - it just didn't work out.

Women aren't "fickle" - they have certain wants they want from a relationship. It is entirely reasonable for them to want what they want. What, are you going to tell them they can't want what they want? It's their choice. If that's what they want, that's what they want - even if you think it is "unreasonable", keep in mind it is also "unreasonable" to demand that they adjust those wants and desires to please you. People are people - they are autonomous human beings who have their own sets of desires and wants and needs. In that regard, women are no different than men.

From what I can tell, as an outside observer, the area of human relationships and romance turns EVERYONE into a bit of a berk. Until I graduate, I'm staying out of the relationship game, because it tends to make people go crazy and I can't afford that.

 

[Lieju]

As for this being a touchy subject to you or anyone is irrelevant. Many facts in life do not favor me, but I see no benefit in ignoring them simply because they might make me uncomfortable. It isn't as though scientists discovering that there is in fact a flaw in the make up of one genders brain or another will suddenly turn you into an idiot or genius. If in fact they were to discover a flaw in the male brain, I would be pushing for a solution to my shortcomings, not pretending it isn't true. We can't allow ego to get in the way of human advancement if we are ever to advance.

Except you (and many others who like to relay these 'facts') were confusing 'better' and 'better on average'.
I just really dislike parroting research like that and paraphrasing it without even linking to the original, because it feeds attitudes such as 'boys are just better at math', or 'women are all more nurturing than men', by people who have no idea what the actual research says.

I don't have to take some scientists word on if someone is an idiot. I can tell that by behavior of that individual and I'm happy to continue judging on a case by case basis.

Well, that would be nice if everyone did that.

 

[Aramis Night]

As for this being a touchy subject to you or anyone is irrelevant. Many facts in life do not favor me, but I see no benefit in ignoring them simply because they might make me uncomfortable. It isn't as though scientists discovering that there is in fact a flaw in the make up of one genders brain or another will suddenly turn you into an idiot or genius. If in fact they were to discover a flaw in the male brain, I would be pushing for a solution to my shortcomings, not pretending it isn't true. We can't allow ego to get in the way of human advancement if we are ever to advance.

Except you (and many others who like to relay these 'facts') were confusing 'better' and 'better on average'.
I just really dislike parroting research like that and paraphrasing it without even linking to the original, because it feeds attitudes such as 'boys are just better at math', or 'women are all more nurturing than men', by people who have no idea what the actual research says.

I don't have to take some scientists word on if someone is an idiot. I can tell that by behavior of that individual and I'm happy to continue judging on a case by case basis.

Well, that would be nice if everyone did that.

Your projecting insecurities if you think i made any such assertions with anything i stated. I'm well aware of the distinctions about average's. I did however make no such statement about either brain design being better at anything. I really wish that you would take a look at what i stated rather than baiting assumptions as to my motivations.

If you want to look at gender difference's they are all around us. Nothing we discover in the brain is going to change any of them. The most we may learn is why they happen to exist on average. It seem's highly unlikely that anything we discover in this field would possibly back up any assertions about women not being as good at math. The most we might learn is why men tend to focus more on technical interest's. But interest is not the same as ability or skill. And no such discovery would alter anything we aren't already aware of in the real world. But we aren't even at that point yet.

I have my own issues with prevailing social attitudes about my gender as well. I'm frankly a little tired of the world seeing me as a potential violent pedophile rapist just for daring to be male in public. Doesn't mean i'm disinclined to follow this research even if it does show that there might be a reason for it.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

What? I don't follow your logic.

How do women control sexual opportunity and have more options?

Forgive my tardiness - I was mid-move.

At present, in most civilized societies, women control sexual opportunity. Men, on average, still have more physical strength and influence, and these assets can be used to gain sexual opportunities. But using strength to procure sex is illegal and (ideally) strictly punished, and leveraging influence is an option only available to a minority subset of men who wield such a thing. By comparison, women can quickly find sexual partners through sheer availability; if a woman makes it known that she is interested in having sex with a man, she will find plenty of suitors.

There are probably tons of different simultaneous reasons for this phenomena. Personally, I think it's man's traditional role as the "hunter" combined with modern society's recognition of women as human beings deserving fundamental rights and protections under the law. We still largely view men as the "pursuers", but we also (quite properly) recognize that women possess the right of refusal. Put these things together and it's pretty hard not to view women, for the most part, as the "gate keepers" of sexual opportunity - at least in civilized society.

Well, thats the chicken and egg problem in a nutshell for you.

I don't think I made any statements about the origin of the phenomena. That is another, probably more complex discussion. I was only saying that this is the way it appears to be.

I'm also not judging genders or assigning blame.

What options?

If I were to go back even 100 years the only opportunity I would be becoming a professional baby maker.
If only being able who you want to marry are liberating "options" then I would rather just swap genders with the sex that's allowed to basically do whatever the fuck they want for the most part, and actually live their life.
So they fall for pretty woman? Well great. At least the man has other things to do with his life.
For that woman, that is the only thing she is worth in society. Might as well let her have her only semblance of self empowerment she is ever going to get in her life.

I mean, come on. In Japan way back, a woman could be executed for wishing to join the army.
In certain parts of the Middle East, it is still accepted to throw acid at a woman's face if she rejects a marriage proposal from a man.

All of this has precisely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was referring specifically to sexual options in a modern, civilized context - you know, the one given us by the OP and relevant to the thread.

If you want to trudge down memory lane and talk about who had it worse the past several thousand years, the list of winners will be mostly men. It will also be an exceedingly short, statistically insignificant list relative to the total population at any given time because wealth/power was (and in some ways still is) the deciding factor - not gender.

Were you far more likely to be wealthy/powerful if you were a man? Of course. But those odds were also infintesimally small - to the point where most sane people would never willingly roll those dice. Not when losing meant the disposable life of a soldier, miner, worker, etc. Women were violently oppressed throughout history, but they were also often protected in ways that poor, non-influential men (aka most men) were not. You say you'd have chosen the gender with prospects? I respect that sentiment. But don't think your chances of success as a man throughout history were good or even bad. They were virtually nonexistent. This whole "most people have freedom and a decent quality of life" thing is a fairly recent development, all things considered.

 

[Lieju]

At present, in most civilized societies, women control sexual opportunity. Men, on average, still have more physical strength and influence, and these assets can be used to gain sexual opportunities. But using strength to procure sex is illegal and (ideally) strictly punished, and leveraging influence is an option only available to a minority subset of men who wield such a thing. By comparison, women can quickly find sexual partners through sheer availability; if a woman makes it known that she is interested in having sex with a man, she will find plenty of suitors.

I don't buy that.

If you're an attractive outgoing woman, yes, but then again an equally attractive man who can socialise well will be able to do the same.

If you are willing to just have sex with anyone, yes, you will find someone, whether male or female, but most of us have standards or want a relationship.

 

[Seydaman]

Expectations, hormones, social pressure. Don't worry about the bad things, shit happens.

Also, women are no more fickle than men. That's probably silly.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

At present, in most civilized societies, women control sexual opportunity. Men, on average, still have more physical strength and influence, and these assets can be used to gain sexual opportunities. But using strength to procure sex is illegal and (ideally) strictly punished, and leveraging influence is an option only available to a minority subset of men who wield such a thing. By comparison, women can quickly find sexual partners through sheer availability; if a woman makes it known that she is interested in having sex with a man, she will find plenty of suitors.

I don't buy that.

If you're an attractive outgoing woman, yes, but then again an equally attractive man who can socialise well will be able to do the same.

If you are willing to just have sex with anyone, yes, you will find someone, whether male or female, but most of us have standards or want a relationship.

Would you agree that men are still viewed, for the most part, as the designated pursuers of sexual opportunity?

Would you agree that women possess, in civilized society, the right of refusal?

How do you reconcile these things without coming to the conclusion that women mostly control sexual opportunity?

Of course the lines are blurring and the stereotypes are eroding as more women become sexually aggressive/self-determined, but species-wide behavior ingrained over thousands of years is going to take a lot longer to catch up to what are (relatively speaking) pretty sudden and recent developments in social justice. In that intervening period, however long it may last, women possess an unprecedented measure of control over sexual opportunity.

Bear in mind, I'm talking about the entire species. We all know that a very small subset of men possess enough wealth/power to override societal barriers. These men are arguably the most "love fickle" people on the planet, too, which feeds into my original assertion that "fickleness" has more to do with a person's social and material assets enabling him/her to be fickle than anything so trite as gender. As women grow into the role of "hunters", they will experience more overt rejection from men who, finding themselves pursued in equal measure for the first time in history, will probably begin to exhibit more "fickleness" themselves.

 

[Lilani]

How do you reconcile these things without coming to the conclusion that women mostly control sexual opportunity?

I don't see how men being the "designated pursuers" and women having the right of refusal gives women an advantage, because men have that same right of refusal. Men don't HAVE to have sex with a woman when she makes herself "available." And if more men are willing to have sex with a "willing" participant than women are in the same situation, that still doesn't mean women have more control. It just means men are more likely to engage in casual sex.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

How do you reconcile these things without coming to the conclusion that women mostly control sexual opportunity?

I don't see how men being the "designated pursuers" and women having the right of refusal gives women an advantage, because men have that same right of refusal. Men don't HAVE to have sex with a woman when she makes herself "available." And if more men are willing to have sex with a "willing" participant than women are in the same situation, that still doesn't mean women have more control. It just means men are more likely to engage in casual sex.

I'm not sure I'd characterize control of sexual opportunity as an advantage necessarily. I can think of several reasons why it might be designated a burden.

This sort of "value attachment" seems to be a real issue in any discussion of this nature. I totally understand where it comes from, and I wouldn't denigrate anyone who succumbs to it, but it does frustrate me sometimes.

We're starting, I think, from the supposition that people want to have sex. It is objectively pleasurable for the vast majority, and we are biologically driven to seek it out. We don't start from a position of "take it or leave it". Biologically, for the most part, we default to "want sex".

Layered on top of that, we've conditioned men to pursue and women to accept (or, more recently, deny). A being who pursues is by nature less picky. When you need food, you eat what you can find. A being who accepts or denies is, by definition, in a position of evaluation.

In a way, you're sort of reinforcing what I'm saying. Men are more likely to engage in casual sex IF they are able. Those men who possess the necessarily social or material capital to become promiscuous typically do so, and they are arguably the most "sexually fickle" people on the planet. But they are also an outlier, a subset, relative to the entire male population - though a highly visible one, which certainly skews perception. Women, I believe, are stereotyped as more "fickle" because they have, on average, more opportunity to be "fickle" (which is really a synonym for promiscuous in this context).

All of this deals in statistics and probability. I'd never claim all women are more "fickle". I would claim that women are, on average, more likely to be "fickle", but it would not be by some ridiculously definitive margin. It certainly wouldn't guide my behavior towards any given woman I meet, especially when the "fickleness" gap (I can't believe I just typed that) is ever-narrowing as the lines between the genders blur. It's just an interesting phenomena with some potentially thought-provoking causes and implications. Don't forget: I also believe the most "fickle" individuals to be mostly male.

 

[Lieju]

Would you agree that men are still viewed, for the most part, as the designated pursuers of sexual opportunity?

Would you agree that women possess, in civilized society, the right of refusal?

How do you reconcile these things without coming to the conclusion that women mostly control sexual opportunity?

Because not all women are equally 'pursued'.

And men have the right of refusal as well. A woman can't just go 'I think I'll take that man' and he will immediately have sex with her. Men do have some standards.

As women grow into the role of "hunters", they will experience more overt rejection from men who, finding themselves pursued in equal measure for the first time in history, will probably begin to exhibit more "fickleness" themselves.

It's true that traditionally the men are supposed to initiate courtship, but doesn't that put them in a more favourable position? After all, if they fancy someone, they can just ask them, while a woman (or a girl) will have to wait for the man to take the first step.

The Internet is full of unsecure girls and women who cry about how that cute boy or hot man doesn't even look at them or ask them out. Do you think women do not face rejection already?

EDIT:

Layered on top of that, we've conditioned men to pursue and women to accept (or, more recently, deny). A being who pursues is by nature less picky. When you need food, you eat what you can find. A being who accepts or denies is, by definition, in a position of evaluation.

No, historically women were kinda conditioned by the society to be vary of sex, because having sex had far bigger consecuences for women. The old ideal in the western society for a woman was a pure virgin who didn't want to have sex.
(But would to please her man)

Also, do you think women don't want sex?

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I tend to think that they're really not, but from everything I've ever seen and experienced... they sort of seem to be. To quote the legend that is Lemmy, 'Women want the same things as men, they just don't want them for as long'. I don't really know, women seem to be able to pick and choose a bit more, that could have something to do with it.

Well, I totally understand why people start to think that way- when these things happen to you a few times it's very easy- but I still keep faith in people because that seems like it makes more sense.