Why are women so fickle in love?

[Johnny Impact]

Why are women people so fickle in love?

Fixed.

Answer: People are selfish, impulsive, foolish, catastrophically bad at understanding consequences, and only slightly less bad at dealing with said consequences.

Simple analogy: See a candy bar on the rack. Say to yourself, "Wow, I really want a candy bar." Buy candy bar. Enjoy eating candy bar. Twenty minutes later, realize teeth feel fuzzy, stomach is unhappy, and that promise you made yourself about starting a diet today makes you a hypocrite. Now you feel bad, and that bad feeling will last longer than the enjoyment did. Candy bar was clearly not a good idea. And yet, at some point you'll buy another one.

Not trying to start anything here, OP, but I can pretty much guarantee the woman does not own 100% of the blame in your scenario.

 

[Bluelaughter]

If the second gender, in the passive or waiting role, owns a right of refusal, then the second gender clearly possesses greater control over sexual opportunity. Fundamentally. It's common sense.

NO IT ISN'T. Do you even understand what opportunity means? The person for whom it is culturally acceptable to proposition people for sex BY FAR controls the sexual opportunity. Far more than the person who has to wait to be propositioned. If a man asks 20 women out, and gets rejected by all of them, he has still had more opportunity than a woman who is asked out by 5 men. Opportunity has nothing to do with success.

That uses quantity vs quality, number of times vs overall probabilities. Let's say a guy who graduates from Harvard gets job offers from 3 top banks and takes one. A guy off the street puts in his resume to 50 banks and gets no response. Which one has more opportunity?

Plus it's like saying women have no initiative, or can't drop obvious hints. I don't know what type of cultural acceptance barrier you have erected for yourself, but it doesn't always apply.

 

[manic_depressive13]

That uses quantity vs quality, number of times vs overall probabilities. Let's say a guy who graduates from Harvard gets job offers from 3 top banks and takes one. A guy off the street puts in his resume to 50 banks and gets no response. Which one has more opportunity?

Plus it's like saying women have no initiative, or can't drop obvious hints. I don't know what type of cultural acceptance barrier you have erected for yourself, but it doesn't always apply.

What business does a hunter have in bank? You can't be both a marauder and a teller. Although I too know the pain of chasing a bank that refuses to have sex with me.

 

[Soundwave]

Seeing men as aggressors and women as prey to be plundered or robbed isn't healthy. Please stop using such fucking creepy language and then pretending you are unbiasedly describing society as it is today. Instead of saying "men are seen as the dominant sex, they are expected to initiate sexual encounters" you use analogies like "hunter" and "marauder" and compare women to "prey". It's really rape-y and disturbing.

I think you're missing the point of a metaphor. It's only creepy and rape-y to you because of your own colored perception. He's using the concept of 'hunting' in the sense that males have to seek out sexual encounters, as opposed to waiting for consenting partners to seek them out.

NO IT ISN'T. Do you even understand what opportunity means? The person for whom it is culturally acceptable to proposition people for sex BY FAR controls the sexual opportunity. Far more than the person who has to wait to be propositioned. If a man asks 20 women out, and gets rejected by all of them, he has still had more opportunity than a woman who is asked out by 5 men. Opportunity has nothing to do with success.

Actually, the second person is still the only person in control. Because if they say no, that's it. There is nothing the first person can do to change the decision of the second.

Imagine a non-gendered cleaning robot (like a roomba) is stored in a "room A", and programmed to clean the floor of a "room B" once every eight hours. To enter "room B", the robot has to go through an electronic pet door. The electronic pet door has been programmed so that it is locked the majority of the day. In order for the room to be cleaned, it is almost entirely dependent on whether or not the locked door will 'allow' the robot to enter the room.

 

[renegade7]

Women aren't fickle. Women are great. And in my experience they tend to make better friends than a lot of the guys I know.

What is fickle is dating in general. You may be the nicest person in the world, but at the end of the day, you don't really control who you like and you can't make yourself like someone and you're not obligated to like someone you're not interested in. Anyone who is dating is looking for a person they truly connect with and, sad but true, more often than not that connection just doesn't exist.

Imagine the following scenario. There is a woman who likes you very much. However, for a number of reasons you simply have no interest in her. You have nothing in common and she is extremely unattractive. Or imagine it's a homosexual man, and you're heterosexual. In either case, you could never be attracted to the person so things could never work out. You'd be miserable if you attempted a serious relationship with either of them. And there's no way to say "I'm just not interested" that's guaranteed to not hurt anyone's feelings. But that's just the way it is. Would you want to be thought of as a mean person just because you kept yourself out of something you would never enjoy?

Now imagine the follow scenario. You're dating someone casually in a non-committed capacity and you're not really feeling it. Then someone else comes along who you like far more and who agrees to go out with you. After a few dates you decide she's someone you'd like to be serious with. However, you do have to tell the first person that you're not interested in keeping it going.

In either case, maybe that's fickle. But would you want to be in an unhappy relationship just to be nice?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Seeing men as aggressors and women as prey to be plundered or robbed isn't healthy. Please stop using such fucking creepy language and then pretending you are unbiasedly describing society as it is today. Instead of saying "men are seen as the dominant sex, they are expected to initiate sexual encounters" you use analogies like "hunter" and "marauder" and compare women to "prey". It's really rape-y and disturbing.

Where did I say that this is how I personally see the genders? It's barbaric and unenlightened and *completely the way things were for thousands of fucking years*. Discussing this unfair truth, and its ramifications on present day society, doesn't make me a disturbed, rape-y monster. It makes me a person capable of analyzing culture-wide generalizations and patterns without having to automatically adopt them as my own.

NO IT ISN'T. Do you even understand what opportunity means? The person for whom it is culturally acceptable to proposition people for sex BY FAR controls the sexual opportunity. Far more than the person who has to wait to be propositioned. If a man asks 20 women out, and gets rejected by all of them, he has still had more opportunity than a woman who is asked out by 5 men. Opportunity has nothing to do with success.

The woman who is asked out by 5 men accepts or does not accept. The man who asks out 20 women abides by the decision of other women.

In your own hypothetical, one gender is still holding all the cards. As indicated by the fact that one gender is doing all of the asking. Again, this is all a common sense argument stemming from the traditional roles of men and women as marauder and gate-keeper, respectively. You continue to ascribe value to these things, or point to the fact that these roles are blurring/changing/vanishing (which is something I very carefully included in my comments in this very thread).

These are TECHNICAL hypotheticals, mind you. I feel like you're applying these things literally to people you know, and to me as well, and that's why you're growing incensed. You seem to be operating under the delusion that I have, at some point, declared life easy for women and oh-so-hard on men. Never said that. Don't believe it.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

University is a very sexually-charged environment in the first place. Might as well start talking about "sexual opportunity" through the lens of strip clubs or red light districts.

University is sexually charged enviroment? Where do you live i should move there then. There is no sexuality in university here.

I'm hoping this is tongue-in-cheek, but maybe it's time to move on from a thread for good when someone starts calling you out for statements as controversial as "people bang a lot in college".