NationStates Jolt Archive

I was looking at the newspaper this morning and came across an all too familiar story. I'll do my best not to descend into man-bashing.

http://newsok.com/article/keyword/3131588/

Now I don't usually read the Daily Oklahoman, frequently refered to as the Daily Disappointment, but it was the only thing available at the little diner.
(just for fun, and totally off topic, a link explaining how bad the paper is-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_199901/ai_n8828320 )

Why is it that it's almost always guys who get the attitude that an ex-partner must be destroyed, sometimes literally, rather than be allowed to move on? I know women occassionally do crap like this. But why does it seem like 90% of the cases of "If he/she leaves me, I'd rather they be dead" crap come from guys?

My roomies (flatmats to those across the pond) and I discussed it a bit. They're both guys, but really didn't seem to have an answer that seemed satifactory.

Is part of it biological? They seemed to think so. Their theory- since it's harder for guys to find sexual partners than it is for women, guys are pre-programmed to react more strongly than women to losing a partner.

I think it's more social. There's still a lingering hint of the old idea as women as chattel. I'd be pretty pissed if my car decided it'd like to live elsewhere and deprived me of my rightful use of it.

So guys and gals- what's your take on this?

Is part of it biological? They seemed to think so. Their theory- since it's harder for guys to find sexual partners than it is for women,
Hm, what? Women outnumber men (not by much, but still), so either there is a huge underground of lesbians and polygamists operating out there, or this argument is just bullshit.
I don't think there is anything particular that predisposes men to this. Othet than that, culturally, men are told that violence from and against them is acceptable (whereas women are told the opposite), so they're more likely to kill people for any reason.

Hm, what? Women outnumber men (not by much, but still), so either there is a huge underground of lesbians and polygamists operating out there, or this argument is just bullshit.
I don't think there is anything particular that predisposes men to this. Othet than that, culturally, men are told that violence from and against them is acceptable (whereas women are told the opposite), so they're more likely to kill people for any reason.

From my experience, men are told, starting around Middle School, that violence is the solution to pretty much everything.
Hell, anybody who went to elementary school in the 90's probably was told to 'deal with it on your own' if you had a problem, that or to 'talk it out'. I remember that was the Standard Method of Dealing with Problems with Children in that day.

"Whats that? Timmy stabbed you through the wrist with the safety scissors? Well, dont come crying to me, you need to go talk your problems out with him."

I can only hope that by the time I've grown up that the US educational system will have tossed this idiocy in favor of action.

As to the OP...I've seen women get just as vindictive as men towards ex partners. Yeah, they didnt usually take the 'direct' route and beat the crap out of their ex/their friends, but they werent above conviencing a friend to.
I suppose it really depends on where you are and what the local culture is.

I was looking at the newspaper this morning and came across an all too familiar story. I'll do my best not to descend into man-bashing.

http://newsok.com/article/keyword/3131588/

Now I don't usually read the Daily Oklahoman, frequently refered to as the Daily Disappointment, but it was the only thing available at the little diner.
(just for fun, and totally off topic, a link explaining how bad the paper is-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_199901/ai_n8828320 )

Why is it that it's almost always guys who get the attitude that an ex-partner must be destroyed, sometimes literally, rather than be allowed to move on? I know women occassionally do crap like this. But why does it seem like 90% of the cases of "If he/she leaves me, I'd rather they be dead" crap come from guys?

My roomies (flatmats to those across the pond) and I discussed it a bit. They're both guys, but really didn't seem to have an answer that seemed satifactory.

Is part of it biological? They seemed to think so. Their theory- since it's harder for guys to find sexual partners than it is for women, guys are pre-programmed to react more strongly than women to losing a partner.

I think it's more social. There's still a lingering hint of the old idea as women as chattel. I'd be pretty pissed if my car decided it'd like to live elsewhere and deprived me of my rightful use of it.

So guys and gals- what's your take on this?

It's... different with guys and gals.

I remember reading this a LOOONG time ago... like mid 80's.

basically, a woman has less problems bonding with other women. they can have alot of great friends and can share their intimate secrets and emotions. men tend not to be that deeply bonded with their male friends.

that doesn't mean male friends aren't close, it's a different type of friendship that women share.

the friendship/relationship between a man and a woman (or any loving relationship) would be similar to a woman as her friendships with other women. However, for most men, their relationship with a lover tends to be different than their relationhip with their friends.

While there are things they would tell their friends and not their lover, there are more personal things they would share with their lover than their friends. (Lover being in a loving relationship, not a one night stand.)

So when that relationship ends, the woman can find a similar connection with her friends while the man is almost literally cut off. so it tends to hit the male harder than the female.

Of course this is generally speaking.

(the article went deeper, but I'm going by memory.)

Now I don't usually read the Daily Oklahoman, frequently refered to as the Daily Disappointment, but it was the only thing available at the little diner. (just for fun, and totally off topic, a link explaining how bad the paper is-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_199901/ai_n8828320 )


We will be more than happy to send you the entire Tulsa World newspaper company. They can't even give their papers away up here. Seriously, they can often be found at local grocery stores trying to give the newspapers away and nobody wants them.

So guys and gals- what's your take on this?

Normal for kids, odd for a 40-year old man (the case discussed by the article). I'm guessing his problem wasn't the usual attachment crisis that kills teenagers and younger adults, but rather severe depression or some sort of narcissistic personality. Given the number of suicides in general, it's no wonder, at least to me, that the occasional asshole decides someone else has to die with them. Since most (successful) suicides are performed by men, it'll probably be men doing both the dying *and* the occasional dying + whatever disgusting revenge act.

I remember, when I was in school, the administration inviting a guest speaker the day of the annual "prom" dance, whose daughter was bludgeoned to death with a bat the night of hers, several years earlier. The guy barely got through the story without breaking down, despite it being his 1001st time telling it, I'm sure. The crowd ,of several thousand, was almost uniformly sickened, and some of the girls wept a bit, I recall, along with a few faculty who had to dismiss themselves (perhaps, possibly having kids of their own, it may have affected them more?). Point is, those things seem to be quite common as a statistical oddity among the young - the speaker presented some crime stats to that effect. And boy, did that ruin the mood of the dance that night, I was told by a few friends. Gotta love that. :p

Your thread is titled "n search of real men." So, I did a little research and found you one. :D
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/model-stripes.jpg

We will be more than happy to send you the entire Tulsa World newspaper company. They can't even give their papers away up here. Seriously, they can often be found at local grocery stores trying to give the newspapers away and nobody wants them.Actually, people wanting news usually just read the Dallas Morning News.

I had heard, a few years ago, that The Oklahoman was voted worst major metro paper (cities over 100,000 people) in the US.

basically, a woman has less problems bonding with other women. they can have alot of great friends and can share their intimate secrets and emotions. men tend not to be that deeply bonded with their male friends.

that doesn't mean male friends aren't close, it's a different type of friendship that women share.

I disagree. I think it may be true with westerners (particularly USians since they are the only westerners I have personally observed)...but where I grew up, male bonding (to the extent of putting hands over the other guy's shoulders, walking holding hands in public etc) is quite normal. A typical hostel would have one TV room where about a 100 guys would be packed in watching cricket...many shirtless and practically lying on top of another guy..lol.

With girls, I noticed that they always are jealous about other girls about this or that. This was true about the age group I was in..not sure about other demographic..

I doubt your numbers.

The only dude I know who holds contempt for his exes is the one who had two exes in a row cheat on him. And even he only blames the gender in his darkest moments and it's pretty easy to get him to admit that he's being unfair.

Your thread is titled "n search of real men." So, I did a little research and found you one. :D
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/model-stripes.jpg

Hot stuff.

But from the shirt I must assume he's been lobotomized. Brains are the sexiest thing a man can offer.

Actually, people wanting news usually just read the Dallas Morning News.

I had heard, a few years ago, that The Oklahoman was voted worst major metro paper (cities over 100,000 people) in the US.

That can only be because Fremont, California's The Argus wasn't rated.

I disagree. I think it may be true with westerners (particularly USians since they are the only westerners I have personally observed)...but where I grew up, male bonding (to the extent of putting hands over the other guy's shoulders, walking holding hands in public etc) is quite normal. A typical hostel would have one TV room where about a 100 guys would be packed in watching cricket...many shirtless and practically lying on top of another guy..lol.

With girls, I noticed that they always are jealous about other girls about this or that. This was true about the age group I was in..not sure about other demographic..

not that kind of bonding. I mean deep emotional, tell me how you're feeling today, kind of bonding.

It's harder for men to find sexual partners than women? For every woman finding a sexual partner there is a man finding one too. (I know that this isn't strictly true, but I imagine there is as many male gays as female gays, so I am counting them out).
I believe that men are just more predispossed to violence than woman, and don't handle rejection as well as women.
And I question your 'stats' as well - 90%?, although I do agree that the problem is more pronouned among men.

I doubt your numbers.

The only dude I know who holds contempt for his exes is the one who had two exes in a row cheat on him. And even he only blames the gender in his darkest moments and it's pretty easy to get him to admit that he's being unfair.
I said "seems like"

I'm pretty damn sure 90% is a gross exagerration.

But do remember, the time a woman is most likely to be killed by a partner is when she tries to leave him.

Seventy-four percent of all murder-suicides involved an intimate partner(spouse, common-law spouse, ex-spouse, or boyfriend/girlfriend). Of these, 96 percent were females killed by their intimate partners.
Most murder-suicides with three or more victims involved a "family annihilator" -- a subcategory of intimate partner murder-suicide.Family annihilators are murderers who kill not only their wives/girlfriends and children, but often other family members as well,before killing themselves.


So much for Medea. It's most likely to be the guy that kills off your whole family because you're leaving.

Sometimes it seems less like a reaction to loss of someones affection and more like a way to repair, in a most perverse way, ones injured pride.

I don't think we're predisposed to anything. These guys are just irresponsible idiots that did something stupid and deserve whatever punishment they receive. Pretty much every culture that has ever existed has pretty strong taboos against murdering people, especially kids and women, so I'd say if anything we're predisposed not to use violence like that.

since it's harder for guys to find sexual partners than it is for women

Really?

I think it's more social.

I agree.

Seventy-four percent of all murder-suicides involved an intimate partner(spouse, common-law spouse, ex-spouse, or boyfriend/girlfriend). Of these, 96 percent were females killed by their intimate partners.
Most murder-suicides with three or more victims involved a "family annihilator" -- a subcategory of intimate partner murder-suicide.Family annihilators are murderers who kill not only their wives/girlfriends and children, but often other family members as well,before killing themselves.

So much for Medea. It's most likely to be the guy that kills off your whole family because you're leaving.

Yep. My recollection of the criminology lectures I actually showed up to supports this. Not sure about whether men are more likely to kill when rejected (although it sounds probable), but most (that is, almost all within families) of the country's murders are husband-on-wife/girlfriend, and almost none are the other way around. Women are slightly more likely to kill the kids as a proportion of the occurances, but they usually do it in the opinion that they're "saving" the kids from the evils of the world, or the husband, or Satan, for the religiously inclined. Odd stuff.

Now I don't usually read the Daily Oklahoman, frequently refered to as the Daily Disappointment, but it was the only thing available at the little diner.
(just for fun, and totally off topic, a link explaining how bad the paper is-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_199901/ai_n8828320 )


sorry for the off topic bit, but as much as I agree that the daily is sucky, I have a loathing for Robin Myers and the mere mention of his name in the first paragraph of that article has made me nauseous. I wish the Gazette would quit printing his crap.......

[/off topic]

not that kind of bonding. I mean deep emotional, tell me how you're feeling today, kind of bonding.

well that too. It is hard to bond when the other person insists on keeping a distance physically. Not that it is impossible or it does not happen...but I do think there is a lot of homophobia enforced behavior in the US at least. "Why is he touching that guy? is he gay?" asked my friend's kid, fifth grader, on seeing a scene in an Indian movie where there was some touching between two guys (in a non-sexual way). I maybe completely wrong in a "larger non-generalised picture" way...but its my personal observation that there is way too much homophobia enforced behavior in the US. As a consequence I have only a coupla of really close White-American friends as opposed dozens of non-white friends...mostly Indians and Mexicans (who I find to be a lot more "easy going"). I find blacks easy going too, but unfortunately there are very few I can find in the work environment I am in.

Really?



I agree.The bit about it being harder for a guy to get laid is from my roomies, both guys. Perhaps they'd rather think that than the idea that they're socially awkwards super-nerds might have something to do with the idea I get laid more than they do. I might be a whack-job, but I'm a really social one.
:D

sorry for the off topic bit, but as much as I agree that the daily is sucky, I have a loathing for Robin Myers and the mere mention of his name in the first paragraph of that article has made me nauseous. I wish the Gazette would quit printing his crap.......

[/off topic]LOL

I love Myers. I can't wait to meet you. We'll either really be great or we'll hate each other. I find it fascinating that two people with so many life experiences in common could turn out so very different.

I said "seems like"

I'm pretty damn sure 90% is a gross exagerration.

But do remember, the time a woman is most likely to be killed by a partner is when she tries to leave him.

Seventy-four percent of all murder-suicides involved an intimate partner(spouse, common-law spouse, ex-spouse, or boyfriend/girlfriend). Of these, 96 percent were females killed by their intimate partners.
Most murder-suicides with three or more victims involved a "family annihilator" -- a subcategory of intimate partner murder-suicide.Family annihilators are murderers who kill not only their wives/girlfriends and children, but often other family members as well,before killing themselves.


So much for Medea. It's most likely to be the guy that kills off your whole family because you're leaving.

Sometimes it seems less like a reaction to loss of someones affection and more like a way to repair, in a most perverse way, ones injured pride.

My least favorite moment when in an internet debate is when the only response I can think of is-

"Oh yeah?"

well that too. It is hard to bond when the other person insists on keeping a distance physically. Not that it is impossible or it does not happen...but I do think there is a lot of homophobia enforced behavior in the US at least. "Why is he touching that guy? is he gay?" asked my friend's kid, fifth grader, on seeing a scene in an Indian movie where there was some touching between two guys (in a non-sexual way). I maybe completely wrong in a "larger non-generalised picture" way...but its my personal observation that there is way too much homophobia enforced behavior in the US. As a consequence I have only a coupla of really close White-American friends as opposed dozens of non-white friends...mostly Indians and Mexicans (who I find to be a lot more "easy going"). I find blacks easy going too, but unfortunately there are very few I can find in the work environment I am in.
try this experiment.

when you go out, try to eavesdrop on a gathering of guys and listen to what they talk about.

then eavesdrop on a group of women.

take notes as to their topic of conversation and see if you notice any trend.

I'm not taking physical contact. it's the emotional/mental bonding that occurs.

For instance, between a man and a woman, who would be more likely to say "you know, I noticed that [name of person] seems tense. any idea what's happening?"

Hot stuff.

But from the shirt I must assume he's been lobotomized. Brains are the sexiest thing a man can offer.
And that's why I r t3h win. [/smug]

It's harder for men to find sexual partners than women? For every woman finding a sexual partner there is a man finding one too. (I know that this isn't strictly true, but I imagine there is as many male gays as female gays, so I am counting them out).
I believe that men are just more predispossed to violence than woman, and don't handle rejection as well as women.
And I question your 'stats' as well - 90%?, although I do agree that the problem is more pronouned among men.
I think females tend to scrutinize their mates more than men do, in some respects. Let's face it: a lot of men aren't THAT picky. :p
Men are taught not to handle it. We're taught to suppress it. And if we do feel the need to react, it has to be in the "manly" way, with violence or annihilation of the source of trauma.

I said "seems like"

I'm pretty damn sure 90% is a gross exagerration.

But do remember, the time a woman is most likely to be killed by a partner is when she tries to leave him.

Seventy-four percent of all murder-suicides involved an intimate partner(spouse, common-law spouse, ex-spouse, or boyfriend/girlfriend). Of these, 96 percent were females killed by their intimate partners.
Most murder-suicides with three or more victims involved a "family annihilator" -- a subcategory of intimate partner murder-suicide.Family annihilators are murderers who kill not only their wives/girlfriends and children, but often other family members as well,before killing themselves.


So much for Medea. It's most likely to be the guy that kills off your whole family because you're leaving.

Sometimes it seems less like a reaction to loss of someones affection and more like a way to repair, in a most perverse way, ones injured pride.
And men are told it's okay; that that's what we do with pride. We're told to fix it, by whatever means. Usually by eliminating the source of injury.

The bit about it being harder for a guy to get laid is from my roomies, both guys. Perhaps they'd rather think that than the idea that they're socially awkwards super-nerds might have something to do with the idea I get laid more than they do. I might be a whack-job, but I'm a really social one.
:D

There's nothing wrong with being a socially awkward super-nerd.... :( *sobs*
[/also hasn't been laid]

Pride. Sheer bloody pride.

Or sometimes just the pain. It's amazing what a pain-maddened mind would mistake for some kind of reprieve from the pain.

There's nothing wrong with being a socially awkward super-nerd.... :( *sobs*
[/also hasn't been laid]
Provided that you don't let it turn you into a misogynistic asshole, as happens all to often among a certain set.

Pride. Sheer bloody pride.

Provided that you don't let it turn you into a misogynistic asshole, as happens all to often among a certain set.

Then I'd say I'm fine. At least in that regard. But I can understand how that would happen.

Thread title: "In search of real men.'

I'm here, what needs fixing?

*Sets down tool bucket, identifies outlets for electric drill.*

But from the shirt I must assume he's been lobotomized. Brains are the sexiest thing a man can offer.

Oh, well, in that case:
http://www.robertobaca.com/images/brain4.jpg

I said "seems like"

I'm pretty damn sure 90% is a gross exagerration.

But do remember, the time a woman is most likely to be killed by a partner is when she tries to leave him.

Seventy-four percent of all murder-suicides involved an intimate partner(spouse, common-law spouse, ex-spouse, or boyfriend/girlfriend). Of these, 96 percent were females killed by their intimate partners.
Most murder-suicides with three or more victims involved a "family annihilator" -- a subcategory of intimate partner murder-suicide.Family annihilators are murderers who kill not only their wives/girlfriends and children, but often other family members as well,before killing themselves.


So much for Medea. It's most likely to be the guy that kills off your whole family because you're leaving.

Sometimes it seems less like a reaction to loss of someones affection and more like a way to repair, in a most perverse way, ones injured pride.

Right - it's not like women are going around drowning their children in bathtubs, locking them in trunks then rolling the car into a lake, or shooting their husbands in the back with a shotgun or anything... :rolleyes:

All women are saints and would never do anything vindictive or harmful to anyone...

http://archive.salon.com/news/1999/03/cov_10news.html
Washington Post investigation in Virginia and Maryland found that nearly one in four rape reports in 1990-91 was unfounded. When contacted by the newspaper, many "victims" admitted they lied. More shocking figures come from a study by now-retired Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin published in Archives of Sexual Behavior in 1994. After reviewing the police records of an Indiana town, Kanin found that of 109 reports of rape filed in 1978-87, 45 -- or 41 percent -- turned out to be false, as the women themselves admitted after the investigation.

I have a reason why it's a higher proportion of men that do this then women, but you wont like it.

Or sometimes just the pain. It's amazing what a pain-maddened mind would mistake for some kind of reprieve from the pain.

It's generally easier to focus said pain upon the self, not others.

I have a reason why it's a higher proportion of men that do this then women, but you wont like it.
IMHO I would suspect that evolution has equipped men and women to deal with conflict differently. Men - being larger - get to use brawn. It is hardwired. Women - being smaller - tend to use subterfuge and sabotage. So you take a man and a woman and put them together - introduce conflict - and the woman engages in psychological warfare while the man is forced to resist his natural impulse. Eventually the man explodes.

The problem is not that the man is violent. The problem is that even though society now spends considerable effort getting men to suppress their tendencies; considerable effort helping women avoid men who have crossed over the tipping point; society completely ignores proper counseling of WOMEN in how to resolve conflicts with men. This leaves women essentially mentally tormenting men and most often not even knowing they are doing it - or at least the severity of the mental and emotional damage they are doing.

Men are completely defenseless emotionally against women. Women don't know this because nobody has ever told them. I am not justifying or even comparing emotional torment to physical abuse - but one should not be surprised when one leads to another.

Women need to be taught to be sensitive to men's emotional weakness just as much as men need to be taught to be sensitive to women's physical weakness. Women have much more at stake.

In my honest opinion, men and women are about equally predisposed to flip out and do something crazy. The degree of crazy, however, tends to vary a bit between genders and I see it as more of a social conditioning thing than a psychological or genetic thing. As some people pointed out, society (especially in the West) sort of conditions men toward violence and women toward being nice, pretty and sweet. Of course, not everyone follows these social decrees to the letter, but most do in one way or another just because it was the only thing given to them growing up. Think of it in the same way you once believed in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy if your parents did that. Children are very impressionable to things people, especially the people the trust the most in the world - their parents - tell them.

Like it or not, the way they see people acting on TV also has a pretty big effect on how a child, himself, acts. A 6 year old might watch a movie, even a more or less kid-oriented movie, and see the male as having a more dominant, even physically aggressive role over the smaller, more fragile female. Even as recently as 10 years ago, this sort of social inequality was prominent in movies and other media, and continues (albeit with much more public awareness) today. Thus, to me, it's no surprise that the current generation of "new men" (18-40 age-range here) is a lot more prone to violence and ill temperament.

The most recent cases of men killing their former girlfriends/wives, however, are sensationalist reports on people who were just plain crazy. It happens a lot more than you think. And, in fact, women kill men (or their mistresses) with a small amount of frequency comparable to the frequency with which men kill women, though they often choose less violent or indirect means, such as poisoning or having a friend rough their men up. It's not as frequently reported as "Boyfriend kills girlfriend, self. News at 11." because it doesn't sell papers or get ratings due to the "insecure male" demographic (it's freakin' huge) not wanting to deal with that, versus the vengeful female (it's not so freakin' huge) demographic that eats that stuff up. Male on female crime sells because every man, deep down inside, wants to see the man proven innocent and the woman shown to be an evil, manipulative bitch. See the Duke rape case.

And for further reading, there have been two highly publicized cases in the media in the past few months involving the kidnap, rape and sexual torture of a female, in which females themselves have been prime suspects in addition to the males that helped perpetrate the crime.

In short, everyone has the ability to go crazy, but not everyone's insane killing spree = media dollars.

It's... different with guys and gals.

I remember reading this a LOOONG time ago... like mid 80's.

basically, a woman has less problems bonding with other women. they can have alot of great friends and can share their intimate secrets and emotions. men tend not to be that deeply bonded with their male friends.

that doesn't mean male friends aren't close, it's a different type of friendship that women share.

the friendship/relationship between a man and a woman (or any loving relationship) would be similar to a woman as her friendships with other women. However, for most men, their relationship with a lover tends to be different than their relationhip with their friends.

While there are things they would tell their friends and not their lover, there are more personal things they would share with their lover than their friends. (Lover being in a loving relationship, not a one night stand.)

So when that relationship ends, the woman can find a similar connection with her friends while the man is almost literally cut off. so it tends to hit the male harder than the female.

Of course this is generally speaking.

(the article went deeper, but I'm going by memory.)

I think that's part of it, but the idea of women as chattel probably plays into it to some degree as well.

Your thread is titled "n search of real men." So, I did a little research and found you one. :D
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/model-stripes.jpg

http://www.squeezeoc.com/newsimages/SqueezeOC_living/richardsimmons.jpg
?
Don't see too much unmitigated violence there.
Or...
http://www.vivalasvegasweddings.com/images/Photogallery/LiberaceFlyingIn.jpg
Real men aren't afraid to wear stripes. *nods*
BTW - he absorbed his twin in the womb.


http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/5411/ROCK1.JPG
?
http://craig.senate.gov/i/rwr_intro.jpg
?
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/nucleus/media/3/20060204-Bush-Jack-2.jpg
....

I'm here, what needs fixing?


Did you ever figure out that disposition thing? :p

I disagree. I think it may be true with westerners (particularly USians since they are the only westerners I have personally observed)...but where I grew up, male bonding (to the extent of putting hands over the other guy's shoulders, walking holding hands in public etc) is quite normal. A typical hostel would have one TV room where about a 100 guys would be packed in watching cricket...many shirtless and practically lying on top of another guy..lol...


Where did you grow up and how much would it cost to get there...? :)

Actually.. wait.. that would just be more frustrating because straight guys behaving that way jams the gaydar and leads to unrequited advances.

So, balls to your homeland!

Unless, of course, all that liberated masculine intimacy went hand-in-hand with rampant homo- or bi-sexuality, in which case, where did you grow up and how much would it cost to get there? :D

It's harder for men to find sexual partners than women? For every woman finding a sexual partner there is a man finding one too. (I know that this isn't strictly true, but I imagine there is as many male gays as female gays, so I am counting them out).

OR...the same guys are getting many female partners. You can't look at it as a one for one situation. I do tend to agree that it is a hell of a lot easier for a woman to hook up with a guy, than it is for a guy to hook up with women. If a woman goes to a club and wants to get laid, chances are, she's going to get laid. I don't think the reverse is as true...but rather, the guy who got laid the night before is probably getting laid that night too.

Right - it's not like women are going around drowning their children in bathtubs, locking them in trunks then rolling the car into a lake, or shooting their husbands in the back with a shotgun or anything... :rolleyes:

All women are saints and would never do anything vindictive or harmful to anyone...

http://archive.salon.com/news/1999/03/cov_10news.html
Nice. Now run off and compare the stats. Men killing women and children by far outnumber women killing men and children. But hey...don't let facts get in your way as you attack the saintly strawwoman.

In my honest opinion, men and women are about equally predisposed to flip out and do something crazy. The degree of crazy, however, tends to vary a bit between genders and I see it as more of a social conditioning thing than a psychological or genetic thing. This I agree with. The flipped out women I've known or heard about, do things like set fire to all his clothes, or attack his car. Pretty fucked up. But that degree of craziness does actually matter...especially when the degree of difference is between crazy property damage and crazy murder-suicide.

That's not to say women can't start being the murder-suicide type as a matter of course...that lack of ability to cope needs to be dealt with whether we're talking men or women.

This I agree with. The flipped out women I've known or heard about, do things like set fire to all his clothes, or attack his car. Pretty fucked up. But that degree of craziness does actually matter...especially when the degree of difference is between crazy property damage and crazy murder-suicide.

That's not to say women can't start being the murder-suicide type as a matter of course...that lack of ability to cope needs to be dealt with whether we're talking men or women.

So you'll agree that the degree of craziness matters. Lets go one step further, why do men go the 'extra mile' with their craziness? Do you think that they are more predispossed to going that extra mile? After all there wouldn't be anywhere near the focus on sports such as boxing, football, hockey, even car racing if men thought the same as women.
Men are taught to be problem solvers, by any means required.
I was recently talking to a friend who said ' I would take a beating to have him (her drug addict ex) out of my life '. This statement astounded me, just the fact that she feels this is an acceptable risk to get this scum bag out of her life is, well, bizarre. Now if I felt threatened in a similar circumstance I wouldn't hesitate to find the individual and make it perfectly clear, through most any means needed, that I would protect me and mine.
To me that is the fundamental difference - the varying degrees of acceptable risk between and man and a woman. A man is willing to go further, harder and faster, with less regard of the outcome of his actions than a woman in a similar circumstance.

Who actually know anyone who has gone mental when they've split up with someone.

I don't. Most that I've ever heard is people bitching about their ex to other people. Which is something I have done, but only bitched about my ex to a few select close friends.

Thankfully it hasn't happened to anybody I personally know. Yet. I hear acid-throwing is the big new thing when a woman tries to leave...he'll make her pay by making her unattractive to any other man ever again.

Oh, well, in that case:
http://www.robertobaca.com/images/brain4.jpg

OH BABY!!!

Seems to me that the level of craziness might be inherent in the person, male or female. HOWEVER, if the breakup is the "trigger", then the overriding factor must be the degree of communication within the relationship.

I can't imagine being blindsided by someone just suddenly deciding to end it with me. It's never happened. I've been dumped, to be sure, but I have always seen it coming. In fact, I've usually begun the conversation that leads to the end by asking "what's wrong" because I've been noticing things about how she's behaving.

If you're truly paying attention to one another and considering their point of view more than once or twice a month, you'll be able to better tell where you are and what the health of the relationship is. If you don't, you get blindsided and you feel a far sharper sense of loss because it came "out of the blue". I think that feeling of "wait a minute, where did THIS come from, all of a sudden?" is what leads to a lot of overall violence, but especially the male violence. That's because surprise tends to bring out the old "fight or flight" reflex and even a standard wuss can be more likely to fight if the woman is physically weaker than the man.

My two cents.

Who actually know anyone who has gone mental when they've split up with someone.

I don't. Most that I've ever heard is people bitching about their ex to other people. Which is something I have done, but only bitched about my ex to a few select close friends.

I do, very unfortunately.

I know a woman who stabbed her husband fifteen times, in front of her children (who I was teaching). He lived, amazingly. He had left her for another woman a month previous.

A distant relative of mine shot his wife, his children, and himself when she decided to leave him.

A member of our community stalked his former common-law partner for two years, and trapped her one night in house under construction...he tortured her and left her for dead...only the workers returning early saved her from bleeding out there.

I've also worked with women at a crisis centre, who have told me in such matter of fact tones of the most horrible abuse by partners and former partners. One elderly lady, in her late 60s, had been shot in the head by her former husband...and survived, but refused to cooperate with police out of fear...and resignation.

The majority of couples split with some bad feelings, but no need to harm each other...it's those few who lose sense of things, and just snap that we need to worry about.

Unless, of course, all that liberated masculine intimacy went hand-in-hand with rampant homo- or bi-sexuality, in which case, where did you grow up and how much would it cost to get there? :D

India and it is quite cheap to get there.

But it is in no way "liberal" with homosexuality. Things are very subtle and underground except maybe metros like Mumbai where there is open gay behavior. Gay westerners flock to Goa etc to have fun.

I don't think you will like it. There are still very stupid anti-gay laws as a legacy from archaic British laws that India inherited :( . There have been instances of violence against gays in parts where social traditions are strong and homosexuality is taboo.

The only good thing is that homophobia is also not that much of a factor. Guys like to wear pink and casually touch each other in public. Your gaydar would go haywire there. :p

I was looking at the newspaper this morning and came across an all too familiar story. I'll do my best not to descend into man-bashing.

http://newsok.com/article/keyword/3131588/

Now I don't usually read the Daily Oklahoman, frequently refered to as the Daily Disappointment, but it was the only thing available at the little diner.
(just for fun, and totally off topic, a link explaining how bad the paper is-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_199901/ai_n8828320 )

Why is it that it's almost always guys who get the attitude that an ex-partner must be destroyed, sometimes literally, rather than be allowed to move on? I know women occassionally do crap like this. But why does it seem like 90% of the cases of "If he/she leaves me, I'd rather they be dead" crap come from guys?

My roomies (flatmats to those across the pond) and I discussed it a bit. They're both guys, but really didn't seem to have an answer that seemed satifactory.

Is part of it biological? They seemed to think so. Their theory- since it's harder for guys to find sexual partners than it is for women, guys are pre-programmed to react more strongly than women to losing a partner.

I think it's more social. There's still a lingering hint of the old idea as women as chattel. I'd be pretty pissed if my car decided it'd like to live elsewhere and deprived me of my rightful use of it.

So guys and gals- what's your take on this?
If it's biological, then males should not have adult legal standing. They should not be permitted to hold office, vote, or enter binding legal contracts. If men are biologically less capable of controlling themselves, then let's have our laws reflect that.

I don't think it's biological at all, in any way shape or form.

It's socialized, and it's about control. Men are more likely to behave that way because men are taught that it is their right to control women and to own women. Men are given messages about how they are not even a man if a woman has any power around them.

Most men are smart enough to recognize bullshit when they smell it. Sadly, some men are just looking for a way to justify their own selfishness and petty behavior, so they are only too happy to embrace the Manly Man narrative and beat the shit out of any uppity woman who doesn't bow down and worship their manly gonads.

Their maleness isn't what causes this behavior, it's just what society uses to excuse their behavior.

It's harder for men to find sexual partners than women? For every woman finding a sexual partner there is a man finding one too. It is easier for the women to find a quick fix.. but it is harder to find a willing lifetime partner. Specially when they are past their 30's

For some reason many boys get bored after 3 months of sex with the same girl..
boys will be boys.

You said it perfectly: boys will be boys.

Which is why women shouldn't be dating boys.Its not my fault.. its biological.

God made me that way... :confused:
or
Mother nature made me that way...
or sumthing like that

For some reason most boys get bored after 3 months of sex with the same girl..
boys will be boys.
You said it perfectly: boys will be boys.

Which is why women shouldn't be dating boys.

The only good thing is that homophobia is also not that much of a factor. Guys like to wear pink and casually touch each other in public. Your gaydar would go haywire there. :p

I'll have to agree here. It seems that western culture especially has an serious issue with regards to exterior behaviour that is in any way remotely connected with anything that is remotely homosexual.

Like Indians, Chinese people seem to have little issue with holding hands amongst men, discussing emotional issues amongst close friends or wearing clothes that could be deemed feminine (although Id admit being adversed to men in pink shirts, i mean...why?).

as for the OP..
Yes, Men are way more violent than Women.

Society has to protect any Women that are being victimized by a "wife beater".

I have a reason why it's a higher proportion of men that do this then women, but you wont like it.ok... what is the reason?

Its not my fault.. its biological.

God made me that way... :confused:
or
Mother nature made me that way...
or sumthing like that
Erm, if you say so. If you're actually defective in such a way that you cannot control your behavior, then that sounds like a terrific reason for everybody to avoid dating you. While I appreciate you warning us all to stay the hell away from your impulsively-violent ass, I have to wonder...why would you want to advertise your defect in this manner?

While I appreciate you warning us all to stay the hell away from your impulsively-violent ass, I have to wonder...why would you want to advertise your defect in this manner?*tries to Imagine a violent ass* :D

I was talking about sexual behavior. NOT about male violence.
I dont like hitting women.. or anyone weaker than me.

I do, very unfortunately.

Yeah, me too. A murder-suicide. The brother of a friend in high school couldn't handle it when his girlfriend dumped him. Very sad.

I don't think you will like it. There are still very stupid anti-gay laws as a legacy from archaic British laws that India inherited :( . There have been instances of violence against gays in parts where social traditions are strong and homosexuality is taboo.


Just ask Richard Gere. And he was just kissing. And it was a girl he was kissing!

*tries to Imagine a violent ass* :D

I was talking about sexual behavior. NOT about male violence.
I dont like hitting women.. or anyone weaker than me.
Okay, your impulsively-raping behavior, then.

Seriously, if you are incapable of controling who you fuck, why should anybody date you?

It is easier for the women to find a quick fix.. but it is harder to find a willing lifetime partner. Specially when they are past their 30's

For some reason many boys get bored after 3 months of sex with the same girl..
boys will be boys.

Is it not possible that girls get bored as well?

Or is the difference that girls can't fuck and chuck as much as they'd like for fear of being called a slut, a slapper or whatever word us boys like to use?

Is it because they don't want to or that they constrained both by the concept they should remain virginal in order to 'find a good man' as well as the fact that, frankly, they probably find many of our views and assumptions distasteful?

Or something like that.

*tries to Imagine a violent ass* :D

I was talking about sexual behavior. NOT about male violence.
I dont like hitting women.. or anyone weaker than me.

It's not that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assy_mcgee) difficult to picture.

Is it not possible that girls get bored as well?

Or is the difference that girls can't fuck and chuck as much as they'd like for fear of being called a slut, a slapper or whatever word us boys like to use?

Is it because they don't want to or that they constrained both by the concept they should remain virginal in order to 'find a good man' as well as the fact that, frankly, they probably find many of our views and assumptions distasteful?

Or something like that.

NO!

It MUST BE because males are BIOLOGICALLY WIRED TO BE PROMISCUOUS.

Does kind of make you wonder, though. We have all these rules and tactics for shaming women who are "slutty." If women are naturally "designed" to be chaste and faithful, then how come we have to put so much effort into forcing them to be chaste and faithful? How come we have to spend so much time and energy teaching women to be chaste and faithful, if that's just how women naturally are?

Things that make you go "Hm..."

NO!

It MUST BE because males are BIOLOGICALLY WIRED TO BE PROMISCUOUS.

Does kind of make you wonder, though. We have all these rules and tactics for shaming women who are "slutty." If women are naturally "designed" to be chaste and faithful, then how come we have to put so much effort into forcing them to be chaste and faithful? How come we have to spend so much time and energy teaching women to be chaste and faithful, if that's just how women naturally are?

Things that make you go "Hm..."

Clearly, you are the devil's work, did Eve not tempt man? Are women not open to the temptation of the devil?

Are you some kind of witch?

:)

'Is part of it biological? They seemed to think so. Their theory- since it's harder for guys to find sexual partners than it is for women, guys are pre-programmed to react more strongly than women to losing a partner.'

Bingo. Dead on. For more information I recommend Dr. Steven Pinker's books, How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate.


NO!

Does kind of make you wonder, though. We have all these rules and tactics for shaming women who are "slutty." If women are naturally "designed" to be chaste and faithful, then how come we have to put so much effort into forcing them to be chaste and faithful? How come we have to spend so much time and energy teaching women to be chaste and faithful, if that's just how women naturally are?

Things that make you go "Hm..."

Because the natural design for women is to be chaste and faithful under *most* situations, while for their mates it is to want the woman to be faithful under *all* situations, and that difference means a lot. Recent research shows that married men and women will look longer at good looking people of the SAME sex than at ugly people- presumably because the good looking ones are subconsciously perceived as sexual rivals.

We are still 90 something % ape.

And 20% banana.

Clearly, you are the devil's work, did Eve not tempt man? Are women not open to the temptation of the devil?

Are you some kind of witch?

:)
Baby, I am all kinds of witch.

Wink.

Because the natural design for women is to be chaste and faithful under *most* situations, while for their mates it is to want the woman to be faithful under *all* situations, and that difference means a lot.

Never, in the entire history of the human species, has there been a time when human females all chose to be chaste and faithful.

Instead, human history is filled with countless examples of cultures in which female sexuality has been policed and tightly controlled in order to force chastity upon females whether they like it or not. And not a single one of those cultures even succeeded! Despite intense punishments (up to and including the death penalty) for non-chastity, females STILL don't opt to be chaste all the time.

Frankly, given the history of humanity, I think it looks like women crave sex far, far more than men do. Women are prepared to seek out sex despite facing far greater risks and penalties for doing so, after all. Men are rewarded for being promiscuous while women are punished for it, and yet current evidence suggests that women still are promiscuous almost as often as men are.


Recent research shows that married men and women will look longer at good looking people of the SAME sex than at ugly people- presumably because the good looking ones are subconsciously perceived as sexual rivals.

This is not relevant to the topic at hand.


We are still 90 something % ape.

Technically, we are 100% ape.

Among our closest genetic "cousins," promiscuity is far more common than monogamy, and the most common form of sexual contact is female-female sex. Just so you know.

Because the natural design for women is to be chaste and faithful under *most* situations, while for their mates it is to want the woman to be faithful under *all* situations, and that difference means a lot. Recent research shows that married men and women will look longer at good looking people of the SAME sex than at ugly people- presumably because the good looking ones are subconsciously perceived as sexual rivals.

We are still 90 something % ape.

And 20% banana.
Funny...there was a show done about a study that showed that men who had been away from their partners for a period of time actually produced more acidic sperm, which when coming in contact with other sperm would kill it off. Seems to me, biology tells us that women aren't hard wired to be faithful. In fact, seems to me...women want good looking, healthy children...so they'll fuck good looking, healthy men...and then find a good man to stick around and raise the kids. We aren't eagles...we don't mate for life unless we really, really want to.

Funny...there was a show done about a study that showed that men who had been away from their partners for a period of time actually produced more acidic sperm, which when coming in contact with other sperm would kill it off. Seems to me, biology tells us that women aren't hard wired to be faithful. In fact, seems to me...women want good looking, healthy children...so they'll fuck good looking, healthy men...and then find a good man to stick around and raise the kids. We aren't eagles...we don't mate for life unless we really, really want to.

Acidity in sperm is based on how often you orgasm. If it builds up the older sperm die and the overall solution becomes more acidic, which is harmful to sperm. That's why we masturbate and such, keeps the acid level down to optimum. Also helps explain nocturnal emissions.

The woman's vaginal tract is actually quite acidic and very hostile to sperm, more so than anything males can put out.

Acidity in sperm is based on how often you orgasm. If it builds up the older sperm die and the overall solution becomes more acidic, which is harmful to sperm.

How does this contradict the point?

I was looking at the newspaper this morning and came across an all too familiar story. I'll do my best not to descend into man-bashing.


I've never encountered a single instance among those I have known, of a girl who threatened to kill her partner if he/she left her.

I've encountered a couple of 'men' who have, though. And those relationships have tended to be very controlling, violent, even abusive. Often the threat has extended to the 'next partner' also.

I don't know if guys naturally feel more territorial than girls, or if our society just lets them act like assholes.

There are no excuses. People don't own each other.

I don't wish to sound whiny, but was my post (http://http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13077453&postcount=48) on this topic so off base that it didn't even deserve a reply in mockery?

There may be some "nature" with regard to "domestic violence", but there's a shitload of "nurture", too.

The solution is communication and consideration.

The squeaky wheel gets some grease!

Seems to me that the level of craziness might be inherent in the person, male or female. HOWEVER, if the breakup is the "trigger", then the overriding factor must be the degree of communication within the relationship.

In the overwhelming majority of cases where a man kills his girlfriend or wife following a break up, the problem wasn't "communication." It was that he was abusive throughout the relationship. Both parties "communicated" just fine; she said, "I'm leaving you because you're an abusive fuckwad," and he replied, "Nobody leaves me, you bitch."


I can't imagine being blindsided by someone just suddenly deciding to end it with me. It's never happened. I've been dumped, to be sure, but I have always seen it coming. In fact, I've usually begun the conversation that leads to the end by asking "what's wrong" because I've been noticing things about how she's behaving.

It's pretty much never a "blindsided" kind of thing. Usually the abuse in the relationship has been going on for a very long time. Most women who leave their abusers are completely aware of the risk they take in doing so. Most women who have been in abusive relationships for long period will report that one of the reasons they stay (or stayed as long as they did) was because they were (rightfully!) fearful of what he would do if they tried to leave.

We're not talking about normal dudes who suddenly crack when they are blindsided by a break up. We're talking about men who have a history of abusive behavior and serious control issues. The break up is what finally pushes them to kill, though some of them also end up killing their partner if she stays.


If you're truly paying attention to one another and considering their point of view more than once or twice a month, you'll be able to better tell where you are and what the health of the relationship is. If you don't, you get blindsided and you feel a far sharper sense of loss because it came "out of the blue". I think that feeling of "wait a minute, where did THIS come from, all of a sudden?" is what leads to a lot of overall violence, but especially the male violence. That's because surprise tends to bring out the old "fight or flight" reflex and even a standard wuss can be more likely to fight if the woman is physically weaker than the man.

My two cents.
I'm sure this sort of thing could happen in some cases, but research so far has shown that this is not the case in the majority of situations where a man kills his intimate partner.

A recent book, "Why Do They Kill," by David Adams, is a great read on this topic.

How does this contradict the point?

Well if you'd read the entire post rather than just once sentence you would surmise that the point was bunk. Since you apparently didn't don't ask me to dumb it down for ya.

Your thread is titled "n search of real men." So, I did a little research and found you one. :D
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/model-stripes.jpg

"Real men wear stripes"?

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/fengsel-stor.jpg http://www.math.luc.edu/~ajs/courses/161fall2006/groupwork_files/image005.jpg

Is it not possible that girls get bored as well?of course its possible.

I dont know how often it happens for the girls.. Better ask one of them.

males? yes, sumtimez we get the feeling we want to try a "different" spice, the grass is greener..etc

I disagree. I think it may be true with westerners (particularly USians since they are the only westerners I have personally observed)...but where I grew up, male bonding (to the extent of putting hands over the other guy's shoulders, walking holding hands in public etc) is quite normal.

This is quite normal in many parts of Europe, from what I understand (note: Europe is part of "the West").

This isn't the point, though; one could quite easily make the (inductive) argument that men do more shit like this than women, but I'd bet (without proof, given) that this sort of thing comes from both sexes equally, though it may be more prevalent in x sex in y culture. But what do I know? I just don't like to think that our behaviors are determinded by our gender. Maybe guys ARE inherently more prone to violent obsession; and maybe women are, say, psychologically weaker and have a tendency to be better homemakers than anything else. However, I would like to think that each individual shapes his or her being rather than succumb to genetic determinism.

:confused:

If a girl doesn't want to be with me or is just unhappy with me (as if that has ever happened), I encourage her to leave. There may be a part of me that sometimes doesn't want an ex to be happy without me but thats the irrational part of my mind that is easy to dismiss. I never blame the guy that is with my ex either. Lame fuckers who want to beat up whatever guy that their woman cheats on them with are pretty pathetic. I've never wanted to harm an ex in any way as far as I can recall.

of course its possible.

I dont know how often it happens for the girls.. Better ask one of them.

males? yes, sumtimez we get the feeling we want to try a "different" spice, the grass is greener..etc


Well I know my wife was recently heard saying "I want some strange."

Our roomie asked her, "Aren't you supposed to say that behind your hubby's back rather than directly to his face?"

I said "Who doesn't want a little strange once in a while?"

I find it's way too much effort to do the stalking/messing with aspect of the end of a relationship. It's not that I'm so morally superior, just lazy.

Well if you'd read the entire post rather than just once sentence you would surmise that the point was bunk. Since you apparently didn't don't ask me to dumb it down for ya.

I did read the whole 'post'. It appeared to set out to somehow contradict Neesika's assertion, but merely suggested the mechanism by which an evolutionary trend might precipitate.

You then went on to suggest that a dangerous situation doesn't become any more dangerous if you add more danger.

I wasn't asking for it to be 'dumbed down'. It seemed perfectly adequate in that regard.

I did read the whole 'post'. It appeared to set out to somehow contradict Neesika's assertion, but merely suggested the mechanism by which an evolutionary trend might precipitate.

Dagnabit, Grave! There you go again bringing smart into this.

:p

I think there's a point to be made that women can be just as violent as men in terms of break ups. It's just that the violence is expressed in different ways.

Both men and women can feel humiliated, it's really about how they react and it speaks to broader aspects of how we 'deal with it'.

There's plenty of stories on vengeful women from simple cutting of clothes to the infamous Bobbit case.

Females tend to aim for demasculation of the male and therefore attack those outward symbols of masculinity, from scratching the car, demanding the house to outright cutting off the penis.

Males tend to aim for reassertion of dominance of which the ultimate result is plain violence.

Yet within both we can see a battle for the appearance of dominance, the female strikes at that which hurts a man most, the things that outwardly express his dominant position whereas the man strikes at that which helps him most, the reassertion.

This is where cultural factors come to play over nature; the established order is that a man should be seen as dominant in the relationship.

It should be noted that there are certainly women who establish dominance in a relationship, which is just as wrong-headed - the difference can be that she is still placing herself in danger because it's the man who tends to react through violence - where it's the other way round is in a small minority of cases.

Nothing offends a man more than thinking his primary dominance is being undermined, whether through paranoia over cheating or being asked who wears the trousers in the relationship. Our very language speaks to the inherent assumed dominance of man - it's not who wears the skirt in the relationship.

It may be argued that a man's need to feel dominant stems from nature and the fight for reproduction yet, even if that's true to some extent (and I'd say it's only one among many factors), the difference between ourselves and the ape - that less than 2% difference - is all within the brain in terms of owning consciousness, being able to go against our instincts.

The real man is one who doesn't feel so insecure as to want or fight for dominance in a relationship and, I'm glad to say, there seems to be more and more men like this every generation.

Awww...I saw the thread title and thought that people wanted to meet me....:(:(:(

oh well, i guess I'll just go back to my corner...

and cry...

alone...:(

Baby, I am all kinds of witch.

Wink.

http://www.boingboing.net/images/bewitched.jpg
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/cool29.gif

Did I mention that Bitchkitten and I are married now?

Hehehe ;)

Ok .... not yet.

But I'm stalking her to get it done.

Who actually know anyone who has gone mental when they've split up with someone.

I do. Two people.

In response to perusing this thread:


What constitutes a 'real man', exactly? If you are implying it is someone who is supposed to be courteous, chivalrous, smart, strong etc...isn't that just the flip side of the violence? In terms one feminist (just war writer, Elshtain I think) discussed, it is the the notion of the 'honorable warrior' paired to the implied notion of the female 'beautiful soul'. So if a 'real' man is someone who is supposed to be a 'civilized' warrior, then the implication is that violence is generally good in order to protect. Which I would have to wonder somewhat flies in the face of wanting someone to be conciliatory. Figure notions of what a 'real man' is, and it generally equates to someone matching muscular, nice, and protective (I could be wrong here, but that is what the image is to me). Violence is acceptable as long as it is directed outward at a focused goal, against the 'bad guy'. I mean, most male fulfillment ideals would be "Heroic type swoops in and delivers JUSTICE, rescuing the appreciative gal." Oldest one in the book.

Of course, someone brought up biology into this. I could argue that generally the male is supposed to 'impress' the female somehow, and a lot of romance novel covers look suspiciously like the fine gentlemen Spartans of 300, or predominately feature Mr. muscular Fabio.

I guess I would like to know is: What exactly do you want or expect of us? To not be an @#$, that's a given. No one admires the guy who hurts his family. To expect us to not be aggressive or competitive though is rather silly. When rejected, a person *does* feel inadequate and it would be understood that they would feel a pressing need to prove themselves. In this twisted case, it became the entirely wrong outlet.

As usual, Futurama explains it best when they aired the segment on "Don't Date Robots", heh. "Men trying to impress women has been the driving force for almost all human accomplishments."

I was looking at the newspaper this morning and came across an all too familiar story. I'll do my best not to descend into man-bashing.

http://newsok.com/article/keyword/3131588/

Now I don't usually read the Daily Oklahoman, frequently refered to as the Daily Disappointment, but it was the only thing available at the little diner.
(just for fun, and totally off topic, a link explaining how bad the paper is-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_199901/ai_n8828320 )

Why is it that it's almost always guys who get the attitude that an ex-partner must be destroyed, sometimes literally, rather than be allowed to move on? I know women occassionally do crap like this. But why does it seem like 90% of the cases of "If he/she leaves me, I'd rather they be dead" crap come from guys?

My roomies (flatmats to those across the pond) and I discussed it a bit. They're both guys, but really didn't seem to have an answer that seemed satifactory.

Is part of it biological? They seemed to think so. Their theory- since it's harder for guys to find sexual partners than it is for women, guys are pre-programmed to react more strongly than women to losing a partner.

I think it's more social. There's still a lingering hint of the old idea as women as chattel. I'd be pretty pissed if my car decided it'd like to live elsewhere and deprived me of my rightful use of it.

So guys and gals- what's your take on this?

I think it's a social problem. I'm nowhere near anything like that (though you likely already knew this, eh?) --- though I've been around a lot of people... I guess you could say that a lot of us give into the binds of social "norms", and feel that we have to act a certain way under certain conditions.

And the people that do this aren't necessarily dumb, either. They really don't know any better. Not all of them aren't dumb, but I think you can see where I'm going with this.

As usual, Futurama explains it best when they aired the segment on "Don't Date Robots", heh. "Men trying to impress women has been the driving force for almost all human accomplishments."

Please, he's no different from the rest of you organisms. Shooting DNA at each other to make babies. I find it offensive!
:D

if you wanna find out about like the difference between men and women behaviour.. u could try reading "self man man" by norah jones who spend a year and a half disguised as a man..

but thats besides the point..

i think its probably the culture u all have in the states.. because i stay in singapore.. and there arent much cases of guys being too violence in sch and all.. i guess they're all too busy mugging and studying for exams to even stop and pick a fight with someone.. and we dont have guns eithers.. which i guess helps alot..

yupp

"I take the wheel and turn sharp.
I drive you off a cliff, into the dark.
A scream echoes throughout the sky.
I turn my head and say 'How you feel, Dear? Your gonna die.'

Why do you always try to run away?
I miss you, baby, and I want to stay.
You left me one year to this day...

I didn't like our fate.
So I tied you up, took you on a date
to look upon where we first kissed.
I no longer shall have to reminisce.

How come the tears fall from your eye?
Tell me, baby, why you screamed tonight.
Our destiny lies beyond that holy light.

If I can't have you, no one else can.
But if you died, what would I do then?
I can't live without you, baby.
So now we'll rest together for eternity.

I take the wheel and turn sharp.
I drive you off a cliff, into the dark.
A scream echoes throughout the sky.
I turn my head and say 'How you feel, dear? Your gonna die
on this perfect night.'"

-Perfect Night by the 12 Step Rebels.

A great song, but absolutely twisted. I like it anyway, but I don't think I'm unthinking enough to just kill someone, and I put a rather high value on life.

if you wanna find out about like the difference between men and women behaviour.. u could try reading "self man man" by norah jones who spend a year and a half disguised as a man..

but thats besides the point..

i think its probably the culture u all have in the states.. because i stay in singapore.. and there arent much cases of guys being too violence in sch and all.. i guess they're all too busy mugging and studying for exams to even stop and pick a fight with someone.. and we dont have guns eithers.. which i guess helps alot..

yupp

Apologies for the intrusion but it's Self Made Man by Norah Vincent and it's a decent book :)

Searching for real men? Visit me. ;)

I don't know anyone who has ever lost it during a break up. I would NEVER let someone I know hurt their girlfriend. That is just wrong.

a group of real Men
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~gunning/images/wurzels/wurzels.jpg

I was looking at the newspaper this morning and came across an all too familiar story. I'll do my best not to descend into man-bashing.

http://newsok.com/article/keyword/3131588/

Now I don't usually read the Daily Oklahoman, frequently refered to as the Daily Disappointment, but it was the only thing available at the little diner.
(just for fun, and totally off topic, a link explaining how bad the paper is-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_199901/ai_n8828320 )

Why is it that it's almost always guys who get the attitude that an ex-partner must be destroyed, sometimes literally, rather than be allowed to move on? I know women occassionally do crap like this. But why does it seem like 90% of the cases of "If he/she leaves me, I'd rather they be dead" crap come from guys?

My roomies (flatmats to those across the pond) and I discussed it a bit. They're both guys, but really didn't seem to have an answer that seemed satifactory.

Is part of it biological? They seemed to think so. Their theory- since it's harder for guys to find sexual partners than it is for women, guys are pre-programmed to react more strongly than women to losing a partner.

I think it's more social. There's still a lingering hint of the old idea as women as chattel. I'd be pretty pissed if my car decided it'd like to live elsewhere and deprived me of my rightful use of it.

So guys and gals- what's your take on this?

Because men are more aggressive than women and those who are motivated primarily by that impulse will use their aggression as the means by which to get what they want.

It's not that men are pre-programed to react more strongly than women, it's just that their strong reaction is going to be one of violence and outwardly directed damage. Women who have similarly strong reactions are likely to alienate their friends and engage in self-destructive behaviors, which get less attention because people will react with fear of an aggressor sooner than they will react with pity to someone in pain.

But, yes, part of it is social. In societies with matrilineal traditions men aren't very possessive of their wives because society doesn't place much importance on their participation in the family. Children's father-figures are their maternal uncles. And so because it doesn't matter if the man sleeps around, he doesn't really care if his wife sleeps around. On the other hand, divorce consists of the guys stuff getting thrown out on the lawn. Not that doesn't play a part in our society too, but there's more to it than that.

Hm, what? Women outnumber men (not by much, but still), so either there is a huge underground of lesbians and polygamists operating out there, or this argument is just bullshit.
I don't think there is anything particular that predisposes men to this. Othet than that, culturally, men are told that violence from and against them is acceptable (whereas women are told the opposite), so they're more likely to kill people for any reason.

But if a woman walks into a bar, taps a guy on the shoulder, and says "excuse me, you wanna get out of here and have sex?" the answer will almost certainly be "yes." You may think I'm overstating the case, but this very experiment has been conducted. Women walked into bars, coffee shops, book stores, and other places where discreet witnesses could assure their safety, and asked guys if they'd have sex with them. Not one man said "no, I'd like to get to know you first."

Okay, your impulsively-raping behavior, then.

Seriously, if you are incapable of controling who you fuck, why should anybody date you?why should anybody date me?
...


meh.. I dont know.. good question.
I am good looking and a good kick in bed.. but -I think- I am not a good deal as a lifetime partner. I am not the kind of boyfriend/husband your daddy/mommy approves of. ;)

But if a woman walks into a bar, taps a guy on the shoulder, and says "excuse me, you wanna get out of here and have sex?" the answer will almost certainly be "yes." You may think I'm overstating the case, but this very experiment has been conducted. Women walked into bars, coffee shops, book stores, and other places where discreet witnesses could assure their safety, and asked guys if they'd have sex with them. Not one man said "no, I'd like to get to know you first."
So if a woman is an idiot and is willing to take a really stupid risk, she can obtain sexual partners (or death) easily.
This thread isn't about random hook-ups, anyway, it is about long-term, monogamous relationships. As such, each heterosexual couple removes exactly 1 man and 1 woman from the pool available to everyone else, and my point about simple math stands.

"I take the wheel and turn sharp.
I drive you off a cliff, into the dark.
A scream echoes throughout the sky.
I turn my head and say 'How you feel, Dear? Your gonna die.'

Why do you always try to run away?
I miss you, baby, and I want to stay.
You left me one year to this day...

I didn't like our fate.
So I tied you up, took you on a date
to look upon where we first kissed.
I no longer shall have to reminisce.

How come the tears fall from your eye?
Tell me, baby, why you screamed tonight.
Our destiny lies beyond that holy light.

If I can't have you, no one else can.
But if you died, what would I do then?
I can't live without you, baby.
So now we'll rest together for eternity.

I take the wheel and turn sharp.
I drive you off a cliff, into the dark.
A scream echoes throughout the sky.
I turn my head and say 'How you feel, dear? Your gonna die
on this perfect night.'"

-Perfect Night by the 12 Step Rebels.

A great song, but absolutely twisted. I like it anyway, but I don't think I'm unthinking enough to just kill someone, and I put a rather high value on life.Twisted, eh? Might as well start putting up Nick Cave tunes.

But if a woman walks into a bar, taps a guy on the shoulder, and says "excuse me, you wanna get out of here and have sex?" the answer will almost certainly be "yes." You may think I'm overstating the case, but this very experiment has been conducted. Women walked into bars, coffee shops, book stores, and other places where discreet witnesses could assure their safety, and asked guys if they'd have sex with them. Not one man said "no, I'd like to get to know you first."

I've been offered sex and turned it down. Not every guy has his pilot in the cock-pit, no matter what your 'experiments' (which, I notice, are unsourced) claim.

Twisted, eh? Might as well start putting up Nick Cave tunes.

Well, that's a given.

It's always a good time for Nick Cave.

But if a woman walks into a bar, taps a guy on the shoulder, and says "excuse me, you wanna get out of here and have sex?" the answer will almost certainly be "yes." You may think I'm overstating the case, but this very experiment has been conducted. Women walked into bars, coffee shops, book stores, and other places where discreet witnesses could assure their safety, and asked guys if they'd have sex with them. Not one man said "no, I'd like to get to know you first."
What does that have to do with "predisposition"?

Males face fewer physical and social risks if they accept such offers, and can be sure to receive social perks ("Wow, way to go dude!"). Females face significant risk of bodily harm or even death, will face significant social punishment ("What a slut!"), and will receive precisely zero perks.

The fact that men accept such offers more often than women has absolutely NOTHING to do with any kind of gendered predisposition. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis on the part of the PEOPLE (male or female) involved. If most males faced the same realities that women do, they'd make the same choices that most females make.

What does that have to do with "predisposition"?

Males face fewer physical and social risks if they accept such offers, and can be sure to receive social perks ("Wow, way to go dude!"). Females face significant risk of bodily harm or even death, will face significant social punishment ("What a slut!"), and will receive precisely zero perks.

The fact that men accept such offers more often than women has absolutely NOTHING to do with any kind of gendered predisposition. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis on the part of the PEOPLE (male or female) involved. If most males faced the same realities that women do, they'd make the same choices that most females make.

Like the saying goes (which I've seen attributed to Flo Kennedy, but which is now ubiquitous); "If men got pregnant, abortion would be sacrament".

The 'attitudes' are largely based on the harsh (biological) realities.

Like the saying goes (which I've seen attributed to Flo Kennedy, but which is now ubiquitous); "If men got pregnant, abortion would be sacrament".

The 'attitudes' are largely based on the harsh (biological) realities.
I don't think it's the biological realities which factor in to these things most.

It's not "biological" that men in our society are encouraged to abuse women and to use women's bodies for sexual gratification, while women are encouraged to view themselves as "gate-keepers" who are responsible for male sexual behavior. These are not biological realities, they are social creations.

If you ask women why they don't seek out casual sex more often, the reasons that top the list are, "I'm afraid he'll fucking kill me" or "Because I will be raped." Yes, women are concerned about pregnancy and disease, but their primary worries are actually not the biological worries. They're worried because they are aware that they live in a society where men are encouraged to hurt them.

I've been offered sex and turned it down. Not every guy has his pilot in the cock-pit, no matter what your 'experiments' (which, I notice, are unsourced) claim.

I didn't say every guy. I read about the study in college, I don't remember the name of the researchers involved. If you don't believe it exists, I really don't care.

I didn't say no guy ever turns down sex, just that they are not statistically significant. Just like the women who are not hookers and who respond favorably to overtures such as "hey, wanna go fuck?" exist, but are not statistically significant.

What does that have to do with "predisposition"?

Males face fewer physical and social risks if they accept such offers, and can be sure to receive social perks ("Wow, way to go dude!"). Females face significant risk of bodily harm or even death, will face significant social punishment ("What a slut!"), and will receive precisely zero perks.

The fact that men accept such offers more often than women has absolutely NOTHING to do with any kind of gendered predisposition. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis on the part of the PEOPLE (male or female) involved. If most males faced the same realities that women do, they'd make the same choices that most females make.

I acknowledged that that is a factor, but it is not the only one. In virtually all mammals, males are the sexual aggressors and females are inclined to rebuff all but the most determined suitors. Female Cheetahs will run away from males for miles and miles and for several days before finally deciding to slow down and let him catch her. Female horses, when in heat, will present themselves to stallions, but will run away at the last minute and keep teasing him for a long time before letting him do the deed.

The mammalian sex drive is based on testosterone, in both men and women. Men have a lot more of it, and so are much more aggressive in pursuing it. Our culture reflects that with the cliched double standard. It is not an accident that women receive few social perks for promiscuity.

I don't think it's the biological realities which factor in to these things most.

It's not "biological" that men in our society are encouraged to abuse women and to use women's bodies for sexual gratification, while women are encouraged to view themselves as "gate-keepers" who are responsible for male sexual behavior. These are not biological realities, they are social creations.

If you ask women why they don't seek out casual sex more often, the reasons that top the list are, "I'm afraid he'll fucking kill me" or "Because I will be raped." Yes, women are concerned about pregnancy and disease, but their primary worries are actually not the biological worries. They're worried because they are aware that they live in a society where men are encouraged to hurt them.I'm sure you're familiar with Margaret Atwoods quote to that effect. Don't recall it exactly, but went something like this- She asked a group of college guys what they feared most from women. They feared being laughed at. Gals, replying to a similiar query about guys, feared being raped or killed.


Did I mention that Bitchkitten and I are married now?

Hehehe ;)

Ok .... not yet.

But I'm stalking her to get it done.You realize that my father came very close to warning my ex-husaband not to marry me. (cuz he liked the poor guy) but decided against it when the poor man told Dad he was taking me out of state? Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.:p