jophil28 said:
Two problem with all your "shoulds" here...
Firstly women have no clear " lines" as we men know them . They create what is OK, or not OK " on the run " according to how they "feel" and how immediately gratifying the situation is TO THEM.
Kinda shoots a few holes in the idea that "quality" women exist, eh?
Of course I subscribe to the idea that most women are the same at their core, but that doesn't mean that they are all utterly incapable of good behavior.
Secondly, a woman who is having lunches with a "male "friend" is hardly likely to tell you, at least initially, so how are you going to know what is going on in order to "SPOT the difference .." ??
It's called a "gut feeling". If she is truly doing something WRONG (which lunch with another man could go either way) you will eventually know about it and you should know how to deal with it accordingly.
Interesting.......everything you just said pretty much backs up the idea that women are basically the same. No such thing as "quality" that you can put a label on. more a matter of setting the frame and maintaining it. I thought you were one of the "yes they do exist" guys....
Mr. Me said:
You're inferring I'm insecure and stupid. Again, where did you read me saying tell a woman what to do? I'm saying let her play her hand. That's the only way you can see who she is, if she chooses not to play it right, you walk. You don't have to stick around for disloyalty. Give me the woman who's loyal to me and who will turn down the lunch offer. That's my gal.
I'm not insinuating that at all.
I throw out the work example because I firmly believe that this is the root of most infidelity. Yes, when a woman is working with another man it is different than her accepting an invitation to see him on a personal level. You are talking about a woman essentially accepting a "date" with a guy. I'm talking more about a woman who doesn't necessarily shun her friends (male or female) when she gets into a relationship. There's a difference.
What I am trying to say is that it may or may not be ok for her to have male friends or to be in the company of other men. But for those who say hands down that "A woman in a relationship should not have male friends" sounds insecure to me. It's a situational thing.
There's black, white, and a whole lot of grey. A guy who thinks that the women he dates will never be walking the grey area is delusional. Maybe she never will....but chances are pretty good.
My contention is that it's going to happen anyway, so there is no point in trying to stifle it. Makes you look weak and insecure, and it pushes women away. Most women are going to do sh!t behind your back. Most of the time it will be "fairly" innocent. You can draw all of the boundaries you want but if she is attractive she will have other men pursuing her. It is up to HER to set boundaries. If she doesn't set proper boundaries, you will eventually find out and you get rid of her.
Out of curiosity.....what would you think if lets say you went out of town on business, and your g/f or wife happens to have a single friend in town visiting, and this single friend happened to know a lot of people in the area and invited a bunch of guys and girls to go out for the night? Would it be disrespectful of your girl to go out with a mixed group if you aren't able to attend? See where things can get blurry?
guru1000 said:
I am not singling anyone out but I am not fooled by those who pretend a 'Popular' woman is acceptable. Their red lights certainly go off but they refuse to acknowledge it as a defense mechanism to their scarcity.
You shouldn't be dating an AW in the first place.
There's a difference between a woman seeking attention outside of her relationship and a woman who is simply being social. Like I said before....if I start dating a woman exclusively and she tries to tell me that I can no longer have any form of contact with the women I know, she won't be getting the honor. I learned long ago that the absolute worst thing you can do when you get involved with someone is to put the rest of your life on hold. Do I change my behavior when I am with someone? Sure I do. But I'll be damned if a chick starts dictating who i can and cannot talk to, so I'm not going to be dictating that kind of stuff to her either.
As Mr. Me pointed out, your woman should put you first. If she doesn't then there's a problem. Everything else is details.
samspade said:
I can't disagree with this phrase.
Obviously, the point of debate is the definition of "such a woman" - which is pretty vague. And I'm not buying the all-or-nothing theory that she's either a noble angel or a philandering *****. This is the false dichotomy being suggested here.
And that is truly the reason why some guys will never make it out of the matrix. The idea of high quality vs. low quality is a form of self-delusion that is the next layer under the Soulmate Myth. Most guys make it past the first layer, but they dare not even challenge the second one.
Of course, you may find a "quality" woman who adheres to your idea of respectful behavior, or at least you will be mentally satisfied when she tells you she is following your rules. Whether she actually follows them or not, you may never know.
The same folks who have a problem getting past the Myth of the Quality Woman are the ones who are "mentally satisfied" with being deceived. I've been around enough women in my life to know how it really works.
Oh yea, and Unprez....I didn't bother reading past the first sentence of your reply. A little capitalization and punctuation makes a post easier to read. Don't be lazy.
