There were a ton of very insightful, articulate, and even soul-bearing comments left in yesterday’s “Where’s The Love?: Making sense of our dating and mating malaise”, but one reply in particular stayed with me for the rest of the day.
From Scipio Africanus:
“When women are free to date as they wish, they wind up all gravitating to the same 3 – 7% of the male population. If they can’t get those guys, they just drop out of the dating market altogether.
This is why monogamy was even created by societies in the first place.
When women have their way, the vast majority of people, male and female, get completely left out in the cold. Monogamous marriage essentially forces women to accede to some dude, somewhere out there. If a dude can’t pull a woman, he’s going to drop out of society too. Work hard and innovate to make money? What for? He ain’t got no kids. Take up arms to defend his homeland from threats? Yeah right – he’s not vested in it in the first place.
Like you mentioned yesterday, most women are completely underwhelmed by the vast majority of guys they encounter or know. I’m still uncertain as to why that is, but it’s the root of everything.“
While I don’t agree with the numbers he cited –I think 7% to 10% is a bit more accurate than 3 to 7% — and the moral arbiter/monogamy promoter in me doesn’t want to believe what Scipio said is true, proof of this phenomenon’s existence can be seen on any college campus; the perfect control group as it’s the only place in America where groups of sexually viable people are forced to live together, have no real concerns about food, shelter, or safety, and have a relatively large amount of sexual freedom and choice.
And, as anyone who’s ever lived on campus will tell you, regardless of what school you’re at, the campus sexual dynamics usually play out the exact same way: a small percentage of the men (10%?)¹ have sole access to a much larger percent of the women (35%?), 40% of the men and 40% of the women are in monogamous relationships with each other, and the remaining 25% of women completely drop out of the dating game, leaving the remaining 50% of men to take out their sexual frustrations on gaming message boards and intramural ultimate frisbee tournaments.
Once these people leave the college universe and are forced to enter the real world, though, monogamy and marriage pressure starts to enter the fray. This finally gives Dragon Ball Z Zachary a realistic chance at finding a mate, which is absolutely fantastic for all of us because there’s absolutely nothing more damaging to the well-being of a society than an abundance of perpetually sexually frustrated men. (Why? Well, perpetually sexually frustrated men kill random people, and occasionally kill random people in bulk)
I wonder, though: if women had complete sexual choice autonomy and weren’t constrained by moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships, would the “real” world be exactly like a college campus — with more relationship and family-minded women making the conscious decision to be in a polygamist relationship/marriage with a high status/high earning man instead of a monogamous relationship with a “mediocre to below-average” joe? I know it’s a hard concept to wrap your mind around, but while I know all women don’t feel this way, there are many women who value security (for themselves and their offspring) a bit more than they value the idea of having a man all to themselves. In this sense, one seven figure earning man can support 10 women easier than one $50,000 a year guy can support one.
Thoughts?
¹Although these numbers were pulled directly out of my ass, I do think they’re accurate rough assessments
—The Champ
One, one, one, one! *diddy bops*
In one of those black consciousness books that I read in the 90s– either ‘Black men, Single? Obsolete? Dangerous?’ or ‘In Search of Goodpu**y,’ I can’t remember which– polygamy was offered as a solution to save the race, so this is not without some credibility, as far as that goes.
It would work in theory, like communism. In practice, however, greed works better. Someone will eventually get tired of sharing. Everything.
“It would work in theory, like communism. In practice, however, greed works better. Someone will eventually get tired of sharing. Everything”.
like i mentioned in the post, i dont think it would be the women tired of sharing that we’d have to worry about, it would be the men left out in the cold
” i dont think it would be the women tired of sharing that we’d have to worry about, it would be the men left out in the cold”
What makes you think we’re cool/would be cool with sharing y’all, sexual autonomy or not?
like i said in response to smart fox girl down thread, some women, in their actions, show that they’re already okay with sharing men. there’s a reason why 80 percent of the women who’ve lived on the planet have genetic heirs, while only 40 percent of the men do. for as long as we’ve been here, the concept of man-sharing has been here too.
not everybody has to be on board, but if enough women are on board, that skews things for everyone
But that’s the thing… you need more people.
This fact that women have more genetic heirs doesn’t mean those women *wanted* to *share* their men. This seems like a huge assumption.
But it goes back to the college campus example, which I’m guessing may of us saw happen up close.
Agreed. Goin through it right now.
But it does speak to the fact that a smaller group of men are desired by a larger group of women. As always!
This is a very interesting concept, I don’t know how it would go in practice though I know way too many people who SIDE EYE shows like Big Love but I also think of being from the Bahamas, where many women are knowingly living the concept you wrote about. Many of them do it quietly knowing their man is stepping out, with another family he’s supporting. So I think a lot of women idealize monogamy but somewhere along the way they acquiesce to the fact that they have to share their man and hence people like my aunt forgive and go back.
So this concept isn’t as alien as some may think.
This speaks to my family almost too well. My grandfather is a perfect example of this. He had 35 (he’s from the islands as well) kids with four different woman. Raised and supported all the families. My grandmother was the first “mistress”/second family. My ideas on monogamy have always been more flexible as a result. So I agree with your sentiments champ. People have been, currently and will continue to share their mates. The question is how open and honest will people be about it.
I also don’t think women are the only ones sharing, men share their girls too. The women that do step out, are better at hiding it because they have to.
THIRTY FIVE… that’s A LOT… its even more mind boggling that they came from just FOUR women… I have to go rest my head now…
I’m all late, but I heard a very interesting commentary on Polygamy in Africa on NPR earlier this year. The woman speaking shared that a result of the “Christianizing” of parts of Africa was the decrease in polygamy and an increase in prostitution. She said that polygamy in that society was beneficial to the women- as, like was said, a rich man can support many women/families- and the lack of it has sent women looking for other ways to support themselves. I know that I couldn’t do polygamy myself, but that discussion really made me reconsider the institution and look at it in another light.
A college campus isn’t really the best place to look for this scenario. Instead, look at societies where women are freer to have sex and don’t have to worry about securing male provisioning for kids. You can also look at bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, which are female-dominated and very, very sexual. We talk about this issue extensively in our book (Sex at Dawn, see link). In short, where women are free, far more men get laid than where women’s sexuality is constrained.
Yup. I am not a sharer lol. I can do it temporarily but sharing my husband and our resources with some other broads who have like 4 kids each? Nope. Not me.
Slightly off-topic but I love that ‘Black men, Single? Obsolete? Dangerous?’ or ‘In Search of Goodpu**y are names of black consciousness books lol.
(Ok that’s completely off-topic but it amused me).
Hmm… interesting post. Anyway I’m going to go ahead and upgrade your 7 – 10% to 15 – 20%. Now, that that’s corrected, on to your questions, forgive the ramblings, I’m on a finals study break.
I don’t think if the real world = college women would automatically go into polygamist relationships. You have to have a certain mindset to be in a polygamous relationship and most people just don’t have it. You have to be willing to share and that not something most people are good at. In general I feel like the only thing that could probably transfer from college world to the real world would be the willingness to have casual and/or friends w/benefits relationships.
I feel like sometimes women only have high standards but in reality they end up ‘settling’ all the time. While I agree with some parts of Scorpio’s statement, in the end I just don’t think the main problem with dating is that women have stopped settling. I think the problem is that people don’t really prioritize finding a partner as much as they did before.
In the past, it seemed like it was more about finding someone compatible and then sticking with them. Now we have choices, women have school and work to think about and so the amount of focus on dating has decreased. Although we read about it about dating/relationships all the time, the fact is women aren’t being raised solely for marriage/children anymore and so that immense focus on finding someone has been lost.
“In general I feel like the only thing that could probably transfer from college world to the real world would be the willingness to have casual and/or friends w/benefits relationships.”
thing is, even in those types of relationships, the same dynamic plays out a bit, as you’ll wind up with a few guys who all have multiple women in their sexual stable, while each of those women are only sleeping with that one guy.
“You have to have a certain mindset to be in a polygamous relationship and most people just don’t have it.”
That’s exactly what I was thinking when I read the post. What “type” of woman would be okay with sharing a man? Is that the norm?
Hell no. I know men love to think most would be down for that but I beg to differ…especially Black women. We have way too much pride and strength to be that weak minded.
“I feel like sometimes women only have high standards but in reality they end up ‘settling’ all the time”
Absolutely. Most women don’t marry their “dream man”. In college, everything is great. Once you hit the real world, people age and then comes experience and more wisdom.
“That’s exactly what I was thinking when I read the post. What “type” of woman would be okay with sharing a man? Is that the norm?”
through their actions, there are a ton of women who seem to be perfectly ok with this. how else do you think some men are able to have 10 or 15 mistresses that are fully aware of him having a wife, or guys like antonio cromartie and santonio holmes who are able to impregnate multiple women — women all fully aware that the other women and children exist?
again, this isnt the majority of women, but enough to make a dent
LMAO!!! Did you see him on the video trying to remember all the damn kids he had- and I think 4 of them were same age right?? Nasty.
“again, this isnt the majority of women, but enough to make a dent”
Umm no Champ, not really… not in the VSBS majority… I’m not sure how many of those women are educated, secure in themselves, mature, fairly independent (by circumstance, cause Lord knows I don’t want to be… I digress)… heyll even have all of their teeth. I won’t lie… when I was younger, had less experience, less love for self, less education and less understanding of my worth I could have easily been in that same bracket… baby mam #385… but, I’m not and don’t believe most of the women on here are so… what’s the point of this post again? #noshotsfired
“Umm no Champ, not really… not in the VSBS majority… I’m not sure how many of those women are educated, secure in themselves, mature, fairly independent (by circumstance, cause Lord knows I don’t want to be… I digress)… heyll even have all of their teeth. I won’t lie… when I was younger, had less experience, less love for self, less education and less understanding of my worth I could have easily been in that same bracket… baby mam #385… but, I’m not and don’t believe most of the women on here are so… what’s the point of this post again? #noshotsfired
”
if you read all of the comments today, you’ll see that there are a few women here who’ve publicly stated that they might be ok with this type of arrangement. just because you don’t feel a certain way doesn’t mean that every other women agrees with you.
and, the point of this post is to ask and consider outside the box questions and situations. whats the point of calling this site “very smart brothas” if we always just focus on “easy” concepts and questions?
if you read all of the comments today, you’ll see that there are a few women here who’ve publicly stated that they might be ok with this type of arrangement.
-So I went and read some of the other comments. You’re right there are some women who would possibly subscribe, but there are not many… wouldn’t even say a hand full and they themselves didn’t even say if women were in control we would live in a polygamist society… they pretty much said they would be open to it… meaning even they recognize they are the minority.
just because you don’t feel a certain way doesn’t mean that every other women agrees with you.
-Champ really? I know this and if my matter of factly way of saying things is the reason behind this statement then… I’m sorry you are confused… I didn’t say everyone agreed with me. hmph… take that back!
whats the point of calling this site “very smart brothas” if we always just focus on “easy” concepts and questions?
-I guess that was my point… this just seems like an easy HEYLL NO!… *shrug* still <3 you tho.
Seriously, how many women who are ok with sharing men, being mistresses, sleeping with married men, having a cut buddy who they KNOW have other cut buddies, sleeping with men who are in relationships…………HOW many of those women who are actively or have been in in that situation will HONESTLY tell that to the world? Not many. Most will do it and keep quiet about it, then try to sound all self righteous when these topics emerge.
We all know women will lie to save face, so using those who admit to being involved in those situations isn’t correct, because MOST wouldn’t.
So are you saying more women would get down with poly or no?
a lot of woman are in polygamous relationships. every woman who ever thought monica’s sideline ho was some type of anthem, for starters. a lot of women… A LOT A LOT of women (and men i guess, im not one and dont hang out with many) are willing to stay in a relationship when their S.O. is stepping out. for a myriad of different reasons ranging from “she just a ho im his wifey” to “i have a car payment due next week”
i know that sounds f*cked up. in fact im shaking my head as I write this. but everybody knows a handful of women who (by their passive actions) are in a polygamous relationship.
Yeah not many women will admit it but many endure that struggle like it or not I have seen that shit at various levels in my own family from my grand parents straight down to my aunts and cousins man.
Some of the women stayed, most stayed.. some left.
Is it the exception or the norm?
“Most will do it and keep quiet about it, then try to sound all self righteous when these topics emerge.”
Exactly, many women have dated the guy who said “I’m not ready for a relationship”. You think you’re the only one he’s saying that to right before you spoon on the couch and watch love jones. Please! That’s definitely sharing. But we try to justify the behavior by saying we’re not ready either.
y..S, I think you are foolin yourself if you think being educated, independent or any other socially constructed layer of stratification defines who falls into this choice. As Champ notes below, several women on HERE have said they might be willing to consider it… and I personally know a couple of VERY educated, financially independent women of fortunate social class who are involved in EXACTLY this kind of arrangement…
I’m just sayin… it ain’t black and white.
Yes but you have to acknowledge that “type” of woman is not the norm. I wouldn’t even say “tons”..some yes but not enough to make a comment that if women ruled, we would choose polygamy over monogamy. If that mistress had a choice, I doubt she would want to share. She shares because she either wants the guy that badly or doesn’t value herself to walk away. It’s hardly a preference. I’m sorry but this whole notion is ridiculous to me.
Will you get out my brain already! GOODNESS! lol
it kind of is the norm based off actions. which in the end send a stronger message than spoking ideals. one could outright say i would never be into polygamy and be in a relationship that they know is not monogoamous on the other end. but they look the other way (this happens very often and we all know it!) because other things outweigh their interest more so than monogamy.
and i dont think he is saying we would all actively pursue polygamous relationship. i understood it as: based on the proportions of certain women gravitating to certain men, it would eventually become a primarily polygamist society.
I see your breakdown but I still disagree with it being the norm. There’s a bunch of altier motives and commitment in any form usually isn’t of them. It’s often love and acceptance. When women accept cheating from a man (which is rare because how many truly accepts it) it’s out of hope for the future that he will choose her. If we speak from the heart, we don’t like to share…no one, man or woman. Also, because most women gravitate towards a certain man, attractive, powerful and wealthy, doesn’t necessarily mean we would become “polygamist”, it means that others would settle, like we are doing now because no one wants to be lonely. So basically to cut my rambling, it would end up exactly the same type of society when it comes to relations.
I totally agree. I don’t wanna share and I’m not cool with doing so.
I refuse to knowingly share my man. Heyall to that naw.
You’re assuming those mistresses are okay with that situation indefinitely. I can almost guarantee you that they are hoping to eventually change the man into one who wants to be monogamous with them (the eternal flaw of most women–thinking they can change a man), even though its completely illogical and NOT going to happen, or, in the case of famous/rich men, want to have a baby-turned-support for life (after which they can leave the relationship but still maintain the bank deposit).
You’ll be hard pressed to find a woman who is cool with that situation indefinitely. I think its less about an opposition to sharing and more about wanting to feel special/like you have something special with someone that no one else has. It would take quite a persuasive person to convince x amount of women that they’re all special to him when he’s trying to know them all biblically for life.
YES! That’s the reason why some women may agree to be with a man who is taken…because deep down she is hoping he will leave his wife for her. I thought this was common sense but I guess it’s not.
yeah deep down.
but how relevant is ‘deep down’?
It’s releveant because it’s never deep enough and comes to the surface.
“It would take quite a persuasive person to convince x amount of women that they’re all special to him when he’s trying to know them all biblically for life”
oh so you’ve met…Man!
“We have way too much pride and strength to be that weak minded.”
This is a result of enculturation.
When we were a new species and trying to keep from being eaten by lions on the East African plain, it was a different thing.
Monogamy was an idea that developed over time and through species-wide experiences.
I disagree. Want proof that women [black or other races] are cool with man sharing? Sit home one morning and watch the paternity themed Maury shows. You’ll have several “Shaniqua Jacksons” to one “Ty-Shaw-un Jefferson” talmbout “he know he my baby daddy, now pay me!”
And i totally agree about how most women skew things. Pretty sure that was in some Chris Rock routine about how when a man introduces his girl to his boys, the guy will say “I want a girl just like her”. But when it’s the opposite, the girl will say, “I want HIM” [i.e. your man].
But that’s the thing, women might want your man but they don’t want to share him. If women were actually polygamous they wouldn’t be asking another woman to leave their baby daddy alone, instead they would understand that the man has multiple women and that’s they way it is.
Like someone mentioned earlier, women, in general, are willing to be mistresses because they believe in the end that they will have the man. It’s very rare that you see wives, mistresses and husbands all coexisting happily together.
But that’s because we live in a society where overt polgamy is discouraged.
This thought experiment is about taking that restriction away and imagining how things would go.
This thought experiment is about taking that restriction away and imagining how things would go.
And I thought that was the point, wasn’t it? Lol. When did it get to what’s happening now… or not?
not rare at all. (unless if by coexisting you mean living together.) a lot of people have that arrangement. YOU just dont know about it.
But not willingly. It seems as if the women who do make that arrangement are doing it to keep the man. But if women ruled the world and I suppose created the dating standards, I don’t think it would be acceptable.
Just like most men don’t marry their dream woman. I think the word “settling” has been so negatively ingrained in us that we all think we need/deserve the BEST…but the BEST is never objective. The best for me may not be the best for someone else, and vice versa.
So folks need to get out of this mindset that Boris, Idris and Lance, (or Halle, Nia and Beyonce) are gonna show up to their door bearing gifts and wanting a relationship. Not to say that beautiful people don’t need love, but if beauty is the standard by which folks are measuring what’s “best” then MOST of us would be out in the cold (well, not me, but you know…other folks, lol)
And I agree that with age comes wisdom (usually) and what you liked, valued and wanted in college changes. With that said, the best for you in college may not cut it for you in the real world, where you pay bills, raise kids, desire intimacy over hook-ups, etc.
Hmmm… SFG, I’m not sure I would characterize that choice necessarily as ‘weak minded’. That’s a little judgmental. Mind you, I’m not advocating one way or the other. Personally, having been married twice, I’m not sure why ANY man would want more than one wife… one is quite difficult enough. Especially, if you don’t have your maturity together.
But just like religion, just because it’s not for me, I try not to cast aspersions on the choices of others. Maybe they genuinely know something I don’t. I feel the same about people that choose the whole polygamy thing. It’s foreign and a little inconceivable to me, but that doesn’t mean it can’t work for people who click that way.
I’m sorry but I don’t think politically correct or fair. I pass judgements just like everybody else…whether I say it outloud, type it or think it.
Fair enough… and points for being honest.
But still…. that’s not an automatic, “get outta being a douche free card”…
(that mighta been a little over the line…sorry.)
I’m just sayin…
Marriage and all that isn’t very high on my ‘To-Do List of Life’ in the first place so I’m probably not the one to answer this question but I will anyway… I’m done with finals, I got some times on my hands lol.
(I have my own reservations about marriage but I won’t go into that here.)
Being a college student and having friends in college I know a good amount who plan on getting married and starting a family but of course they want someone on the same level as them, or rather with the same mindset and on the same track.
I find it frustrating that it seems as if women have to settle in order to find ‘happiness’ because they’re supposed to marry and have children blah blah blah (so says society).
I’ll step down from my feminist soap box.
All I’m saying is, our focus has shifted. We’s equals now (for the most part) ! So now instead of focusing on being pregnant and barefoot we’re focusing on MBA’s and CFA’s and being the CEO or CFO. We traded marriage and kids for degree’s and careers.
I think if the mindset of college women were transferred over to the real world, there would be a lot less monogamous relationships. At least that’s how I feel.
so you’re saying that more women would just drop out of the dating and mating game completely?
No not completely, but it’d just be something extra to do. It’s nice to come home to somebody but their focus wouldn’t be on mating and whatnot. Not how it is nowadays.
if the real world were college, there better not be papers or finals! Regular tests I can deal with. Anywhooo I wouldn’t mind cuz I’d be one of the women in the 40%(though I think the number should be like 29% based on my campus life) that are in monogamous relationships. And some of the men in this group would still be sexually frustrated.
I think a socialist approach to dating/relationships is better doe.
“I think a socialist approach to dating/relationships is better doe.”
i agree. monogamy is extremely beneficial for societies in general and men in particular
“would the “real” world be exactly like a college campus”?
Nope. Because those women who participated in polyamory in college grow up and find Beta Boys more and more attractive. I’m one of those women, and I wouldn’t touch those suckas I dated in college [most of em are still out here trying to stunt on h*es, *yawn*]
An innate female yearning {for most} is to have a family…a by product of that is that communities are built. Society/moral rules don’t determine that, that’s basic biology.
But, if women were only looking for ‘high-status’ dudes then your original question/argument would probably hold?
But if a woman is looking for companionship, friendship, love, and family…she’ll open her love life to more possibilities and society would probably be more family oriented.
“An innate female yearning {for most} is to have a family…a by product of that is that communities are built. Society/moral rules don’t determine that, that’s basic biology. ”
i agree with this. all i’m saying is that maybe more women would determine that it was more prudent to hatch on and create a family with a high status man, a man with a few other families, than to put all their eggs in a lower-status man’s basket.
btw, if you haven’t read “straight scraps, how hot is that”, you should. it kind of deals with your first paragraph, but from a young male point of view
“prudent to hatch on a high status man?”
I guess if a woman’s main criteria was to have a family with a man who is a high earner [nothing else] that would make sense. I think that’s what a lot of us women would like down in our deepest parts, but most of us will let that go to have the right partner [w/o the extra families, lol]
Will check that out thou, never heard of it.
If I ruled the world. Imagine that. I’d free all my sons.
*sings* I love em, love em baby.
Well played.
black diamond and pearl deez
haha. i knew it was coming.
Darn it, I m way too socialized by societal morals and pressures to provide a real honest to God answer…
drats!
I’m reminded of watching the show “Sister Wives” with my best friend and us looking at each other and saying, “Hey…that might actually work out.”
I know that I am in a monogamous relationship and I truly love having my boyfriend all to myself, but I have to concede that comes from the societal implication of “love” being someone who puts you above EVERYTHING but God. I’m not sure that this is necessary as much as I just want to be able to say he’s all mine.
The monogamy thing is more prescriptive than a natural inclination for me, I think. I’m happy in the situation I’m in, but I see how polygamy could work, and how, if I’m really honest, with the right people, it could work for me too.
….yea aren’t human beings born naturally selfish? Like when babies are hungry they cry, and they want food NOW, without any regard for what you are doing, where you are, or if food is readily accessible. When they want something your concerns are irrelevant.
So if human beings are selfish since birth, does it mean they are less inclined to share? even their men? Is it society that pressure us to share? Because if it weren’t for morals, I would bet there would be a lot of maimed/cripppled broads walking around campus, because Sally took them out the game to ensure she got the man.
“….yea aren’t human beings born naturally selfish? Like when babies are hungry they cry, and they want food NOW, without any regard for what you are doing, where you are, or if food is readily accessible. When they want something your concerns are irrelevant.”
I see your POV but I disagree because it seems to me that when babies cry because of hunger, its not them being selfish, its them letting their caregiver know that they have a basic NEED that needs to be met. I also belief that selfishness comes with maturity and that crying for food is a survival instinct. To me a baby letting you know that they need to be fed by crying because they aren’t able to get food themselves is different from a 20-something yr. old getting mad at his gf for not having dinner ready when she said it would be because he is completely capable of getting his own food. To me that would be a better description of selfishness.
i feel like selfishness does come with birth. mastering selfishness comes with maturity. most children exhibit a pure form of selfishness thats fun to watch at times. they cant distinguish between need and want all they know is its all about them.
No… we’re confusing selfishness with survival… a child crying because they’re hungry is them needing assistance and letting everyone around know “there is a problem here”… that’s not selfishness that’s survial… they depend on their mothers. Most people learn selfishness and selflessness at the same time… with maturity they learn to cling to one more than the other.
no, im not confusing it. young children dont really know how to seperate want from need. yes those wants come from needs (as do all wants) but they are selfish.
crying to be held-necessity
crying to be held all the time-want
there is nothing wrong with that. i love babies! i dont think selfishness is a bad thing all the time. in fact some could even argue that one’s selfish wants NEED to be satisfied at a certain level in order for them to develop properly.
See I guess that’s where we see it differently because I always thought selfishness came from an awareness of someone else’s needs and wants and disregarding them for your own… children however I don’t even see as being aware, so they’re not disregarding our feelings, but they are completely oblivious to them and therefore… innocent and trying to survive based on what they understand.
“i feel like selfishness does come with birth. mastering selfishness comes with maturity.”
THIS…if we all started out in life selfless then you’d get less of the teachers telling students to “share.” It’d be innate.
And having a need and wanting it met NOW is selfish. Babies are selfish. It sounds crazy, but it’s not. They don’t have the capacity to be anything other than selfish because they are dependant. And much to the same degree, women are dependant on men…here me out.
We need men to make a baby. I don’t care if it’s ariticial insemination, a one night stand or marriage that creates a child, but BOTH parties are needed. If we could go it alone from conception to graduation, I’m sure some would choose to do so. But, the mere fact that we need them to create life makes us dependant on them in that area.
Now, because we’re evolved, we (should) want to raise our kids in two parent households so they get the best start. It doesn’t always happen. When it doesn’t, women usually go after the men that helped them create that life for financial support.
What does all that have to do with being selfish? If it was the case that we weren’t inherently selfish from birth, we’d just accept a man moving on and either find another one or huddle with our friend who has a good husband and hope that he’d take care of all of us. That’s not what we do…why? Because no one wants to be second or plan B for the sake of security alone. That’s not how we’re built and that’s what separates us from animals.
“I’m reminded of watching the show “Sister Wives” with my best friend and us looking at each other and saying, “Hey…that might actually work out.””
No I don’t think anyone would actually want to sign up for those dynamics.
1st wife was the most attractive… only had one kid couldn’t have more, but wants to be a house wife.
So she brings in 2nd wife, who becomes the husbands chubby side kick, who is fertile with good income potential… she isn’t a threat to the dynamic of hubby and wife 1.
Wife 3 gets added to the fold to produce more offspring and do the house work and cooking as wife 1 is more interested in teaching duties and directing the household… she is also less attractive than wife 1.
This dynamic goes along for 16 years and then husband decides he wants new wife #4 who is younger, thinner and brunette, the other wives are blond.
The husband travels to court wife 4, she gets a full wedding… just a week after his anniversary with wife 1… and for her honeymoon she gets 10 days in a hotel hanging out on the beach while the other 3 got a 3 day drive to Montana to visit his folks.
This is a heavily fractured dynamic that doesn’t leave room for the male to invest because he doesn’t have to… if one starts acting up he just goes to next.
And it is always his option to add more.
I also find it interesting that men typically don’t or won’t sign up for being one of several husbands. ~JS
Very Interesting indeed JS…
I wonder if somewhere on the globe, there are men that live that way and if so- I would want to know how and why.
“I wonder if somewhere on the globe, there are men that live that way and if so- I would want to know how and why.”
I think it is extremely, extremely rare… because sex is the goal for men and security is the goal for women.
I have an older relative who went to Alaska when there was a woman shortage and she found that the men wanted sexual exclusivity in a competitive environment.
She met and married a guy and now lives up there on a huge horse ranch with a bunch of kids… this was her dream.
I do find it funny that men would think that polygamy would benefit brothas…
The truth is that most women who agree do so to increase their security… not to get more sex… or are women who feel their options for companionship improve if she takes the time share.
So it would seem to me that the a polygamous norm would actually make the top 10% guy even more attractive because he can afford to provide for multiple women and any children they may have.
Which would decrease the pool even further for regular brothas.
If you go to countries that commonly practice polygamy almost every woman has a husband but very few men have multiple wives… cause they can’t afford them.
I think it might be a good thing in theory to get the non-monogamous male out of the monogamous dating pool.
As an observation I think that there are guys who can have this type of relationship now… but the trouble starts when they try to convince a woman who is only interested in monogamy that this would be a good idea.
What I do find interesting is that a lot of the replies encourage women to give brothas the benefit of more sex…
But I haven’t heard what the benefit to sistas would be ~JS
“I think it might be a good thing in theory to get the non-monogamous male out of the monogamous dating pool”
To me, that’s a major problem.
Somewhere, somehow some men (yes women do it too) believe that it’s okay to make a woman feel that she’s in a monogamous relationship and he’s practicing polygamy without her consent.
“What I do find interesting is that a lot of the replies encourage women to give brothas the benefit of more sex…”
I never knew that s*x was so d@rn important to men. Maybe it is to some women too, IDK.
I do think it’s true to some degree that women give s*x to get love, and men give love to get s*x. I’m not sure it works out well under those conditions- hmmm!!!
I think at some point women learn giving s*x does not guarantee love by any means!
But I haven’t heard what the benefit to sistas would be
Sister-wife ain’t nothing but a low-budget way to say concubine and any that’s seen The Joy Luck Club knows that if you ain’t the first wife you ain’t sh!t… only the first wife gets some benefit which usely relates to her own insufficiencies (i.e. poppin out babies, cleaning, cooking etc etc)… all the other wife are just the help=no benefits (I was gonna say no Cobra, but actually since polygamy isn’t really recognized by law they prolly really don’t even get to benefit from their husbands insurance plan… damb)
eww…typo city.
My question about polygamy is, besides the obvious (endless hours of sex) why would ANY man want more than one wife?? You know how hard it can be to KEEP just ONE happy?!? Like my d*ck at 6am…extremely hard. That sh*t always baffles me when I watch shows like that. Is the control aspect of it combined with endless options for sex so powerful that makes a man want to have 20 kids with 8 women?? (no Antoino Cromartie)…and take care of them ALL???
take care of them ALL
-That’s laughable… HE obviously doesn’t, the wives do. I’m pretty sure “Dad” is mirage in minds of his children… you see him there, but the possibilities of connecting are as real as your imagination.
Exactly. It’s hard to keep more than one woman happy. That’s why many of the polygamist relationships (I see on tv) the women are submissive and quiet. That’s the only type of woman that would make polygamy doable. Otherwise, there would be tons of fighting, etc.
“It’s hard to keep more than one woman happy.”
Hell, it’s hard to keep ONE woman happy…damn near impossible.
Again… not necessarily disagreeing or agreeing, but would like to point out, …if you’re knowledge of something is from what you see on TV, …you’re not sufficiently informed to really have an opinion on it.
I actually KNEW a couple of these kinds up couples over the years, and like monogamous relationships…some worked and some didn’t. And it didn’t seem to be slanted in favor of the women being submissive. In fact, I knew one couple/group where it was two women and several men all living as a family, and the head of the household was one of the women… They seemed pretty content, if a little scarily religious… they were uber-Christian, strangely enough. And white,…not sure if that mattered or not.
“I do find it funny that men would think that polygamy would benefit brothas…
The truth is that most women who agree do so to increase their security… not to get more sex… or are women who feel their options for companionship improve if she takes the time share.
So it would seem to me that the a polygamous norm would actually make the top 10% guy even more attractive because he can afford to provide for multiple women and any children they may have.
Which would decrease the pool even further for regular brothas.”
yeah, i tried to make this point in the post, but while a few would benefit, most men would see their reproductive chances decrease.
also, to answer your other question, the benefit for women who choose these types of arrangements would be the promise of a secure household and future for themselves and their offspring. the 9am edit i made to the bottom of the post explains that concept a bit more
“also, to answer your other question, the benefit for women who choose these types of arrangements would be the promise of a secure household and future for themselves and their offspring. the 9am edit i made to the bottom of the post explains that concept a bit more”
thanks and sh*t ~JS
I see this edit, but it still ain’t gonna fly. “Support” is more than financial. Not to mention having a lonely a$$ mother may not be a kid’s best option either.
“The truth is that most women who agree do so to increase their security… not to get more sex… or are women who feel their options for companionship improve if she takes the time share.”
You can’t be serious. Are you for real today? Where did you hear this? Security? These women are jealous of one another and literally hate each other. Improving options? Wow, I love you, vsb and all that glitters but I’m shocked that you believe this. This has to be a joke to force commentary or something.
“The truth is that most women who agree do so to increase their security… not to get more sex… or are women who feel their options for companionship improve if she takes the time share.”
are you responding to me or jhane? asking because jhane’s the one who actually said this, but you replied to me.
“You can’t be serious. Are you for real today? Where did you hear this? Security? These women are jealous of one another and literally hate each other. Improving options? Wow, I love you, vsb and all that glitters but I’m shocked that you believe this. This has to be a joke to force commentary or something.”
Yes women who agree to share that I have met state that the benefit in doing so is that they have a greater level of security, feel they have more options regarding mates, or they think that if they agree to share he will stay.
But as you pointed out these women don’t see around corners very well.
They think they are above jealousy… when in fact they are slapped in the face with it… constantly ~JS
Oh I thought Champ said it. Jhane Sez is wise beyond belief
but I have to disagree on that one…except this:
“or they think that if they agree to share he will stay.”
THIS is why I see women agree to be with a taken man. It’s out of hope that he will leave his wife for her. I don’t know any women who do it for security.
Yes women who agree to share that I have met state that the benefit in doing so is that they have a greater level of security, feel they have more options regarding mates, or they think that if they agree to share he will stay.
-I don’t know about the rest of you, but a statement like that in itself sounds insecure to me.
Monique seems to believe that if she shares he’ll stay. So far it appears to be working for her. We’ll see how it pans out for her. If it doesn’t, perhaps she’ll write a book to enlighten us.
Been watching your replies the past few weeks; just wanted to say I like the way you think.
You are correct about you assessment to remove the non-monogamous guy (“stud”) from the monogamous pool. If you remove the stud, things usually level off. There will and has always been a few women who will still choose to be among his harem, but for the most part, it provides closure and certainty for everyone else to move on with their social lives. This plays out in life everyday: in middle school, the cool guys get to fool around with all the girls until they pick one, then, most girls back off (until he’s single again); In college, the athlete/rich guy/frat guy/handsome guy gets his pick of the litter within his social confines (i.e. on campus, the club scene, greek scene, etc.) until it becomes known that he has chosen one woman, then the rest usually back off.
In the second scenario, the game of the cool guy has evolved. Notice, I used ‘social confines’ to determine his status among his peers. Well, what most intelligent macks/players/pimp-types will do, is simply change social environments, thus, if they have ‘chosen’ their woman within one setting, they move to another setting to garner their pick of the litter. For example, a handsome lawyer may have a long-term girlfriend that everyone within his social class knows about; yet, he still has women on the side, because they exist outside of this social class (i.e. shaniqua from the post office, becky from the gym, angelique from the latin club, etc.) and of course, a few low-esteem having women from within his social class.
Guys struggle to convince women to ascribe to the dynamic, thus, why those who succeed are lauded with praise & admiration; however, Mack’s are getting smarter, and when they do what I just described above (as has been the past few years) monogamy (true monogamy) for that 10% that is so coveted becomes an afterthought.
unless….nah, I’ll wait for a reply, lol.
Bond. BlkBond.
“Mack’s are getting smarter, and when they do what I just described above (as has been the past few years) monogamy (true monogamy) for that 10% that is so coveted becomes an afterthought.”
@Bond. BlkBond thanks… I will confess that I have been reading some of your past blogs… interesting stuff
Not too long ago I was in a group of ballers in tech dudes who were in their late 20’s and 30’s… there were a couple of the mack type brothas you describe
What was interesting was all the non-black men were married and starting families… the brothas who were in their late 30’s were like “I’m not ready”
What is also interesting is how their personal life has impacted their professional life.
The non-black guys think these dudes are cool but immature… and then you add the racial dynamics to that some things become very clear while they are peers in income when you look at their lives the brothas are a step behind.
I think that one thing that is forgotten that all these dudes have in common is that their women helped them build and are partners in their personal and professional success.
And we are talking guys who are C level executives of their own companies and major players in their verticals.
And the brothas or any man living this life style is viewed as being immature and not quite taken seriously
And I’m not speculating here either… we game night friend tight…
I got stories and pictures ~JS
Polyandry (Greek: poly- many, andros- man) refers to a form of marriage in which a woman has two or more husbands at the same time. The form of polyandry in which a woman is married to two or more brothers is known as “fraternal polyandry”, and it is believed by many anthropologists to be the most frequently encountered form.
I saw this on Taboo and it showed that this still currently occurs in some villages in India and I think over in the Pacific Islands… when they interviewed them the men and women both said they were happy in the arrangement and were sad to see that technology and information age was beginning to threaten their way of life
As an un-wed black man, I believe it’s easy for someone to be happy when they believe that they are doing all that they are called or expected to do based on what they’ve always known. I grew up in a small town and was happier than a pig in slop while there. I now live in the 4th largest city in america and am bored as sh*t when I go back home. The men in the polyandric societies you speak of have never known any other way of life, so of course their way is fine. We always fear the unknown. Just like I would fear living as they do. That my take anyway.
Caballeros — I agree. I’m originally from NYC, and until I lived outside of it, I used to think having roaches was normal. I didn’t LIKE it, but I definitely didnt realize the rest of non-urban America didn’t have to shake their shoes out every morning before puttin em on…
Jhane, you said it!!
I watched that show every single Sunday and had the weirdest sensation about the whole lifestyle. Polygamy!!! I was looking at the show like
O______e What part of the game is this!!?!
I live in California and I happened to run into the aunt-in-law of Christine, the first wife on the show. We started talking and she described how absolutely miserable Christine was as a child and how low her self-esteem was. She was one of 30 children and 6 wives. Do you think any one of those children got 5 Minutes with their father??
Again I ask, What Part of the Gaaaame is dus????
The moment the husband gets bored, He will go find another boo-mama to get his rocks off. But let one of the wives talk about getting another boo-daddy!!
Personally I think polygamy is a lazy lifestyle. Instead of you, the singular woman and you, the singular man figuring the sh*t out as a couple, the moment the man gets bored, Its on to the next one. And the woman finds her comfort groove within the 4 other women in the household.
I can’t do it.
But boy, was that show intriguing.
Ok, let me go to bed
See yall in the morn, VSB!
“I live in California and I happened to run into the aunt-in-law of Christine, the first wife on the show. We started talking and she described how absolutely miserable Christine was as a child and how low her self-esteem was. She was one of 30 children and 6 wives. Do you think any one of those children got 5 Minutes with their father??
Again I ask, What Part of the Gaaaame is dus????”
You know its interesting that you mention low self esteem in this context because it is clear that she co-signed the bringing on the other wives as long as she was number 1.
I have never seen a case of polygamy that was an appealing situation… especially if as someone suggested down thread that the woman become an earner.
Most of the descriptions of polygamy sound as if dudes just want to pimp on a group of chicks… hit as much as he can and take their money…
For the collective good of course. ~JS
“Most of the descriptions of polygamy sound as if dudes just want to pimp on a group of chicks… “hit as much as he can and take their money…”
I agree.
Just thinking tho, I enjoy good d!ck, but I’ve never entertained the thought of living w/a bunch of men just to have a lot of good d!ck. I can’t even fathom it! …still tryin’ to picture it in my head ***snicker****
Just thinking tho, I enjoy good d!ck, but I’ve never entertained the thought of living w/a bunch of men just to have a lot of good d!ck.
replace “living” with “having sex” in this statement and that just might be a lie.
Thank you, thank you *Takes bow*…my next Champ impression is at 1pm est
Ummm no- Can’t speak for anybody else but 1) the transfer of body fluids between multiple people in short periods of time kinda grosses me out and 2) the box can only handle so much and most men like to $ex at least once a day. It doesn’t seem like a practical lifestyle choice.
*rimshot…
Oh wow… pimpin at its most unconsidered level, granted no one is turnin tricks but you still bringin the money home to daddy… so it is pimpin isn’t it?
“Oh wow… pimpin at its most unconsidered level, granted no one is turnin tricks but you still bringin the money home to daddy… so it is pimpin isn’t it?”
Ninjas think we don’t understand game when we see it… this is a classic example of see a sucker bump his head.
Some of this stuff is reading like bootleg American Pimp dialog.
Save it for them h*es you don’t love no mo ~JS
i have witnessed a case of polygamy that was appealing.. growing up in long island new york i had a neighbor in the biggest house in must be a 15 block radius… nafisa once we got to know each other i saw that she had plenty of siblings and 2 other mothers… we would go over to the house and play and i will say that i never saw a family so involved with each other, so balanced and well maintained. only her father worked but he made sure his 3 wives and children had all they need. and the children got attention. much more than i got from my dad who was only married to my mom. of course i’m not all into their family but i’m saying that just because we see these things on tv shows, see radicals getting arrested for marrying children etc does not mean that people can’t live happy healthy normal lives in these types of situations. i still see nafisa to this day.. all her parents are still together… everyone comes off balanced and happy, she doesn’t complain regarding her upbringing… people say anything is possible why not this?
There is alsways something lurking behind closed doors that the outside world isn’t seeing.
Later it always comes out that something just wasn’t ‘quite right’
yoles — this is exactly what I’m referring to: direct experience. no substitute for it. You can’t go by some sensationalized version on television… that’s not meant to inform in the first place. It’s meant to polarize and provoke. Until you actually MEET somebody living a different experience, you can’t really know. It’s kinda like folks who never met an actual ‘black’ person, and go by what they saw on GOOD TIMES and Blaxploitation movies…. That’s not an accurate representation of the breadth and width of African Americans…so why would we think we know anything about these people based on BIG LOVE and other shows??
“And it is always his option to add more.”
That’s not so. In the show Meri (wife number 1) stated that she chose all three of the sisterwives. She was cool with Janelle and the other blonde one because they had been together for so long. Who knows why she introduced Kody to Robin because she was almost immediately jealous of her, which imho is why I doubt polygamy would work. Sorry, but I’m not about to sign up for a fraction of a husband.
I’m currently reading a novel called the 19th Wife which is part contemporary fiction and part historical fiction. Historical fiction gives fictitious accounts (based in fact) of historical historical events. In the book, when Joseph Smith, the first Prophet of the LDS church shared his “revelation” on plural marriage he stated that the first wife must choose the additional wives.
It’s a good book. The historical part is based on Ann Eliza Young (Bringham Young’s 19th wife) escape from the LDS faith and her attempt to end polygamy in the United States. The contemporary part is about a the mysterious murder of a modern day polygamist man.
“That’s not so. In the show Meri (wife number 1) stated that she chose all three of the sisterwives”
Girl if you see the follow up show you will know why I made that comment.
Yes the wives had to agree… but he sees ole girl at a party and is like I think we need another wife.
The 3 wives are really hot about this new chick… they even got real passive/aggressive about the new ring they bought her.
I got the impression that they co-signed number 4 because they were 16 years in and had no real choice ~JS
Are you talking about the one where Christine (that’s her name!) walked off the set? I must’ve only half watched as I think I stopped really paying attention after the wedding episodes. I remember them getting the cheapest ring for her and lmao especially since they were splitting the cost three ways. I saw bits and pieces of the honeymoon and their appearance on Oprah. I’ll take your word for it, though.
They’re whole dynamic shows why the lifestyle wouldn’t work for most. The original three are jealous and the newbie has an insane sense of entitlement and for lack of a better word Kody is being unfair with regard to how he treats Robin compared to the other 3.
Sidenote, Jhane Sez, you spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the comments yesterday!
i agree. its clear they were not down. it seemed like they were all kind of dancing around saying “why another one?!”.
thats show is interesting because its not liek they are cultist they do seem to all have a voice but ultimately they dont have the power to act. the husband makes the decisions.
i felt bad when the new wife robyn told her kids they have to call kody dad. are you f*ckin kidding me?????
“i agree. its clear they were not down. it seemed like they were all kind of dancing around saying “why another one?!”.”
As an internet user, this phenomenon seems to be the same as when a third kid is brought into the family. Initially the older siblings are jealous because the new kid gets all the attention, but eventually they all realize that they’re all family and sh*t.
“As an internet user, this phenomenon seems to be the same as when a third kid is brought into the family. Initially the older siblings are jealous because the new kid gets all the attention, but eventually they all realize that they’re all family and sh*t.”
The difference is you don’t get to pick your kids… even when they are step children ~JS
Under the situation we’re talking about, only the most appealing guys wind up having multiple wives (usually with the most appealing women.)
Then, like Champ said, the middle 40% who can make it happen with those folks, just deal with each other.
Then the bottom 30% or so just resign themselves to no romance or relationships at all.
What you’re talking about is a society where polygamy is encouraged or mandated. That’s *not* a situation where women are free(er) to do as they wish.
The monogamy thing is more prescriptive than a natural inclination for me, I think. I’m happy in the situation I’m in, but I see how polygamy could work, and how, if I’m really honest, with the right people, it could work for me too.
What she said.
Polygamy has worked for centuries because well, first women didn’t really have a choice and second to help repair some skewed numbers. The point being is we are all biologically inclined to reproduce and leave a mark… What the best strategy to implement that is depends on a particular society and its settings. If there are less men than women, polygamy works well for many reasons. If there is a surplus of men and very few women, we can have polyandry… etc… All in all the main driver for women is usually security and that can take all kinds of meaning (food, shelter, emotional stability, etc… etc…)
I have a question about the math, if 40% of the women are in relationships with 40% of the men ad the world represented a college campus, then wouldn’t that show that a majority of the men and women from your sample are inclined to be monogamous?
No. You messed the math up. It seems as if your assuming the 40% of men and 40% of women are being added together but in total that would be 40% of people on a college campus are in monogamous relationships <50%. 50% of the men are not pullin females on a regular basis and the remaining 10% of the men are pulling their share of females And some more.
reading is fundamental isn’t it? lol
gotcha, thanks
I guess I’m the eternal optimist. The answer to your question is a “no” and I respectfully reject the same people liking 3-7%, 7-10%, or 15-20%because everyone does not like the same thing. The Infinite Wisdom of the Creator made variety the spice of life and people don’t even like the same kind of beverage let alone someone they want to be in a relationship or marriage with. Sure we may all accept a brand of soda, or water, but if given the option of sweet tea, fresh juice, wine, etc. we may prefer the many other options. Yes, there are some folks that a large group of people may find attaractive, but that is very different than relationship compatibility or spark. Plus, for every person who may be the measure of attractiveness and discussed on these very boards, there is always a dissenter who prefers the exact opposite of that person.
I totally get the college campus metaphor, but “the big man on campus” may not be your type, is a jerk, has some idiosyncracy that totally turns you off, or you probably prefer the athletic and “sweet and smart” 2nd string guy in your Ethnic Studies class. Plus, what about those who rejected the incestous nature (for lack of a better word) of some college campuses and decides to date folks who went to a different school? It’s a lot of factors that make the pickings not as slim as many may perceive.
I know I can’t be the only one who have seen a guy who was physically not my type or even “aesthetically belligerent” (VSB term) have spark or that “it” factor that made him most desirable and chexy! The fact that that even happens may puzzle the ‘ish out of you. Adversely, I know I can’t be the only one who have seen someone who was SOOOOO FOINE…..that is until they opened their mouth. I also know we have seen some couples who don’t even seem like they would physically mesh or match-up, but somehow it works.
Sidenote: Did anyone see Cam Newton do the Top 10 on Letterman last night? Ooooooo weeeeee! (He’s over 18, so no R. Kelly, but I gotta give that youngsta’ his props!) Even Dave said if he “looked like that guy, folks could kiss his a$$”. Now even as I say that some might feel me, and some might not think he’s all that. But just in case you do, here ya go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWztPwFOxiY
I don’t mind this video at all. At. All.
I just hope he sticks to football and doesnt get the idea he could be an actor…
@Sane, Thank you for feelin’ me!
Cam Newton, in my opinion, has a lot going for him right now, but he wouldn’t even catch my eye if he didn’t stay winning at life. He’s not bad on the eyes, tall, well built, nice smile, and seemingly everything on paper that I go for physically.BUT…. eh, his success makes him sexy. The moment he falls off would be the moment that I Evelyn Lozada him, unless he had managed to impress me intellectually….
It’s tight but it’s right.
“The answer to your question is a “no” and I respectfully reject the same people liking 3-7%, 7-10%, or 15-20%because everyone does not like the same thing.”
i didnt say this. i said that a small percentage of men had sexual access to a larger percent of the women. not all women. sh*t, not even most women, but enough to affect everyone’s sexual lives
I gotcha. I wasn’t trying to say you said it either. I was just addressing all the precentages I had read at the time I posted. But point blank for many, many reasons I am not sharing. That is NOT the move!
Relationships are something that baffle the heck out of me. I see a lot of females in unhappy relationships and wonder to myself why they even stay. I see a lot of females that settle for whatever reasons. I also see a lot of single successful females who are always complaining about wanting a man. I think if you took away the moral pressures of society for women to be in monogamous relationships majority of them would still want to be in monogamous relationships. I think that only a small portion of women are actually happy without a man. This is the only way I can explain why some females are in the situations they are in because they NEED to have that companionship. Also I think a lot of women want to have kids and can’t do the having babies thing without being married or at least having that foundation of a monogamous relationship. I know when I was in college a lot of females were chasing after guys trying to force monogamous relationships on them so I can’t say that my college experience was that much different than what I am experiencing now. Heck 50% of my college classmates are married to someone that they were dating and met in college. So to answer your question Champ, no I don’t think things would change because inherently I think females are just built a certain way.
Seeing things like you posted above makes me really wonder if women want to be in serious monagamous relationships like they claim they do. Like if you want to be in a serious relationship why:
1. choose men you don’t even like
2. choose men who won’t commit
3. not choose the men who actually want to be with you
4. sabotage relationships with good men
5. date married men
6. choose men you aren’t even attracted to
7. try to domesticate the campus man who*e
…..and the list goes on. I do believe that women are smart, smart enough to realize that doing the above (plus other things) substantially decrease their chances of having the serious relationship they want. So there are times that I believe that women who do these things do not really want a relationship on some subconscious level or maybe they don’t want relationships on a conscious level, but tell everyone that they do.
Yet since I believe that all human beings want companionship, I assume that we do want relationships, but when you mix in our fear of vulnerability and our aversion to risk-taking with our hearts, then maybe some of us figure it’s too scary to really jump in with both feet. We then choose to half-step with silly behavior.
I am totally with you on this. Take me for example, the thought of being vulnerable in love and opening myself up to be hurt is just too much so I fall back on the I am cool by myself rhetoric but deep down inside it scares me to know I am approaching my 30s and don’t have a man, kids or anything to show for it. I think subconsciously even the strongest female deep down inside does not want to end up alone.
“inherently I think females are just built a certain way.” & “it scares me to know I am approaching my 30s and don’t have a man, kids or anything to show for it.”
My Dear, you have YOU!
That’s more than enough!!!
I wonder if women were taught from childhood that they are more than enough, if they would continue to join/produce another to feel as some would say “complete”?
With yourself and happy is much better any day of the week than- with someone and miserable!!!
It makes me think of a good pound cake. A good pound cake doesn’t need icing; some people would probably swear icing doesn’t even belong on a good pound cake. IDK
#5–Dating Married Men.
There is a small segment I’ve come to learn (23-28 yrs old) who are involved with Men who have already committed to someone else.
Guess they don’t realize that Men talk, so these married men are tainting their pool of potential suitors all to their detriment. A few years pass, and then they don’t realize why no one within their social socials/class is even considering them for a relationship.
Bond. BlkBond.
WORD…My friend was like this. Stayed dating folks with LT gfs, fiances, or wives and wondered why dudes who wanted the real deal stayed away from her.
Ironically, it wasn’t until she changed her scenary and her game that she landed a pretty decent, unattached man. They’re married now.
But….here’s hoping karma doesn’t bite her in the ass.
I get what you are saying, but I think the examples and scenarios in your post speak to something else. I can also point to men who rather be with a woman instead of being single which is why some women are so blown that after a break-up their ex guy might instantly have a girlfriend, move in with a girl, or have a girl who is a placeholder until they find someone they deem better. It is not only women who want companionship. Those who can not be single, must always be in a relationship or pick the wrong partners or people they really don’t like have other issues and things going on that is NOT exclusive to women alone.
Agreed, I think my post can relate to both men and women.
Oh I am very aware that men go through this as well, but I was speaking more towards Champ’s question but generally speaking I would have to agree with you.
“I think that only a small portion of women are actually happy without a man.”
Say it LOUDER Asia cause some are hard headed. I hear so many people under-estimating their need for a significant other whether it be male or female. We need that companionship. We live longer, happier and healthier despite what jaded people say. Don’t believe the hype. We need each other. Sure there are plenty of marriages that fail. I refuse to let that stop me. My right place is by a man’s side. I don’t want to be lonely.
Don’t believe the hype. We need each other. Sure there are plenty of marriages that fail. I refuse to let that stop me. My right place is by a man’s side. I don’t want to be lonely
*sniff* I think I e-luv you.
LOL I love your avatar.
Stop bragging and making the little man look bad. lolol
LOL I love your avatar. Stop bragging and making the little man look bad. lolol
lol. yeah, just a lil bit huh? But leavin it blank was killin me. Thought about comin out of tha shadows ala CBG, but naah..I like bein in tha cut.
I like bein in tha cut.
-We love having you there… Rrrrrrr.
@Yeah So
Lmbao!!! You know you sexxy when u growl gurl???
Rrrrr… ARH ARH ARH…Rrrrrr! (no b!tch tho, I’m all puss *escratch*… lol)
Thank you and good day for this comment.
I want, desire, need and would like to have a male life companion. I’m not gonna sugar coat it, hide it, run from it or act like I don’t. Because I do.
Period. The.End
I think, if we were to be honest about what we actually see in the real world, we would admit that there are the men that black women like because they look good on paper (educated, successful, well mannered) and then there are the men that black women really like but won’t say it out loud because it would make them sound stupid,( thugs, players, deadbeats) however some just don’t care. It is the standard of the day to make unreasonable lists of attributes of what constitutes a good black man, and when brothers fall short of these lists, somehow it excuses these women to date the no good men that they have been longing for. They can justify doing this by simply saying there are no good black men. When we all know, but are afraid to say the truth, which is, many black women don’t really want good black men, they want these players and thugs. But of course they can never admit to this, yet we see it all the time.
I think sisters in particular say one thing and really want another.
The college chick who grew bored with the good-on-paper-guy and decided to date thug riding on rims.
So, thank God they don’t rule the world, because men would still subscribe to the neanderthal way of thinking where the superior male is judged by his physical abilities and not his mind. It would indeed be a much more violent world with testosterone filled / sexually fueled battles become the norm.
Concerning monogamy, it would be a world where women had both the brawny thuggish dudes as lovers and the good on paper guys for provision.
And here we go
0_0 I am going to just slink away into the night and hide because I know I loves my thugs so I can’t even argue with your statement.
“there are the men that black women really like but won’t say it out loud because it would make them sound stupid,( thugs, players, deadbeats) however some just don’t care.”
Many women are with men that they think they can change.
It may take them a very long time to throw in the towel and admit they were wrong. Mind you, they may have had their family tell them he was “no good” and their friends, but they continue to hold on because they don’t want to give up on their investment of time and all the crap they had to put up with.
I don’t know Whitney’s situation, but I suspect that’s what happened to her. People may get mad at JLo but I respect her for seeing the way things were going and she left. Puffy is still doing the same crap to Kim while JLo is married with kids.
“I don’t know Whitney’s situation, but I suspect that’s what happened to her. People may get mad at JLo but I respect her for seeing the way things were going and she left. Puffy is still doing the same crap to Kim while JLo is married with kids.”
THIS…
I don’t think that other men realize that these type of dudes will pull out all the stops to win you and be that 80 to 90% + good n*gga… as long as you let them dip on that 10%.
And even Kim last woman standing, eventually had to let it go… cause Diddy said that he won’t stop
And he didn’t
And eventually you get humiliated… if you stay ~JS
Yup!
“I think sisters in particular say one thing and really want another.
The college chick who grew bored with the good-on-paper-guy and decided to date thug riding on rims.”
I mean…..that isn’t just college….that goes on to (at least) this day. Still the same ish. I’ve been the good-on-paper guy that lost out to the non-student with the Caprice Classic on 24′s before she even realized what she was doing. Sucks….because when the thugs finally go out of style (or when the women mature….however you wanna define it) and the good-on-paper guys finally start winning, we’re supposed to forgive these same women down the line.
TRL, You are the quintessential dude who THINKS he’s good on paper but in real life something is NOT translating. I mean seriously…I can’t believe that you have that much going on and can’t seem to parlay that into a favorable dating situation with one woman who appreciates that.
I’m truly baffled and slight annoyed by that. Not with you because I don’t know you. But, I’m definitely annoyed at the attitude that permeates every comment you enter.
kanyeshrug***
Lack of opportunity is the main problem right now. I know I’m not the most cookies and bubbles, bubbles and cookies (no Cam’Ron) poster on this site. I know I have an attitude. If I didn’t, people would run all over me like they used to try to do back in the day.
I never said I was perfect on paper. But I do think I bring enough basics to the table to at least have a shot with most women. The extra stuff—-those quirks and special interests/hobbies I have (and that we all should have) are going to determine WHAT KIND of woman, though.
“men would still subscribe to the neanderthal way of thinking where the superior male is judged by his physical abilities and not his mind. It would indeed be a much more violent world with testosterone filled / sexually fueled battles become the norm.”
Funny, this is what I think the world would be like if women didn’t have a say in anything. If it was left up to men, we would all be primates and I like being human. Anywho, I refuse to subscribe to the movement that all women like thugs. Young women, yes but mature women, no. I don’t know why people confuse the two. I barely see any thugs. Where are all these thugs at? Roaming the streets and snatching up educated women? No, they are in the hood with hood chicks…majority anyway. Don’t be mad at the thug brotha. The only man I see throwing out this theory are educated brothas. Just because you (not you) have your ph.d in physics and the thug has his ph.d in laying pipe, doesn’t mean he’s a threat to your happiness. What you should ask yourself is why would any woman want a thug over a good man? I don’t want to marry a good man, good men won’t blow my back out. I want a real man, not a thug. There is an in-between.
Excatly SF, I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt in my diplomatic comment below, but of all my educated sister-friends 99% of them do not actively seek thuggish men. And driving a Caprice doesn’t automatically make you a thug nor does liking rims. Even still, they ain’t checking for that “type” for type’s sake.
It’s like women are damned either way. If we don’t keep our options open, we’re being unrealistic. If we start checking for those other options, we are superficial and don’t want a “good man.”
Basically it might just be YOU and not what those “thugs” are/ain’t doing.
Yep. Most of my friends are educated too. I don’t see a bunch of women with thugs. It’s so silly to me. And like you said, what is a thug? Cause he drives a caprice? Or because he doesn’t have 2 degrees? Women wake up and see an attractive, educated man who is likable and say…no, I want a thug! Ridiculous!
Girl yes, f@ck a well-raised smart ninja who treats me with respect, I want criminal who can’t read to slap me sideways err now and then… #wheredeydodatat
I think dudes who say that need some introspection to understand what they may/may not be doing that’s not attracting the women they want. I don’t know not a woman who is down for that, and if they are, I doubt the vsbs on this website are checkin for them in the first place.
“I think dudes who say that need some introspection to understand what they may/may not be doing that’s not attracting the women they want. I don’t know not a woman who is down for that, and if they are, I doubt the vsbs on this website are checkin for them in the first place.”
This right here is truth.com
And TRL needs to realize that it’s not everyone else fault that women aren’t checking for him in a real way. It’s HIS fault. Like my dad said, if everyone says that same thing about you, it’s not them with the issue, it’s you.
So it’s my fault that I do what I’m supposed to do in life? It’s my fault that I went to college for a while….it’s my fault that I joined the military to make a better life for myself (and to finish college)? It’s my fault that I was raised to be a gentleman (not a doormat) and a generally nice person? It’s my fault that women SAY they want men that have the qualities that I mostly possess yet often choose men that don’t?
I’m not saying that anything I have going for myself entitles me to a woman, because it certainly doesn’t. I could see if I was actually one of these wannabe playas that was trying to screw over every woman I ever came across. I could see if I cheated on women, abused them, or treated them like sh*t. Then, yeah…..I shouldn’t be getting any play from y’all. But that is about as far from the case as we can get.
I can’t say I’m perfect, but I will say that from a qualities point of view….I am doing very little on the wrong side. Maybe I don’t have the ‘look’ most women want that guy with all the perfect qualities to have. I’m sorry that I wasn’t born with the “Ooh, he fine as hell” gene. Missed that train, and I’ll never catch it.
@SFG
I don’t want to marry a good man, good men won’t blow my back out.
Lies!!!
Yeah I am lying. lol What’s a good man anyway? I just want a real man.
Young women, yes but mature women, no. I don’t know why people confuse the two. I barely see any thugs. Where are all these thugs at? Roaming the streets and snatching up educated women? No, they are in the hood with hood chicks
Fox, no really… THANK YOU! Duh F!ck are deez ningas at? Thuggin got lame after high school… maybe we (women and men) have our definitions mixed-up because all the thugs I know of don’t have steady jobs, don’t have an education nor want one, been locked up a bunch times or about to be, hit women, etc etc etc… and I for one have NEVER dated that type.
LOL! That’s why I fux with you…(smh)
Right. If anything, I see a lot of educated dudes checking for thug chicks, rather than educated sisters checking for thugs. I digress…long analysis for that one.
I think the thug label is played. I know dudes from college you consider ‘thugs’ (neighborhood origin, city they grew up in, etc.), but they don’t consider themselves such. I think the distinction he’s trying to make is a class distinction; however, both men & women dip into other classes for non-attached companionship (i.e. sex-only relationships, out of the ordinary experiences, etc.), so I don’t think women should be singled out.
I got a friend of mine right now trying to get me to go to the hood spot cause he’s seen too many Pinky & Cherokee movies that he wants to live them out for the new year…
Bond.
And this comment I would fcuks with and have more black babies lol. Cause THIS: “If anything, I see a lot of educated dudes checking for thug chicks” BOOYAH! Can you let them know you a law grad cause you da troof? Yes the thug label is played like lace fronts. Who is a damn thug anyway? To me that is someone who commits crimes, not someone who wears Coogi. lol And if you do see an odd paring of thug/educated women, i’m willing to bet good money it’s for non-attachment purposes like you said…s.ex is the motive. The yuppy man is so threatened by the thug yet watches the Godfather movie 14x over.
This may be true (although I think the love of thugs by black women is an overstatement), but you can say the same about men. Good on paper women can often be trumped by the empty-headed trophy wife.
And when women complain about that phenomenon, there is a litany of responses by men who assert one thing: it might be your personality bi$h!
So to my good-on-paper men, it may have nothing to do with simply wanting a “thug.” Who you think is a thug because he looks like one might simply be a good-natured dude who is calm, giving, and a better fit for the Type A chick.
Disclaimer: I don’t find myself attracted to the “thug” types, but I have guy friends who fit the stereotype and are some of the sweetest guys I know while some of the Ivy League grads who were my colleagues were obnoxious and boring. And of course, there were many who were great.
Bottom line: Personality sells!!
yalegent,
my man 100 grand, i think it’s about time for you to get off of the “black women want thugs” bent and find another topic to champion. that stereotypical ship has sailed and has been left the harbor, and this post — which isnt even talking about race, but sexual dynamics in general — is the wrong place to try to get it back.
THANK YOU!!!!! If this comment was single, I would hump it raw and probably have it’s babies…because taken is not my flavor.
*its
Yeah… I would drizzle hot chocolate all over this comment and lick it off, bit by bit… in the car… on the expressway… in the fast lane, windows down!
… alright now I’m just being silly but I couldn’t resist… SFG made it too easy.
LMAO
@YaleGent
I cannot agree with your comment. Women who like ‘thugs’ don’t exist anymore than hoes do. These are mythical creatures that are simply a figment of men’s imagination.
How do I know this you may ask?
Well…heh…heh…its quite simple my imaginative brother. Every woman out there has/have and will continue to assuredly tell you with irrefutable conviction, that 1) she doesnt fall into either category 2) her friends don’t fall into either category, and 3) she doesn’t know anyone that falls into either category. This is usually prefaced with the following: “I don’t know what women YOU be meeting, but….”
With that said, there leaves only one practical and sensible conclusion: The ‘thug dating women’(educated or otherwise), ‘hoes’ and any ‘less than flattering archetype of woman’ are mere hallucinations and tall tales concocted by insecure men that fail at dating, s*x and anything else ‘manly’.
So stop telling fairy tales son. Ya’mean. Dem bytches dat be fcukin’ with thugs are myths my dood.. Thats some made up shyt. KnowImsayin’!? Word ta life n*gga. Arf! Arf!! N*ggaz like you get murked talkin’ flagrant like dat. Feel me?!
Bytch @$$ college n*ggaz get gunned up and clapped quick.
Now since you so smart, why don’t you tell me where dem intelligent college hoes be at, so a n*gga can seed it up right quick to make sure I keep drivin the car her parents bought her, stash my ‘merchandise’ and ‘burner’ in her crib, and live off her til I fcuk her dumb @ss cousin’ and have them fight over me while her best friend shish kabob snacks me in the whip while a n*gga tokin’ that el?
Dayum Sobo..if you said all of that with bass in your voice and looked like Idris Elba then YES!! Sign me up for wanting a thug. (But then again I was born and raised in the hood so loving a thug is like going back home)
BTW..I’m j/k…slightly
I was being facetious.
I think if you see the post about mythical kneegros and grettes several women mentioned knowing successful women that wanted thugs…I think we all know some h0es…wassup
Even though this is one of the few times I’ve gotten here before the 500 comments, I feel that the comments are going to go in on women (and how they’re the problem) and I’m not sure I have it in me to watch right now. Hopefully I can formulate an actual comment tomorrow after some actual rest.
“I feel that the comments are going to go in on women (and how they’re the problem)”
i dont think that’s happening here. (i could be wrong, though. hasnt happened before, but it’s possible)
Keep in mind that there were fewer posts when I originally posted this and the two comments directly above mine were throwing some heat that way. I clearly spoke to soon.
if women had complete sexual choice autonomy and weren’t constrained by moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships…..
I think this is the only way to achieving the goal of world peace. Everyone just needs to embrace OPP(yah you know me). Everyone will come out on top if we all just had more sexual freedom. I believe the best solution for fighting terrorism is sliding some skeezers into those caves Osama be up in, but I digress.
On a more serious note, I think if women were to embrace polygamy more and continue to strive for degrees and money day to day life would seem really awesome BUT this would completely change a system that has clearly worked well. Broken homes dont work well and all this advancement leads to broken homes. So unless stem cell research can not only cure HIV but also allow men to birth babies society will be headed to the dumps if women embrace polygamy. I think we need a happy medium in between everyones sexual freedom(in which case we all win) and between monogamous relationships so we can still have some family structure. I propose the idea of black couples that are swingers, thoughts? takers?location? time? jk unless…
“I propose the idea of black couples that are swingers, thoughts? takers?location? time? jk unless…”
the “everybody’s in an open relationship” concept would eventually morph into polygamy, though
“So unless stem cell research can not only cure HIV…”
This just in, breaking news:
On CNN (HLN) this morning they spoke of a man who has successfully foregone HIV meds for 3 years after having his immune system completely wiped, then being treated with chemotherapy and stem cells. Carry on.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/14/hiv.infection.cure/index.html
Thats interesting.
I thought there was a herbalist (Dr Sebi) that cured full blown AIDS in several patients using homeopathic therapy a few years ago, no?
If memory serves me correctly, he had to face the Supreme Court on charges that he was making claims of curing terminal diseases using methods not approved by the FDA. (mainly for the fact that he was using the term ‘cure’ and advertising it, which apparently is reserved only for pharmaceutical products).
Anyways, he won his case as it was found he indeed did cure AIDS and cancer, etc in quite a few people.
Unless that story was a hoax of sorts, I thought this feat was already accomplished?
….but honestly I think if women rule the world, I think that it’s the men who would be in the polygamous marriages with women..he hee
hey sometimes it’s hard to find it all in one man.
tu shea and sh*t. tu muthaf*ckin shea
*smirks* lol
“but honestly I think if women rule the world, I think that it’s the men who would be in the polygamous marriages with women..he hee”
this is square biz. long long time ago when i was in law school and feeling myself a tad, a had three boos: one in school with me for the late night creep and mind sex, one who lived nearby in the suburbs with a nice job and fat schlong, and one who lived in cali for the late night boo talk on nights when i wasnt with a or b. it was actually pretty flipping awesome and i felt very satisfied with very little drama. if one pissed me off, i didn’t feel the need to discuss it, i just hollered at another one. it was kind of amazing until….i started to feel like i should settle down with one of them, which i did for 2 years and then it went south. so i guess without the pressure polyandry would be cool with me. and i’m sure i wasn’t the only girl at least two of them were talking to, but it never concerned me. we used protection and it was good in d. hood.
i think a twist to add to this is if there were no stds. probably the biggest reason i wouldn’t do that now is for fear of catching something besides feelings. also, i want to have babies and i’m not sure how that would work for building proper self-esteem. it is a question though because i don’t know how it would affect that; i would venture to guess that psychology and sociology haven’t spent a great deal of time on studying that because polygamous and non-monogamous healthy relationships are not the norm. maybe if kids grew up that way and there were no drama it wouldn’t matter. idk. i do think that women’s “innate” need for communication differs so greatly from men in a way that takes most heterosexual relationships. so the idea of it being cool to have 2 or 3 boos to fill that gap would be kind of dope. good question and sh#t.
I don’t want to sound like that bitter guy or anything, but gotdamn. The part about only a small percentage of college men having access to a majority of the college women is true (at least for me). I go to a Big Ten school and I’m one of the guys who usually took out his frustrations in intramural football/basketball games. However, my situation resulted mostly from the fact that I used to be ridiculously socially awkward (not in a way like I didn’t know what to say, but in a way where I would never initiate a conversation with a girl because I was scared/nervous). Things are getting better now that I’ve finally got legit social skills and confidence, but it’s still pretty obvious that I’ll never have access to most of the women on campus. I’m about to graduate in June and I haven’t even had sex with a girl on campus yet (this is my fourth year). Like I said before though, I’ve been doing better and at least bringing girls to my dorm and getting physical. I didn’t really have anything insightful to add to this topic. I’m just a frustrated guy who randomly felt like venting.
damn at a big ten there has to be legit 10,000 women to choose from. Please watch 40yr old virgin, hell netflix that mofo NOW, RIGHT NOW cuz brotha you have indeed put the p* on a pedestal.
Tip: Speak Up.
Everytime you holler at a chick you have a 50% chance of her saying Yes.
Plant alot of seeds. no pun just watch the movie
There are around 50,000 people total at my school but I struggled with social anxiety and a lack of confidence for the majority of my time on campus. Like I said, I’m good with confidence and social skills now but I’m already a senior (there aren’t as many opportunities to meet people as a senior when you need to be focusing on what you’re gonna do after graduation).But yeah, I’ve seen that movie plenty of times and that won’t be me. I already took the pvssy off the pedestal. I just need to speak up more. Thanks for the response though.
LOL, I don’t understand this “don’t have access to a majority of the college women”- what does this even mean?? You walk up to a woman, you talk her, if you’re not a jerk she’ll probably be nice to you. It ain’t that damn complicated.
Oh, but it was that complicated.
At Howard, there was a hierarchy of attractiveness based on several things: Your major, where you were from, what you dressed like, what fraternity you joined, what sport you played, and how popular you were on campus. Real talk. Business majors trumped the engineering majors. Dudes that could actually afford to wear the latest gear and freshest kicks trumped the guys that couldn’t. Gay dudes somehow trumped the straight ones. Students from the islands trumped those that weren’t. Omegas trumped everyone but the football team—-and most of them were on the football team anyway.
If folks were that superficial all the time (and I went to Howard for grad school, so I know some of that does exist but not with EVERYONE) then you holla at folks at one of the many neighboring schools around you. There’s Georgetown, George Washington, American Univeversity, University of Maryland and tons of folks outside the Howard campus you could get at. No offense, and forgive me if I’m wrong, but it sounds as if you were after the same 8% of women just like the women were after the same 8% of guys. So if you were doing the same thing, how can you be mad?
Yes, you were somewhat wrong, but I forgive you. When I made trips to other schools, I found that either I was too much of an ‘outsider’ and didn’t fit in on their campuses (depending on which school I went to) or that there weren’t enough Black folks at that particular school to make taking a trip over there continuously worth it. (American, G-Town….I’m looking at y’all.)
And the type of woman I go after is usually not the 8 percenters everyone else is chasing. For starters, I avoid the overly good-looking women whose egos are blown up because they have 200 other dudes after them as well.
Thanks for the correction, but my point is you take control and stop being a victim of circumstance. For undergrad, I went to a large school that was not predominately black, but I was good and not only subjected to the pool of brothas on that campus. You road trip and go to other parties on other campuses and you meet people. Plus, you were in D.C.! Chocolate City! Like Msbssmith said, the numbers are ENTIRELY in YOUR favor. You could walk down M street (if memory serves me correctly) and kick it around Georgetown and meet someone. You are in a city with countless happy hours that have free food. You are in a city where you can get your fully party on at 7pm. You are in a city that has a Black Love/Black Family picnic and event every summer.
Plus, if you were not after that same 8% all the other guys were after, some of them HU sistahs would have definitely holla’d back.
Please give my comment free
I assure you that I was never after the 8 Percenters.
Most times, I could never get within 12 feet of them because some other ninja would cockblock you, anyway. I’ve been checking for the average-looking, intelligent, behind-the-scenes-and-ain’t-gotta-act-ig’nant-to-prove-a-point Sisters since I was fourteen. I could never seem to run into any single ones that actually liked (AND WANTED) a man at the time I made it known I was interested in them. Or they’d do some crazy sh*t like flake out of the first date with no explanation…..
Agreed legitimate_soul. I went to HU (tha real HU) and it wasn’t that hard. I never noticed or participated in a hierarchy on campus; I dated the dudes I wanted and avoided the obvious disasaters like athletes and stunners. DC is full of people–especially chicks. A black man in DC with no chicks is like a rabbit starving to death in a veggie patch.
I was waiting for someone to say it!!! Yea HAMPTON in the house!!!! I LOVE, I LOVE, I LOVE….. MY…… H. I .U!!! That is ALL!
And what baffles me in these conversations is that no one acknowledges that the reverse is true for women as well. Depending on what campus you’re on: AKAs…then Deltas…then Black Princesses…then Video/Hood Rat Chicks….so on and so on…
Just like educated Black women that love thugs (and they exist but that bish just ain’t welcome @ my house) need to buy a clue Black men that are too d@mn cool for the girl that likes to read or likes to dance but not on a pole needs to buy the next clue.
Excuse me… flashbacks of sitting there while guys walk up to your friends to talk to them and not you….we ALL have to deal with rejection. When you are fawning over that heffa that pays you no nevermind because she’s chasing after the qb, you are ignoring the quiet girl in glasses who would love to have coffee/hot chocolate with you while discussing WHATEVER it is two (nerdy, kinda socially awkward) people discuss (& she completely understands that you’re a college student just trying to keep your student account on the right side of that red line so she pays for her own…)
Going to eat some chocolate to get this bitter taste out of my mouth.
@LuckBALady]
“Going to eat some chocolate to get this bitter taste out of my mouth.”
You neednt go far.
*cue Torquoise Jeep Records*
Cavitiiiieeees. With all this chocolate in your mouf.
LOL
I <3 them despite myself…
Women have no idea of the exact nature of the difficulties on this side of the equation.
If it were as easy as you say, this blog wouldn’t exist.
They know. Sometimes it’s just a passive aggressive/coy way of making sure that we still know.
Bond.
LOL, maybe it’s just the wording “don’t have access to” as if there’s some type of magnetized badge you need to swipe to meet women. WTF? If a woman is standing in your face, you have access to her.
Try this definition:
If he walks up to her and says hello, and she responds with the beatbox (the pssst exhale, the move away with hand on hip gesture, with the facial express of disgust followed by a walk away without acknowledgement) he doesn’t have access. If she walks up to him and hands him her number unsolicited, he’s got access.
These damned 404 errors won’t let me be great. Sorry for the double post.
Try this definition:
If he walks up to her and says hello, and she responds with the beatbox (an audible “psssst” exhale, coupled with a movement away from him, a facial expression of disgust, followed by her walking away without acknowledging him), he doesn’t have access. If she walks up to him, gives him her number and says call me and it’s all unsolicited, he has access. These are extremes, but I’m sure you get it.
You don’t need a magnetized badge or anything, but you definitely need some type of status (athlete, fraternity member, etc) in order to get a female’s attention on campus. Just because a woman is standing in your face doesn’t mean you have her approval. I’ve seen women give off signals only for a dude to get shut down after making a move. Its just not that easy. Please No Photos made good points too.
I think that was your perception, not the reality. People in the spotlight get attention- that’s the nature of the spotlight. You can still pull if you’re not in the spotlight though. Maybe my experience was just different. Truth be told, when I think back we liked dudes because they looked good. Frat, athlete, pharmacy, career student whatever, that other sh*t didn’t matter, it just sounded good. Not saying looks are all that matter either, but from my experience, your “status” didn’t really mean anything. Guys that opened their mouths and talked to women are the ones that got play. If you’re shy, you’re gonna have shy guy problems.
@WIP,
“Frat, athlete, pharmacy, career student whatever, that other sh*t didn’t matter, it just sounded good. Not saying looks are all that matter either, but from my experience, your “status” didn’t really mean anything.”
THIS! So very true and in my experience if you were after a person just for status it was very apparent and you got used and dissed. No one wants someone who is trying to use them for where they are and not because of who they are. Thirsty folks looking for status was very apparent and most were wise enough to see through that. Respect was given for the genuine and who wouldn’t stand for b.s. just because someone was on the football team. Oh, and folks would test to see if you were down for the okie doke and just enthralled with their status.
Yeah I get what you guys are saying. Most of my problems resulted from my shyness/awkwardness and I never really put myself out there. I’m catching up though.
“If it were as easy as you say this blog wouldn’t exist.”
Every time you point your finger, four are pointing back and etc… No? The only legit reason I’ve seen for people being perpetually single and unhappy is them. Not anyone else.
Hoping I misinterpreted this.
if you’re not a jerk she’ll probably be nice to you. It ain’t that damn complicated.
Are you sure you remember college???? Those girls are not trying to date the awkward dude! It’s later on in life when they have kissed a few frogs and the geek has blossomed into a swan that those numbers get adjusted.
It has been like that since primary school and playgrounds… and is true for all cultures. I didn’t grow up in the US but it’s the same where I’m from! The criteria for deciding who is “alpha” might differ but biologically speaking girls under the fat part of the bell curve will tend to gravitate towards alpha (whatever alpha is in the context) boys…
Who said they had to be awkward? They could be perfectly cool and just not be “top dog”. College was not high school either. It’s not only two extremes of guys or women out here.
Errr…… Twist said he was awkward in social situations. Didn’t invent anything.
And like the LuckBALady mentioned upthhread it is also true for girls! There are the ones considered “10″ that most guys would vie for while the others who don’t fit that criterion of being a 10 would not. I don’t know why that concept seems so foreign?
My bad, Sula! This thread got so long I forgot it was all in response to Twist.
Its just crazy how bad my social skills were for the majority of college. NOBODY wants to kick it with the awkward guy but I just wouldn’t open my mouth and initiate conversations until recently. I improved my social skills and confidence a lot in a small time-span so hopefully I can make up for lost time, at least a little bit.
I went to a Big Ten school and honestly, there are more hoes there than there is sand on the beach. If all you wanted to do was smash, you could have hit a frat party or two and met a boo or two to keep you wet and warm all year long.
No BS…and yes I’m a chick saying this. So again…I lump you in with TRL on that “I can’t get a girl” situation that has GOT to be your own doing…or not doing.
If you were looking for wifey, you just may not have met her yet and that’s understandable. But if you were looking for the smash and grab, you played yourself by not going where those girls hang out. Cuz trust…Big Ten schools have them in all shapes, colors, sizes, mental capacities and more.
I was never just looking for the smash-and-grab. I am not that kind of dude.
I think my problem is that I lack the short-term qualities (the superficial stuff like looks, cars, clothes, and all that jazz) that most women are attracted to up front. So I already have to work extra hard with making sure everything on the inside is on point just to have a shot with most women. But most women decide they want nothing to do with me without ever really getting to know who I am.
So when you and others on this site throw me into the “Oh, he just bitter” box…..Do any of y’all really know how it feels to be that dude (or that woman)? I’m pretty sure we’ve all been rejected because of something we have no control over. But for me….it’s each and every time…..And most of the women couldn’t even be up front with me about something THAT simple.
Being a serial monogamist, I find it amusing that people have rather insane and fairly unreasonable ‘long term’ standards for relationships.
Especially with their experimental (Well, let’s just see how this thing works out”) attitudes toward commitment.
Eventually most of us wake up to the realization that being institutionalized is not a state they really want to spend their in.
Back when most people lived to the average ripe old age of about 30, being married to one person your whole life was a lot easier to do. Plus you had fewer distractions and more stringent gender roles back then.
Back then, being 40 made a man wise and desirable. Now it just makes young women say “Gurrrrrrrl he don’t know how to dress, or something stupid like that”.
Besides most people lower their standards, expectations and guards around the same time, usually after (q% of alcohol x y% of body fat x r number of hours + boredom = whatever) and the rest is a tactile exchange that can end after minutes in a parking lot or years in court.
All of which is better than going McVeigh.
So, let it be noted that, yes…
…your future and or present wife was not a virgin when you met and if she had her way she’d have a different man for every purpose in her life and 9 times out of 10 yours would not be sex.
But then so would you.
I know I do.
“So, let it be noted that, yes…
…your future and or present wife was not a virgin when you met and if she had her way she’d have a different man for every purpose in her life and 9 times out of 10 yours would not be sex.”
yeah, i’d probably be the breakfast guy
I’d be her son’s Calculus and Spanish tutor.
“I’d be her son’s Calculus and Spanish tutor.”
That actually hurt to laugh at…
*but on the real… how are the Latin skills baby girl got them SAT’s coming up ~JS
I know its late, but I was just sitting here trying to think what uses I could have for various men and the first thing was a math tutor for my son!!!
Well stated.
Champ, you bring up an interesting thought experiment. Complete sexual freedom wouldn’t be the ideal situation because society is built upon smaller structures.
I think this situation would be too transient to be stable. There is no reason to stay in a relationship if polyamory/polygamy is acceptable.
At this point, I can’t full flesh out this thought experiment. I hope I’ll have more later.
Isn’t the black community experiencing this exact same thing in regards to the supposed shortage of black men? The black males that are upwardly mobile take advantage by continually looking to upgrade (in essence not settling down) How has that worked out so far?
my hypothesis: complete $exual freedom > increased disease and pregnancy > increased value on monogamy.
^ Yet we have people continuing to engage in activities that aren’t conducive to any sort of monogamy with PEOPLE that aren’t capable of providing said monogamy, either. Interesting.
“I think this situation would be too transient to be stable. There is no reason to stay in a relationship if polyamory/polygamy is acceptable.”
i agree. this definitely would be extremely harmful to society in general. even if everybody doesnt follow them, we need sexual rules, mores, and expectations in place
Multiple women to one man is common in a lot of societies. Some allow it explicitly, and some allow it implicitly. Its a numbers game, I’m sure some of you are in a polygamist relationship right now and you don’t even know it. Whatever works.
These are not anywhere near the majority of relationships though. Number don’t lie. Monogamy works for most people, that’s why we do it.
We may enter into relationships that we believe to be monogamous and that may be our intention, but if statistics are correct, that’s not how these relationships turn out. I agree with Oceanview. I believe that there are many people in “monogamous” relationships where they are sharing their men/women but won’t admit it or don’t know. Not a majority but at the least, 25%. Case in point, we all know people who have “outside” brothers and sisters. I think alot of people are caught up in the illusion of monogamy but are not really living it.
Also to Oceanview’s point, Europeans are nowhere as puritanical about relationships as Americans.
Whether a partner cheats doesn’t really discount the desire to be a monogamous relationship. The man/woman that cheats is most likely coming home to live in that monogamous household because that’s the place he/she really wants to be- even though they stepped out momentarily. I’m not speaking to whether it’s wrong or right, I’m just saying people still value monogamy even though they may not stick to the rules 100% of the time (LOL, didn’t ya’ll have a long conversation about this the other day?) I know vegetables and lean meats are best for me, but damn if I don’t be at McDonald’s sometimes right?
lol, of course, if he’s cheating on you with a man, THEN the home is NOT where he really wants to be.
“Europeans are nowhere as puritanical about relationships as Americans.”
Europeans sent their Puritans over here to colonize America. As a result, we’re still stuck with there puritan ways that have formed the basis of our society. There’s hope though. We are gradually realizing that it’s not all that it’s cracked up to be and are continually abandoning puritanism. Two more generations and it’s a wrap.
This post kinda’ reminds me of that episode of Futurama where there was a planet of Amazons that only wanted men for “snoos-snoos” (chex). After the Amazons banged out the men, they had them lined up to be killed. LOL! Cold-blooded! For the record, that’s terribly wrong and I love men, but that episode was entertaining. (No men in the episode actually died. Yay!)
I know exactly what episode you are talking about, lawd them were some big burly chicks lol but imagine a world like that tho
Yep, I remember that too. Bender’s my dude..lol. Wonder why Futurama was never as big as it should’ve been? i.e. Family guy, Simpsons…
“Yep, I remember that too. Bender’s my dude..lol. Wonder why Futurama was never as big as it should’ve been? i.e. Family guy, Simpsons…”
They are developing new episodes… I don’t know if they will be on fox or comedy central… but new episodes are coming ~JS
They are developing new episodes… I don’t know if they will be on fox or comedy central… but new episodes are coming ~JS
Kool. American Dad is pretty straight too, but I can neva really get all the way into it.
“Yep, I remember that too. Bender’s my dude..lol. Wonder why Futurama was never as big as it should’ve been? i.e. Family guy, Simpsons…”
They are developing new episodes… I don’t know if they will be on fox or comedy central… but new episodes are coming ~JS
The new episodes are on. Futurama came back in a few animated films due to fan support (which you can get on Netflix) and I have seen new episodes on Comedy Central.
It kills me how many commenters can directly or indirectly mention the SOCIAL conditioning of women, and the SOCIETAL pressures they face, and then say without a trace of irony that women have INNATE desires/needs to conform to social conditioning and societal pressure.
BUT, to answer your question, I think if women ruled the world, two possibilities are most likely: 1. there would be a lot more polyamorous relationships, where women were free to have a primary partner and deep bonds (not necessarily sexual) with other people. 2. Women would be as douchetastic as men are today, and to whatever the eff they wanted while forcing men into arbitrary roles and expectations because the women were in power.
Anywho, I’m a serial monogamist who controls her urge to leave one relationship to immediately start another. Monogamy IMO is not some foreign beast women foist upon men. I just think women, recognizing the higher penalty they pay for NOT being monogamous, are more investing in making sure that monogamy last for an extended period.
“It kills me how many commenters can directly or indirectly mention the SOCIAL conditioning of women, and the SOCIETAL pressures they face, and then say without a trace of irony that women have INNATE desires/needs to conform to social conditioning and societal pressure.”
It’s human nature to follow the pack or society. I don’t know why people don’t understand this.
It’s true that it is in most mammals’ natures to follow the pack/society. However, there are certain social and society pressures that are placed upon women that have nothing to do with any biological instinct or reflexive survival urge. That is what is irking the crap out of me re; a lot of the comments – people are saying women ‘naturally’ want/need to do something that is heavily influenced by social constructs.
Oh, I misread your comment! lol my bad.
Well what do you think is the societal pressure that has nothing to do with our natural want? Monogamy? Marriage?
Yep. We all have the need to belong….women and men, this need is as old as Genesis. As much as some of us rile and rave against conformity, we all have to conform to some extent, especially because society punishes non-conformity in a lot of ways. Just look at some of the laws.
“1. there would be a lot more polyamorous relationships, where women were free to have a primary partner and deep bonds (not necessarily sexual) with other people. ”
This is what women are essentially trying to achieve by putting guys into the FriendZone anyway.
Now you got me craving cream of wheat! They’re a lot of evil women out there…EVIL. It’s like the better you treat them, the worse they become. If they had free reign a lot of men would just be destroyed. Shame
Yeah, I’ve noticed that most Black women are all chasing (not to be taken in a bad way) the same 8 percent of men. It was true back when I was at Howard, and it’s true here in the military….except now, the 8 percent of women that actually are straight are chasing after about 3 different dudes.
Are women really “chasing” men though?
The ‘chasing’ I used there wasn’t a literal chasing. Replace the ‘chasing’ I used there with….”tactfully aiming for the hearts of” and my point should become a bit more clear.
There are some women who are not trying to be in that chase at all. Fcuk that and fcuk chasing after a guy that doesn’t recognize that you are a prize as well. Some women ain’t signing up to deal wit a lot of cut throat women for a small number of dudes who ain’t really all that when you get to know them. If you have nothing going for you other than being a guy in demand for superficial reasons, there are some women who ain’t got time for that and who refuse to jock.
The question is, however, these women who refuse to jock the guy in demand, do they take themselves out of the dating realm or do they find a less jocked guy and make happy time with him?
Glad you asked! LOL!…..Seriously, you recognize who YOU really like. Are you feeling this guy because he is “popular” or jocked or because he is a genuinely great guy. Is he jocked because he has any redeeming qualities other than knowing he is likely to be signed with a professional sports contract? Do you really think he’s attractive or are you just going with the crowd? There were so many times you can distinguish why someone is being jocked and ask yourself if that really resonates or mean anything to you. Like I told Leo in a response, you don’t limit yourself to the pond at that college campus. If you find someone you like, then cool. If not, there was other campuses nearby and other folks at other schools who’d holla and you could get to know and like not because of a falsified status hierarchy, but because you like them as human beings.
The popular guy may like you. You may like him back. But if it doesn’t happen, you are not pressed to make it happen. When it comes down to it, he is a guy and you know your self-worth that if a guy likes you he will make it happen.
The dude getting jocked knows why he’s getting jocked and it’s usually not because he has a good heart. No one knows that side of him or has taken the time to talk to him to even know if that is apparent. He will use and run through the groupies who are trying to get a piece of him for status.
I have college friends who went pro and my friends and I were around them was because they knew we didn’t give a flugg. If you was cool, you was cool. We didn’t want nothing from them other than a mutual genuine friendship. We also wouldn’t take any mess from them just because they put up good numbers in the last game.
You do you and you are genuine. Yes, I’m human and can recognize that the jock has a “body like got-dayum” but he is NOT the only one! You also know yourself and know if that is relationship material, what that comes with, do you want to deal with what that comes with, is that of value, and beyond his body is he even a good person? Is he the jock folks are chasing who also has a rep of twisting out girls and sullying their reputation?
You leave the small pool and go into an ocean. Where you are a new fresh face somewhere else and you are in demand too. You are not chopped liver, either.
My bad. All that typing to say that: THERE ARE SOME JEWELS, JEWELS I tell ya’ that are not in that alleged top %. The top percentage b.s. is eilitist and assumes everybody wants the same thing. I refuse, REFUSE , to believe that the other % of us ain’t fresh. The convo seems to suggest as much.
They just really underestimate us legitimate_soul. We know wassup. LOL. All these quiet guys need to start hollering at a sista- stop chasing the biggest a$$ in the club and you might find what you’re looking for.
What you said sounded good….But since I don’t see that in real life….like, EVER….it’s hard to believe.
Unicorn status, almost.
Naw, it’s the gospel. I was out this past weekend and even the DJ clowned by getting on the mic and saying “Remember when guys used to dance with women?” He then shouted out the one guy on the floor dancing with a woman. I’m thinking those sistah’s tired of dancing alone and are waiting for the quiet dude to holla correctly (thanks WIP).
Well….lemme tell you how it goes in the club over here.
It almost seems like women would rather dance in that circle of whatever other women it was they showed up to the club with than entertain the idea of a man approaching them respectfully (that means NOT grabbing asses and such) and asking them to dance. I’ve seen it happen hundreds of times. It’s happened to me dozens of times. I can’t entertain the sentiment that women are just sitting in the club wishing that more men would approach them to dance when I have done so numerous time to numerous women and most of them say….”No thanks.” Or like I said upthread to Mo-Vss….Maybe I just don’t have the look women prefer.
“You leave the small pool and go into an ocean. Where you are a new fresh face somewhere else and you are in demand too. You are not chopped liver, either.”
I certainly feel like chopped liver. I’m halfway around the world and still not in demand….or even ‘polite request’ for that matter.
I think that your hypothesis is true from a woman’s perspective, they would only choose a small percentage of men but would the men sign up for this arrangement? My initial reaction would be yes, because like you I remember what the college dating experience was like. But the difference is on campus there’s just a whole lot of f*ckin going on. But when it comes down to starting a family I don’t think today’s man would be up for it. Like most things, polygamy sounds good in theory for us guys, but if you’ve ever seen an episode of Big Love (yes I know it’s a TV show, but still) the reality of being responsible for multiple women would be something most of us would be able to or even want to take on.
‘I think that your hypothesis is true from a woman’s perspective, they would only choose a small percentage of men but would the men sign up for this arrangement?’
initially most men would, thinking that they’d be one of those who’d be able to attract and keep multiple women. but, once reality sets in, and men realize that this would only benefit a very small percentage of men, they’d do everything they can to go back to the good ole, “boring” idea of a monogamous culture
If Women Ruled The Dating World, Would Monogamy Still Exist?
What kinda question is that? That’s all there would be…
I guess I’ll go read the post now.
with more relationship and family-minded women making the conscious decision to be in a polygamist relationship/marriage with a high status/high earning man instead of a monogamous relationship with a “mediocre to below-average” joe?
hmmm… I don’t get why that would even be a question… Like Champ, if women ruled the dating world what on God’s green earth would make you think that polygamy would even be an option for us?… men seem to be the only true benefactors in those situations. Like Jhes said upthread (paraphrasing) he can just move on to the next… unless you’re saying there would be multiple husbands, in which case still seems whack… dealing with one of y’alls random ridiculousness is more than enough, I couldn’t imagine 2 or more.
Sampson Simpson… Me stand by me story… Whooaa-EEEE!
I thought the same thing. I didn’t want to insult but that’s the dumbest theory ever. Women ruling the world and choosing to live in polygamy??? Da hell? Am I in the matrix?? And people are cosigning this. I guess there’s not alot of women in the world, but man pleasers. Not never would we chose that. Why would we benefit? Unless he’s talking about us having multiple partners instead of us being with a man who has multiple partners. In that case, no. I don’t want to be with multiple men. That would never happen. Men would be violent as hell if they had to share women. I would have a hole that extends to the top of my head and I would be missing all of my teeth. No sir.
I would have a hole that extends to the top of my head and I would be missing all of my teeth. No sir.
-AAHAHAHAHAHAHA… ok our faces would be big holes with eyes… we’d evolve into these beings without noses or teeth just big @ss mouths (and deep throats) and long hair for them to grab and pull.
And people are cosigning this.
-Not women FoxG… say it ain’t so!
LOL!!! The horrible, abhorrent evolution that would ensue if men had to share women…
LOL that sounds painful. I don’t think I’m built to take several d*cks a day. lol
like i mentioned before, for some women, the urge to have themselves and their offspring provided for is stronger than the urge to be in a loving, monogamous relationship with one man. that’s where the benefit would be.
So women want to be in a relationship with a rich man who has multiple wives so he can provide for her and her children. I’m sorry I need a minute. *looks out window* This is not my world. lol Maybe she does this in hopes that he will choose her (and the kids) over the other women. Or maybe having his kids will keep his ties to her or force him to be with her. Now that is what I may see from time to time…but not often. Being with a man who has multiple wives for financial security sounds ridonkulous. But what do I know, I’m just a woman.
If that’s the case and women are in control, then it would be wiser for them to choose to have multiple husbands, instead of choosing to marry a man with multiple wives. The first option multiply their resources while the second divides it.
I personally would choose to multiply.
EXACTLY! I’m going to post your comment at the bottom so everyone can see it. Polygamy is not ideal for a woman, just a man.
cosign… even on this whole hustlin h0e type mentality… it still just doesn’t add up… If I’m hustlin… and I’m a h0e… I’m more than likely going to accumulate as much as possible with more men or less women in the picture than split that isht with a bunch of other chiks… that example seems to only work in a world where men rule and a women’s only choice is to put-up or shut-up… and in a woman’s world I imagine it would be the other way around.
Only a fraction of men benefit from polygamy – the dudes at the top of the food chain.
The rest are either settling hard, or still sans booute.
Ok, I’m lost. You say:
“any college campus; the perfect control group… where groups of sexually viable people… have a relatively large amount of sexual freedom and choice.” AND
“the campus sexual dynamics usually play out the exact same way: a small percentage of the men (10%?)¹ have sole access to a much larger percent of the women (35%?), **40% of the men and 40% of the women are in monogamous relationships with each other**…”
Then you say:
“if women had complete sexual choice autonomy and weren’t constrained by moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships, would the “real” world be **exactly like a college campus** — with *more relationship and family-minded women making the conscious decision to be in a polygamist relationship/marriage*…”
I feel like these two statements conflict, but sounds like you answered your own question in the first paragraph.
Jealousy is a b*tch. It wouldn’t happen 1) because I want my man all to myself, 2) A man doesn’t have to be “high earning” or “high status” to provide for a family, and 3) my man will need to be there for MY kids, not mine and Kesha’s and Tameka’s.
Honestly, I don’t understand the argument at all. You’re asking if there were no societal norms, would women choose to beg 10% of the men for their attention and serve as concubines instead of living happily with Joe Schmoe? Yes, I’m lost.
“Honestly, I don’t understand the argument at all. You’re asking if there were no societal norms, would women choose to beg 10% of the men for their attention and serve as concubines instead of living happily with Joe Schmoe? Yes, I’m lost.”
I thought maybe I’m a little slow because I’m recovering from this ebola/typhoid thing I been fighting for the last few days… because I am too sincerely puzzled.
So there really isn’t a black male shortage… there is just a small percentage of men that a larger percentage of women want.
And if I am following this correctly… that women prize the attributes of the successful, however that is defined, and make themselves available to this small group in large numbers (the 35%) and won’t consider a male not in the top 10%, this is actually the reason that sistas are alone.
Interesting… and with this…
“When women have their way, the vast majority of people, male and female, get completely left out in the cold.”
I get it… and I call bull sh*t.
When it comes to social desirability and access to choice both men and women are in competition for limited resources so we trade on that which has value to the opposite sex… for men that is status and for women it is beauty.
And what it sounds like is that a lot of brothas have bought into the shortage and think that they are entitled to an upgrade ~ JS
And what it sounds like is that a lot of brothas have bought into the shortage and think that they are entitled to an upgrade ~ JS
LLS @ this.. love it!!!
“So there really isn’t a black male shortage… there is just a small percentage of men that a larger percentage of women want.”
honestly, its both.
there is shortage of black men that [most] women would qualify as not meeting there standards. But, there is a large number of men who meet basic requirements and get overlooked because they are not aesthetically pleasing, or have far too many eccentric interest, etc.
I do believe, as others mentioned before, market conditions are changing. Specifically in the black community, women seem to have more access to wealth and educational opportunities (or are more willing and/or able to take advantage of such opportunities) and this has to have some affect on dating because women traditionally want men that make more than them.
Does the men that don’t fall into the 10 or so percent of men that are super-desirable automatically (according to your example) get placed into Joe Schmoe status?
I would hope not. I’ll be a Joe Schmoe all day…..There’s some woman out there who doesn’t mind that. Hopefully I’ll find her before they find Bin Laden, however. lol
No, I took that from the post:
*… instead of a monogamous relationship with a “mediocre to below-average” joe*?
Yeah WIP… I was confused too… I think mostly because most women aren’t THAT bogged down by their morals when it comes to chex and relationships… we genuinely just want security in our relationships… that’s it. This post is a great example of men completely misunderstanding the wants, needs and motivations of women. Why even ask that? Polygamy? Heyll NO! So Champ thinks the reason we aren’t polygamist is because of our MORALS? Whaa?
You’re right. When I read “if women had complete sexual choice autonomy and weren’t constrained by moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships…” I thought, well- we’re kinda at that place already.
“Honestly, I don’t understand the argument at all. You’re asking if there were no societal norms, would women choose to beg 10% of the men for their attention and serve as concubines instead of living happily with Joe Schmoe? Yes, I’m lost.”
from kitkatcuty’s comment below:
“This question is basically asking how humans would act if we were like animals with no morals, socialization and normative rules for behavior, which is most animals. Most animals (including the animals from which humans descended) have harem-style dating dynamics for the same purpose as that outlined in the post: to get at least a piece of the best mate available.”
And dating is an entirely different boat from marriage. When women date, it’s often either to find that one dude to be in a serious relationship with (not marriage per se, but something lasting) or because dating is fun. Still dating is not marriage.
We might want to “taste” different dudes in our youth in the dating game, but that is not the end-goal for most women.
So while we might “date” Perfect Mr. 10 who might be dating other women, we ain’t tryna marry even a superhuman ninja that can’t settle his peen, at least not the women here in your target demo Champ. To me, THAT’s settling.
I’m sorry Champ, I know I’m giving you a hard time BUT you asked if humans were to act like animals with no morals, if we would engage in polygamy? (I am not a lion, I’m a human being.) That’s not what you asked in your post. The question you asked is if we, women, ruled the world, would we be with a rich polygamist over being in monogamy with an average joe. Women as a whole gender not some individual groupie opportunists. THIS is what some of your readers are not understanding. I’m confused at this non-sensical notion myself. WIP asked some good questions. The post is all over the place. You really think women would CHOOSE polygamy?
you know what, you have a point. how the topic was titled and what i actually talk about in the post don’t really match up. i concede that.
but, to answer your question, if we woke up tomorrow morning without any idea of what monogamy is, i do think that you’d have a period of time where more women made the conscious decision that it would be more practical to procreate with a dominant man than couple off with a “lesser” man; even if the dominant man had other wives/offspring.
i think we’d eventually “create” monogamy, though, because society in general would realize that it was the best way to go about doing things.
“i think we’d eventually “create” monogamy, though, because society in general would realize that it was the best way to go about doing things.”
This answers your question. If women ruled the world, we would engage in monogamy. Why? Because it’s the best way to go about doing things. That IS natural for us as human beings because it’s the easiest. Being with a man who has multiple wives is much harder. We can’t compare ourselves to animals. God made us differently, that is obvious. I’ll get off your back now, love ya, mean it.
Well polygamy *is* an option that is *already a socially accepted option* for people. There are places in the world where you can be a polygamist with no social stigma. Are the populations booming in these places? Are people flocking there in droves? I think the question has already been answered.
I’m almost certain that he meant polyandrous instead of polygamist.
“if women had complete sexual choice autonomy… would…more relationship and family-minded women making the conscious decision to be in a **polyandrous** relationship/marriage”
Well that’s a fairly different question. (I still say no though, unless some of the men decide to forgo $ex LOL).
The focus for women is not on children and marriage but degrees and careers like was said earlier. Couple that with wanting someone “on the same level/track/income bracket” as themselves and the current state of men, no less black men, and you have a recipe for a large single population. The old societal system wasn’t based on equality. Women were caged into a small number of choices including limited educational and work opportunities. So they were herded into the dating/marriage market to try to get the best deal with limited leverage in the negotiation. This also lead to a lot of women staying in marriages that weren’t good for them whether being physically or emotionally abused or just incompatible. Men got sex regardless so they were cool especially if she could keep a good home.
Without those societal pressures on women and them succeeding more and more in comparison to their male counterparts their desire for equality in social standing, income or education shrinks the dating pool outright. Men spent centuries coupling with women that were of “lesser” overall value. What women are saying now is that they want “greater” or “equal” value. That leads to a trade deficit. A lot of the male population are shopping outside of their price range and a lot of women are saying “no sale.”
dont know if i agree with your first paragraph, but i do agree with the second
First off, I do not and never will believe that marriage is a societal standard pressed upon us and not our natural need. I believe that most of us want to be with one person…maybe not in youth but definitely as one grows older. I don’t think we have the capacity to love multiple people at the same time and make it work. Why? Look around. Polygamy ends in a mess! It only works if the women are submissive and quiet. We are emotional and we would have to ignore our emotions (including jealousy) to make that work. So to me, polygamy is not real but an illusion of happiness. Ask any woman who’s shared a man if it worked out for her. In order for me to make my man happy and vice versa, we would need to focus on each other.
What’s special about college is that they are young and get a first taste of freedom. College kids know that real responsibility is around the corner so they live out their desires and freedom while it lasts. That is the ONLY difference between college women and adult women. Eventually, that wild child grows up and gets realistic expectations. Why? Look around. Most women do not marry their dream college baller. If women ruled the world, we would have alot less violence, murder, rape, abuse, war, drugs, etc. Don’t even insult me as a woman to think that we would run love and committment into the ground. Men have been doing this for years and the only reason why we still have monogamy and committment IS because of women. If we let men have their way, EVERYONE would be in a polygamist relationship getting cheated on, we would ignore our inner emotions and become physical beings.
While I do think “marriage” is a societal pressure, the idea of having a single mate is not. I believe monogamy dominates our relationships because it works!
“Ask any woman who’s shared a man if it worked out for her.”- HELLO- even the polygamist wives get jealous of each other; they have little specials with them on TV and they talk about being jealous.
yeah… it is insulting isn’t it? smh.
Excellent FoxG! Couldn’t have said it better myself!
SF, I’ll probably be co-signing all your comments on this topic, b/c it seems Champie’s desire for that Cream o’ Wheat got him hallucinating and such.
This seems like another bash-the-women thread and a projection of male behavior onto women. Men and women SEEK top folk to hook up with, and for consistency let’s say that top is a combination of physical attractiveness, (more so for women) on-paper qualities, and personality (crazy or not crazy, sweet or an asshole, funny or boring etc). These folks who are balanced in all three who would be considered catches are probably the top 10% for each gender.
With that, we ALL seek that top 10%. If we don’t achieve that doesn’t mean all men are left in the cold or women. It just means you have a lot of people who settle or stay single.
So no, that wouldn’t result in polygamy. It would result in women probably compromising one of the 3 “I wanna marry that nigga” qualities in order to be in a committed relationship. If Alpha Phi Alpha MBA/PhD Harvard grad with a personality to kill and a face like Boris was boo’ed up, being his 4th wife would NOT be more appealing than being with Jake the computer scientist from technical college who is funny, committed to ME only, schexy, and loving.
“If Alpha Phi Alpha MBA/PhD Harvard grad with a personality to kill and a face like Boris was boo’ed up, being his 4th wife would NOT be more appealing than being with Jake the computer scientist from technical college who is funny, committed to ME only, schexy, and loving.”
Sums it up.
Looks like I’m gonna have to start wearing my frat letters when I try to holla!
I know you are joking, Cab, but don’t do that either, lol. Men and women using their organization letters to up their status to holla are pathetic.
@DD
*slow clap and standin ovation* Thank you! Now THAT sums up my thoughts completely. It’s getting stoopid up in here today. These men are like the little engine that could, trying to wish polygamy upon us. NOT. All I hear from women is their desire to find a fine black man with education and a personality
and 9 inches. When do we ever see thugs with a good woman on their arm or women sharing men? Not neva. And if you do, I doubt that brotha was first choice. She’s definitely settling due to lack of options or low self-esteem. We want that creme of the crop. And when we get that great man, we are NOT sharing. We’ll straight kill a woman to keep our man. I’m getting sick of these silly woman bashing posts on blogs. Even when I go to female blogs, they’re bashing women too. It’s sad. I know Champ is above this. Let us pray for him. Maybe he’s having a bad week. lolThanks hun-t. *continuing the slow clap you started which has now progressed to thunderous applause for what you just wrote right there while finishing the prayer*
Amen!
“We’ll straight kill a woman to keep our man. I’m getting sick of these silly woman…”
lol lawd…you sound like QueenPine….
I swear i heard the same words fall from her lips
“This seems like another bash-the-women thread and a projection of male behavior onto women”
i dont understand how this topic is female-bashing. if anything, it’s saying that a lot of men don’t measure up
Because it implies that female’s standards and consequently their practices are so high we would conceivably choose to share some ninja over dealing with anyone who is not in the top 10%, those 90% of ninjas who go unloved would die a slow death, and thus the end of the black race.
Ain’t nothin in that post talkin ’bout how guys should try to achieve top 10 status and “step their game up”, rather it implies that women simply wouldn’t check for them and it would be akin to college with debauchery all around and the Ques/jocks getting all the loving. Thus all the boo-hooing and diversions from men about how we like thugs, hate good men, this, that, and third.
Not. buying. it.
of course every man would break their necks to try to get in that top 10 (or 15, or 20) percent, but only 10 percent of men would be in the top 10 percent because, well, only 10 percent of men can be in the top 10 percent, lol.
also, i think you need to try to keep race of out this discussion. this isn’t a “black” thing at all
Fine, “human” race. Whatever the color, women ain’t down for the cause to the extent your post seems to think we would.
Yes, they would try and get that 10% (beyond being academically fulfilled, don’t we ALL try to do that by getting advanced degrees and saving up for homes and sh*t?). However, my point is that your post mostly isn’t about us breaking necks to be in the top 10, but instead concludes with a convincing sounding question that us womens would prefer polygamy because 90% negroes are for the birds, which in turn implies that women are more status oriented than beings who really want love above all things.
Love is foremost to a lot of women while security is a necessary but not primary consideration, especially if that is at the cost of being loved less and sharing our man with other females. And in this day and age when women can provide their OWN security, this theory continues to falter.
It’s like saying, although I make 100k and can provide for my family, I’ll get with Dwight Howard and his 50 mil and 50 baby moms over a loving husband who makes 100k like me just because he’s a “baller”. Ummmmmm…no.
I think the woman-bashing aspect of it is the portrayal of women as 1)completely consumed by societal pressure such that if you removed it, we would behave like men for lack of a better word, which is certainly patronizing; and/or 2) this idea that women are nothing more than status chasers seeking higher status men at all costs. Your theory is based on a premise that a majority women, even if just for a time, would prefer to be with a high status man over a loving, caring, committed man of lower status. because in choosing to be with a man who maintains other relationships, that’s what she is choosing. it is also premised on this idea that women would choose status as the preferred way to take care of their families over any other way to take care of the family (i.e. nurturing, time, etc.). I agree with you though there is a fair amount of male bashing to be drawn from this as well. It is interesting to me how readily men accept the idea that men lack basic values such as fairness and decency and only do what they can, i.e., if they can get 5 chicks, they always will. i think that sells men short a little (at least i would like to believe) and reduces them to animals on some level, completely motivated by desire. why would a higher status man necessarily derive his self-confidence from being able to have multiple women? is it possible to develop male self-confidence from other sources? i venture to say yes, but maybe i’m being naieve. i agree with smartfoxgirl that people–men and women–prefer certainly and stability over uncertainty and instability, and monogamy provides that over time. i think women would have more fun in the short run perhaps, but i still think the preference would be to have one partner, who is the best partner a person can attain–best being defined by whatever that means to you.
Yassssss! @SFG and DD
Or maybe polygamy doesn’t work well because we have almost no good visible or known examples of it working.
I’d bet if everyone’s experience with monogamy was terrible, that would influence their relationship choices in the future.
Also, if you’re in a polygamist relationship, then you have made a decision or agreement about the presence of other people in the relationship. You are not being “cheated on” or “cheating” unless you do something to violate that agreement.
There was a time when women ruled the world and violence was as prevalent then as now. Cleopatra, Golda Meir, Catherine the Great, etc were not markedly different from many male leaders.
Now we can discuss why female and male leaders act remarkably the same.
First off these women didn’t rule the world. Secondly, these weren’t your average women…especially if they were good enough to prevail in a male dominated role. Frankly these were manly women. lol so they don’t count. We’re talking about the average woman or women as a whole gender.
“Don’t even insult me as a woman to think that we would run love and committment into the ground. Men have been doing this for years and the only reason why we still have monogamy and committment IS because of women. If we let men have their way, EVERYONE would be in a polygamist relationship getting cheated on, we would ignore our inner emotions and become physical beings.”
Slow, loud e-clap for this sh*t.
Let me go get the nine now… cause its about to get gangster up in the piece ~JS
LOL I’m working on my gangsterisms….cause what I really wanted to say is “This is the dumbest
posttheory ever! I can’t believe the educated black folk on this blog who are cosigning this silliness right now. It’s a good thing I normally love this place.“LOL I’m working on my gangsterisms….cause what I really wanted to say is “This is the dumbest post theory ever! I can’t believe the educated black folk on this blog who are cosigning this silliness right now. It’s a good thing I normally love this place.”
If I could talk and laugh without physical pain I would be ROTFLMBAO
at this
But only after the co-sign ~JS
Co-sign.
Let’s look at it this way….If women reward the 8 percent of men they prefer with undulating love and affinity and wet panties…..don’t you think that once these men find out they are the top of the line in their eyes that their ‘swag’ (sorry…I know the word needs to be outlawed) is going to go up…..don’t you think their overall self-worth and therefore their sense of entitlement is going to go up as well? Not saying it’s right, but that’s human nature.
You know what is seriously wrong with this entire concept of chasing men and giving 8-10% of men too much props? Women have forgotten that THEY (not these men) are the prize. Call me traditional, but if a man feels that a woman need to chase him in order for him to have some confidence, then he can go kick rocks for all I care. This woman won’t be chasing any man. I never did, and I never will. As a woman I love being pursued, it’s my God given right, “HE that findeth a wife….”
Wait, you mean that doesn’t happen already?
Interesting question. I think women tend to float towards looking for a man who can provide for them and their future children…but I don’t know if logically, polygamy satisfies that. I know I caught a Sister Wives marathon once, and while I found it interesting they had this family of 4 wives and like 13 kids…I couldn’t help but wonder how in the world the man manages to pay for this giant family. I think one or two of the women had jobs but they probably weren’t significant careers. The math doesn’t add up. One of the benefits I see to marriage is that you pool your resources for better living, but I am not sure if being polygamous follows that trend. The polygamy part isn’t the problem as much as having to share a ton of resources is. More women means more kids means way less money. In a modern day age I don’t think women would see his being able to provide as a benefit anymore, and well, you have to share him emotionally too? Sounds like a lose-lose.
@Liz I believe that one of the wives was a laywer so I’m sure she was bringing in the money too. But even with that said they are all driving nice cars like BMW’s and living in a large house so it does seem kind of questionable…I agree with you…it sounds like a lose-lose and I could never share a man that I truely love knowingly without lots of jealousy.
The large house and BMW is cool but….I want a large house that I don’t have to share with 13 kids and 3 other women! LOL.
yeah, that’s why only a very small percentage of men would be able to pull this off. not everyone has the assets, personalities, resources, and amount of energy it takes to be able to make it work
I think if people take their personal feelings out of the situation and look at it objectively, they could see how this could benefit some women, men and children. (not me or I would be wife #1)
There are too many fatherless children in the world as it is.
Too many sharing partners already.
Polygamy would take out the deceit that has become our society. Furthermore, at least if you are legally, knowingly sharing, you are guaranteed a certain lifestyle and just treatment. This isn’t going to work for all but for those women who don’t mind not being the only, this would work.
People should read and learn about things before dismissing them. Your personal emotions should have no place when viewing something objectively. Polygamy is a great choice for some. It is not the free for all for men that most think. In fact, the husband is responsible for MORE women.
I would much rather see some of my fellow sisters in FAIR polygamous marriage then some of the crazy jerry springer, maury crap called relationships we have today.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/polygamy5.htm
That’s all fine and dandy but the prompt is asking would you want polygamy vs. monogamy with someone who is just a Regular Joe, not Incarcerated Joe.
Of course anyone would want to fare better off than incarcerated joe. Well, most people.
I think if people take their personal feelings out of the situation and look at it objectively
Seriously lacking today… It’s a pseudo-social experiment people, not the belief system of your future husband/wife. Relax.
I don’t think we could survive as a polygamous population. There’s a reason most of these communities live in the middle of nowhere: it’s cheap lol. I can’t imagine anybody having 5 wives and living in Manhattan or Los Angeles, let alone the greater population. Plus, there is no real incentive for a really rich man to want 4 wives. He’s trynna keep his paper straight. We’re too capitalist and greedy for all for all of this.
I would like to respectfully disagree with this comment.
Look at the arabs or northern Nigerians even. They are some VERY rich polygamists out there, just because they dont live in Manhattan or Los Angeles doesnt mean they dont live in Lagos or Riyadh
I thought about polygamy once. One of my friends from college is Muslim and she asked me what I thought about it. I thought if the women were into that sort of thing, and the man could provide for and love them equally then there was no reason for me to feel any sort of way about it. She asked if I would do it, and I said no.
It’s not for me, much like that crazy college life of pursuing the hottest commodity wasn’t for me either. I want a deep connection with one person, not many shallow ones with a lot of people, or a cold one between my husband, his other wives and girlfriends.
Also, I’m not going to lie and say that money doesn’t matter, but the focus being on a high-earning man makes women seem like inherant gold diggers, which I don’t like nor agree with. If my husband makes $50,000 a year as his wife that burden is half mine and so I should bring in as close to equal that as I can. If I happen to surpass him, that doesn’t matter either because it’s all going towards the same goal: our life together and our family.
Its like I told one of my guy friends the other day: You don’t have to know the trick to every woman in the world, and you don’t have to support them either. Just know one of them and care for her to the best of your ability and the rest is easy.
“Also, I’m not going to lie and say that money doesn’t matter, but the focus being on a high-earning man makes women seem like inherant gold diggers, which I don’t like nor agree with.”
“gold-digger” is harsh, but i do think that smart women seek out men who have the ability to protect and provide for them
Protecting and providing is about so much more than money Champ, and I feel that as of late, that’s the only kind of providing and protecting being mentioned and whenever it is, women are often brought up as being the takers and not the givers.
A man is so much more than the money in his wallet, but if that’s all anyone choses to focus on is it any wonder why so many people are disillusioned with their love lives?
Agreed! Good post!
*DOES BANKHEAD-BOUNCE TO KIRK FRANKLIN’S ‘STOMP’*
Plus, this situation in China, where, through decades of aborting baby girls, because the Communists declared families could only have one child, and now there’s MILLIONS more men than women…..
That’s going to be a real problem. For the world. In the next 15 to 20 years.
i remember reading somewhere that one of the reasons why certain nations/religions are able to convince men to be suicide bombers is that these are usually also cultures where polygamy is practiced. and, since these men think they’ll have no shot at a reproductive future, killing themselves (and meeting virgins in Heaven) doesn’t seem like such a bad deal.
while i do think the whole suicide bomber thing is a bit deeper than that, i do believe that theory has some legs
Original mix (track 1) or remix (track 12)?
Neither.
Chopped and Screwed.
That’s going to be a real problem. For the world. In the next 15 to 20 years.
A friend said the same thing: “The next wave of terrorists is going to come from China.” Lol.
Panama pointed out last week (or maybe the week before) the extent to which many men stayed losing, even after college (23% reported no sex life, and many were dissatisfied with their sex lives/numbers), so it appears that the model suggested by Scipio and Champ is probably right. It would definitely explain the mentality described in yesterday’s post for both men and women. So while there’s definitely a male-female numbers gap that can’t be resolved simply everyone simply sticking in their lane (because of prison, etc.), it certainly is exacerbated by the Desmond Hatchetts of the world impregnating half of the sistren in their counties.
Also, if the numbers break down as Scipio and Champ suggest, then suggestions that women “settle” don’t place an expectation on them that is not placed on men, but is simply a request that women who aren’t in the top 15% to stop holding out for top 15% men. The only issue here is the question of the extent to which there’s a mismatch between even what would be considered to 5/10/15% of men vs. women.
23% may not have a $ex life because they don’t deserve one…(can’t recall what percentage of women said they had none).
“simply a request that women who aren’t in the top 15% to stop holding out for top 15% men.”- I understand the idea, but it doesn’t mean the 23% are gonna get any play. Everybody’s not fvckable. What percentage is acceptable? 23% seems about right…LOL
Now we’re drifting into Entitlement territory.
The idea that a man only deserves whatever sex/love/meals/laundry/typed-term papers he can earn is ancient.
I think you’re touching on the heart of alot of the discussion around the plight of black women – that #1 – every woman is a good woman until proven otherwise, and therefore #2 – every woman *deserves* the love life she desires.
That’s really problematic.
I don’t think so- i wasn’t trying to go there. What I’m saying is that there is a percentage of the population is unfvckable- male and female- being that they are dirty, hobbits, nasty etc. They are unfvckable purely because no one would want to have $ex with them. I kid that the percentage is around 23% though.
thing is, your numbers break down because while like 23 percent of men may have been deemed “unf*ckable” by all women, only maybe 3% of women are deemed completely unf*ckable by all men. it’s not an even trade
I pulled 23% from the inital post which was pulled from the survey. What men deem as “completely unfvckable” I cannot speak on, LOL. Maybe 10% of guys are unfvckable. Iono
So there really is no” problem” with Black love or relationships, since maybe the 42% (or whatever number they’re pushing) of unmarried Black women are simply not marriageable, right?
There is a percentage of black women that are unfvckable- I’m talking strictly physical act though, not marriage.
If one wanted to extend that to marriage- I’m not sure. Of the 42% (the number you gave) of single black women, how many are actually “marryable”- LOL I have no idea. But some of those women will fall into the X% of the entire population that isn’t able to attract members of the opposite $ex at all.
I can’t be the only one who feels like their in the Twilight Zone at this whole theory and co-signage of said theory o.O …Somebody cue the ending credits.
You’re not the only one. Some women are trying to get man points today. I’m waiting for this show to wrap up myself. Pure foolery going on.
Hmmph…
If women ruled the dating world and were free to do as they pleased with no societal norms impacting their day to day decisions…
1. There would be more trains and group s*x situations occurring.
2. Turning a hoe into a housewife wouldn’t exist as a statement as it very well could become the norm.
3. A free and unregulated market would create fierce competition that would end with more female serial killers.
4. More head would be given.
5. People would be in relationships, but probably not bother to get married at all…thus bringing down the divorce rate.
But to really answer the question, I don’t think more women would be cool with polygamy just to be with a status man/big baller (pause). There would really just be a lot more s*x. Average Joe’s would continue to get buns and the uglies would continue to vent online.
lol, i think there’d be less average joes getting buns, and more “uglies” spending all their time online downloading android slot machine app. cheat codes
The funny thing about this post is that just last night I was telling my sister that I wanted to be a polygamist and have three husbands. Trey Songz, Idris Elba, and my ex.
LMAO It’s funny that I thought of that although I probably would never do it if I could because it would be terribly hard trying to manage three different men and keep them all sexually satisfied. I couldn’t imagine…or maybe I could
Girl no, your stuff would be all bruised and beat up….No. LOL
Yep it would look like roast beef after a few months. I would do it for one night tho.
lolol Lance + Boris + a straight Ving Rhames.
Don’t judge me.
@WIP I know girl…I don’t think I could go there (but it could be a fantasy right?) lol
@Smartfoxgirl Ving Rhames???? *gags a little* lol
@SFG
Wait…Ving Raines is gay? Has this been confirmed? If so..I knew it!
@TheOpinion
Something about the way he was bouncing Jodi’s mom around in Baby Boy made me purrr in the theater. I said don’t judge me. lol
@10inchD
He confirmed it. How tha hell did you guess? My gaydar is on point and even I didn’t see that coming.
@SFG
He confirmed it. How tha hell did you guess? My gaydar is on point and even I didn’t see that coming.
For reals playa? I’m late for soccer….rehearsal.
j/k. Yall probably won’t get that, but oh well, I’m corny like dat sometimes..
Seriously tho, when did he confirm it? I also believe my gayday ain’t to be messed wit. Every since he did that movie where he dressed as a drag queen and played it WAY too well, I’ve been given him the side eye. I knew it! But as much as big tough guys like that try and hide it, the flames always seep through. Those flamboyant tendencies come out eventually in everybody that lives on DL avenue for any amount of time.
We could go on and on about others that would shock you..but that’s an offline disscussion.
Oh yes the drag movie I forgot. Not all gays are flaming though, shocker.
lol, i think you’ve seen Holiday Heart… no ma’am! (not judging)
I didn’t read all the comments but here’s my 2 cent.
If a person finds everything they need and want in another and the feeling is mutual then monogamy is easy. Plus your not gonna want to share that with anyone, and that goes for men and women.
Now to play devils advocate:
I have spoken to many ladies and even heard women say on this site that if it wasn’t for the stigma society placed women then they would have two or three men at a time.
So……………
if it wasn’y frowned upon and you weren’t looked at like a tramp, better yet if women made the rules, or even better if the roles were reversed and women who have multiple men were somewhat praised as being a pimptress and mack momma, if you actually gained respect from your peers. Would you still have a problem with having multiple partners? Forget what I said in the first paragraph and tell me your truth.
Hey, now. I’m sure I was one of those women, LOL. And I guess how I feel about this post- you’re posting a hypothetical that’s already happening/happened.
Women can do WTF we want. Social stigma…eh..it’s there but not as much. If I was a guy- yes I’d get loose with it- but marry a bunch of men- Hell to the hell naw. Relationships require work, I don’t have enough to give to more than one man. And as I mentioned above, trying to $exually satify more than one man on a daily basis- GTFOH- the way I do it, I couldn’t. (Much easier for a man to handle more women I think, $exually I mean)
This question is basically asking how humans would act if we were like animals with no morals, socialization and normative rules for behavior, which is most animals. Most animals (including the animals from which humans descended) have harem-style dating dynamics for the same purpose as that outlined in the post: to get at least a piece of the best mate available.
Having been socialized with morals and according to normative rules for behavior, I can’t imagine what I’d do if I hadn’t been. I suppose I’d be in a harem if I didn’t know better. Even if I were in a world with no standards, I think I’d be the one freak human to allow myself to get impregnated by one of the prize males and then simply travel the earth with my offspring, providing for her/him on my own.
But, in this world, if for some reason the harem style became the norm and I had been raised to believe in monogamy, I’d either abstain from the entire dating/mating scene as I find harems degrading to women and incredibly ego-inflating to men already high off their own BS, or I’d settle for the somewhat lesser men, if I really wanted to be coupled up.
Basically, I’m saying that, if the world changed tomorrow, but I was still the same, I’d keep doing what I’m doing and have been raised to do, because I play my own game, and if men want ten women, they’d just have one less to choose from.
good (and rational) comment
Implying that other comments aren’t rational? hmmm. My reading comprehension skills are excellent. I read your post and you did not ask what we would do if we were animals with no rules.
Let me copy and paste:
“if women had complete sexual choice autonomy and weren’t constrained by moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships, would the “real” world be exactly like a college campus — with more relationship and family-minded women making the conscious decision to be in a polygamist relationship/marriage with a high status/high earning man instead of a monogamous relationship with a “mediocre to below-average” joe?”
Not to mention, you titled your post If Women Ruled The World. So your question is, if it were up to us, would we choose polygamy with the 10% of rich ideal men. No.
“Implying that other comments aren’t rational? hmmm. My reading comprehension skills are excellent. I read your post and you did not ask what we would do if we were animals with no rules.”
good job and sh*t. your gold star omelet is in the mail
gold star DEEZ..yes I do have a pair.
Morals are a human construct but basically a codification of normative behavior. Animals, mammals that roam in groups in particular, do have normative rules for behavior, are highly socialized, and suffer from similar social consequences for violating those norms. For all of our rules and morals, we still gravitate towards harem-style dating dynamics so I’m not sure if we have “evolved” that far from animals.
<3
+1 Like!
Men would be surely upset. The best of the best would only go to those men with $ and status. Polygamy is not about men having their fill of women, but about all women being protected and provided for.
Furthermore, if you don’t have the funds to finance such a lifestyle…you gets NONE or only one that you may not even want. Therefore, if polygamy were the case today—–A LOT OF BROTHERS, etc would be out in the cold.
Also, a man has to be wise enough to know how keep his households in order. None of the deceitful crap people do today would be ok. Not just every average guy could afford and maintain this lifestyle. Monogamy gives every man a fair chance.
Although you still see polygamy like actions still in play, I.e. groupies would love to be a 2nd or 5th wife.
‘Men would be surely upset. The best of the best would only go to those men with $ and status. Polygamy is not about men having their fill of women, but about all women being protected and provided for.
Furthermore, if you don’t have the funds to finance such a lifestyle…you gets NONE or only one that you may not even want. Therefore, if polygamy were the case today—–A LOT OF BROTHERS, etc would be out in the cold.
Also, a man has to be wise enough to know how keep his households in order. None of the deceitful crap people do today would be ok. Not just every average guy could afford and maintain this lifestyle. Monogamy gives every man a fair chance. ‘
this is exactly why i don’t get how this discussion is “female-bashing”. if anything, it’s actually male-bashing. i’ve come to realize, though, that “female-bashing topic” usually just equals “conversation some women don’t want to have”
Yeah, you can tell a lot of people are not aware of what true polygamy is. People are just basing thier answers off pure emotion.
This is all true, but I just don’t see polygamy as the natural end for women because of the way wealth is distributed in most societies. Polygamy would be rare because the lions share of wealth is usually held by the top 2%, this just doesn’t make it a practical application. So few men would be able to afford it that very few women would be affected by it. It would be more of an anomaly than a social norm.
I remember reading a study about our closest relatives the Chimpanzees (who share 99% of our genetic makeup) that might provide a glimpse of what would happen in a polygamous society.
1. Turns out Beta males have more genetic offspring overall than the Alpha chimps, or should I say chumps.
Why?
Cuz while the Alpha males were out procuring resources, pounding their chests, and proving they were the biggest and baddest, them beta males were hanging back with the women, part time patrolling and using every free opportunity to get it in with the female chimps.
So basically, although the alpha males get first crack at all the women in society, they do so because they take the most risk. They may have more children INDIVIDUALLY but as a collective, it’s a beta’s world. And they always have to be looking over their shoulder for the other chimps trying to get alpha male status, because groups of Chimpanzees have plotted and successfully murdered their competitors.
2. Female chimps aren’t inherently monogamous.
The world’s oldest profession ain’t going no where; female chimps were more likely to put out for males who brought them gifts like meat, etc. They get to enjoy all the status and social privileges of being with an alpha and still put out for males with lesser rank. And they climax. Often.
iQuote:
“Females try to mate with as many different partners as they can, Gomes said, while males often attempt to monopolize females, preventing them from hooking up with other males. Though males can sometimes get their way by overpowering females with strength, evidence shows that the ladies’ choice also plays an important role in determining which two individuals will get together”
So basically, female chimps like to sleep around, and male chimps are trying to get them into committed relationships. They dont even begin to become relatively monogamous out until they reach old age and start having specific partner preferences. Go figure.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/090407-chimp-sex.html
I hope I’m not all late! I thought this conversation was super interesting! I’m being all nerdgirl scientist, lol.
Here’s what’s off about this theory. Women have that ability NOW. We could form relationships with married men rat now. Yet, you don’t see us (when I say us, I mean this demo of educated, young-ish, put together women) running en masse to married men.
I know some top 10 dudes who are taken. I could easily tell him, hey I don’t care that you’re married with kids, let’s have a relationship. He’d probably be down. His woman probably (and when I say “probably” I mean no chance in hell) would not. But even with “ballers” (literally the athletes with status and money), MOST women are not stalking Atlanta Hawks games to be a married baller’s groupie, we ain’t even checking for the non-married ones because we know the vast majority have a proclivity for hoe-ness.
Basically we have that option now, but we ain’t scurrying to get our ticket in line at the meat counter signing up to be the 15th customer.
What world do you live in because this is EXACTLY what is going on.
I have seen women actually try to get with married men because they think…hey he is married I know he’s good man because he IS married…
And ever maried baller has the same if NOT MORE groupies than the single baller. The groupies are like…hey I can get broke off financially and physically AND not have to put up with his Shti everyday–win win.
Reading is fundamental. Me saying that most women would not agree with this phenomenon is not the same as saying it is not going on. Further, I noted that I am talking about women like US on this website. If someone conducted a poll to ask how many women on this site are actively SEEKING a relationship with a married man, you would be lost in the sauce, bruh. The comments alone have shown that most on THIS site are not.
Beyond that, “groupies” do not constitute the vast majority of women, They are just that, groupies. Or is this the idea men have of women, that we are all just groupies in hiding waiting for our moment to be a dope boy’s 5th baby mama? Boy, bye.
Monogamy gives every man a fair chance.
I believe this is the point of the whole post, ain’t it? At least, that’s what I got out of it…
First of all, there is a ton of bad mathematical assumptions being used here. One of which is that on any campuses there are the same number of males and females; secondly that those males and females are arranged dynamically to fit each others dating profiles (e.g. age, height , weight, marital status to include children, etc.) and last but not least socio-economic factors such as race, sexual orientation, economic factors and so forth. We can’t assume that for every 100 people, 50 are male, 50 female and therefore 10 women want to date 3 guys and are willing to put all other factors aside and everyone else fends for themselves. Mathematically, its safer too say that 35 of the 40 women have height preference; yet only 8 of the men will fit that criteria.
The other think that strikes me in this thread as being a big misnomer is that monogamy is a racial/mental toughness concept, rather than a strict societal paradigm that does not follow any genetic strains what so ever. Genetics simply doesn’t work that way, evolution doesn’t work that way. Both the male and female of a species (in this case a race) would have to have corresponding gene modifications for a Black woman to have genetic preference for monogamy and that has to have some inherent benefit to their environment and subsequent offspring. Clearly, we can see that isn’t the case as black women have not learned to induce Black men into any such social contract! Considering the data, one could argue that Black women are most willing to engage in Polygamous, if not poly-amorous relationships.
When studying a specific sect of people (in this case very smart Brothas and Sistahs) I would find it very difficult to not contrast against the rest of the world. In this contrast we would find a WORLD, where very few women (including a lot of the western world) have the ability to work, be educated and make municipal decisions. These factors alone lead them to making decisions based on a lot different criteria then our sisters, here in America on grass lined, liberal Halls of Academia.
In summary, I think the title leads us away from what all the rhetoric in this thread points directly at-Women do indeed rule the dating world! Though they sometimes rule it weakly and with little insight as to their own power, they do rule-absolute!
“When studying a specific sect of people (in this case very smart Brothas and Sistahs) I would find it very difficult to not contrast against the rest of the world. In this contrast we would find a WORLD, where very few women (including a lot of the western world) have the ability to work, be educated and make municipal decisions. These factors alone lead them to making decisions based on a lot different criteria then our sisters, here in America on grass lined, liberal Halls of Academia.”
sayitonemogain!
lol, i know my numbers are a bit off. i was an english major, though. i left stats to the ultimate frisbee guys
I place a great value on security in marriage. I grew up in Jamrock and didn’t know how poor my family was until we moved to the great U.S. of A. Now, I am well-aware of how much I CANNOT afford to raise my future children on the same measly amount that my parents so skillfully used to raise me and my four siblings. I can honeslty and shamelessly say that I am not as selfless as my mother was/is nor as ingenious as my father was/is. So basically, discounting the difference between the times, it would take a lot more money for me to live comfortably and happily than it did for my parents. And i fully intend to live comfortably and happily (said all college students prior to disillusionment).
Anyway, my point is that even though security is a BIG element for me (and for other women), I don’t think our need for it is great enough to disqualify one of humanity’s three interpersonal needs: CONTROL.
A polygamous relationship rips control out of the hands of the majority and gives it to the minority, which in this case is the provider. The bits of power that are left is fought over and unevenly dispersed throughout the remaining participants of the relationship. So in essence, only one person’s needs (maybe two) are being met here. Yes, there is security for all, but this does not matter all that much because you don’t have any control over your security, which translates into: you don’t have any security.
All this to say that, no matter who is making the rules, security separated from control is insecurity. So to answer the question, no.
A polygamous relationship rips control out of the hands of the majority and gives it to the minority, which in this case is the provider. The bits of power that are left is fought over and unevenly dispersed throughout the remaining participants of the relationship. So in essence, only one person’s needs (maybe two) are being met here. Yes, there is security for all, but this does not matter all that much because you don’t have any control over your security, which translates into: you don’t have any security.
good point
I disagree. Control has NO place in ANY marraige, polygamous or otherwise. You give all this up with the exchange of rings.
I am not only one with a say in my marraige and have not given up any security with that. The only thing I see a women not having control over is her husband’s wallet or penis….and how many delude themselves today thinking they have that control anyway.
“I disagree. Control has NO place in ANY marraige, polygamous or otherwise. You give all this up with the exchange of rings.”
That is an extremely naive statement. Regardless of if we like it or not, there is control in marriage. There is control in every single interpersonal relationship that we encounter from birth til death. There’s no getting away from it.
Control has VIP seating in everything.
It seems to me that what you’re referring to is the misuse of that control. When it is abused, it becomes more obvious to each participant that their is an imbalance.
Either way, when the roll is called up yonder, control is present and accounted for. Every. Time.
Very well stated.
The issue of control coupled with security may make polygamous marriages less desirable for women.
Interesting…I actually wrote a report on what it’s like to be in a relationship with 2 men, me being the only woman. It’s all good until one of them gets insanely jealous and starts putting ketchup on everything (Yes, he was my woman lol passive aggressive and sh*t). My other dude was uber male, but not really bright, my version of a Ken doll. Don’t talk, decorate my bed…Anyway, call me selfish, but there’s no way I would share with another woman! In a perfect world, I could keep my two dudes and eat pancakes and Belgian waffles for breakfast and my Ken doll could keep my gym game strong.
Seriously, it’s too much going on out there to keep up with more than 1 person in a relationship. There’s always that one woman who has low self esteem and would settle for and screw”anything” rather than trying to get a man that satisfies most of her needs. Monogamy would still exist for those that mature and see the benefits of having 1 person to share life with. But having 2 dudes is still awesomeness in a can! Boing!!!
“If women had complete sexual choice autonomy and weren’t constrained by moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships, would the “real” world be exactly like a college campus?”
A game, I like games. No, no it wouldn’t be. The fact that women gravitate towards small percentage of guys is a function of the “moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships” which are disproportionately applied to women.
Social mores decree that part of being a man is sexual prowess and part of being a woman (read not a whore) is not falling prey to those men. Since the market limits women to finding mates while men are free to peruse other arrangements, the female dating pool is narrowed and their criteria stricter.
Men would be picker too if the every date was relationship or bust.
No, if women were freed of the constraints that bind them to the fantasy of marriage and chastity then world would look more like what I imagine Roman bath houses in the 70s looked like. Or Gamorrah after a prince concert with Luke as the opening act. Glorious and ignoble fcuckery of the highest degree.
If women were free to sell milk by the glass instead of needing a 20% down payment on the whole cow then they wouldn’t be as picky about their customer base.
Women would be free to compartmentalize their mates in the same way that men do. They could outsource pipe laying to the muscular but mildly autistic football player without worrying about polluting the gene pool. They could outsource dinner dates and sex and the city marathons to Twan and cunning lingual studies to Chu, the freaky Asian guy that stares at sisters while eating kumquats in the biblioteca.
But outsourcing erodes the domestic base. Men would be even less willing to settle down in this fantasia of phalacio of fcuckery. Women would come to the same revelation that men have discovered, in terms of pure carnal satisfaction for the least amount of effort, cost, and lifestyle maintenance, outsourcing is peerless. Sure, the long term benefits of building a domestic base (monogomy) are preferable, but we as people are systems built to pursue instant gratification over potential long term gain.
Las Vegas would become the capitol of New Babylon and society would collapse in an apocalyptic maelstrom infidelity and declining birthrates, leaving only chafed johnonsons and cavernous yet inelastic baby batter receptacles in its wake.
This is why women can never be given the freedom of men. They would destroy the world.
“This is why women can never be given the freedom of men. They would destroy the world.”
How? The way men already have. Everything that you spoke of is being done by men and look at how it has turned out….
It was tongue in cheek, but basically without women being the stable and monogamous yin to our volatile and poly-amorous yang the system doesn’t work.
I wonder, though: if women had complete sexual choice autonomy and weren’t constrained by moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships, would the “real” world be exactly like a college campus — with more relationship and family-minded women making the conscious decision to be in a polygamist relationship/marriage with a high status/high earning man instead of a monogamous relationship with a “mediocre to below-average” joe?
Not sure why you would presume this to be such a hard concept to wrap one’s brain around since its more reality than concept.
Women share. Women are absolutely okay with sharing (although many not in it for the longevity of such a situation). As you pointed out, and as it has been mentioned in several previous posts by various individuals, there is only fraction of men that are consistently successful with women. Women tend to gravitate towards the same ‘type’ of male.
You can examine your memory banks of the following environments.
Middle school. High school. College. Real life. There wasn’t and isnt an even distribution of women across the variety of men in any of these environments. There exists a bottleneck in the area of athletes, frats, popularity, visible success, and general desireability.
And by general desireability I mean this: Its almost as if the more women a man has access to, the more outside women find him appealing…so the numbers continue to pile on for him and the like. Make no mistake that these women are VERY much aware of the competition, but they proceed anyway. Sharing is caring, and it would appear they don’t care much about sharing until that is, one realizes that the ‘bottom dollar’ position is well out of grasp.
Monogamy would so NOT exist if women ruled the dating world. Unless that is, they threatened to chop our ‘heads’ off as punishment for an act of infidelity.
“¹Although these numbers were pulled directly out of my ass, I do think they’re accurate rough assessments”
why do i see undigested corn?
also, monogamy does not equal marriage in no way shape or form…
Free my comment from moderation, it promises to play nice with all the other comments on the VSB playground.
I’d like to post a comment made by NubianKween as the one person that is making the most sense right now in fewest words:
nubiankween December 15, 2010 at 12:25 pm
If that’s the case and women are in control, then it would be wiser for them to choose to have multiple husbands, instead of choosing to marry a man with multiple wives. The first option multiply their resources while the second divides it.
I personally would choose to multiply.
Now THAT makes sense, if it were for financial gain.
That would never work.
Not if she values the structural integrity of her reproductive organs. Women really aren’t designed nor inclined to handle or want multiple partners. Men are. Reverse polygamy is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, or more accurately several round pegs into the same round hole.
thanks SFG *blush*
My comment is speaking in financial terms alone, I was responding to an assertion about women and financial security.
I’m not sure women are ‘designed’ to be part of a harem either. Most women aren’t okay with sharing a man, as several posters have mentioned the eventual goal even for a side piece is to be his one and only chick. If women were in control who would really choose to have a part of their SO’s affection?
Even if we had no societal constructs I feel like jealousy and possessiveness would still be in play.
I agree juicyjui. Polygamy sucks. It’s degrading and causes issues in every possible way. Case and point: Big Love. Anyone see that series and how effed up everyone is?! Screw that (no pun intended). Gimme my 1 and a possible so I can roll out.
Of course they aren’t. Women would desire first to be the only partner. If her reality were multiple partners, she would desire to be the “1st wife”. If her reality was one of destitute living, she would desire to be apart of any home if it meant surviving. Women would only want to be a part of a harem if it were the least worse choice.
I think the question is without societal constructs coming into play, is polygamy the least worse choice for women in terms of wealth distribution.
This is all under the assumption that women truly desire wealth and status in a mate, all things being equal. If social constructs didn’t say it was wrong, would women choose to make utilize the form of marriage that allows for the most equitable distribution of what women deem most desirable in a mate.
The questions boils down to this, are women rational actors? See m my comment below if you need more context.
.It’s rather impossible to consider a world w/o any societal constructs, even if there were none, we would create some by advocating polygamy as a choice over monogamy. Anyway I guess if we’re thinking about a world w/o societal constructs I don’t even think wealth would be as big of a motivation for women in looking for a man. One could argue that looking for a ‘provider’ is more the result of centuries upon centuries of social behavior than of a genetic impulse.
But if we assume that wealth distribution is the main goal, then polygamy would still not be the least worse choice. Most women aren’t poor, most people fit somewhere in the middle so even if she might want to marry up, I think more people would settle for some ‘average joe’ in the middle because they wouldn’t have to deal with competition.
Not a world without societal constructs, just one without the ones geared towards monogamy, like in champ’s question.
I cosign all dis here
I know that. It’s a theory. I’m not built to sleep with more than one man. That’s painful.
Just an observation:
I get the sense from some of the comments that some men are lamenting their inability to bed 20 women when all they need is 1 woman.
Are you lamenting your inability to whore? Why does it seem that some men are hatin’ on the 8-10% who have access to multiple women then say things like they want a serious relationship.
Really? Because for some reason I think it’s quite possible for you to meet a woman, maybe you want more than one?
Seems like they keep saying that their “one woman” keeps falling in line for the 8-10% of men that they are not included in (I guess).
@WIP,
Right! So essentially they guilty of the same thing they pointing their finger at the women for.
^5 @ Nubiankween!
*in sinister thought voice*
Mental note: the nubiankween girl knows too much. *evil stare*
*telephones a security detail for Nubiankween and adds SoBo on a “ones to watch” list*
@legitimate_soul
Oh, I dont fall into that category of men to which nubiankween speaks of(lamenting and womanly handicapped). So my status as ‘di gyal dem suga pan’ remains intact. Rest assured, I’m not the one to watch. I was merely alerting some of my fellow bretheren that THEY may have been compromised.
@SoBo,
I know, sir:) I was just funnin’ and playing on the previous metaphor of SFG, KB, and I being in the same cabinet where Naked Fridays were proclaimed and the like.
Nubiankween, I still got that security detail, ma. We got snipers and er’yhang…
Someone say Naked Fridays? One more day to go ya’ll… get ready.
Sobo still has the position of providing oval office oral favors. Even the snipers are gonna be naked.
Only thing I’ll be providing is supervision.
Amen, sister!
@SoBo – alright Beenie Man, I see you
I’m just saying, to the men who are lamenting quit acting like “sensitive thugs, (like) ya’ll need hugs.” lol I had to. I swear there is a Jay-Z quote for every situation.
Can we get a separate blog post full of comments on this very subject? It’s a complete and total contradiction. If you can’t f-k 10 chicks a quarter and you’re mad at the dudes who can, but you say you want a “real relationship’ with one woman, which is true?
I call BS on it all. He’s just mad he’s not a player, but a hater of those who are. And really…who wants a hater? Like EVER!?
Maybe someone said this above (and maybe this feed of off kingpinenut), but with the Donald Trumps, Hugh Hefners, Larry Kings, professional athletes, and Desmond Hatchetts of the world doing what they do, don’t we in a way have de facto polygamy via serial monogamy (or pseudo-monogamy if we’re not talking about marriage but long-term dating) and serial baby daddies? Heck, we may even have de facto polyandry if we’re talking about single mothers with multiple baby daddies.
(Does anyone have a good source for (1) the ratio of baby mamas to baby daddies, and/or (2) the distribution of these baby mamas/daddies amongst each other? How many men/women are really producing the children growing up in single parent households?)
To some degree, yes.
Monogamy is definitely a placatory tool of the patriarchy: women are assigned their limited role of mother and wife and that’s that. Remember the horrible old line, “A woman ain’t a woman until she’s a wife.” Meanwhile, it gives men their respective fiefs and subjects. In effect, it’s degraded the female identity over the eons to the point where some women can only be happy with a man directing the logistics of her life.
Alright ladies, I am going to try and explain why a polygamy is, in theory, superior to monogamy in terms of wealth distribution for women.
Assumptions:
1) Women will be attracted to men of wealth and power, thus men and wealth and power will always have more options when it comes to potential mates, all things being equal.
2) Marriage is an institution in which the government mitigates the control of men over women by guaranteeing their financial freedom both in the marriage and outside of it.
We may not live in a polygamist society, but we are definitely polyamorous (multiple partners as opposed to multiple spouses). Wealthy and powerful men can and do take on more partners because they have willing participants. Always have, always will, and if you can’t get past that then you can’t have open and honest discussion about the topic. And of course, there are exceptions.
Polygamy guarantees that these partners are not totally at the mercy of these men due to their financial standing. So it serves to both limit the number of additional partners by making the men have some skin in the game and it protects the women from being merely concubines at the total mercy of their benefactors.
Women on this thread seem to think that polygamy = state sanctioned infidelity that extends men’s power by making multiple women subservient to him when marriage itself is a check against such subservience.
MM, I understand why polygamy can work for people. I don’t understand the rationale that the lifestyle could be a better choice than having one man who only has to worry about taking care of me and my children. If I get pregnant only one child has to be kept. If 5 wives get pregnant, those resources are gonna get scarce- leading to more internal conflicts. Aside from other things, I can’t agree that polygamy would be the best choice for most women.
You answered your own question. Polygamist societies are the ones in which men only take on the number of wives they can afford. So the question is would women be open to acting in their own best interest by becoming one of many wives to a man that can afford to raise many children, or be bound to one man, which means that a lot of women will end up with men who cannot afford to provide well for his children.
The assumption is that monogamist societies are rigged to benefit men because they insure that it will be easier for men to find mates even if they aren’t financially able to support them and their offspring by limiting the number of partners.
So I guess women are just a bunch a gold-diggers, huh? The only reason we’re not currently sister-wives is because of what people are going to think? We don’t want y’all to know all we REALLY want is the money? Is that right? The only thing consistant in what you’re saying is women would chose money over exclusivity… and while there may be a few who would and have chosen that lifestyle, I believe there are many more willing to commit to a mono-e-mono relationship and bust their butts to make it workout financially.
Didn’t say any of that, just setting up the premise to the hypothetical question that champ asked. My comment was prefaced with, “I am going to try and explain why a polygamy is, in theory, superior to monogamy in terms of wealth distribution for women.”
And I said women care about wealth and status, which is true, didn’t say it was the only thing, but when explaining why a certain system is superior for wealth distribution, it’s an important caveat.
My opinion, up thread, is that women would act like men. There’s plenty in there for you to criticize me on, which would be fair sense I gave it as an unqualified opinion.
Yeah well it’s not a good argument if you exclude other major factors like… woman like status but they also like attention which I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be too happy to share… woman like wealth but they also like seniority, anyone beyond wife #1 would be @ssed out basically.
#TheoryDenied
While I am
criticizingcorrecting you pookie… it’s coming from a loving place *ekisses*Maybe champ was right about women and logic, sigh. My argument didn’t stand on women caring only about wealth for a number of reason. 1) I said all things being equal, meaning excluding all other variables. 2) Women being attracted to something other than money and status wouldn’t invalidate the fact that they are still attracted to money and status even if you take those other things into consideration.
I already addressed the hierarchy of wives in a reply to juiicyjui a couple of posts above.
And I already addressed the unspoken thesis of your main argument in my original comment when I said “Wealthy and powerful men can and do take on more partners because they have willing participants. Always have, always will, and if you can’t get past that then you can’t have open and honest discussion about the topic.”
So we’re excluding emotions, excluding woman nature… excluding EVERYTHING but money? Well DUH if you make it only about wealth (and nothing about what makes a woman a woman) what heyll is left to talk about? What kind of question is that? Why not ask… “YS, would you prefer $1 or $100″?… You losing me.
@Meech
“Maybe champ was right about women and logic, sigh. “
May you now feel the exhausting frustration of such an arduous endeavor.
Ugh.
@Meech and SoBo,
Flag on the play. Just because there is a misunderstanding does NOT mean anyone is lacking in logic or their logic is inherently flawed because of gender. Play nice.
@legitimate_soul
Pardon? I insinuated no such thing.
I was just acknowledging that at times the play can get exhausting as a result of….’misunderstandings’.
I always play nice and fair. You know this. Retract your flag on me.
I say that because i wasn’t even arguing either side of the question, I just tried to illustrate that polygamy would be economically beneficial to women. My point wasn’t taken at face value for it’s logical implications and argued against as if it were an attack against women (by women). Not being able to separate one’s personal feelings from the argument to see it at face value is the definition of illogical.
But mostly I said it just to mess with YeahSo. She doesn’t want to admit it, bust she likes her hair pulled every now and again.
@legitimate_soul
It’s so funny… it seems anytime I get into a disagreement with someone of the peen variety Mr. SoBo finds a way to drop his wealth ($.02) of knowledge on the female rationale by saying we’re “illogical” or (an old favorite of mine) “ignorant”… whatevs.
@Meech… that made me blush… I hatechu!
*In full referee uniform*
The flag was placed because of:
“@Meech
“Maybe champ was right about women and logic, sigh. “
May you now feel the exhausting frustration of such an arduous endeavor.”
SoBo: “Pardon? I insinuated no such thing.
I was just acknowledging that at times the play can get exhausting as a result of….’misunderstandings’.
I always play nice and fair. You know this. Retract your flag on me.”
*walks to the middle of the field*
No. After further review the penalty stands. No back peddeling. At no point did you clarify “misunderstandings” and that they can be exhausting. Misunderstandings can be exhausting with anyone and gender should not have come up at all. 10 yard penalty! Resume play!
@LS
Aight ref, are you saying I don’t have a valid point about my argument not being taken at face value by the womenfolk that chose to resond?
@Medium Meech,
I friggin’ feel your frustration… and I am a woman! Arghhh!
@Meech,
I think I answered your question below. I think the women answered your question too. I think there was a possible misunderstanding when you felt their answer was not addressing what you were trying to get at. I will not try to speak for my sistahs but many women are detail oriented and the misunderstanding came about because the sistahs took your question/comment serisouly and asked questions or commented on elements of your theory and scenario. Dismissing anyones opinion, logic, or point of view due to gender was the flag. I know it was more out of frustration than anything (you seem to be a cool and fair guy from your comments), but yeah…flag remains.
I totally understand what polygamy is and that it might work in other societies. I understand historical context where a woman HAD to be linked with a man for protection and support so she (and her children) was not prey to another man’s whims, attack, fury, etc. and had protection and rights under the law. To have any semblance of a quality of life for her and her children, she might be a 3rd or 4th wife. She might even work and have her own money, but the partiarchal society gave her benefit to being a wife amongst other wives and a respected place in society. I understand why it could work and why it may be a best scenario for some. I understand that some women might be ok with it. I am ok in respecting their opinion of it, but what I am used to and how I was raised, that would NOT work for me. That would NOT be my choice. I stated why in my answer below.
Please let me add, since Champ’s question had to do with a matriarchal society where women ruled the world, my historical context of polygamy doesn’t make any sense. Defenders of plygamy often say it is not a guy wanting another sexually and having their cake an eating it to. They say it speaks more to it being more women than men, which is necessary to procreate, and some women would not have a male partner. If women are running things, you don’t need a man to mark your status in the society. You’d probably have more female equivalents of George Clooney and baby daddy’s suing for child support to get their status in a matriarchal society. Yet, all that aside, I answered your question being as honest as possible.
Well then taking your assumptions into consideration, I still don’t think our world could ever become polygamous.So, if we lived in a polygamous society certainly more women would choose to become one of the 5 wives. However if you’re one of the 5 women, you also don’t have as much power in your marriage as the wife of the average joe.
However, attraction to wealth does not always equal marrying a wealthy man. One, Women have a lot more economic freedom now. Two, emotions as well as logic go into a marriage.
I didn’t think it would either for a lot of reasons, my opinion on what would happen is up above. I was just clarifying the parameters for the argument, not arguing for or against. The champ is basically asking are women rational actors, I don’t think they are.
Having to fight other women for resources and attention would not be most women’s choice. Even if the man could afford the women, there would be stuff going on between the women. It’s inevitable. I think many of us (women) were just confused at why someone would suggest polygamy is what would evolve from women having unlimited $exual and social restrictions. The path between $exual freedom and polygamy is just eluding me.
If you don’t get how sharing ample resources among multiple participants is superior to having exclusive access to no or extremely limited resources then I don’t really think it’s a matter of being able to understand as much as not liking the question.
If making it a simple question of resource allocation with all other emotional considerations aside, its like asking women if they would rather choose to invite their family share in thanksgiving dinner where there is more than enough for everyone or have exclusive rights to a 5 piece nugget.
What I meant to highlight there was the drama that would ensue within the household relationships. Not just in sharing resources, but sharing attention, affection, space, etc. (I’m sure you understand how valuable simple peace in one’s life can be.) and again, how $exual freedom would evolve into a desire for polygamy. And “no or extremely limited” resources is not necessarily the alternative- you’re just throwing that out there. Just because the man isn’t balling doesn’t mean you’re eating beans out of a tin can. It’s not a choice between polygamy or squalor. It could be more like trading a Thanksgiving dinner with fueding, bickering family members for a quiet ride to McDonald’s for a Chicken McNugget value meal (to use your example).
Oh no WIP… no including invariants of the female race to this argument… lol!
See Meech’s response to me above…smh.
Sure, i was only addressing the economic side of the issue, and my extreme example was used to illustrate that economic benefit. The economic benefit still exists to a lesser degree when the level of wealth between the two options isn’t as extreme. i wasn’t arguing one way or another, just addressing the argument that polygamy isn’t beneficial to women.
The question still remains, if the social pressures for monogamy didn’t exist, would some women find the level of economic gain to be had from polygamy be acceptable enough to turn us into a polygamous society. Understand that a plurality isn’t needed. Half the men wouldn’t end up with multiple wives. When polygamy exists, only the rich have multiple wives. Poor men are the ones that lose out.
The question is fair. Since women flock to the VIP lounge in the club just to be around men with the appearance of money, would the sex do the same if multiple of them had the opportunity to marry those guys and entitled to his actual wealth. If you give me the “most women will settle for peace of mind” line then I will say you don’t know women that well.
*arguing that polygamy is beneficial to women.
I ramble, let me break the question down to it’s simplest form. If there wasn’t a social or legal backlash against polygamy, would multiple women marry Denzel, Idris, pro athletes, Bill Gates, rappers, mayors, etc… If yes, then extrapolate that to local ballers and celebrities. That’s all the question asks, would women do it. Before you answer, take into consideration that women marry these men knowing good and well they have other women.
@Meech,
“I ramble, let me break the question down to it’s simplest form. If there wasn’t a social or legal backlash against polygamy, would multiple women marry Denzel, Idris, pro athletes, Bill Gates, rappers, mayors, etc… If yes, then extrapolate that to local ballers and celebrities. That’s all the question asks, would women do it. Before you answer, take into consideration that women marry these men knowing good and well they have other women.”
^No. I gotta be real blunt. I am not anyone’s side-piece or side-kick. I want the same type of priority in his life as he would have in my life. I don’t care if it’s Bill Gates, Denzel, or anyone else. I don’t want my dude smelling like some other chick. I don’t want anyone doing for him which I feel is my lane as a woman to do for him. I also know that whatever financial convenience that may be the reason why some subscribe to this arrangement, I would resent like he!!. I’m not taking a number behind another bish to talk about our lives and any move(s) we want to make. I am not taking them other bishes feelings into account in what to do for ourselves or our family. I’m not extending myself for a man wholely to find I am only able to receive a third or a quarter of his attention or time. I don’t want to give him sexual favors and wonder how wife #2 gave it to him or if I’m right behind her. I ain’t trying to find lipstick in his draws or find out that bish cooked him something that got him sick so on his weekend with me he all sick and ish’. I can’t do it. I’m not built that way. That’s my decision for me.
I want as much as I’m giving and willing to give and I don’t apologize for it.
@LS
I believe, understand, and respect you. I’m just asking would there be women that would marry men under those circumstances.
I have no doubt that you wouldn’t. But do you think there are (lots of) women out there that would.
Thanks, Meech. I think some would agree to the arrangement, but as I posted above, it doesn’t make sense to do so if women are runnin’ thangs. My reference for polygamy is for a patriarchal society so if women got the power, it isn’t necessary. I think other options, maybe more male h@@kers or gigolos may come into play. I can’t call it. Some might be down with having a piece of Idris, but not I. You can’t be teasing me with no crumbs! LOL
I think champ was talking about “if women had complete sexual choice autonomy and weren’t constrained by moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships” Not necessarily economic control.
@Meech,
*Going back up to read*
D’oh! Dang we can’t even rule more than the “dating world”. *sigh* LOL. Okay, duly noted and corrected! Thanks! I understand, but my position stands. It’s not my choice and not for me. I’m glad I have a choice though!
“If you don’t get how sharing ample resources among multiple participants is superior to having exclusive access to no or extremely limited resources then I don’t really think it’s a matter of being able to understand as much as not liking the question.”
But polygamy doesn’t guarantee an equitable sharing of resources… cause its human nature to play favorites.
In cultures that practice polygamy the resources are shared in a descending order… i.e. the first wife and her children get 50%, wife 2 gets 25%, wife 3 gets 15%, etc…
There is also a tendency for the new wives to get younger and to rank higher in the males sexual preference…
So even though she comes in as a minor partner she is getting daily perks because she is new and shiny.
A really good example of both of these can be seen in one of my fave movies “Raise the Red Lantern”
In this movie you see how the women have to compete for shared resources as well as time and affection because the two go hand and hand.
In the movie the once highly favored 2nd wife’s house was in need of repair, and she hadn’t gotten new clothes or any pampering in a minute because it had been months since the husband had visited her.
I also addressed this in the “Sisterwives” portion of the thread where I pointed out that the other wives were pissed because the new 4th wife got a nice dress and reception for her wedding and a honeymoon 10 day get away on the beach.
The other 3 had no reception for their weddings, and the honeymoon was a 3 day car trip to visit his parents… so even though they are the more vested senior members of the family they aren’t getting the perks.
Wife 1 may get the big piece of chicken at home but wife 4 is getting flaunted at 4 star restaurants nightly…
It’s like the old joke the first wife gets the house the new wife gets the beach house ~JS
I thought the Bible came up with monogomy. Women weren’t even involved with that.
Depends on which part of the Bible.
All over the place I know…–>… Isn’t this is a structural argument about something that can’t be structured? It seems self-contradictory to push love aside and question adherence to a particular patriarchal system in a world where said systems didn’t exist…?
At what point is love not about just that, love? Everything outside of it is a mess, period. And if someone hasn’t already, we ought to bring up polyandry (women having multiple husbands)…
Polygamy and monogamy aren’t the only options. Nor is the need for women to be taken care of, now or ever. That’s a choice. Weaker people expect women to depend on their husbands for that. They also allow other people to affect their love for self and others.
So much of how we operate on every level is dictated by tangible, irrelevant things like cash. If we could all survive with basic food, shelter, water needs you’d find women doing what they did before Greco-Roman global change… Ensuring their lineage just like men do by having as many husbands as was needed to get the job done. Just like men, as long as all were happy all would be fine. That doesn’t change, ever.
That said, again… It’s just love. Yes, any scenario that asks two animals to share territory is on a base level, going to go awry at some point. Factor in intelligence, social needs and you get a hot, hot mess. Poly anything-gamy/andry/amor gyny for humans (while a historical and current fact) ain’t perfect. Neither is monogamy.
Love can be. It’s tough to try to figure out a structural solution for an issue that’s soul and emotion based.
While I agree with what you say, love and relationships are two separate ideas, although it shouldn’t be excluded from this conversation. Still, while love is “emotion based,” *relationships* are not just about love.
I’ve loved guys who I chose not to be in a relationship with or ended it quickly because they weren’t relationship material (proclivity to cheat, not particularly ambitious, etc.) While someone could reasonably be in love and in a relationship with someone who turns out to be abusive and their love could complicate their actions, lots of women leave (and are encouraged to leave) abusive relationships despite the “love.” This post is really focusing on the practical relationship aspect of human dealings, which I’m hearing from you is the problem with the post and the comments that follow, and I would agree, as us womenz DO look beyond status and ultimately want love in relationships.
My contention, which is similar to yours, is that Champ is arguing that as humans void of social mores, women would only fight for those top relationship material guys, but in the process of making this theory Champ bypasses the human EMOTIONS that keep many women from massively seeking out polygamous relationships with high status men. These emotions include genuine love, the feeling of being loved back, the fulfillment of having a man available and ready for me and me only and not feeling dejected at being #2, etc.
I think the fundamental problem with this whole post is that it disregards humans, and women in particular, as beings who primarily seek material qualities like status over qualities in men that actually make us feel good, which are embodied in ALL types of men regardless of their tax bracket.
Agreed…
Plus, isn’t it just fun to point out, whenever men talk about multiple partners or wives, the fact of the reverse? Just to get that blank stare followed by “Huh?”
At the end of the day most of our men are good loving men… Who will be gosh-hornswaggled if they open the door to find their Queen in a sexy new negligee, hair and makeup done, dinner and baking scents wafting from the kitchen by candlelit glow with softmusic in the background and handcuffs dangling from one finger… To have them say, oh this is for my other man. Maybe tomorrow.
No, sir.
They won’t admit that no amount of new/different/freaky bukkit-nekkitness is truly worth feeling rejected by someone you love. And that’s a certainty when you force polygamy, or anything else. Gotta work for all or not at all.
“At the end of the day most of our men are good loving men… Who will be gosh-hornswaggled if they open the door to find their Queen in a sexy new negligee, hair and makeup done, dinner and baking scents wafting from the kitchen by candlelit glow with softmusic in the background and handcuffs dangling from one finger… To have them say, oh this is for my other man. Maybe tomorrow.”
Girl tell ‘em! Like I’ma come out looking all fine and ish and he just sposed to be cool with alladis being for hubby #3. Yaah right!
To add to the perspective that this theory $ucks, we can observe dozens of women we know of in pop culture who were in high-profile relationships and left, despite the fact that their husband was a baller ( a pic of Tiger Woods’ ex prompted this thought).
Wood’s ex could have easily stayed because Woods is in the ultimate top 10. Yet, regardless of how high profile he is, she didn’t want to share him. You can say that about Jordan’s ex, Kobe’s wife, A.I’s ex, Mel Gibson’s ex, Kenny Smith’s ex (Tami of Real World fame), Halle and her ex baller/singing boos, and countless more. If Jen could share Brad Pitt, do you really think she’d want to be second fiddle to Jolie, when Pitt has clearly shown Ang is his #1 bi$h? Aniston could probably do that now, I’m sure Angelina’s kinky a$$ wouldn’t care (but she might, I dunno), but I doubt highly that is an option for her however fine, rich, and philanthropic Brad Pitt is.
Not only do many women LET GO of high profile men if they sniff cheating, one-sided polygamy (i.e. cheating) doesn’t even have to be in the equation for many to leave their top ten guys; they just simply aren’t happy in the relationship for myriad reasons and choose something else, even *gasp* less profile men who are committed and good to them.
This is a small sample, but if we were to actually study this I can assure you lots of women are not lining up to share their fabulous husbands nor are most women trying to bed every high-profile married man, and it ain’t got nothing to do with some moral obligation to be monogamous but EMOTIONAL stability and RELATIONSHIP security.
There are way too many factors that come into play with these top 10 “ballers” to assume their high status is enough to keep a *good* woman.
BAAAD example! She left with half his money. She is sitting very pretty right now. She no longer needs a 10. There are a lot of higher profile women that don’t leave… Hillary Clinton.
With Hillary, the difference is that she was with Bill before he reached baller status. It may be safe to say her staying with him is less out of financial security (I mean, she was a Yale grad for goodness sakes, she didn’t need Bill for her ends) and more out of a longing to stay committed to her long-term flame with whom she fathered a child. And do you think Hillary was saying, yes BIll continuing chexing that intern, I’m happy with that honey as long as you’re paying the bills!
I’m sure MOST women who stay after their men cheat have a long list of reasons why they stay, and I doubt most of them WANT to allow the behavior after they find out regardless of how high-profile their man is. And let’s be honest, many women stay even if the dude isn’t a 10 but out of emotional reasons that have little to do with his income.
If I was the type of women who pursued romantic/sexual relationships with the end goal of ending up a man who is “high status/high earning”, I’m doing that no matter societal norms are dictating. And if getting the “best” means I have to share, then so be it.
What you seem to be asking is if societal norms said that this behavior is not only ok but encouraged would you take part? Or phrased another way: are societal rules on acceptal behavior the only thing keeping me from being in a relationship in which I’d have to share the person I’m having a sexual/romantic relationship with in order to have financial stability?
To answer in my current frame of mind, there’s a lot overlapping circumstances that would need to be in place, outside of society telling me its ok, in order for me to seriously consider polygamy (purely based on the financial aspect). And all those circumstances are not positive. Since all though, as your phrased, I don’t have “complete sexual choice autonomy and weren’t constrained by moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships”. I’d like to think that if that changed, I wouldn’t completely abandon my need to provide for myself.
I’m not sharing…Period. The.End!
Seriously, I don’t have the desire to share my home, bed, emotions, soul with a man and some other chick on the side. Even if it was openly polygamous (sp), I don’t want to have to deal with another chick all the time. Unless she was relagated to second class status, it wouldn’t happen. I would HAVE to be queen bee and I know the type of man I want for a life partner and he’d want a woman with similar traits as me. Two queen bees makes for one unhappy queen and eventually the desire to rise up and take out the other would surface….and I’d go to jail.
So no, I don’t want one dude who can support me and 7 other women as opposed to one man who can support me well and be a father, partner, lover, friend with me and me only in that relationship way.
Sorry to bust anyone’s bubble but for my “real” life, everyday, ride or die type existence, I need someone who is equally by my side as I am his. That can’t happen when you begin introducing 3rd and 4th parties into the equation.
I very much agree!
“Sorry to bust anyone’s bubble but for my “real” life, everyday, ride or die type existence, I need someone who is equally by my side as I am his. That can’t happen when you begin introducing 3rd and 4th parties into the equation.”
Yassum
I reading these comments and some of the dudes need to GTFOH with that BS about the women they know and the thugs they date. I want a man who walks like, talks like, moves like, lays it down like and is 100% in every way a man. If that means he “looks thuggish” then so be it. As long as he’s NOT A THUG, I don’t care.
Never wanted a thug in my life and will never have one. But, on the real, these comments about women dating them are hilarious to me. Seriously folks, thugs ain’t killing the game. They are out there and they get play, usually from folks in their social circle. There are execptions to the rule, but overall, thugs ain’t swooping in and taking all the educated, attractive, well-to-do every women.
Sell that sh*t to the next woman who cares. Cuz I don’t. Thugs ain’t brothas problems….at all!
Next!
“Seriously folks, thugs ain’t killing the game.”
Tell em one more time.
*Gets up from seat, snaps fingers, whips hair back and forth, and after charade sits down knowingly, crosses legs, and sips martini in contentment at this troof*.
Thank you girl! These dudes need to sat down with this ish.
Girl…I was like “wheredaydodatat?”
Miss me with the “thugs got all the good women” talk. They don’t.
@Mo
I’m scrolling through reading all your comments. You killin em today with knowledge girl! Say it LOUDER.
if women had complete sexual choice autonomy and weren’t constrained by moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships…..
“in my own head” I feel i have sexual choice autonomy as I am seen as a good girl who would never………But I do indeed LOL and I don’t feel pressured to be in a monogamous relationship – but I indeed crave monogamy. I want one man that I can be totally uninhibited with. Its the essence of trust and true intimacy is what we crave. Though truly liberated women are not I think with confidence and self knowledge comes the freedom of that choice. I disagree we all want the same man also. I have always been the one who wanted the man no one else did ……. IJS
Granted, i stopped reading the comments a quarter of the way through. But, we’re definitely not talking about a “friends with benefits” kind of situation, correct? We are solely talking about being in a relationship with someone (like the island families aforementioned) and being okay with that person being in a relationship with someone else, correct? What woman wouldn’t be okay with the person they are casually having sex with to be having sex with someoen else?
Broadcasting my business, in my “just sex” days, I’m having sex with you because I have NO INTEREST of being in a relationship, not with you, not with any man. However, I’m still a woman, and I still get the urge to have sex…there you are…so…sure. I’m going. HOWEVER….if I have made the conscience decision to be in a relationship with you, to me, sharing is not even an effen option.
I think assuming women who participate in the above ‘arrangements’ I mentioned, to be down for this bullshiggity is completely inaccurate.
To avoid ambiguity, the question was: if in an alternate universe women had the power that men currently possessed, would that shift in the power paradigm signify a drastic difference in the overall dating game?
If that was the question the Champ offered, then the answer is probably boring and predictable: men would lose much of their egos and be less likely to be offended as we are in this current system. The dynamics would change personalities. Men would be slave-like creatures obliged to offer obeisance for a modicum of some facsimile of attention.
Hey VSB!
Long time lurker here! Just wanted to say I love this blog and the amazing community!
I remember how champ was saying, a while back, how he was pursuing a girl in college simply because she thought she should be attrtacted to him (something i will confess to doing) not simply because he was just attracted to her …which brings me to my point of,
How do you run game on girls in college, in retrospect?? (seeing as most of the community are college grads)
Just to give some background, Im an engineering major in a PDW university. Women tell me im attractive, dress well and the like and I do get play ever so often but not nearly as much as I think I should be . I attritubute the little amount of time I have for an actual social life (due to an intense workload) but this is probably me making excuses for my shortcomings as a potential mate. Sometimes I feel like it is simply cause im not 2520.
Any advice on how to run proper game in PDW university would be really appreciated!!
Well sir, having attended two white universities I’m quite familiar with your type of situation. Might I ask exactly which women is it that you have your eye on?
Hey there,
Give me your advice for the types of women that would be ACTUALLY interested in dating a black dude .
I feel like if you aren’t an athlete its quite difficult to find a girl who doesn’t want to be with you so she can say she brag to her girlfriends about how she “hooked up with a black dude” or any of that crap!
Thanks!
Well aren’t you just a lil smarty pants…
Yes ma’am, I IS!
Can I have monogamy AND financial security for $1000 please?!? I don’t think financial security should lie solely on the man though.
IJS….
The financial situation for women has changed. There are more educated professional women in the dating pool today, than ever before. They are not dependent upon a man’s income to survive, so there isn’t that need to share one financially successful man. When a woman matures she craves security and companionship more than material things. Of course if the pickings are slim where she lives, she has two choices, share a man or remain perpetually solo.
If she is lucky she’ll meet a man who she may not be that physically attracted, he doesn’t have a large income or his situation is not ideal but he might make her laugh. Some call it settling others call it a reality check.
I wonder, though: if women had complete sexual choice autonomy and weren’t constrained by moral and societal pressure to be in monogamous relationships, would the “real” world be exactly like a college campus — with more relationship and family-minded women making the conscious decision to be in a polygamist relationship/marriage with a high status/high earning man instead of a monogamous relationship with a “mediocre to below-average” joe?
I think the way you framed this question is biased. If woman were free of all of (our very patriarchal society’s) moral and societal pressure, why would you think that would mean that many of then would accept polygamy in order to be with a high status/high earning man? If woman were really free from all of society’s constructs, seeking a man with status wouldn’t even be an issue because it wouldn’t mean anything about someone’s worth as a woman. Woman might forgo marriage all together and enter/exit relationships with men as it fit phases of her life. I don’t know. I guess for me the sticking point for me is that if woman were really free (and had wage equality), then a man’s status wouldn’t matter. It would be about pleasing herself and getting her needs met.
And, thankfully, in our current patriarchal society, there are women who are most concerned with pleasing themselves and getting their needs met. Even if it’s with the bottom 30% of the dating pool. /sarcasm