Why do men have to look at other women?

Normally, I really don't mind but recently,  it's starting to bother me.  I think it is so rude when your (husband or boyfriend) is walking or sitting with you and their eyes is looking elsewhere.  Sometime, the girls or ladies is not all that good looking.   I get so angry because it makes me feel like I am not good enough or what!!!

I am I alone on this subject????

Original Post by hkellick:

Please don't put it on all of us that you disagree with this one individual.

Besides, I don't know that I'd call mulsum's posts "Feminism" what with the mockery and condescension to the other women on the thread.

Sorry. The poster came off with a very 'Feminazi' sort of post. Hence my response.

You are correct and I apologize to all feminists everywhere.

Really? You got a feminist vibe from that guy? I got a religious fundamentalist vibe from that guy. I've never met a feminist, no matter how strident, who would express those views, let alone in that way. The women who do tend to be the most "conventional" I've ever met inasmuch as they want men to take care of them and are therefore threatened by any notion of a wandering eye. I bet that the woman who made her husband walk with his head down was traditional, too.

EDIT: in later posts, to be fair, mulsum makes a good case for partners seeking out people who have the same values as them, and not compromising their position.

Original Post by watergirl:

i never assumed the glance was a leer. i think anyone defending a glance is not necessarily defending a leer. the leap from glance to leer is entirely yours. perhaps that is the difference. i do not consider glancing morally-loaded. leering is an entirely different deal.

 Obviously. There is a huge difference between the two actions. That was noted several times through out the thread.  I personally even said it's about the way/manner in which the look is dealt. Lol. That's all. I wasn't defending looking in lewd/disrespectful/suggestive nature. That being said I agree with Post#198 from Mulsum. :)

haha OP hasnt logged in since 8/10.

ei, i didnt read the whole thread. purespark and i were both confused by mulsum's leap from glance to leer. on page...10? i was specifically addressing mulsum not all 11 pages. :)

Original Post by mulsum:

I find it a tad bit ironic that you chose a study called Monkeys Pay Per View: Adaptive Valuation of Social Images by Rhesus Macaques to prove your point. Very relevant, yes.. Thanks for your Lounge Dissertation and sharp personal insults - incredibly provoking and well-thought out. I'll be sure to make use of that social research on Rhesus Monkeys next time I talk to someone about human attraction social psychology - cos, you know, monkeys are just hairy humans.

When in doubt, attack the foundation of the study. You've clearly been rubbing elbows with the tweed + leather patched elbows crew. Working on your thesis, hm?

YOU may want to deny the shared genetic heritage of humans and other primates, but most serious scientists don't. Ignore knowledge acquired from such means at your peril.

Plus, your bar was set low enough that any evidence would do. Evidence was presented. Start snackin', kiddo.

Social norms—not genetic programming—dictate what is attractive in a potential mate (Aron & Aron, 1986). Gender schemas and stereotypes influence people's responses to sexual-romantic cues, sexual desire, and romantic attachment (Cyranowski & Andersen, 1998). Gender schemas convey a clear message about how men and women are supposed to behave toward each other. Stereotypes define different sexual scripts for men and women (Chafetz, 1975), and they influence their expectations of a dating relationship (Cohen & Shotland, 1996). They also define whom they are supposed to be attracted to, and how they are supposed to express this attraction.

Malach Pines A. The role of gender and culture in romantic attraction. European Psychologist [serial online]. June 2001;6(2):96-102. Available from: PsycINFO, Ipswich, MA. Accessed August 26, 2009.

I know you must have struggled to cherry-pick evidence on behalf of neurobio attraction - but sorry, it's not there. Attraction, romance, and relationships are - surprise! - all socio-cultural. You look at other women because boys tend to be trained to be more sexually aggressive than women (hi, rape), and thus, men tend to seek out sexuality more aggressively in day to day life. That's where catcalls come from, subway molestation, and sexual harassment in the workplace. Leering is just another notch in that branch - another social aggression.

By that reasoning, people "decide" what they find attractive. I'll concede that societal norms play a role in effecting what's considered desirable in various social situations, but that doesn't adequately explain how a strong physiological response can happen within one second or less of appearance. You're very adept at trying to change the subject by bringing up the broader definition of attraction, that is sustained reactions over longer periods, but this conversation is limited to that first glance, ie: within the first couple seconds. The OP didn't mention anything about longer term discussions of attractiveness, or that her guy would persue or recall , just that her guy would look at other women.

Of course, you can keep comparing our society to that of Rhesus monkeys if it helps you and your wife feel better about your leering compulsions.

I think you'd have a hard time being taken seriously in many fields if you declared your certainty about the non-relation between human and other primates. Considering the sheer bulk of science being done with them, I'm surprised at your casual dismissal. It smacks of someone who "knows what he knows", regardless of evidence that is orthogonal or contradictory to your assumptions.

In any case, you see the big issue with evo. psychology is that it considers brain patterns as evidence for evolutionary causes. Unfortunately, we also know that the brain is developed socially, and not only from a blueprint from past evolution. I think what a lot of people here have had trouble with is holding their partner responsible for their behavior, or (for you) for their own. It's very, very tempting to want to explain hurtful or shameful actions as being from nature, but that doesn't mean you can prove this to everyone you come across with some monkey research.

Human brains are given both a blueprint of basic predispositions at birth AND are affected by social conditions. Nature and nuture both play their roles. You're trying to dismiss outright the effect of nature, which is either absolute baloney or, if proven to be true, puts you in line to be a lecture circuit darling until your end of days.

Tell you what... offer your MA thesis to your review board with a topic akin to "Visual Status Evaluation in the Human Animal: Dispelling the Myth of Genetic Predisposition in Sexual Attraction". See whether or not they laugh you out of the room... and when I see you on Oprah or Good Morning America talking about how every sexual response in humans is entirely taught to us by our peers, I'll eat my hat.

Original Post by trustwomen:

Really? You got a feminist vibe from that guy? I got a religious fundamentalist vibe from that guy. I've never met a feminist, no matter how strident, who would express those views, let alone in that way. The women who do tend to be the most "conventional" I've ever met inasmuch as they want men to take care of them and are therefore threatened by any notion of a wandering eye. I bet that the woman who made her husband walk with his head down was traditional, too.

EDIT: in later posts, to be fair, mulsum makes a good case for partners seeking out people who have the same values as them, and not compromising their position.

It's not unusual for someone who takes a solid, unshakable position on one side or the other of the nature vs. nurture debate to develop a near evangelical zeal about it, one that often strays into actual religious adherence. I dunno if that's the case here, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Cuz, you know, that's what happens with the monogamous, married, normal people, right? ::rolleyes::

... and people absolutely should choose someone they're going to have similar values with if they want long term happiness. Doesn't often seem to end up that way though, does it? It doesn't help that people tend to develop at different rates emotionally over time. The infamous state of 'we both have grown in different ways'...

I was in a relationship a few years ago, and refused to go out with my bf because of the fact that men like to look at other women. I just don't like it, and find it hard to tolerate it. I think that he is looking at those women because he thinks they are more attractive/stylish/sexy whatever and that he would want to be with them instead of me if he had the chance

Original Post by dreamofbeingthin:

I was in a relationship a few years ago, and refused to go out with my bf because of the fact that men like to look at other women. I just don't like it, and find it hard to tolerate it. I think that he is looking at those women because he thinks they are more attractive/stylish/sexy whatever and that he would want to be with them instead of me if he had the chance

You misunderstand his intentions. He would want to be with them AND with you (preferably simultaneously), not INSTEAD of you.

Original Post by trustwomen:

Original Post by dreamofbeingthin:

I was in a relationship a few years ago, and refused to go out with my bf because of the fact that men like to look at other women. I just don't like it, and find it hard to tolerate it. I think that he is looking at those women because he thinks they are more attractive/stylish/sexy whatever and that he would want to be with them instead of me if he had the chance

You misunderstand his intentions. He would want to be with them AND with you (preferably simultaneously), not INSTEAD of you.

Yeah. Give the guy more credit for his creative edge.

Original Post by trustwomen:

Original Post by dreamofbeingthin:

I was in a relationship a few years ago, and refused to go out with my bf because of the fact that men like to look at other women. I just don't like it, and find it hard to tolerate it. I think that he is looking at those women because he thinks they are more attractive/stylish/sexy whatever and that he would want to be with them instead of me if he had the chance

You misunderstand his intentions. He would want to be with them AND with you (preferably simultaneously), not INSTEAD of you.

Seriously??  After complaining about sexism ??  I call double standard. 

Original Post by trustwomen:

Original Post by dreamofbeingthin:

I was in a relationship a few years ago, and refused to go out with my bf because of the fact that men like to look at other women. I just don't like it, and find it hard to tolerate it. I think that he is looking at those women because he thinks they are more attractive/stylish/sexy whatever and that he would want to be with them instead of me if he had the chance

You misunderstand his intentions. He would want to be with them AND with you (preferably simultaneously), not INSTEAD of you.

Holy Sexist, Batman!

Lysistrata is right, Trustwomen. Lose the double standard. It doesn't suit you.

Oh, and yes, muslun did catch me as the ultra-feminist type. I've been harangued by enough women for simply being a guy and acting in a way that's not particlarly caveman-like to know certain themes, and one theme I've gotten from a handful of crazy feminists is "Heaven help that men be able to control their impulses."

dreaminofbeinthin, while he almost certainly was looking at the other women. He was not necessarily thinking "Oh, I need some of that." or "Gosh, she's cuter than my girlfriend." There may have been little to no conscience thought at all.

There are some guys that would disrespect a woman the way trustwomen suggests. These guys are playaz and they are to be reviled. There are many men who don't.

I have no idea what type of guy your guy was, but... try not to hold it against the next guy. Especially if, at the end of the day, he's still coming hanging out with you and you alone.

cuz they are hot too, and my wife looks at women too :)....

Original Post by hkellick:

Original Post by trustwomen:

You misunderstand his intentions. He would want to be with them AND with you (preferably simultaneously), not INSTEAD of you.

Holy Sexist, Batman!

Lysistrata is right, Trustwomen. Lose the double standard. It doesn't suit you.

Geez, y'all, I was trying to be funny. I wasn't bashing the guy at all, I was trying to explain that it isn't a dis when guys look at other girls, and it doesn't mean they aren't attracted to their partner. Heck, when I look at other guys and think they are hot, it's not because I don't think my BF is hot, or because I don't want to be with him - it's a "the more the merrier" kind of situation. I assumed that guys were the same. Not that I would actually want to carry through with it in real life, particularly (I'd argue that the same is probably true for most fantasies).

But it is definitely not a double standard. While women might not be so much into the simultaneous (and even then, I'd have to see research), I'm pretty sure that both genders, when ogling others, are not doing so because they are not attracted to their partners. It's not "instead", it's "more".

Original Post by trustwomen:

Original Post by hkellick:

Original Post by trustwomen:

You misunderstand his intentions. He would want to be with them AND with you (preferably simultaneously), not INSTEAD of you.

Geez, y'all, I was trying to be funny.

 i'm a little worried that i'm the only one that caught the joking tone.  that's concerning, trust...

This is a very serious discussion, filled with serious people seriously discussing serious things.

Mockery will be mocked.

Seriously.