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 mulsum:  some women don't mind when their husband cheats on them in the slightest extent of the definition, and some do; some men leer at other women besides their wife, and some don't.

How does looking always equal leering?

Also, here we go again, trying to define cheating.  That's a nebulous concept that means different things to different people.  So why does your definition have to apply to everyone?

found you!

Original Post by purespark:

Original Post by mulsum:  some women don't mind when their husband cheats on them in the slightest extent of the definition, and some do; some men leer at other women besides their wife, and some don't.

How does looking always equal leering?

Also, here we go again, trying to define cheating.  That's a nebulous concept that means different things to different people.  So why does your definition have to apply to everyone?

 leering and looking aren't the same thing either, but try explaining that to a troll.

Original Post by crazydiamondchrysalis:  leering and looking aren't the same thing either, but try explaining that to a troll.

 Ah yes, good point.

mulsum, this secure girl thinks you sound like the one with the issue. i dont give a flip what you think and im being completely serious.

Original Post by mulsum:

Original Post by hatamoto:
Women do. blahblah blah

Back up your claim... if you can. Wouldn't want to be labeled a "quack".

The ridiculousness through the thread is fine, but trying to scientifically 'prove' that human minds are wildly and blindingly driven by sex and attraction is so laughable that I couldn't just let it stand uncontested here. You posed NO sources. You threw some names you heard on TV around (from the 50s and 70s, interestingly). As a Psych MA with an experimental focus, I am a tad bit familiar with this research, and know enough about the state of things to not bother seeking out evidence for why men like to look at other women.

Then PROVIDE REFERENCES. Right now, you have a bunch of inflamatory words with nothing but hubris for backing.

You've made extraordinary claims, sir. Back them up, or get stepping.

We're talking about opinions and trends, not hard evidence on behalf of why you jerk your eyes off on other women when you go to a mall with your wife.

If you found any article even touching upon that idea, I would eat my hat. But you're just being silly with the mob, and making jokes about sex, now. So let's leave it at this: some women don't mind when their husband cheats on them in the slightest extent of the definition, and some do; some men leer at other women besides their wife, and some don't.

Happy, everyone? Keep those mantras going, secure girls.

Perhaps you should do your Psych study at Duke University, where Dr. Robert Deaner is performing extensive research on primate social interactivity... including this interesting study that shows that primates, male and female, are instinctually driven to pay more attention to images of power and sex.

Quoting Dr. Deaner from an article in Harper's magazine regarding his study:

"In both human and rhesus monkey societies, individuals vary in their influence and reproductive potential (...) So for both humans and rhesus monkeys, natural selection would have favored individuals that valued information accordingly."
...
"Both men and women have a strong tendency to monitor attractive or powerful people. The visual monitoring usually takes place very rapidly, and the offending person may not even realize it's occurring."

Translation: We all check other people out, even if it happens while we're not consciously aware.

To be kind, I'll assume that the all-consuming drive to do your ungrad/grad work and log lab hours has left you blind to the work going on the world outside you... but honestly sir, I'm a layman aside from knowing a couple psychologists socially (working on the mechanisms of identification and retardation of alzheimers in early onset, VERY exciting stuff). I was able to find references to Dr. Deaner's work again spending less than 2 minutes on google.

At this point I'd probably call yet again for any sort of evidence you have that sexual response in humans is based entirely on societal influences... but I already know that's not likely to be provided.

So... what sort of wine would one serve with Chapeau du Jour?

It's all ok ... men look at other men too.

*winks*

Sorry boys, your secret's out.

Hahahahaha awesome

For what it's worth, I've seen similar research, but their conclusions were not that women don't check the package, but that their "hang time" is considerably shorter than men. They suggested that women perceive more peripherally and men exhibit more of a tunnel vision effect, and were going on to see how accurate that hypothesis was and what effect that might play in, for example, extended gaze times by men compared to women. Sadly I lost that stuff to the sands of time... maybe I'll go dig it up. It's got me curious again.

Well, there's some visual proof to back up the phrase "Biggest swinging dick in the room" at the very least.

Original Post by lysistrata:

It's all ok ... men look at other men too.

*winks*

Sorry boys, your secret's out.

*peripherally checks out lysi's and hata's junk* 

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.

Here's, perhaps, a study that's a bit more relevant:

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.

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.

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.

mulsum, under your analysis, the "hurtfulness" is also socially conditioned.  So another option is for women to decide that looking is no big deal.

I agree.

That's the issue here: that there are options and variability in how people feel about this, and that the OP nor anyone else should be bullied into accepting their partner's leering.

This shouldn't be brushed away as a issue of modernity or liberalness - it's an issue of sensitivity and values. That's all I was ever trying to say. If being modern means being emotionally hardened and lax about your own personal rules of monogamy, then I guess I'm getting too old for the internet.

I still fail to see how a glance = leering = cheating.  You give an awful lot of power to a person's gaze.

Actually, The Gaze has been a big topic in feminist theory. 

Original Post by lysistrata:

Actually, The Gaze has been a big topic in feminist theory. 

 Of course.  My choice of words wasn't accidental.  :)

i think it has more to do with the OPs sense of self than her morals. its not a morally-loaded issue for all of us.

Original Post by purespark:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Actually, The Gaze has been a big topic in feminist theory. 

 Of course.  My choice of words wasn't accidental.  :)

Oops ... I misunderstood what you were saying. 

I agree that there is a big difference between looking that is just "seeing" and looking that is loaded in some way. 

I think that all mulsum is getting at is that if the OP considers what her SO is doing is "leering," she is justified in being bothered by that.  I agree completely, and I would go further to ask the OP (along with some other posters) why they would submit to a relationship in which they have to accept offensive behavior.

Original Post by purespark:

I still fail to see how a glance = leering = cheating.  You give an awful lot of power to a person's gaze.

Ok, well I have an interest in semantics too. This is the difference between a glance and a leer:

A glance: A brief or cursory look.

A leer: To look with a sidelong glance, indicative especially of sexual desire or sly and malicious intent.

Come on, you know which one we're talking about. This isn't a distracted glance, like a cat ran out from under a car - it's a leer, it's a leer of sexual desire for another woman outside of a man's wife. I absolutely accept that some people do not qualify this as cheating, and even find it stupid or ridiculous to do so .. But some people don't, and some people would be hurt by that, and would find that a breaking issue in a relationship.

It's incredibly presumptuous and judgmental to say that just because a person is hurt by something, there's some sort of personality flaw in that person.

To deny that this is a moral issue is to deny that romance and monogamy is a moral and social construction. People have different morals - can we simply accept that? I thank lysistrata for adding her thoughts, because with some civility we can have really pleasant and interesting conversations here.

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.

Original Post by hkellick:

Original Post by kae03:

this is the honest truth...

I know someone who would make her husband walk with his head down and she would lead him so he wouldn't look at other woman!

weird much?

as hatamoto would say, the guy sounds like a pvssy.

That's absofrikkinlutely ridiculous.

At the risk of sounding like an uptight feminist, would it be too much to ask (this goes to hata too) to refrain from referring to a browbeaten, passive man as a pvssy? What it implies about women is not nice.