Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@GandK:

I agree that cherish and respect are mutually reinforcing positive behaviors within a relationship. However, there is a level on which it is impossible to cherish or respect somebody who doesn't cherish or respect themselves. For instance, there was a couple I knew which consisted of 2 people I really liked as individuals. The husband was a seriously good egg, had at one point been my boss at work, and he was still madly in love with his wife. His wife was a very attractive, fun person who was in my book group and frequently hiked for exercise with me. Their marriage was sex-starved and they were both unhappy with the situation. When I talked to her about it, she revealed that she suffered from severe body loathing and inability to ever drop the To Do list running in her brain. So, in the middle of sex with her husband who adored her, she would be thinking about her fat thighs and whether or not she had remembered to schedule a dental appointment.

I also agree with what you wrote about friendship vs. marriage, but would note that the critical difference is that friendships are based on entirely open contracts. If somebody doesn't behave in the manner we believe a friend should behave, the relationship is easily or even unconsciously brought to an end. If a contract with a spouse clearly requires not having sex with other people and obligation to meet joint expenses and de facto requires many other things such as expectation that he or she would accompany you to New Year's Party or comfort you when grieving or not leave you at the hospital by yourself with appendicitis when you are 6 months pregnant :( (I know, I know, I should have left him then, or even earlier...but the kids.), you aren't left even as free to take care of your own needs yourself as if you were single.

@Ego:

I don't disagree with what you are saying either. Your use of abdicate being very insightful. One thing I learned about contracts is that they entail two obligations on both parties, the responsibility to fulfill your end of the bargain, and the responsibility to enforce fulfillment of the other end of the bargain. No use bitching if you are too weak to enforce. I was actually granted "mea culpa" by my divorce support group because I dropped my resistance, met all of my ex's remotely reasonable terms, and then clearly stated "The terms for continuation of this marriage are regular sex, regular social dates, and engaged partnership in some mutual projects." and he refused these terms. I would not sign a contract stating that I would stick it out no matter what, because I will enforce terms with divorce again if necessary. I have been on average much happier, more free and more comfortable, since my divorce. Zero regrets.

Anyways, that's why I don't think locking people down to decisions or contracts is the solution. I know so many lovely people who worked very hard at their marriages and didn't succeed. It takes two to tango, but you can't play fetch with a dead dog.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by BRUTE »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:50 pm
It is kind of stunning how many affluent, intelligent, attractive, basically decent men there are out there who crave feminine energy or "comfort" in their lives and simply can not find it in the current climate.
who says they cannot find it? maybe this is simply the better of the 2 alternatives to them?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@BRUTE:

My perspective is based on my personal experience interacting with men on the dating market, within marriage/divorce support groups, and in my greater social circle. By analogy, it's kind of like thinking it might be difficult to find a baby to adopt, and then being stunned when you walk into an overcrowded orphanage. Or thinking it might take 3 months to get a new job, then being flooded with offers as soon as you post your resume. I'm not even taking men who are relatively content "to not be shopping" into the equation. Although, of course, there would also likely be those who are "no longer seeking", but are not content, just like on the job market.

My concern is that some new systemic factors that are creating this "seller's market" are not being explored or revealed, and discontent will lead to one or another obvious old school solution, which would be either killing off competitors (other men)or imposing restrictive regulations/tariffs/alternate-opportunity-costs on "sellers"/females.

IOW, my experience on the dating market as a middle-aged, only moderately attractive female (think Cabbage Patch Doll with wrinkles), in recent years is that almost every man I date wants me to be his next new girlfriend or engage in some sort of significant relationship. It's almost the opposite of when I was a girl. Even if you do f*ck them, they do not flee. And it's not even like they are necessarily all that besotted, more like they have shopped the market a bit and rationally determined that I am the best deal they are likely to get. So, I have to ask what in the hell is going on with all my female peers who should be my competitors? And, why are men who should be dating females my daughter's age hitting on me? !

One of the chapters in "Freakonomics" explains mathematically how the practice of celibacy contributes to the spread of venereal disease within a community. I don't understand why there is this tendency for men to blame females who are promiscuous, rather than females who are celibate, for the fact that they don't have the benefits of a girlfriend. It makes no sense beyond the fact that promiscuous women are more visible on the market. So, I am suggesting polyamory as a sort of moderating practice as opposed to serial monogamy, or what is meant by the phrase "serial dating" which I have heard more than one man say with bitter tone as they describe the practice they have observed in their female peers. Another thing they often say with bitter tone is that the women they have dated "just want to have fun." Like he wants to lock Cyndi Lauper into the kitchen of his grim divorced bachelor apartment and make her wash his socks, and I'll be sitting across the restaurant table from him wondering whether I seem like somebody who wants to have fun or not, and then he'll say something like "You seem like a good woman." and I will know that I am looking or behaving like somebody who does not want to have very much fun, but that is not true.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by BRUTE »

crosspost from the ointment-thread:
Now imagine your girl's pleasant surprise when she finds out you're not actually a futureless loser, but an uber responsible provider who knows how to fix her bike, car, pc, toilet, and can build her some furniture.
gee, where can brute sign up?

brute thinks it's pretty simple: human relationships are a function of environment, and romance is an excuse made up to justify them. in the current environment, there is only very limited benefit, and huge cost, associated with long term relationships.

humans are coming apart as a "society" (as defined by previous-war's definition) because they can. there is no longer any external pressure to keep them together.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@BRUTE: I don't completely disagree, but do you think there are "natural" winners and losers in the new paradigm, or are the "losers" just losing because they haven't kept up with the paradigm? IOW, are long-term-relationships like manufacturing jobs? Is the skill set becoming as irrelevant?

I can readily think of some circumstances in which LTR becomes positive option. For instance, pretty clear to me why Harry Browne changed his mind and threw down for another marriage. For an aging guy with plenty of money, the desire to have sex without a condom with a female young enough to be able to take care of him when he becomes decrepit before she becomes decrepit is a good deal, even worth the risk of loss due to divorce. I have to always remind myself of this, and burn, burn, burn off any haze of romance or sentimentality.

Of course, the most despicable old silver-backs are the ones who keep an older female for nurse/purse AND a younger female for sex-ercise. I am too soft-hearted and round-heeled, I don't know why I ever allow myself to feel sorry for any of them ever. All they deserve is internet porn and being rough-handled by some minimum wage worker changing their Depends.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by BRUTE »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:09 pm
do you think there are "natural" winners and losers in the new paradigm, or are the "losers" just losing because they haven't kept up with the paradigm? IOW, are long-term-relationships like manufacturing jobs? Is the skill set becoming as irrelevant?
i.e. they move to China?^^

in a way, yes. of course, it's a distribution. manufacturing jobs never made up 100% of jobs, and some relationships still make sense as LTRs. just fewer of them, in brute's observation.


7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:09 pm
For an aging guy with plenty of money, the desire to have sex without a condom with a female young enough to be able to take care of him when he becomes decrepit before she becomes decrepit is a good deal, even worth the risk of loss due to divorce.
that's a pretty common example, yes. brute knows such "silverbacks" as well. one good friend literally said to brute that he would have married even younger, but that he thought his daughters wouldn't approve of a step mom younger than them.

it's hard to tell if the silverbacks were socialized to desire LTRs, and the next generation (millenial/Xer silverbacks) will just go to Tinder, or also choose a LTR pattern.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:09 pm
Of course, the most despicable old silver-backs are the ones who keep an older female for nurse/purse AND a younger female for sex-ercise.
why is that despicable? taking care of an old lady (who probably doesn't want to bang the silverback any more anyway), plus putting a younger woman through college?

sounds like win-win-win to brute.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

BRUTE wrote:it's hard to tell if the silverbacks were socialized to desire LTRs, and the next generation (millenial/Xer silverbacks) will just go to Tinder, or also choose a LTR pattern.
Might have more to do with whether they came of age in the pre-condom era (1986?)than socialization for LTR.
why is that despicable? taking care of an old lady (who probably doesn't want to bang the silverback any more anyway), plus putting a younger woman through college?

sounds like win-win-win to brute.
I was just using despicable in the light-hearted cartoon sense. Obviously, I don't disagree about the possibility of win-win-win's, since I decided to practice polyamory myself after interacting with more than one such silver-back . Now, I can be the experienced older woman, the sugar baby, and the peer partner all at the same time too. What's sauce for the gander is super-sauce for the goose! Yay- free markets!! Boo-restrictive social contracts.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Apparently, there is a hot newly released (just 2 days ago!) book related to the topic, entitled "Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage and Monogamy" by Mark Regnerus. I am going to give it a read along with "The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies" by Anthony Giddens which was mentioned as a modern classic on the topic by one of the top Amazon reviewers of the new title. The reviewer wrote:
It turns out that the renowned sociologist Anthony Giddens' work "The Transformation of Intimacy" correctly identified the emergence of confluent love. Confluent love is not forever love, but love that asks whether this relationship is satisfying for both parties. When one party answers "no," the relationship does not continue.
The reviewer's use of the word "emergence" is indicative of systems level analysis.

Locked