If the women in this account seem like callous opportunists when old and incredibly naive when young, the men aren't about to fare any better. While the older women saw their younger peers as competitors, so did the older men, although, often, the older man's fear wasn't that he would lose his marraige but that he'd be stuck in it, unable to replace his wife now that she had had the poor taste to develop wrinkles about the time that nature would decree. The younger men were their competitors for the attentions of the young women. At least, one could say that the older women often were seeking to hold onto something that was their due : the honoring of the commitment made to them at the altar, as it would have been reasonably understood at the time it was made. As for the man who was "trading in" his wife merely because she reached a birthday that he had to know that someday she would and which he had reached a bit before her, it's hard to see anything to his desires but a totally selfish willingness to betray another's trust in order to indulge his own lusts. At times, they were known for doing things to their competitors like transferring them to other cities or classes when both the object of their desires (and their rival) were employees or students of his. Yes, that really did go on frequently, not so long ago.

Even though a young man could easily see how incredibly sleazy his elder peers often were, one still saw a string of young men going to some of those older peers for advice as if they would give good advice, even if they knew of any. Myself, I used to get tidbits like, "They'll respect you more if you demand sex from them at the outset. They'll know that you're a real man who won't take no for an answer". (No, I never implemented that one). Or, "Never wait on a woman or cook dinner for her, she'll think that you're a wimp". (In reality, I've found that doing just that has never failed to produce a noticably more positive impression in the one that I was with). Or.... Suffice it to say, I DON'T accept dating advice from other men. I needn't even go into great detail on it, because it can be easily summarised as follows : br>


"Be a lump. Pay no attention to her. While loudly bemoaning how women only pay attention to the better looking men, don't make the slightest effort to improve your own appearance by even as simple a measure as occasional exercise, dressing better, bathing (I wish that was a joke), or in any way attempting to make yourself more pleasant for her to look at - though she should be ready to starve herself until feeble to be as thin as you should want her to be. (By the way, I don't think that very many men really find gauntness terribly attractive, though a lot get pressured into pretending that they do, those who don't getting more than a little abuse about the fact). Develop no interests. She should be thrilled just to be in your presence, even though you have absolutely nothing to talk about. Now, of course, while it would be wrong for her to base her interest in you on how much money you make or spend on her, you should never express your love for her by doing anything other than spending money on her - and you'd better get something from her when you do that. Not that this means that you're treating her like a prostitute. Naw. Unless she winks at someone else while you're sleeping with her friends. Then you gotta say it how it is, my man - she has no virtue, (*) but you're a stud.


Uh huh.

Oddly enough, I didn't follow these words of wisdom. (I could go on, but I think that you get the general idea).



That's a good reason for me to decline such advice. It's offered by swaggering morons, incapable of caring about others, or, lately, by hypocritical cowards who can't openly admit that they care about themselves. The ones who will counsel you to ask nothing and refuse nothing, seeking the same relationship as the others advise with the roles reversed. Ignoring the possibility of a middle path in which each partner thinks of the needs and desires of both and seeks to work out some sort of reasonable compromise between the two. One does not seek to take all, making trust, on the part of the other, impossible, nor is one willing to yield all, knowing that a partner deserving of trust wouldn't want one to do so. When one does something that affects one's sociability or desirability, that doesn't just affect one, but those one is with as well, and that has to be thought about, whether the feminists or mens's rights advocates around one approve or not. It is not enough to say "I don't care about that", because what determine the impact of one's choice on one's partner is not what is important to oneself, but what is important to that other person.

Beyond that, and this was my original point, who can see through another's eyes? How could a man know what is pleasing to a woman, or where one would like to be met more than a women would, and so, who would be better to ask? One might add, that when one goes for advice to a woman who isn't interested in one as anything other than a friend, her vested interest is in being helpful. Consider. If you succeed in finding someone, she has as many prospective mates as before, because you weren't one of them, but one of the competition is no longer in circulation. With a man, even one who consciously chooses to be honest and helpful, there is a conflict of interest because if you succeed, there is one less woman out there to be met. If he is consciously on your side but unconsciously against you, the quality of his advice may suffer without him consciously meaning it to.

Women will often agree that a woman would be a better source of advice about women, but then will go on to claim that a woman should go to another women for advice about men, because who has dated more men - a man or a woman (if the two are heterosexual)? Really, nothing more than a crude attempt to keep the sisterhood arrangement alive, where relationship decisions are made, not between those in the relationship, who have some stake in it, but by the "friends" of the woman or even her parents, with the man not being consulted at all in many cases. Being left more than a little resentful by this fact.

One may point out that the same logic applies, with the roles reversed. Who has dated more women? A heterosexual man or a heterosexual woman? By the above logic, then, a man would know more about women than a woman would. Pointing this out will get the person one has replied to, to smile and laugh in what she imagines to be a charming fashion, and to say, "Yes, but women don't think that way". Remember the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus?" The attitude here, which attempts to draw from this book, is that since women think differently than men, any suggestion that they rethink a position (coming from a man) can be discarded out of hand as being irrelevant for women. "Women think differently about this. End of discussion. Case closed, you adorable little tight bunned idiot. Don't worry your pretty little head over it." Again, reinforcing the whole intransigent "sisterhood" business and undermining any relationships in the vicinity, wherever it occurs. How close can anyone get to someone who never feels the need to listen and encourages other women to be like her, in this?

It is striking, though. Woman will laugh, because a man will have trouble understanding as simple a concept, as, when one wonders what a woman thinks or feels about a subject, simply asking. But then, they go out and have the exact same problem and don't notice. "What do men think or feel about this or that" - and not once, do you see one of them actually consulting someone with a Y chromosome but instead, they just ask each other, circulating the same common knowledge around that, if traced back, comes from nowhere but the overheated imagination of someone who knows a great deal less than she thinks she does.

Click here to continue





(*) Ah, the joys of the TOS! No, we don't naturally talk like 19th century school teachers, but the terms of service more or less force us to at this point. The original phrasing was something a little more contemporary.