Awareness
Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
<Fast reply.>
This is kind of why I mentioned the gal I knew from years ago. I saw it as a double standard that she, as a bisexual herself, would not date bisexual men. (Of course, she's allowed to decide who she wants to date or not. That's aside from the point.) She also had her height requirement. That disappointed a few men and some of them were kind of vocal about it.
I've run into that quite a few times. Bisexual women who - like a fair amount of heterosexual women - feel that bisexuality compromises a guy's masculinity. I never real thought of it as a double-standard - although it is - since from my perspective it reduces the number of potential competitors and that's advantageous to me.
Bitching about someone's choice is weak. Regardless of what kind of interaction occurs between myself and a woman, my personal attitude is to attempt to behave with dignity. And believe me, I've had some significant provocation. Women, when rejected - either initially or later on - certainly behave every bit as badly as men do. Men will abuse you privately - women will try and abuse you publicly.
quote:
The question that follows is, if you are equating two entirely different things, is that being on a fair playing field? For example, a guy only wants to date athletic women and the woman he's interested in is concerned with the size of his bank account. (That one tends to irritate certain men, so I'm going for it.) If a woman's primary concern is his bank account, then he knows he's buying a whore - and it's up to him to decide if he wants to engage with that or not.
To a certain extent, men and women follow their evolutionary pathways toward success. Men look for physiological markers of health and fertility. What we deem 'attractive' is a combination of those markers which indicate a probability of good genes.
To a certain extent, women will look for the same thing, but seem more hardwired to seek men with social dominance and aggression - as these indicate a probability of ensuring her offspring's survival.
quote:
What is superficial compared to status?
What about submissives who may be new to BDSM only wanting experienced partners?
People with education requirements that far exceed their own?
Online, everything is superficial, because attraction is dictated by our real-time interactions with the person walking, talking, gesturing and being smelt by us. (Pheromonal attraction is relevant here).
When you say "submissives" and "people", I read "women". First, because the majority of women enjoy having a guy to look up to. One who can teach them. And secondly because male submissives don't really have much of a fucking option. They're exceedingly fortunate to get any play, let alone turning it away from women with insufficient experience or education (the silly little teen and 20's "prodomme" blood-suckers excepted).
I don't necessary find these things shallow, I just think a lot of people on both sides are turning away others who they'd probably really enjoy. Primarily because online interaction provides such a facile view of who someone is, but also because online interaction gives the illusion of a buffet of options. Whereas in truth it's more about sorting the wheat from the chaff - and frankly, most people are incredibly unskilled at doing so.
_____________________________
Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.
|
RE: Double Standards - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread