The Wisdom of Mike C.June 26, 2012
Sometimes the conversations there can bring about a powerful understanding into the discrepancy between the though processes of the sexes.
This one is brought to you by Mike C. at comment 398
Here’s the setup up. The concept of ‘spinning plates’ was brought up by myself and a few others in this thread. Susan and Co. take umbrage at the idea of men working multiple women at the same time until a firm offer of exclusivity comes up by the female. Jimmy gets the ball rolling by asking Susan:
“can you honestly argue that it doesn’t place him in a more advantageous situation than if he were sexually pursuing either girl exclusively from the get go?”
Of course it does, and he can generally pull it off only by lying by omission. Since you claim that many women don’t mind, why not be up front about his activities and what he is looking for? “Just so you know, you’re not the only person I’m doing this with.” Heck, according to your theory, this should be a DHV.
They have a few back and forth before Jimmy ends on:
You seem to be advocating exclusivity before a committed relationship is even established.
Just curious, is it a lie by omission if a girl doesn’t announce her count to a potential bf before he commits to her? After all, that’s information that will help him make an informed decision… Using your standard
It’s at this point where Mike C. jumps in and really lays it all out on the table for all to see with eyes wide open. His ability articulate this succinctly is breathtaking. Enjoy the read, it’s after the jump.
Author: Mike C
I’m going to address two things in this comment….your response to my response to the question you posed, and this concept of “lying by omission”.
Let me take the “lying by omission” first. Really, the expression is nonsensical. Lying implies false words being spoken, not the absence of providing information. I think Jimmy’s point about a woman not revealing her partner count was an excellent point that forced you to think more deeply about it rather then thinking viscerally about what you think a woman is entitled or not entitled to know. The issue isn’t lying or deception, but what is a person’s ethical obligation in terms of revealing information to another person. I think there are some black and white situations like if my basement structure is rotting I am ethically obligated to tell a potential buyer before selling the house, or if someone has AIDs and knows it they are ethically obligated to tell a potential partner about having the disease. Other things are more grey. Did you know that investment advisors and brokers are NOT held to the same standard of revealing information. A broker does not have to reveal he may have some financial incentive to sell a particular investment to a client IF the investment is deemed suitable. I could go on and on an on an on and on rattling off example after example of various levels of revealing information.
So the crux of the issue becomes one of what to reveal and not reveal in the current SMP as it stands. And it isn’t a copout to suggest that. Ethics change depending on the environment, and sort of what the overarching rules of the game are. I would argue although I won’t fully develop the argument in this comment that the complete unleashing of young female sexuality free of parental oversight, societal shaming, norms and restrictions radically altered the landscape and with it completely changed what the ethics of male obligations are.
The norm of this SMP is EXCLUSIVITY does NOT exist until formally established. Full stop. Anyone operating under a different premise has had their head in the ground that last 20 years. You can no longer assume that if I am dating you I am only dating you and vice versa. Introducing the issue of whether sex is or isn’t taking place is a false issue, and simply reflects the differing priorities of men and women with men valuing sexual access much more highly (which is why as I think Ian pointed out a guy is going to value an existing FWB more highly than a potential good relationship that may NOT develop).
Regarding your questions. First, good job on leading the witness 🙂 I stand by my differentiation of the situation. To your question about emotionally escalating with other guys, would it have bothered me? Probably, yeah. Would it have led to a different future outcome? I don’t know.
I think the particulars are unimportant. To me the crux of the issue, is the VERY REAL DIFFERENCE in the nature of male investment versus female investment. After all this time, and my many attempts, I still think you don’t really grok this. I would point you to some of Lokland’s comments, and to one comment VD made about some of the mental issues when he committed and basically took all other women off the table permanently. When a man commits to a woman (presumably a quality good one) he most certainly gets something. But he loses something as well. I suspect I will never be able to get you to understand what I am saying by that. Where I am going with this?
The point is I don’t want to, and I suspect most guys do not want to commit to any woman who has played a game of making him compete for her, either her emotional attention, sexual attention, whatever. If I had to compete to win her even really from Day 1 with other guys instead of her being really into me than I am going to have reservations about choosing her as the one that I forsake all others for the rest of my life. This gets to the issue of emotional escalation, and frankly I don’t know how a woman could sincerely emotionally escalate with multiple guys simultaneously unless there was something wrong with her emotionally. On the flipside, the situation isn’t parallel with men because I don’t think the issue is one of immediate, exclusive investment but the acid test comes more down the road in how willing the guy is to cut off./break off with all other women for good. I’m really not sure if I am articulating this perfectly but I suspect guys like Jimmy and Ian know exactly the gestalt of what I am saying.
At least to me, it seems like you want to enforce some standard of “fairness” that really is only fair from the female perspective and female priorities such as a committed monogamous relationship being 1000x more valuable than sexual access. Clearly, sexual access is important to men. Its why prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, and you really have little to no male prostitution except for homosexuals. Your framework of what is “ethical” is guided by the idea that a woman has to get a committed, monogamous relationship on her terms, conditions, and timeline with little to no consideration that a guy is going to value regular, ongoing sexual access to the extent possible. I’m not saying you are wrong, but at least be aware your ethical framework is at least in part guided by your objectives and what you see as the optimal good outcome.
I aim to let it spread like a cleansing pathogen, a virus that kills only one organism…
(H/T Mike C.)
Thought this little ditty would be pertinent to the discussion. From OKC users i just spotted: