Woman, what is your role in dating?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm a hippy, I am not a bit fan of consumerism in general. I feel like marketing dehumanized people. I would rather not be seen as a producer or consumer in general.

Nearly all my men have been hopeless in the jewelry department. I gave up and buy my own. Flowers, never saw the point unless they've got roots in the ground and come back the next year, though I did have a college bf who gave me the absolutely most velvety and beautifully-colored irises. Dead, of course, days later. And my daughter said something at age three about the foolishness of men who'd give flowers as a "love gift" because the flowers would look "all deady" after a few days. (Plus of course they're terribly forward. All those sexual organs staring you right in the face.) She counselled giving chocolate, because almost everybody likes it and you can share it.

No, of course, this is very silly, the role of women in dating. It depends on you, it depends on her. Sex roles are only costumes, they're not meant to be worn all the time. But if you're being transactional about it -- if in the end it isn't essentially sociable and fond -- I think you're going to have trouble.

Ahh that makes sense then, I work in retail banking industry, so Aspie1's analogy made sense to me (the romance part).

I can see why that analogy would appeal to you, but we have to be careful with how that translates over into real life. I think that Tarentella64 is correct in saying that


Because if the one half of the relationship see is it as transactual and the other doesn't see it as purely transactional they are going to feel possibly hurt or disappointed if they are not recieving the spontaneous affection they expected from the relationship.

I read on the comments section of the Guardian website the other day one of the users was commenting that marriage is essentially a sex contract. I certainly don't agree with that and if both parties don't see it that way then they are mismatched.

I mean there's got to be a balance, a person won't get all of their expectations magically fulfilled and they've got to be yeilding to the other person's needs and emotions, but if one person in the relationship won't reciprocate affection and the other expects it then that is where problems can occur.*

*edit- where I say affection, I don't mean pure, lustful sex, I mean more sublte expressions of affection.

Tarantella just loves to blame it all on men , that all things are in our men's heads and we are just imagining stuff, but it is not really that. Also, any kid would prefer chocolate over flowers and make sense more than adults in that regard.

From what I see tho, it's the women who keep these stereotypical "romance customs" alive, not men, many women/mothers were often the "gatekeepers" of anything regarding customs, whether religious/family customs or dating/courtesy (ie. Christians women push men to go to church, Muslim women push men to fast...etc). Whenever I hear women discussing their dating life with each other, you would hear stuff like "You paid half? No he should pay all", "What? He didn't pick you up?"...etc etc ; you hear from them a lot of objections whenever one does something "nontraditional" (ie. paying for date, or paying half), and they have a thing for "behaving like a gentleman" which they often equate it to all these gendered-behavior of romance.

Men on the other hand, often complain about all these expectations on first dates. Sure, there are some atypical women who are against all these stuff, like for example the communist women (who they are more like hippies here) - but those eventually often attempted to drag me to hash joints. Yikes!!

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 08 Jun 2014, 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ah, well, you live in a place where the women haven't yet thrown off the shackles of blahdeblah, Boo. (Was in the bookstore yesterday reading the beginning of Animal Farm, had thought the kid might be old enough. She's not, but she's also too sensible, I think. Hella didactic.)

Anyway, I'm off to decimate gender roles and mow the lawn (after having spent half the morning biting my nails over transmission comparisons). Meanwhile, find a hanky and enjoy:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2bk_9T482g[/youtube]

I am going to cook something for dinner.

Not a woman. How the hell should I know?

Not sure how the Pixar scene is relevant in that thread, but the few Children-less old couples I knew are often very close to each other (and yes, often less gender roles), closer than couples as typical family with kids. I dunno why. This couple reminds me much of my mom's best friend and her husband, who never made it to have children, the man died few years ago tho in accident and their two cats died too, she's not much stable ever since.

It's not mainly about being childless, it's about two people who form a love based on friendship and attraction who grow together and face challenges together and get through the hard times together. It's an illustration of what a mutual bond and a sharing relationship is.

I thought it was a very good response. A picture paints a thousand words.

I know that the video is not about being childless, I was just telling my observation on childless couples.

I don't see dating differs between genders, dating styles with differ between individuals.

It is gender stereotyping to see it any other way, like man asks first, what's wrong with woman asking first and what's wrong with males being the submissive romantic. Two examples of an unlimited pool of dating stereotyping.

I don't date, but any 'style' of dating for me borrows from female dating. I'm male bodied considered lacking in gender.

Not a female here, but thought I'd weight in anyway. The role of both people in a relationship depends on the relationship itself. No two women are going to have the same role in a relationship with the same man, and no one woman will have the same role with two different men. Men have different roles on their end of the relationship (always different depending on the relationship). There's points where the male is 'playing the role of the woman' and vise versa, which is perfectly okay, as long as it works for both parties involved. If you want to play the same role in every relationship, or want all women in the same role when in a relationship with you, its a recipe for an unhealthy relationship. Sometimes two people can't find that 'chemistry'. That doesn't mean either of them is 'bad', it just means it wasn't meant to be. Could they have been friends? Maybe, depends on them.

tl;dr: Don't expect a magic formula to work all the time, and you have to work with your partner to work out both roles in order to make the relationship work

The whole idea of "roles" makes no sense to me.
If I want to date someone, it's because I think we'll enjoy each other's company that there's mutual attraction, not because I have this idea that we'll act as some kind an embodiment of an archetype for each other.

I think it is time to flip the question: what roles do you think you would like to play in a relationship, and what roles do you think you would like her to play? Then we can tell you if we think any women exist who might fit that, or if altering a few expectations might broaden the field for you.

I will ask readers not to judge your choices, and I ask you to think about your own needs honestly, and not write what you think anyone expects you to write.

I think the best role is the minimum role. Don't commingle finances, don't commingle property, don't make commitments, don't chain yourselves together. Stay mobile with all options continually open. Then, if things work, fine, if they don't, you can split in a hurry with no problems. People change, so, sooner or later, the person you start with probably won't be the same. So, minimize the importance of the roles by minimizing the entanglements.