Originally Posted by contracycle

No, look: what I'm saying is, there are motives for buying into a provider/carer narrative without being a genuine attempt to understand anything. And whteher this applies to any particular man doesn't really matter so much as its general popularity.

OKay but what I am disputing/not understanding is that these motives don't look very powerful. I mean, I understand people wanting to cut themselves a good deal so I understand that the 50s mentality would be considered 'awesome' by (some) men. In the 50s. Today, such a mentality sucks because it's actually a crappy deal to be expected to provide/indulge your gf/wife's expenditures.

Quote:

Plus it's hardly unkown for an unemployed couch potatoe to demand that his wife do housework and cook and look after kids because these are "womens work" - even if she is in fact also the breadwinner.

As I said, it's not surprising that people selfishly try to cut themselves good deals at the expense of everyone else. People such as myself with an individualistic outlook of people (see that other thread) tend to expect it. Here, this look like a perfect opportunity to try and be lazy.

But it remains fairly clear to me that giving financial protection to a woman in exchange for her giving sex is not such a good deal these days. i.e. I don't see how it'd be (your argument) in the interest of men to try and maintain such an attitude/paradigm/mentality...
To wit: "How convenient to go to your daily job and think that this absolves you of all your need to look after the needs of another person whether sexual or emotional or familial?" Well, not very convenient is my answer...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Well the simple answer is, 2 can live nearly as cheaply as 1. You pay the same rent whether there is someone else living with you or not.

That's a reason for being in a couple, assuming that the two share the bills. I don't see what that has to do with your argument.

It's still not convenient to be seen as the natural breadwinner when winning the bread is fucking hard work...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

That's a reason for being in a couple, assuming that the two share the bills. I don't see what that has to do with your argument.

I didn't say anything about sharing bills.

Quote:

It's still not convenient to be seen as the natural breadwinner when winning the bread is fucking hard work...

Except you'd still have to do it. The perception doesn't make any difference to that reality.

Originally Posted by contracycle

I didn't say anything about sharing bills.

Then I don't get your point.

Quote:

Except you'd still have to do it. The perception doesn't make any difference to that reality.

But it'd be nice if wives and gfs were not expecting it and whining when the breadwinning doesn't meet their standards/hopes and it'd be even nicer if they themselves thought they ought to look solely within themselves for earning what they feel they ought to spend...

Otherly said, I've seen plenty of women who are quite interested in that "nurturer/breadwinner" trade-off...

One can only hope that the new generations will be different...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Then I don't get your point.

the point is that the costs of two people living ins a house as opposed to one are only slightly higher. Rent or mortgage bills will far outweigh groceries. Living as a couple only entails a very tiny increment on living alone.

Quote:

But it'd be nice if wives and gfs were not expecting it and whining when the breadwinning doesn't meet their standards/hopes and it'd be even nicer if they themselves thought they ought to look solely within themselves for earning what they feel they ought to spend...

Well yes, the whole thing is poisonous, as I've always said. It's not a marriage, its a business deal. And you get what you pay for.

Originally Posted by contracycle

the point is that the costs of two people living ins a house as opposed to one are only slightly higher. Rent or mortgage bills will far outweigh groceries. Living as a couple only entails a very tiny increment on living alone.

I understood that bit. How is that connected to the discussion is what I am missing.

Quote:

Well yes, the whole thing is poisonous, as I've always said. It's not a marriage, its a business deal. And you get what you pay for.

Thus, while it was a very convenient deal in the 50s, it sucks ass right now - for men. For women, the situation is obviously reversed. Thus, I still don't see how you can say "the reality goes beyond Fry's observation - it's not just that men struggle to believe that women really like sex, but also that they do not want to believe it. Because that allows them to be the model husband by ignoring their wife and concentrating on their job. How convenient to go to your daily job and think that this absolves you of all your need to look after the needs of another person whether sexual or emotional or familial? IOW this is just another sexist myth; it's not popular becuase it is true, but because it is convenient".

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Thus, while it was a very convenient deal in the 50s, it sucks ass right now - for men. For women, the situation is obviously reversed.

*shrugs* No one's forcing you, innit?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

*shrugs* No one's forcing you, innit?

Granted. OTOH, porn is free these days so who really need a partner, eh? Nothing like making love to someone you really love...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

I understood that bit. How is that connected to the discussion is what I am missing.

Because, as I have already explained, you can pretty much move someone into your house and live almost exactly as you did before. And if you think that simply by doing so you have fulfilled all your responsibilities as a person in a relationship, then you are using what you were doing anyway as an exzcuse to avoid doing anything else.

Quote:

Thus, while it was a very convenient deal in the 50s, it sucks ass right now - for men.

I fail to see how.