"Tradition" vs. "Modernity" in Love (or, logged out strikes again)

In general, I think that there's a place for these kinds of roles and games if both parties are equally happy/able to play their part. If not, then you get into the realm of wanting your partner to be something they're not. And that never ever ever turns out well EVER.

Personally I would dump someone who was turned out to be looking to act out social roles in a relationship, but I get that it's sometimes more complicated than that.

all that said, we're both broke. Like anything, it's more complicated than just this

i bet it's not MUCH more complicated than that.

It's a really sad situation. She's a fantastic girl, very smart, sexy, perceptive, like I said I've been on cloud nine. But a lot of this "chivalry" stuff I think comes down to a combination of assertiveness and in-the-moment attentiveness, and I don't feel good at all about the prospect (I still don't know how we stand as of now) of losing her because I've fallen down on those things. Or worse, that I'm just no good at that kind of behavior, for whatever nature/nurture reason...

Anyway, thanks all.

So um, it's kind of down to whether or not you feel like taking on the responsibility, isn't it? I couldn't make a value judgement from the evidence even if I felt like making one at all...I've certainly known people whose relationships/marriages were based on what I thought of as horrible, limiting roles but it suited them just fine, and a certain couple are still "in love" 30 or so years later and beamed at each other across the dining table at their anniversary dinner in Atlantic City (urgh).

I'll take care of anyone who buys me dinner.

Get in line, sister. ;) No, but okay, so it's not a game for some people, it's the way they think the world works, for whatever reason! So how easy/difficult is it to date across those expectations when neither party thinks that he or she is "playing" anything, just living out what they've seen and/or expect to be true? This is actually sort of an interesting/pertinent question for me, esp in retrospect.

So I sympathize, but I'd rather adjust to whatever makes a relationship work than "not play games".

NB, I thought this was gonna be about something else, which is a weird sense I've gotten about some people's relationships. Not sure exactly how to explain it, except that there are three things in a relationship -- two people, and one kind of social construct of what a "relationship" is. It's funny that sometimes you seem to see instances in which both people want to relate to each other, in whatever way fits together for them, but one of them person is also fixated on the social construct of what a "relationship" is, and whether the two of them are properly engaging in one. Like the important thing isn't so much to relate to the other person (in an, umm, relationship), but to have a capital-R "Relationship."

(Ha, this should link over to the Friedan thread: it's some weird question of men's relationship with masculine roles.)

xpost That seems like something I'd have said or agreed with at different points of life, and then not so much in others. It's also kind of semantic, in terms of how we conceive of "friendship." (I.e., sometimes we have friends who are really close to us, and sometimes we have friends where our interactions with them have zero resemblance to a relationship.)

jaymc, the price of those added bonuses is those "certain games that feel artificial" to you. That's just, like, the way it is. It's the cost of doing business, and I don't mean $$$. Sorry dude!

Well, I guess I'll just prepare for lifelong bachelorhood, then!

I remember the thread -- I said the same thing then, Dan just has a better press agent. :/ (xpost)

It doesn't have to be depressing!

Is the "you" in this sentence me specifically?

No, I know, I can lead a perfectly fulfilling single life. :)

but to start off you don't have shared rules -- so you have to adopt lame-seeming social conventions as initial stand-in for the shared rules you'll later make up for yrselves

J, I'm trying to nail down what the distinction is. It's not a huge or depressing one. It's just that no matter how close you are to your friends, there's still a barrier where your business isn't wholly wrapped up with theirs. This doesn't necessarily make a huge difference in the everyday business of a relationship, but there comes a point where it's suddenly huge. And you're kind of aware of that, even in the everyday relationship, because you're working on building the kind of trust the allows you to be interdependent in that way.

I now fear that maybe I've implied (to William, maybe?) that I don't want to work on a relationship, if that's one of the differences between friends and lovers -- which isn't true at all. Maybe it's more the case that I'd rather just fast-forward to the point where we're intimate equals instead of going through the "lame-seeming social conventions" that Mark mentions. Which is what I mean about "can't we just be friends?" Like why do couples have to go through this cat-and-mouse game at first? I'm usually ready to drop my defenses pretty quickly so we can get to the point where we snuggle and gossip with each other.

Why not?

i think that i am wary of yr ideal of naturally burgeoning simpatico over the long haul, basically

I wish social forces esp re: roles of men and women weren't so strong b/c even though I kind of eschew them, I also feel them - both in relationships and in intense friendships (esp with people of opposite sex). One can blow them off but if the other party doesn't, well, problems arise - and problems will arise b/c even if there's great simpatico, the two people are, well, two different people. Again, good communication probably solves this.

i think that i am wary of yr ideal of naturally burgeoning simpatico over the long haul

Which is Reason #381 why I miss college: constant social interaction with a wide circle of people that allows you to get in on the ground floor, so to speak. I mean, I'm going on a date on Thursday that I'm not sure is even a date, really, and it's with a gal I met at the Apple Store, randomly, like two months ago. With complete strangers like her, there's always way too much handwringing on my part: I have to tell myself that we're just "hanging out" and I shouldn't overthink things -- but then I also feel like I should be taking advantage of the situation at all the right times, since it's my inaction that's the reason I'm single. Argh.

It's nice to be generous and do nice things for people, but I've always done it in an "oh, I'll get this one, you get the next one" sort of way.

I knew it! Jaymc has been dating me!

From the perspective of a girl who likes some traditional parts of relationships, the absence of some traditional stuff feels like insecurity because it IS traditional. I recently stopped dating someone because I felt like we were too much friends and not romantic enough, and I didn't want to be the one always trying to create that and always wondering if maybe he really just wasn't interested enough in me. It's basically traditional for men to pursue and women to be pursued, and while that's not ideal at all, I think it does create different expectations for those of us women who don't have the self-confidence to totally forget that. I don't know if men feel like if women aren't assertive enough, the women don't like them, but that's definitely what it's like sometimes from my end. Simple things like event planning and even sincere compliments can do a lot to solve that, though. There's a big difference between becoming a 50s master of the house and just being a little stereotypical in order to make someone feel wanted.

Because I am a man who sometimes has Logged Out's problem, I have to wonder: Is acting as a man who nominally eschews the traditional dating role sometimes a cover for not having self-confidence as a man?

Thing is, a few decades ago, it wasn't just that stuff like male pursuit was expected -- it was also kind of excused, you know? Society was kind of okay with men making all sorts of advances that would be considered totally unacceptable today -- that was just their job. Be thankful: you probably wouldn't want to trade a little timidity for a return to that. And the other thing is that people now tend to mingle in a much more, umm, heterosocial way, so things get to happen more naturally -- not with any one partner being presumptuous and making huge advances, but with both of them just gradually moving in one another. When moments arise where it's more necessary for someone to make advances (like in those mid-20s, when the heterosocial circle can kinda shrink), a lot of guys don't have a lot of practice in how to do it; they've never been forced to. (And women no longer really practice all those weird 50s arts of coyness and deflection and teasing and such, which is also probably for the better.)

So just as much as you sit around thinking maybe they're not interested in you, some of them are sitting around thinking maybe you're not interested in them. And also, yes, maybe feeling badly for themselves: "How come I have to do this? It's not like they do it, and it'd be much easier for them." (That "easier" part seems true but isn't. Women would get rejected less often, but that's exactly the problem.) The reason guys wind up getting over it and getting used to the whole thing: (a) someone has to make advances, and you might as well get ahead of the game, because (b) you get tired of thinking that even predatory jerks are doing better with women than you are, since at least they're trying.

Anyway. Nothing wrong with more of this slack getting taken up on both sides, I don't think! And to be honest I think it is getting taken up on both sides -- I don't know many women who "ask people out," but most of the women I know understand pretty well how to express exactly that sort of interest without having to ask. (Easiest and most effective technique: "Hey, actually, you should come with us, if you want!")

I think it is too, and I think your whole post is OTM. But you're used to hearing that by now.

I don't know many women who "ask people out"

Yeah, me neither. But I know women who pick people up in bars, who then end up understanding that...

Women would get rejected less often, but that's exactly the problem.

No, but picking up guys in bars always feels like getting rejected.

Ha, Kenan, totally exactly. Well, I don't know that picking up guys in bars always feels like getting rejected, but ... in the present moment, yes, women making advances aren't gonna get rejected as often. But that means that not getting rejected doesn't necessarily say very much.

Which, in turn, means that perceptive girls who are getting laid solely because they aren't being rejected aren't going to feel much better about themselves afterwards.

Where's Momus when you need him?

BINGO.

Also: in the last couple of years, there are two women that I've gone on nothing more than a few dates with, and in each case I was left wondering whether or not they were really interested in me. And so the prospect of continuing to ask them out made me feel like I was tilting at windmills -- but it's also possible that I wasn't doing my part to make the necessary advances. I don't know: I just wanted a hint of some sort.

Snuggling is way better than relationships, anyway.

There are plenty of times when I agree with this: I just need someone to snuggle with!

But I've seen it work out where the woman really does pursue, sometimes relentlessly. Which I find odd, and a bit scary.

yes.

Also: in the last couple of years, there are two women that I've gone on nothing more than a few dates with, and in each case I was left wondering whether or not they were really interested in me. And so the prospect of continuing to ask them out made me feel like I was tilting at windmills -- but it's also possible that I wasn't doing my part to make the necessary advances. I don't know: I just wanted a hint of some sort.

seriously! eventually i decide that if they were really interested i'd know by that point, which probably isn't true since i am notoriously bad at picking up signals.

also: mark s wins thread for successfully referencing calvinball!

Have begun to push that a little, but results still not conclusive. Think on the whole that I prefer to know conclusively when I'm being err, pursued (not to say "courted", since that's already been given a gendered definition around here) -- but then I have issues w/ vulnerability and like to know where the fences are so that's probably just me. Still, weird. I don't know how all y'all do it.

Gah! See, I'm on the other side saying the same thing. :)

Yes.

it makes perfect sense. a mate and i were talking about this the other day - she'd recently been out with a guy who was all "oh, i understand strong women, i know about independent women", whatever whatever, and proceeded to give her so much space/autonomy/responsibility that you'd hardly have known he was in the relationship at all, thusly totally missing the other half of the equation - that yes, my friend is an independent, strong, capable woman, which is why it's sometimes nice to have a break from being that and have someone else be in charge and make some decisions and make stuff happen.

Briefly off-topic: I don't even know why anyone equates these two things.

I think this is the key part of rrrobyn's sentence, though. If all we're really talking about is "showing confidence in wanting to be with someone," then I don't think it has to be a matter of one person taking control. What's the matter with both parties showing the same confidence? Confidence is hot.

I think I've also gotten over the whole getting drunk and making out with friends (or friends of friends) thing and that then turning into a sort of "relationship" maybe. rrgh. Which is hard though b/c I'm such a fan of making out. But yeah, is it "traditional" to want a guy to officially say "I like you, let's try going out" (whether to a friend or new person)? I just think it can allieviate a lot of unnecessary anxiety, this straight-forward approach. Hm.

One of my key discoveries of 2005 was that spending the night with someone "making out" (kinda) doesn't automatically lead to a relationship (however short-lived). In fact, it doesn't even guarantee that she'll return any of your phone calls or e-mails! She let me be her Friendster, though. That was generous.

Sexing co-workers is the (often inevitable, usually unfortunate) solution to the "it's so hard to meet people after college!" quandary.

Yes, so confidence is hot, but is it hot in all aspects, that is, do men really want to be pursued too? Or do they find it emasculating? (a lot do.) And what about the whole "he's just not that into you" argument? That is, if a man really likes a woman, he'll pursue somehow, even if in a less traditional way.

I think this is maybe true. For all of my handwringing on this thread about not feeling comfortable taking command in these typically male ways, I was actually surprised at my initiative when it came to the girl I just mentioned who spurned me. Like, I waited a couple of days and then called her, and then made a polite follow-up e-mail when I didn't hear from her, etc. I even made a last-ditch attempt a week later and invited her out to see a play with me ... So then compare with someone else I saw later with whom I just couldn't muster the same initiative, even though I thought she was really cute and sweet, and at one point, it occurred to me, "Oh yeah, I guess I just don't find her that interesting."

This has never, ever, ever worked for me, so I am constantly wondering how everyone else managed it.

When you assume you make an ass out of uma thurman.

(xpost to Rosemary, but works for Kenan, too)

Actually I'm pretty sure that "not dating" is the solution to that, Jordan.

I think perhaps outside of New York I'd be more motivated to be the pursuer, because I might have more confidence that it would actually be to some avail. Here, though, I think dating is confused with shopping, and really, if we're just shopping, I'd as soon keep my headspace free for actual important life things. I mean, I love love the making of out as much as the next boy-crazy girl, but I can live w/o it in a way that I cannot live without an apartment and a paycheck and a little emotional security.

1) Once you're already ensconced in a relationship, as Mr. Log Doubt is, at which point playing these traditional roles of courtship seems to be beside the point to me, because you should be comfortable enough with each other as intimate equals that none of that stuff should matter.

2) Once interest has been shown from both sides, maybe you've even gone on a date, and you're sort of dancing around how to turn it into something more. At this point, the problem isn't passivity, because ideally, my excitement about the situation's potential is going to lead me to take the initative in certain ways, as a matter of course. But I wouldn't want to gender this initiative-taking, either.

3) Approaching, pursuing, or just plain demonstrating interest in the first place, which is the part that seems hard when you're not used to dealing with strangers as potential partners and your experience has led you to prefer when things just sort of happen naturally.

You're a comedic genius.

But this goes for men as well. Men also want to feel "safe." So maybe we're going in circles, but even so, I think that the gender stereotypes DO matter especially in the beginning, because of the way we're socialized, and later because of the things we need. Maybe it's even Freudian. I don't pretend to have figured it out. Alls I know is, being a big squishy sensitive boy is a ticket to NoPussyVille.

(Also, Renee thinks you're gay.)

And I second Laurel's point very fervently.

stopping doing this after you're in a relationship/marriage is what leads to it ending, I think. it doesn't need to be all the time, obviously.

Unless you harbor a secret desire to be the woman, or course you do.

You don't have to do it that way every time, of course. OF COURSE NOT. But it's like English, you know? If you don't know the rules, you're not allowed to break them.

Why treat this as a gender thing, though? What if it drives the man crazy and he really needs his girlfriend's/wife's help?

you're right, jaymc. hm, i don't know, but gender's there somewhere.

I have been with my husband for 6 years, married for two.
I like that he does what he says he's going to do (manly point 1) and doesn't complain/whine about stuff (manly point 2). I remove/kill all of the bugs. He tidies the house. We just do what needs to be done. We don't talk about gender roles or who "should" be doing what. There's really no need to talk about that. It's all fine. If he yakked on and on about gender roles, I would absolutely NOT like that.

Why are we making this big huge differentiation between "being the man" and doing nice things for your partner? Unless by "nice things" people are talking about, like, taking out the cat poop or something. I really doubt there are that many women (and certainly not very many who'd be dating ILXors, sorry dudes) that are seeking dragon slayers or some shit. But yeah, kyle is basically OTM, if you're "intimate equals" to the point where you aren't going out of your way to do anything romantic at all, that's been, in my experience, a one way ticket to Sitting-alone-by-yourself-ville. A good percentage of people here seem to have this idea that being romantic/sexy/etc involves like millions of dollars and putting together boats or something??? Which it really doesn't and that isn't what an awful lot of women are talking about when they complain that their boyfriends seem to have lost interest in them/aren't acting romantic anymore.

You don't have to do it all the time but being "intimate equals" all the time is pretty goddamned boring and doesn't make you feel special at all. It makes you feel like a bro. Which is cool and all but not every day. I HAVE bros for that. And yes, because of traditional gender stereotypes, if the male partner isn't doing anything that resembles romanticism, it is read as disinterest quite regularly.

Dan isn't really a yakker in general, though, is he?

anyway this thread is illuminating and these fears relating to payment for things, etc, are what plagued me throughout my adolescence. I had no idea how to even ask a girl out on a date since I had no money and no car to take her anywhere. Hence my lonely life until college. Teenage girls like them some flash, that's for sure.

you sound like the Grizzly Man

so "romantic" = "unequal"?

When you jerk off, are you thinking of/looking at men or women? There's a really easy test for this. If tits turn you on, you're not gay. Ask any gay man.

Amanda, you are a treasure! But I like co-opting my friend's statement (originally in reference to being "punk rock") and say only that the definition of "womanly", FOR ME, is "whatever I do". Because I am one. So ner. Etc. And I think we can all get behind that kind of flexibility (I mean, right?!?) BUT we still have to negotiate those definitions with the partners who will be taking up the accompanying roles in whatever situation. So even though definitions of womanly vs manly change between every couple, they still have to be sorted out at some point, by whatever preferences the partners share or can hammer out.

I mean, hell, with some of my female friends I'm the boy, and with some of them I'm the girl, and with plenty of them we trade places depending on the topic (ie one friend is much more "masculine" than I about her sexual freedom but is less practical-minded and less handy in a fix-it way). As long as the roles are acknowledged to be fluid & situational, does it really matter if we call them masculine or feminine or bald-as-an-egg-and-painted-silver?

Ally is so lovely and right about bro-dom vs. making each other feel singled out & special.

Not really. I mean, if I jerk off three times a day, does that make me manly?

Although I guess I need to keep defending my original points yesterday about friendship, which has now morphed into bro-dom, because I do think being singled out and feeling special is key to any dating relationship; any friendship ideal I've been championing has been more like a best friend and one true confidante than just "one of the bros."

actually, i have no idea what i'm saying.

(xpost) well, yeah

I had this thing written about "womanly"/"manly" but I lost it. And I cut myself earlier while in what I'm now calling the Kitchen of Terror and am still in shock, I think. So no more thoughts on this right now anyway.