They do!

It’s just that your average AFC has no idea what constitutes an approach by a woman.

You need to remove your guy goggles and stop looking for approaches by a woman being done the way a guy would do them.

I want to pose the following question to see what you all think. I don’t have any friends in real life I can talk to about this kind of thing so its hard to get constructive feedback on ones observations.

This article brings up the two different sexual mating strategies in which one must prevail – in this case the womens. I don’t question this since it is the women at the onset which dictates how any relationship moves forward. However, with that in mind, we come to the male’s sexual strategy which is more ‘short’ term and can ( in some cases) be a driving factor as a relationship progresses past where a female has their control.

My observation is that a few of my guy friends are in what I call ‘half relationships’ with women. They have been with the same women for a while, but claim, at least to their close friends, that they want to get with other women. Howerver, actions speak louder than words, and it seems that they are just as vested in said relationship as the women is – they just don’t admit it. Thus my question is this – how pluralistic is a males sexual desire? It seems suppressed when one looks at how they act, but seems to still be a desire. Is this the feminine imperative at work? It seems to me that there is an innate desire by the male to maintain the relationship despite what they ‘say’.

cheers

This YouTube video (which is audio only), raises a good argument for this very possibility.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N50ZxRSdWh8&nofeather=True

Thoughts?

Your most cogent, well thought and thoroughly evidenced arguments will never persuade people who’s egos are invested in the feminine imperative.

Yes, I suspect you are right on this. I guess at one time I hoped/expected more.

On a different note, my sense is you review some of the studies out there so what is your view on this “restricted sociosexuality” versus “unrestricted sociosexuality” dichotomy. I never heard of this conceptual model until Susan introduced it recently. I’ve gone along with it for the purposes of debate, and I suspect there may be some truth to it, but that it is an oversimplification. It especially seems to be questionable when one maintains that many people will engage in casual sex that supposedly goes against their “true sociosexual orientation” for a hodgepodge of reasons.

Based on what you’ve seen, does this categorization have any validity?