Solid material. My only concern is that I'm a bit leery of the part where she leans into saying that we're "wired differently" as an explanation for this toxic behavior. I'm not fond of that explanation, especially when I see it more commonly used to argue that men are 'wired' to be the adulterers. Implying that an undesirable behavioral trait is biologically inherent to a group is not something to be done lightly or without strong evidence presented in support. That part veers unpleasantly close to a Tate style claim that women are always looking to marry a Beta for his resources while she Fs an Alpha on the side for his big D, because that's how they're wired. It happens, but AFAICT from the literature it's not nearly widespread enough to justify that behavior being applied as a stereotype to the entire female sex.
I get that a short video isn't the best place to get into the nitty gritty of the latest white papers on gender differences in mating strategies and historical patterns in monogamy, but it's still a little internally contradictory even here to emphasize "That's a story we tell" (culture) AND "wired differently" (biology). Likewise, "men commit" and "women don't even think about it" should probably be more specifically said "good men commit" and "unfaithful women don't even think about it", because while that's true on average there are still a LOT of unfaithful men and faithful women out there too.
I think that when discussing sex differences it's very important to be clear when some trait is an absolute, an average, or just a significant subgroup. AFAICT, at least in America, marital infidelity (by either sex) is a subgroup, not the average and certainly not an absolute. That's worth saying. The majority of married people aren't cheating on their spouses.
Sure, there are still differences between the subgroups that DO cheat as to WHY: it's been a while but IIRC the most commonly reported reason for men was a combination of alcohol and opportunity (poor judgement while impaired) while the most common reason given by women was a combination of revenge (payback for 'failing' her in some way or assuming that he's already cheated) and 'feelings' (not necessarily intimacy or emotional connections between her and the side piece, but more "how he makes me feel": sexy, wild, young again, etc). It's interesting to me how women were more likely to maliciously cheat with the deliberate intent of it emotionally (and perhaps reputationally) hurting her man whereas men were much more likely to want it to NOT hurt his woman.
Like I said, solid material, but still with some room to improve it. There's a lot that can be said on this subject even while sticking carefully only to claims that have credible research underlying them.
I don't think it's a mistake at all to say that men and women are wired differently, just that it doesn't explain everything.
As far as 'stereotype' goes, it's one of those words that has gained an emotional element over the decades, which is unfortunate. When I was growing up, people began complaining about 'negative stereotypes' in relation to bigotry and discrimination. Gradually, the word itself became associated with negativity. In reality, a stereotype is just a combination of characteristics typical of some group that sets that group apart from other groups. It's a descriptive tool. There are are quite valid stereotypes and there are invalid ones, as well, but being perceived as 'postive' or 'negative' does not necessarily make them invalid.
You can look at it this way, valid stereotypes for men and women would consist of the characteristics that, on average, predominate in one sex or the other. It doesn't imply that all men or women are stereotypical, just that there is a statistically significant difference between the groups. You could say, with complete utility, that a stereotypical woman would wear a dress whereas a stereotypical man would wear pants even though modern women, on average, seldom wear dresses anymore. Women are still far more likely to wear dresses, on occasion, than men. You could also see it as dresses being stereotypically women's attire.
Stereotypes are actually quite useful tools in understanding groups and categories in terms of their differences. If there is no valid stereotype for a group that sets it apart from other groups , why would you even set it apart as a separate group?
All excellent points, full agreement, but suggest you've slightly misunderstood me, so I'll try to clarify.
Saying that men and women are "wired differently" is mostly useful in regards to biological differences themselves: hormone levels and cycles, patterns of connectivity between certain portions of the brain, biological clock for reproductive fitness, etc. Those are absolutes.
Stereotypes are mostly useful when discussing averages. That's what they are MEANT to describe. A Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when people attempt to use them as absolutes. For example, "men are ALWAYS more aggressive than women" is obviously a very different claim than something like "of people with above average aggression, 60% are men and 40% are women, so we can say that men are, on average, more aggressive than women". The latter claim clearly contradicts the former claim. A Fallacy of Equivocation also occurs when they are used to ascribe the traits of a minority to the majority. For example, as I previously noted, the majority of American spouses never cheat. So describing EITHER gender as stereotypically cheaters is inaccurate. It's not just a negative stereotype, it's a factually FALSE stereotype.
Now, most people won't complain about a positive stereotype, even if it's not factually accurate. For example, I served overseas and I know very few service members who ever objectived to foreigners referring to Americans as "cowboys", whether it was literally accurate (very few of us ever worked a ranch) or metaphorically accurate (the majority of us don't actually fit the stereotype as they meant it, but we take it as a compliment anyway). Very few people will reject a compliment even if it's essentially untrue.
So there's rarely much call to substantiate a positive stereotype unless it's stated in such a way as to necessarily imply that other groups are lacking in that area. For example, consider the notorious DEI poster that equated "logic", "search for objective truth", "punctuality", and "strong work ethic" with "white culture". Put in the specific context of being compared against other racial minorities, it takes some interesting mental gymnastics to read that in any way that isn't clearly bigotry of low expectations against non-white cultures.
Compliments don't necessarily need to be justified by being true, but insults do. Negative Stereotyping is insulting. Negative Stereotypes should therefore only be used with care and clear support that they are true.
There are points in this article where it seems to me that averages are presented as absolutes and minority subgroups are presented as majority averages. That's not quite accurate. Likewise, the "wired differently" argument is being used to support a negative stereotype (women don't...), but isn't specifying any actual biological basis for the difference or any source to substantiate that it's accurate of the average, much the absolute.
I'm not rejecting that men and women ARE "wired differently" in numerous fascinating ways that often have second and third order effects on behavior, only that the way it's given here is somewhat contradictory and missing needed support for any biological basis.
Agreed. My remarks about stereotypes were not meant as a disagreement, just to add a little context to the discussion. It's a pet peeve of mine that a lot of folks, now, automatically object to stereotypes as invalid because of linguistic drift. I wasn't suggesting that you were doing !that, just that it's out there and some do.
Another interesting aspect to this is the definition of cheating. It's sort of assumed, culturally, that if an unmarried person has sex with a married person, the married person is cheating but the unmarried person is not. I've come to see that as an unuseful distinction. If you're a knowing accessory to cheating, you're participating in the act so you're cheating, too. Once you take that understanding on board, and if you assume that married people of either sex are relatively equally liable to lie about their marital status when having affairs or casual sex, it's literally impossible to claim that one sex or the other is more likely, on average, to cheat--at least in cases of heterosexual couples sex.
It was a common stereotype, a few years back, that men, on a average, had significantly more sex partners than women. This is mathematically impossible, of course, if you're referring to heterosexual couplings, because every instance requires both a man and a woman. You could make the argument that homosexual men have far more partners than homosexual women, of course, but even if true (which I doubt), that just implies that homosexual men and homosexual women are 'wired differently'.
Tom I'm glad to see something about Sex between heterosexual couples...
I was to the point where I was going to ask you to talk about this.
But my other thing is: men have become to pussy whipped, even us gay ones.. time for some distance.. not in a nasty way, but a grown up way..not pandering all the time...
Outside of having sex, how many Men (and women) negotiate(d) with the woman about marriage, children, frequency of sex before penetration happened and marriage happened and pregnancy... and, and, and... yeah it sounds all so Transactional but why is it that we often negotiate the deals about the new Car but not a relationship that will cost us far more!!!
I would have to say that many people are not mature adults.. and I'm finally shocked...!!!
I'll leave it at that.. just some of my thoughts as I read your Blog and Janices, Bettina Arndt and two others...
Negotiated? My wife and I did, which has worked out great for us. It does seem very uncommon these days though. I've gotten a surprising amount of flack for that from both the Right (apparently saying honestly what I want and expecting the same from her without playing any games is considered 'unromantic' in certain circles) and the Left (which seems dead set against women ever being expected to actually abide by any commitment they make). It's almost funny how there's mostly bipartisan agreement that relationships ought to be based on open communication and clear expectations... EXCEPT as it concerns men being given any legitimacy when asking for sex and children.
Yes I get you with the 'relationships ought to be based on open communication and clear expectations' and yet we turn strange when this is pursued as you have.
I'm allergic to this kind of 'contract' thing myself but if I'm honest it is not my strongest behaviour and nearly non existent. To many years of not negotiating anything and that includes everything that a Union would look after...
It would seem that things must be clear when it all ends up before a Judge.
It is very non romantic.. and yet, unless we believe in karma, a good majority of society rattles along with a stick hoping they will never fall into a hole in the footpath...
There are a few reasons why I got to these questions (more than listed below):
1. a female friend after some 15+ years has found out her husband doesn't want the relationship anymore - shock horror and 'why didn't he tell me sooner'.. yet she had warnings from the beginning;
2. I was on one of my gay chat/cam sites and asked a couple of straight blokes some questions and found out from (then it became) three guys the following:
a)I love my wife, not leaving, sex isn't enough so when I travel or out and about and I can, I fuck other women;
b) love my wife, not leaving, sex isn't enough so I pay prostitutes;
c) I realised that I was spending a fortune (younger 40's man) on drinks and dinner and sometimes - as it turned out - I ended up with no sex, bad sex or trouble and in the end this guy decided - I spend the money on prostitutes with whom I get to select, have a good time, get my rocks off every time and live my life, hassle free rather than thinking 'when is my next fuck'..
sorry to be crass..
This and other things, led me to ask 'do straight people ever negotiate?'
Why do we/I live our lives floating along in some river expecting miracles while giving up the option of the extra paddles when we left the shore!!
There are just my ramblings. I do my best to not judge people or myself... We have all been conditioned to think certain ways and pulling that jail apart is very different for each individual..
Shrug. I'm an Aspy, so relationships and social interaction in general have always been difficult for me. I can't really be taken as an example of "normal".
To me, it's hard to understand why so many people think it's unromantic to negotiate a relationship upfront. Even professional lawyers dislike it when I point out that is what a marriage definitionally and legally is: a form of contract. People seem to prefer the archaic term "covenant" for it, but it's the same thing: a binding agreement under certain terms.
More confusing still, the Marriage Vows are widely considered very romantic by most people. I agree that they are. I just don't 'get' why so many folks find it very emotional when hearing the terms spoken aloud when the contract is being finalized (the Wedding Ceremony), but find it very UNromantic to discuss those terms in advance.
It's also puzzling to me how so many people will unthinkingly say vows like "for better or worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part"... But they don't actually mean any of it. When things get worse, so many quit. When a spouse suffers cancer or dementia, so many will say "I just can't handle this anymore" and leave. So many people, even when things aren't worse and health is fine, divorce. "I'm just not feeling the love anymore", "I've met someone else", "I want to take my life in a different direction", etc... Why do they make solemn vows, in front of God and all their friends and families, that they don't truly intend to keep? Why do people who are thinking "unless my feelings change... until I change my mind... unless I meet someone better..." bother getting married at all? They treat it like a rental, not something they are taking lasting ownership of.
It's weird to me that people who don't take their vows seriously, people who casually abandon their commitments, people who give every excuse under the sun for not living up to their own given word, will still tell me that they found the ceremony romantic, still tell me that my practice of openly negotiating and taking what I offer and what I ask with the full seriousness that our words WILL bind us even unto Death... THAT is somehow unromantic. How is a wedding ceremony "romantic" when somebody giving their vow is already mentally keeping an exit door open, but taking the time and effort to mutually work out the expectations and responsibilities in advance for the relationship to last forever... Is NOT romantic?
Maybe I'm the strange one for being deeply emotionally moved by a contract, but at least when my Wife and I say to each other "I will love you always", we both know that we mean "love" as an action verb, not just a passing feeling, and we're reaffirming our commitment to actively give love to each other, to be patient, kind, encouraging, forgiving, etc always. I find that very romantic and so does she.
Really love this comment. I have often thought the same - how is it that people promise in front of their family and friends to never get divorced, and then do it so easily?
No-fault divorce is clearly wrong and should be changed.
I'm a professional lawyer and I don't dislike pointing out that a marriage is a contract!
The way I see this sort of thing usually discussed is in terms of talking about desires and expectations to see if you're compatible. No one blinks an eye at that, and that's basically what you mean by "negotiate," right?
Can you elaborate on your negotiations, the details of what you negotiated, and how do you handle it when someone doesn't keep their promises? I'd love to hear more.
Sure. There was a lot covered and we've been happily married for more than a decade now, so it's been a while, but here's some of the highlights by topic area.
Divorce: not an option except in cases of criminal abuse or adultery. Threats of divorce will not be brought up as a hyperbolic expression of dissatisfaction or tactic in disagreements. Full agreement. Likewise, no unilateral separation. Neither of us will just decamp to a hotel or relative's house over a dispute. At worst, we can insist the other sleep in a separate room if some cooling off time is needed after an argument.
Children: She didn't want to go through childbirth again (she has a daughter from a previous marriage). I like kids, but have medical conditions I'd rather not pass on, so suggested adoption as an option. We agreed to no further biological kids and to reassess the adoption option annually. We're both strictly against abortion, so I volunteered to get snipped to avoid any possible accidents.
Finances: She insisted on my paycheck going into a joint account. I insisted on the authority to set a minimum amount to be maintained in savings. We further stipulated that removing any money from Savings requires agreement from both of us. She added a similar threshold for Checking so that, if the available funds fall below a certain point, neither of us can use the debit card without clearing the purchase with the other. Likewise, ALL credit card usage requires mutual agreement and must be paid off at the end of the month. All major purchases require mutual agreement. She handles paying the bills, I audit the accounts at will, we go over the family budget monthly. We set aside an allocation for individual allowances each paycheck so we both have some petty cash to support our hobbies.
Work: I work full time. She may work if she chooses, but my job takes priority if there's a conflict (Active Duty Army) regarding other topics. At whatever point I leave the Service, we'll renegotiate our working arrangements. If she works, her pay goes into the joint account also.
Housing: We move as directed by the Army, live within the recall radius of my assigned Post, and don't rent any place that costs more than my BAH covers. When picking a place we each make a list of priorities and can each specify 3 "must have" or "veto" conditions (for example, I require a room for a home office and she insists on having covered parking closest to the house for her car). We won't buy a permanent residence until I retire.
Sex: Is NEVER transactional. Neither of us will offer sexual acts or demand sexual acts in exchange for anything else. Likewise, sex may not be withheld as a negotiating tactic or punishment. Additional negotiations established clear boundaries and expectations regarding frequency of sex, appropriate preconditions for initiating sex, and permissable actions during sex.
Food: Default expectation is that we're each responsible for dinner 3x a week (with one "fend for yourself" night). When eating out, we take turns using the 'menu' approach (one of us lists a few places, the other picks the place off the list). We can each veto disliked ingredients from shared meals.
Chores: We reached an arrangement regarding who does which chores how often. If a chore isn't done within 2d of the agreed frequency the other person can do it and make the other do one of their chores the next week.
Time and tasks: for tasks other than the recurring chores, the split is "When" or "What". If one person chooses "what" is to be done, the other person chooses "when". For example, if I want a game night with the guys, she gets to decide when I can do it. When she wants me to rearrange the furniture for her to redecorate, I get to decide when we do that.
Outside relationships and privacy: Unless given permission by the other or necessary for business reasons, neither of us spend time alone with unrelated members of the other sex. We both have access to each other's phones, computers, and accounts. Either of us can designate certain facts or topics as 'private' and they will NOT be shared with anyone (exceptions made for protected communications like chaplain, doctor, lawyer, therapist, etc, but NOT for 'best friend' or other family members, much less social media). For example, our sex life is not a permitted topic for 'girl talk'.
Date Night: At least once a week (usually Friday), we go on a date together.
Vacation: We take turns deciding where we go during my time off. Either of us can end a vacation and insist on a return to home at any time.
Medical: [redacted] suffice it to say that we discussed preferred policies for DNR orders, medical power of attorney, and handling of remains.
Dealing with problems: Any issues that arise are to be handled with open communication and further negotiation. Negotiations may get heated, but personal insults are unacceptable and time outs to calm down must be respected. Time outs may not exceed a day before resuming discussion. Each person must give the other time to speak without interruption and listen well enough to summarize the points raised to the satisfaction of the other. Deals will be offered and honored. We agreed that maintaining a good marriage requires ongoing work from both of us
Mediation: We're both Christian, so we agreed that if we ever need a neutral 3rd party to settle a dispute, we can call on a pastor or elder of our church (by mutual agreement).
Enforcement: Aside from anything determined in mediation, we each specified a number of "nice to have, but nonessential" actions that we appreciate from the other, like me handling any night driving or freeway gridlock for both of us, me fetching items upon her request in the evenings when her feet hurt, me making any necessary calls to customer service lines and fixing any computer problems, etc that we will do for the other regularly or upon request, but ARE fair game to withhold if one of us feels the other is in breach of the terms. The shared essentials like finances and household chores still get done even if we're fighting, but we lose out on enough other privileges for the duration of disputes for the inconvenience to incentivise returning to negotiation before long. Similarly, we have another list of things that we do specifically as an expression of our love, like me bringing her an icepack from the freezer each evening before we turn the lights out for sleep (one of my chores is cleaning the litter box in the evenings, so I visit the kitchen one last time long after she's settled into bed for the evening). We always continue those actions even during disputes as a reminder that, no matter what we're currently fighting about or other favors we're temporarily withholding, we still love each other always.
We've had a few minor breaches over the years and I've spent some nights on the couch occasionally until tempers cooled and new deals were struck to address the matters that arose, but it's really quite rare that we have any issue between us that takes more than a day or two to be resolved to our mutual satisfaction. Sorting out 'how' we will fight in advance and what is fair or not to withhold during fights has proven, even if not always perfectly followed, nonetheless incredibly useful for limiting escalation in the heat of the moment and avoiding inadvertent lasting harm to our relationship. The importance of acknowledging upfront that, even in a genuinely mutually loving relationship with both spouses acting entirely in good faith, some disputes will occasionally happen and planning for them in advance is much better than trying to determine the ground rules during the disputes themselves, should not be underestimated.
Basically, we each came into the relationship fully aware of what kind of issues most often cause problems or lead to divorce and we made a point of hammering out a shared set of goals, processes, limits, and responsibilities we were each willing to commit ourselves to eternally regardless of any outside circumstances that may happen to challenge us. Our original agreements have held up with remarkably few modifications over time. Now, even a decade later, we're both still deeply in love, very affectionate toward each other, and consistently happy to be together.
This is the work of mature relationships. It is foiled by men being addicted to the blue pill. In my work with couples it has become clear to me that men don't ask for what they want in relationship and sometimes don't even know what they want. Women have been trained to expect to be treated well, but men are trained to treat women well. No training for what HE NEEDS.
The various agreements described so well in your comment are the work that needs to be done and is usually accomplished over a long period of time. One issue at a time. It requires men to know what they want and to stand their ground. At the same time it requires men to negotiate with fairness to what both want. She, of course, needs to do the same. When that happens you get a working and loving relationship.
For me at the end of the day, romantic or not, Marriage is a contract when one engages with the State. This is something I realised more and more when dealing with my own situation of 'same sex marriage'.. it is the State that makes it legal or not in the eyes of the law.. and what I don't understand, exactly what you say, is that when people get married and say certain things in that ceremony then the State should be looking at that and either going directly into action if the marriage starts to break down or stop interfering in citizens lives.. maybe I am trying to make it to simple.. but I think you also suggest.. that when there is a contract, romantic or not, then this is indicating that two people actually want to work out something..
I find the whole thing, because of Justice not being enacted in some cases, a double standard from the State.. it is like they impose a contact but anything can happen when the marriage breaks down.
I'm just rambling because think the State ties people up when they don't stick to their own rules... they make things harder for people.. and we see this from reading this substack.. the stories of the Authorities, police not doing what they should do and that is bring about reconciliation and justice... or maybe I'm living in another world...
I think we largely agree. Given my preference, the State would have no role in "Marriage" at all. A State issued marriage license makes about as much sense to me as a State issued Pastor's license. If it's not an authority that will either define or enforce the terms of the agreement between the parties, why should it have any say in who is eligible to enter such an agreement?
sorry I wrote it when tired.. I think I wanted to say more but was all tuckered out.
The State: here in Switzerland your marriage is 'not legal' unless done in the States Offices - for all. Even before equal marriage was brought in, a same-sex-partnership had to be done in the 'Zivilstandsamt' = registry office.
You can do all other types of ceremonies in : church, the park, whatever.. but it aint legal unless you are registered at the Zivilstandsamt.
So when I was preparing for this change in my life, I researched and asked a friend in Australia 'how does it work in australia'?
A friend was a Civil Celebrant and in order to be able to 'marry' people she had to be registered and approved by The State.
I'm banging on about this because people don't realise how much influence and power The State has..
So once I found this out, I thought: fair enough... mostly people got married, I think, in a Church, registry office or Civil Celebrant...
Now silly me, not knowing of course, never thought about churches.. it never registered when a friend, as a Priest, mentioned something about they 'only had two licences...
Now my point here is the following: in all the bad press about Same-Sex-Marriage (homosexuality), all the hate, all the 'anti' whatever.. it wasn't until I researched after talking to my female friend and then looking at a registry and finding her name on this registry that I then noticed 'Catholic Church' entries...!!!!!
Imagine.. I was thinking that Marriage is a sacred thing and yet here were Catholic Church Priests and other churches Registered and there were their names...
Then the penny dropped.. all this negative shit flying about Same Sex Marriage and how 'normal marriage' is 'sacred' but The State was firmly planted in the middle of 'normal' marriage... so of course I realised that all this mmm 'shit' flying around 'marriage' and in particular 'same sex marriage' was nothing but State intervention between a contract (maybe love and then verbal - I want to marry you kind of agreement, question) but it is a contract at the end of the day and I don't care what anyone says or believes... I don't care what people do actually.. but The State and The Church have made millions out of all this shit rather than Marriage just being a contract that is between two people and the legal system deals with it when something goes wrong...
I'm far away from the topic maybe.. but the main point is.. Leaders all over the world are not supporting proper Justice to citizens... in many ways and for many things... they are allowing the Mob to rule society and get away with criminal activities between people; otherwise, why have a contract when a judge can say, 'no, that is not so'...
Thanks, Tom. I have seen several of her videos. She has also done several videos about wives refusing to have sex with their husbands. One f her common themes is that women need to fix their own unhappiness, instead of blaming their husbands for it.
Lots of fanciful "explanations" for ignorance. Neither men nor women are aware of the reasons for marriage. The primary one is to procreate. Nearly everything else is peripheral. Happiness is a possible but far from necessary contingency. Incidentally, happiness has a completely different meaning now than it had in previous times.
It has come to be connected with emotion now, whereas it used to be connected with practicality or utility. With regard to marital happiness, formerly a man considered himself happy when his hard work enabled him to supply enough goods to feed himself and his household. Sex was for making babies. Satisfaction came from seeing them grow into independent, self sufficient adults. A woman considered herself happy when she conceived and helped her children become independent and self sufficient adults. Sex was what she had to do to conceive. For both of them sex was more an obligation than a source of pleasure.
In our self indulgent world, pleasure has become an end in itself. Children are optional and are considered a nuisance, an often unwanted and expensive burden, an interruption of their pursuit of pleasure. Marriage itself is optional. Variety has become the spice of life. Monogamy only served to reinforce a man's willingness to support a woman's children a woman's obtaining support for herself and her children. Children are accidental.
this fits nicely, I think, with your "Children are optional and are considered a nuisance, an often unwanted and expensive burden, an interruption of their pursuit of pleasure"
Wow...the Sisterhood isn't going to like the truth being let out. Finally a woman who is prepared to reveal the truth behind the unhappiness in most marriages does indeed arise from the women. Sadly, this applies even in relationships within families where marriage is not the source of the relationship. It can be summed up that too many women seem to be self serving narcissists whose word means nothing, whose actions are all self serving and who, frankly, should be avoided by all like the plague (i.e. the Black Death that feminists seem to seek to embody). I wonder how long it will be until men wash their hands of women entirely and embrace Sharia law as protection against the conduct of women.
If you live by consensual standards this is probably operative and descriptive of ingrained beliefs and resultant female behavior. It's bs to put "all" women or men in a box since there exist men and women who have spent their energy getting out of the box! Descriptions of conventional failure may be true and even helpful on the journey when shared in the spirit of compassion or community, but there are more direct ways toward authenticity that enhance true connection in marriage and sex.
Absent all discussion seems to be Christ's reforms, as if they are absent/inapplicable? When is non-spousal and non-parental emotional intimacy appropriate while maintaining and nurturing conjugal and familial intimacy? (Ie: "girlfriends" of wives w/ gossip/ intimate conversations?)
Solid material. My only concern is that I'm a bit leery of the part where she leans into saying that we're "wired differently" as an explanation for this toxic behavior. I'm not fond of that explanation, especially when I see it more commonly used to argue that men are 'wired' to be the adulterers. Implying that an undesirable behavioral trait is biologically inherent to a group is not something to be done lightly or without strong evidence presented in support. That part veers unpleasantly close to a Tate style claim that women are always looking to marry a Beta for his resources while she Fs an Alpha on the side for his big D, because that's how they're wired. It happens, but AFAICT from the literature it's not nearly widespread enough to justify that behavior being applied as a stereotype to the entire female sex.
I get that a short video isn't the best place to get into the nitty gritty of the latest white papers on gender differences in mating strategies and historical patterns in monogamy, but it's still a little internally contradictory even here to emphasize "That's a story we tell" (culture) AND "wired differently" (biology). Likewise, "men commit" and "women don't even think about it" should probably be more specifically said "good men commit" and "unfaithful women don't even think about it", because while that's true on average there are still a LOT of unfaithful men and faithful women out there too.
I think that when discussing sex differences it's very important to be clear when some trait is an absolute, an average, or just a significant subgroup. AFAICT, at least in America, marital infidelity (by either sex) is a subgroup, not the average and certainly not an absolute. That's worth saying. The majority of married people aren't cheating on their spouses.
Sure, there are still differences between the subgroups that DO cheat as to WHY: it's been a while but IIRC the most commonly reported reason for men was a combination of alcohol and opportunity (poor judgement while impaired) while the most common reason given by women was a combination of revenge (payback for 'failing' her in some way or assuming that he's already cheated) and 'feelings' (not necessarily intimacy or emotional connections between her and the side piece, but more "how he makes me feel": sexy, wild, young again, etc). It's interesting to me how women were more likely to maliciously cheat with the deliberate intent of it emotionally (and perhaps reputationally) hurting her man whereas men were much more likely to want it to NOT hurt his woman.
Like I said, solid material, but still with some room to improve it. There's a lot that can be said on this subject even while sticking carefully only to claims that have credible research underlying them.
What an excellent point, and actually a number of good points. Many thanks for this thoughtful and helpful comment.
I don't think it's a mistake at all to say that men and women are wired differently, just that it doesn't explain everything.
As far as 'stereotype' goes, it's one of those words that has gained an emotional element over the decades, which is unfortunate. When I was growing up, people began complaining about 'negative stereotypes' in relation to bigotry and discrimination. Gradually, the word itself became associated with negativity. In reality, a stereotype is just a combination of characteristics typical of some group that sets that group apart from other groups. It's a descriptive tool. There are are quite valid stereotypes and there are invalid ones, as well, but being perceived as 'postive' or 'negative' does not necessarily make them invalid.
You can look at it this way, valid stereotypes for men and women would consist of the characteristics that, on average, predominate in one sex or the other. It doesn't imply that all men or women are stereotypical, just that there is a statistically significant difference between the groups. You could say, with complete utility, that a stereotypical woman would wear a dress whereas a stereotypical man would wear pants even though modern women, on average, seldom wear dresses anymore. Women are still far more likely to wear dresses, on occasion, than men. You could also see it as dresses being stereotypically women's attire.
Stereotypes are actually quite useful tools in understanding groups and categories in terms of their differences. If there is no valid stereotype for a group that sets it apart from other groups , why would you even set it apart as a separate group?
All excellent points, full agreement, but suggest you've slightly misunderstood me, so I'll try to clarify.
Saying that men and women are "wired differently" is mostly useful in regards to biological differences themselves: hormone levels and cycles, patterns of connectivity between certain portions of the brain, biological clock for reproductive fitness, etc. Those are absolutes.
Stereotypes are mostly useful when discussing averages. That's what they are MEANT to describe. A Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when people attempt to use them as absolutes. For example, "men are ALWAYS more aggressive than women" is obviously a very different claim than something like "of people with above average aggression, 60% are men and 40% are women, so we can say that men are, on average, more aggressive than women". The latter claim clearly contradicts the former claim. A Fallacy of Equivocation also occurs when they are used to ascribe the traits of a minority to the majority. For example, as I previously noted, the majority of American spouses never cheat. So describing EITHER gender as stereotypically cheaters is inaccurate. It's not just a negative stereotype, it's a factually FALSE stereotype.
Now, most people won't complain about a positive stereotype, even if it's not factually accurate. For example, I served overseas and I know very few service members who ever objectived to foreigners referring to Americans as "cowboys", whether it was literally accurate (very few of us ever worked a ranch) or metaphorically accurate (the majority of us don't actually fit the stereotype as they meant it, but we take it as a compliment anyway). Very few people will reject a compliment even if it's essentially untrue.
So there's rarely much call to substantiate a positive stereotype unless it's stated in such a way as to necessarily imply that other groups are lacking in that area. For example, consider the notorious DEI poster that equated "logic", "search for objective truth", "punctuality", and "strong work ethic" with "white culture". Put in the specific context of being compared against other racial minorities, it takes some interesting mental gymnastics to read that in any way that isn't clearly bigotry of low expectations against non-white cultures.
Compliments don't necessarily need to be justified by being true, but insults do. Negative Stereotyping is insulting. Negative Stereotypes should therefore only be used with care and clear support that they are true.
There are points in this article where it seems to me that averages are presented as absolutes and minority subgroups are presented as majority averages. That's not quite accurate. Likewise, the "wired differently" argument is being used to support a negative stereotype (women don't...), but isn't specifying any actual biological basis for the difference or any source to substantiate that it's accurate of the average, much the absolute.
I'm not rejecting that men and women ARE "wired differently" in numerous fascinating ways that often have second and third order effects on behavior, only that the way it's given here is somewhat contradictory and missing needed support for any biological basis.
Agreed. My remarks about stereotypes were not meant as a disagreement, just to add a little context to the discussion. It's a pet peeve of mine that a lot of folks, now, automatically object to stereotypes as invalid because of linguistic drift. I wasn't suggesting that you were doing !that, just that it's out there and some do.
Another interesting aspect to this is the definition of cheating. It's sort of assumed, culturally, that if an unmarried person has sex with a married person, the married person is cheating but the unmarried person is not. I've come to see that as an unuseful distinction. If you're a knowing accessory to cheating, you're participating in the act so you're cheating, too. Once you take that understanding on board, and if you assume that married people of either sex are relatively equally liable to lie about their marital status when having affairs or casual sex, it's literally impossible to claim that one sex or the other is more likely, on average, to cheat--at least in cases of heterosexual couples sex.
It was a common stereotype, a few years back, that men, on a average, had significantly more sex partners than women. This is mathematically impossible, of course, if you're referring to heterosexual couplings, because every instance requires both a man and a woman. You could make the argument that homosexual men have far more partners than homosexual women, of course, but even if true (which I doubt), that just implies that homosexual men and homosexual women are 'wired differently'.
Tom I'm glad to see something about Sex between heterosexual couples...
I was to the point where I was going to ask you to talk about this.
But my other thing is: men have become to pussy whipped, even us gay ones.. time for some distance.. not in a nasty way, but a grown up way..not pandering all the time...
Outside of having sex, how many Men (and women) negotiate(d) with the woman about marriage, children, frequency of sex before penetration happened and marriage happened and pregnancy... and, and, and... yeah it sounds all so Transactional but why is it that we often negotiate the deals about the new Car but not a relationship that will cost us far more!!!
I would have to say that many people are not mature adults.. and I'm finally shocked...!!!
I'll leave it at that.. just some of my thoughts as I read your Blog and Janices, Bettina Arndt and two others...
Negotiated? My wife and I did, which has worked out great for us. It does seem very uncommon these days though. I've gotten a surprising amount of flack for that from both the Right (apparently saying honestly what I want and expecting the same from her without playing any games is considered 'unromantic' in certain circles) and the Left (which seems dead set against women ever being expected to actually abide by any commitment they make). It's almost funny how there's mostly bipartisan agreement that relationships ought to be based on open communication and clear expectations... EXCEPT as it concerns men being given any legitimacy when asking for sex and children.
Happy New Year!
interesting and thank you.
Yes I get you with the 'relationships ought to be based on open communication and clear expectations' and yet we turn strange when this is pursued as you have.
I'm allergic to this kind of 'contract' thing myself but if I'm honest it is not my strongest behaviour and nearly non existent. To many years of not negotiating anything and that includes everything that a Union would look after...
It would seem that things must be clear when it all ends up before a Judge.
It is very non romantic.. and yet, unless we believe in karma, a good majority of society rattles along with a stick hoping they will never fall into a hole in the footpath...
There are a few reasons why I got to these questions (more than listed below):
1. a female friend after some 15+ years has found out her husband doesn't want the relationship anymore - shock horror and 'why didn't he tell me sooner'.. yet she had warnings from the beginning;
2. I was on one of my gay chat/cam sites and asked a couple of straight blokes some questions and found out from (then it became) three guys the following:
a)I love my wife, not leaving, sex isn't enough so when I travel or out and about and I can, I fuck other women;
b) love my wife, not leaving, sex isn't enough so I pay prostitutes;
c) I realised that I was spending a fortune (younger 40's man) on drinks and dinner and sometimes - as it turned out - I ended up with no sex, bad sex or trouble and in the end this guy decided - I spend the money on prostitutes with whom I get to select, have a good time, get my rocks off every time and live my life, hassle free rather than thinking 'when is my next fuck'..
sorry to be crass..
This and other things, led me to ask 'do straight people ever negotiate?'
Why do we/I live our lives floating along in some river expecting miracles while giving up the option of the extra paddles when we left the shore!!
There are just my ramblings. I do my best to not judge people or myself... We have all been conditioned to think certain ways and pulling that jail apart is very different for each individual..
Shrug. I'm an Aspy, so relationships and social interaction in general have always been difficult for me. I can't really be taken as an example of "normal".
To me, it's hard to understand why so many people think it's unromantic to negotiate a relationship upfront. Even professional lawyers dislike it when I point out that is what a marriage definitionally and legally is: a form of contract. People seem to prefer the archaic term "covenant" for it, but it's the same thing: a binding agreement under certain terms.
More confusing still, the Marriage Vows are widely considered very romantic by most people. I agree that they are. I just don't 'get' why so many folks find it very emotional when hearing the terms spoken aloud when the contract is being finalized (the Wedding Ceremony), but find it very UNromantic to discuss those terms in advance.
It's also puzzling to me how so many people will unthinkingly say vows like "for better or worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part"... But they don't actually mean any of it. When things get worse, so many quit. When a spouse suffers cancer or dementia, so many will say "I just can't handle this anymore" and leave. So many people, even when things aren't worse and health is fine, divorce. "I'm just not feeling the love anymore", "I've met someone else", "I want to take my life in a different direction", etc... Why do they make solemn vows, in front of God and all their friends and families, that they don't truly intend to keep? Why do people who are thinking "unless my feelings change... until I change my mind... unless I meet someone better..." bother getting married at all? They treat it like a rental, not something they are taking lasting ownership of.
It's weird to me that people who don't take their vows seriously, people who casually abandon their commitments, people who give every excuse under the sun for not living up to their own given word, will still tell me that they found the ceremony romantic, still tell me that my practice of openly negotiating and taking what I offer and what I ask with the full seriousness that our words WILL bind us even unto Death... THAT is somehow unromantic. How is a wedding ceremony "romantic" when somebody giving their vow is already mentally keeping an exit door open, but taking the time and effort to mutually work out the expectations and responsibilities in advance for the relationship to last forever... Is NOT romantic?
Maybe I'm the strange one for being deeply emotionally moved by a contract, but at least when my Wife and I say to each other "I will love you always", we both know that we mean "love" as an action verb, not just a passing feeling, and we're reaffirming our commitment to actively give love to each other, to be patient, kind, encouraging, forgiving, etc always. I find that very romantic and so does she.
Really love this comment. I have often thought the same - how is it that people promise in front of their family and friends to never get divorced, and then do it so easily?
No-fault divorce is clearly wrong and should be changed.
I'm a professional lawyer and I don't dislike pointing out that a marriage is a contract!
The way I see this sort of thing usually discussed is in terms of talking about desires and expectations to see if you're compatible. No one blinks an eye at that, and that's basically what you mean by "negotiate," right?
Can you elaborate on your negotiations, the details of what you negotiated, and how do you handle it when someone doesn't keep their promises? I'd love to hear more.
Sure. There was a lot covered and we've been happily married for more than a decade now, so it's been a while, but here's some of the highlights by topic area.
Divorce: not an option except in cases of criminal abuse or adultery. Threats of divorce will not be brought up as a hyperbolic expression of dissatisfaction or tactic in disagreements. Full agreement. Likewise, no unilateral separation. Neither of us will just decamp to a hotel or relative's house over a dispute. At worst, we can insist the other sleep in a separate room if some cooling off time is needed after an argument.
Children: She didn't want to go through childbirth again (she has a daughter from a previous marriage). I like kids, but have medical conditions I'd rather not pass on, so suggested adoption as an option. We agreed to no further biological kids and to reassess the adoption option annually. We're both strictly against abortion, so I volunteered to get snipped to avoid any possible accidents.
Finances: She insisted on my paycheck going into a joint account. I insisted on the authority to set a minimum amount to be maintained in savings. We further stipulated that removing any money from Savings requires agreement from both of us. She added a similar threshold for Checking so that, if the available funds fall below a certain point, neither of us can use the debit card without clearing the purchase with the other. Likewise, ALL credit card usage requires mutual agreement and must be paid off at the end of the month. All major purchases require mutual agreement. She handles paying the bills, I audit the accounts at will, we go over the family budget monthly. We set aside an allocation for individual allowances each paycheck so we both have some petty cash to support our hobbies.
Work: I work full time. She may work if she chooses, but my job takes priority if there's a conflict (Active Duty Army) regarding other topics. At whatever point I leave the Service, we'll renegotiate our working arrangements. If she works, her pay goes into the joint account also.
Housing: We move as directed by the Army, live within the recall radius of my assigned Post, and don't rent any place that costs more than my BAH covers. When picking a place we each make a list of priorities and can each specify 3 "must have" or "veto" conditions (for example, I require a room for a home office and she insists on having covered parking closest to the house for her car). We won't buy a permanent residence until I retire.
Sex: Is NEVER transactional. Neither of us will offer sexual acts or demand sexual acts in exchange for anything else. Likewise, sex may not be withheld as a negotiating tactic or punishment. Additional negotiations established clear boundaries and expectations regarding frequency of sex, appropriate preconditions for initiating sex, and permissable actions during sex.
Food: Default expectation is that we're each responsible for dinner 3x a week (with one "fend for yourself" night). When eating out, we take turns using the 'menu' approach (one of us lists a few places, the other picks the place off the list). We can each veto disliked ingredients from shared meals.
Chores: We reached an arrangement regarding who does which chores how often. If a chore isn't done within 2d of the agreed frequency the other person can do it and make the other do one of their chores the next week.
Time and tasks: for tasks other than the recurring chores, the split is "When" or "What". If one person chooses "what" is to be done, the other person chooses "when". For example, if I want a game night with the guys, she gets to decide when I can do it. When she wants me to rearrange the furniture for her to redecorate, I get to decide when we do that.
Outside relationships and privacy: Unless given permission by the other or necessary for business reasons, neither of us spend time alone with unrelated members of the other sex. We both have access to each other's phones, computers, and accounts. Either of us can designate certain facts or topics as 'private' and they will NOT be shared with anyone (exceptions made for protected communications like chaplain, doctor, lawyer, therapist, etc, but NOT for 'best friend' or other family members, much less social media). For example, our sex life is not a permitted topic for 'girl talk'.
Date Night: At least once a week (usually Friday), we go on a date together.
Vacation: We take turns deciding where we go during my time off. Either of us can end a vacation and insist on a return to home at any time.
Medical: [redacted] suffice it to say that we discussed preferred policies for DNR orders, medical power of attorney, and handling of remains.
Dealing with problems: Any issues that arise are to be handled with open communication and further negotiation. Negotiations may get heated, but personal insults are unacceptable and time outs to calm down must be respected. Time outs may not exceed a day before resuming discussion. Each person must give the other time to speak without interruption and listen well enough to summarize the points raised to the satisfaction of the other. Deals will be offered and honored. We agreed that maintaining a good marriage requires ongoing work from both of us
Mediation: We're both Christian, so we agreed that if we ever need a neutral 3rd party to settle a dispute, we can call on a pastor or elder of our church (by mutual agreement).
Enforcement: Aside from anything determined in mediation, we each specified a number of "nice to have, but nonessential" actions that we appreciate from the other, like me handling any night driving or freeway gridlock for both of us, me fetching items upon her request in the evenings when her feet hurt, me making any necessary calls to customer service lines and fixing any computer problems, etc that we will do for the other regularly or upon request, but ARE fair game to withhold if one of us feels the other is in breach of the terms. The shared essentials like finances and household chores still get done even if we're fighting, but we lose out on enough other privileges for the duration of disputes for the inconvenience to incentivise returning to negotiation before long. Similarly, we have another list of things that we do specifically as an expression of our love, like me bringing her an icepack from the freezer each evening before we turn the lights out for sleep (one of my chores is cleaning the litter box in the evenings, so I visit the kitchen one last time long after she's settled into bed for the evening). We always continue those actions even during disputes as a reminder that, no matter what we're currently fighting about or other favors we're temporarily withholding, we still love each other always.
We've had a few minor breaches over the years and I've spent some nights on the couch occasionally until tempers cooled and new deals were struck to address the matters that arose, but it's really quite rare that we have any issue between us that takes more than a day or two to be resolved to our mutual satisfaction. Sorting out 'how' we will fight in advance and what is fair or not to withhold during fights has proven, even if not always perfectly followed, nonetheless incredibly useful for limiting escalation in the heat of the moment and avoiding inadvertent lasting harm to our relationship. The importance of acknowledging upfront that, even in a genuinely mutually loving relationship with both spouses acting entirely in good faith, some disputes will occasionally happen and planning for them in advance is much better than trying to determine the ground rules during the disputes themselves, should not be underestimated.
Basically, we each came into the relationship fully aware of what kind of issues most often cause problems or lead to divorce and we made a point of hammering out a shared set of goals, processes, limits, and responsibilities we were each willing to commit ourselves to eternally regardless of any outside circumstances that may happen to challenge us. Our original agreements have held up with remarkably few modifications over time. Now, even a decade later, we're both still deeply in love, very affectionate toward each other, and consistently happy to be together.
This is the work of mature relationships. It is foiled by men being addicted to the blue pill. In my work with couples it has become clear to me that men don't ask for what they want in relationship and sometimes don't even know what they want. Women have been trained to expect to be treated well, but men are trained to treat women well. No training for what HE NEEDS.
The various agreements described so well in your comment are the work that needs to be done and is usually accomplished over a long period of time. One issue at a time. It requires men to know what they want and to stand their ground. At the same time it requires men to negotiate with fairness to what both want. She, of course, needs to do the same. When that happens you get a working and loving relationship.
Wow, awesome! Thank you for going into so much detail.
Is your wife also autistic?
I have a bunch of questions:
What are the details of the boundaries and expectations regarding frequency of sex, and how does that work when you have different sex drives?
How is some of it enforced, like what would happen if one of you brought up divorce once, or a few times?
I have a bunch more as well lol.
You have said a lot here and I thank you.
For me at the end of the day, romantic or not, Marriage is a contract when one engages with the State. This is something I realised more and more when dealing with my own situation of 'same sex marriage'.. it is the State that makes it legal or not in the eyes of the law.. and what I don't understand, exactly what you say, is that when people get married and say certain things in that ceremony then the State should be looking at that and either going directly into action if the marriage starts to break down or stop interfering in citizens lives.. maybe I am trying to make it to simple.. but I think you also suggest.. that when there is a contract, romantic or not, then this is indicating that two people actually want to work out something..
I find the whole thing, because of Justice not being enacted in some cases, a double standard from the State.. it is like they impose a contact but anything can happen when the marriage breaks down.
I'm just rambling because think the State ties people up when they don't stick to their own rules... they make things harder for people.. and we see this from reading this substack.. the stories of the Authorities, police not doing what they should do and that is bring about reconciliation and justice... or maybe I'm living in another world...
I think we largely agree. Given my preference, the State would have no role in "Marriage" at all. A State issued marriage license makes about as much sense to me as a State issued Pastor's license. If it's not an authority that will either define or enforce the terms of the agreement between the parties, why should it have any say in who is eligible to enter such an agreement?
sorry I wrote it when tired.. I think I wanted to say more but was all tuckered out.
The State: here in Switzerland your marriage is 'not legal' unless done in the States Offices - for all. Even before equal marriage was brought in, a same-sex-partnership had to be done in the 'Zivilstandsamt' = registry office.
You can do all other types of ceremonies in : church, the park, whatever.. but it aint legal unless you are registered at the Zivilstandsamt.
So when I was preparing for this change in my life, I researched and asked a friend in Australia 'how does it work in australia'?
A friend was a Civil Celebrant and in order to be able to 'marry' people she had to be registered and approved by The State.
I'm banging on about this because people don't realise how much influence and power The State has..
So once I found this out, I thought: fair enough... mostly people got married, I think, in a Church, registry office or Civil Celebrant...
Now silly me, not knowing of course, never thought about churches.. it never registered when a friend, as a Priest, mentioned something about they 'only had two licences...
Now my point here is the following: in all the bad press about Same-Sex-Marriage (homosexuality), all the hate, all the 'anti' whatever.. it wasn't until I researched after talking to my female friend and then looking at a registry and finding her name on this registry that I then noticed 'Catholic Church' entries...!!!!!
Imagine.. I was thinking that Marriage is a sacred thing and yet here were Catholic Church Priests and other churches Registered and there were their names...
Then the penny dropped.. all this negative shit flying about Same Sex Marriage and how 'normal marriage' is 'sacred' but The State was firmly planted in the middle of 'normal' marriage... so of course I realised that all this mmm 'shit' flying around 'marriage' and in particular 'same sex marriage' was nothing but State intervention between a contract (maybe love and then verbal - I want to marry you kind of agreement, question) but it is a contract at the end of the day and I don't care what anyone says or believes... I don't care what people do actually.. but The State and The Church have made millions out of all this shit rather than Marriage just being a contract that is between two people and the legal system deals with it when something goes wrong...
I'm far away from the topic maybe.. but the main point is.. Leaders all over the world are not supporting proper Justice to citizens... in many ways and for many things... they are allowing the Mob to rule society and get away with criminal activities between people; otherwise, why have a contract when a judge can say, 'no, that is not so'...
Thanks, Tom. I have seen several of her videos. She has also done several videos about wives refusing to have sex with their husbands. One f her common themes is that women need to fix their own unhappiness, instead of blaming their husbands for it.
Lots of fanciful "explanations" for ignorance. Neither men nor women are aware of the reasons for marriage. The primary one is to procreate. Nearly everything else is peripheral. Happiness is a possible but far from necessary contingency. Incidentally, happiness has a completely different meaning now than it had in previous times.
It has come to be connected with emotion now, whereas it used to be connected with practicality or utility. With regard to marital happiness, formerly a man considered himself happy when his hard work enabled him to supply enough goods to feed himself and his household. Sex was for making babies. Satisfaction came from seeing them grow into independent, self sufficient adults. A woman considered herself happy when she conceived and helped her children become independent and self sufficient adults. Sex was what she had to do to conceive. For both of them sex was more an obligation than a source of pleasure.
In our self indulgent world, pleasure has become an end in itself. Children are optional and are considered a nuisance, an often unwanted and expensive burden, an interruption of their pursuit of pleasure. Marriage itself is optional. Variety has become the spice of life. Monogamy only served to reinforce a man's willingness to support a woman's children a woman's obtaining support for herself and her children. Children are accidental.
Thank you for stating the basics without mentioning 'God'... not that I'm a non-believer...
I have many responses to your comment and one is from the following substack: https://putourchildrenfirst.substack.com/p/origins-of-child-abuse-the-devaluing
where Lori brings to our attention in his first paragraph: "adult women sterilising themselves so they could not under any circumstances become pregnant" https://nypost.com/2024/12/01/us-news/women-blame-trumps-election-for-decision-to-get-sterilized/
this fits nicely, I think, with your "Children are optional and are considered a nuisance, an often unwanted and expensive burden, an interruption of their pursuit of pleasure"
Wow...the Sisterhood isn't going to like the truth being let out. Finally a woman who is prepared to reveal the truth behind the unhappiness in most marriages does indeed arise from the women. Sadly, this applies even in relationships within families where marriage is not the source of the relationship. It can be summed up that too many women seem to be self serving narcissists whose word means nothing, whose actions are all self serving and who, frankly, should be avoided by all like the plague (i.e. the Black Death that feminists seem to seek to embody). I wonder how long it will be until men wash their hands of women entirely and embrace Sharia law as protection against the conduct of women.
If you live by consensual standards this is probably operative and descriptive of ingrained beliefs and resultant female behavior. It's bs to put "all" women or men in a box since there exist men and women who have spent their energy getting out of the box! Descriptions of conventional failure may be true and even helpful on the journey when shared in the spirit of compassion or community, but there are more direct ways toward authenticity that enhance true connection in marriage and sex.
Absent all discussion seems to be Christ's reforms, as if they are absent/inapplicable? When is non-spousal and non-parental emotional intimacy appropriate while maintaining and nurturing conjugal and familial intimacy? (Ie: "girlfriends" of wives w/ gossip/ intimate conversations?)