Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free

[Drolefille]

Not me - all my factual claims are testable, and have been tested.

Now as to the question of what is the recipe for human happiness and a healthy relationship... Well... I was going to say it can't be tested, but now that I think if it, it can and has, and I've read about the studies.

No not you

The "cow" comparison. Someone else was claiming it was evo bio. It isn't, it's more like evo psych and evo psych is bad science.

 

[Alceste]

No not you

The "cow" comparison. Someone else was claiming it was evo bio. It isn't, it's more like evo psych and evo psych is bad science.

I wouldn't even give it that much credence. It's a warm fuzzy story people who don't bother reading any science at all like to tell themselves to justify their own sexual double standards. The worst kind of science at all: "common sense".

My own dad tried to give me the evolutionary lecture at one point about how men just can't help themselves when I was trying to decide whether or not to dump my cheating fiance. Turned out he cheated on my mom when she was pregnant with my older brother and just wanted to justify that to himself. I delighted in telling him all about the actual science I'd read on the subject.

 

[Drolefille]

I wouldn't even give it that much credence. It's a warm fuzzy story people who don't bother reading any science at all like to tell themselves to justify their own sexual double standards. The worst kind of science at all: "common sense".

My own dad tried to give me the evolutionary lecture at one point about how men just can't help themselves when I was trying to decide whether or not to dump my cheating fiance. Turned out he cheated on my mom when she was pregnant with my older brother and just wanted to justify that to himself. I delighted in telling him all about the actual science I'd read on the subject.

*shudder* Common sense...*shudder*

I was trying to be nice by calling it bad science. I want to call it absolute garbage, but am willing to acknowledge I haven't read everything EVER on the topic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My man got free milk. And still wanted to buy the cow.

 

[Alceste]

*shudder* Common sense...*shudder*

I was trying to be nice by calling it bad science. I want to call it absolute garbage, but am willing to acknowledge I haven't read everything EVER on the topic.

I'm a sucker for science news, plus I fact check every claim that sounds fishy (and even some that don't), thereby exposing myself to even more science news. Anything interesting, I remember forever. I know - I'm a freak! I just don't like being wrong about things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In one of her arguments, she brings up the old notion that casual sex is disadvantageous to women on the grounds that men are unlikely to commit to women who give them sex. As she puts it, "Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free".

It seems to me that a man who considers his wife a "cow" to be "bought" probably wouldn't be a good husband.

Also, to run with the analogy a bit: a cow that's bought for its milk may find itself in a difficult position when its yield starts to decline.

 

[Alceste]

It seems to me that a man who considers his wife a "cow" to be "bought" probably wouldn't be a good husband.

Also, to run with the analogy a bit: a cow that's bought for its milk may find itself in a difficult position when its yield starts to decline.

On top of that, a woman who considers herself to be of no more value to her partner than a cow to be milked for sex is probably going to be a terrible wife.

 

[Alceste]

This belongs here.

 

[Yadon]

I'd be okay with free milk, but I'm really wanting to just find a nice woman whom I can love. Sexual compatibility is a bonus but that's not the deciding factor. Two people who love each other will be together for that.

You can always teach someone a new trick, try something new. It's a skill like any other. I'd rather pair with someone for who they are, not for the sex.

 

[Virus]

An article by Susan Patton appeared in today's Valentine's Day Wall Street Journal. Patton made several arguments for college and university women to focus much of their time and energy on finding a mate and getting married.

In one of her arguments, she brings up the old notion that casual sex is disadvantageous to women on the grounds that men are unlikely to commit to women who give them sex. As she puts it, "Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free".

A problem I see with that argument is that it seems to encourage marrying someone primarily or perhaps even exclusively for sex. That strikes me as a lousy reason to marry someone if you intend to have a lasting and happy marriage.

A second problem I see with that argument is that it seems to encourage abstinence before marriage, which strikes me as a very good way to increase one's chances of marrying someone you are sexually incompatible with.

But what do you make of the argument?

makes sense, it's what we practice in islam in any case.

 

[Falvlun]

makes sense, it's what we practice in islam in any case.

You practice treating woman like cattle to be bought, with sex being their only commodity?

I don't think that's what you were referring to. I assume it's the "abstinence" part. But that's really not the part that people are getting riled about. It's the idea that men only want to marry women for sex, and that if they get sex, they would have no reason to want to marry. Marriage is about way more than just sex. It's about companionship, it's about finding someone who you think will be a good partner in life, it's about finding someone who you'd want to raise kids with, etc. I truly hope you are not appreciating a potential partner only as to their ability to provide you with sex.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

An article by Susan Patton appeared in today's Valentine's Day Wall Street Journal. Patton made several arguments for college and university women to focus much of their time and energy on finding a mate and getting married.

In one of her arguments, she brings up the old notion that casual sex is disadvantageous to women on the grounds that men are unlikely to commit to women who give them sex. As she puts it, "Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free".

A problem I see with that argument is that it seems to encourage marrying someone primarily or perhaps even exclusively for sex. That strikes me as a lousy reason to marry someone if you intend to have a lasting and happy marriage.

A second problem I see with that argument is that it seems to encourage abstinence before marriage, which strikes me as a very good way to increase one's chances of marrying someone you are sexually incompatible with.

But what do you make of the argument?

I oppose and discourage any arguments which aim to reduce the amount of sex women have. On a more serious note, I think that the most intelligent and pragmatic women I've known have understood that their sexuality can be used both as coin in regards to relationships, along with something they can freely express and enjoy. Most of our attributes as human beings are multi-faceted, and the smartest people tend to learn to understand and embrace every facet in its own context.

I think it's great that younger women feel more free to express and enjoy their sexuality without having to get married. But, I also think that many of them are losing the common-sense wisdom of women that men often need to be somewhat guided into committment. Now, if you're a women who's not interested in committment that's great, but if you are, then you may find yourself somewhat confounded about why you find such great, fun, and sexual relationships with guys, but can't get any of them to marry you.

 

[Karl R]

As she puts it, "Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free".

But what do you make of the argument?

I've heard the statement (repeatedly) before. It's a really stupid argument. If I just want milk, I'm not going to buy a cow. If I buy a cow, it's because I want a cow, not just the milk.

I got married a little over a year ago. I didn't get married for the sex. I proved to myself (decades ago) that I could get sex without getting married. If all I wanted was sex, why go through all the complication of marriage?

I didn't need to marry my wife in order to have sex with her. We started having sex long before we considered getting married. If all I wanted was sex, why go through all the complication of marriage?

I married my wife, because I wanted to be married to her. No matter how much sex we have, that wouldn't make make us married. We had to get married in order to be married.

 

[Father Heathen]

But what do you make of the argument?

It's a nonsensical analogy. A marriage is a committed monogamous relationship (sharing a whole life together), which is a world apart from casual sex (gratification in the moment). They're two completely different things. Also, comparing women to cows and sex to milk? Seriously?

 

[4consideration]

An article by Susan Patton appeared in today's Valentine's Day Wall Street Journal. Patton made several arguments for college and university women to focus much of their time and energy on finding a mate and getting married.

In one of her arguments, she brings up the old notion that casual sex is disadvantageous to women on the grounds that men are unlikely to commit to women who give them sex. As she puts it, "Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free".

A problem I see with that argument is that it seems to encourage marrying someone primarily or perhaps even exclusively for sex. That strikes me as a lousy reason to marry someone if you intend to have a lasting and happy marriage.

A second problem I see with that argument is that it seems to encourage abstinence before marriage, which strikes me as a very good way to increase one's chances of marrying someone you are sexually incompatible with.

But what do you make of the argument?

I pretty much agree with what you have to say here. Mostly, I don't really care whether or not a couple decide to have sex before marriage, or not. I think it's their choice and either one option, or the other, may be better in their particular situation.

I think for some people that old expression may actually be true. I don't think it's true across the board. It was not true for me.

When I was dating, I found the quickest way to get a man to propose marriage was to break up with them. I found that really odd. That wasn't what I was going for. It wasn't a trick. I was done.

I HATED to be the one to have to break up a long-term relationship, but it struck me as funny that on the few occasions I did, when I said that I wanted to break up, the guy said, "What? What do you want? You want to get married? Let's get married."

It seemed very ironic to me that some guys would interpret, "I don't want to be with you tomorrow" as "I want to be with you every day of my life."

 

[psychoslice]

I once went to the market to by a cow, I ended up with three magic beans, you wouldn't believe the rest of the story lol.

 

[roger1440]

Does this woman have any stats to back up her claim?

 

[ChristineES]

What Ms Patton said is just too simplistic. It might be true of a few people, but marriage isn't about sex (or not about sex alone)- it's about spending your life together with another person (Or I would hope).

 

[Kerr]

I would definately say I would "buy the cow if the milk is free". If I love a woman and she loves me... I would be foolish not to.

 

[Alceste]

I would definately say I would "buy the cow if the milk is free". If I love a woman and she loves me... I would be foolish not to.

True! The better question would be who wants a cow who charges you a fee every time you want to milk her?