This is, in part, that double standard to which I referred earlier. I'm not trying to PW anyone... but I do need to know where the lines are... I'm just like that, I guess. But I also think it is a very valid point that I am kidding myself, as you, BF, LFL and NOP have pointed out, in that... 'playing house' IS in fact a PWing method. As you say, you either do it, or you don't, but don't 'play' at it. But if we decide that that is all that it is, we are playing, it seems to me the same rules should apply to both of us. Clearly, this is where I am deluding myself....... I suppose, at the core of me, I AM a monogamous woman.
Okay, first up, let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that you become polygamous. In spite of all my theoretical babblings on the topic it's pretty clear that I am in the same camp as you as far as monogamy goes. I get confused even non-sexually dating more than one guy at the same time and I have never cheated or even over-lapped men sexually. So, the fact that I am or choose to be monogamous has nothing to do with any guy I happen to be dating anymore than the fact that I am or choose to be a blond -(LOL).
Now, I've been on this BB for quite a while and I've been dating for a little while and I've read a few dating books written by men and I just dated a quite relationship-experienced very talkative man who independently developed a philosophy with a lot in common with the Deida book all the guys her like so much so... Here are some things I've been considering.
Recently on LFL's thread SG and BF were debating/researching the use of the phrase "protect and cherish" in marriage vows. Now the fact of the matter is that in our culture, marriage contracts were originally contracts between men, not between a man and a woman. Of course, the modern marriage ceremony still retains the ritual of the father of the bride handing over "ownership" to the groom but the contract wasn't originally meant to be just a simple transfer of "ownership" in that manner. Like the title to a car, the marriage contract allowed transfer of "ownership" but also established ownership in the event of "theft". Thus the civil purpose of the marriage contract was an agreement between men that this woman "belongs" to this man without room for dispute.
Okay, let's zoom back to modern times. I put my profile up on a site that is both for dating and social purposes. I start exclusively dating GP so I change my "status" on the site to indicate that I am involved with someone. If anything I experienced a slight increase in the number of men e-mailing me. Why is this the case? I actually researched this on a few different places on the internet and my conclusion is that men absolutely think it is fair game to "steal" other men's girlfriends no matter what (They only think it is fair to "steal" another man's wife if she is being "abused" )Therefore, on some level, men still honor marriage contracts in the manner they were originally conceived back in antiquity. So, in a sense, there are actually two double-standards. One that "favors" men and one that "favors" women. The reason we as women don't "see" the other double-standard is that it involves competition/honor amongst men only. The way to see that this is true is to reflect on the fact that single women rarely consciously compete with other women for individual men. It would lower a woman's "status" if she did this rather than raise it.
I hope this makes some kind of sense. This isn't my theory but just a weak attempt to figure out those cryptic Martian mumblings I can barely make-out as I creep close to the cave in curious monkey-girl fashion.
P.S. I will reply to the rest of your thoughtful post later.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
