One for the men?

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

I was reading an article at work yesterday, which was saying that men tend to place women in 1 of 2 categories:

1) Marriage/take home to mum material
2) A good time girl

I was quite surprised to hear this, and thought it was one of those gross overgeneralisations. So I asked my boyfriend.

He actually said it was true - that him and most of the guys he knew had done this in the past - observed girls and been able to tell if the girl was 'someone I could spend the rest of my life with' or 'someone to have a few fun dates with' - note this did not include the sex, as the article did - just fun as in casual dates and dinners.

Fortunately for me, he sees me in the former group (didn't take him much time at all to take me to mum, grandparents, friends, sibling, etc).

I just thought if any other guys in here would have something to say about it.

It just surprised me as a woman. I'm not offended as such, just intrigued, as I haven't really done that at all - I either have male mates, or a boyfriend - no 'casual' partnering for me! In the past, if I went on a date with a guy and realised that it isn't going anywhere, I let him know fairly straight away and just keep him as a mate, if he feels comfortable enough to be.

Sasch

 

[caitlincares]

That is a long time phenomenon.

I had one guy in college tell me he was busy just having fun but when he got ready to settle down it would probably be me or someone like me.

Except he got his ex-wife pregnant and the rest is history.
I was glad he bypassed me.

 

[Out of the Flames]

I wouldn't even call it a phenomenon. I've had it confirmed by several of my male friends that there are, indeed, such categories. More than two, as a matter of fact.

Some of them grow out of it, some don't. I'd even argue that women do it too. I know I have.

 

[wildthing]

It's true, sorry and sad but true.

 

[Fatolia]

Sascha, what's funny about your statement is that in America we refer to our spouses as "mates," not our friends. Interesting lil cultural difference.

 

[the_man]

Those categories made me laugh. I think women have earned the right for each of them to be their own category.

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

Fatiola - I think we sometimes call our partners over here 'mates' as well! One of those funny cultural-specific words that crops up every now and then

the_man - you are very wise to have come to such an accurate conclusion!

Sasch

 

[bkg]

I've heard this, and acknowledge that others would say it's true. I've NEVER intentially looked at women like that. There have been women that I dated that I didn't necessarily think would be someone I would ever marry, but I've never viewed them as "good time girl"

 

[Xen_Antares]

This true, and dont think Im excusing such an action, often times it depends on the girl and how she presents herself. Girls who act like a good time girl will be treated like such. I know girls from work, and life in general who are fun to be around but unless they had a personality change I couldnt see myself with in marriage, and girls who are the opposite (not saying theyre boring or anything).

 

[TriptychR]

If those are the only two categories, you might as well say:

1. Marriable (did I just invent a new word?)
2. Not marriable.

What about the girls who some guys might see as neither marriage material nor "good time" girls? They'd have to exist, wouldn't they?

And on the flipside, do girls categorize men similarly?

 

[Out of the Flames]

And on the flipside, do girls categorize men similarly?

Read my previous post. Yes. We do. And women who say they don't are lying, whether consciously or subconsciously. But I think that more than 2 categories exist, because as you say- there has to be a separate category for those individuals whom we wouldn't marry and wouldn't date for fun. And one for friends as well because they don't fit into any of those categories.

Some of us, male and female alike, subscribe to the ladder theory on this topic, which I will not be sharing in this forum for fear of the stroke it may cause in some readers.

 

[KeilCoppes]

I'll take my own phrase and say
1. Interesting in the marriage direction
2. And not.

Those categories don't have to last forever, though. First impressions can sometimes reverse themselves, but usually it takes time. Sometimes it's immediately apparent - sometimes it can be like an echo. Or as some people say, a resonance. Other times that resonance can grow, but if you clash immediately on fundamental approaches it's not at all likely.

The challenge is that sometimes too much immediate interest on one axis can bury what's on the others. And sometimes you can simply bounce. Being relaxed can help with that bounce and with true recognition.

 

[KeilCoppes]

Some of us, male and female alike, subscribe to the ladder theory on this topic, which I will not be sharing in this forum for fear of the stroke it may cause in some readers.

Flames - not to open the can of worms, but would that be a parallel to Mazlov? Just curious. No need to post details on the open forum.

 

[Out of the Flames]

Flames - not to open the can of worms, but would that be a parallel to Mazlov? Just curious. No need to post details on the open forum.

Heh. No.

 

[waterbear]

I'd have three categories:

1: Marriage material so far
2: Unless she changes, not marriage material
3: Not marriage material (relationship = friend)

Not sure why I'd call it a date if the context had no more potential than friendship...

Among the more secular, which this article alludes to, where the intent often isn't marriage and also isn't exactly the same as a friendship, I definately agree that guys date with an understanding that she is either serious or for fun.

 

[MadeInOz]

I was told never to refer to any girl as a 'mate'... as it might offend... *shrug*

Good time Girl, or marriable? Maybe... hmmm...

 

[Tuffguy]

Its absolutely true.

Women do the same thing. Women date guys they know they can't marry. You think women bring home the 'bad boy'? Heck no. I am positive i've dated girls that would not think of me as marriage material. Simple fact that their parents are boring and wouldn't know how to handle me. As long as there is a mutual understanding, who cares?

 

[gsmithcat]

I was reading an article at work yesterday, which was saying that men tend to place women in 1 of 2 categories:

1) Marriage/take home to mum material
2) A good time girl

I was quite surprised to hear this, and thought it was one of those gross overgeneralisations...

I think this is an overgeneralisation. I don't doubt that there are men who put women into these categories, but there are men who don't. Personally, I would never date a women I seriously thought I would not marry (i.e. dating just for fun). If I want to just have fun, we can be friends and hang out as just friends without any romance.

Like some of the other men suggested, I probably do use different categories. I'm thinking mine look something like this right now:

1. Single Christian
2. Not-single Christian
3. Not Christian

I would only date people from category 1.

 

[TheDatelessLoserX2]

Here is how I categorize girls



1.Girl A
2.Girl B
3.Girl C
etc......

I don't generalize. I don't think its right to do so. Each case is unique, and unless you get to know them you are shorting yourself of a chance to get to know them. Making blanket statements is sort of like a white lie. Does it have a kernel of truth? Possibly. Is it the whole truth? Probably not.

 

[OhhJim]

Ok, first, let's get something straight. Not all women fit into one or the other of these two categories. Those of you who have your knickers in a bunch over "generalizations" and "categories" can relax. I don't put Auntie Gertrude, or the pastor's wife, or my cleaning lady into one of these two slots. It's assumed that we are talking about women who we would date and are available, which narrows it to maybe 10% of the female population at large.

Having said that, yes, it's true. Having been single for some 20 years, and having dated a lot, I've found that the women who are fun and spontaneous and adventerous are not always stable and reliable. They are like a drug high-fun for a while, but dangerous in the long run. Sad to say, the sensible, marriable women tend to be rather boring. But, if we're smart, we understand that they make better wives because they won't run off with the meter reader, or redecorate the bedroom at 3:00 am, or insult your boss to his face.

Sometimes you find a woman who is both fun and stable. But she is always married to someone else.