Sheila's outnumber men 5-to-1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
10,990
Location
Canberra ACT Australia
With gender ratios out of balance, Sydney's Lotharios have never had it so good, writes Rachael Turk.

A man takes a woman home. Before long, he takes home another. Then he adds a third, or even a fourth love interest, flitting between them on a whim and as his workload allows. Each jostles for his attention, dealing with the knowledge she's not the only one.

A scene from a 19th-century Mormon community? Or Memoirs of a Geisha where a woman might receive a kimono for her kind understanding? Try Sydney 2006.

In inner-city Sydney, where available women outnumber their male counterparts in the tens of thousands, an average inner-city jock can be playing multiple women at once. With Sydney so "cock-poor" - as one Lothario so poetically puts it - the odds are simply in their favour.

The demographer Bernard Salt loosely puts the ratio of single, available women to men at five-to-one. "Men have lots of options," he says. "It's a matter of market demand. Our society has evolved a process whereby single men are fully utilised and some are more utilised than others."

While two-timing (or more) has occurred through the ages, what's curious is it's at the front of women's consciousness. More often than not, we know it's happening and allow it to continue. No longer do Sydney's men need to be grateful for sex - it seems they're doing women a favour. We're not only obliging, but thanking them for lending us a helping hand. Not since the days of Roman orgies did men have it so good.

Take Rob*, for example. A fitness coach on the North Shore, the 29-year-old juggles as many as four women each week. Cute women, smart women - women, he admits he can't believe let him get away with it. "As long as I'm reasonably honest," he says, "it seems to be OK."

Rob, admittedly, has a busy schedule. As well as the daily grind of running his own business, he has a three-page list of Things He Wants To Achieve in 2006. These include professional goals, financial goals and more abstract ones, such as getting more sleep. The modern relationship model serves him well: whenever he has a free 45-minute block.

Chris, 36, has the rules even more clearly defined. A fireman who is "happily divorced" with a child, he dates three women concurrently and has his game strategy down pat: two, three or four women, at various stages of overlap, with each relationship lasting four to six weeks.

The women, whose ages range from 26 to 37, are all aware of the situation. Typically, he says, they're sophisticated, stylish career types. "They're happy to be single and focus on their jobs. Every now and then they call me for a catch-up!"

Such a schedule takes dexterity and commitment. Or commitment to non-commitment. One of Chris's lady friends is booked in three weeks in advance to catch up.

He admits it can be tricky with the younger ones: "It's harder - there is a different mentality. Sometimes they can't get their head around it. You can see where they're coming from but if it's too much hard work you shrug your shoulders and walk away. There are other people to talk to."

Ladies, where did we go wrong? Is it simply a matter of numbers or does this signal a wider cultural shift? Did feminism free men from the bonds of fidelity? Is this the modern harem? The theory, I guess, is that we would rather be Girl Friday Night (only) than stay in with the cat and Richard Mercer.

What do we get out of the deal, if not full-time companionship and commitment? In her graphic novel The Sexual Life of Catherine M, the Parisian author Catherine Millet tallies the spoils of her libertine affairs as little more than "a pair of sparkly orange stockings that I have never worn, three thick 1930s bangles in bakelite ... a watch from a newsagent,a plastic brooch and a Japanese electric brand *****".

The website Polygamy.com presents arguments as to why plural marriage might be beneficial to women. It goes so far as to tout it as "the ultimate feminist lifestyle".

Says a devotee, Elizabeth Joseph: "My eight-year-old has never seen the inside of a day-care centre and my husband has never eaten a TV dinner. And I know that when I get home from work, if I'm dog-tired and stressed out, I can be alone and guilt-free. It's a rare day when all eight of my husband's wives are tired and stressed at the same time."

The site notes that plural marriage was accepted practice among early Hebrew communities, including several revered biblical figures such as Abraham, David and Solomon. Solomon was the busiest, he had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Although the percentage of men who have more than one wife is relatively small, the Israeli anthropologist Joseph Ginat says up to one-third of the world's population belongs to a community that allows it. These are mainly in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

At 36, the very current-day TV executive Alec* is happily playing the field. And who can blame him, really?

"I've got a good job, I'm not bad-looking and I've never been married," he says. "This is a pretty rare combination in Sydney, so I'm not short of opportunities. I don't need to settle for anything that doesn't completely suit me - so why should I?

"I guess it's like the old adage of, 'why buy the cow when you get the milk for free' - especially [when you can get it] in four different flavours."

Of course, there's no such thing as a free lunch, even though Sydney's a smorgasbord. Rob admits that juggling four dates becomes "exhausting - financially, emotionally and physically". Our hearts bleed. Clearly, they don't make men like they did in Solomon's day.

Could it be that Rob is getting tired of the game? Perhaps there's hope for us yet? After all, somewhere down page three of his list of Things He Wants To Achieve in 2006 is the small but not insignificant line: "Fall in love."

From experience, I'd say it's unlikely. Not for a few years, at least, until his "hit rate" starts to droop and the signs of his mortality kick in.

* Not their real names. Chris, however, is happy for the extra promotion.

Open polygamy: what's the problem? Share your views on the forums at radar.smh.com.au

Rachael Turk
 
heh.... in one of my psychology classes the professor said we live in a serial monogamist society, since polygamy is illegal we tend to marry/divorce/marry/divorce or date/break up/date/break up... that way we can have as many as we want and not get in trouble... pretty much polygamy on the installment plan
 
quote:

Originally posted by Pontius Pilate:
heh.... in one of my psychology classes the professor said we live in a serial monogamist society, since polygamy is illegal we tend to marry/divorce/marry/divorce or date/break up/date/break up... that way we can have as many as we want and not get in trouble... pretty much polygamy on the installment plan

Psychology is ridiculous, not a science at all. So I wouldn't pay any attention to much they say.

"Pablo sheep thing is New Zealand not Oz!"
Yeah,yeah, that's what you say...
Funny, in Scotland they say that about Ireland....
 
Hmmmmmmmmm, May have to take that trip to Sydney to see my cousin sooner than I thought. He went there on vacation in the 70's and never came back. Sounds like it might happen to me also!
 
quote:

Psychology is ridiculous, not a science at all.

counseling psychology is definitely not a science... neuropsychology is... there are different studies of psychology, even behavioral psychology is a science... freudian psychology is old stuff, it's still taught to a large extent but it's dwindling... psychology + technology is what is being used more and more today

psychology is really the study of human behavior, some (behaviorists) call it a science, others call it a pseudo-science...others call it a social science... i don't really think you can just cast it all as "not science" and "ridiculous"...not all psychologists are concerned about which uncle touched you, or what you dream about but for $150 an hour i can get into that with you if you want
grin.gif


Main Entry: psy·chol·o·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: New Latin psychologia, from psych- + -logia -logy
1 : the science of mind and behavior
2 a : the mental or behavioral characteristics of an individual or group b : the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity
3 : a treatise on psychology
- psy·chol·o·gist /-jist/ noun
 
Most psychologists I've encountered, whether at university or in real life are concerned with two things, and facts, truth, and common sense are not among them.
The two important things are money(of course)and finding a way to fit everyone into some convenient box. And there are those who want to make their mark with some grand new theory or condition they've dreamed up.
 
personally, it sounds to me like a psychologist dug too deep and brought up some bad mojo for you or something... psychologists only know what you tell them, so if you always lie then i guess truth isn't one of the things they will be dealing with, facts neither i suppose.

no one puts anyone in a box, people display behaviors and are grouped accordingly... i.e this behavior correlates with this personality type, etc... what do you think FBI profilers use? you got it, psychology to create a profile of a suspect... if you know what type of person is most likely to commit a crime then you know who to look for - heres an easy one.... older lady gets stabbed 87 times, is it a stranger or someone she knows? most likely it's someone she knows due to the fact that if it was random the object would be to quickly kill, not turn into hamburger... why would the suspect turn her into hamburger? hatred? other? now we get into the psychological aspect behind the crime... i like it.... there are a lot of ** theories and garbage, i just like to study human behavior, i have ALWAYS been fascinated with why people do what they do.

i can sit for hours and just watch people, you will see them cut eachother off, throw trash into a parking lot, smack their kid, look through other people's car windows, break into cars, hit someone's car and drive away.... i love it... what makes these people tick... why do they act the way they do? it's like changing oil to you guys.
 
When I was in college, people who couldn't hack it anywhere else became psycology majors.
It is interesting to watch people and TRY to figure out why they do what they do, but you'll be wrong as often as you'll be right.
A major problem with psycologists is that many don't put aside their pet theories or attitudes, they approach people with their minds already made up about what's going on.
Personality typing or profiling is far from exact too.
Three different companies I worked for all used the same company to tests employees and determine their personality types, supposedly to help every understand themselves and each other better, and to be able to interact with each other better.
Same test, same questions, same answers. Each time, I was placed in a different category.
Not very consistent or repeatable.
All the behaviors you listed above are not so difficult to get to root of. People are selfish. If they were thinking more about others than themselves, they wouldn't cut someone off, throw trash, etc.
Big revelation, huh?
 
really? when i was in college, the one's who couldn't hack it anywhere else became mechanics or cosmotologists...

quote:

Same test, same questions, same answers. Each time, I was placed in a different category.

not sure which test you took but if it was in a job setting it was likely a myers-briggs type indicator (MBTI) and it is criticised for weak validity and reliability, as you said, you come out different each time... psychological tests can only become tests if they are valid and reliable, otherwise, what use are they? take the only psychological test i would put weight to is minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI), it is the most widely used personality test in the mental health field, and for good reason... you answer with deception and the results will show it, it's a pretty amazing test.

quote:

In 1965 the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Senator Sam Ervin, and the House Special Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy of the Committee on Government Operations, chaired by Representative Cornelius E. Gallagher, held hearings to determine whether the questions asked on psychological tests used by the Federal Government were an unjustified invasion of the respondent’s psyche and private life. The Subcommittees also investigated the validity of these tests and the due process issues involved in test administration. The reactions of the press and public were very critical of the types of questions asked on these psychological tests.

In 1966, Senator Ervin introduced a bill to sharply curtail the government's use of the MMPI and similar tests, comparing them to McCarthyism. Ervin's bill failed.

invasion of privacy... pretty scary to think that a test YOU choose the answers to can detect deception to a degree that it becomes an invasion of privacy...

anyhow, UNCLE.... i give up, psychology is whatever you say it is.... Harvard and Yale are fools to teach it, gumball machines should be used to dispense the Ph.D's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top