Too "woke"?

Not totally an outlier, I 100% agree with you.

So if these were all 3 women or all 3 men, would it still be "sexist"? Or is it only "sexist" because there are both men and women involved?

I'm trying to understand what makes this "sexist". I need help with that. I just can't seem to wrap my mind around it. Please ELI5.
 
Last edited:
Random Thoughts:

People are not obligated to date anyone. Period.

You are not obligated to justify that decision.

Women (in particular poly/bi women) are often asked to "justify" their decision to NOT date/have sex with someone (particularly on online dating sites). This is not acceptable. BUT if women shouldn't have to defend their decision, then men shouldn't have to either.

I have been accused of being prejudiced and discriminatory on these very boards because I have made the observation that, even as a bisexual woman, I am attracted to "manly men" and "girly girls". I don't, generally, find myself attracted to androgynous/bisexual men or butch lesbians/bisexual women.

The impression that I a left with is that it is OK to not be attracted to someone, unless you are not attracted to them for the "wrong reason".

On the other hand:

If people are going to make informed decisions, then having all of the information is useful. Withholding information that might inform someone's decision is ... distasteful.

When, after a date or two, Lotus was deciding whether she would date Dude (/us - long story) she brought up that she was not comfortable being in a poly network that included Jane2 (another poly woman that Dude had seen/had sex with). (Lotus had been involved - or at least a witness to - poly groups/networks who had had trouble with this individual in the past.)

To some people this may have seemed like an "ultimatum" - i.e. you can date her or me, but not both. But to me, it looks like a boundary - i.e. I will not participate in a relationship that involves: people on my messy list because of their relationship skills or my history with them.
 
Huh, I guess I'm an outlier on this thread...my first reaction to the story was that it was indeed sexist for two dudes to make an agreement about which one is going to date a woman, and then to not tell the woman that they are doing that.

I found it creepy that Joseph tried to withhold this information from Mary until she pried it out of him.

I do think that Mary is overreacting by claiming that they are "oppressing" her, and I agree she isn't entitled to date both of them...but something is off about the way these two men handled this situation. I can see why Mary is weirded out by their actions.

Why didn't David just tell Mary, "By the way, you should know that Joseph and I never date the same woman. So if you still want to pursue something with him, you'll have to stop seeing me." (Or Joseph could have told her that). And then Mary could make a choice. And then, if Joseph weren't interested in her or was too busy with wedding stuff, he could tell her so, and turn her down without claiming it's because of some gentleman's agreement that happened behind her back.

Yeah, I can see why she thinks their actions were sexist. They removed her ability to make a choice, and they weren't going to tell her.

And here, piling on with "no wonder she's single," comments, etc, is also sexist. "She's greedy! She's entitled! She must be completely crazy!" These are all things that said about women to keep them down. Come on.

I agree that there is something a little off here, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it sexism. To me it's closer to a sort of couple's privilege, even though the two guys aren't an actual couple. It's two people deciding the fate of a third without the third person being a part of the conversation. Because the third person happens to be a woman it could be construed as sexism in the most abstract sense. The reality is Joseph needs to work on his communication skills. Mary needs to remember she's not entitled.

Now if they flipped a coin it might be another matter... lol
 
So if these were all 3 women or all 3 men, would it still be "sexist"? Or is it only "sexist" because there are both men and women involved?

I'm trying to understand what makes this "sexist". I need help with that. I just can't seem to wrap my mind around it. Please ELI5.

Yes, what makes it sexist is that's it's 2 men deciding what will happen to a woman without informing her or giving her agency to choose.

(Based on the original story that neither David nor Joseph informed her of their decision, and would not have told her at all except that she pressed Joseph for an explanation later.)

It's sexist because the world we live in has a history of men deciding the fate of women without women having agency, especially around things like sex, marriage, etc. Without that history, it wouldn't come across as sexist.

If all 3 were men or all 3 were women, no it wouldn't be sexist. It would still, in my mind, be rude to not tell Mary that the other two had an agreement not to date the same person. But it wouldn't carry that same history of "gentlemen's agreements" to pass off a between them.
 
Yes, what makes it sexist is that's it's 2 men deciding what will happen to a woman without informing her or giving her agency to choose.

(Based on the original story that neither David nor Joseph informed her of their decision, and would not have told her at all except that she pressed Joseph for an explanation later.)

It's sexist because the world we live in has a history of men deciding the fate of women without women having agency, especially around things like sex, marriage, etc. Without that history, it wouldn't come across as sexist.

If all 3 were men or all 3 were women, no it wouldn't be sexist. It would still, in my mind, be rude to not tell Mary that the other two had an agreement not to date the same person. But it wouldn't carry that same history of "gentlemen's agreements" to pass off a between them.

I'd agree with that assessment, but, as another friend said, I think there's another factor at play. Joseph is the type of person who mostly dates people he already counts as friends. Mostly. He really values friendship so he would never feel overly disappointed that he can only be friends with someone. When he and Mary started talking, he saw it as a potential newcomer to the area/munch and that was about that.

He wouldn't of seen that "maybe perhaps we go out together some time is we get along well in person" as a commitment to a date. I'd hazard a guess that Joseph is the type of guy that wouldn't feel "chemistry" unless it was a face to face interaction.

Mary, conversely, is more of an online dater. Not exclusively but I'd say that's where she meets the majority of her potentials these days. With online dating, you swipe right, talk and meet up for a date - the expectation is a date. That's what you're working towards. So when her and Joseph started talking and got along, she saw it as "chemistry" and not all that different to meeting someone interesting on Tinder. I think she saw it as them having their first date at a munch (perhaps for safety) like some people would meet for coffee before an evening date.

So that's why she felt feels they "decided her fate" whereas Joseph never saw them going on even one date as a definite. So when David said he met her and there was great chemistry and he is excited about seeing her again, Joseph omitted the idea of the date completely and would still think there are heaps of other ways they can and likely still will end up spending time together.

The other thing is that Joseph had no way to predict that Mary would go to the munch, randomly start talking to David, and develop that chemistry. He could have said to her when he cancelled their meeting (he couldn't attend the munch) that there is a guy there called David who is a good friend and if you date him, you can't date me, but I don't think it would have occurred to him for the reasons I listed before.
 
I see. So it is sexist *to you*.

We can agree on that. Thank you for explaining it to me. Have a pleasant day.
 
Back
Top