Male code about a other male’s girlfriend/wife

[Burakkupira]

Hi:

I suspect there are a non-written code between males that says men should keep distance with other men’s girlfriends/wifes, specially between friends. For “keep distance” I mean try to not be too “nice”, outgoing, etc.

That is not an strict code because exceptions are common. For example, when the woman is not only an acquaintance/friend’s partner but also a member of the group of friends. Then, confidence exist, so men can be more natural with her. However, men’s unwritten code “bans” being too “nice”/outgoing with another men’s female partner if she is not a friend but only an acquaintance or friendship with her is very low. The code should be abided specially if the male partner of that woman is present.

As a male, I always perceived that, even when nobody tought me about the code. For example, some years ago I had a male friend whose girlfriend were absolutely outgoing with me (I had only a low friendship with her). When she talked to me with her outgoing manners and her boyfriend was present, I felt unconfortable and I tried to be polite, but not as outgoing as her (She was like “hey! What’s up?!!” and laughing everytime even if I wasn’t trying to be funny).

However, I know some women who are in my group of friends since some years ago and I can being outgoing with them despite if they have boyfriend or not, and I feel comfortable doing so. But, as I have already said, when friendship is low or she is only an acquaintance, I can’t behave myself in that way.

In sum, I feel the existence of that code in my social life, even if nobody taught it to me and I have never talked about it before this post. But I think that code exist not only because my intuition wear me to act following its rules, but also because I have seen men acting in similar ways and I guess they are following the code.

What do you think about it?

 

[Burakkupira]

When I posted this, I had a mistake when I considered the existence of that code only between heterosexual males because that behavior could also exist between heterosexual females.

Some research have found jealousy in heterosexual couples cause that an opposite sex-friendship of one member of the couple is frequently seen as a threat by the other member. 2 examples:

Worley, T & Samp, J. 2014. Friendship Characteristics, Threat Appraisals, and Varieties of Jealousy about Romantic Partners’ Friendships. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 8(2), 231-244

Gilchrist-Petty, E & Bennet, L. K. 2019. Cross-Sex Best Friendships and the Experience and Expression of Jealousy within Romantic Relationships. Journal of Relationships Research Research 10, e18, 1–9.

As a consequence, I suspect there could be:

1. A non-written code between heterosexual males that says men should keep distance with other men’s girlfriends/wifes, specially between friends. For “keep distance” I mean try to not be too “nice”, outgoing, etc.

2. A non-written code between heterosexual females that says women should, in the same way, keep distance with other women’s boyfriends/husbands, specially between friends.

If that codes (ot al least one on them) exists, exceptions could be common, so that codes could be not necesarily strict. For example:

Code 1 (between males) exception example: when the woman (remember, another men’s partner, probably a friend’s) is not only an acquaintance but also a member of the group of friends. Then, confidence exist, so men can be more natural with her. However, men’s unwritten code (if exists) “bans” being too “nice”/outgoing with another men’s female partner if she is not a friend but only an acquaintance or frienship with her is very low. The code should be abided specially if the male partner of that woman is present.
Code 2 (between females) exception example: the same situation but exchanging sexes.

 

[jbartram_7]

Jealousy is natural in any heterosexual partnership since the beginning of time. There's no need for studies.

I dont want my wife getting pregnant with someone else and making me raise a baby that I'm always going to have to look at as some stranger, and eventually have that conversation, "your not my boy!"

A woman feels the same way.

It's natural for a family to want to be ideal. Man and woman unbreakable partners to the end. Doing things only with each other. Mutual possession. Some one we can always call our own. A home. A reason to stay alive when life gets unbearable at old age. Someone who knows you and doesn't look down on you when your wrong. Someone to discuss solutions with and make plans with. And we stick to the plan cause it was half you. And we're accountable to each other. And we can't let each other down.

That doesn't make sense to you? That requires research? Is that bad and it needs to be wiped out to give everyone equal rights to all people? Go fish!

Hence the british tea party concept. And what's the appropriate thing to say. And we're all married to someone else. And we're all perfectly happy with our partners. And we're all satisfied enough to keep our dicks off each other's wives.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[jbartram_7]

Satisfaction is a virtue. What you get in life is what you subconsciously wanted. Even if you die. Do you remember a time in your life when you chose it, and then forgot that you chose it, and it was in your subconscious? No complaining allowed.

Always be happy with what you have gotten, or you will never be happy. Happiness is a choice.

If you want to be a radical and poop on everyone's marriage. It's not about what you do to destroy marriage all over the earth. It's about the decision you made to do it.

When you have your midlife crisis, youll understand that you are what you have become, and the only choice you have is what you are, because it was in your subconscious.

Perhaps you chose to be tough. You wanted to be able to go it alone. That was not a decision to not have to deal with what you could deal with if you had to deal with. It was a decision to deal with what you wanted to be able to deal with. It was the training and the practice you sought in order to deal with the unbearable situation you would be disappointed not finding your self in at the end.

Perhaps you wanted to change the world. You wanted to impose your will on all. It was the person who could do it that you wanted to be. Not the person who actually does it. Because satisfaction is a virtue.

Perhaps you wanted everyone on earth to always agree with you. You wanted to never have an argument. You wanted everyone to be a clone of you. So that you would never have to face a different person ever. Like agent smith. You really just wanted to be alone. And you killed everyone.

Perhaps you are the one who always suffers loss. Perhaps you are a victim of a system. You chose to be a part of the underdog. You chose to believe that you could not help yourself and that everyone had to come together. You wanted to live in a world where everyone felt sorry for each other, and the handicapping mourning prevented anyone from ever being satisfied. You did not go to places where the system was in your favor because something in you wanted to be the change, not the satisfied person you could have chosen to be. You should be satisfied with the fact that you fought even when you lost. Because you wanted to fight, and changing others was not a choice.

You are always exactly who you wanted to be. Our brains are structured to manifest our subconscious desires, and even failure and ruin is a curiosity that must be satisfied if it is in your subconscious.

Drive a car 200 mph and stare to the left. You will go left. Get upset and you will be upset. Wherever you go. There you are.

Think of yourself as a mobile organism. The only things that affect you are the things that enter your eyes, ears, and touch. The only things you will ever do, you do with your hands and feet. The only emotions you will ever feel will come from what you eat and drink.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk