You missed the joke. Obviously, a man is only going to have 0 or (rarely) 1 woman interested in him, but the woman is assuming that he is talking to many women, which is physically impossible.
Comment on [deleted]
Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 2 months ago
Lol. Look at this guy, able to have more than one person interested in him.
TAG@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Tiral@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Sure. It’s also not weird for someone to not want to be with someone who’s keeping you around as a backup or piece of ass, especially being represented as a real relationship. Putting your all into one person and expecting the same back isn’t that radical of a concept.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
Does that apply both ways? Cause everything I’ve read about modern dating culture is that women can talk to as many men at a time as they want to as long as they’re not exclusives, and if a man doesn’t like that then he’s an insecure chauvinist loser. At least that’s what I’ve been told.
But it’s still not okay for men to talk to multiple women at a time? I’m tired of these double standards.
papalonian@lemmy.world 2 months ago
My understanding is that, in the pre-exclusive phase, either party can be talking to multiple people (hence the “unexeclusive” part), it’s just generally in bad taste to bring it up or talk about, and it’s much more likely for a woman to have multiple people interested in her than a man. So the likelihood of a man exclusively dating a woman who is not exclusively dating him is decent, and that can feel one sided.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
Well the context from the post makes it seem pre-exclusive because “talking to” is the name of a phase before exclusivity.
Because “dating” is confusingly starting to take on the same meaning as “in a relationship with,” which makes no sense but vernacular language doesn’t care about contradictions