Women, sex, and dating

[Jersey Shortie]

Even if this was true (which it is not) how does that entitle you to behave like skanks?

 

What name would you call a man that was the female equivalent of "skank"?

 

 

It is the same as saying that just because we had slavery we need to hand lots of free stuff to lazy black people, or just because the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, we should abandon all our civilized laws and resort to running our legals system by the same barbaric rules the Muslim extremist terrorists treat innocent civilians. Etc.

 

I didn't realize women wanting to have sex was the same as government handouts and rogue laws.

 

 

Well, here's the thing - a skank is a skank is a skank no matter the historical context, and a decent guy is a decent guy is a decent guy no matter the historical context. Looking for excuses for bad behavior is the ultimate in skankiness.

 

That certainly does say a mouthful right there. But the mouthful is only insightful about your personal perception and really ads nothing to the conversation. Your choice to refer to women in a derogatory name while refering to guys as "decent" says so very much about your mentality towards women and towards men.

 

There is an insidious snobbery in your posts that even Woogle is gracious enough not to have.

 

Elswyth summed up a mouthfull nicely. That's kind of what I mean by how it sometimes seems that we hold women to a higher moral code then men. If you are a man that wants a woman that takes sex more seriously, then be a man that takes sex seriously. It's good advice Elswyth.

[meerkat stew]

It takes two people to have sex after one date.

 

Unless the woman blackmailed you, coerced you, or raped you, you were as 'easy' as she was that night.

 

Stop pushing the blame around. If you want women who wait, instead of railing here about it, simply tell the woman you're with that you want sex to be special, andthat you want to wait. Then the women who are in for quick sex would be out of your life, and the women who want to wait would stay.

 

QED, no?

 

"No" is correct. Saying once more, getting out the crayons and coloring book, there is a vast difference between a man who has sex on a first date, who has little control over which of his efforts will yield sex, so has to persistently pursue it, and a woman who has sex on a first date, who has almost complete control over when and with whom she chooses to have sex. Completely apples and oranges.

 

The woman may have three more first dates that week. In all likelihood, if she wants, she can have sex on all three of those dates, and if perchance one of them refuses her, she can walk into any place where there are men and find a replacement in under five minutes. She has a high degree of control.

 

The man, OTOH, if he has three more first dates that week, can be almost sure that unless he is lucky in his efforts, none of those will result in sex. He has to seek sex on all four dates to get it once, and he doesn't know which date will result in sex. He has little if any control.

 

So regardless of the rest of the discussion, please stop comparing men and women sexually inaccurately as is done in the above quote.

 

They didn't teach this in the Women's Studies department? Wonder why not?

[Jersey Shortie]

Meerkat, considering what a big defender you are of equality, it's amazing to see you defend the lack of accountbility men have for their own actions while you seem to put the weight of that accountability on women.

 

In a nutshell, sounsd like you are basically saying that men have no control, neither should they, when it comes to sex.

 

In all honesty, it doesn't matter if you have 10 dates in a week or 1, you have the ability to walk away and control your own actions. If you want a woman that holds on, then be a man to take control and step of the plate and lead the way.

 

All this whining and justifying about how men don't get as many oppurtunities and how they shoul take them up when they do is terribly weak and lame.

 

Men are totally incontrol of themselves nad their options. Since you are so big on equality, I woul think you of all people would be in agreement that men should hold themselves to the same level of self control you expect of women.

[Els]

"No" is correct. Saying once more, getting out the crayons and coloring book, there is a vast difference between a man who has sex on a first date, who has little control over which of his efforts will yield sex, so has to persistently pursue it, and a woman who has sex on a first date, who has almost complete control over when and with whom she chooses to have sex. Completely apples and oranges.

 

The woman may have three more first dates that week. In all likelihood, if she wants, she can have sex on all three of those dates, and if perchance one of them refuses her, she can walk into any place where there are men and find a replacement in under five minutes. She has a high degree of control.

 

The man, OTOH, if he has three more first dates that week, can be almost sure that unless he is lucky in his efforts, none of those will result in sex. He has to seek sex on all four dates to get it once, and he doesn't know which date will result in sex. He has little if any control.

 

So regardless of the rest of the discussion, please stop comparing men and women sexually inaccurately as is done in the above quote.

 

They didn't teach this in the Women's Studies department? Wonder why not?

 

Well, see, the OP is saying that he wants sex only in a committed relationship or marriage, and he thinks that people devalue sex by just having it for fun. So he should have no trouble NOT getting sex at all that week, since none of the dates were part of a committed relationship. Did you read his post at all?

 

Also, you might want to dispense with the condescending tone if your primary intention is to convince people of your points, as opposed to simply getting attention. It's silly, really, and far too highschoolish to belong here. Reminds me of a teenage girl going 'What are you, like, six? How dare you disagree with me?! Of course Zach Effron is the hottest guy alive, duuh!'

Edited February 16, 2010 by Elswyth

[sally4sara]

"No" is correct. Saying once more, getting out the crayons and coloring book, there is a vast difference between a man who has sex on a first date, who has little control over which of his efforts will yield sex, so has to persistently pursue it, and a woman who has sex on a first date, who has almost complete control over when and with whom she chooses to have sex. Completely apples and oranges.

 

The woman may have three more first dates that week. In all likelihood, if she wants, she can have sex on all three of those dates, and if perchance one of them refuses her, she can walk into any place where there are men and find a replacement in under five minutes. She has a high degree of control.

 

The man, OTOH, if he has three more first dates that week, can be almost sure that unless he is lucky in his efforts, none of those will result in sex. He has to seek sex on all four dates to get it once, and he doesn't know which date will result in sex. He has little if any control.

 

So regardless of the rest of the discussion, please stop comparing men and women sexually inaccurately as is done in the above quote.

 

They didn't teach this in the Women's Studies department? Wonder why not?

 

Another guy who thinks of men as slaves to their groins or a hungry alley cat? I have male friends that can pull any time they go looking for it. I have female friends that hardly ever pull.

Thinking the circumstances of your existence absolves you of responsibility is a pretty convenient standard to set IMO. Why should anyone aspire to more?

 

So really all the super attractive people gotta stop getting laid because it's easy for them, and all the unattractive people can screw like bunnies with no care?

[meerkat stew]

In a nutshell, sounsd like you are basically saying that men have no control, neither should they, when it comes to sex.

 

No, I stated what my personal expectations (and what many of my friends are) of women in this respect are in an earlier post. In that post, I stated that I did not expect women to be superior to men morally, and that was in agreement with one of your statements. The points I listed were in a simple 1, 2, 3 format, yet none of you respond to them in any meaningful way, just toss out more straw men and put more words in my mouth.

 

Comparing how women and men seek and get sex is completely apples and oranges due to men having little control over which of their efforts produce and women having high control. It's a simple factual statement, and has nothing to do with men not being able to "control themselves."

 

All this whining and justifying about how men don't get as many oppurtunities and how they shoul take them up when they do is terribly weak and lame.

 

Well that's some compelling reasoning.

 

Men are totally incontrol of themselves nad their options. Since you are so big on equality, I woul think you of all people would be in agreement that men should hold themselves to the same level of self control you expect of women.

 

Is it that you can't distinguish the different uses of "control" in the statement "Men should control themselves," and the statement, "Men have little control over which of their efforts to get sex are productive?" I'm sorry, can't help you there, can't be more clear.

 

Well, see, the OP is saying that he wants sex only in a committed relationship or marriage, and he thinks that people devalue sex by just having it for fun. So he should have no trouble NOT getting sex at all that week, since none of the dates were part of a committed relationship. Did you read his post at all?

 

and your post that I commented on was an incorrect general statement comparing apples, men attempting to get sex, to oranges, women attempting to get sex. Has nothing to do with the OP, which I did read. What's your point?

 

Also, you might want to dispense with the condescending tone if your primary intention is to convince people of your points, as opposed to simply getting attention. It's silly, really, and far too highschoolish to belong here. Reminds me of a teenage girl going 'What are you, like, six? How dare you disagree with me?! Of course Zach Effron is the hottest guy alive, duuh!'

 

I know there is no prayer of convincing any one of you of anything, the womens' studies department does too great a job of pumping out the "empowering" "no accountability for anything women do" propaganda.

 

I don't understand the rest of your quote, did you cut and paste it from a Tiger Beat forum by mistake?

 

Another guy who thinks of men as slaves to their groins or a hungry alley cat? I have male friends that can pull any time they go looking for it. I have female friends that hardly ever pull.

Thinking the circumstances of your existence absolves you of responsibility is a pretty convenient standard to set IMO. Why should anyone aspire to more?

 

So really all the super attractive people gotta stop getting laid because it's easy for them, and all the unattractive people can screw like bunnies with no care?

 

Straw man, no one ever said that the distinction I made between men and women seeking sex absolves men from accountability. Please review the different uses of the word "control" I posted.

 

I don't believe that you have female friends who can't get laid anytime they want. I also don't believe that you have male friends who get laid every time they try.

 

No idea what your last sentence is getting at.

[The Paper Knight]

It takes two people to have sex after one date.

 

Unless the woman blackmailed you, coerced you, or raped you, you were as 'easy' as she was that night.

 

Stop pushing the blame around. If you want women who wait, instead of railing here about it, simply tell the woman you're with that you want sex to be special, andthat you want to wait. Then the women who are in for quick sex would be out of your life, and the women who want to wait would stay.

 

QED, no?

 

I agree, it does take too to tango, but from experience when its the heat of the moment, I tend to throw inhabitation to the wind all too soon (especially when alcohols involved) and let lust get the better of me. The women that have said no to me, I really appreciate (not for the blue balls; lol), because it tells me that want something more. I wish I could have more control of my lust sometimes, because having sex on the first date creates a certain confusion of what the basis of the relationship really is - just for fun or something more real.

 

I let you all know when I say no to the next women that wants sex on a first date!

[greatgirlfriend]

Everyone should wait until marriage or at least engagement or living together before they have sex. In my 20's I got around. I regret this and will never do it again, ever.

[Els]

Well, it seems you need to read it again. Here you go...

 

I often hear women complaining that "There are no good men", or "Men just wants sex", or "I have been hurt so many times" etc.

 

Perhaps men and women should go back to the basics of dating?

 

If you are a single female, wouldn't it be a better idea to have a man take you out 20-25 times with no sex involved?

 

Typically the above would:

1. Save miles on your heart and soul

2. Make sex better when it does happen

3. prevent std's

4. Rarely will a man just quit and leave after so much time invested, and getting to know you.

 

As a sidenote, I have no sympathy for a woman who uses sex to acquire men outside of their league, and then complains "All men are dogs"..They typically do this through internet dating, contacting the hottest/most eligible men, and then having sex quickly to try and hook them.. Then they complain about "Being used for sex"

 

While quick sex can lead to a relationship, it just seems something is missing throughout that relationship, if one even develops. An important phase was passed over. The more this is repeated, it seems the more a woman loses of herself and her ability to trust and love.

 

The point, meerkat, is that everything I said was in response to the OP - to all his posts in this thread. If a man wishes to keep sex from being devalued, he should start with refusing easy sex himself, instead of exhorting women to refuse him sex.

 

Also, since S4S's excellent point seems to have gone ignored (convenient to 'not understand' anything that you can't refute, eh?), allow me to assist her by utilizing an extreme example to help wrap your mind around things (complicated, I know). Wouldn't it be fair to call Brad Pitt 'easy' if he had sex with a woman after the first date, and to not call a 200lbs woman 'easy' if she had sex after the first date? Unless you'd like to argue with me that it's easier for the 200lbs woman to have sex than it is for Brad Pitt? Go on, I know you're itching to try...

Edited February 16, 2010 by Elswyth

[calazhage]

 

The point, meerkat, is that everything I said was in response to the OP - to all his posts in this thread. If a man wishes to keep sex from being devalued, he should start with refusing easy sex himself, instead of exhorting women to refuse him sex.

 

 

Was the title of my thread "Men, how can we keep ourselves from being sexually devalued?" Why did you make that the title?

 

Separating sex from love is far easier for men. They can have sex with a woman and forget it ever happened 2 minutes later. For many men sex is like shaking hands..So it is no problem for them to take all that is given to them. They are not looking for love anyway at that moment with that easy lay. They are not using sex to get a relationship. They are using sex to cum. Thats why prostitution is the world's oldest profession and still thriving today.

 

Ironically, another difference is most women are chasing the guys who have had the most partners. The women want a relationship with these men. (Which is why they had so many partners)

 

My thread was geared towards WOMEN who want to be loved, want to find a man to marry, want to have a family, but are running into problems over and over. The thread is not geared towards women in their 60's, prostitutes, men, etc.

 

As another poster said, "Most women are not worth waiting for".. that speaks volumes..

 

More or less I find many women are having sex quickly (perhaps they do not have much else to offer as women these days have traded giving Bj's for the valuable things they used to offer a man), then over and over wind up hurt, confused, hating men, wondering why they were "used" etc.

 

The men never said "i love you" before the sex, never took you on many dates, never acted romantically, etc. So instead of going through many heart breaks and forming walls, why not wait to have sex?

 

These days I know so many women whose idea of dating is inviting a guy over for a second date, or ending up at his home after the first date etc. Then they wonder why they "CAN'T FIND A GOOD MAN" that sticks around and views her as marriage material. Of course, many men will stick around for some easy sex.

 

The women's movement is just so hypocritical.. What would you women tell your daughters? "Men have been doing this for centuries little Suzy, so now it is your turn to have all the random sex you like":rolleyes:

 

If you would not tell your daughters this, then why are you constantly bringing this up? Not only is it innacurate, but it is something you know is not good for women in the first place.

Edited February 16, 2010 by calazhage

[sally4sara]

I don't believe that you have female friends who can't get laid anytime they want. I also don't believe that you have male friends who get laid every time they try.

 

No idea what your last sentence is getting at.

 

Well you don't have to believe it. It doesnt change that its true. I just chalk it up to the guys being to women and the girls being not very attractive at all.

 

Which is where I use your formula of those who can't get it often are absolved from controlling their urges and those that are attractive and can get it anytime they want not being able to use the excuse of not knowing when they will get any next.

[calazhage]

Well you don't have to believe it. It doesnt change that its true. I just chalk it up to the guys being to women and the girls being not very attractive at all.

 

Which is where I use your formula of those who can't get it often are absolved from controlling their urges and those that are attractive and can get it anytime they want not being able to use the excuse of not knowing when they will get any next.

 

 

haha, yeah right..

 

I never knew a man in my life that can get laid everytime he tries. Nowhere close. I never met a man in my life who had a woman pull over on the road and ask him if he wants sex.

 

But as a comparison, I was at a friends house who lives on the main street. An obviously retarded girl with a decent body was limping down the main road. Within about 5 minutes, 3 different guys pulled over to try and hit on her. "hey baby, need a ride".. A girl can be fat, handicapped, ugly etc and STILL get laid anytime..

[Els]

Was the title of my thread "Men, how can we keep ourselves from being sexually devalued?" Why did you make that the title?

 

Separating sex from love is far easier for men. They can have sex with a woman and forget it ever happened 2 minutes later. For many men sex is like shaking hands..So it is no problem for them to take all that is given to them. They are not looking for love anyway at that moment with that easy lay. They are not using sex to get a relationship. They are using sex to cum. Thats why prostitution is the world's oldest profession and still thriving today.

 

Ironically, another difference is most women are chasing the guys who have had the most partners. The women want a relationship with these men. (Which is why they had so many partners)

 

My thread was geared towards WOMEN who want to be loved, want to find a man to marry, want to have a family, but are running into problems over and over. The thread is not geared towards women in their 60's, prostitutes, men, etc.

 

As another poster said, "Most women are not worth waiting for".. that speaks volumes..

 

More or less I find many women are having sex quickly (perhaps they do not have much else to offer as women these days have traded giving Bj's for the valuable things they used to offer a man), then over and over wind up hurt, confused, hating men, wondering why they were "used" etc.

 

The men never said "i love you" before the sex, never took you on many dates, never acted romantically, etc. So instead of going through many heart breaks and forming walls, why not wait to have sex?

 

These days I know so many women whose idea of dating is inviting a guy over for a second date, or ending up at his home after the first date etc. Then they wonder why they "CAN'T FIND A GOOD MAN" that sticks around and views her as marriage material. Of course, many men will stick around for some easy sex.

 

The women's movement is just so hypocritical.. What would you women tell your daughters? "Men have been doing this for centuries little Suzy, so now it is your turn to have all the random sex you like":rolleyes:

 

If you would not tell your daughters this, then why are you constantly bringing this up? Not only is it innacurate, but it is something you know is not good for women in the first place.

 

Oh, so your problem is that women are devaluing sex, not that sex is being devalued?

 

Again, I ask you, if you find that 'most women are not worth waiting for', why do you consider yourself worth a woman's wait if you have had so much easy sex in the past?

 

As for what makes us happy and what doesn't - well, I think I'll pull a classic man-whine and say, 'It's all the men's fault that some women are giving it up so early and then getting hurt! The men and their dumb 3-date rules. The men who make a woman feel insecure and then try to get them to think that they're so lucky they're actually being desired.'

 

And that is, really, the reason why some women are giving out sex easily and then feeling sad, depressed, used, etc. They're doing it because they have been manipulated into thinking that they need to do it or else they'll lose the man. And that is truly sad. Did you ever read conehead's thread about wanting to keep sex for marriage? Did you even see some of the male responses there? Go and read it, and tell me how a woman could not possibly feel shaken by those. Thank goodness that particular poster was strong enough to make her own decision through all the venom and hatred levied at her (you would think that she was giving them the blue balls, honestly...), or at least I think she did.

 

On the other hand, there are 'easy' women who are having happy, fulfilling sexual lives (our dear Samantha Jones from SATC as an example, perhaps), because they just enjoy having easy sex. They're not feeling depressed, used, or sad. In their case, why do they need to fix something that's already making them happy?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Elswyth

[calazhage]

And that is, really, the reason why some women are giving out sex easily and then feeling sad, depressed, used, etc. They're doing it because they have been manipulated into thinking that they need to do it or else they'll lose the man. And that is truly sad. Did you ever read conehead's thread about wanting to keep sex for marriage? Did you even see some of the male responses there? Go and read it, and tell me how a woman could not possibly feel shaken by those. Thank goodness that particular poster was strong enough to make her own decision through all the venom and hatred levied at her (you would think that she was giving them the blue balls, honestly...), or at least I think she did.

 

On the other hand, there are 'easy' women who are having happy, fulfilling sexual lives (our dear Samantha Jones from SATC as an example, perhaps), because they just enjoy having easy sex. They're not feeling depressed, used, or sad. In their case, why do they need to fix something that's already making them happy?

 

 

1. A fictional HBO character is not real life, although for many women they emulate this behavior because they saw it on tv. Part of the problem.

 

2. Why are you arguing with me, when I am suggesting men and women wait?

[Els]

.... That was my point in the beginning! That men, too, can choose to wait, not just women!

 

Also, you did not wait. :/ You said you have had sex with women who were 'easy'. Why did you not wait if you want both men and women to wait?

 

Samantha Jones was added because, frankly, even though I know some real life women who are happy having sex freely, you wouldn't know them. How else can I give you an example?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Elswyth

[calazhage]

.... That was my point in the beginning! That men, too, can choose to wait, not just women!

 

Also, you did not wait. :/ You said you have had sex with women who were 'easy'. Why did you not wait if you want both men and women to wait?

 

Samantha Jones was added because, frankly, even though I know some real life women who are happy having sex freely, you wouldn't know them. How else can I give you an example?

 

Unless you have been living on another planet and just arrived here and joined loveshack, you would realize that men and women have different reactions and possible complications from casual sex.

 

Are you saying men and women are exactly the same sexually? Same level of testoterone? have sex for the same reasons?They both have the same amount of options? Their are an equal amount of male and female prostitutes? They both suffer the same consequences if a pregnancy occurs?

 

I am gearing this thread to young women who want a husband, love, and a family. Not 50 yr old cougars like Samantha on HBO.

 

Their is a double standard, and men do not NEED to wait. What for? Women love guys who have had many women, and casual sex does not fundamentally change men as it does women. If a woman becomes sex addicted, and does not want love, then have at it..

 

If I find a woman and have to "make her wait", chances are she is not the woman for me, as she is giving it away to many guys. So, i might as well feel good for a few minutes and move on. If she is hurt, well too bad.

 

 

The difference is, 8 times out of 10 I can turn this woman into my girlfriend, if I choose. Or I can continue just sex.. Or never call again.. Women do not have that option.. If they are having sex with me, obviously they are interested in me, the vast majority of the time.

Edited February 16, 2010 by calazhage

[Els]

You're only contributing to the decline of sexual value yourself, then. As well as contradicting yourself immensely.

 

By the way, good luck finding a 'good' woman to marry you - most of us do not want men who use women and then move on, contrary to your belief. You aren't worth a 'good' woman's time, trust me. I plan on keeping intercourse for a very LTR (and most of my friends do too), so I know what I'm talking about. No way I would go out with someone like you.

 

Unless, of course, you hide what you do from them, like a shameless coward. At least some of the 'easy' women are honest with their partners.

[stillafool]

 

Men pursue a variety of women, and will take what he can get.

 

Well on another thread when you men were complaining that all the alpha males get all the women and someone suggested that you guys lower your standards, you didn't want to "take what you can get" but now you admit that you will. Again, why aren't you already married to a virtuous woman. What? you can't find one anywhere?

 

 

 

Women tend to want the same men, and will continue pursuit or sleeping with those few men thinking they can have him. The realization that there are not enough top 5%ers to go around seems to sink in much earlier for men than women.

 

Some women sleep with these men because they are goodlooking and they want to have sex with someone "hot", just like men do. Some women aren't trying to make him their bf, they just want to experience sex with him because he looks good. This might surprise you but some women are sleeping with guys just because of their looks, and would never even consider him as bf material.

[stillafool]

Stop pushing the blame around. If you want women who wait, instead of railing here about it, simply tell the woman you're with that you want sex to be special, andthat you want to wait. Then the women who are in for quick sex would be out of your life, and the women who want to wait would stay.

 

Exactly! This is all they have to do, but these guys want to change the entire American female population to think they way they want them to.

[calazhage]

You're only contributing to the decline of sexual value yourself, then. As well as contradicting yourself immensely.

 

By the way, good luck finding a 'good' woman to marry you - most of us do not want men who use women and then move on, contrary to your belief. You aren't worth a 'good' woman's time, trust me. I plan on keeping intercourse for a very LTR (and most of my friends do too), so I know what I'm talking about. No way I would go out with someone like you.

 

Unless, of course, you hide what you do from them, like a shameless coward. At least some of the 'easy' women are honest with their partners.

 

 

HAHAHA

 

As I said before, women actually want men who had many partners.. Alpha males. The last time a woman asked how many partners I had, I laughed and said something like "who knows.. how should I know.." that did not prevent her at all from falling in love..

 

Easy women are far from honest..They do, and need to lie.. Thats how they get men to pay for dates.. Playing the good girl, then saying "I never did that before"

 

Women are lined up to marry men who had many partners..The reverse is not true..

[Els]

*shrugs*

 

Suit yourself. No wonder you're complaining that you come across so many 'easy' women. Women who want to wait, usually prefer men who do the same. It isn't rocket science.

[stillafool]

HAHAHA

 

As I said before, women actually want men who had many partners.. Alpha males. The last time a woman asked how many partners I had, I laughed and said something like "who knows.. how should I know.." that did not prevent her at all from falling in love..

 

Easy women are far from honest..They do, and need to lie.. Thats how they get men to pay for dates.. Playing the good girl, then saying "I never did that before"

 

Women are lined up to marry men who had many partners..The reverse is not true..

 

 

Who in the he!! told you this? No woman wants to marry a male whore either dude, and I'm a woman so I think I know better what women want than you do. A woman might have sex with a guy who has slept with a lot of women only because he is goodlooking as hell. I guarantee the conversation isn't "how many women have you slept with" and his response is "thousands" and she says, "Oh, that makes me so hot, let's have sex."

 

So if women are lined up to marry guys who have slept with a lot of partners, why aren't you married? Look outside your door - the line of women waiting to marry you should be around the block by now.

[stillafool]

HAHAHA

Easy women are far from honest..They do, and need to lie.. Thats how they get men to pay for dates.. Playing the good girl, then saying "I never did that before"

 

No, easy women don't want dinner, they want sex - remember. Nice girls want dinner.

[meerkat stew]

If a man wishes to keep sex from being devalued, he should start with refusing easy sex himself, instead of exhorting women to refuse him sex.

 

And my point has been that in order to get -any- sex at all, men have to continue seeking it, and allow the efforts they make to get sex to proceed to the conclusion of either having sex or being told no.

 

Yes, if a man has decided that sex is a bad idea early, he shouldn't seek it, and shouldn't expect the woman to keep him from it. In that way, I agree. However founding that assertion on the statement of yours that men and women are equally culpable for the sex they have in all circumstances is mistaken.

 

As someone who doesn't believe sex is right or wrong necessarily at any point, if a man wants sex early in dating, he can pursue it and take it without being a glutton. A woman can too, if that's what she wants. However, a woman can also be gluttonous where sex is concerned, whereas sexual gluttony is only an option for a tiny percentage of men. It is possible to be gluttonous of porn, but not sex itself for the most part.

 

Also, since S4S's excellent point seems to have gone ignored (convenient to 'not understand' anything that you can't refute, eh?),

 

My posts are always ignored, rationalized and talked around by "feminist logicians" (talk about oxymorons ) on this board. It is so rare that one of my points is even addressed, that the above is actually funny. For your information, I allowed for the "Brad Pitt" exception in one of my earliest, maybe even my first post to this thread, so spare me the posturing. It is truly an exception and composes only a tiny percentage of men, so why are you and she harping on it again exactly? Who knows.

[Jersey Shortie]

I am in agreement with what Elswyth has been saying.

 

Why do so many men gives themsleves free passes to behave anyway they please when it comes to sex? Why? I mean seriously, I get that men get horny. But that's not justification enough to treat women like they don't matter.

 

If you really want to talk about hypocritical it's critizing women for desiring sex, just like men, and living in a time when they can go out and get it, just like men and holding them up to a higher standard of hormones then you hold yourself.

 

What will you teach your daughter Calaz? That men have "needs" and it's okay for men to treat all other women like recepitcals for their sperm and that it's up to her to be a man's moral gate keeper because a man shouldn't have to control himself because of his "hormones"? Do you like it when women act on their hormones?

 

This is the issue where men pat their son's on the back for sleeping around and teach their sons that it's okay to use women while expecting other men to respect their own daughters. Sorry guys! Doesn't work like that. If you pat your friends or son on the back for sleeping with girls and using them, don't be surprised when a guy comes along and uses your daughter like she was just as worthless.

 

If you want better for your daughters then not only teach your daughters the value in waiting to sleep with a guy but also teach your sons the value in respecting women and holding themselves accountable for their own choices, actions and sexuality when it comes to treating women right. You can't live in a world where you defend how men treat women and say that anything they want to do is Aces and then expect men to respect your own daughter or wife or gf.

 

And this is not something that only affects women. So really, you men shoot yourselves in the foot for your short term pleasure.

 

As for what I would teach my daughter. I would teach her to be independent. To enjoy her sexuality the way she sees fit without having to conform to a mold that men might expect. To do what she needs to do to respect herself, others and have the fun and freedom to explore the world and options that she has at her finger tips. If freedom to her is waiting to have sex, fine. If freedom to her is exploring her sexuality with male partners, fine. As long as she is safe and happy. I would teach her that she isn't a slut just because she has a sex drive.