Jersey Shortie Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Carhill, did you seriously refer to women as "holes"? I thought you were one of the better guys around here. Hey guys, news flash: Women like sex. And no, we don't like it *just* with you. Can't have it both ways. You're not such Da Man that your extreme masculinity turned on on such much that we just want to rip off your clothes all day and only your clothes. You can call women sluts all you want but it isn't exactly stopping women for doing what they want to do. And there isn't a woman alive today that is going to regret having sexual partners and experiences. She might regret an experience or two or a poor choice that she learned from, but never the entire list of her sexual partners. I realize that the sexes are different but I also live by the rule that we treat others as we'd like to be treated so all the double standards on both sides drive me nuts. Yes we're different but we can at least try to be fair and equal in our discourse. I hate my fellow guys who say that women who sleep around are sluts but are fine with being man-whores. Either you're cool with being promiscous or your not. I especially can't stand guys who will sleep with someone they deem a "slut" and then put her down afterwards. How screwed up is that? I also hate women who decide that all men are pigs, or any guy who is interested in sex is a jerk not worthy of a relationship. I know so many women who are very pragmatic when it comes to sex and who brag about not wanting to date a guy who is bad in bed or has a small penis but are horrified at guys who are just trying to get laid or will break up with a girl for being too fat. I also hate people who act entitled in relationships. Men who think they are entitled to bang any girl they buy dinner for. Woman who think they are entitled to make judgments about a man personally based on what he finds attractive. ANYONE who seems to think they're entitled to date people far more attractive then they are. There's a reason why people form double standards but there's also a reason people end up as racists too. The bottom line is that we can aspire to something batter rather than just give excuses for why we want special treatment. We need more men like you!
blind_otter Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 I would say most folks are like yourself. However, the rumor mill becomes a social proof of its own, through repetition and as a form of advertisement. Do you think people get popular because they quietly go about doing good for the world around them? Do you think men get labeled as 'catches' publicly because they've been quietly faithful to their spouse for many years? It's people who are 'out there' with expressive and often outrageous behaviors who garner social proof and popularity. This can increase exponentially if that person is considered 'attractive' by others. That same 'attractive' person can live a life of relative anonymity simply by not 'putting it out there'. There are a lot of such people who do, as well as a lot of not so attractive people who are popular because they're 'out there' looking for it. In the end, we humans are primates - and the reason our frontal lobes are so big comparatively is because of the complexity of our social hierarchies and interactions. But I have to say when I read this, I just think "monkeys".
boogieboy Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 You are clearly a very unhappy individual. I always hear your "arguments" and your posts and you have so much hate in your soul. I am truly sympathetic because of your views. They are skewed completely by your lack of wanting to be decent towards women because one or two may have wronged you in the past. Now all of your evaluations create little rationale or evidence to support your views, just blanket assumptions based on movies, or misogynist ideas you have adapted over time. Tsk. Your simply not a credible source for advice. Pointing out your opinion on Johnny M doesnt mean youve contributed to the discussion. You could however support your view of his opinion by stating what you think the facts of what the double standard of promiscuity is. Otherwise you just look like a whiner.
Bejita463 Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 I saw this online not long ago, and I found it comical. It is relevant, so I'll share. Note ahead of time, it isn't my actual opinion, though the analogy did provoke a bit of thought for me. Here it is: Consider the difference between a lock an a master key. A master key is valuable because it can be used to open any lock. A lock that can be opened by any key would be a relatively useless lock.
carhill Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 In the end, we humans are primates - and the reason our frontal lobes are so big comparatively is because of the complexity of our social hierarchies and interactions. But I have to say when I read this, I just think "monkeys". Yep, and, as long as monkey behavior garners the attention and approval, evolution will continue at its infinitesimally slow pace. I've tried, for the majority of my life, to break with that pace and it ate me in the end. Outliers rarely succeed. We see examples of it every day. I've seen a boatload of them in my divorce. Status quo rules. Play along or get out of the way.
Author Johnny M Posted March 30, 2010 Author Posted March 30, 2010 You are clearly a very unhappy individual. I always hear your "arguments" and your posts and you have so much hate in your soul. I am truly sympathetic because of your views. They are skewed completely by your lack of wanting to be decent towards women because one or two may have wronged you in the past. Now all of your evaluations create little rationale or evidence to support your views, just blanket assumptions based on movies, or misogynist ideas you have adapted over time. Tsk. Your simply not a credible source for advice. Funny that you would mention blanket assumptions, because that's exactly what you are doing with this useless post. Either respond to the arguments presented herein, or don't respond at all. I doubt anyone cares about your assessment of my soul.
sumdude Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Yep, and, as long as monkey behavior garners the attention and approval, evolution will continue at its infinitesimally slow pace. I've tried, for the majority of my life, to break with that pace and it ate me in the end. Outliers rarely succeed. We see examples of it every day. I've seen a boatload of them in my divorce. Status quo rules. Play along or get out of the way. One of my favorite movie quotes, from Bull Durham. "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness."
Engadget Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 I've had some sort of sexual relations with only about 6-8 women (can't remember a couple, but I'm kind of sure) and I'm in my mid 20's. I guess I'm different than the stereotypical guy because sex with someone I love or care about is what I want, not just sex with strangers. I've turned down quite a few opportunities for that reason, because frankly it's boring. When i actually care about someone, the sex is beyond sex. With a one night stand it's just sex, and nothing more.
Rearden Metal Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Yes, IMO, when the pursuit of sex appears to be more than just a bodily function like urinating, it does appear perceived attractiveness of the man diminishes. This perspective is borne out in far-reaching behaviors which differ vastly from any-hole-will-do man. The aura is different. It doesn't matter if that low numbers guy was married for many years and a very good lover with one partner. He doesn't project the same aura as if he was polyamorous and bedded many women during his M or was a high numbers single guy during that same period. All one has to do is read LS to see this reality. Even the advice is different for the low numbers man when exiting a relationship. Take your time, heal. High numbers guy doesn't ask advice (or doesn't take it) and moves from hole to hole like a gopher in springtime, and those holes are willing and responsive. IME, choosing to be sexually selective does have a significant downside for a male in social acceptance both with women *and* men. The low numbers male has less social proof. He's not 'known'. In the competetive world of males, a fatter wallet, a bigger d*ck and more holes filled are the holy grail of success. Go to any well-attended funeral and see I'm curious about this and my relation to this statement. I'm 32, I was married from 23-30 (and with her from age 20). I've had ~30 sexual partners (yes, lost count/forget people when I try). I have no idea if that's low, high or medium. Thoughts?
carhill Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Were you monogamous for the 10 years from 20 to 30? If yes, then IMO your numbers are high, given the maybe four or five years outside of a monogamous relationship. That would be 29 partners in five years (virginity loss at 17 perhaps) or 5.8 per year or one approximately every two months. This assumes you had no other LTR's.
Silver_star Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Funny that you would mention blanket assumptions, because that's exactly what you are doing with this useless post. Either respond to the arguments presented herein, or don't respond at all. I doubt anyone cares about your assessment of my soul. Fine then ill respond to the lame arguments made on this thread . I think your completely wrong. I want to be treated with respect from men not vice versa (like your argument Johnny M), and I am a woman. Therefore your argument is moot. I wont find respect from men like you who post on LS because they have been burned and they have insecurities, fair enough, because im not looking for men on LS thank goodness, but It saddens me that there is so much ignorance in this world.
dazzle22 Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 I saw this online not long ago, and I found it comical. It is relevant, so I'll share. Note ahead of time, it isn't my actual opinion, though the analogy did provoke a bit of thought for me. Here it is: Consider the difference between a lock an a master key. A master key is valuable because it can be used to open any lock. A lock that can be opened by any key would be a relatively useless lock. I agree with this. I think there is a visceral subconscious aspect to this stereotype. As in thinking someone who goes door to door looking for opportunity would be looked at differently than a homeowner who opened the door to any stranger and let them come inside...
Author Johnny M Posted March 30, 2010 Author Posted March 30, 2010 Fine then ill respond to the lame arguments made on this thread . I think your completely wrong. I want to be treated with respect from men not vice versa (like your argument Johnny M), and I am a woman. I have no idea what this has to do with the subject matter discussed in this thread (did you mean to respond to my post in another thread?), but it's a point worth addressing nonetheless. Respect is not an automatic thing. It's not something that you get simply by virtue of being a woman. Rather, respect is something that you need to earn first (this goes for both men and women). So if you want to be treated with respect, start acting like you deserve it.
Disillusioned Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 You know the saying "you can't put a square peg in a round hole"? Trying to get the real world to conform with one's vision of an ideal world is equally futile. ...Except if it's couched as fiction or humor. Some short stories I've written poke irreverent fun at love and sex (for example, a hustler trying to school some third world guy about the Unwritten Rules), and promiscuous people have very little sense of humor when some asexual clown like me turns it around and makes ribald jokes about THEIR lifestyle. Ha ha ha.
Houndsoflove Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) This thread is boring. Men have to deal with the fact that women are exploring their sexuality and no amount of name calling is going to stop that. I don't care if I am deemed chaste in the eyes of another person, neither do most of my friends. If someone wants to preoccupy themselves with the details of my life.. more power to them. Someone who is publicly known to stick it in or open their legs to anyone who walks by with no rhyme, reason, or set standard is not considered attractive. However going after something you want is a different story. Most men I know or know of who are very desired aren't desired because of the amount of partners they have. Edited March 30, 2010 by Houndsoflove
OpenGL Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 I haven't read any of the replies yet so someone probably already said this but the double standard is there because most women litterally don't have make any effort to get laid while it's extremely difficult for most guys.
threebyfate Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Most men I know or know of who are very desired aren't desired because of the amount of partners they have.Ba da bing!
sagetalk Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Men and women have totally different views on the value of "experience" in potential mates. Most men would consider a girl who has been with too many partners as loose. And most women would classify a guy who hasn't been with enough partners as a loser. You nailed it. Women have a difficult time admitting they are ever wrong (pride is the number one sin of women according to the Catholic curch), so it's hard for them to understand that they have created the problem in the first place. Guys have it right, people who sleep around alot are sluts are not good relationship material. Here's a hint to all women, stop exalting guys that nail alot of girls and go after the ones that don't. It's really that simple. Will it ever change? Sure, when this world is destroyed and another is created. Until then don't bet on it.
stillafool Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Men and women have totally different views on the value of "experience" in potential mates. Most men would consider a girl who has been with too many partners as loose. And most women would classify a guy who hasn't been with enough partners as a loser. I want to ask you something. If all women were to sleep with only one man; what would men do? Where would men get experience if all women were virtuous?
bac Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 That is not true. Perhaps, girls younger than 26 who are naive and just testing reality can be OK with bad boys. But, IMO, the emotionally mature women (older than 26) are not interested in bad boys who had tons of girls. Because those guys are hopeless for a LTR. They can not change themselves and they are going to continue to f...k tons of girls. Next, girls who are sluts are the most popular with men. For girls, experience is everything because they naturally have low sex drive. In other words, they are clueless about what to do and what to say. By the way, if a slut has at least half of the brain, she will never tell a guy that she is a slut. She will tell him what he wants to hear and because she has experience she knows what he wants to hear. Girls who are not sluts have the disadvantage of lack of experience. They do not know what is right thing to say to a guy to keep him attached. For example, an innocent girl might lie to a guy that she had tons of lovers and is popular with men just because she thinks that it makes her more valuable to pursue.
sagetalk Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 That is not true. Perhaps, girls younger than 26 who are naive and just testing reality can be OK with bad boys. But, IMO, the emotionally mature women (older than 26) are not interested in bad boys who had tons of girls. Because those guys are hopeless for a LTR. They can not change themselves and they are going to continue to f...k tons of girls. Jennifer Aniston and Sandra Bullock, both are well above 26 and both got burned by obvious bad boys. I admit as women age they tend to like them less, but it is also possible that those guys are chasing younger women and these can't get them anymore.
stillafool Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Same place women would, right? Do you mean through marriage and only having one sexual partner in life? If women only waited to have sex with one man (their husband) then there would be no "lose" women in the world for men to gain sexual experience before they settled on one woman. Is this what men want?
stillafool Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Jennifer Aniston and Sandra Bullock, both are well above 26 and both got burned by obvious bad boys. I admit as women age they tend to like them less, but it is also possible that those guys are chasing younger women and these can't get them anymore. Both of the women you mentioned date nothing but younger men.
sagetalk Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Do you mean through marriage and only having one sexual partner in life? If women only waited to have sex with one man (their husband) then there would be no "lose" women in the world for men to gain sexual experience before they settled on one woman. Is this what men want? A hot virgin girl trumps a hot non-virgin girl any day of the week .
Recommended Posts