stillafool Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Maybe so but I do not want to be a part of some gender war. I simply want a good woman in my life who I can trust? Are men so wrong for feeling this way or is it our just desserts to be betrayed? Be honest with how you feel. Lucky for you you already have a good woman in your life so you are set. No one deserves "just desserts" over what others have done in the past. I am a married woman who would never cheat on my husband. I do feel single women have as much right as single men to explore their sexuality and shouldn't be judged for having the same sexual appetite as a man.
Woggle Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Lucky for you you already have a good woman in your life so you are set. No one deserves "just desserts" over what others have done in the past. I am a married woman who would never cheat on my husband. I do feel single women have as much right as single men to explore their sexuality and shouldn't be judged for having the same sexual appetite as a man. I just feel that with women have a big sexual history it is very easy for them to cross the line into cheating while in a relationship. I feel that ure women for lack of a better word make much more faithful and commited partners and I feel most men think the same way.
Jersey Shortie Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 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. Yeap! And I see nothing wrong in having a certain ideal on how many partners you wanted your partner to be with. However, just calling women names for enjoying sex and having partners is jacked-up.
betamanlet Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 I just feel that with women have a big sexual history it is very easy for them to cross the line into cheating while in a relationship. I feel that ure women for lack of a better word make much more faithful and commited partners and I feel most men think the same way. The more promiscuous a man or a woman is (it's easier for women to be pr omiscuous) the more they treat sex like a bodily function, hence I don't think they have the ability to remain loyal for long.
lino Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 It isn't a double standard at all. Men who f*ck around a lot are very desired by women, it's never been a secret! Also, names like slut, skank, lowie, ho, etc are thrown around much, much more by females. It's evident even on these message boards!
Author Johnny M Posted March 31, 2010 Author Posted March 31, 2010 After all I thought a lot of guys mostly aim to get laid anyways...ok I am oversimplifying men a bit but am I really? I mean how many men go out with a woman to have a relationship? I would think sex is on the forefront of their goals, a relationship is something that happens by accident for some and as a bonus for others. Am I really off the mark in saying that? Yes, you are.
marsle85 Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 It isn't a double standard at all. Men who f*ck around a lot are very desired by women, it's never been a secret! For romance? No, not likely. They look like players. Maybe it will give them points for adding a competitive edge, but no woman wants to be scared -all the time- that she's another notch. Also, names like slut, skank, lowie, ho, etc are thrown around much, much more by females. It's evident even on these message boards! ... What does that make a difference? How does a woman calling another woman a "ho" signify to you that there isn't a double standard. The fact that a woman calls another woman a slut for sleeping with 5 guys- coincides with the fact that a woman would not call a man sleeping with 5 women - a manwhore. That is the essence of a D.S. You're just looking at the tools our society uses to employ the double standard.
A O Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Relative to men, you're very much passive pursuers. You like it like that. Say it. 'Like' doesn't come into it. It's simply something we're used to. If we don't pursue we end up with diddly squat so its just one of those things we 'have' to do. I am a sexually aggressive woman. But generally speaking the men who respond to that type of female are in the minority. I've had some guy friends out and out tell me that they are turned OFF by sexually aggressive women, that they prefer to pursue.I've never come against a sexually aggressive women before, interesting to see what happens if I ever do. The women I have known who sleep around do it for one reason only - they are horny and I doubt other men even enter their minds. That horniness is driven by a need for love and validation, the same love and validation that they're incapable of giving themselves. In other words, most women who sleep around have self-esteem issues. .
betamanlet Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 'Like' doesn't come into it. It's simply something we're used to. If we don't pursue we end up with diddly squat so its just one of those things we 'have' to do. I've never come against a sexually aggressive women before, interesting to see what happens if I ever do. That horniness is driven by a need for love and validation, the same love and validation that they're incapable of giving themselves. In other words, most women who sleep around have self-esteem issues. . I would bet you that the vast, vast majority of women have self esteem issues
Author Johnny M Posted March 31, 2010 Author Posted March 31, 2010 (edited) When a man has slept with dozens of women and brings his worn out penis into a marriage, what kind of values can a manslut give to his offsprings? Haha, this is amusing What many of you people fail to understand is that men and women have totally different reproductive strategies. Men are instinctively driven to impregnate as many women as possible, while women are instinctively driven to lock up one guy in a long-term relationship and a raise a family with him. This explains why women are genetically wired to perceive promiscuous men as masculine, while men are genetically wired to perceive non-promiscuous women as feminine. This, in turn, means that inexperienced men are seen as less masculine by women, while "slutty" women are seen as less feminine by men. It's basic evolutionary science and if you think it's "unfair", perhaps you should have a word with Mr. Darwin. As for women who claim that they are turned off by "experienced" men, I don't buy that for a second. Every woman's dream is to find a man who has banged a whole bunch of attractive women (which indicates that he is highly attractive to the female gender) and lock him up in an exclusive relationship. It's the same concept as taming a particularly unruly horse or keeping a dangerous wild beast as a pet. Women love challenges too and the idea of doing something that every other woman before her failed at - and keeping this kind of guy all to herself is simply irresistible. Incidentally, this is also the reason why women are often drawn to messed up guys - they see them as a challenge and want to "fix" them. Edited March 31, 2010 by Johnny M
blind_otter Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Haha, this is amusing What many of you people fail to understand is that men and women have totally different reproductive strategies. Men are instinctively driven to impregnate as many women as possible, while women are instinctively driven to lock up one guy in a long-term relationship and a raise a family with him. This explains why women are genetically wired to perceive promiscuous men as masculine, while men are genetically wired to perceive non-promiscuous women as feminine. This, in turn, means that inexperienced men are seen as less masculine by women, while "slutty" women are seen as less feminine by men. It's basic evolutionary science and if you think it's "unfair", perhaps you should have a word with Mr. Darwin. This is a well known theory, but actually the way it goes is that there are two types of reproductive strategies for males, generally speaking. One involves longterm relationship building so as to be able to rear offspring successfully in order to pass on your genes. The other involves spreading your seed far and wide without attempting any kind of investment in the genes that you are spreading. In the former strategy, your input directly effects the number of surviving and thriving offspring you produce. In the second, you have no say or control over whether those offspring you create even survive beyond a few weeks of gestation. As for women who claim that they are turned off by "experienced" men, I don't buy that for a second. Every woman's dream is to find a man who has banged a whole bunch of attractive women (which indicates that he is highly attractive to the female gender) and lock him up in an exclusive relationship. This is perhaps the dream of the less experienced woman. Personally, after having had sex with a variety of men, the type I prefer the most are those who have been at least serially monogamous. I find that they tend to have a better touch, and are more experienced with sexual adventure because women tend to get more freaky in LTRs.
jthorne Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 I just feel that with women have a big sexual history it is very easy for them to cross the line into cheating while in a relationship. I feel that pure women for lack of a better word make much more faithful and commited partners and I feel most men think the same way. Sorry, I don't agree with this AT ALL. But maybe I don't understand what you mean by BIG sexual history. I would consider myself sexually agressive and having sexual history/experience, but I have only had 5 partners in my entire life. I've never cheated on any of them. I know what I want, and I am not afraid to ask for it. I am not afraid to explore with someone I love (and no one else).
jthorne Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 As for women who claim that they are turned off by "experienced" men, I don't buy that for a second. Every woman's dream is to find a man who has banged a whole bunch of attractive women (which indicates that he is highly attractive to the female gender) and lock him up in an exclusive relationship. It's the same concept as taming a particularly unruly horse or keeping a dangerous wild beast as a pet. Women love challenges too and the idea of doing something that every other woman before her failed at - and keeping this kind of guy all to herself is simply irresistible. Incidentally, this is also the reason why women are often drawn to messed up guys - they see them as a challenge and want to "fix" them. It's certainly not my dream. Players turn me off. I'm not in it for the hook-up, or the competition, or to enslave anyone. I couldn't care less about "fixing" anyone. I am not a doctor, nor am I a babysitter. I think that women who like to play these games ultimately end up unsatisfied anyway.
Houndsoflove Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 It's amazing how ignorant some of you are being to the plain fact that promiscuity is not attractive. to men or women. like i said, if someone has high numbers, it's a by product of what is attractive about them - magnetic personality, ability to put others at ease, success, ambition, outgoing, etc. That's what is attractive. Never in my life or in the lives of any women I know has anyone gone "oh my, he's slept with 62 people, I must have him." It's more like "he's really cute, charming, and funny, i really like him/want to bring him home." It seems like some guys on here want to embrace a mindset that allows them to do as they please, while making sure women stay "clean" or else.
marsle85 Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Haha, this is amusing What many of you people fail to understand is that men and women have totally different reproductive strategies. Men are instinctively driven to impregnate as many women as possible, while women are instinctively driven to lock up one guy in a long-term relationship and a raise a family with him. This explains why women are genetically wired to perceive promiscuous men as masculine, while men are genetically wired to perceive non-promiscuous women as feminine. This, in turn, means that inexperienced men are seen as less masculine by women, while "slutty" women are seen as less feminine by men. It's basic evolutionary science and if you think it's "unfair", perhaps you should have a word with Mr. Darwin. As for women who claim that they are turned off by "experienced" men, I don't buy that for a second. Every woman's dream is to find a man who has banged a whole bunch of attractive women (which indicates that he is highly attractive to the female gender) and lock him up in an exclusive relationship. It's the same concept as taming a particularly unruly horse or keeping a dangerous wild beast as a pet. Women love challenges too and the idea of doing something that every other woman before her failed at - and keeping this kind of guy all to herself is simply irresistible. Incidentally, this is also the reason why women are often drawn to messed up guys - they see them as a challenge and want to "fix" them. You're using Darwin's Theory (operative word: theory) as some sort of scientific proof to back your argument. There is no proof that his ideas are substantial other than the basic tendencies we can witness in human life and socialization. While Darwin's theory shows some relevence in human life- (and anyone would be silly to deny this), it's also silly to base all of humanity's behaviors on reproductive strategies and finess. Often Darwin's theories are contradicted by environmental pressures. There are correlations between DNA/biological influences and behavior (like suicide, alcoholism, etc.) but many researchers even believe environment has an even greater impact on behavior. I'm not sure I believe that myself, but it just showcases the great unknown. We do not know. And It's foolhardy to justify centuries of religious, political and social force to undermine the female kind (in the effort to control a woman's behavior)... by throwing out a very old and basic THEORY. The point is - our race is fortunate enough to enjoy a mental capacity allowing for the freedom of choice in many regards... and we should let the choices of our mate indicate our feelings about them, and how they compare/contrast with our own. Regardless of gender.
Barky Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Every woman's dream is to find a man who has banged a whole bunch of attractive women (which indicates that he is highly attractive to the female gender) and lock him up in an exclusive relationship. I agree with this. Women use the judgments of other women as a proxy for their own judgments. Which is why it's best to pretend you're dating a lot if in fact you're not.
Houndsoflove Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Once in this thread has a women said she found promiscuity in itself attractive? Please spare me the pseudo-science.
Author Johnny M Posted March 31, 2010 Author Posted March 31, 2010 I'm not sure I believe that myself, but it just showcases the great unknown. We do not know. And It's foolhardy to justify centuries of religious, political and social force to undermine the female kind (in the effort to control a woman's behavior)... by throwing out a very old and basic THEORY. The point is - our race is fortunate enough to enjoy a mental capacity allowing for the freedom of choice in many regards... and we should let the choices of our mate indicate our feelings about them, and how they compare/contrast with our own. Regardless of gender. These centuries of "religious, political and social force to undermine the female kind" produced a family-oriented society and ensured the procreation and continuation of the human race. Contrast this with today's western society, where women are not "undermined" but encouraged to break the mold and shake off outdated "gender roles". As a consequence, the concept of family is quickly disappearing and women either don't have children at all or scramble to produce a single kid by the time they are well into their thirties or even forties. The birthrates in modern western countries are so low that they have to bring in millions of immigrants to compensate. But if third world countries follow suit and "liberate" their women too, the entire human race will die out within a few generations. All of this is a long way of saying that going against nature never leads to anything good. Women are not meant to be promiscuous, nor are they meant to fill traditionally male roles. The whole feminist experiment is an affront to nature and is therefore doomed to failure.
Houndsoflove Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 These centuries of "religious, political and social force to undermine the female kind" produced a family-oriented society and ensured the procreation and continuation of the human race. Contrast this with today's western society, where women are not "undermined" but encouraged to break the mold and shake off outdated "gender roles". As a consequence, the concept of family is quickly disappearing and women either don't have children at all or scramble to produce a single kid by the time they are well into their thirties or even forties. The birthrates in modern western countries are so low that they have to bring in millions of immigrants to compensate. But if third world countries follow suit and "liberate" their women too, the entire human race will die out within a few generations. All of this is a long way of saying that going against nature never leads to anything good. Women are not meant to be promiscuous, nor are they meant to fill traditionally male roles. The whole feminist experiment is an affront to nature and is therefore doomed to failure.,,,,,,,,,, lol.
A O Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 All of this is a long way of saying that going against nature never leads to anything good. We have the ability to mold nature to suit ourselves now days. Now that we live in a world where women can do most of the jobs that men do, then so too will they start possessing similar mindsets to men. To make a long story short, we're living in changing times and we 'all' need to get with the program. For the most part, nature's fluid, not stuck in stone. .
marsle85 Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 (edited) These centuries of "religious, political and social force to undermine the female kind" produced a family-oriented society and ensured the procreation and continuation of the human race. Contrast this with today's western society, where women are not "undermined" but encouraged to break the mold and shake off outdated "gender roles". As a consequence, the concept of family is quickly disappearing and women either don't have children at all or scramble to produce a single kid by the time they are well into their thirties or even forties. The birthrates in modern western countries are so low that they have to bring in millions of immigrants to compensate. But if third world countries follow suit and "liberate" their women too, the entire human race will die out within a few generations. Come. On. Really? You're serious? The concept of family has HARDLY remained constant/consistent... nor is it disappearing. It's changing, yes. I will agree individualism is viewed as more and more possible and valuable - but how can you debate that? You seem to enjoy using traditionalist/evolutionary theories as evidence (which I don't think is 100% foolish, I'm just going to respond in like) Evolutionary researchers view the behaviors of the human society on the bell curve, operating in a cyclicle manner to benefit the human race. Using the declining birthrate in western civilization is not a very substantial point. Studies show those with a high SES tend to have fewer children. Likewise, those with a lower SES have more children. In turn, children of families with less children enjoy more attention, feedback and resources. This allows for greater mental/physical and emotional stimulation. More is not always better. Quality over quantity. Six children who will eventually work minimum wage jobs - are not as valuable to the "progress of the human race"- as 3 children bound to be doctors, etc. There is hardly a panic of population (except for in China, who are starting to regret their favoritism to males) in Western civilization... and I would suspect the human kind is more likely to be destroyed by illness/catastrophe than the danger of 30-40 year old women rebelling against humanity and refusing to bear children. Edited March 31, 2010 by marsle85
Twenty-ten Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 It's amazing how ignorant some of you are being to the plain fact that promiscuity is not attractive. to men or women. like i said, if someone has high numbers, it's a by product of what is attractive about them - magnetic personality, ability to put others at ease, success, ambition, outgoing, etc. That's what is attractive. Never in my life or in the lives of any women I know has anyone gone "oh my, he's slept with 62 people, I must have him." It's more like "he's really cute, charming, and funny, i really like him/want to bring him home." It seems like some guys on here want to embrace a mindset that allows them to do as they please, while making sure women stay "clean" or else. This ^ by Houndsoflove is bang on. No one in their right mind says to themselves "Mmm tasty, he's poked 600 women" . NO ONE. Promiscuity in and of itself is equally a turn off to both genders but I would go as far as saying that a lot of people on both sides of the fence would be willing to overlook promiscuity if they were charmed enough by the person in question, hence why women still proceed to date charming slutty men. We have the ability to mold nature to suit ourselves now days. Now that we live in a world where women can do most of the jobs that men do, then so too will they start possessing similar mindsets to men. To make a long story short, we're living in changing times and we 'all' need to get with the program. For the most part, nature's fluid, not stuck in stone. ^ this too. by the way A O, you are making me thirsty. I could go for a chilled glass of my fave Sauvignon Blanc from Marlborough, yum!
Houndsoflove Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 From what I've seen in this thread and others like it, seems to me that men glorify this male promiscuity/hypocritical double standard. There hasnt been a single woman condoning it, yet all the guys are jumping on the bandwagon. It's kinda cute. dude lands a bunch of chicks, he's a god among his friends. Women don't really care for it.
Twenty-ten Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 It's kinda cute. dude lands a bunch of chicks, he's a god among his friends. Women don't really care for it. Well I'm convinced half the guys who push their misogynistic double standards around here are poofs anyway so it's just as well they would do things to attract the praise of other men.
Author Johnny M Posted March 31, 2010 Author Posted March 31, 2010 We have the ability to mold nature to suit ourselves now days. Now that we live in a world where women can do most of the jobs that men do, then so too will they start possessing similar mindsets to men. To make a long story short, we're living in changing times and we 'all' need to get with the program. For the most part, nature's fluid, not stuck in stone. Last I checked, the laws of physics were not fluid, nor was this planet's supply of non-renewable resources. If we could mold nature, we wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of people dying as a consequence of earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural disasters...nor would we have to spend $50 to fill up a car. Come. On. Really? You're serious? The concept of family has HARDLY remained constant/consistent... nor is it disappearing. I don't know what you're talking about. The concept of family has remained the same since the dawn of civilization. A family living in ancient Egypt 5,000 years ago has the same basic structure as a family living in America 100 years ago. It's changing, yes. I will agree individualism is viewed as more and more possible and valuable - but how can you debate that? You seem to enjoy using traditionalist/evolutionary theories as evidence (which I don't think is 100% foolish, I'm just going to respond in like) Evolutionary researchers view the behaviors of the human society on the bell curve, operating in a cyclicle manner to benefit the human race. Using the declining birthrate in western civilization is not a very substantial point. Studies show those with a high SES tend to have fewer children. Likewise, those with a lower SES have more children. In turn, children of families with less children enjoy more attention, feedback and resources. This allows for greater mental/physical and emotional stimulation. More is not always better. Quality over quantity. Six children who will eventually work minimum wage jobs - are not as valuable to the "progress of the human race"- as 3 children bound to be doctors, etc. There is hardly a panic of population (except for in China, who are starting to regret their favoritism to males) in Western civilization... and I would suspect the human kind is more likely to be destroyed by illness/catastrophe than the danger of 30-40 year old women rebelling against humanity and refusing to bear children. All of this means nothing when you look at hard facts. The average fertility rate in Europe is something like 1.5 children per woman (and North America is not far behind). If the entire world became like Europe, the entire human race would inevitably die out. You simply cannot f*ck with nature.
Recommended Posts