Woggle Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 The fellas weighing about how they would screw a "loose woman" but not have a relationship with her, clearly are concerned with her status. This has a logical basis since loose women tend to not make good partners.
carhill Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 The woman who I 'gave it' to had been married, had two kids who were nearly teenagers and had a bunch of boyfriends over the years. She never knew I was a virgin. Why should she? BTW, I'm not a woman. Do you think that kid on the trike is a girl?
Undine Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 You really don't need to change who you are, merely see yourself and any woman you choose to pursue as equals. That's all they are; equals. Nothing special. That was the biggest change for myself. Since you've had relationships, even though no intercourse occurred, you can and do have 'game' to be attractive to women. All you have to do is assert yourself romantically and it will happen. It just will. Be clear in your mind that it will. Let her see it in your eyes that it will. With the right woman at that moment, even if she is not the right woman long-term, it will happen. If you're selective, who knows, you might become your future wife's 'prize' whom she's waited a long time for, even if she was promiscuous before. This is good advice...and if I recall correctly Carhill is not only a man, he was a virgin until he was in his 30s. Regarding awkwardness with women--well, you obviously were awkward with women before things ever got to this point, or you would not have been too afraid to approach them until you were 29 years old. I believe your biggest problem is that you view women as strange and frightening creatures, like a different species...that is what makes you awkward. Yet you obviously do have some appeal to women, as you are able to get dates and have relationships. The answer is not to suddenly behave like an ass, the answer is to learn more about assertiveness. Men can be charismatic, confident, and go after what they want without being insensitive overbearing jerks. And you're bitter and angry because your relationships to date haven't worked out--well, you only have ten years of relationship experience. When I had only ten years of dating experience under my belt, none of my relationships had worked out yet either. That is a common condition, although exacerbated in your case by a virginity you can't get rid of. In addition please note that I suggested you went after a type and clarified that type does not denote physical. What do your dates have in common, personality-wise? Obviously something.
Rhythmic Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 The fellas weighing about how they would screw a "loose woman" but not have a relationship with her, clearly are concerned with her status. No. Concerned about unfaithfulness and loyalty. It isn't an issue of status it is fully an issue of male insecurity. If she has been with so many different guys who are potentially better than you you might not measure up. If she is so use to variety she might be more willing to move on. The fact she choose you after she has already been with tons of different guys who may or may not have dumped her means she don't want you she is just settling. Those issues are insecurity issues. Not one of status no matter how hard you want it to be.
Woggle Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 It's not even about measuring up. Fast women tend to have feminist views which means they will feel no qualms whatsoever about cheating. They view it is just payback for what their mother went through.
Mutant Debutante Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 It's not even about measuring up. Fast women tend to have feminist views which means they will feel no qualms whatsoever about cheating. They view it is just payback for what their mother went through. Man, that's not what feminism is about.
Woggle Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 Man, that's not what feminism is about. It is not the whole picture but it is certainly part of the pciture. Marrying a feminist is a recipe for misery for a man.
Mutant Debutante Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 It is not the whole picture but it is certainly part of the pciture. Marrying a feminist is a recipe for misery for a man. If he's marrying Andrea Dworkin, absolutely. Otherwise not so much.
sally4sara Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 No. Concerned about unfaithfulness and loyalty. It isn't an issue of status it is fully an issue of male insecurity. If she has been with so many different guys who are potentially better than you you might not measure up. If she is so use to variety she might be more willing to move on. The fact she choose you after she has already been with tons of different guys who may or may not have dumped her means she don't want you she is just settling. Those issues are insecurity issues. Not one of status no matter how hard you want it to be. BS. Whenever one of my male friends was seeing a "known" girl ALLLLL the other guys messed with him about it. Like this bit NICEGUY39, found in THIS thread: That's because you are probably only interested in sex with no strings attached (in which case you are right to be attracted to sluts - they take far less effort). I was talking more about serious relationships. Who wants to marry and have children with a slut? If the logic stands that a woman who has enjoyed casual sex is likely to be unfaithful - then the double standard is bunk. Promiscuity as a sign of unfaithfulness? But folks (men) with a higher testosterone level who are ALSO promiscuous are somehow beyond reproach and envied? More suitable for marriage and raising children even?!? Talk about being irrational. Can anyone buy into the double standard and not choke on the pompous hypocrisy inherent? What a joke!
blind_otter Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 Last night I ended up grabbing a friend's T-shirt and yelling "I didn't sleep with that guy!! PLEASE BELIEVE ME!!!" When he mentioned that douchebag that went around town saying he had sex with me. Repulsively unattractive and not my type. Grrrrrr. I wonder how many "loose" women have suffered a similar fate from men that they rejected.
Rhythmic Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 BS. Whenever one of my male friends was seeing a "known" girl ALLLLL the other guys messed with him about it. Like this bit NICEGUY39, found in THIS thread: Because they know it is an insecurity button. A validation issue. You don't get validated by boning a slut every guy has already been with. It does nothing for you ego or anything of the sort. It isn't status. Its insecurity tied into male ego. There are no fairy tales of poor men meeting rich queens who swoop them off their feet to save them from a life of poorness. Indeed if status was all men cared about no rich guy would marry down so often would they? I get it though. As a woman it would be hard to believe that there are so many men who have their own pride and ego tied just into you opening your legs. : if the logic stands that a woman who has enjoyed casual sex is likely to be unfaithful - then the double standard is bunk. Promiscuity as a sign of unfaithfulness? But folks (men) with a higher testosterone level who are ALSO promiscuous are somehow beyond reproach and envied? More suitable for marriage and raising children even?!? Talk about being irrational. Can anyone buy into the double standard and not choke on the pompous hypocrisy inherent? What a joke! Because other women care less about that then men do. Women don't have their egos on the line based on conquering male penises. Indeed if it is a high enough status male there are plenty of women who are happy to share him. This is where all the harems thoughout history come from. Hell look at tiger woods. Woman after woman came out that they were yet another mistress of his and didn't even seem shamed by it. It just made tiger look bad. Some of those women are getting book deals and media attention from it. From happily sharing him. Yet we have already had threads on this forum about virgins having issues keeping a woman interested past a certain age. Then there is this little study. http://www.synergy-pr.com/press/MelissaBurkley,PhD/51/800/0 Men can't really share women like that. Our egos get into the way. She has to pick us and only us because we love to believe we are really that awesome. You don't get that from a "slut" thus you get ripped by your friends for it. Not because of status but because she obviously isn't into you. A woman who picked a guy and only that guy because he is "just that awesome" carries with it the idea they only want him. Now you can argue this mindset is hypocritical and wrong. But you can't say this is about status. Though I can understand why a woman would have difficulty accepting that.
Woggle Posted April 2, 2010 Posted April 2, 2010 Last night I ended up grabbing a friend's T-shirt and yelling "I didn't sleep with that guy!! PLEASE BELIEVE ME!!!" When he mentioned that douchebag that went around town saying he had sex with me. Repulsively unattractive and not my type. Grrrrrr. I wonder how many "loose" women have suffered a similar fate from men that they rejected. I never lie about what I do with women and I don't even kiss and tell when I do. If a woman rejects me then I move on. If she is nasty about it then I am glad to have her away from me.
Joe Normal Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 The other main reason is that women get pregnant, men don't. A woman can only have about 20 kids maximum in her lifetime, most have far less. A man can sire 20 kids in a month if he puts his mind to it. That means a woman benefits more from being selective, a man benefits more from being unselective. This comes out in social disapproval of loose women, versus approval of loose men.
Joe Normal Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 If he's marrying Andrea Dworkin, absolutely. Otherwise not so much. Really? Most men are put off by feminism. I'm not saying they necessarily should be, but the fact is that they are.
Joe Normal Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 The fellas weighing about how they would screw a "loose woman" but not have a relationship with her, clearly are concerned with her status. They are concerned she has a screw loose.
Joe Normal Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Here's a news flash, if a guy is trying to get into your pants on the second or third date, he's a player.. If a guy is doing that, he's just straight. Players will try to close on the first date because usually they don't plan on having a second. By date 2 or 3 they are moving on to one of her friends or relatives.
Joe Normal Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 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. I've noticed lots of occasions where a woman showed more interest in a guy because she thought he was experienced. Even women who aren't sexually interested in a certain man, will often show respect towards his number of conquests if it is notable. It's a marker for "being a man" and people look up to that, like it or not.
Joe Normal Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 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. True but you also can't deny that evolution and animalistic urges have a big influence on human behaviour. If you think rational analysis is going to dominate any time soon, just look at how many people smoke, drink to excess, take drugs, or cheat on their spouses. Or read up on any war. The mind doesn't give us true freedom of choice, it just gives us some limited freedom. For example, you can't say to yourself "relationships are too much hassle, I'm going to live alone forever and be blissfully happy" - if you are not that way emotionally, it will make you miserable no matter what rational control and "freedom" you try to exercise.
Joe Normal Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 You like it like that. Say it. 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. In love, as in war, the indirect route lays a smoother path to conquest.
ascendotum Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 A lot of this double standard is driven by women as St.Nick said. If the women who sleeps around is one of her friends she will staunchly defend her 'fun loving outgoing' friend, but a number of times I have seen women spread rumours and make snide comments behind others backs regarding how much of a slut some other women is, who is not their friend. I have witnessed conversations between groups of women (in their 20s the other in their 30s) discussing the merit of a guy who has had a lot of partners verses one who has had hardly any and in both cases the majority of women said they would choose the guy who had bedded many women. The usual comment was it would make them feel more special because the guy who has had so many women and has lots of options, is now choosing them. Where as for the inexperienced guy, the comments where along the lines of, it would be too hard and 'ewwwww, I dont want the fish john west rejects'. Other conversations I have heard from women regarding dates where the date was going well until the guy has admitted being single for sometime, and the women concerned made 'eeeeww what a loser' or 'eeeewww I'm not going to be your charity girlfriend you creep' type remarks. For the less successful guys lack of experience becomes a secondary negative, while for the successful guys, lots of experience is an additional virtue. Just other observations over the years where it was so obvious by their behaviour that women had more respect for the guys who dated/slept with lots of women (even if he was a sleaze (but good looking)) versus the perennially single guys. At the last place I worked at a number of the women felt sorry for a good looking 'player' because 'he's unlucky in love'. Sheeesh! I find these attitudes are not just the privilege of the 'glamours' but is even with your shy or down to earth average looking suburban women, (as long as they get keep getting hit on when they go out). TheBigQuestion earlier in this thread made a great post and it very much underpins the double standard which is held by both sexes. From the male side, a lot of the 'women are sluts' attitude comes from the guys who are the most successful with women (sleeping not maintaining relationships). The cool, hunky big guys and fun loving roguish bad boy guys that women find so fantastic are big purveyors of the double standard. Some of the guys I know who are into triple digits with women they have slept with, and they say things like most of the single women walking the streets are sluts to every women except their mum and sister are sluts. Or else they are really cynical when so many of the women they sleep with on the first date or who are up for kinky sex, say 'they dont normally do this'. As regards their frustrated average joe friends, hearing their stories/comments and witnessing how easy attractive women are to go home or out to the car park with these guys...it does have a flow on effect through the ranks. I have found guys from patriarchal cultures (sth european, sth american and muslim) also tend to have a low opinion of women who sleep around and this is very much rooted in the values of their parents and a more religious culture. Its disillusioning when I see these guys go all out to turn on the charm to bed a woman and when she does exactly what they wanted, they slag her off as another dumb slut.
ascendotum Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 A small % of men get most of the women. Virtually every guy I know has not been with nearly the amount of women that the women have been with men.. Women share a small pool of popular men until they get older. Sex is a lot less equally distributed amongst guys than it is with women. I remember seeing some article in a mens magazine that when it came to casual sex, 50% got over 80% of the women (with majority of that attributed to the top 25% of men) and the bottom 50% less then 20%. Statistically that's quite an anomaly. Okay it was hardly a scientific study but that principle has been replicated in the various social circles I have mixed in over the years. The least successful 1/3 can count the number of sex partners on one hand while the top 1/3 have had dozens and dozens of women. These guys do the rounds with a lot of women....until their (women's) sex appeal fades.
donnamaybe Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 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. So let's just all give up and let people act like ignorant jackasses without any resistance from those with some common sense?
blind_otter Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 In love, as in war, the indirect route lays a smoother path to conquest. I'll take the bloody path.
donnamaybe Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 They are concerned she has a screw loose. This post TOTALLY belies your user name.
donnamaybe Posted April 5, 2010 Posted April 5, 2010 I'll take the bloody path. As Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam." I'm with ya BO. NOBODY tells me how to act or who to f---.
Recommended Posts