she's been around

[sally4sara]

I can understand and respect someone of either gender wanting a partner with similar values. Duh; that is what compatibility is all about.

 

But to hold potential partners to a standard you can't live up to, and expect them to prove your worth? What are you worth if you sleep around indiscriminately while thinking the same behavior devalues others?

 

You want something that, by your own judgments, you do not deserve.

 

She might not be able to be faithful?

You are just as unlikely to be unfaithful for the same reasons. Maybe more since you seek your worth in others.

 

She might have an STD?

So might you, even if you have been tested because there is no test for men with some STDs. YOU as a man, cannot ensure you are completely clean unless you are a virgin. YOU should be less experienced if only for this reason.

And there are people with low experience that have STDs.

 

She might have had an abortion?

You might have had one too - just not done to your body.

 

She might have low self esteem?

Sounds like you are just as likely for this if you expect your worth to be determined by others.

 

All I hear is "I worry my pecker is smaller than other peckers" when I hear the double standard crowd open their mouths.

[sagetalk]

 

1.) I'm not going to argue the value of having low-sex partners, because as another post has previously mentioned: it's preference, and one is entitled to their personal ideals and desires in a partner... but let's get real. Don't blame STDS, past abortions and partners from the past as your justification. You want a woman with less mileage.

 

2.) Yet, I do have a problem with Sagetalk's association of his feelings of being "special" and her low number of sexual partners. A person's sexual past is certainly an indicator for their future, but to me- has no relation to how SPECIAL you should feel.

 

Your approach deems women as objects,

 

3.) Consider. Logically, a person wants a new car because there will be less problems, less repairs, and will be able to pursues a longevity that spans past the life of an old car. If a person logically wants a new car just because it makes him "feel more special," and "worthy"-- and not because of the qualities of the car itself, that person is making a judgement based on HIS own desire to feel good about himself, not the car itself.

 

4.) So, provided that the woman fulfill your needs emotionally, mentally and physically... the fact she has had other people in her life knocks down her value. And ask yourself why. Because you want to fill YOUR void, not hers. You're the one lacking the esteem, and feel good factor. And that represents your neediness and materialism... not the girl.

 

1.) Yes it is preference, and most men prefer a woman to have the fewer the better. You, as a woman, don't think it matters which is inline with the majority of women. STD's, abortions, and a host of other reasons do matter greatly and they are the main reason why men prefer women with fewer partners. You can call it low mileage or whatever you want, I don't care.

 

2.) It makes me feel special, it makes men feel special. I seriously doubt that will ever change until the end of time. Using women for sex as fun is treating them as objects. Wanting them to have fewer sexual partners is showing that you care about them and want them to care about themselves as well.

 

3.) It doesn't just make me feel special, it actually makes me special. Big difference, huge difference, it is not just a feeling or an emotion. And it is precisely due to the quality of the car that makes me feel special. If the car is attractive, then lots of people want to rid in it. But, if I'm one of a few that actually has, then I'm special . If you can grasp this simple concept, you will become instant LTR material for the most high quality LTR guys.

 

4.) She can have all the people in her life she wants, but when she starts screwing around with them for fun, things change. It shows me that she doesn't value herself, nor her sexuality. And any Tom, Dick, or Jim can have his way with her and then it's my turn. No thanks .

 

What void am I filling? I want to marry one girl and that's it. I want a girl I can trust, I want a girl that saves herself only for men who are worthy of her sexual acts. Not just because he had all the right moves on a third date.

 

Everyone wants to feel good in a relationship, and knowing that she chose me to be one of the few men to be with her sexually makes me feel pretty darn good . You have your criteria for picking a mate, if it has nothing to do with sexual partners, then that's your call. To me, it's foolish to ignore it. I wouldn't dump a girl just because I found out she had been with alot of guys, but I prefer her not to have been.

[sagetalk]

But to hold potential partners to a standard you can't live up to, and expect them to prove your worth? What are you worth if you sleep around indiscriminately while thinking the same behavior devalues others?

 

I agree, but women let men get away with it and they should not. I say the male sluts get the female sluts and the male non-sluts get the female non-sluts. Sounds good to me .

[brainygirl]

I agree, but women let men get away with it and they should not. I say the male sluts get the female sluts and the male non-sluts get the female non-sluts. Sounds good to me .

 

My only problem with that is that is that I have a past (three kids, one born when I was 17) and have since changed how I go about things, I am not a "slut" and I am not interested in the male sluts. But the males who make a big deal about not being "sluts" won't have a thing to do with me.

 

It sucks.

[marsle85]

Yadayadayada...

 

Everything you're saying is now vague and flower-and-roses, you've completely changed your argument- which I suppose is a good thing. I AGREE with everything you're saying, and this doesn't represent me- like I said, I have had few partners... but I can't stand the hypocrisy. I'm not looking for a feminist stand off- but there IS a double standard, and it DOES effect me, and every other woman daily.

 

What does this afford men? Freedom to look, feel, touch, gamble and experience in so many senses... and if that doesn't reflect the dominance of men and submissiveness of women recorded throughout time, I don't know what does.

 

I'm supposed to sit here passively, restraining myself on every temptation (or else I'd be thought of a slut!) but men encouraged to be "power houses" and "conquerors" when they pursue and seduce women.

 

Not. Fair.

[sagetalk]

My only problem with that is that is that I have a past (three kids, one born when I was 17) and have since changed how I go about things, I am not a "slut" and I am not interested in the male sluts. But the males who make a big deal about not being "sluts" won't have a thing to do with me.

 

It sucks.

 

I guess it would depend on how many dads are in the picture. If it's two or three dads, then yes, most LTR guys are gonna run for the hills. If you have truly changed your ways, and you like decent guys now, then there is hope.

 

If you are different, there are decent guys out there that would want to be with you. Just be honest with them and, if they are right for you, they will appreciate it. You have shrunk your pool of responsible men considerably, but it isn't 0. If you want a decent guy then go after them. Be willing to accept rejection and move on.

[brainygirl]

I guess it would depend on how many dads are in the picture. If it's two or three dads, then yes, most LTR guys are gonna run for the hills. If you have truly changed your ways, and you like decent guys now, then there is hope.

 

If you are different, there are decent guys out there that would want to be with you. Just be honest with them and, if they are right for you, they will appreciate it. You have shrunk your pool of responsible men considerably, but it isn't 0. If you want a decent guy then go after them. Be willing to accept rejection and move on.

 

I am honest with anyone who asks. I get rejected a lot. Their problem, not mine. I think half the issue is that I don't fit neatly into a category.

 

I had a kid in high school, but I never used drugs or slept around. I also didn't drop out, I finished on time, with high grades. I went to college and finshed in four years, I have a master's degree.

 

People are uncomfortable with the hard to categorize. It would be easier if I was some needy sap. But I don't need rescued.

[Els]

 

She might have an STD?

So might you, even if you have been tested because there is no test for men with some STDs. YOU as a man, cannot ensure you are completely clean unless you are a virgin. YOU should be less experienced if only for this reason.

And there are people with low experience that have STDs.

 

This. This is what I can't stand:

 

Guy: She's been around so much, she's probably chock-full of STDs. The reason I'm avoiding her is logical: I don't want STDS.

 

Q: So, uh, how many partners have YOU had?

 

Guy: Quite a lot. But it's different cause I'm a guy and guys who sleep around more are valued more than girls who do so. It makes me a stud and them a slut.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[sagetalk]

It would be easier if I was some needy sap. But I don't need rescued.

 

Most guys like to feel that they are needed. Whether you realize it or not, I'd say a guy rescuing you isn't far from the truth. Being a damsel in distress is not an inferior mentality, men need women as well.

[hats]

Not. Fair.

 

Ironic because from your other posts you of all people certainly seem to have embraced the unfair advantages of being a woman.

[ohhh hey]

confront her about it. if you guys cant talk about your past present and future how is the relationship supposed to move forward. you need to know about the past to trust her in the future. dont be accusing, just ask her about it and talk about yourself as well and your past. make it into something you guys can get stronger for having talked about it. you need her side of the story if your gonna be judging her.

[Mr White]

I've always wondered if there are longer term implications as well.

 

There are a LOT of threads here about men who aren't getting enough sex in their marriages, men who aren't getting the "exciting or adventurous" kind of sex they want after marriage, men whose wives have completely lost interest in sex, who don't like sex, who won't have sex with them for months at a time, or who won't try new things.

 

I wonder if these men married the "pure" women, and are seeing the results of doing so...less sex, or less adventurous sex, after marriage. At least you know a "promiscuous" woman actually likes sex to begin with, so maybe won't choose to stop having sex after a few years of marriage.

 

I have no idea if there's a correlation. But it seems reasonable to assume a woman who likes having sex before marriage, will like having sex after marriage. But I know there are a lot of factors that go into choosing to have many or few partners before marriage, as well as in the quality and frequency of sex after marriage, so it's probably not a big factor either way.

 

There's probably some weak correlation, the emphasis being on weak. There are just as many women with a "past" that drop their sexual game soon after marriage.

 

So the key variable here is not whether or not women love sex (after marriage), but whether they love their husband enough to have sex with him. Woman who loves sex but resents her husband won't be having any sex (with him) anyway, while a woman who does love her husband will have sex with him, even if she's not quite feeling it...

[Engadget]

I think one of the things that comes up with women who have a lot of partners, is the belief (which can be very true) that they do it because of low self esteem.

 

A lot of young women with low self esteem feel men will like them if they "give it up".

 

For the record I haven't had a ton of sexual partners either, so I am within my right to want someone who hasn't either.

[sagetalk]

Yadayadayada...

 

1.) Everything you're saying is now vague and flower-and-roses, you've completely changed your argument- which I suppose is a good thing. I AGREE with everything you're saying, and this doesn't represent me- like I said, I have had few partners... but I can't stand the hypocrisy. I'm not looking for a feminist stand off- but there IS a double standard, and it DOES effect me, and every other woman daily.

 

2.) What does this afford men? Freedom to look, feel, touch, gamble and experience in so many senses... and if that doesn't reflect the dominance of men and submissiveness of women recorded throughout time, I don't know what does.

 

I'm supposed to sit here passively, restraining myself on every temptation (or else I'd be thought of a slut!) but men encouraged to be "power houses" and "conquerors" when they pursue and seduce women.

 

Not. Fair.

 

1.) Oh, come on, play nice. I haven't changed my argument, I simply think you are better understanding it. There is a double standard and it is feminism's fault. A feminist is the girl who's first in line to sleep with the guys having sex with tons of different women. I'm curious how it effects you if you have only had a few partners?

 

2.) They have the freedom just as you do. However, there are consequences if you act on this freedom for both men and women. Most good men despise men who treat women like toys and sleep around with them with no regards for commitment or relationship. I admit the punishment is far less for men, but again, this is mostly women's fault. Women love sexual "power houses" and "conquerors" for LTR, men do not.

[Mr White]

I think one of the things that comes up with women who have a lot of partners, is the belief (which can be very true) that they do it because of low self esteem.

 

A lot of young women with low self esteem feel men will like them if they "give it up".

 

For the record I haven't had a ton of sexual partners either, so I am within my right to want someone who hasn't either.

 

This also feeds into the above note regarding what happens after marriage. If a woman has been operating from this mindset, she's quite likely to subconsciously decide that "now that i'm married, it means I'm loved, and I don't have to do THAT anymore"...

[brainygirl]

Most guys like to feel that they are needed. Whether you realize it or not, I'd say a guy rescuing you isn't far from the truth. Being a damsel in distress is not an inferior mentality, men need women as well.

 

I disagree, a damsel in distress is helpless and needs someone to ride in and save her, in turn she becomes dependent on him. She owes him.

 

Whereas a partnership is a relationship in which both partners contribute to the situation and both benefit.

[marsle85]

1.) Oh, come on, play nice. I haven't changed my argument, I simply think you are better understanding it. There is a double standard and it is feminism's fault. A feminist is the girl who's first in line to sleep with the guys having sex with tons of different women. I'm curious how it effects you if you have only had a few partners?

 

You have changed your argument. Let's take a look at your original posts:

 

"The biggest way a girl shows you that you are different, you are her man, you are special to her in a relationship, is that she is sexually intimate with you."

 

"The more sexual partners someone has had, the less special you are to her"

 

"What do you have against the 17th century, I'd say many of those people were alot smarter than people walking around today?"

 

"You are giving him something that you see as valuable, and only a few guys could ever get it."

 

and, how could we forget:

 

"If she is sexual with guys all the time, how is he supposed to know he is special? Because she says so ."

 

Overwhelmingly, your debate is based on your beloved 17th century ideals: that a woman's greatest gift to a man is her innocence, and that once she crosses the threshold of virginity or a few partners- she loses her ability to show her man he's important to her, sex with her is less valuable, the man feels less special, and finally- her words alone aren't enough to express how much she treasures him.

 

That doesn't sound extreme to you? That while you may not sleep with a LARGE number of women, you as a man are encouraged to dabble here and there and enjoy the mental and physical pleasures that accompany it... and be able to walk away calling it "an experience". But ah, the woman you will marry and love- will and should fight your advances (because what makes you any different from any other man early in a relationship)

 

And your only reasoning for that is: "This has already been explained countless times. Women place a higher worth on men that have a lot of partners. Men place a higher worth on women with few." That only pacifies the situation and does not target the real hypocrisy... but it's super convenient- along with debates referring to biological and evolutionary components. Yet, we live today- not a century ago... and best of all, we have the supreme ability to CHOOSE. This justification merely sits pretty with men.

 

Furthermore, your argument now is this romantic "I want us to be special to one another..." and "I want her to care about herself" and "I want women who only give in to men who are worthy of her sexual advances".

 

Dude- how selective are you? How many people have you slept with? You absolutely may have very few partners, but ask yourself: are you holding yourself to the same standard as you're holding your potential wife?

 

 

2.) They have the freedom just as you do. However, there are consequences if you act on this freedom for both men and women. Most good men despise men who treat women like toys and sleep around with them with no regards for commitment or relationship. I admit the punishment is far less for men, but again, this is mostly women's fault. Women love sexual "power houses" and "conquerors" for LTR, men do not.

 

Most "good men" hardly "despise" men who sleep with women casually. Com'on now, you know that as well as I do. There is a comradeship and inner grouping that encourages this behavior.

 

Secondly, the punishment is far from "mostly women's fault". I think society's impressions of what is "manly" and attractive have clouded your vision, as well as many women. It's kind of an inverse justification. You argue that because women "like" playboys, we should continue to act this way. But do women like playboys because they like playboys, or do women like playboys because men want women to like playboys. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Regardless, we both understand the problem and implications of both the chicken AND the egg- it's not the sole duties of females to modify their attraction to certain men, how about being accountable for yourself and taking responsibility for your actions as a man?

Ironic because from your other posts you of all people certainly seem to have embraced the unfair advantages of being a woman.

 

You're right, I absolutely do. I guess men paying for my meals and opening doors for me makes me feel special.

[hats]

You're right, I absolutely do. I guess men paying for my meals and opening doors for me makes me feel special.

 

Then isn't your whole crusade against the hypocrisy of men, well, hypocritical?

[marsle85]

Then isn't your whole crusade against the hypocrisy of men, well, hypocritical?

 

I was purposely sarcastic to show the hypocrisy of men. We have a long way to go if when we acknowledge a problem in our society's values of men and women- it's identified as a "crusade." Why not just face it and accept responsibility? Likewise, there are plenty of problems we have to undergo in reference to women's expectations of men, I agree.

[sagetalk]

 

1.) Overwhelmingly, your debate is based on your beloved 17th century ideals: that a woman's greatest gift to a man is her innocence, and that once she crosses the threshold of virginity or a few partners- she loses her ability to show her man he's important to her, sex with her is less valuable, the man feels less special, and finally- her words alone aren't enough to express how much she treasures him.

 

2.) That doesn't sound extreme to you? That while you may not sleep with a LARGE number of women, you as a man are encouraged to dabble here and there and enjoy the mental and physical pleasures that accompany it... and be able to walk away calling it "an experience". But ah, the woman you will marry and love- will and should fight your advances (because what makes you any different from any other man early in a relationship)

 

3.) And your only reasoning for that is: "This has already been explained countless times. Women place a higher worth on men that have a lot of partners. Men place a higher worth on women with few."

 

4.) Furthermore, your argument now is this romantic "I want us to be special to one another..." and "I want her to care about herself" and "I want women who only give in to men who are worthy of her sexual advances".

 

5.) Dude- how selective are you? How many people have you slept with? You absolutely may have very few partners, but ask yourself: are you holding yourself to the same standard as you're holding your potential wife?

 

Most "good men" hardly "despise" men who sleep with women casually. Com'on now, you know that as well as I do. There is a comradeship and inner grouping that encourages this behavior.

 

6.) Secondly, the punishment is far from "mostly women's fault". I think society's impressions of what is "manly" and attractive have clouded your vision, as well as many women.

 

1.) The bolded part is true. Words are not enough because they are not. Are they enough to you?

 

2.) You think it's easy being a man because we get away with having sex alot in society? I don't give a flip what society or the majority of women want me to do or will let me get away with. Society can kiss my backside. A women who devalues her sexuality, is not attractive to me or most men in a LTR. As I said, it would not be the absolute deal breaker, but it's big.

 

3.) Yes, that's my reasoning and it is sound.

 

4.) That has always been part of my argument.

 

5.) When it comes to LTR's I am extremely selective. I would never, and I mean never, cheat on my wife or girlfriend. I would never abandon her if she were to become pregnant, and I would always ask double of myself then I would ever ask of her. I don't want to waste this loyalty on a loose woman whom I cannot trust to be faithful. I hold myself to a much higher standard then I would hold my wife/girlfriend to.

 

What do you know of men and their comradery with each other? Most men accept it because it's the way some women want to be treated. I despise it, but who am I to scold a guy for banging 10 girls when they all thought he was a stud, they knew he was sleeping with all of them, but they did it anyway.

 

6.) The punishment is not a societal punishment to females, it is a male punishment to females. Just as females punish males who lack sexual experience/boldness. I actually think the punishment for sexually inexperienced males is far harsher than loose women's punishment. At least the loose women deserve some of what they get, those guys didn't really do anything wrong to deserve punishment they receive.

[Engadget]

This also feeds into the above note regarding what happens after marriage. If a woman has been operating from this mindset, she's quite likely to subconsciously decide that "now that i'm married, it means I'm loved, and I don't have to do THAT anymore"...

 

Good point.

[sagetalk]

This also feeds into the above note regarding what happens after marriage. If a woman has been operating from this mindset, she's quite likely to subconsciously decide that "now that i'm married, it means I'm loved, and I don't have to do THAT anymore"...

 

I think it is common for girls with low self esteem to put out to guys who treat them bad, but deny sex to men who treat them well. It makes no sense, but I guess it makes sense to them in some warped way.

[marsle85]

I'm going to agree to disagree. Our opinions are based on our values and expectations, and while I don't expect your customs to waver, I feel entirely the same way. There is nothing more to disintegrate or analyze. You operate with a mentality I myself, do not utilize. No big deal. We just can't date!

[hats]

I was purposely sarcastic to show the hypocrisy of men. We have a long way to go if when we acknowledge a problem in our society's values of men and women- it's identified as a "crusade." Why not just face it and accept responsibility? Likewise, there are plenty of problems we have to undergo in reference to women's expectations of men, I agree.

 

It's just funny because in your other posts you come off as feeling entitled to the double standards that benefit women. But now there's a double standard that you feel is unfair against women and suddenly it's a problem in our values that we need to address. Do you really expect anyone to give up what will make them happy in a relationship for the sake of principle alone?

 

Which men are being hypocritical? Sage and many other men have accepted that women don't like nice guys and there's not much they can do to change that, that women want guys who will take the lead and treat a woman. If you can understand why this is non-negotiable for you as a woman, why can't you understand that this case might be the same for men. We want what we want and that's the way this world works.

[marsle85]

It's just funny because in your other posts you come off as feeling entitled to the double standards that benefit women. But now there's a double standard that you feel is unfair against women and suddenly it's a problem in our values that we need to address. Do you really expect anyone to give up what will make them happy in a relationship for the sake of principle alone?

 

Which men are being hypocritical? Sage and many other men have accepted that women don't like nice guys and there's not much they can do to change that, that women want guys who will take the lead and treat a woman. If you can understand why this is non-negotiable for you as a woman, why can't you understand that this case might be the same for men. We want what we want and that's the way this world works.

 

The error in your theory is its acuity. We are much more complex than how you describe, we change and evolve and are capable of more than just "working"... and, like I admitted in my post prior, the values of women need to be reevaluted, too. The equality of women has changed how men and women interact and date. Undoubtedly, the advancement of the sexual lives of women will alter the expectations men have for women... and this variable of female independence will also impact the traditional roles of dating, like pursual, paying for dates, etc.