hats Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 (edited) 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. I personally think women's love of social status and men's love of sexual purity is biological. It seems pretty common across cultures. Although I'm not 100% certain I'd guess it's near universal. I've never heard of a culture where loose women are more highly valued. Edited May 17, 2010 by hats
lino Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 If you notice very carefully, that was a rhetorical question. Your answer is indeed what I said. It's just that many men seem to not realize the implication of this answer on THEM in their quest for the 'pure virgin who will instantly turn into a sex kitten during the first week with them'. My answer isn't what you said. You were talking about making someone wait for sex. I would never, ever do that as it's manipulative and cruel. I said that people should choose their sexual partners wisely. If they do that, having a low number of past partners is not hard. That applies both to men and women. I don't f*ck anything that walks and has a hole and I don't want any future partner of mine to do it either. Simple enough? Also, most men don't want a pure virgin who will instantly turn into a sex kitten during the first week with them. Don't know where you fished that from. The small number of guys who do want virgins are either heavily religious or have some crappy fantasy about wanting to de-flower a virgin girl. 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. Please explain how a man with a low amount of past sexual partners, wanting to have a serious relationship with a woman who also has a low amount of past sexual partners is a double standard? If he's practising what he expects from his future SO, where is this double standard? Women can act on any temptation they want... Who is stopping them? Both men and women have the freedom to look, feel, touch, gamble and experience in so many senses... So long as they're mature enough to be accountable for their actions, where's the problem? I'll repeat myself: I don't f*ck anything that walks and has a hole and I don't want any future partner of mine to do it either. Simple enough? And these 'power houses' and 'conquerers' you speak of are encouraged by... guess who? The very women who throw themselves at them for the reason that they are these 'power houses' and 'conquerers.' Why would guys like that stop being so, when it works so well for them? It's not that complicated really. 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. Nothing but hypocrisy on her part. It's such a simple concept to understand yet it's flogged to death!!
sally4sara Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 I personally think women's love of social status and men's love of sexual purity is biological. It seems pretty common across cultures. Although I'm not 100% certain I'd guess it's near universal. I've never heard of a culture where loose women are more highly valued. Horse crap! OH women who toss it up are highly celebrated. Till you're done with them. And that, THAT it not something that holds true for marsle85 with her liking "the guy buying dinner" double standard. She isn't going to run off and talk crap on a guy after she gets dinner. She isn't going to fret over how many times he bought someone else dinner. THAT is what makes this double standard so vile.
sagetalk Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 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! Rejected and I didn't even ask you out . Oh well, I never feel too bad when a hottie (I've seen your pics, you know you are) turns me down , that's why I always aim high! No matter where you go, you will always run into this. I can't say it's right that women exalt sexually experienced men, but men exalt sexually inexperienced women. But it is what it is and I doubt it will ever change. If you think these guys have double standards, then the best punishment you could ever give them is to not have sex with guys who have double standards. Throughout my life, I know I will have very few sexual partners, and I accept that to most women this is unattractive. Regardless of how the majority of women feel, this is how I want to live my life. If they don't like it, then they can easily go and find a sex hound. To me, sex means alot, and I'm not ashamed of it, nor am I afraid of the losses I endure because I feel that way.
sally4sara Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 Rejected and I didn't even ask you out . Oh well, I never feel too bad when a hottie (I've seen your pics, you know you are) turns me down , that's why I always aim high! No matter where you go, you will always run into this. I can't say it's right that women exalt sexually experienced men, but men exalt sexually inexperienced women. But it is what it is and I doubt it will ever change. If you think these guys have double standards, then the best punishment you could ever give them is to not have sex with guys who have double standards. Throughout my life, I know I will have very few sexual partners, and I accept that to most women this is unattractive. Regardless of how the majority of women feel, this is how I want to live my life. If they don't like it, then they can easily go and find a sex hound. To me, sex means alot, and I'm not ashamed of it, nor am I afraid of the losses I endure because I feel that way. This is where you get it twisted. Women don't EXALT experienced men. They don't choose them because "OMG he's been with hundreds of women - so hawt!" For the most part it is due to: Women just don't have a penis to get in their insecure feelings about. Women don't think they will suck compared to others. We are led to believe he will find pleasure in our body for the differences it has from others. Women know the guy has been raised to think sex makes him manly so he will likely have past partners and there is nothing to be done to change that after the fact. Women know a guy who has no experience with the female body will not be as likely to please them; might even hurt or irritate them. Teaching is a chore after a while. You can't start to build real intimacy if the whole things is an educational situation. And if he gets off quickly from the exciting newness - we have to be all sweet about it and say its okay or he will again, conveniently, get in his feelings and start up with the "you're a slut that's why you didn't like it" crap. I see nothing wrong with being a guy with low numbers. I see nothing wrong with wanting a partner who is similar in that way. But you quoting that awful article where that guy blatantly refers to women as objects for use that depreciate with every use - disgusting. As you related to it. It is in line with your opinions and that lets me know something about you. You don't have low numbers because you value low numbers for yourself - you have low numbers because it is your circumstance; your lot in life and you would have it differently if you could. That is cheap. Here is my standard. I don't care how few or many so long as they are respectful and I enjoy my time with them. I have to have some level of admiration for them prior to sleeping with them. Some sense that they are a decent person. I'm already awesome and special. If I give them sex - they are at least almost as awesome and special as I am before and after.
sagetalk Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 1.) This is where you get it twisted. Women don't EXALT experienced men. They don't choose them because "OMG he's been with hundreds of women - so hawt!" 2.) Women know a guy who has no experience with the female body will not be as likely to please them; might even hurt or irritate them. Teaching is a chore after a while. You can't start to build real intimacy if the whole things is an educational situation. And if he gets off quickly from the exciting newness - we have to be all sweet about it and say its okay or he will again, conveniently, get in his feelings and start up with the "you're a slut that's why you didn't like it" crap. 3.) I see nothing wrong with being a guy with low numbers. I see nothing wrong with wanting a partner who is similar in that way. 4.) But you quoting that awful article where that guy blatantly refers to women as objects for use that depreciate with every use - disgusting. As you related to it. It is in line with your opinions and that lets me know something about you. You don't have low numbers because you value low numbers for yourself - you have low numbers because it is your circumstance; your lot in life and you would have it differently if you could. That is cheap. 1.) Yes, they do. It may not be as blantent as, "I've been with lots of women, let's have sex", but with sexual experience comes skill in: teasing, building sexual tension, and knowing what women want sexually. And women do place a high value on those things listed above in a LTR. Men place little or no value on them in a LTR. These have nothing to do with the quality of the man, only how it makes the girl feel (sound familiar?). 2.) You proved my point in this paragraph. That paragraph makes you sound extremely selfish and shallow. Throughout the course of a good relationship you'll have sex 100's of times, what difference does it make if the first few times are awkward. Any idiot can catch on fairly quickly, it's not rocket science. 3.) It sounds like you disagree with yourself. You just spent a whole paragraph knocking on them. 4.) You misread the article. The object is the act of sex, not the girl. What you said about my circumstances is extremely cruel and ignorant. I am 6'0, slim/athletic, well educated, great job, great smile, big hands and feet , cool wavy hair, play the guitar, green eyes, and have had numerous attractive women make sexual advances towards me who I wasn't even dating. I've had girls give me the green light for physical stuff on the first date or not even on a date at all. I would not have it any differently, I am a man that genuinely respects women and I highly value sexual acts with a women. I have a low number of sexual partners because it is my choice, and I choose to do it.
sally4sara Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 1.) Yes, they do. It may not be as blantent as, "I've been with lots of women, let's have sex", but with sexual experience comes skill in: teasing, building sexual tension, and knowing what women want sexually. And women do place a high value on those things listed above in a LTR. Men place little or no value on them in a LTR. These have nothing to do with the quality of the man, only how it makes the girl feel (sound familiar?). 2.) You proved my point in this paragraph. That paragraph makes you sound extremely selfish and shallow. Throughout the course of a good relationship you'll have sex 100's of times, what difference does it make if the first few times are awkward. Any idiot can catch on fairly quickly, it's not rocket science. 3.) It sounds like you disagree with yourself. You just spent a whole paragraph knocking on them. 4.) You misread the article. The object is the act of sex, not the girl. What you said about my circumstances is extremely cruel and ignorant. I am 6'0, slim/athletic, well educated, great job, great smile, big hands and feet , cool wavy hair, play the guitar, green eyes, and have had numerous attractive women make sexual advances towards me who I wasn't even dating. I've had girls give me the green light for physical stuff on the first date or not even on a date at all. I would not have it any differently, I am a man that genuinely respects women and I highly value sexual acts with a women. I have a low number of sexual partners because it is my choice, and I choose to do it. There is nothing I said that contradicts my views. You read that article and YOU misread it. It is not your obstacle so it didn't seem callous. It doesn't put your gender in a bad or vulnerable light. It allows men to put themselves in a good light WITHOUT MERIT. Of course you agreed with it! The writer DID refer to women as objects for use that depreciate with use - and it didn't even phase you. A man can cat about town banging anything that walks and not develop any skills that make him any good at it. The double standard is held for this very reason. If she has any experience prior that was more enjoyable, a jerk can sooth himself by thinking it is because she is a slut and not because he is just bad at it. And a guy with no experience can learn, but not if he thinks sex is something for men to use women to get. The double standard isn't about women enjoying sex. No one thinks someone enjoying themselves makes them lesser or depreciated. The double standard is all about taking from her and nothing about giving to her or sharing with her. Women don't pick men based on how many other women he has had sex with. They overlook it. They expect it to just be the situation. And please - don't front. You know full well they'd rather not teach because the female body works differently when it comes to sex than the male body does. For a guy, it matters not if it is a hand, a fleshlight, sex, oral or no - he is going to get off barring fatigue/medical issue/or intoxication. How good she is at having sex isn't a plus because it is easy for a guy to get off. If she has anything to compare him to - his ego is what causes him to devalue her - not because it didn't feel as good for him. It is more complicated for women and that is the ONLY reason to want a partner with some experience. It is not about feeling special - it is about feeling good. It is tactile + comfort level. For YOU? it is tactile + ego. You could be the hottest guy walking and I wouldn't touch you with a 20 ft pole because you have issues. All those things you want me to think about you as selling points? Yet you need someone else to make you feel special? I'm not buying it. Maybe is you were special - thought of yourself as special, it wouldn't occur to you to try to convince me? Look, I get the someone who makes irresponsible choices is a risk one might not want to take. But for guys who have this worry? They damn well be looking at their own irresponsible choices every bit as harshly as they do a woman's. MORE I think, because men can't get a truly clean bill of health and they are more likely to infect a woman than she is to infect him. Medical FACT.
deebeechrisyo Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 I personally think women's love of social status and men's love of sexual purity is biological. It seems pretty common across cultures. Although I'm not 100% certain I'd guess it's near universal. I've never heard of a culture where loose women are more highly valued. I believe this is biological as well. I think it's actually a defense mechanism for men, as it helps prevent a man from unknowingly raising another man's child.
sally4sara Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 I believe this is biological as well. I think it's actually a defense mechanism for men, as it helps prevent a man from unknowingly raising another man's child. Actually the only real biological defense mechanism for this is that men produce (involuntarily) 3 different types of sperm. Egg seekers (higher count if they are in a relationship they feel assured is monogamous), blockers (higher count if they do not think the relationship is monogamous) and combatants (also higher if they think it is not a monogamous relationship). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n1_v35/ai_20746731/
deebeechrisyo Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 Actually the only real biological defense mechanism for this is that men produce (involuntarily) 3 different types of sperm. Egg seekers (higher count if they are in a relationship they feel assured is monogamous), blockers (higher count if they do not think the relationship is monogamous) and combatants (also higher if they think it is not a monogamous relationship). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n1_v35/ai_20746731/ I'm not discrediting your post, but this doesn't take into account that more often than not, men have NO IDEA that their significant other is cheating on them nor that their kid is actually not theirs. This is why a strict screening process is so necessary.
sally4sara Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 I'm not discrediting your post, but this doesn't take into account that more often than not, men have NO IDEA that their significant other is cheating on them nor that their kid is actually not theirs. This is why a strict screening process is so necessary. Choosing a mate based on A, B, or C implies thought. Something biological happens involuntarily. The different sperm and their levels isn't based on actual knowledge, but rather the unknown - the possibility. The value on female chastity wasn't biological because it was not even known that men held a role in making children for 80 million years. Women got all the credit; the children were valued because it added backs and hands to their clan. Females were the spiritual guide of the clan and they guarded the secret of paternity. Men were pissed after learning they had a role in it and were not given credit. Blame religion, inheritance, and taxes for the focus turning to female chastity. Today - it is only still held because of religion, inheritance, and taxes and people are use to it. Men like that they can be considered better by doing something they are suppose to be able to do and enjoy doing. Even some women like it because it affords the ability to look down on others and be considered better for doing absolutely nothing at all. It is just dumb. You like someone; enjoy time with them and at some point, of course, sex comes into play. So dumb to muck it up over things that you can deem real or invalid by spending time together and taking note of how often or little their actions match up with their words.
Els Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 My answer isn't what you said. You were talking about making someone wait for sex. I would never, ever do that as it's manipulative and cruel. I said that people should choose their sexual partners wisely. If they do that, having a low number of past partners is not hard. That applies both to men and women. How do you choose sexual partners wisely without making some of your 'potential partners' wait for sex, then??? If you don't wait for sex, you will have sex with all of your dates, and if you are an outgoing person who has dated many people... well, you see how this is going, don't you? I don't f*ck anything that walks and has a hole and I don't want any future partner of mine to do it either. Simple enough? I have no trouble with this preference of yours. My beef is with the men who have had many sexual partners themselves but do not want a woman who has had the same. Simple enough? Also, most men don't want a pure virgin who will instantly turn into a sex kitten during the first week with them. Don't know where you fished that from. The small number of guys who do want virgins are either heavily religious or have some crappy fantasy about wanting to de-flower a virgin girl. Really? Best argue your point with sagetalk then - he was the one who said that virginity on a woman was highly prized in most cultures.
marsle85 Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 Please explain how a man with a low amount of past sexual partners, wanting to have a serious relationship with a woman who also has a low amount of past sexual partners is a double standard? If he's practising what he expects from his future SO, where is this double standard? It's easy to prove a double standard wrong when you imagine the opposite of the double standard. By inventing this man in your head, doesn't mean that he exists- nor is his standards plentiful in this culture. I'll repeat myself: I don't f*ck anything that walks and has a hole and I don't want any future partner of mine to do it either. Simple enough?Firstly, I have never been disrespectful to you, or anyone here. For someone going on and on about how he is a quality individual and expects the same in return, your description of sexual intercourse with a woman (NOT a thing that walks and has a hole) is rather disgusting and demeaning...regardless of how many men she's slept with. And these 'power houses' and 'conquerers' you speak of are encouraged by... guess who? The very women who throw themselves at them for the reason that they are these 'power houses' and 'conquerers.' Why would guys like that stop being so, when it works so well for them? It's not that complicated really. Again, what comes first- the chicken or the egg? By simplifying everything, you're not resolving the problem, nor answering the question. Isn't blaming women for the existence of these men a little far-fetched? Nothing but hypocrisy on her part.Ok- FOR THE THIRD TIME: I admitted women hold expectations for men that are not equivalent to those they hold for themselves. As per my last TWO posts: "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." and "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." No problem, don't sweat it. What you said about my circumstances is extremely cruel and ignorant. Isn't this funny. We have the double standard cutting into one another here. Her comment was just as baseless as your original comment: targeting women as sluts because they have low self esteem. Further, you defend yourself by saying: " I am 6'0, slim/athletic, well educated, great job, great smile, big hands and feet , cool wavy hair, play the guitar, green eyes,"...etc. So, you jump to assumptions about women who have multiple sex partners as valueless and slutty, but suddenly we're supposed to believe you're the exception to the rule... the reason why you haven't had sex with many isn't because of availability but your values. Maybe instead of judging people by their appearance of sexual partners, we should try to identify their true character.
sagetalk Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 Please explain how a man with a low amount of past sexual partners, wanting to have a serious relationship with a woman who also has a low amount of past sexual partners is a double standard? Lino, I don't think they give a flip about guys who have a low number of sexual partners. They are far more interested in the guys that have a double standard because these are the guys they want to have sex with. Oh well, .
marsle85 Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 Lino, I don't think they give a flip about guys who have a low number of sexual partners. They are far more interested in the guys that have a double standard because these are the guys they want to have sex with. Oh well, . That's a copout!
Woggle Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 Men have very good reasons for our standards when it comes to women and who we get involed with. Men who ignore these standards do so at their own peril.
sagetalk Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 1.) Isn't this funny. We have the double standard cutting into one another here. Her comment was just as baseless as your original comment: targeting women as sluts because they have low self esteem. Further, you defend yourself by saying: " I am 6'0, slim/athletic, well educated, great job, great smile, big hands and feet , cool wavy hair, play the guitar, green eyes,"...etc. 2.) So, you jump to assumptions about women who have multiple sex partners as valueless and slutty, but suddenly we're supposed to believe you're the exception to the rule... the reason why you haven't had sex with many isn't because of availability but your values. 3.) Maybe instead of judging people by their appearance of sexual partners, we should try to identify their true character. 1.) My comment was not baseless, but her comment was attacking and insulting. She intentionally said that as a personal attack because she does not like what I'm saying. She thinks that any man of quality goes out and bangs alot of girls, if he's not banging them, then he must be a loser who can't get women. Total bull and typical attitude, but I let her get away with it because I'm a nice guy . 2.) Not multiple, I never said that. Loose women who have sex with men just for fun and in high numbers, that is what I said. Nor did I say slutty girls have no value. I value them, I would treat respectfully, I just don't want to be in a LTR with them. It is because of my values whether you believe it or not. If you think it's impossible for an attractive/desirable guy to only want sex with girls that he is in a long term serious relationship with, then I feel sorry for you. There are tons of guys like me. 3.) The way they treat sex does reveal character. If they just have sex with any guy they like or that makes it to date 2 or 3 with enough game, then yes, I would be concerned about them and their LTR potential. Me and darn near every LTR minded man on the planet that has any brains.
deebeechrisyo Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 Choosing a mate based on A, B, or C implies thought. Something biological happens involuntarily. The different sperm and their levels isn't based on actual knowledge, but rather the unknown - the possibility. I'm confused, are you saying the sperm magically infers that "something is amiss" even when the rest of the man doesn't even comprehend something is out of the ordinary? I find that hard to believe. There has to be some sort of chemical reaction from the brain that creates the different sperm cells. Also, women get knocked up frequently during one night stands, did the guy believe that he was in a monogamous relationship, thus giving off egg seeking sperm? I doubt it. This obviously isn't a great deterrent. It is just dumb. You like someone; enjoy time with them and at some point, of course, sex comes into play. So dumb to muck it up over things that you can deem real or invalid by spending time together and taking note of how often or little their actions match up with their words. This happy go lucky attitude going into relationships is great up until you get your heart broken over something like "the spark is gone". All those good moments are awash once you get dumped or cheated on.
brainygirl Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 You state the obvious. Women like experience. They don't need a man with fifty partners but he better have had at least a couple and know how to perform in bed. . . . . teachable goes a long way . . . .
sally4sara Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 I'm confused Try reading the study. I gave a link for it. This happy go lucky attitude going into relationships is great up until you get your heart broken over something like "the spark is gone". All those good moments are awash once you get dumped or cheated on. Wouldn't this question do better in a different thread?
hats Posted May 17, 2010 Posted May 17, 2010 (edited) Horse crap! OH women who toss it up are highly celebrated. Till you're done with them. And that, THAT it not something that holds true for marsle85 with her liking "the guy buying dinner" double standard. She isn't going to run off and talk crap on a guy after she gets dinner. She isn't going to fret over how many times he bought someone else dinner. THAT is what makes this double standard so vile. This post pretty much only makes sense if you don't think our preferences are at all biological. So... Choosing a mate based on A, B, or C implies thought. Something biological happens involuntarily. The different sperm and their levels isn't based on actual knowledge, but rather the unknown - the possibility. The value on female chastity wasn't biological because it was not even known that men held a role in making children for 80 million years. Women got all the credit; the children were valued because it added backs and hands to their clan. Females were the spiritual guide of the clan and they guarded the secret of paternity. Men were pissed after learning they had a role in it and were not given credit. Blame religion, inheritance, and taxes for the focus turning to female chastity. Today - it is only still held because of religion, inheritance, and taxes and people are use to it. Men like that they can be considered better by doing something they are suppose to be able to do and enjoy doing. Even some women like it because it affords the ability to look down on others and be considered better for doing absolutely nothing at all. It is just dumb. You like someone; enjoy time with them and at some point, of course, sex comes into play. So dumb to muck it up over things that you can deem real or invalid by spending time together and taking note of how often or little their actions match up with their words. It's irrelevant whether men knew that they were part of the reproductive process, it only matters that they felt an aversion for loose woman and whether that aversion gave them an evolutionary advantage. And despite the strong effort by various men on this forum to rationalize that aversion, IMO it's ad hoc - the feeling came before the thoughts. And feelings are involuntary biological processes. Edited May 17, 2010 by hats
TheBigQuestion Posted May 18, 2010 Posted May 18, 2010 I think the worst aspect of this thread is the extreme over-sensitivity to certain metaphors. Phrases like "mileage on her tires," "I won't f*** just anything that walks and has a hole," or the fact that a person was compared to an object in the AskMen article. These are JUST metaphors that are used to better illustrate a point, and there's no reason for anyone to get their panties in a twist over them. It's a sad reflection of society that so many people get so riled up over simple phrases like these and then internalize them as an attack on themselves, or as an attack on their entire gender. Anyone who thinks that the usage of these phrases constitutes an attack on women simply has an overactive imagination or a persecution complex.
TheBigQuestion Posted May 18, 2010 Posted May 18, 2010 As far as hypocrisy or double standards, sagetalk has indicated REPEATEDLY that he holds himself to the same standards as he expects of the women in his life, and has provided numerous examples and scenarios where this still rings true. If his behavior is congruent with his expectations of his lovers, there is no hypocrisy, period. As a guy who is not always relationship minded and who has had numerous casual relationships and one night stands, I'd never EXPECT my ideal mate to be like sagetalk's ideal mate. But if that's what he wants, good on him.
impz Posted May 18, 2010 Posted May 18, 2010 You state the obvious. Women like experience. They don't need a man with fifty partners but he better have had at least a couple and know how to perform in bed. Or if not, willing to learn, learn fast and improve. Women also like detail to attention when it comes to such things. Still works fine. It's the attitude, not the skills.
Recommended Posts