she's been around

[marsle85]

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.

 

 

I think this is correct.

[Engadget]

I think this is correct.

 

People on here are oversensitive in general. If you say something like you're interested in someone who has a girlfriend, everyone who's been cheated on goes nuts, or misinterprets for example.

[marsle85]

People on here are oversensitive in general. If you say something like you're interested in someone who has a girlfriend, everyone who's been cheated on goes nuts, or misinterprets for example.

 

It "woggles" my mind.

[Engadget]

It "woggles" my mind.

 

Your album pictures remind me of Mena Suvari and another actress who's name I can't think of. It'll come to me eventually.

[marsle85]

Your album pictures remind me of Mena Suvari and another actress who's name I can't think of. It'll come to me eventually.

 

Ah, dark or light Mena?

[Green]

I devirginized a girl once... good times... but still a girl who's been around can be even more fun. Look unless she is friends with her ex'lovers and or has STI's I fail to see the issue

[lino]

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 only go out with women I can see myself having sex with. Some I do end up having sex with and some I don't. I never make any woman I'm involved with wait for sex without good reason and I expect the same attitude in return.

Perhaps for you outgoing is restricted to dating but for me outgoing doesn't just mean dating/sleeping with women of interest. I go out with my friends and relatives all the time and obviously no dating or sex is involved there.

 

I've accepted situations where casual sex was involved and I've also turned them down. Those were my decisions.

 

It's not that hard to have a low amount of sexual partners if you choose... I can't explain it any simpler than that.

 

 

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?

 

 

I very much doubt you will find many of those men on a messageboard like this... Possibly in the cheaters sections.

If you have a beef with them, I think it's best to actually speak to them about it.

The guys you're discussing with in this thread aren't like that.

 

 

 

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.

 

I'm sure it is highly prized in some non-western cultures.

I'm assuming that both yourself and Sagetalk are American, where a virgin woman isn't something highly prized other than by men who are very religious or by men who have some silly fantasy.

 

 

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.

 

ummm men like that are everywhere... I am one myself.

You may not associate with them, that's your choice.

 

 

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.

 

 

What I said was tongue in cheek. Lighten up.

 

I don't want any serious partner of mine to have rooted just anything that walks and has a knob either.

 

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?

 

Don't know what you're going on about here.

Most women fall over themselves for guys that are wanted by other women, everyone knows that. Who else is responsible for what type of guys women choose than the women themselves? Is someone holding a gun to their head and forcing em to go after those blokes?

 

I don't need to simplify anything because it isn't complicated and there isn't any problem to resolve. People (men & women) just need to own their decisions.

 

I like the girls I like because it's my choice and I own it. I don't pretend to be a fragile little flower and pin it on someone else.

What is chicken/egg about that?

 

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.

 

 

Not sure what you're going on about here either.

 

 

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, .

 

 

Don't even need to have finished primary school to know that. It's prevalent from then onwards in life.

 

 

 

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.

 

Usually people who are very sensitive to stuff like that come from a very sheltered life.

Edited May 18, 2010 by lino
Added more to my post.

[Engadget]

Ah, dark or light Mena?

 

If you're talking about hair, I'd say more towards the dark side, but American beauty keeps coming to mind and she had blonde hair then.

[sally4sara]

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.

 

I do agree that one shouldn't let complete strangers online affect them so deeply or drag their baggage out and expect some restitution to be made by anyone with a whiff of similarity to people who have hurt them.

 

But, language is our greatest form of communication. Most people come on here sharing problems; asking advise. I find often, the cause of their problem is obvious to readers, yet they are oblivious to the things they do to cause their own problems. The words and phrases they choose, give insight to their mentality. The double standard does and will continue to create problems for people trying to find some worthwhile interpersonal connection. Lack of self accountability is a huge stumbling block by itself. It only gets worse if they walk around projecting their own shame on others.

 

And I KNOW I will find more self-hindering people on a sight like this one than not. I know we will all have more communication issues in text than face to face. My own struggle is knowing when to give up with people less educated or life experienced than myself because of this limitation we experience in communicating in text without tone and facial expression.

 

I think it has something to do with the way boys are pushed at sex. Too often it is done before they are ready for the responsibility that comes with it. But they have no acceptance for resisting.

"what are you - gay?"

"stop being a pussy"

"a real man would be all over that"

 

So what to do with their feelings? Take it out on women - they wouldn't be uncomfortable or scared if not for the goal they are being shoved at. Women. Children. Obligations. Risk. Sex brings all of this and not every man is ready for that when he starts getting prompted to prove himself through sex. Sex is the goal. That the woman he has it with is a person is secondary. That she is a person anticipating pleasure and intimacy is secondary. If she isn't receptive to his advances or something unplanned comes of the sex. Then she is a roadblock. If all goes well, she is HIS.

 

When does she get to be a person? OH! I forgot. When something about her can be looked down on. When she acts on her own interests without consideration for men she might meet. Then she gets to be a person, albeit a slut.

[Engadget]

I do agree that one shouldn't let complete strangers online affect them so deeply or drag their baggage out and expect some restitution to be made by anyone with a whiff of similarity to people who have hurt them.

 

But, language is our greatest form of communication. Most people come on here sharing problems; asking advise. I find often, the cause of their problem is obvious to readers, yet they are oblivious to the things they do to cause their own problems. The words and phrases they choose, give insight to their mentality. The double standard does and will continue to create problems for people trying to find some worthwhile interpersonal connection. Lack of self accountability is a huge stumbling block by itself. It only gets worse if they walk around projecting their own shame on others.

 

And I KNOW I will find more self-hindering people on a sight like this one than not. I know we will all have more communication issues in text than face to face. My own struggle is knowing when to give up with people less educated or life experienced than myself because of this limitation we experience in communicating in text without tone and facial expression.

 

I think it has something to do with the way boys are pushed at sex. Too often it is done before they are ready for the responsibility that comes with it. But they have no acceptance for resisting.

"what are you - gay?"

"stop being a pussy"

"a real man would be all over that"

 

So what to do with their feelings? Take it out on women - they wouldn't be uncomfortable or scared if not for the goal they are being shoved at. Women. Children. Obligations. Risk. Sex brings all of this and not every man is ready for that when he starts getting prompted to prove himself through sex. Sex is the goal. That the woman he has it with is a person is secondary. That she is a person anticipating pleasure and intimacy is secondary. If she isn't receptive to his advances or something unplanned comes of the sex. Then she is a roadblock. If all goes well, she is HIS.

 

When does she get to be a person? OH! I forgot. When something about her can be looked down on. When she acts on her own interests without consideration for men she might meet. Then she gets to be a person, albeit a slut.

 

The push on men towards sex is very real, you're correct. I mean I resisted getting with a girl the other night because I want to remain friends, and I feel like everyone will think I'm gay or something, which I'm not.

[Els]

I only go out with women I can see myself having sex with. Some I do end up having sex with and some I don't. I never make any woman I'm involved with wait for sex without good reason and I expect the same attitude in return.

 

I did not say 'without good reason'. You said you didn't have sex with some women you dated. If that is not 'waiting' what is it called in your terms? Whatever it's called, that's what I meant.

 

I've accepted situations where casual sex was involved and I've also turned them down. Those were my decisions.

 

So you would have no issues with a woman who has had some casual sex in the past, then?

 

It's not that hard to have a low amount of sexual partners if you choose... I can't explain it any simpler than that.

 

I agree! It's not that hard to have a low number of sexual partners if you don't sleep with everyone on the first date, hence waiting!

 

Let's just put it this way. How long are you willing to put off sex with a woman, assuming she doesn't choose to have sex with you just yet? And, assuming she employs this same timeline with all of her other dates, how many people do you assume she would have had sex with, then? Would that be an acceptable number to you? If it is, we're all good.

 

I very much doubt you will find many of those men on a messageboard like this... Possibly in the cheaters sections.

If you have a beef with them, I think it's best to actually speak to them about it.

The guys you're discussing with in this thread aren't like that.

 

Really? Why then do they defend their actions by saying a high number of partners is desirable in a man whereas a low number is desirable for a woman?

 

 

I'm sure it is highly prized in some non-western cultures.

I'm assuming that both yourself and Sagetalk are American, where a virgin woman isn't something highly prized other than by men who are very religious or by men who have some silly fantasy.

 

Actually, I live in Asia, where this double standard is very prevalent and quite infuriating. I have had the good fortune to be with the few men who do not practice it though, thankfully.

[sally4sara]

The push on men towards sex is very real, you're correct. I mean I resisted getting with a girl the other night because I want to remain friends, and I feel like everyone will think I'm gay or something, which I'm not.

 

Yeah, and you shouldn't have to worry about that crap. We are all people with the ability and right to discern if sex with a particular person is something we want or should be doing.

This is one of the reasons why the double standard is bunk. Just as one person should be allowed to choose to have sex without a bunch of stupid judgments - one should also be allowed to choose to not have sex without a bunch of stupid judgments.

Should YOU be defined by your choice to not have sex with this girl forever and ever with no regard for any of your other choices and actions?

[TheBigQuestion]

None of this changes the fact that sagetalk is not acting on any double standard if he holds himself to the same standards as his prospective significant others...

[marsle85]

ummm men like that are everywhere... I am one myself. You may not associate with them, that's your choice.

 

That is a very indirect way at arguing the situation. It's a very weak debate by insisting I must only associate with the sleazy guys- you know JUST as well as I do, that then men I refer to are run rampant. I think it's great you have the views you do, but you can't hold the argument "men are pushed at sex, and are considered "pussies" if they don't pursue it" and then say "Men like me are everywhere." Which is it?

 

 

I like the girls I like because it's my choice and I own it. I don't pretend to be a fragile little flower and pin it on someone else.

What is chicken/egg about that?

 

This discussion is growing more and more unappealing and inefficient. You jump to personal attacks rather than logic. I don't think your personal likes or dislikes are significantly relevant... because most people do not function with your mentality. As refreshing as they are, your views do not save the majority of men who do engage in risky, casual sex and consider women who do the same as sluts.

 

Not sure what you're going on about here either.

 

You attacked me for being hypocritical, and I presented you with my last two posts where I CONCEDED women hold double standards too. I don't appreciate unnecessary remarks.

[marsle85]

None of this changes the fact that sagetalk is not acting on any double standard if he holds himself to the same standards as his prospective significant others...

 

I have no issue with Sagetalk's values, as I represent them myself. But I do have a problem with what he associates with women who have had more than a few partners. Those views are based on ancient hypocrisy and misrepresentation of women.

[Engadget]

Yeah, and you shouldn't have to worry about that crap. We are all people with the ability and right to discern if sex with a particular person is something we want or should be doing.

This is one of the reasons why the double standard is bunk. Just as one person should be allowed to choose to have sex without a bunch of stupid judgments - one should also be allowed to choose to not have sex without a bunch of stupid judgments.

Should YOU be defined by your choice to not have sex with this girl forever and ever with no regard for any of your other choices and actions?

 

What was even funnier is many other guys there wanted her, and gave me the look guys give when they know they have no shot, and I don't even want to get with her like that. It was kind of funny.

 

I know if we have sex, then things will get weird, introduce feelings and the friendship may vanish. I'd rather be friends and if things develop, then they do.

[sally4sara]

None of this changes the fact that sagetalk is not acting on any double standard if he holds himself to the same standards as his prospective significant others...

 

Thanks sagetalk's dad. I still don't think his track record is of his choosing so much as it is his circumstance.

 

I was always under the impression that what was wrong with sleeping around was due to doing so to get someone to like you more. And he so, so wants someone to tell him he is special.

[TheBigQuestion]

Thanks sagetalk's dad. I still don't think his track record is of his choosing so much as it is his circumstance.

 

I was always under the impression that what was wrong with sleeping around was due to doing so to get someone to like you more. And he so, so wants someone to tell him he is special.

 

It's a bit arrogant to make that assumption about anyone without knowing them in person, knowing their full personal histories, and observing how they conduct themselves on a daily basis. And even if you're right, what difference does it make? He's still keeping his own standards identical with his standards for women. That's all I said, and you've done nothing to refute that.

[TheBigQuestion]

I have no issue with Sagetalk's values, as I represent them myself. But I do have a problem with what he associates with women who have had more than a few partners. Those views are based on ancient hypocrisy and misrepresentation of women.

 

I don't agree that talking about women exclusively in this manner is a good idea. In any event, the connection between hypersexuality/promiscuity and a wide variety of emotional instability/psychological disorders is very well established. This isn't a NECESSARY connection, but it's enough for some people to consider it a major red flag, and no amount of pro-female, pro-male, or whatever-have-you rhetoric changes that. In my personal experience, the women I've known with a really high number of sexual partners have always been more likely to be emotionally unstable or "difficult" people, and a majority of the men have similar interpersonal difficulties. Of course, there are exceptions.

 

My belief on the matter is simple: if a person is going to sleep around, they need to be prepared to accept the social consequences of doing so. Women will often have to live with worse consequences because it's simply far easier for a woman to be promiscuous than a man. Regardless of gender though, they do not have the right to feel resentful if society judges them for it or if prospective partners consider it a flaw or weakness.

[sagetalk]

Your album pictures remind me of Mena Suvari and another actress who's name I can't think of. It'll come to me eventually.

 

Like I said before she's a hottie, and yeah she does look alot like her. She won't date me though so you know her taste in men is terrible .

[marsle85]

I don't agree that talking about women exclusively in this manner is a good idea. In any event, the connection between hypersexuality/promiscuity and a wide variety of emotional instability/psychological disorders is very well established. This isn't a NECESSARY connection, but it's enough for some people to consider it a major red flag, and no amount of pro-female, pro-male, or whatever-have-you rhetoric changes that. In my personal experience, the women I've known with a really high number of sexual partners have always been more likely to be emotionally unstable or "difficult" people, and a majority of the men have similar interpersonal difficulties. Of course, there are exceptions.

 

Well that's an entirely understandable and scientifically sound conception. I'm a researcher, it's not hard to win me over empirically. I only argue wildcard assumptions about female sexuality; which is so fluid and evolving in its entirety, stagnant views aren't capable of accurately capturing its evolution.

 

Like I said before she's a hottie, and yeah she does look alot like her. She won't date me though so you know her taste in men is terrible

 

haha, I'm too busy winning celebrity look-alike contests, no time for dating.

[MrNate]

I do agree that one shouldn't let complete strangers online affect them so deeply or drag their baggage out and expect some restitution to be made by anyone with a whiff of similarity to people who have hurt them.

 

But, language is our greatest form of communication. Most people come on here sharing problems; asking advise. I find often, the cause of their problem is obvious to readers, yet they are oblivious to the things they do to cause their own problems. The words and phrases they choose, give insight to their mentality. The double standard does and will continue to create problems for people trying to find some worthwhile interpersonal connection. Lack of self accountability is a huge stumbling block by itself. It only gets worse if they walk around projecting their own shame on others.

 

And I KNOW I will find more self-hindering people on a sight like this one than not. I know we will all have more communication issues in text than face to face. My own struggle is knowing when to give up with people less educated or life experienced than myself because of this limitation we experience in communicating in text without tone and facial expression.

 

I think it has something to do with the way boys are pushed at sex. Too often it is done before they are ready for the responsibility that comes with it. But they have no acceptance for resisting.

"what are you - gay?"

"stop being a pussy"

"a real man would be all over that"

 

So what to do with their feelings? Take it out on women - they wouldn't be uncomfortable or scared if not for the goal they are being shoved at. Women. Children. Obligations. Risk. Sex brings all of this and not every man is ready for that when he starts getting prompted to prove himself through sex. Sex is the goal. That the woman he has it with is a person is secondary. That she is a person anticipating pleasure and intimacy is secondary. If she isn't receptive to his advances or something unplanned comes of the sex. Then she is a roadblock. If all goes well, she is HIS.

 

When does she get to be a person? OH! I forgot. When something about her can be looked down on. When she acts on her own interests without consideration for men she might meet. Then she gets to be a person, albeit a slut.

 

Interesting. While I don't agree with all of that, it sure has a ton of good points in it.

 

I would have to say, aside from all the arguing, I found this thread very informative. So much so (being the nerd I am) that I am considering investing some time into learning about men and women psychology. I find it interesting how both genders can come to often irrational conclusions about the opposite gender, but yet make valid arguments. Psh, I'm guilty myself at times (we all are), but now I think I'm going to take a shot at challenging my views, and try to obtain a deeper understanding of how women and men think. I'm pretty curious as to how the double standards that women and men enjoy came into fruition. Maybe women and men significantly influence the opposite gender's actions and decisions more than we think?

 

This will be fun.

[sagetalk]

 

1.) It's a very weak debate by insisting I must only associate with the sleazy guys- you know JUST as well as I do, that then men I refer to are run rampant. I think it's great you have the views you do, but you can't hold the argument "men are pushed at sex, and are considered "pussies" if they don't pursue it" and then say "Men like me are everywhere." Which is it?

 

 

2.) As refreshing as they are, your views do not save the majority of men who do engage in risky, casual sex and consider women who do the same as sluts.

 

 

1.) I Disagree that there are tons of guys like that, quite the opposite. But the ones that are like that are the most desired by women (particularly feminists) so it merely looks like the majority of men are like that. Really it's just the majority of sexually wanted men (not all of them of course). By sexually wanted, I'm not talking about physical looks, I'm talking about behavior that spurs sexual desire in women.

 

Why are they sexually wanted? Because they act like men, cocky, double standard, do what I say not what I do, don't give a darn, king of the world, full of testosterone, men that get women's lust going into overdrive. Yes, many of them do have double standards, and it works really well for them.

 

With this mentality they get to have sex with: my kind of girls (virgin's, inexperienced, LTR sex girls), sluts, ho's, fire hydrants, door knobs, walls, mother's, grandmother's, cheerleaders, volleyball players, waitresses, dancers, singers, telephone poles, stoplights, strippers, pastor's daughters, artsy girls, goth girls, church girls, bad girls, good girls, dumb girls, smart girls....... You get the point.

 

Men are heavily pushed this direction by both society and women. I've lived it first hand. For men, the less sexual partners you have, the bigger the loser you are. Just look at the girl who was ripping on me in this thread for an example. As soon as I said I was a few sexual partners type guy, she immediately started saying I was incapable of getting sex from women (saying I'm a loser).

 

It's just how it is. Women and society want men to sow their seed for status, and most men and society want women to be sexual in a relationship. It doesn't benefit me, but it is what it is. It's the same boat for you as well.

 

2.) Then to heck with them, to heck with them all and what they think! How do you want to live your life? If you want to be a slut, then be one and have a blast. If you want to have a few sex partners, then do that. Why let society decide how you act? Screw em', but remember there are always consequences. And one consequence for women that are promiscuous will always be guys having second thoughts about them for LTR.

[sally4sara]

It's a bit arrogant to make that assumption about anyone without knowing them in person, knowing their full personal histories, and observing how they conduct themselves on a daily basis. And even if you're right, what difference does it make? He's still keeping his own standards identical with his standards for women. That's all I said, and you've done nothing to refute that.

 

Its not arrogant; its lazy. I'd rather not spend time finding out if someone on the internet who thinks of women as object is only doing so ambiguously for the purpose of discussion.

 

I do the same for people who use the n-word and then claim to not be racist. Its just not interesting enough for me to find out more about them. Especially when they only exist to me on the internet.

 

And I think a person's circumstance goes alot towards their claimed values.

Like a homeless person boasting they don't wear a fur coat and wouldn't date someone who does for that reason. Pretty convenient thing to be proud of if you can't afford a fur coat.

[harmfulsweetz]

I've skimmed through the rest of the thread, interesting, interesting. Yes, sagetalk isn't holding any double standard whatsoever. He expects the same from a partner as he expects of himself. Kudos.

 

The problem is, a lot of men desire a woman who knows what she is doing in bed yet still want a virgin-esque 'bride', which doesn't fit. Sure, you'll get rare ladies like this, who have minimal experience and are good, but mostly, they'll just be inexperienced.

 

Yes, women love men who are experienced. Who have skills to bring to the bedroom, who can hit the right spots without instruction. I'm sure men like the same in a woman. Is it fun to spend a night or two, or twenty ( Been there) trying to remind your partner that that isn't 'it'? I've been with an inexperienced 'lover', sure, I put up with it for three years, but after three years of teaching, and still no further forward-I gave up and now I'm not afraid to admit, I want an experienced man.

 

I have to say, kudos to Marsle85 and sally4sara, good points raised. I see the points that men are making in this thread, but...I do wonder...and I'm posing this question to all men that seek out a woman with a low number hypothetically:

 

You meet a woman, you date for a while, you start to fall for her, not in love, but falling all the same. You really like her, she's everything you sought in a partner-then one day, you are discussing sexual histories and such, and it turns out, she has a high number. Would you dump her right there and then? Would it make her less special to you? Would everything she made you feel about yourself and her affection for you be discredited and cheapened? I'd just like to know.

 

And...what's a high number? You could say anything is high or too much if you really wanted to, it's all perception. How do you determine what is too high a number? Is it determined by your own number? If it's higher than your own, is that out?

 

I totally get the preference to having someone with a low number if you yourself have a low number. But I suppose I would want to be with a guy who accepted me and wanted to be with me regardless of my past, provided I'm STD-free and not mentally unstable.