TheBigQuestion Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 "Slut bashing" the book calls it. Interesting concept. Think about the title of this thread. What exactly is he asking about? Is he interested in "sluts" and therefore may know of one and wants to know if he can identify other "sluts" by association? This OP is bashing women just by the title. Then along come long winded monotribes from other boys passing judgement on promiscuous women and their concomitant psychological issues. Boys will be boys . . . Alright, go ahead and disprove those correlations for me, then try to make the case for why I should consider long-term relationships with emotional trainwrecks.
Ruby Slippers Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 It does not have equal weight. Women want what other women have or what other women want while men do not place much weight on other men's approval. Men and women are attracted to very different things in the opposite sex. Woggle, this is BS. Men are every bit as concerned with the "status" of their women. They want the women other men want, and they puff up like a balloon when other men validate their pick. Ever heard the term "trophy wife"? And I don't see how your comments have anything to do with the sentence of mine you quoted.
Jersey Shortie Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I think the factor has equal weight for a male or female partner. Any man who has sex with tons of different partners is just as likely to have "issues" as a woman who does. But having many different partners does not automatically incriminate one as issue-ridden. Heck. I have tons of issues with men and I have very low numbers too.
Woggle Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Woggle, this is BS. Men are every bit as concerned with the "status" of their women. They want the women other men want, and they puff up like a balloon when other men validate their pick. Ever heard the term "trophy wife"? And I don't see how your comments have anything to do with the sentence of mine you quoted. Men who marry trophy wives are idiots. These are the men who want surgically enhanced women to show off and then get burnt. Your average everyday normal man wants a woman he can build a life and a family with and a sexually free feminist is not a good choice for a man who wants that.
Ruby Slippers Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Men who marry trophy wives are idiots. These are the men who want surgically enhanced women to show off and then get burnt. Your average everyday normal man wants a woman he can build a life and a family with and a sexually free feminist is not a good choice for a man who wants that. And I think women who pick their men to validate themselves are also idiots. But like men who choose trophy wives, they are everywhere. I have friends who will pass over great guys because they are not tall or hot enough for them, then get with the azzholes and wonder why they keep getting burned. I tell them, but they don't listen. I'm a sexually free feminist (though I do not actually define myself that way), and I'm an awesome girlfriend.
Woggle Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 And I think women who pick their men to validate themselves are also idiots. But like men who choose trophy wives, they are everywhere. I have friends who will pass over great guys because they are not tall or hot enough for them, then get with the azzholes and wonder why they keep getting burned. I tell them, but they don't listen. I'm a sexually free feminist (though I do not actually define myself that way), and I'm an awesome girlfriend. It works both ways. I believe when you say you are a great partner but men have heard it over and over again from women who say they are liberated but in reality are just no good cheats and it ruins it for good women. The attitudes that men have about this issue don't just come from nowhere.
Ruby Slippers Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 The attitudes that men have about this issue don't just come from nowhere. No, mostly they come from men like you who got burned (LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE PLANET) but, instead of moving on from the hurt, rehash it over and over and over again forever.
Woggle Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 No, mostly they come from men like you who got burned (LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE PLANET) but, instead of moving on from the hurt, rehash it over and over and over again forever. They come from men like me who got burned and see men getting burned all the time. Most of the time when these men get burned the women pull the sexually free feminist card so when a woman talks like that it sends up immediate red flags. women think it is about controlling women but in reality it is more about men protecting ourselves.
Feelin Frisky Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I saw a slut pee in a Yoo-Hoo bottle once while she laughed and showed it all off to several of us guys. Wish that would happen more often. All I am sayyyyyying is give piss a chance.
Pyro Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 They come from men like me who got burned and see men getting burned all the time. Most of the time when these men get burned the women pull the sexually free feminist card so when a woman talks like that it sends up immediate red flags. women think it is about controlling women but in reality it is more about men protecting ourselves. I still do wonder why you talk like this. If you were protecting yourself then you would have never got involved with any woman, nor would you be married right now. Do you copy and paste posts on here from that other message board you frequent? Wouldn't be surprised.
Woggle Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I still do wonder why you talk like this. If you were protecting yourself then you would have never got involved with any woman, nor would you be married right now. Do you copy and paste posts on here from that other message board you frequent? Wouldn't be surprised. I don't. I am in a very happy marriage but I can't ignore what I see around me and how I felt after my divorce. Going through the ringer is an experience that stays with a man.
Pyro Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I don't. I am in a very happy marriage but I can't ignore what I see around me and how I felt after my divorce. Going through the ringer is an experience that stays with a man. If you were happily married you would spend more time with her rather than here and the other message board. I've been through the ringer. I learned from it and I threw it in the back of my mind and moved on. Grow a pair and do the same.
janie423 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Alright, go ahead and disprove those correlations for me, then try to make the case for why I should consider long-term relationships with emotional trainwrecks. I do not argue that social scientists have made correlations between promiscuity and psychological issues. But there are also sociobiological theories of women's promiscuity that suggest there may be a genetic incentive for women to sleep around; a women can capture maximum genetic variation with more than one partner. Let's assume a woman is married with four children. Her best strategy isn't to have all four by her husband - it's to have three by husband and one by some romantic stranger. As long as husband doesn't catch them at it, the genes conditioning a woman's sexual strategy get 50% of the reproductive payoff regardless of who the biological father is. If the stranger is a fitter male than her husband, her kids will win. This is a disadvantage to men, because they trade away a claim on exclusive use of their wives' scarce reproductive capacity for what may be only a marginal increase in access to other women.
Jersey Shortie Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I did read that biologically speaking, it was in a woman's best interest to settle for the best provider, while maximizing her off-spring with the strongest man. Which might not be the same guy. So biologically speaking, it would be okay for a woman to tie herself to the best provider and go out and seek men that are stronger to have children with, then pass them off as the provider's kids.
janie423 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Alright, go ahead and disprove those correlations for me, then try to make the case for why I should consider long-term relationships with emotional trainwrecks. My previous post was incomplete - here is the complete version: I do not argue that social scientists have made correlations between promiscuity and psychological issues, and I willo not attempt to disprove them. But there are also sociobiological theories of women's promiscuity that suggest there may be a genetic incentive for women to sleep around; on a purely biological level, a women can achieve maximum genetic variation with more than one partner. Let's assume a woman is married with four children. Her best strategy isn't to have all four by her husband - it's to have three by husband and one by some romantic stranger. As long as husband doesn't catch them at it, the genes conditioning her sexual strategy get 50% of the reproductive payoff regardless of who the biological father is. If the stranger is a fitter male than her husband, her kids will win. This is a disadvantage to men, because they trade away a claim on exclusive use of their wives' scarce reproductive capacity for what may be only a marginal increase in access to other women. Men like to utilize biological theory to justify their own promiscuity, but there are now studies that suggest justification for a woman behaving in this manner. Admittedly, the above is highly simplified, paraphrased, and this is most certainly not my area of expertise. But my point here is that a woman's promiscuity (including adultery) does not automatically enroll her in the "Psycho of the Month" club. Women's sexual preferences have been long misunderstood, labeled, misjudged, and maligned. These women who change partners frequently may mature into faithful wives because they have a better model of suitability than a woman who has dated a very few men. BigQ, I like the fact that you included men in your discussion of promiscuity. But the fact that the "sexually agressive" women you have dated were "emotional trainwrecks" as you so compassionately put it may be more about you than the correlation to promiscuity. Agreed, it is your choice not to date women you believe are imbalanced or what you judge as promiscuous. But there are many prudes out there that are emotionally imbalanced as well. And women can be perfectly happy with their husbands and still desire a fling. My issue with promiscuity is STD's, but I have no other objection to it.
janie423 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 (edited) I did read that biologically speaking, it was in a woman's best interest to settle for the best provider, while maximizing her off-spring with the strongest man. Which might not be the same guy. So biologically speaking, it would be okay for a woman to tie herself to the best provider and go out and seek men that are stronger to have children with, then pass them off as the provider's kids. exactly . . . I truly suck at computers Edited June 9, 2010 by janie423
Ocktus Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 What's the point of bringing biology into the debate? In fact I'd say many people more in tune with their animal instincts are the ones civilization has labelled as dangerous, for example coercive and physically aggressive males. Virtually all bad behavior can be explained by your "genetic incentives" - rape being one of them. I don't think there really is an issue with so called female promiscuity, however I definetly don't see it as an added bonus in a potential partner either.
stillafool Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I'm inclined to agree. It's not so much that I'd be bugged out by 20 dudes already having been inside of her in a time period that generally includes only about 3 to 5 years of being sexually active, it has much more to do with the fact that sexual promiscuity is usually indicative of other underlying issues and can bring with it a host of social problems. People that sleep around are more likely to have some sort of underlying emotional or mental issue that permeates many other areas of their lives. This has been maintained to be true countless times in psychological research. Isn't this the truth? I feel the exact same way men about sluty men! One thing I find interesting about the LS community is that this is one of the few places on Earth where an apparent majority of posters seem to think that promiscuity (particularly female promiscuity) does not and should have any negative social consequences, and that it is unfair and inappropriate to judge a person's character with it as a factor. To this I say, BS. What's unfair is only holding women to these standards.
stillafool Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Yeah cause women NEVER have the urge to have sex for the pleasure of it. And men NEVER want attention, validation, or some semblance of physical intimacy. :lmao::lmao:It's amazing isn't it???? I can't get over people thinking women just want sex for attention and emotional reasons. People actually think women don't have an urge for sex unless she is married and wants to get pregnant. What century is this again???
donnamaybe Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 :lmao::lmao:It's amazing isn't it???? I can't get over people thinking women just want sex for attention and emotional reasons. People actually think women don't have an urge for sex unless she is married and wants to get pregnant. What century is this again??? Maybe those people who think women don't have sex for the mere pleasure of it have never actually pleasured a woman, therefore, they never come back for seconds. Oh, they've probably had sex, but pleasing a woman takes something extra.
stillafool Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 "Slut bashing" the book calls it. Interesting concept. Think about the title of this thread. What exactly is he asking about? Is he interested in "sluts" and therefore may know of one and wants to know if he can identify other "sluts" by association? This OP is bashing women just by the title. Then along come long winded monotribes from other boys passing judgement on promiscuous women and their concomitant psychological issues. Boys will be boys . . . I agree. But what is so interesting is men who don't like so called "sluts" but spend their time writing and thinking about them? :lmao:Interesting, isn't it?
stillafool Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Maybe those people who think women don't have sex for the mere pleasure of it have never actually pleasured a woman, therefore, they never come back for seconds. Oh, they've probably had sex, but pleasing a woman takes something extra. Exactly and it think the word is called "fear".
janie423 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 What's the point of bringing biology into the debate? In fact I'd say many people more in tune with their animal instincts are the ones civilization has labelled as dangerous, for example coercive and physically aggressive males. Virtually all bad behavior can be explained by your "genetic incentives" - rape being one of them. I don't think there really is an issue with so called female promiscuity, however I definetly don't see it as an added bonus in a potential partner either. I bring in biology because men who defend male promiscuity defend it along those lines. They also defend their desire for younger women as biological as well. So are you saying we all need to ignore our biological imperatives because of a small number of aberrant individuals (like rapists, pedophiles, XYY males)? I expected a response like this from at least one male.
carhill Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 What's unfair is only holding women to these standards. I endorse that and my actions of dating and marrying 'promiscuous' women support that endorsement, though the results haven't been particularly healthy for myself. I think that had more to do with compatibility than promiscuity. We see evidence of another path from LS ladies who were self-professed promiscuous and are in healthy LTR's/marriages. I don't like the term 'slut' and have never uttered it IRL, but I do define what it stands for by being a person who has little healthy interaction with their own gender/non-sexual preference and mainly interaction with the other gender/sexual preference; a dynamic where sex is the main motivator/attractant/goal/methodology and where the numbers of partners supports that dynamic. For a good number of years I was an 'emotional' slut, having few deep friendships with men and more 'relationships' with women and 'hanging out' with them. It may not have involved a penis and vagina, but the dynamic can be just as unhealthy for a LTR as one who is a sexual 'slut'. It warps one's perceptions. Conversely, a promiscuous person can have many partners sexually and, yet, still has healthy friendships and relationships with both genders. The numbers parse out completely differently, analyzed within the totality of the person.
Ocktus Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I bring in biology because men who defend male promiscuity defend it along those lines. They also defend their desire for younger women as biological as well. So are you saying we all need to ignore our biological imperatives because of a small number of aberrant individuals (like rapists, pedophiles, XYY males)? I expected a response like this from at least one male. My response was more to your example of a woman cheating on her husband to expand the gene pool of her offshoots. I don't really see why you tied promiscuity with adultery in your post anyway, totally different ball games. To answer your question, yes we have to ignore our biological imperatives when it comes to harmful behavior such as cheating, rape and violence. I wasn't saying that women should suppress their sexuality though, if that's what you thought I meant.
Recommended Posts