Ruby Slippers Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I think it's great that more and more women are seeing the name calling and insults for what they really are: the expression of fear by men who are threatened because women can do what they want, and choose the sexual and marriage partners they want. I don't have casual sex because the expense is much greater than the payoff for me -- I'd rather just masturbate than put my health at risk and go through all the rigmarole of casual sex. But I have a couple of girlfriends who have casual sex fairly often, and seem to view it just as a good time and a way to have a little fun. As long as they are being safe, I say good for them.
sagetalk Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 1. I think it's great that more and more women are seeing the name calling and insults for what they really are: the expression of fear by men who are threatened because women can do what they want, and choose the sexual and marriage partners they want. 2.But I have a couple of girlfriends who have casual sex fairly often, and seem to view it just as a good time and a way to have a little fun. As long as they are being safe, I say good for them. 1. Wow, how's that kool aid taste. Good grief, it sounds like you just got back from the "feminist who hate men" weekly meeting. I guess you think it's still in the 1930's (most feminist do) and we men despise women and want them to wear blankets all the time. Boogey boogey . 2. They have the right to have fun, sure, but I reserve the right to think they are trampy and not date them seriously (especially 20 at 20 which is insanely high). They aren't breaking any public laws by being loose, but they are breaking my desires for what I want my future wife to be. A woman who values sex and only gives it to those she deems as a relationship partner is my kind of woman .
donnamaybe Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 1. Wow, how's that kool aid taste. Good grief, it sounds like you just got back from the "feminist who hate men" weekly meeting. I guess you think it's still in the 1930's (most feminist do) and we men despise women and want them to wear blankets all the time. Boogey boogey . 2. They have the right to have fun, sure, but I reserve the right to think they are trampy and not date them seriously (especially 20 at 20 which is insanely high). They aren't breaking any public laws by being loose, but they are breaking my desires for what I want my future wife to be. A woman who values sex and only gives it to those she deems as a relationship partner is my kind of woman . So are you a man who "values sex and only gives it to those he deems as a relationship partner?" As for the "kool-aid" where in the world did you get any man-hating vibes from her post. Simply because she pointed out that women are now free to do as they choose? That's kind of a leap, don'tcha think?
janie423 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 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. You are putting cheating in the same category as rape and violence? Yikes. That is scary. Please explain how you link those three concepts.
Ruby Slippers Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 They aren't breaking any public laws by being loose, but they are breaking my desires for what I want my future wife to be. That's cool. The beauty is that these women don't care whether or not men like you desire them.
sagetalk Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 1. So are you a man who "values sex and only gives it to those he deems as a relationship partner?" 2. As for the "kool-aid" where in the world did you get any man-hating vibes from her post. Simply because she pointed out that women are now free to do as they choose? That's kind of a leap, don'tcha think? 1. Yes 2. Her post was full of man hating. What she pointed out was: " the expression of fear by men who are threatened because women can do what they want, and choose the sexual and marriage partners they want" That is total feminist, man hating, BS 101 in it's ugliest form. It's straight out of early last century. Modern day men want a women they can trust sexually, not control sexually. When a girl has sex with 20 guys by the age of 20 only an idiot wouldn't seriously think against a long term relationship with her. That is a sign that she has no problem going all the way with guys that mean very little to her consistently. Huge red flag. If the guy uses his brain (not all people do), he's gonna think twice about putting his sexual trust, long term, in that kind of woman and rightfully so.
donnamaybe Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 1. YesThen at least you aren't talking out of both sides of your mouth like some guys on this forum. 2. Her post was full of man hating. What she pointed out was: " the expression of fear by men who are threatened because women can do what they want, and choose the sexual and marriage partners they want" Do you REALLY think there are no guys like that? There are. Trust me.
sagetalk Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 That's cool. The beauty is that these women don't care whether or not men like you desire them. Men like me? Yes, Sagetalk the terrible, horrible guy. Who: never lies to women he's dating (even if it benefits me)has never cheated on a womannever pressures them for sexhas never physically hit/pushed a woman in his lifehas never used a girl to get another he really wantednever dated a woman just for sexconstantly tries to protect them even if it means they will hate him for itloves his familywell educatedgreat jobloves childrenonly wants serious relationships and no casual flingsTall, fit, and has a great smile Maybe these women don't care that I don't like them. But then again, maybe they are stupid because of this ?
Ocktus Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 You are putting cheating in the same category as rape and violence? Yikes. That is scary. Please explain how you link those three concepts. Those were examples of harmful behavior that some uninformed person could try to justify with biological underpinnings... I never said all of them were equally destructive though did I?
sagetalk Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Do you REALLY think there are no guys like that? There are. Trust me. And I'm sure there are women who kick puppies, but that doesn't mean they all do. Most men who won't date loose women are merely trying to protect themselves from a potential sexually unfaithful mate. Most of the time it has nothing to do with suppressing women, that's just a childish, feminist, knee-jerk reaction.
WintersNightTraveler Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 This thread is too long to read the whole thing, can someone please just summarize and tell me where all the sluts hang out? kthx
donnamaybe Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 And I'm sure there are women who kick puppies, but that doesn't mean they all do. Most men who won't date loose women are merely trying to protect themselves from a potential sexually unfaithful mate. Most of the time it has nothing to do with suppressing women, that's just a childish, feminist, knee-jerk reaction. But most of those same guys will yuck it up with their friends over the last ONS they "banged."
Woggle Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 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. You see what I mean when I say there is a link between sexually free women and cheating. This post pretty much condones cheating and many cheaters use that sexually free stuff to condone it. It seems I am not just being paranoid.
Woggle Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I also find it funny how the same women who go around touting sexual freedom are the same ones who get mad at men who look at porn, go to strip clubs and use prostitutes. A lot of this stuff is just undercover misandry. You can tell women with this mentality have some serious issues with men but instead of coming out and saying it they dress it as empowerment.
janie423 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 You see what I mean when I say there is a link between sexually free women and cheating. This post pretty much condones cheating and many cheaters use that sexually free stuff to condone it. It seems I am not just being paranoid. No, I don't see what you mean, explain it please. You have a great talent for twisting concepts to match your mindset. My post does not condone cheating, it merely states that, from a biological standpoint, cheating can be beneficial for the gene pool. I didn't say I condoned it, and nowhere does this post recommend cheating.
Woggle Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 No, I don't see what you mean, explain it please. You have a great talent for twisting concepts to match your mindset. My post does not condone cheating, it merely states that, from a biological standpoint, cheating can be beneficial for the gene pool. I didn't say I condoned it, and nowhere does this post recommend cheating. You are encouraging women to have kids from OM and not tell the husband. Maybe I am reading your post wrong but that is how it came across to me.
janie423 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Those were examples of harmful behavior that some uninformed person could try to justify with biological underpinnings... I never said all of them were equally destructive though did I? I never attempted to justify cheating, I just gave an explanation for it. Big difference. And to label rape as merely harmful behavior is a gross and frivolous understatement.
carhill Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I think this part is what Wog's was having issues with (TBH, I would too, if this were a thread on marriage and not on sluts)... 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 Scientifically interesting but not likely to generate kudos from most males, slut or not
Mme. Chaucer Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 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. I'm confused - why would it not be most advantageous genetically for her to have 4 kids by 4 different men?
Woggle Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I think this part is what Wog's was having issues with (TBH, I would too, if this were a thread on marriage and not on sluts)... Scientifically interesting but not likely to generate kudos from most males, slut or not Exactly and I feel the same way about men who cheat. Betrayal is one of the lowest things you can do to a person.
carhill Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I'm confused - why would it not be most advantageous genetically for her to have 4 kids by 4 different men? Only if doormat #5 'provided' for the brood
janie423 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 You are encouraging women to have kids from OM and not tell the husband. Maybe I am reading your post wrong but that is how it came across to me. I never encouraged it; I merely stated a theory explaning how it could be beneficial for the gene pool as a whole. Please point out the statement where I have encouraged such behavior. My post is just a theoretical discussion. But you are so threatened by a woman's power that you choose to taint a post as harmless as mine. By the age of 20 I had experience with one partner. One. As in "1". That was my choice. I still do not label other women who choose otherwise. You have no idea what I encourage, and what my preferences are. How arrogant of you to think you do.
Woggle Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I never encouraged it; I merely stated a theory explaning how it could be beneficial for the gene pool as a whole. Please point out the statement where I have encouraged such behavior. My post is just a theoretical discussion. But you are so threatened by a woman's power that you choose to taint a post as harmless as mine. By the age of 20 I had experience with one partner. One. As in "1". That was my choice. I still do not label other women who choose otherwise. You have no idea what I encourage, and what my preferences are. How arrogant of you to think you do. I am sorry if I misinterperated your post but that is how it came across. I am not threatened. Its is more mistrust and I feel I have good reasons to be mistrustful. Men are not just pulling this stuff out of our butts.
janie423 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I am sorry if I misinterperated your post but that is how it came across. I am not threatened. Its is more mistrust and I feel I have good reasons to be mistrustful. Men are not just pulling this stuff out of our butts. We're cool. My main point was that promiscuity does not mean wack-job, as some men have implied. So you know, one of the reasons I married my husband was that he didn't get around. I personally believe people who sleep around do not necessarily make good lovers. I am just playing devil's advocate most of the time. I just hate labels, that's my main issue. I hate the word "slut".
Recommended Posts