Guys, do you respect women who have fbuddy relationships? Is that a "low-grade"chic?

[LittleTiger]

Women do not put more resistance to sex - they are only pickier in who they will unleash their sex drive with. Just like you might be the horniest man who has sex on the brain 24/7 - but you still would not sleep with a 65 yr old woman or a 350 pound woman because you would rule them out based on the fact that they do not turn you on. It dosent mean you are less sexual. Women put up resistance to most men because a) the majority of men do not turn women on and b) women will be judged by others for giving in so even when they do they make sure to keep it a secret.

 

Put a woman in a room with attractive men that she has lusted after and I guarantee her capacity to engage in sex with these men will completely outlast their capacity - she will want to have more sex and for longer than the men once she finds one that actually turns her on.

 

Completely agree with you Lamaman, and with every other post you've made on this thread. It's a shame there aren't more open minded men like you in the world.

 

In following most of this thread there is one thing I still don't understand because nobody has yet clarified it.

 

I get it that there are men who think some women's behaviour makes them 'low grade' or whatever unpleasant terms have been flying about. I would hope that the same behaviour from men would also be considered low grade by these individuals.

 

What I don't get is where the line is drawn. Forgive me if I've missed it somewhere because I haven't read every word on the thread. I asked the question perhaps 45 pages back and nobody would give me a definitive answer. Perhaps it's worthy of a new thread though I'm hesitant to start another gender war.

 

There seems to be an assumption that women who have have FWB or FB arrangements are promiscuous and this just isn't the case. Some women have one FWB/FB in their whole life and only two or three partners in total so where are people making this promiscuous or 'likely to be unfaithful' connection.

 

To me, it's all relative. Some people think anyone who has sex outside marriage is 'low grade' and others will accept any kind of behaviour provided nobody is being charged for it. So where is everybody drawing the line?

[A O]

I get it that there are men who think some women's behaviour makes them 'low grade' or whatever unpleasant terms have been flying about. I would hope that the same behaviour from men would also be considered low grade by these individuals.

They're not dating themselves so it hardly matters. Just like some women will view a man who doesn't meet their 'paying for dates' standard in a negative manner. These women despite not paying a dime, won't ever view themselves in the same light because they're not dating themselves. They're comparing men to men, comparing within the dating pool that interests them. Same deal here but different sex and different subject.

 

What I don't get is where the line is drawn.

Its up to you,

 

 

 

.

[Woggle]

They're not dating themselves so it hardly matters. Just like some women will view a man who doesn't meet their 'paying for dates' standard in a negative manner. These women despite not paying a dime, won't ever view themselves in the same light because they're not dating themselves. They're comparing men to men, comparing within the dating pool that interests them. Same deal here but different sex and different subject.

 

Its up to you,

 

 

 

.

 

Exactly. There are so many double standards that women have in their favor so I don't get why they get so mad over this one thing that men use as criteria especially since we have good reason. I agree with you that I don't date men so I don't care what they do. If a male friend starts acting funny I can easily cut him out of my life with no fuss but that is not the case with a girlfriend or a wife so men need to have much higher standards in that area.

[Woggle]

I am a woman, but I asked 2 male colleagues about the OP. One said, he does not care, as long as it is in the past and the other one thinks women who have FB relationships are "cheap" ( his word). I asked why he thinks that and he said women who have a very casual view about sex when they are single will have a casual view about sex when they get married-meaning, they will cheat because apparently sex is not one of those sacred things you reserve for someone you love-these are women who can separate sex from love and vice versa. Hmmmm....yay, for these women , I say!

 

He is 100% right. Men like me who used to be open minded learned this the hard way.

[EasyHeart]

I get it that there are men who think some women's behaviour makes them 'low grade' or whatever unpleasant terms have been flying about. I would hope that the same behaviour from men would also be considered low grade by these individuals.

Of course. There are plenty of men who treat women poorly, who sleep around, who cheat, etc. I don't have much respect for them in this regard, but I have no interest in dating them, so it doesn't affect me very much. If I have a friend who I play softball with or whom I argue football with, I don't have much concern about his love life. If there is a woman I'm thinking about dating, then how she treats men is relevant. And the question in this thread is whether a woman with a history of FWBs would concern us in a LTR.

 

What I don't get is where the line is drawn. Forgive me if I've missed it somewhere because I haven't read every word on the thread. I asked the question perhaps 45 pages back and nobody would give me a definitive answer. Perhaps it's worthy of a new thread though I'm hesitant to start another gender war.

There is no line because there's no need to draw one. I'm certainly not trying to rank all the women in the world according to some sort of "suitability factor". The issue is whether men would be concerned about the prospects of a LTR with a woman who has a history of FWB relationships, and most of us have said (with varying levels of civility), "Yes, it would be a concern".

 

There seems to be an assumption that women who have have FWB or FB arrangements are promiscuous and this just isn't the case. Some women have one FWB/FB in their whole life and only two or three partners in total so where are people making this promiscuous or 'likely to be unfaithful' connection.

That's because we continue to use radically different definitions of "FWB". I've made several posts where I've defined the term and given detailed descriptions of real-life FWB situations, and I do not hesitate to say that IME women involved in FWB situations are promiscuous, and I am not interested in being involved with a promiscuous woman in a LTR. But I also don't consider a two-year monogamous relationship to be a FWB relationship, despite the insistence by some female posters that it is. And that's fine. What's annoying is that when I say that I'm not interested in a LTR with a woman who thinks it's okay to sleep with other men while dating me because "it's just sex", and then have people scream at me that I'm a sexist Neanderthal applying a double standard to oppress the entire female gender. I'm not. I just don't want to get involved with promiscuous women because I am not promiscuous.

 

To me, it's all relative. Some people think anyone who has sex outside marriage is 'low grade' and others will accept any kind of behaviour provided nobody is being charged for it. So where is everybody drawing the line?

We all get to draw our own line. I may be more accepting than some other men who post here; I may be more choosy than others. I think some of the hostility in this thread has been caused by some people making broad and sweeping generalizations and by people taking things too personally. I, at least, am not trying to project my values on anyone else. If women think it empowers them to have a rotating crew of F-buddies, I certainly won't try to stop them. I just don't want to date them.

[stillafool]

Put a woman in a room with attractive men that she has lusted after and I guarantee her capacity to engage in sex with these men will completely outlast their capacity - she will want to have more sex and for longer than the men once she finds one that actually turns her on.

 

This is soooo true.

[stillafool]

Exactly. There are so many double standards that women have in their favor so I don't get why they get so mad over this one thing that men use as criteria especially since we have good reason. I agree with you that I don't date men so I don't care what they do. If a male friend starts acting funny I can easily cut him out of my life with no fuss but that is not the case with a girlfriend or a wife so men need to have much higher standards in that area.

 

 

You can easily disgard one of these. People do it here and everywhere all the time. I can understand your wanting certain standards for a wife. Each of us has our own criteria for a LT mate.

 

To be honest, if I wanted to be someone's F-buddy, I wouldn't care how they judged me. I would only be there for one thing anyway - the sex.

[TheMENemy]

Men have the right to use or not use selection criteria for relationship partners as they see fit.

 

They should not be subject to shaming by insecure promiscuous women who want to deny these men their freedom of choice because some women say they feel emotionally threatened by that male exercise of free choice.

 

No one is suggesting that a woman has to get involved with any man whose views on relationships and sexuality is disagreeable to her.

 

Women have exactly the same right to free choice if the genders are switched.

[TheMENemy]

I think the real question raised by this discussion, is, why do some people feel the need to criticize or dictate other people's relationship choices.

[TheMENemy]

 

In following most of this thread there is one thing I still don't understand because nobody has yet clarified it.

 

What I don't get is where the line is drawn.

 

There seems to be an assumption that women who have have FWB or FB arrangements are promiscuous and this just isn't the case. Some women have one FWB/FB in their whole life and only two or three partners in total so where are people making this promiscuous or 'likely to be unfaithful' connection.

 

To me, it's all relative. Some people think anyone who has sex outside marriage is 'low grade' and others will accept any kind of behaviour provided nobody is being charged for it. So where is everybody drawing the line?

You're asking the wrong question.

 

"Everybody" draws their own line where they feel it to be appropriate, when it comes to who they want to get involved with.

 

Each of us is free to have our own selection criteria for our partners.

 

A better question would be: "Is it any of my business what criteria someone else uses to select a relationship partner, if it doesn't involve me?"

[EasyHeart]

I think the real question raised by this discussion, is, why do some people feel the need to criticize or dictate other people's relationship choices.

I don't think any (or at least many) posters are trying to do that. I think most of us are trying to understand and discuss the issue.

[TheMENemy]

I don't think any (or at least many) posters are trying to do that. I think most of us are trying to understand and discuss the issue.

 

OK that's relatively easy.

 

To directly respond to the thread title question--

 

I don't think anyone, man or woman, has a huge amount of respect for women who lightly engage in casual sex. I'm not really sure why the thread was titled so as to make it a "man vs. woman" issue.

 

I'm generalizing, but men take their "cues" on how they regard women, from women.

 

It is women, not men, who single out, talk catty about, and abuse other women who the group as a whole regards as "loose" and therefore a threat to the group's sexual power over men.

 

If there are a lot of women in society who engage in casual sex with a lot of men, then men won't need to form involved committed relationships with women to get sex from them. That's a direct threat to all the women who want to form involved committed relationships with men.

[sally4sara]

OK that's relatively easy.

 

To directly respond to the thread title question--

 

I don't think anyone, man or woman, has a huge amount of respect for women who lightly engage in casual sex. I'm not really sure why the thread was titled so as to make it a "man vs. woman" issue.

 

I'm generalizing, but men take their "cues" on how they regard women, from women.

 

It is women, not men, who single out, talk catty about, and abuse other women who the group as a whole regards as "loose" and therefore a threat to the group's sexual power over men.

 

If there are a lot of women in society who engage in casual sex with a lot of men, then men won't need to form involved committed relationships with women to get sex from them. That's a direct threat to all the women who want to form involved committed relationships with men.

 

That's really odd because the last time I remember hearing a woman negatively judge another woman for her sex life with no other factor involved, I was in high school.

 

The other, very rare instances were due to external factors such as religious condemnation or if the guy she was having sex with was married.

 

And since it was our previous generations' standards that still influence (albeit less and less with each new generation) our opinions, I'm finding it difficult to pin the blame game on women with men just playing monkey see monkey do. I still have (distant but domestic) relatives that expect the women in the house to keep their mouths shut unless spoken to directly. So I'd have to say when women condemn other women it is because they've heard it from the "head of the household"; their father, grandfather, or older and influenced female relatives like grandma or great aunts regurgitating the standards of their time.

[donnamaybe]

Ha ha haaaa!

 

First you say THIS:

I don't think anyone, man or woman, has a huge amount of respect for women who lightly engage in casual sex. I'm not really sure why the thread was titled so as to make it a "man vs. woman" issue.

 

Then you say THIS

I'm generalizing, but men take their "cues" on how they regard women, from women.

 

It is women, not men, who single out, talk catty about, and abuse other women who the group as a whole regards as "loose" and therefore a threat to the group's sexual power over men.

 

If there are a lot of women in society who engage in casual sex with a lot of men, then men won't need to form involved committed relationships with women to get sex from them. That's a direct threat to all the women who want to form involved committed relationships with men.

And I have nothing to add except to point out that this thread is NOT about "women in society who engage in casual sex with a lot of men." We were talking about FWB situations which is ONE man. Oh, and

[TheMENemy]

That's really odd because the last time I remember hearing a woman negatively judge another woman for her sex life with no other factor involved, I was in high school.

 

Sounds like your personal experience must be a statistical outlier. Doesn't make you or your experience "odd" though.

 

 

The other, very rare instances were due to external factors such as religious condemnation or if the guy she was having sex with was married.

 

Yes those are some of the reasons but not the only ones.

 

 

And since it was our previous generations' standards that still influence (albeit less and less with each new generation) our opinions, I'm finding it difficult to pin the blame game on women with men just playing monkey see monkey do.

 

No one suggested you have to blame anyone for anything. Sounds though like you are trying to "blame" previous generations for our generations behavior towards one another.

 

 

I still have (distant but domestic) relatives that expect the women in the house to keep their mouths shut unless spoken to directly.

 

I don't. Most people don't. Again that doesn't make you or your experience odd, just a statistical outlier, at least in modern American culture. Your experience is certainly valid personally for you, but the rest of us can't form any reliable generalizations from statistical outliers.

 

 

So I'd have to say when women condemn other women it is because they've heard it from the "head of the household"; their father, grandfather, or older and influenced female relatives like grandma or great aunts regurgitating the standards of their time.

 

Like I said that may be what the situation is in your family background but it is not valid for most people.

[donnamaybe]

Your experience is certainly valid personally for you, but the rest of us can't form any reliable generalizations from statistical outliers.

Ah, and therein lies the problem. Why generalize? Is it virtually impossible for some people to take each person at face value? Are people really so emotionally and philosophically limited that they have to lump folks into neat little groups in order that they can find what they perceive to be a valid reason to denigrate them?

 

Pathetic.

[TheMENemy]

Ha ha haaaa!

 

First you say THIS:

 

Then you say THIS

Glad you were amused though, but I don't really see why?

 

 

And I have nothing to add except to point out that this thread is NOT about "women in society who engage in casual sex with a lot of men." We were talking about FWB situations which is ONE man. Oh, and

It's interesting how each of us perceives all this "relationship" stuff so subjectively. Which is why I believe each and every one of us is fully entitled to choose our own selection criteria for our intimate relationships--without being shamed by anyone else for those choices. You're entitled to disagree if you think you have the right to criticize others for their relationship choices, but I don't feel that makes much sense for me personally.

 

Now you're saying this discussion thread was somehow "limited" to ONLY friendwithbenefit/casual sex relationships between a woman and "ONE" man. I admit I surely haven't read all 50 pages but I didn't see that restriction anywhere.

 

If you have some kind of an "issue" with a woman who chooses to be in "FWB"s with more than one man, either simultaneously or on a serial basis, then perhaps you need to liberalize your thinking a little bit?

 

If not, then perhaps you're a counter example to sally's claim that she's never heard of one woman being critical of another on sexual issues?

[sally4sara]

No one suggested you have to blame anyone for anything. Sounds though like you are trying to "blame" previous generations for our generations behavior towards one another.

 

It seemed to me that you were blaming women for the "cues" they give other men that causes this double standard.

 

I don't. Most people don't. Again that doesn't make you or your experience odd, just a statistical outlier, at least in modern American culture. Your experience is certainly valid personally for you, but the rest of us can't form any reliable generalizations from statistical outliers.

 

Buddy! If you think fundamental christianity is a rare, outlier influence in American culture, I'm confused about where you live.

 

And since this entire thread contains a bunch of generalizations that are not and never have been reliable, I find it further odd that you'd choose the influence of religion as invalid as far as how it has shaped the double standard being discussed here. Seems a lot more like picking and choosing that which might absolve one from scrutiny for the opinions they form.

 

Like saying "I don't like women who have had FWB because my mom told me they are trashy and I ALWAYS listen to what my mother says."

Rather than saying "I don't like women who have had FWB because only I am able, by my gender, to compartmentalize sex from love. Any woman who can do it is faulty and I can't trust her."

 

And before you get all upset, I'm not saying that is what you think. I'm using it as an example.

[TheMENemy]

Ah, and therein lies the problem. Why generalize?

You have no obligation to use generalizations if you don't see value to it.

 

Is it virtually impossible for some people to take each person at face value?

If that's what your experience has been, then it's valid for you.

 

 

Are people really so emotionally and philosophically limited that they have to lump folks into neat little groups in order that they can find what they perceive to be a valid reason to denigrate them?

The only way to know why someone is behaving in a certain way is to actually ask them.

 

Sounds like you might be "making a generalization." I thought you were against that?

 

 

Pathetic.

If you feel that way then simply don't associate with people who make you feel that way.

[donnamaybe]

You have no obligation to use generalizations if you don't see value to it.

Most thinking people feel the same way. I offered it up as something to ponder, presuming I am working with a thinking person.

 

Sounds like you might be "making a generalization." I thought you were against that?

I merely asked a question. Think about it.

 

 

If you feel that way then simply don't associate with people who make you feel that way.

Hereby ignored.

[sally4sara]

For further scrutiny when saying the double standard was cued to men by women:

 

Young women were the property of their father. He would choose her husband and as the seal on a business deal, her chastity/hymen was the commodity being offered. Her mother was acquired the same way and her return was being tagged as "wife". Love was not her honor, sexual satisfaction was not her honor; it was that she was someone's wife. That her entire honor rests on someone calling her "wife", she is not going to undercut that one shred of honor she has and advise her daughter to flee the situation and seek her own in love and sexual satisfaction. Besides, in this situation, it is not up to her who her daughter marries.

 

In this instance, is it the mother causing the father and the intended groom to place a high value on the chastity/hymen of the young woman?

 

Further more, the intended groom was not examined and inspected for his sexual history in the decision to marry their daughter off to him. Since there is no physical way to determine a man's virginity, people just accepted that he may or many not be a virgin - oh well.

But you can determine if a woman's hymen is intact, even if not how it was broken. So people placed a lot of importance on it -because they could. And this is the same thing going on here. People overly scrutinizing a woman's sexual history because they are more familiar with the concept while not applying the same to men because they are familiar with not caring as much about it.

 

This does not happen so often today, but if you really want to dissect where the double standard comes from, you're going to have to look at our history of mating as a whole because the echos of long ago are where this mindset comes from. And it was a time where women didn't have as much acceptance or influence in gaining a fair playing field.

[donnamaybe]

This does not happen so often today, but if you really want to dissect where the double standard comes from, you're going to have to look at our history of mating as a whole because the echos of long ago are where this mindset comes from. And it was a time where women didn't have as much acceptance or influence in gaining a fair playing field.

And SOME "men" just can't HANDLE women having choices, so in some lame, pathetic attempt to tilt the "playing field" back in their favor, they denigrate them for having said choices. At all.

[sally4sara]

And SOME "men" just can't HANDLE women having choices, so in some lame, pathetic attempt to tilt the "playing field" back in their favor, they denigrate them for having said choices. At all.

 

Ahh but some of this responsibility still rests on women. For every guy who sleeps around and thinks he is a stud for it but the women who open to him are trash, we still have a woman who thinks she isn't valued (has no honor) without a ring on her finger.

 

Echo after echo after echo. I still hope someday we will get there and see eye to eye rather than penis to vagina.

[TheMENemy]

It seemed to me that you were blaming women for the "cues" they give other men that causes this double standard.

 

On the contrary, I think I have been very forceful and direct in stating that no one should be subject to shame for their selection criteria for relationships. (Include "blame" with "shame," I agree with that. Either or both words work well for me.)

 

Also I don't think I stated there was a double standard. I'm not sure what you mean by this. When I said "no one" I meant both man and woman which is why I also questioned the title of the thread itself for seemingly framing the issue as a "man vs. woman"-style debate.

 

 

 

Buddy! If you think fundamental christianity is a rare, outlier influence in American culture, I'm confused about where you live.

 

OK like I said, I didn't read all the thread, in fact I skipped probably most of it, so I apologize for that, but I just don't have time to read a 50 page thread. From what I read there wasn't any discussion about fundamental christianity or gender roles as perceived by it. I'm sure there are other message boards specifically focused on fundamental Christianity and relationship issues for fundamentalist Christians that you can go to if you are really interested in that aspect.

 

I'm not a fundamentalist Christian but I certainly do not mean to disrespect anyone who was brought up in such a background. That POV is as valid as anyone else's IMO for the people who are living it. If it's something that isn't right for you personally you are free to choose your own lifestyle of course. I don't think it's productive for me to make any value judgments about fundamentalist Christians since I don't know enough about it.

 

 

 

And since this entire thread contains a bunch of generalizations that are not and never have been reliable, I find it further odd that you'd choose the influence of religion as invalid as far as how it has shaped the double standard being discussed here.

 

The only "generalization" that I believe is important is that each of us should feel free to use whatever selection criteria we think appropriate for choosing relationships without being shamed (or "blamed" either!) by anyone else. I'm not sure what other generalizations you are talking about.

 

Also, I completely agree with you, that our religious background influences our perspective on relationships. How could it not?

 

I think if you are specifically interested in discussing how fundamentalist Christianity affects people's views on relationships that's a legitimate topic. I'm sure there are other message boards that do exactly that.

 

 

 

 

 

Seems a lot more like picking and choosing that which might absolve one from scrutiny for the opinions they form.

 

I can't say since I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, and don't really know much if anything about it. My perception is that there are many different "flavors" of fundamentalist Christianity and what is and is not permissible varies a lot among various denominations and geographical regions.

 

 

Like saying "I don't like women who have had FWB because my mom told me they are trashy and I ALWAYS listen to what my mother says."

 

I feel that each of us are fully entitled to choose our own selection criteria for personal relationships without being subject to shame or blame by anyone else.

 

It's unclear to me why it would bother you at all that someone follows his mother's advice unless of course it was a case of the mother trying to interfere in your relationship with that particular man, which sometimes happens. If that's what happened to you then I understand what a painful experience it must have been for you. I don't believe parents of adult children should interfere in their relationships as that interferes with their autonomy, but unfortunately some people just have a lot of trouble cutting the apron strings.

 

 

 

Rather than saying "I don't like women who have had FWB because only I am able, by my gender, to compartmentalize sex from love. Any woman who can do it is faulty and I can't trust her."

 

And before you get all upset, I'm not saying that is what you think. I'm using it as an example.

 

Thanks for the clarification but the example you provided is not upsetting to me at all.

[sally4sara]

On the contrary, I think I have been very forceful and direct in stating that no one should be subject to shame for their selection criteria for relationships. (Include "blame" with "shame," I agree with that. Either or both words work well for me.)

 

Also I don't think I stated there was a double standard. I'm not sure what you mean by this. When I said "no one" I meant both man and woman which is why I also questioned the title of the thread itself for seemingly framing the issue as a "man vs. woman"-style debate.

 

 

 

 

 

OK like I said, I didn't read all the thread, in fact I skipped probably most of it, so I apologize for that, but I just don't have time to read a 50 page thread. From what I read there wasn't any discussion about fundamental christianity or gender roles as perceived by it. I'm sure there are other message boards specifically focused on fundamental Christianity and relationship issues for fundamentalist Christians that you can go to if you are really interested in that aspect.

 

I'm not a fundamentalist Christian but I certainly do not mean to disrespect anyone who was brought up in such a background. That POV is as valid as anyone else's IMO for the people who are living it. If it's something that isn't right for you personally you are free to choose your own lifestyle of course. I don't think it's productive for me to make any value judgments about fundamentalist Christians since I don't know enough about it.

 

 

 

 

 

The only "generalization" that I believe is important is that each of us should feel free to use whatever selection criteria we think appropriate for choosing relationships without being shamed (or "blamed" either!) by anyone else. I'm not sure what other generalizations you are talking about.

 

Also, I completely agree with you, that our religious background influences our perspective on relationships. How could it not?

 

I think if you are specifically interested in discussing how fundamentalist Christianity affects people's views on relationships that's a legitimate topic. I'm sure there are other message boards that do exactly that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't say since I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, and don't really know much if anything about it. My perception is that there are many different "flavors" of fundamentalist Christianity and what is and is not permissible varies a lot among various denominations and geographical regions.

 

 

 

 

I feel that each of us are fully entitled to choose our own selection criteria for personal relationships without being subject to shame or blame by anyone else.

 

It's unclear to me why it would bother you at all that someone follows his mother's advice unless of course it was a case of the mother trying to interfere in your relationship with that particular man, which sometimes happens. If that's what happened to you then I understand what a painful experience it must have been for you. I don't believe parents of adult children should interfere in their relationships as that interferes with their autonomy, but unfortunately some people just have a lot of trouble cutting the apron strings.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the clarification but the example you provided is not upsetting to me at all.

 

All I meant by bring it up was to say that the only times I've heard women shaming other women was in high school (where everyone makes a big deal out of this stuff) OR because their religious background calls womens' sexual interactions into question. This isn't a thread about religion. I only pointed it out to answer to your assertion that women being catty is where mens' attitude concerning this comes from. You don't need to read 50 pages to figure that out.

 

The only times, since highschool, I've heard a woman shame another woman's sexual habits is due to religious standards or if the woman was sleeping with a married man. You called it outlier, and I mentioned fundie christians because it is not an outlier influence. Get it now?