Star Gazer Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 Were the PMs from the sexually-inexperienced-and-threatened male segment of LS? 'Cause... eh. Haha, I never thought I'd be up to bat for Team Promiscuous, but I find judgmental attitudes way more of a turn-off than sleeping around. 2 women, 1 man. I don't believe any of them are sexually-inexperienced or threatened, not by a long-shot. They're just folks that stay out of the heat, so to speak. Check out this other thread on a related topic, and see what other "judgmental attitudes" you can find. http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258262&page=2 I think most adult, self-respecting, non-threatened men, will agree with this: We've had an abundance of threads on this topic, and I think it's fair to say that adult, relationship-minded men are not interested in dating women who are engaged in FWB or casual sex-type situations. Not that the women should be imprisoned or cast into eternal damnation, just that it's usually a dealbreaker. But I don't doubt that there are men out there who would have no problem screwing a woman who is screwing other men. But you're always going to be at the bottom of his list. I don't see why anyone would want to do that to themselves, but it's certainly their choice. Just like it's my choice to run away from them as fast as I can.
tinktronik Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I think you're lying about this. You're just being a bully which is your typical MO. Either that, or the mysterious people who secretly think you're the bees knees are cowards. Either way, garbage people hold garbage opinions. Everything you say is irrelevant to me. *shrugs I actually sent the PM stating that I agreed that the idea of multi-FWB partners is both dangerous and gross. I did in fact compare the 'need being met' to having your legs waxed. There is nothing cowardly about not getting involved in a topic where your opinion is already stated, in this case by Star Gazer (and I don't think our opinions are typically in agreement). There is nothing sexually repressed about me, I don't have many hang-ups but I do feel that having a 'fluffer' for in-between FWB sessions is dangerous and gross. I would suggest for the OP's health she either come to an agreement with her FWB that sex be more often of find a FWB who can meet her needs. The statement Star Gazer made, that each partner (and those with their own risky behaviors) ups the risk of catching a STD, is the truth and common sense.
EasyHeart Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 Anyhoo, just to address the original question: If there's one thing I've learned on LS, it's that anytime a woman asks "Is it too soon for me to call/text/telegram/smoke signal/accidentally bump into him?" the answer is always "OMFG, YES!!! Put down your phone and don't call him!!!"
Star Gazer Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I () have never lied on LS, and I'm not going to start now to defend a position for which there is already ample support from both men and women via numerous threads and abundantly long discussions on this topic.
Star Gazer Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I actually sent the PM stating that I agreed that the idea of multi-FWB partners is both dangerous and gross. Thanks, Tink. I didn't want to publicly disclose you or anyone else seeing as our conversations were being held in private, ostensibly for a reason.
Star Gazer Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I say, consider the source. Me too. Thanks again, Tink.
EasyHeart Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 AND NOW THE CLAWS COME OUT! Cat-fight! Cat-fight!!!
Star Gazer Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 AND NOW THE CLAWS COME OUT! Cat-fight! Cat-fight!!! Nope. I won't respond to that nonsense.
tigressA Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 AND NOW THE CLAWS COME OUT! Cat-fight! Cat-fight!!! :lmao: I have 3 different flavors of popcorn sitting right here.
Star Gazer Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I'm not hurting. I'm laughing! Who knew expressing an opinion about having multiple casual sex partners would hit such a nerve with one person?
EasyHeart Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 It's kind of a nice diversion from the gender wars that these FWB threads usually inspire.
tinktronik Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I'm not hurting. I'm laughing! Who knew expressing an opinion about having multiple casual sex partners would hit such a nerve with one person? This has gone all hinkey. Take that you 30 year old spinster (in 2010)! Boom Pow Crash! You'd better get your knitting needles out.
EasyHeart Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 It is a dilemma, though. Who does one go to for relationship advice? The spinster of the proven-failure-at-marriage? I say they mud wrestle for it!!!
tigressA Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 To answer your question, OP: Given the rules you agreed to, yes, it is too soon for a booty call with this guy. I think that since you're not getting what you need from your current FWB then you should talk to him and if he's not willing, find someone else. If you want to sleep with more than one guy at a time, that's cool too--BUT you really need to be honest with everyone involved. Not disclosing that is doing a disservice to all those you would be hooking up with as well as yourself. If you're not prepared to be honest about it, don't sleep with more than one guy at a time, and don't go out on dates with others while you're sleeping with someone.
Knittress Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 Yep, a perpetually single woman in her 30's who hasn't yet managed to walk down the isle even once and struggles with even maintaining a LTR. Yes. Definitely a relationship expert. If 'relationship expert' is code for 'spinster,' of course. ::hides:: I understand the frustration, but... You DO see how this is contrary to a 'person shouldn't be judged by their sexual choices' mindset, right? People should be allowed their choices and lifestyles, and implying that someone is loser because they haven't experienced marriage is just as closed-minded as saying someone is a loser because they haven't experienced monogamy, yeah?
Star Gazer Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 Anne, I never said YOU are unattractive. I said your BEHAVIOR and THOUGHT PATTERNS in this regard (multiple sex partners) are unattractive. I also didn't say you'd never be considered LTR potential. I said men will not want to romantically date you while you're currently engaged in multiple casual sex relationships with other men. I'm confident you understand that though.
Knittress Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 This has gone all hinkey. Take that you 30 year old spinster (in 2010)! Boom Pow Crash! You'd better get your knitting needles out. Heeeeeey! Don't diss the knitting. (or else I'll make you a penis-cozy )
Knittress Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 Yep, a perpetually single woman in her 30's who hasn't yet managed to walk down the isle even once and struggles with even maintaining a LTR. Yes. Definitely a relationship expert. If 'relationship expert' is code for 'spinster,' of course. ::hides:: I understand the frustration, but... You DO see how this is contrary to a 'person shouldn't be judged by their sexual choices' mindset, right? People should be allowed their choices and lifestyles, and implying that someone is loser because they haven't experienced marriage is just as closed-minded as saying someone is a loser because they haven't experienced monogamy, yeah?
USMCHokie Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 Oh, you're right. I actually think SG is entitled to her opinion as is anyone else on this forum. I just think that if someone can't state that opinion without making personal insults (calling someone unattractive, making a pukey face, and implying that no one will ever consider them LTR material) they deserve to have it pointed out that their personal life isn't roses either. I decided to re-peruse everything said in this thread, and I'd like to point out a distinction that many folks on LS fail to understand...the difference between a response to a post and a personal attack... Star responds to text written by others...she doesn't make personal attacks or insults as you seem to think...the name next to the post is irrelevant...it's the content of the post that matters...so regardless of whether it was written by OP or even by me, the opinion doesn't change because it is a response to the words written... Now if she went off and insulted another member just because that member was who he/she was, then yes, personal attack...but Star has only responded to what people have written...not who they are...
Knittress Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I assume this is a repost because I already responded to this above. ::sigh:: Yeah. Computer = annoying.
Star Gazer Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 Now if she went off and insulted another member just because that member was who he/she was, then yes, personal attack...but Star has only responded to what people have written...not who they are... Exactly. I wasn't the one flinging personal attacks here. I said her BEHAVIOR and potential choice here was unattractive. Not HER. It could have been Anne (someone I don't know), or someone like D-Lish or TigressA or sb129 (people I obviously really like) and my response would have been the same. I was reading what she was saying about what she wanted to do, and commenting on that - what she wanted to do. Not her as a person. *shrug* I remain firm in what I said. It's a general statement of applicability to everyone. Having multiple casual sex partners at the same time is unattractive to most people, including relationship-minded men who may have wanted to date a woman before they found out that she was engaged in casual sex with multiple men.
tinktronik Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think comparing someone to a paid prostitute is the epitome of a personal attack. But, different strokes for different folks, I guess. *shrugs If you are so sexually open minded then what problem do you have with prostitutes Sarah? They have multiple FWB relationships with no emotional attachment and they get paid for it. I hope the OP has not been overtly offended by the responses to her thread but I also hope that she takes the time to think through what she really wants to do and how she wants to behave and does not do anything she will regret.
Surrealist Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think comparing someone to a paid prostitute is the epitome of a personal attack. But, different strokes for different folks, I guess. *shrugs Personal attack on prostitutes. Prostitutes don't always enjoy their job, to them it is a job and they get paid for the services they provide. Guys paying for a prostitute are well aware of their profession so are not being lied to by a woman who is screwing around on multiple dates with other guys. So I agree, let's not tarnish prostitutes with comparing them to women who intentionally mislead well-meaning guys by having multiple sex partners but hide it while dating.
Star Gazer Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 So I agree, let's not tarnish prostitutes with comparing them to women who intentionally mislead well-meaning guys by having multiple sex partners but hide it while dating. S, you seem like a "normal" guy (I mean that in a good way), so I'll ask you... Assuming for a moment that you're looking for a relationship (I don't know either way), would you be happy to date a woman who's engaging in casual sex with multiple other men?
Recommended Posts