guys who have slept around can be the most loyal of all

[Dafa]

Hi, interesting and passionate discussion going around here!

 

Hard to say- because it's impossible to know if people have a lower # 'by choice' or if that is rationalization. They might claim it is choice, but are actually following a 'moral code' from societal pressure. ie they've been made to believe it's immoral to sleep around - but there is inner subconscious psych conflict going on.

 

Hmm, i can't help but feel that here you are projecting yourself in other mens's minds. Firstly, how do you know what is on their minds? Secondly, while there are cases where your hypothesis is correct, there are also many cases where it is not.

It can be the case that a given man does not consider it immoral at all, the man simply considers it an intimate act that he is not comfortable in sharing with someone he does not have a bigger connection with.

 

Also, you talked about Bill Maher. I've seen his documentary about religion, loved it. I've also seen some of his shows on youtube. He strikes me as a deeply skeptical person and basically his humors reflects his ability to apply this (sometimes extreme) skepticism to everyday life. While i find that i agree with him most of the times, this skepticism of his sometimes goes too far and to the point of him defending very stupid points when there are evidences otherwise.

 

Personally, i much rather see Jon stewart. Why? Because he tempers his comedy with insightfullness. During the interviews he makes, one second he is throwing a joke to the king of Jordan but the next second he is having a very insightful discussion with him. Some of the best TV interviews i have seen have been on his show. Bill Maher, while funny, is rather one-dimensional since the main drive behind his humor is a skepticism coupled with common-sense. This mixture sometimes is nearly not enough. But hey, this is my view.

 

Another thing that was brought up here was that one of the posters presented herself as a scientific expert in a field relevant to the discussion. You immediately tried to downplay it. A scientific expert is not an authority figure, the knowledge he provides is. Big important detail. If she is saying that your argument is scientifically false, dude, either make her explain it to you or just accept it. Science is not a matter of opinion.

 

Also, i must admit that implicitly (and explicitly) attacking his girlfriend is slightly distasteful. You don't know her and much less know her motivations and views on life. Regardless of her being a Nobel laureate or a Mcdonalds employee.

 

Finally, there is no problem in you being more intelligent than the average. Good for you! Personally, i tend to admire people who use that "extra" that they have to be kind and helpful to others that didn't share that luck. As a previous poster pointed, using your intelligence to exclude people is not very worthy.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Dafa
small typos

[danny in van]

Hi, interesting and passionate discussion going around here!

 

 

 

Hmm, i can't help but feel that here you are projecting yourself in other mens's minds. Firstly, how do you know what is on their minds? Secondly, while there are cases where your hypothesis is correct, there are also many cases where it is not.

It can be the case that a given man does not consider it immoral at all, the man simply considers it an intimate act that he is not comfortable in sharing with someone he does not have a bigger connection with.

 

Also, you talked about Bill Maher. I've seen his documentary about religion, loved it. I've also seen some of his shows on youtube. He strikes me as a deeply skeptical person and basically his humors reflects his ability to apply this (sometimes extreme) skepticism to everyday life. While i find that i agree with him most of the times, this skepticism of his sometimes goes too far and to the point of him defending very stupid points when there are evidences otherwise.

 

Personally, i much rather see Jon stewart. Why? Because he tempers his comedy with insightfullness. During the interviews he makes, one second he is throwing a joke to the king of Jordan but the next second he is having a very insightful discussion with him. Some of the best TV interviews i have seen have been on his show. Bill Maher, while funny, is rather one-dimensional since the main drive behind his humor is a skepticism coupled with common-sense. This mixture sometimes is nearly not enough. But hey, this is my view.

 

Another thing that was brought up here was that one of the posters presented herself as a scientific expert in a field relevant to the discussion. You immediately tried to downplay it. A scientific expert is not an authority figure, the knowledge he provides is. Big important detail. If she is saying that your argument is scientifically false, dude, either make her explain it to you or just accept it. Science is not a matter of opinion.

 

Also, i must admit that implicitly (and explicitly) attacking his girlfriend is slightly distasteful. You don't know her and much less know her motivations and views on life. Regardless of her being a Nobel laureate or a Mcdonalds employee.

 

Finally, there is no problem in you being more intelligent than the average. Good for you! Personally, i tend to admire people who use that "extra" that they have to be kind and helpful to others that didn't share that luck. As a previous poster pointed, using your intelligence to exclude people is not very worthy.

 

A breath of fresh air: someone who can stick to the theme going on here (I can no longer gently point out how others have either misunderstood or put words in my mouth to 'win' their point).

Anyway I think one girl's point (I'm too tired to rereview her writing at this point) is that she has a phD and thus has authority to say my evo psych based observations are obsolete. PhD or not- that's not true- and she doesn't offer up anything science based that has replaced it. I think she implies that males have overcome their desire for variety...I don't need a PhD to say :hahaha to that.

And yes I know ALL men aren't exactly the same- as with life some have greater and lesser appetites. But generally speaking most virile healthy men I've known are plagued by their desires vs what today's world allows them. Maybe plagued is too strong in some cases- but then we must refer to what psychs say about repression, and esp sexual repression. But I know certain posters will say that's outdated psych too. But I will disagree.

 

And Bill Maher? I hear what you're saying. But I only brought him up (after a poster said I should temper my words) as an example who I admire because he feels the backlash and risk of offending over his anti religious views is worth it- because of the countless ways other peoples' religion affects his life.

And I try to be gentle with other peoples' capabilities- and always start that way. But when I'm being attacked only for the lifestyle I lead (and cuz I suggest the scandalous thought that there are MANY men who desire the same) then I'm gonna give it back 10x. The backlash I've gotten is quite similar to how B Maher gets attacked by the religious right. When people simply 'believe' (ie my husband doesn't think of getting with other women) then they HATE it when suggests that though I don't know him, I may know what is partly going thru his mind. But as with religion I've always wondered 'why do they get their backs up so much? If you REALLY believe, then you can simply laugh at or ignore the B Mahers of the world- cuz you KNOW they're wrong'. But he plants a seed of doubt in their shaky faith- and that's the problem.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Hmm, i can't help but feel that here you are projecting yourself in other mens's minds. Firstly, how do you know what is on their minds? Secondly, while there are cases where your hypothesis is correct, there are also many cases where it is not.

 

No kidding.

 

I train working dogs professionally, and I would be a stooge and a failure if I were to attribute the same identical set of motivations and behaviors to all dogs, whether they're male or female. Lots of male dogs find it no problem to sideline their urges to breed in favor of working, and some of them cant. Lots of female dogs can work beautifully while in standing heat; some of them can't. Some dogs can bypass tempting food and squirrels and stay "on task" without a great deal of extra conditioning, some of them never can.

 

Humans have incalculable resources for reasoning, deciding, judging, that dogs don't. To attribute an absolute criteria for what's going on in a man's - in EVERY man's mind simply because he is a man is … utterly stupid.

[danny in van]

No kidding.

 

I train working dogs professionally, and I would be a stooge and a failure if I were to attribute the same identical set of motivations and behaviors to all dogs, whether they're male or female. Lots of male dogs find it no problem to sideline their urges to breed in favor of working, and some of them cant. Lots of female dogs can work beautifully while in standing heat; some of them can't. Some dogs can bypass tempting food and squirrels and stay "on task" without a great deal of extra conditioning, some of them never can.

 

Humans have incalculable resources for reasoning, deciding, judging, that dogs don't. To attribute an absolute criteria for what's going on in a man's - in EVERY man's mind simply because he is a man is … utterly stupid.

 

Is it? I'm talking about the majority- not all. So the majority of dogs will sideline their urges to breed in favor of working- and the majority of dogs can bypass tempting food ? I doubt it- and if I'm wrong pls gimme a reference to that as I would read it. The expression 'the exception proves the rule' has stuck for a reason. ie me: "Americans love football" . You: "you're an idiot- I can give you plenty of names of Americans who don't". Who is generally more correct in that conversation?

[Mme. Chaucer]

Is it? I'm talking about the majority- not all

 

No, you're not. You have repeatedly "informed" me of what my husband, specifically, is thinking, and been very positive that you know exactly what that is because you are a man and so is he.

 

I believe that you have not had any relationships of significant depth, but I assure you that a very close emotional bond between a man and a woman promotes profound understanding which goes both ways. My husband understands me better than some random woman on the Internet does, even though she and I both share the same style of genitals. And vice versa.

 

Really, it's not worth arguing about.

[mesmerized]

No, you're not. You have repeatedly "informed" me of what my husband, specifically, is thinking, and been very positive that you know exactly what that is because you are a man and so is he.

 

EXACTLY! Yet another contradiction in his posts. OP desperately tries to be "right", yet some of his posts are emotional where he just tries to get under people's skin (all in the name of "logic"), the rest try to be logical by admitting he could be wrong.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Further to what I posted a few minutes ago - I have more of a "meeting of the minds" with lots of men who I only know superficially, right here on LS, than I do with many of the women here.

 

Attributing so very much to the possession of a penis or vagina and the attendant hormones is just misguided, especially when we're talking about humans.

 

If it works for you, OP, carry on as you are, but you are unreasonable if you expect the rest of us to come from anyplace like the one where you are. Except those who are into total immersion in PUA propaganda (I almost typed "literature" but didn't want to tarnish the beautiful word).

 

Peace out, dude. I hope you actually do get in touch with the loyalty you believe lies hidden deep within you.

[kaylan]

Don't know about them being loyal. Most guys who have slept around a lot like that habit. I do know that guys who sleep around a lot are the types that are most desired by women.

You sure about that?

 

I see quite the opposite even though some folks love to throw this old wives tale around.

[danny in van]

No, you're not. You have repeatedly "informed" me of what my husband, specifically, is thinking, and been very positive that you know exactly what that is because you are a man and so is he.

 

I believe that you have not had any relationships of significant depth, but I assure you that a very close emotional bond between a man and a woman promotes profound understanding which goes both ways. My husband understands me better than some random woman on the Internet does, even though she and I both share the same style of genitals. And vice versa.

 

Really, it's not worth arguing about.

 

Nope- ur misquoting again out of convenience. I wrote that I 'possibly' and 'likely' know what is going thru ur SOs head more than you regarding sexual issues. And that is a contradiction because he is not part of the majority I'm talking about? No it's not actually. I took a guess that he (or anyone's SO is part of the majority). Sure I could be wrong there- but it's not a contradiction. If I said your guy 'possibly and likely' loves football- and you said 'no ur wrong- he hates it'- it doesn't contradict my position that most Yanks do.

And your guy knows your sexual side (ie what you feel; what you deep down desire etc) better than another woman? Then why are there countless books about men being from mars etc etc? Not so many "Hey guys- I finally learned to speak womanese- buy my book and you can too!"

I could care less about you and ur guy- but I'm very interested in the majority.

[danny in van]

You sure about that?

 

I see quite the opposite even though some folks love to throw this old wives tale around.

 

It kinda makes sense that the guys that get the most girls are the ones the girls like most doesn't it? How do they get all those girls if girls don't naturally like their type best?

[J322Y]

I didn't read the thread, but my experience is that of being with many women until I got married at age 29. I stayed married for 10 years and never cheated. Slept around a little for about a year after that and then entered a 13 year LTR and never cheated.

[NoMagicBullet]

I'm not questioning the OP's sexual loyalty to his women, but I've never seen a man with a promiscuous past have a successful relationship that lasted more than 10 years at best, but usually not more than 2-4 years. (I don't know about promiscuous women, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same.) Again and again -- I'm talking real life, not these boards -- I see the same pattern:

 

1) Man has a large number of sexual partners in his past or professes to having a lot of sexual experience.

2) His long-term relationships involve someone much younger than him, usually without marriage.

3) He nearly always chooses what benefits himself over what benefits the relationship, even if it's a small a sacrifice for him.

 

With regard to #1, research indicates that men with a high number of sexual partners are less likely to be happy in a committed relationship. (Sorry I don't have the link at the moment, but I'd post it if I did.)

 

As for #2, the age difference makes it less likely for the relationship to last in the long term, due to having less in common. It also lets the older partner justify not committing because of a variety of issues that could relate to the age difference (i.e., "she might want kids someday", "she'll move away after college anyway", "her parents won't/don't like her being with an old man", etc).

 

If #2 doesn't end the relationship, #3 will. Often in such a way that the man denies his part in it. I have to admit, I'm speaking from personal experience here. I had to be the "bad guy" and dump... no, scrape off a man much older than me, because he was a parasite who only looked out for himself. He never cheated, to the best of my knowledge, but I often wished he would -- so he could become someone else's problem! (Also why I'll never try to be friends with an ex again -- I don't need them coming back for loans and handouts.) I'll never get back the time he wasted. Time I could have spent dating better men. I've observed this same phenomena with others, though in a less extreme way than my experience.

 

So sure, I'll concede the OP's original point that some guys who have slept around can be sexually loyal while they're with a particular woman, but that doesn't mean they'll be good partners in any other way. Maybe a promiscuous past isn't a guarantee for infidelity, but from what I've seen, it could be a red flag for other behavior that leads to the dissolution of the relationship.

 

I apologize if I repeated someone else's sentiment, but I didn't read through all the posts. After the first few pages, it was apparent that the OP didn't want discussion that disagreed with his opinion, so I skipped the subsequent arguing back and forth. I'm only tossing this out for those who care to ponder a different perspective.

[dreamingoftigers]

I found that same thread of blatant selfishness with my H.

 

He really had some serious maturity issues which all linked into his promiscuity.

 

Often relational loyalty is looked at like a sacrifice for these guys (IMHO) as well. For instance: "I am willing to give up all these other women to be with you, so just appreciate it already." instead of "I am so grateful I have you as my partner, I don't want to go bed-hopping."

 

But I guess if a lot of these guys were satisfied in relationships, the number would be lower.

 

Of course some people mature over time and realize that there is more to life then playing a game of Musical Pussy. Eventually most (I think) come to want a little more then whatever feels kinda hot at the end of the night. Plus as they age, their options drop. Not too many 60 year olds can hit up 20 year olds anymore. That's more then Daddy issues, that's Grandpa issues.

[NoMagicBullet]

I found that same thread of blatant selfishness with my H.

 

He really had some serious maturity issues which all linked into his promiscuity.

 

You summed up my post beautifully in two sentences!

 

 

Not too many 60 year olds can hit up 20 year olds anymore. That's more then Daddy issues, that's Grandpa issues.

 

I've seen this, just once. Definitely not common. Didn't last, of course. The immature 20-something woke up, left Grandpa and the issues, and leveled up in maturity; the immature 60-something didn't see any need to change and didn't understand why the 20-something didn't want him anymore.

[danny in van]

I found that same thread of blatant selfishness with my H.

 

He really had some serious maturity issues which all linked into his promiscuity.

 

Often relational loyalty is looked at like a sacrifice for these guys (IMHO) as well. For instance: "I am willing to give up all these other women to be with you, so just appreciate it already." instead of "I am so grateful I have you as my partner, I don't want to go bed-hopping."

 

But I guess if a lot of these guys were satisfied in relationships, the number would be lower.

 

Of course some people mature over time and realize that there is more to life then playing a game of Musical Pussy. Eventually most (I think) come to want a little more then whatever feels kinda hot at the end of the night. Plus as they age, their options drop. Not too many 60 year olds can hit up 20 year olds anymore. That's more then Daddy issues, that's Grandpa issues.

 

and the flip side of that is- yes you're right. I will walk if I start to see the complacency and contempt from my SO that seems so common in LTRs I see. And is that bad that I cut out if I'm not treated as a great friend and ally? I know I can get another girl. A lot of people stay in luke warm realtions cuz they think they're over the hill and can't attract a mate again (and often they're right).

That people have swallowed the "I will love you no matter what" BS is funny to me . If I stop exercising and get fat, don't wake up and lose my job etc do I really think she should stay w me cuz that's what love is? Heck no. We HAVE to treat kindly and remain attractive to our mates and work at that- or risk the natural consequences...

ps yes I am a hi # guy, but all LTRs I've been in never descended into the dreaded complacent unions I've seen all over.

[danny in van]

and the flip side of that is- yes you're right. I will walk if I start to see the complacency and contempt from my SO that seems so common in LTRs I see. And is that bad that I cut out if I'm not treated as a great friend and ally? I know I can get another girl. A lot of people stay in luke warm realtions cuz they think they're over the hill and can't attract a mate again (and often they're right).

That people have swallowed the "I will love you no matter what" BS is funny to me . If I stop exercising and get fat, don't wake up and lose my job etc do I really think she should stay w me cuz that's what love is? Heck no. We HAVE to treat kindly and remain attractive to our mates and work at that- or risk the natural consequences...

ps yes I am a hi # guy, but all LTRs I've been in never descended into the dreaded complacent unions I've seen all over.

 

wanted to add ( a pre emptive strike) that I hope I can go for the 'long run' (til I croak?) with a girl. But if that involves it being a work camp, well then I'm ok to say that I was a serial monogamist and that's it's ok to move on if you end up boring the heck out of each other after 7 yrs.