So do girls like to get it in right away or it's over?

[TheBigQuestion]

I agree. Where did I say I did not agree? Or mention anything about it? I think those were wise words and philosophies. And applied to both men and women.

They are relevant, because many men think it's usually promiscuous women who shout about double standards, when it's not just them.

If you are done with your own tantrum, yes.

 

I'm throwing a tantrum now? Really. You're the one bringing up your personal life for no reason, typing in caps as if to shout at me, putting words in my mouth, and very clearly getting emotional, and I'm the one throwing a tantrum? Interesting how you define some words.

 

Yes, those philosophies do apply to both men and women. But implicit in them is the idea that the pleasure's value is further diluted if it's something to which you have easier access. That, my dear, is called gluttony. I believe (in most cases) that if you don't have something nice to say, it's not really worth saying, so I won't throw around words like "slut" all willy-nilly. But if the two groups you are comparing are not even remotely similarly situated, how do you figure that there actually is a double standard?

[Jeremy87]

It seems girls like to get it in more now adays. Even the good girls. SO ladies is it true that once we meet a girl and have that first date she is actually ready for you to go there instead of waiting? Just trying to understand the mindset of ladies today.

 

Girls will say over and over and over I'm not like this. I sweet talk them and they are in bed. It's so easy. Girls want it as much as guys but won't admit it! Guys are honest about it.

[Mr. Slim]

There is some truth in this, so this is why I try to "manage" dates as much as I can in the beginning until I figure out the way things are going to go. No going to anyone's place at least for the first 2-3 dates. If I'm in a situation where on the first date someone is friendzoning me for not making a play for sex, that's not where I want to be. Especially when some women can be very cryptic/difficult to read. I've had women sit on the other end of the couch with their arms folded only to later tell me they were waiting for me to make a move. Okay...

 

Now maybe it's just the women I meet, but usually they end up jumping my bones one way or another before it's an issue anyway. That's why I prefer to play it cool at first. If I started getting friendzoned a lot then maybe I'd change my tune.

[Jeremy87]

role playing. girl to good guy shes dating 'I repect you for waiting'. later that night she ****s a hot stud she just met. three weeks later. girl to good guy 'I can't date you. its not you its me'. later that night she ****s another hot stud.

[dasein]

Nope. The double standard EXISTS. Sorry to say.

 

Why? Because you're forgetting a small detail: How many women secure exclusive relationships after early sex with a man? Not many. The gatekeepers of RELATIONSHIPS are usually MEN. So if no relationship happens after sex, women usually get depressed about it, while men usually walk away high-fiving each other. That's why women do not give sex easily despite how horny they may be. And because relationships and sex are extremely intertwined, that means women do not hold all the power when it comes to sex/relationships. This in turn, also means that the double standard exists no matter how you look at it.

 

Nope, just a bunch of non sequitur, doesn't follow from the discussion of sex, which is the topic of this thread. If you want to start a thread on relationships, feel free, this isn't one. Sex and relationships are not interwined, and haven't been for many years.

[dasein]

(I also have a Masters and a PhD but I don't know why this is relevant.)

 

Well then somewhere in that process, you should have been exposed to the definition of "double standard," and if you were, then you know that a double standard cannot exist between two disparate classes. The two classes making up the double standard must be similarly situated.

 

Where seeking and obtaining sex is concerned, men and women are not similarly situated generally, so no double standard can exist, other than within the exception I posted previously. The end.

[silvermercy]

I'm throwing a tantrum now? Really. You're the one bringing up your personal life for no reason, typing in caps as if to shout at me, putting words in my mouth, and very clearly getting emotional, and I'm the one throwing a tantrum? Interesting how you define some words.

So, you are NOT done with your own tantrum. Excellent. I capitalized not to shout, but to show EMPHASIS. It is used like that in sentences without denoting SHOUTING, you know? Oh and I like it. Deal with it. If you offended by that, you're offended easily. Not my problem.

 

I brought up my personal life for reasons I already explained. Is that forbidden now? If you couldn't comprehend why, not my fault.

 

How is it me getting emotional, when it's you doing the same thing here? Double standard? LOL I think so. (Pun intended).

 

And how am I putting words in your mouth? Show me where I did. I think you're seeing things that are not there.

 

Are the above insults and personal attacks to throw me off the argument? What are those exactly? Please explain. Did I do the same thing to you? Please explain again.

 

And how do these contribute to the discussion about the double standard? Because I already explained my reasons but then you started repeating the same thing and just HAD to continue the replying (sorry, I meant tantrum). And you just HAD to start with the insults (those ARE insults, all right). You know what insults are last resort for? Right??

 

Yes, those philosophies do apply to both men and women. But implicit in them is the idea that the pleasure's value is further diluted if it's something to which you have easier access. That, my dear, is called gluttony. I believe (in most cases) that if you don't have something nice to say, it's not really worth saying, so I won't throw around words like "slut" all willy-nilly. But if the two groups you are comparing are not even remotely similarly situated, how do you figure that there actually is a double standard?

How these groups are not similarly situated? Do they leave on the same planet or not? Do they eat the same food, breathe the same air, have the same sex, form the same relationships between them or not?

 

What!? What? What???? You're now accusing me of using the word "slut" like that when it's you're the one who puts down promiscuous women all this time in this thread with your "illusion" talk, all the while I'm defending them? You're suddenly right and proper because you didn't use the word "slut"!? Are you for real now!? Seriously!? Can't believe I would see an example of political correctness on the internet, let alone LS... goodness gracious! Thanks for that!

 

About gluttony: Ummm.... right.... the "pleasure's value is further diluted if it's something to which you have easier access". You know, I can pull out if my ass a lot of philosophies. And I can quote a lot of philosophies from the net. They're plenty to choose from to suit my purpose. It still won't make all of them right, you know? And, as a result, it doesn't means yours is right either. It's a philosophy after all. A THEORY? And that's the good and bad thing with philosophies. There is an endless supply of them from which you can pick and use according to your goal and purpose.

 

Nope, just a bunch of non sequitur, doesn't follow from the discussion of sex, which is the topic of this thread. If you want to start a thread on relationships, feel free, this isn't one. Sex and relationships are not interwined, and haven't been for many years.

OK... seriously I'm perplexed by your deduction processes. Did I just not explain in this thread the reason why I involved relationships and sex together? So what now? We're going to throw it away off the thread because you don't like it? Or because it ruins your "illusion" of the double standard for you as well? Please, get serious! The relationship talk is extremely relevant. You don't like it? Either deal with it or don't reply. Simples.

 

Well then somewhere in that process, you should have been exposed to the definition of "double standard," and if you were, then you know that a double standard cannot exist between two disparate classes. The two classes making up the double standard must be similarly situated.

I have been exposed to the definition of the double standard, yes. But as for your reasons? You can't back it up with anything either! Hearing people here in this thread saying that women having easier access to sex makes them a different class, glutinous and decreased in value is preposterous. Says who? LMAO! What are women? Bars of chocolate? Bars of gold? What kind of object women are so they decrease they value because they have easier access to sex? Even in porn, female pornstars get paid more than men (the only job that pays women more than men) because their value increases when they give sex (albeit for male entertainment purposes). Also, men have easier access to sex when they are in relationships. lol How do people come up with these pearls of wisdom?

 

Originally Posted by dasein

Where seeking and obtaining sex is concerned, men and women are not similarly situated generally, so no double standard can exist, other than within the exception I posted previously. The end.

If you mean they have a d*ck and a vagina, then yes, they are not similarly situated. But a vagina (and all the behaviour that comes from it) does not dictate why women should be treated differently than men.

(Equality my ass... LOL)

 

Double standards exist. The END. (There, I made it final. LOL)

Edited March 22, 2012 by silvermercy

[singlelife]

SO from what I am seeing ladies like to have fun asap as long as they like the guy. So it's safe to say the guys should be making the moves to be flirty and such.

[BlueGrl]

Yes, we girls are dirty, cold sore covered sluts. it's a fact, you can google it. Guys should be super aggressive and go for the kill on the 2nd date at least. That is what Alpha males do. Nice guys are afraid to look aggressive, what idiots tee hee...

 

Girl power!

[silvermercy]

Yes, we girls are dirty, cold sore covered sluts. it's a fact, you can google it. Guys should be super aggressive and go for the kill on the 2nd date at least. That is what Alpha males do. Nice guys are afraid to look aggressive, what idiots tee hee...

 

Girl power!

You must be SadGirl or one of his troll co-conspirators.

[BlueGrl]

No, I am a nice girl, with big boobs and an entitlement complex, who thinks that Men should pay for women all the time. i get free meals on each date I go to, online dating is like free food store.

[silvermercy]

No, I am a nice girl, with big boobs and an entitlement complex, who thinks that Men should pay for women all the time. i get free meals on each date I go to, online dating is like free food store.

So you are him. Excellent.

[zengirl]

I never expected sex right away, nor would I have continued seeing a man who tried to have sex with me early on. A few hinted too quickly at sex on early dates, they were soundly dropped. Some I told why, some I didn't, depending on my mood, I suppose, and if they asked. I didn't drop them from some fear of getting left after sex but because I think if you want a real relationship with someone, you table sex for awhile, until you've decided how you feel about each other. That's my value, and it's one I wanted to share. It was never really difficult --- plenty of men (the vast majority) did not push for sex right away or push my boundaries and many even shared them.

 

It really isn't so difficult to tell a fling situation (sex right away) from a LTR if you actually know what you're looking for. The people who find themselves hurt or confused are often the ones who couldn't decide themselves what type of person and relationship they were seeking. I don't have a problem, personally, with people who've had flings or ONS or whatever. I have a slight problem with FWB type situations, which I find really destructive in general and the people who continually enter them seem to share some character traits I don't like (male and females) but not ALL of them share those traits. I never did any of that, but I wouldn't have wanted to date a man who'd care if I did either.

 

Anyway, none of this is all that complicated. Establish your boundaries. Be aware of the potential boundaries of others. See what happens.

[Jeremy87]

Experience.

 

Every man has been friendzoned by at least a few girls in his life. If she doesn't friendzone him, then she'll at least do the fade and that will be it.

 

If a woman is multidating, she's going to drop the guys who are showing the least amount of intrest/boldness whatever in her.

 

The 3 date rule applies to both MEN AND WOMEN. If you don't give it up after 3 dates most will move on to someone who will. Men are honest about it. Women usually aren't.

[Jeremy87]

I never expected sex right away, nor would I have continued seeing a man who tried to have sex with me early on. A few hinted too quickly at sex on early dates, they were soundly dropped. Some I told why, some I didn't, depending on my mood, I suppose, and if they asked. I didn't drop them from some fear of getting left after sex but because I think if you want a real relationship with someone, you table sex for awhile, until you've decided how you feel about each other. That's my value, and it's one I wanted to share. It was never really difficult --- plenty of men (the vast majority) did not push for sex right away or push my boundaries and many even shared them.

 

It really isn't so difficult to tell a fling situation (sex right away) from a LTR if you actually know what you're looking for. The people who find themselves hurt or confused are often the ones who couldn't decide themselves what type of person and relationship they were seeking. I don't have a problem, personally, with people who've had flings or ONS or whatever. I have a slight problem with FWB type situations, which I find really destructive in general and the people who continually enter them seem to share some character traits I don't like (male and females) but not ALL of them share those traits. I never did any of that, but I wouldn't have wanted to date a man who'd care if I did either.

 

Anyway, none of this is all that complicated. Establish your boundaries. Be aware of the potential boundaries of others. See what happens.

 

Men who don't hint sex early on are inexperienced losers who have probably not ever done the deed. They have to be led and trained by women. Would you lead and train a man how to have sex? Not very likely. Very few women would even entertain the idea.

[silvermercy]

The 3-date rule has absolutely nothing to do with honesty the majority of times. So no, other parameters come into place for women at least- as already explained countless of times on LS.

 

Also, the men I've encountered who didn't push for sex early on where the ones I was most compatible with.

Nope. None of those men was inexperienced. Not promiscuous of course (I would never date promiscuous men in a million years) but not a low number by any means either.

[dasein]

Did I just not explain in this thread the reason why I involved relationships and sex together?

 

You can explain til the cows come home that the double standard involves Santa Claus or Bigfoot, and that won't make it somehow valid.

 

The issue is simple and consists of two parts, 1) are women in fact judged more harshly than men for having sex? and 2) if they are does this create a double standard?

 

To 1) As I've posted many times before, today women -are not- judged differently from men for having a normal sex life, even if that sex life consists of several partners outside of marriage. There are outliers and exceptions, but as a matter of cultural fact, women generally aren't judged any differently from men for their normal sexual behavior.

 

Those who are judged are the compulsively, flagrantly promiscuous, those women who are -so- openly promiscuous as to suggest that their promiscuity is seated in some emotional problem. The tiny % of men who are promiscuous to this degree are judged in -exactly- the same way as women are, and I submit if they aren't, it's -women- who are more tolerant of extreme male promiscuity. Provided he is rich, famous, and good looking enough, women show no hesitation whatsoever to "share" that man with many other women. So if those very few men are given a pass, then it's women giving it.

 

To 2) Even if women were or are judged differently than men, there is no double standard unless the man in question is one of that tiny % discussed. This is because the genders are entirely differently situated in how they seek and obtain SEX, not relationships, not marriage, not happiness, not a pony ride, but sexual intercourse.

 

Average women can have sex with partners they desire and find attractive more readily than average men can. If a man is to obtain any sex at all, he must be nearly perpetually seeking it, and takes it where he can get it. Else he gets 0 sex. This is most certainly -not- the case with women, who can obtain sex from pretty much whomever they desire merely by -suggesting- the prospect. Even Hugh Grant and Charlie Sheen have to buy sex from time to time, do you think Charlize Theron would? This -reality- of Western culture works that way all the way down the food chain, and so long as it does, there can be no double standard.

 

Whether promiscuity is wrong or not in one's opinion is outside the double standard question. People have differing standards, and they have a right to those standards. If a man refuses to do anything other than sex a promiscuous woman, it's his right. If a woman refuses the attention of a sexually inexperienced man, that's her right.

 

What's really going on here is that women for decades have been using the stale "double standard" canard to justify whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it, and then bristling with a victim's self-righteousness when called on their behavior or god forbid... held accountable (I know anathema to the American female mind) for their actions.

 

Like little children, before they have been told "If Johnny told you to jump off the bridge, would you do it?" by a parent, women have been trotting out the same tired "well he did it tooooooooo!" rationalization in a puerile attempt to simultaneously 1) clear their consciences and 2) paint women as downtrodden and oppressed.

 

Grow the hell up, ladies, own your behavior, be accountable for it. Some people will judge you for it, some people won't, but for godsakes OWN IT. Stop parroting out illusory double standards. If you are uncomfortable with your behavior, next time try exercising some self-control and restraint, the way adults do. If you are comfortable with your behavior, good for you.

 

But please stop with the "he did it too" child's excuse. Only a teeny tiny % of men have even the capability to "do it too," and other than that, the gender comparison is completely inept and self-serving.

 

The double standard is a convenient illusion. Time to come sit at the adult table and do away with it.

[silvermercy]

You can explain til the cows come home that the double standard involves Santa Claus or Bigfoot, and that won't make it somehow valid.

Oh look a cow just came home! And left again!

 

The issue is simple and consists of two parts, 1) are women in fact judged more harshly than men for having sex? and 2) if they are does this create a double standard?

To 1) As I've posted many times before, today women -are not- judged differently from men for having a normal sex life, even if that sex life consists of several partners outside of marriage. There are outliers and exceptions, but as a matter of cultural fact, women generally aren't judged any differently from men for their normal sexual behavior.

Yes, they are. Not as much as in the past, but they are. Hence the extremely common talk of men that they would never ever even consider dating let alone marrying a woman they, themselves, slept early with.

 

Those who are judged are the compulsively, flagrantly promiscuous, those women who are -so- openly promiscuous as to suggest that their promiscuity is seated in some emotional problem.The tiny % of men who are promiscuous to this degree are judged in -exactly- the same way as women are, and I submit if they aren't, it's -women- who are more tolerant of extreme male promiscuity. Provided he is rich, famous, and good looking enough, women show no hesitation whatsoever to "share" that man with many other women. So if those very few men are given a pass, then it's women giving it.

What? Where did you find these "facts"? Women are not more tolerant of male promiscuity these days (unless you count gold-diggers and desperate women of course). I know this from experience and friends from both sides of the promiscuity fence. Women tolerated it in the past because they had no choice. But not anymore. They do not give free passes anymore. Not the majority at least. And the fact that only a small percentage of men CAN do it is totally irrelevant. Why? Because if men COULD they WOULD. (Women CAN but they DON'T). To quote someone wise long ago "sin is in the mind".

 

To 2) Even if women were or are judged differently than men, there is no double standard unless the man in question is one of that tiny % discussed. This is because the genders are entirely differently situated in how they seek and obtain SEX, not relationships, not marriage, not happiness, not a pony ride, but sexual intercourse.

Why? Who decided that the man has to be in that tiny %? to be a double standard?

 

And again. You're trying to ignore a very important part of how relationships are formed and maintained. I don't know why. Again, who decided that relationships, marriages etc should be left out of the equation when they do make a very important part of the equation and how women respond to sexual advances by men? So who decided that to exclude this parameter? Who and Why??

 

Average women can have sex with partners they desire and find attractive more readily than average men can. If a man is to obtain any sex at all, he must be nearly perpetually seeking it, and takes it where he can get it. Else he gets 0 sex. This is most certainly -not- the case with women, who can obtain sex from pretty much whomever they desire merely by -suggesting- the prospect. Even Hugh Grant and Charlie Sheen have to buy sex from time to time, do you think Charlize Theron would? This -reality- of Western culture works that way all the way down the food chain, and so long as it does, there can be no double standard.

Well, if you've seen the recent news Charlize Theron just had an interview where she discussed that she couldn't find a proper man to have a relationship with. Still single at 35. So guess what? No sex for her either. She just adopted a baby a few weeks ago. (So now, predictably, you'll probably try to throw away the fact again that relationships don't count... yeah yeah... ok).

 

Whether promiscuity is wrong or not in one's opinion is outside the double standard question. People have differing standards, and they have a right to those standards. If a man refuses to do anything other than sex a promiscuous woman, it's his right. If a woman refuses the attention of a sexually inexperienced man, that's her right.

I never said it wasn't. What bugs me is the hypocrisy of men who would never consider dating a woman they, themselves, slept with! For them, it's sluts. The ones they slept with! Really? What makes them other than male-hoes or players then?

 

What's really going on here is that women for decades have been using the stale "double standard" canard to justify whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it, and then bristling with a victim's self-righteousness when called on their behavior or god forbid... held accountable (I know anathema to the American female mind) for their actions.

Yeah, yeah I'm sure it's been invented by all those evil nasty women. Please look up the first porn site and see how male administrators and male porn users describe the woman pornstars (sluts) and the male ones (hunks, studs, "da man" etc).

 

Like little children, before they have been told "If Johnny told you to jump off the bridge, would you do it?" by a parent, women have been trotting out the same tired "well he did it tooooooooo!" rationalization in a puerile attempt to simultaneously 1) clear their consciences and 2) paint women as downtrodden and oppressed.

Again... those evil women... They're gonna destroy the world one day. Oh wait. Men and their wars are perfectly capable of doing this job already for centuries. How dare they take this job from the evil women who pretend to be oppressed for their own evil purposes?

 

Grow the hell up, ladies, own your behavior, be accountable for it. Some people will judge you for it, some people won't, but for godsakes OWN IT. Stop parroting out illusory double standards. If you are uncomfortable with your behavior, next time try exercising some self-control and restraint, the way adults do. If you are comfortable with your behavior, good for you.

If the ladies should own it, then the "gentlemen" should own it, too?

 

But please stop with the "he did it too" child's excuse. Only a teeny tiny % of men have even the capability to "do it too," and other than that, the gender comparison is completely inept and self-serving.

Again, that tiny bit % is irrelevant, because if men could they WOULD.

 

The double standard is a convenient illusion. Time to come sit at the adult table and do away with it.

No, you come at the table. You seem to be starving.

[Emilia]

 

No, you come at the table. You seem to be starving.

 

 

 

. . . . . . . . .

[dasein]

Hence the extremely common talk of men that they would never ever even consider dating let alone marrying a woman they, themselves, slept early with.

 

I used to buy this, and interestingly it's always women who bring it up, I've never heard of a man refusing to date a woman because she slept with him early for years, not since the 80s anyway (it's 2012), and only among older acquaintances. Other than a few outliers, it hasn't borne out true at all IME. Many of my friends are married to women who slept with them very early. I have proceeded to date many women who slept with me early. By and large, it's an archaic excuse today, used by women who think they should be able to pull trains in plain view at parties one day and walk right down the aisle with any of those guys she chooses the next. We don't live on the set of "Happy Days" any more if we ever did. Men who won't date crazy, impulsive, promiscuous women, don't date them because THEY ARE CRAZY.

 

I have exactly one acquaintance (of thousands, he sticks out in my memory) who demanded virginity in his wife (during bull sessions in school) when he wasn't a virgin himself, he was an orthodox Jew. Turned out the woman he fell in love with wasn't a virgin, he married her anyway. If any men do express that preference, it usually gets put aside very quickly when the rubber hits the road so to speak.

 

But I get it, poor downtrodden women, always being abused and held back by the patriarchy. Waaaaa... yawn.

 

What? Where did you find these "facts"? Women are not more tolerant of male promiscuity these days (unless you count gold-diggers and desperate women of course).

 

Have been to many music shows in the day, have seen what goes on backstage, have seen women screaming and throwing panties at Elvis... and at a Twilight opening. Spare me. "Ryan Gosling slept with three women last week and just asked me out? Hell no I'm not going out with a dog like that!" Puh-leeze. Only the tiniest portion of male celebrities, royalty, rich, models etc. has the same control over obtaining sex that the average woman does, and women are very tolerant of promiscuity in those few men, else Geraldo and Wilt Chamberlain would not have convinced thousands of women to sleep with them.

 

Why? Who decided that the man has to be in that tiny %? to be a double standard?

 

Not "who," but rather the requirement that the two classes composing a double standard must be similarly situated did.

 

And again. You're trying to ignore a very important part of how relationships are formed and maintained. I don't know why. Again, who decided that relationships, marriages etc should be left out of the equation when they do make a very important part of the equation and how women respond to sexual advances by men?

 

Relationships, marriage, how women respond to men are irrelevant to the claim that if men and women are judged differently for sex (whether for the end purpose of dating, marriage, owning a pet, or fixing my car), then it's a double standard. The analysis begins and ends with "are women judged differently?" and if so "are the classes similarly situated enough to comprise a double standard?" The -ends- to which they are judged, their motives for whatever behavior they choose, etc., ALL irrelevant to whether a double standard exists.

 

Well, if you've seen the recent news Charlize Theron just had an interview where she discussed that she couldn't find a proper man to have a relationship with. Still single at 35. So guess what? No sex for her either.

 

She can be single and still have THOUSANDS of men lining up to sex her with a single tweet, so yes, irrelevant. But OK, IIRC, she is divorced, so has managed to find at least one relationship, and also she has movies coming out. Bemoaning her solitary, single life wouldn't have anything at all to do with selling tickets, would it?

 

Please look up the first porn site and see how male administrators and male porn users describe the woman pornstars (sluts) and the male ones (hunks, studs, "da man" etc).

 

If you ever hear a straight man describe a male pornstar, or any man for that matter, other than in some unusual context (film reviewer, parody, who knows) as a "hunk" or a "stud," I will kiss your ass on national television. And besides, what's your point? That porn sites determine whether a double standard exists IRL dealings between men and women?

[Anela]

The 3 date rule applies to both MEN AND WOMEN. If you don't give it up after 3 dates most will move on to someone who will. Men are honest about it. Women usually aren't.

 

I never agreed with the three date rule. if someone decided I needed to get naked with them that quickly (or be unworthy of their attention), that would be a real put-off for me.

[Jeremy87]

I never agreed with the three date rule. if someone decided I needed to get naked with them that quickly (or be unworthy of their attention), that would be a real put-off for me.

 

you all say that. women have said that to me, then I seduce them with my charm and its unforgettable sex. you can say its a put off till the cows come home yet women come begging for more sex.

[silvermercy]

I used to buy this, and interestingly it's always women who bring it up, I've never heard of a man refusing to date a woman because she slept with him early for years, not since the 80s anyway (it's 2012), and only among older acquaintances. Other than a few outliers, it hasn't borne out true at all IME. Many of my friends are married to women who slept with them very early. I have proceeded to date many women who slept with me early. By and large, it's an archaic excuse today, used by women who think they should be able to pull trains in plain view at parties one day and walk right down the aisle with any of those guys she chooses the next. We don't live on the set of "Happy Days" any more if we ever did. Men who won't date crazy, impulsive, promiscuous women, don't date them because THEY ARE CRAZY.

How old are you? You seem much older than me. The marriages/dates resulting today from early sex are as rare and dry as water in the Sahara desert. So, no. Actually, I speak from experience. It's almost always men who bring it up.

 

I have young promiscuous friends and they all face they same troubles with their dating. Just look up male message boards, like body-building forums or somewhere where males frequent most. Plenty of such examples. It's MEN saying these words, that they would not date someone they slept with early on. And no, we're not talking about crazy, impulsive women here but normal women with less numbers. Plus, somedude81 also confirmed it in one of his earlier posts that he heard men saying that. So it's not a lie invented by women again. (All women do is constantly lie according to you so as to suit their own agenda? Well, how cliche...)

 

I have exactly one acquaintance (of thousands, he sticks out in my memory) who demanded virginity in his wife (during bull sessions in school) when he wasn't a virgin himself, he was an orthodox Jew. Turned out the woman he fell in love with wasn't a virgin, he married her anyway. If any men do express that preference, it usually gets put aside very quickly when the rubber hits the road so to speak.

Yeah. Another rare example. Exceptions do not a rule make.

 

But I get it, poor downtrodden women, always being abused and held back by the patriarchy. Waaaaa... yawn.

And those poor men.... they are always manipulated by deceptive, lying evil women... Bigger yawn. I need a double espresso.

 

Have been to many music shows in the day, have seen what goes on backstage, have seen women screaming and throwing panties at Elvis... and at a Twilight opening. Spare me. "Ryan Gosling slept with three women last week and just asked me out? Hell no I'm not going out with a dog like that!" Puh-leeze. Only the tiniest portion of male celebrities, royalty, rich, models etc. has the same control over obtaining sex that the average woman does, and women are very tolerant of promiscuity in those few men, else Geraldo and Wilt Chamberlain would not have convinced thousands of women to sleep with them.

Yeah, what about Beatles, Elvis and Twilight? You know you're talking about groupies here? Normal fans would never agree to sharing their idols. And normal fans are average women. Have you witnessed the cat-fights between fans in message boards? "He's mine." "No, he's mine" blah blah... They're not tolerant to sharing them at all! Nope. They also get insanely jealous of girlfriends, wives etc. They don't wanna anyone else but them touching their idol. I've been in fandoms and fan clubs for too long and know them inside out. My best friend is a total fanatic 26 year old Twilight fan (not groupie) and she also confirms that. She also gets a bit jealous every time a love-interest of the actors is mentioned. I used to belong in the news section of other fan clubs, too, so I know how fandom works. FANS are not groupies, they are average women, and groupies are not exactly fans nor do they belong in the wider promiscuous women category. Groupies are a very specific category of promiscuous women.

 

Not "who," but rather the requirement that the two classes composing a double standard must be similarly situated did.

Who makes this requirement? For me, men and women are equal.

 

Relationships, marriage, how women respond to men are irrelevant to the claim that if men and women are judged differently for sex (whether for the end purpose of dating, marriage, owning a pet, or fixing my car), then it's a double standard. The analysis begins and ends with "are women judged differently?" and if so "are the classes similarly situated enough to comprise a double standard?" The -ends- to which they are judged, their motives for whatever behavior they choose, etc., ALL irrelevant to whether a double standard exists.

How is it irrelevant again? Why is the "end mean" irrelevant? You don't explain. I think it's very relevant. Because It's INTEGRAL part of the equation. You can't toss it away and only talk about sex on its own! I explained that how women respond to sexual advances by men has a lot to do with the man's character and if he wants to play them or not. This will determine if he gets sex or not (the woman, too, as women also get very horny). If there were no male players etc (i.e. bad male behavioral pattern), women would give sex more easily.

 

She can be single and still have THOUSANDS of men lining up to sex her with a single tweet, so yes, irrelevant. But OK, IIRC, she is divorced, so has managed to find at least one relationship, and also she has movies coming out. Bemoaning her solitary, single life wouldn't have anything at all to do with selling tickets, would it?

But she WON'T because she's looking for a committed relationship! So, NOT irrelevant! (Eh? You're gonna bitch on Charlize Theron now? Why does the movie promotion interview has anything to do with the fact that she's single? She's single and sexless regardless of films, movie ads, interviews etc. Just what are you talking about? )

 

If you ever hear a straight man describe a male pornstar, or any man for that matter, other than in some unusual context (film reviewer, parody, who knows) as a "hunk" or a "stud," I will kiss your ass on national television. And besides, what's your point? That porn sites determine whether a double standard exists IRL dealings between men and women?

Well I have! And I'd be happy to quote a few porn sites but I won't be allowed I guess. The most common thing you'll hear is phrases like "yeah, choke that slutty bitch, you're da best man! Show that slut! You go big boy! woohooo! etc etc". Is the man not being praised here? Is the women being shamed? So, I mentioned porn sites because it gives great proof that it can be men (a huge deal of them) contributing to names likes "sluts" as well as the double standard. That was my point.

[silvermercy]

you all say that. women have said that to me, then I seduce them with my charm and its unforgettable sex. you can say its a put off till the cows come home yet women come begging for more sex.

And then you dump them right? lol

[zengirl]

I used to buy this, and interestingly it's always women who bring it up, I've never heard of a man refusing to date a woman because she slept with him early for years, not since the 80s anyway (it's 2012), and only among older acquaintances. Other than a few outliers, it hasn't borne out true at all IME. Many of my friends are married to women who slept with them very early. I have proceeded to date many women who slept with me early.

 

I've heard of it, but FTR I agree this is fairly rare and many people do marry and seriously date people they sleep with what I'd consider very early on (anywhere in the first 5 dates).

 

What I disagree with is this:

 

By and large, it's an archaic excuse today, used by women who think they should be able to pull trains in plain view at parties one day and walk right down the aisle with any of those guys she chooses the next.

 

Rather, it's something women start to think when they get hurt and dumped or disappointed not long after sex multiple times in a row. The truth is, if you sleep with people you date on early dates, you're going to sleep with many people who aren't right for you long-term. And that's the real danger of it -- not that a guy will lose respect for you, but that you have no idea who that guy even is yet, nor he you, so neither of you is in a place to commit to each other!

 

We don't live on the set of "Happy Days" any more if we ever did. Men who won't date crazy, impulsive, promiscuous women, don't date them because THEY ARE CRAZY.

 

Also agree, FWIW.