Disenchantedly Yours Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 The overexaggeration by fringe females The redundant personal attacks of joyless poles.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Repeat after me. "Not everything is about me. Not everything is about me. Not everything is about me. Not everything is about me. Not everything is about me. Not everything is about me. Not everything is about me. Not everything is about me. Not everything is about me. Not everything is about me. Not everything is about me. Not everything is about me." Now take a deep breath. You're welcome. What is she suppose to be thanking you for? That you dismissed her point of view an spoke condsendingly toward her with the little diatribe you created above? 1
Disenchantedly Yours Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 I'm not sure what the women on here are arguing for, to be honest. I don't think any guy on here is advocating date-rape, or saying that he is "entitled" to access to your body. But just as your body is your own, our FEELINGS are our own, and they are what they are. I DO think that the guys on here are saying is that if you do not have sex, then he feels he is getting a raw deal out of it. Are you women saying that we are wrong for feelings this way?? Imajerk, wouldn't you agree that the statement, "our feelings are our own, and they are what they are.." can apply to both men and women alike? If I was dating someone that felt like he was getting a raw deal just because sex wasn't happening as soon as he wanted, I don't think he would be someone that really valued *me*, so much as he was looking for me to perform on command to meet his needs and requirements strictly whe *he* felt ready. The reality is that if one party in the relationship doesn't feel ready to take something to the next level, the other party either compromises a bit until their partner is ready or yes, they move on. How many women out there do you think compromised and waited on their men to feel comfortable with commitment? I know so many women that had to wait a long time before their partners reached a place of being emotionally where she was. Should they have cut out and run on their partners and said, "He isn't giving me what I need emotionally right this second so forget this." Or do you think a better approach is that she makes some compromises and see how things play out? So do I agree that it is wrong for a man to feel like he is getting a raw deal for not getting sex? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. It depends on the circumstance and what is really going on. Although I can understand men needing sex to feel close and wanting to express that with a woman they are interested in, I don't understand him feeling like he is getting a "raw deal" if it doesn't happen at the exact moment *he* wants it to happen. What about building up to that? Why is that offensive to men? It seems like the main goal for a lot of guys is just getting the sex and not getting to know the woman. And I think that's what is frustrating for some of us as women. I would even say that it is JUST as frustrating as maybe what men experience when they are ready for sex and their partner isn't. This is the best analogy I can think of. You meet a guy. Every time you and he get together, you "hang out" and do something casual, simple and inexpensive. Not too much planning and effort on his part but you are into him so you go along. Then you happen to hear that for the previous girls he dated, he took them on elaborate dates from the beginning. How would that make you feel? Probably not great. I mean, it is his money and you are not entitled to have him spend it on you. But still, when you compare how he acts with you versus how he acted with all of his previous women, it sure is hard for you to feel special to him huh. I don't agree with this analogy! A woman not having sex with a man right away doesn't mean she isn't putting in effort and time for him. It also doesn't mean that she isn't already compromising to make him happy on other things. You don't know what a woman may be compromising on or waiting for in relationships. I said this earlier and I will ask it again. I am not a virgin. Does that mean I am required to sleep with every man that wants to sleep with me just because I slept with other men??????? I had casual sex before. Does that mean I need to keep having casual sex just so I can be "fair" to all the guys and what they all want sexually from me??? Its like you want to hold women in contempt of their own sexuality. It's like you guys want women to feel bad about their sexuality because you think what she gives you should be contingent on what she gave other men. I don't even know how you could ever have a successful relationship if you hold that mentality. It would be like me demanding a man buy me jewerly if he bought his ex jewerly. Relationships don't work that way! If you want to be with a woman that sexuality is dependent on you, then purchase a professional to sleep with. There are way too many variables you are over looking within relationships and dynamcis. There are lots of women out there waiting on men and making compromises too. But usually the things they wait on aren't sexual. It works very differently for women, from how it does for men. If you are dating a player who always slept with the girl on the first date but you get him to wait to have sex with you, then you probably scored a coup. If however, a guy is dating a woman who slept with all these guys on the first date and she hasn't had sex with him yet, he will feel like a chump if he finds out. Something for women to think about if they are considering a "wild girl" phase. I realize some women will take offence at this, but I am giving you my honest thoughts and feelings on this, that suspect most other guys on here share. To be honest, I don't like "players" who sleep with a bunch of women on the first date. But if a guy in his younger days had some experiences and has since grown past that and was looking for the same things I was, I don't see the problem. I am not the same person I was 10 years ago. I am not the same person I was 5 years ago. I suspect that will continue to happen. So the choices I made 10 years ago aren't the choices I make now. If a woman slept with a bunch of guys when she was younger and now wants to seriously date you and wait to have sex is a totally reasonable request. She isn't trying to make fun of you or taunt you or tease you. She is trying to make the best choices for her at that place and time. You give women no room to be human beings. You give them no room to make choices about their bodies without them having to be worried that they aren't servicing men left and right just because of things she decided to do at another point in her life. People change. Our choices change. Women aren't entitled to give you sex just because she gave another guy sex. 2
joystickd Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) The redundant personal attacks of joyless poles. I just call it like I see it. If you get so emotional that you misinterpret someone saying withholding as entitlement then you are on the fringe. Reading comprehension is very much needed. No man here stated anything about entitlement. What I said was more of an observation than a personal attack. Edited October 4, 2012 by joystickd
Sanman Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 I don't agree with this analogy! A woman not having sex with a man right away doesn't mean she isn't putting in effort and time for him. It also doesn't mean that she isn't already compromising to make him happy on other things. You don't know what a woman may be compromising on or waiting for in relationships. I said this earlier and I will ask it again. I am not a virgin. Does that mean I am required to sleep with every man that wants to sleep with me just because I slept with other men??????? I had casual sex before. Does that mean I need to keep having casual sex just so I can be "fair" to all the guys and what they all want sexually from me??? Its like you want to hold women in contempt of their own sexuality. It's like you guys want women to feel bad about their sexuality because you think what she gives you should be contingent on what she gave other men. I don't even know how you could ever have a successful relationship if you hold that mentality. It would be like me demanding a man buy me jewerly if he bought his ex jewerly. Relationships don't work that way! If you want to be with a woman that sexuality is dependent on you, then purchase a professional to sleep with. There are way too many variables you are over looking within relationships and dynamcis. There are lots of women out there waiting on men and making compromises too. But usually the things they wait on aren't sexual. To be honest, I don't like "players" who sleep with a bunch of women on the first date. But if a guy in his younger days had some experiences and has since grown past that and was looking for the same things I was, I don't see the problem. I am not the same person I was 10 years ago. I am not the same person I was 5 years ago. I suspect that will continue to happen. So the choices I made 10 years ago aren't the choices I make now. If a woman slept with a bunch of guys when she was younger and now wants to seriously date you and wait to have sex is a totally reasonable request. She isn't trying to make fun of you or taunt you or tease you. She is trying to make the best choices for her at that place and time. You give women no room to be human beings. You give them no room to make choices about their bodies without them having to be worried that they aren't servicing men left and right just because of things she decided to do at another point in her life. People change. Our choices change. Women aren't entitled to give you sex just because she gave another guy sex. It is not about not giving women room to grow and be human beings. Women are free to do as they please. However, that does not mean that men are not allowed to judge your actions. What you are expressing here is that you are unhappy that a man may judge you based on your past actions. So, do you have to sleep with someone if you had casual sex years ago or even last week? No, but the person does have a right to honesty and decide whether he wants to stick around. If you have a habit of sleeping with men too fast and are trying to grow by taking things slower with a new guy, that is a good personal growth step for a woman. However, the man has the right to decide if he wants to be the guy that she uses to practice her personal growth. Similar to how many women find older virgins too much work and prefer to next them, men have the right to find a woman that has figured out her issues with men and is not trying to figure out a healthier way of relating to men. This goes for people with drug problems, people without good jobs/careers, or anything else too. Hence, it is not that you must sleep with us as quickly as you do with others. However, if you are honest and tell me that you had a ONS with Chad, the bartender, last week because you knew he did not mean anything to you, but you want me to wait 2 months because you want something real with me, I may not agree with your choices and choose to leave. OTOH, I may be fine with it. The same thing may be true if Chad was last week or 10 years ago. The reality is that we all have the choice to compromise or not based on how we feel over a variety of traits. That is not entitlement. That is our right to choose a partner we are happy with. Neither choice makes one a bad person. 2
Thieves Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) As far as getting angry or frustrated, I don't think I've ever seen that. (Of course, I've never dated any men, either). If it happens, it's most likely because the guy feels deceived. If a woman is is flirtatious, dresses provocatively, etc., then most men assume that she's sexually available. If a woman like that then holds out and starts acting like she's looking for a serious relationship, a man might feel deceived, resulting in frustration and possibly anger. I disagree. Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, EasyHeart, but are you basically saying that a woman who dresses "provocatively" and a woman who wants a serious relationship are exclusive from one another? I have to ask, what does this mean for women who are so-called 'sluts' who dress prudently but are very flirtatious? What happens for the women who are naturally flirty as a person and also dress well to fit their body? Honestly, how many hoops do women have to jump through in order to safely avoid not being seen as 'loose', or not quality enough for a real relationship? How many hoops before their body and their clothes are seen as theirs and not a soundboard for their sexual history or romantic intentions? I realize that all of these questions seem to be coming out like gunfire, but it's intentional. Really look closely at what you're writing here, and see if it actually makes sense when you pick it apart. Because when you do, it sounds a little silly. For example, why is a woman who dresses 'like that' suddenly not allowed to 'hold out' on sex if she so feels like it? Why would a man assume that sex is what she primarily wants, and that she would participate very quickly in it? And how is that men can dress basically in whichever way they want, as revealing or 'modest' as they choose, and not much is assumed by others about their sexual behavior or what kind of relationship they're looking for? The last question is especially important, because it's essentially assuming the behavior and sexual morals of another random human being mostly based on their clothes. And unfortunately, most of the human beings in this situation happen to be... women. Also: what is your definition of a woman dressing in a provocative manner? An already attractive woman (facially and physically appealing) dressed in tight jeans and a low-cut shirt? I'm not asking this out of a desire to be a smart-ass, but I'm truly interested. On the flipside, what is your definition of a man who dresses provocatively? Certainly you or any person would do a double-take if they met a frustrated woman who felt deceived because a man she was interested in kept dressing provocatively in tight jeans and tight wife beaters which happened to show off his fit body... and therefore, she felt 'angry' when the man seemed uncertain about having sex. Would you also be willing to go out on a limb and say that this said attractive guy who is fit, flirty, and dresses very well is not looking for a serious relationship, simply because of those things? I mean, whose fault is it really if someone were to assume the sexual availability of another person without actually bothering to know them at least a little? Because wouldn't that seem, like I said, a bit silly? I'm not usually one for the 'Men think this, women that' debates, because it's not all black and white, but this is one thing that I see a lot and that I had to point out. It just bugs me. Edited October 4, 2012 by Thieves
Disenchantedly Yours Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 It is not about not giving women room to grow and be human beings. I feel like it really is to some degree. There is another statement that gets made alot online about how women partied when they were younger and now that they are 30+ and single, it's their own fault. There is this mentality that some men hold that don't think women are people that need to grow and developed as human beings just like men. There are some men that don't allow women that space that they probably would gladly take if a woman allowed him to have that space to grow and develop. Women are free to do as they please. However, that does not mean that men are not allowed to judge your actions. But we aren't free to do as we please if we are expected to have sex as soon as a guy wants it or if we are expected to provide everything we once provided to another man. I had casual sex before. Does that mean I need to keep having casual sex? Does that mean I am a horrible person? Does that mean I'm not allowed to wait to have sex in a relationship? What you are expressing here is that you are unhappy that a man may judge you based on your past actions. No. I am unhappy with the idea that some men expect a woman do service him exactly the same way as when she engaged in sex or certain sexual acts with another man. There isn't one man here that would want to be held up to the responsibiliy of giving commitment to a woman just because he gave commitment to another woman. There isn't one woman here that would expect a man to give her automatc commitment just because he at one point gave commitment to different women at different times. So, do you have to sleep with someone if you had casual sex years ago or even last week? No, but the person does have a right to honesty and decide whether he wants to stick around. I agree. But that's not really what is being said. A lot of guys talked about an expectation that he get everything to a "t" on how she may have interacted with other men. That is what is off.
maybealone Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 This is the best analogy I can think of. You meet a guy. Every time you and he get together, you "hang out" and do something casual, simple and inexpensive. Not too much planning and effort on his part but you are into him so you go along. Then you happen to hear that for the previous girls he dated, he took them on elaborate dates from the beginning. How would that make you feel? Probably not great. Actually, I would feel pretty damn great about this situation. I would feel like he is trying to get to know me, not trying to "win" me with some generic dating plan he has used a dozen times before. Which brings me to another point: Dating is subjective. I don't agree with the "Must have sex by the third date" rule because three dates with one guy could be completely different from three dates with another guy. For example, three dates that consist of daylong hikes are completely different from three dates that consist of watching a movie without talking to each other. Same with the "Must have sex within a month" rule. A month of one date a week of going out to dinner is completely different from one date the first week, two dates the second week, followed by even more as the sexual tension builds along with the feelings of really and truly wanting to spend time together. 1
Sanman Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) I feel like it really is to some degree. There is another statement that gets made alot online about how women partied when they were younger and now that they are 30+ and single, it's their own fault. There is this mentality that some men hold that don't think women are people that need to grow and developed as human beings just like men. There are some men that don't allow women that space that they probably would gladly take if a woman allowed him to have that space to grow and develop. Again, with the 30+ issue. It does not mean that women cannot make mistakes or do not need to grow. However, choices have consequences. If you do party and choose to forgo serious relationship prospects, it is you life and you are entitled to do so. However, that does not mean that you are are allowed to pressure the guy you date at age 31,32,33,etc. into a quick decision about marriage and children because your biological clock is ticking. A man at that age may still want to date for several years prior to marriage. Similarly, if a man is 30 and chose to party through his twenties without getting a serious education or job skills that is his choice. However, he can't complain if women his age do not want to date him because he is behind the curve career-wise compared to his peers and cannot help support a family. The point is that growth and development are fine, but choices still have consequences. But we aren't free to do as we please if we are expected to have sex as soon as a guy wants it or if we are expected to provide everything we once provided to another man. I had casual sex before. Does that mean I need to keep having casual sex? Does that mean I am a horrible person? Does that mean I'm not allowed to wait to have sex in a relationship? Again, whether a woman wants to meet these expectations is her choice. The consequence is that she may lose some men. Similar to above, a man can choose to stop paying for dates or lavishing a woman with gifts. However, he risks losing women with that expectation of a man. No. I am unhappy with the idea that some men expect a woman do service him exactly the same way as when she engaged in sex or certain sexual acts with another man. There isn't one man here that would want to be held up to the responsibiliy of giving commitment to a woman just because he gave commitment to another woman. There isn't one woman here that would expect a man to give her automatc commitment just because he at one point gave commitment to different women at different times. I agree. But that's not really what is being said. A lot of guys talked about an expectation that he get everything to a "t" on how she may have interacted with other men. That is what is off. And yet many women expect commitment out of a man. If a man was previously engaged or married and states that he does not want to be engaged or married to a current love interest, there are most certainly anger and hurt feelings as that woman wants those things and questions whether this man truly loved her the way he did the other woman. Both men and women want not only what others got, but more. We all want to feel that we are special to that other person. As a side note to my comment, I have noticed this theme in my life as well. All decisions have consequences. I have noticed that since finishing my education and becoming a professional, I no longer have women's interest as a casual fling the way I did in my student years. Now, every women I talk to is interested in a relationship. Yet, I struggled to find such a relationship before being financially secure. Now, I can't find a fling if my life depended on it. Funny how everything has consequences. Edited October 4, 2012 by Sanman 1
Dafa Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 As a thought Anela, when someone's deliberately attempting to evoke an emotional response through baiting, it's worth your while to ignore the person. This thread is interesting since it's a study in how desperately tied to ego, sex is for some guys and how it's the ultimate goal. In viewing sex from this perspective, it's the acquisitional mindset where women as purveyors of sex, become less than human. Note how the goal is "sex", instead of connecting with another human being? Ladies, this is fantastic material for you to read. If you take sex off the table and the guy sticks around because he views you as more than an object, enjoying connecting with another human being, hold on tight to this type of man because he's a winner!! It's not the ultimate goal, unless what the guy wants is only sex and that is not what we are talking about. In a relationship both people should enjoy sex, yet in that last paragraph you are using sex as a tool to test your partner. The way i see it, a tool is something that you use and have no emotional or physical attachment to. I would find it hurtful that dating a woman who "functionalizes" sex. And with "functionalize" i mean completely suppressing the need for it and therefore using it at will. Even a cell phone nowadays is more than a "tool". We are somewhat dependent on it. If we loose it we get worried. My point is: sex is (at least for me) an urge, something that you want to experience with someone you know and like. It's an intimate experience. If a woman is in such an straightforward way suppressing that urge, then it stands to assume that she does not value it as much as i do and therefore an assymmetry appears. Sex should be something that both people should want to do equally. Taking the example of a previous poster that said that she "allows" her boyfriend to put saliva in her mouth... Jesus, if i was her boyfriend and saw this, i would never kiss her again! Simply because i don't want her to go through this ordeal of exchanging fluids. And please don't give me that crap about "oh, i got burned so now i want to play it safe". I am not the guy you dated before, and that easily becomes noticeable after 1-2 dates (and this is assuming we are perfect strangers at the start). Personally, i find it disrespectful when people use this argument. Let's assume woman A was played on by man B and is now dating man C. "A" wants to take it slow with "C" because she was hurt by "B". "A" is making "C" wait because instinctively "A" is assuming "C" is like "B". "C" is not "B" and that should be apparent after a few talks.
xxoo Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 And yet many women expect commitment out of a man. If a man was previously engaged or married and states that he does not want to be engaged or married to a current love interest, there are most certainly anger and hurt feelings as that woman wants those things and questions whether this man truly loved her the way he did the other woman. Both men and women want not only what others got, but more. We all want to feel that we are special to that other person. That's a good point. I've seen that happen in dating situations, both here on LS and IRL--a divorced guy being very cautious about marrying again, and the new girlfriend having angst. Would men consider the woman who sticks around, even when marriage is off the table, to be of better character and a stronger love? Men want women who clearly want to have sex with them--so much, hopefully, that they will do so eagerly for a lifetime. Men can not easily gauge if a woman's delay is reasonable caution or disinterest. Women want men who clearly want to commit to them--so much, hopefully, that they will do so eagerly for a lifetime. Women can not easily gauge if a man's delay is reasonable caution or disinterest. Either way, it can be very hurtful to learn that they gave the last person, or the next person, what you hoped to have, whether it be their sexual passion or their commitment. 1
xxoo Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 And please don't give me that crap about "oh, i got burned so now i want to play it safe". I am not the guy you dated before, and that easily becomes noticeable after 1-2 dates (and this is assuming we are perfect strangers at the start). Personally, i find it disrespectful when people use this argument. Let's assume woman A was played on by man B and is now dating man C. "A" wants to take it slow with "C" because she was hurt by "B". "A" is making "C" wait because instinctively "A" is assuming "C" is like "B". "C" is not "B" and that should be apparent after a few talks. Yes, exactly! And the women you date now are not the women you dated before. A wants sex quickly with C because he was hurt by B, who strung him along, feigning sexual interest for attention. A is dumping C because instinctively A is assuming C is like B. C is not B and that should be apparent after a few talks. But the problem is, it is not apparent....partly because neither men nor women who get played are particularly skilled at picking up the signs.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 The point is that growth and development are fine, but choices still have consequences. It's a fine line Sanman. If growth and development are fine, then why would a woman or man have to pay "consequences" to someone else for things they decided to do with others? I am not saying that if a woman has a extensive sexual past that a man can't say, "well that's not for me." I totally think that's okay. Sexuality, like anyhing else in a relationship, is dependent on how compatible a couple is. Where I get hung up are men that are actively bitter or angery toward women that want to wait or expect her to spread her legs the second he wants because of what she may have done with previous men. And yet many women expect commitment out of a man. If a man was previously engaged or married and states that he does not want to be engaged or married to a current love interest, there are most certainly anger and hurt feelings as that woman wants those things and questions whether this man truly loved her the way he did the other woman. Both men and women want not only what others got, but more. We all want to feel that we are special to that other person. Yes, women sometimes expect commitment from men. But not the second they meet! These things take time. I don't know many healthy women that expect a man to tie her down with commitment and marriage right away just because he may have been committed to or married to another woman in his past relationship experience! To expect that would be ridiculous. So why then do so many men expect women to have sex with him right away? Usually marriage for most people takes year plus to develop toward. Usually sex happens much faster anyway. But we aren't talking about guys having to wait a year for sex. Yet it's okay for men to demand women spread their legs right away even before they actually even want to give her anything of him or commit to her right away sometimes. And yes, both men and women want to feel special to one another. But if me nare willing to have sex right away with a woman but not willing to commit to her, then it's really all about him wanting to feel good and not caring what she may want. And not wanting to give her the time to let her needs be experienced through emotional intimacy and getting to know him. As for consequences, while I agree to an extent that choices have consequences, I don't understand why you think choices a woman made previously are "consequences" that need to be paid to you. Consequences are when a woman sleeps too quick with a man and he then isn't interested any more. They are not choices a woman made before meeting you that helped her grow, change or develope as a human being.
Recommended Posts