Reserved men and their formerly "wild" girlfriends

[Imajerk17]

Interesting thread Wholigan.

 

I myself have used the phrase "not girlfriend material". And then after I do, I actually feel guilty. See, I could be talking about someone who came through for me in a very big way. Or I could be talking about someone close to someone who was there for me.

 

That said, I really, really wish the women on here who are looking for a relationship took their roles as sexual gatekeepers seriously. More seriously than they seem to do so now.

 

Here's the thing: Just as women instinctually feel more feminine by the efforts of a man (whom she likes) to court her, men instinctually feel more masculine by how easily you give yourselves sexually to us. So your strategy of being an easy lay for guys you're not that into, while you "hold it out" for the guy you want to be your boyfriend is a horrible one. It might seem like the self-protective thing to do. to you and your girlfriends But when Mr Right (whom you didn't sleep with for a month) discovers that your usual MO is to drive over to the guy's place and put out by "Date 2" , he will feel duped.

 

You see it here on these threads lately. A woman with wild pasts meets a guy whom she views as a keeper and who is also somewhat "conservative" (which I don't think is just a coincidence--most relationship-oriented guys tend to be more conservative than the playas). So she pretends to be more conservative herself. Then when the truth comes out, hell breaks loose.

[Lonely Ronin]

The general tone of d'Argennes' posts may be off-putting but there's little he's said that I could honestly disagree with. Like say "that definitely isn't true !" too.

 

 

As I've stated, I don't have anything against promiscuous girls or guys. "Sluts" or "dogs"... Many of both in my circle of friends. But as far as completely natural feelings go- with no intentional judgement, malice, or attempt to belittle anyone- I just won't, whether I like it or not, have the same type of reverence/respect for a girl I'm with knowing she's given herself to loads of guys. Especially if I know many were turds. It's hard for me to look at a female as a "goddess" when I know she has a past of being a slut, the same way I wouldn't expect a female to look at a guy as her "knight in shining armor" knowing he was f*cking all sorts of women without discretion. Doesn't mean there's ill will or bitterness in my feeling that, or that I couldn't think a "slut" was an awesome girl.

 

I've got love for the cool, promiscuous girls I've been with. It just never feels like the magical privilege of an experience that being with a "choosier" girl of equal coolness does, right or wrong. And again, genders reversed I could see it being the same.

 

Any small negative judgement or lack of respect I do have for certain promiscuous people, is simply because I see giving yourself physically to lots of people with limited discretion as a kind of half-assed means of self validation. And I only get that feeling if they have little else to derive self-worth from. And even then it doesn't make me dislike them. It's kind of like overeating. I have no ill will toward the obese, but when someone needs to constantly eat for emotional reinforcement, with little regard of their food's quality, it's harder for me to see them as an admirable, badass person. And admirable, badass people are the types I like to surround myself with.

 

The problem I see on LS more than anywhere else, is no one lists any type of quantifiers/qualifiers. It's always just a bunch of finger pointing hand waving bs. she's a slut because she had X partners, or she did this with an ex and not me. The list goes on and on, but it's almost always someone complaining about what they can't get or think they can't get but feel they deserve.

 

 

my point is:

How do you quantify slutty/dog behavior, when you're talking about people who have been dating anywhere from 0-20+ years?

 

is it?

1. total partners?

2. partners in a given time period

3. how they meet the partners

4. how freely/soon they slept with a given partner

5. what did they do with a given partner

6. etc etc

[animalover]

People who try really hard to sound smart amuse me . Nice try, buddy.

 

I'm conservative fiscally when it comes to foreign policy, and socially liberal, so HuffPo isn't my cup of tea. Hatemongers like you aren't my cup of tea either. Your views on women are repulsive, I'm trying to give you a break because it's clear that you were badly hurt by a woman and it left you feeling very insecure, but you've crossed too far into misogyny territory.

 

He at least can sound smart... you just keep trying!

[animalover]

The problem I see on LS more than anywhere else, is no one lists any type of quantifiers/qualifiers. It's always just a bunch of finger pointing hand waving bs. she's a slut because she had X partners, or she did this with an ex and not me. The list goes on and on, but it's almost always someone complaining about what they can't get or think they can't get but feel they deserve.

 

 

my point is:

How do you quantify slutty/dog behavior, when you're talking about people who have been dating anywhere from 0-20+ years?

 

is it?

1. total partners?

2. partners in a given time period

3. how they meet the partners

4. how freely/soon they slept with a given partner

5. what did they do with a given partner

6. etc etc

 

Just one point! How does this person approach sex!

 

Easy... but it wasn't in your list!

[BetheButterfly]

Nobody has the right to not be offended.

 

I have no problems calling a person a slut directly to their face based on my own value judgement at the time. It's rude and judgmental... but those same people are very often just as rude and judgmental and hurtful to others.

 

How does calling them a derogatory name help them in any way?

[Mme. Chaucer]

lol, i think it's pretty much anything but a damond.

 

It's steamy poop.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I don't have to "try" and "sound smart".

 

Hm. Maybe if you did "try," you actually might sound smart.

 

nor am I a misoygnist.

 

Yes, you are. You might not know what it means - you don't know how to spell it, in any case.

 

Unless your plethora of posts are just a trolling joke from a wisecracker. In that case, I think you're awesome! You had me!

[William]

Let's end the disrespectful comments and get this thread back on topic. Thanks.

[animalover]

Hm. Maybe if you did "try," you actually might sound smart.

 

 

 

Yes, you are. You might not know what it means - you don't know how to spell it, in any case.

 

Unless your plethora of posts are just a trolling joke from a wisecracker. In that case, I think you're awesome! You had me!

 

So when you guys are lacking arguments you decide to attack? He is just putting forward his opinion and call him a misogynist (person who hates women) is totally out of proportion, in any case he would dislike women it would be only the promiscuous ones and not women in general... maybe you should yourself look at the dictionary...

[Mme. Chaucer]

So when you guys are lacking arguments you decide to attack? He is just putting forward his opinion and call him a misogynist (person who hates women) is totally out of proportion, in any case he would dislike women it would be only the promiscuous ones and not women in general... maybe you should yourself look at the dictionary...

 

I don't know if you've actually just joined this month. If you have, check this fellow's posting history. His only purpose on LoveShack appears to be to say crappy things about women.

 

The person who started this thread specifically asked to keep the slut shaming out of it. There are dozens of threads denigrating women who have casual sex, and entire forums on PUA websites devoted to it. Why is it happening here.

 

And slut shaming IS misogynistic.

[animalover]

I don't know if you've actually just joined this month. If you have, check this fellow's posting history. His only purpose on LoveShack appears to be to say crappy things about women.

 

The person who started this thread specifically asked to keep the slut shaming out of it. There are dozens of threads denigrating women who have casual sex, and entire forums on PUA websites devoted to it. Why is it happening here.

 

And slut shaming IS misogynistic.

 

I am very new to this forum and I haven't seen his previous threads and I don't agree with slut shaming as well... but what I have seen here too is a lot of shaming to people who actually don't like to date women who approach sex in a casual manner... people here really seem not able to accept that single concept!

 

By the way, while I am against slut shaming you can't call it misogynistic, a misogynist person hate/dislike women in general... slut shaming is more against the behavior than the women itself!

[William]

As it appears members are reluctant to adhere to the topic in a civil manner, this thread is now closed for review by moderation.