Why do a lot of women expect MORE for LESS?

[Mister Zen]

If that were true, you wouldn't be making threads like this.

 

Can you explain that in more detail?

 

Stating a bias opinion as fact doesn't make it true.

[xxoo]

The sheer truth of the matter is (and I've heard this from some very wise women) is that many women don't fully realize that they are doing a lot of harm to their marriage when they deny their husbands more frequent, enthusiastic intimacy.

 

You are correct. Intimacy is the glue that keeps marriages strong.

 

It is, however, a two way street, and both partners can take the other for granted and stop providing frequent, enthusiastic intimacy, be it in the form of sex or quality conversation or other preferred connection. There is room for both partners to shift the relationship towards more or less intimacy.

[Mister Zen]

This is sick. And untrue.

 

Again.. stating a bias opinion as fact doesn't make it true.

 

Explain yourself. Provide evidence. BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY.

[toscaroscura]

Again.. stating a bias opinion as fact doesn't make it true.

 

Explain yourself. Provide evidence. BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY.

 

I love how you think all your BS opinions aren't "bias".

[Mister Zen]

You do realize that what you term a 'walking wallet' and 'baby daddy' IS the traditional definition of a husband back in the good ol' days that you desire to return to, right?

 

Anyway, I have a question for you. How many women do you actually know in real life, aside from relatives? The truth, now.

 

Probably a lot more than you do.

 

Attack my argument.. don't attack me. That's how you make your point.

 

Also.. are you attempting to JUSTIFY gold diggers and women who only use men a sperm banks? Why are you trying to defend this behavior?

 

Interesting..............

[CrystalCastles]

Yeah that that doesn't really address the question. You've merely (once again) posited that men don't like promiscuous women.

 

Its funny, too, that there are some men who like to whine and whine and whine about how awful women are when they choose to have casual sex. Yet when men have casual sex, they're not "sluts", no sir, they've "got game". Wtf?!

 

In that case, OP, I, being a woman of a small number of partners, will only date men of small numbers. Nobody who "got game". Because if I am not allowed to be the "town's bicycle", then men shouldn't be bicycles either (and don't give me the BS where more partners = better in bed crap, which sounds like a justification for men sleeping around, yet for whatever reason cannot be applied to women sleeping around).

[Mister Zen]

Since LS doesn't have a "trite, petulant whine" section I suppose you're right.

 

 

 

This isn't even a men do it too, issue. I'm more concerned with the fact that the general idea seems to be if a woman sleeps around at some point in her life, she doesn't "deserve" to settle down with a stable partner later on.

 

I just...I don't know, that way of thinking is so odd to me. I'm not saying men have to change the value they place on a minimal number of partners (they don't) but it seems quite ridiculous to sort of base your whole view of someone and what they do or don't deserve around something they could easily just lie about and you have no way to verify.

 

I'm a virgin by the way. Prove me wrong.

 

I love the hypocrisy. In other threads where I talk about being a PUA and using those tactics to sleep with women.. a lot of women felt I didn't "deserve" to settle down later in life either.

 

Funny how accountability is a one sides thing here.

[Mister Zen]

You're clearly confused.

 

 

 

 

I saw that you made a rant about women but with a "not all women" disclaimer. Clearly the solution to your confusion is to not try to have relationships with the women you described if you don't like or understand their behaviour, and instead to try to have relationships with women from the other group.

 

I'm not making a judgement about the women you've described, other than that they clearly aren't for you if you have such negative views about them. They'll be okay - there are plenty of men out there who will appreciate them.

 

So these negative women I describe.. you are ok with them? I'm the problem?

 

We don't seem to have this attitude about con artists and purse snatchers. Can't we just say: "Oh.. just stay away from those bad people". Never mind holding any of them accountable. It is YOUR fault for interacting with bad people.. but its not the bad people's fault for being bad.

 

Funny.

[Mister Zen]

IDK, perhaps he is one of the chumps who 'never got it for free' and now he's angry with women because of that. I presume the notion that because they didn't give it to him he gets some sort of satisfaction from the idea that they later on can't get a stable relationship. Ofcourse it doesn't work that way in reality and suppose that's what's making him all cranky.

 

Cool story bro.

 

Too bad you provide nothing to back it up.

[toscaroscura]

Its funny, too, that there are some men who like to whine and whine and whine about how awful women are when they choose to have casual sex. Yet when men have casual sex, they're not "sluts", no sir, they've "got game". Wtf?!

 

In that case, OP, I, being a woman of a small number of partners, will only date men of small numbers. Nobody who "got game". Because if I am not allowed to be the "town's bicycle", then men shouldn't be bicycles either (and don't give me the BS where more partners = better in bed crap, which sounds like a justification for men sleeping around, yet for whatever reason cannot be applied to women sleeping around).

 

See that's the thing. Men like OP don't seem to believe that women are people. Some people, men AND women, when they are young, often have wild days where they follow their hormones and don't give much thought to who they sleep with. This is a "young person" thing.

 

There are plenty of men out there who sow their wild oats, who pass up the "good women" to have fun and not settle down. And they too, when maturity takes hold and priorities change, later on put those ways behind them and search for a real partner.

 

Somehow, it's totally fine for men, but when women do it they are conniving schemers who only see men as "walking wallets" and "sperm banks". Yet no one accuses the former player looking for a wife as seeing women merely as "baby makers" and "maids". And if anyone did I'd raise my eyebrows because that sounds so bitter.

 

The reason this is so offensive is because it's denying women their humanity. Women are allowed to have their follies of youth too. They are allowed to make mistakes and change their priorities. No one is saying any man has to settle down with a woman whose past disturbs him, but merely having those standards is a far cry from the sheer dehumanization going on in this thread.

[Maleficent]

 

And finally.. there is the situation where a woman will be very "loose" or promiscuous in her youngest and most attractive years.. giving her body away like candy. Then suddenly when she decides she is ready to get "serious":laugh: .. she makes the new man "earn" or "work for" her body. In other words.. he must now pay for something others got free.

 

This is confusing (and stupid).

 

Thoughts?

 

 

We are told giving our body away like candy is bad and when we decide 'ok, we'll give it away only to the person who deserves it' it's still not ok.

 

And they say figuring out what women want is hard...

[Mister Zen]

Its funny, too, that there are some men who like to whine and whine and whine about how awful women are when they choose to have casual sex. Yet when men have casual sex, they're not "sluts", no sir, they've "got game". Wtf?!

 

In that case, OP, I, being a woman of a small number of partners, will only date men of small numbers. Nobody who "got game". Because if I am not allowed to be the "town's bicycle", then men shouldn't be bicycles either (and don't give me the BS where more partners = better in bed crap, which sounds like a justification for men sleeping around, yet for whatever reason cannot be applied to women sleeping around).

 

Everyone knows its easier for a woman to sleep around than a man. Men are not constantly offered sex the way women are.

 

Is this something you are not aware of?

[Mister Zen]

We are told giving our body away like candy is bad and when we decide 'ok, we'll give it away only to the person who deserves it' it's still not ok.

 

And they say figuring out what women want is hard...

 

You're missing the point. A woman who sleeps around lowers her value in the eyes of men. So once that value us lowered it can never be reversed. If she then decides to only give herself to people who "deserve it" she is over pricing herself. If the entire city had a ride.. why should some new guy have to "earn" the same thing? Makes no sense.

 

And again.. its different for men because men generally have to "earn" sex while women just have to be willing. Everyone knows this.

[elaine567]

Everyone knows its easier for a woman to sleep around than a man. Men are not constantly offered sex the way women are.

 

Is this something you are not aware of?

 

I would guess it is very easy for some men and some women to sleep around, if they wanted to.

[CrystalCastles]

A woman who sleeps around lowers her value in the eyes of men.

 

You speak of women, using words like "value", as if they're cattle to be bought and sold at a market.

 

[Maleficent]

You're missing the point. A woman who sleeps around lowers her value in the eyes of men. So once that value us lowered it can never be reversed. If she then decides to only give herself to people who "deserve it" she is over pricing herself. If the entire city had a ride.. why should some new guy have to "earn" the same thing? Makes no sense.

 

And again.. its different for men because men generally have to "earn" sex while women just have to be willing. Everyone knows this.

 

I'm not missing the point.

 

But I'm not going to waste time arguing with you on this.

You use your PUA tactics to get women to sleep with you and then judge their value based on the fact they 'gave it away like candy'.

This makes you quite the hypocrite.

[Mister Zen]

You speak of women, using words like "value", as if they're cattle to be bought and sold at a market.

 

 

Men being seen as walking wallets is no less dehumanizing. But I don't see you taking issue with that.

 

If a chocolate bar costs 1 dollar today and 10 dollars tomorrow.. what is the person paying 10 dollars getting extra?

[Phoe]

Meh. I personally just give my all, try my best, and hope for similar in return. Can't do much else than that!

[toscaroscura]

Who has it easier re: sleeping around isn't the issue.

 

I have no problem with a man or a woman who has slept around.

 

What I do have a problem with is ascribing all these evil motivations to a woman (but not a man) who changes her priorities and seeks a partner for something serious. This demon woman, with all these Machiavellian motivations, is a figment of a misogynist's imagination. A calculating woman who relishes denying her innocent and loving husband intimacy, while milking him of all his money and sperm, is just not something I see every day in the relationships around me. Call it my "bias" if you want, but I don't think your opinion is any less biased.

 

I don't deny that sh*tty people exist, but to paint the entire female gender this way is extremely offensive.

[Mister Zen]

I'm not missing the point.

 

But I'm not going to waste time arguing with you on this.

You use your PUA tactics to get women to sleep with you and then judge their value based on the fact they 'gave it away like candy'.

This makes you quite the hypocrite.

 

There is nothing wrong with women giving their body away like candy. Just be consistent. Don't jack up the price later when you are not offering anything extra along with the higher price.

[dragon_fly_7]

Personally, as a woman that doesn't sleep around and would be the one most guy look for...I would feel insulted to have to accept a hypocrite that would easily have sex if given the chance and talks smack about the woman he slept with.

 

This talks about a person that lacks self-control and doesn't value sex the same way I do. I give more credit to the guys that can easily have sex but don't do it out of choice than those that would die to be players if and are desperate to even have sex with a hooker.

[carhill]

That's a good point, OP, and value can have many connotations. One can value a person more or less without viewing the person as a commodity. Barring slavery, humans are free and autonomous individuals so are generally impervious to being bought and sold as goods in the marketplace. That said, we all have our opinions about others and make decisions regarding our own actions on those opinions, and with zero control over any person those opinions relate to.

 

As an example, due to recent revelations, opinions about Bill Cosby have apparently changed markedly, in general, and many people have lowered their value of him as a person. That is their opinion. It doesn't reduce his sale price at the cattle auction, since he's not cattle nor is being sold for making hamburger. Can predominant social opinion affect his popularity and value in his selling of his wares and goods; his humor? Sure! That's people making a decision not to buy his product. Still, personally, he his unaffected. He's still alive and human and part of society and culture, merely ignored by some.

 

The same happens to ordinary men and women for various reasons. Some are embraced and some are eschewed. Interactions returning benefits, especially those with little sunk cost, are valued. People who are valued have value and those who don't, don't. They're all still alive and autonomous. Some are men and some are women. That's how it goes.

[Anela]

Everyone knows its easier for a woman to sleep around than a man. Men are not constantly offered sex the way women are.

 

Is this something you are not aware of?

 

omfg.

 

You're missing the point. A woman who sleeps around lowers her value in the eyes of men. So once that value us lowered it can never be reversed. If she then decides to only give herself to people who "deserve it" she is over pricing herself. If the entire city had a ride.. why should some new guy have to "earn" the same thing? Makes no sense.

 

And how is this attitude working for you?

[Mister Zen]

omfg.

 

 

 

And how is this attitude working for you?

 

How is not having a counter argument working for you?

 

Stay on topic or leave the thread. If I'm wrong.. explain how or stop talking.

 

Thanks.

[NJ123]

Yeah that that doesn't really address the question. You've merely (once again) posited that men don't like promiscuous women. That's a given and something not likely to change plus it's not really something I'm concerned with. However it also has little bearing on how it's "stupid" for a woman to be one day at X point in her life then alter her behavior in another.

 

Yeah, I posted it again because women have to deal with the consequences later on if they want to have sex with a huge number of people when their younger. You were stating how women don't think about the future when their younger in terms of being desirable, but that's their problem. The women who give it up easy are not seen as desirable as they get older. Than when they get older all of a sudden they don't want to give it up so easily anymore when most of the other guys likely got sex in 1 night. It would make the guy feel almost undesirable if that's the case, and would be thinking she's just using him for the security & because he's the so called "good/nice guy". And Women have it way easier to have sex, so when their going around town banging multiple guys, it's just seen as really sleazy. Men have to work way harder to get laid that's why there's likely that double standard with this type of thing in terms of if a man has had a lot of sex partners. Just like women have their own things that their turned off by which don't make sense to a lot of guys, men have things we're turned off about too which probably doesn't make sense to women. Just the way it is.