Genuine Classy Lady or a Retired Jump Off?

[K'aycie]

Here's a point where it gets interesting, and it didn't occur to me until just now. Stbx, of the 33 years she's been an 'adult', was married for 24 of those years, with three different men. By her admission, my recollection was between 40 and 50 partners in total. So, subtract out three men (she was married to) and that leaves 37-47 partners in nine years of technically not being married and as an adult. It doesn't include the years where she was under 18 and presumably sexually active. I would assume she's added a few to that number since we've been separated. She was not an obviously promiscuous woman, by behavior; IOW, she didn't openly, at least while we were married, solicit the attentions of other men like some of her married female friends did to me.

 

However, a woman does not have to do that. As allina complained in a rant thread, she's tired of always having to fend off the advances of men when she clearly is not seeking any attention. In those instances, all she (or stbx) would have to do is say 'yes', and another number is added to the spreadsheet. It's as simple as that, really. They *choose* to say 'yes' but the offer, in duplicate and triplicate, is right there in front of their face seemingly every day. So, while we were married, did stbx say 'yes'? Unknown. I'm just glad to be out of the total dynamic. It was a good lesson.

 

Did your wife remain faithful during your marriage?

 

Because, the OP states his main concern with promisciousity is that they are less likely to be faithful, and that he wants someone who is open and honest.

 

But, then he goes on to say:

 

Originally Posted by mr.dream merchantWhat I'm not confident in is a promiscuous woman's ability to stay faithful.

 

Originally Posted by mr.dream merchant

Promiscuous all depends upon the person. For me, if you're too loose with your sexuality, I wouldn't bother. Even if you were the most faithful GF in the world, I wouldn't bother.

 

So, what is the real intent behind this thread again...?

[meerkat stew]

You can justify your hypocrisy any way you like for you, but that's all you're doing.

 

The analogy is apt, huff and puff with "hypocrisy" all you like, you're hot air on this point.

 

Not all women who've slept with a lot of fellows sleep with everyone who offers

 

OK.

 

but it doesn't mean they'd sleep with anyone. They don't.

 

OK... unable to discern any point here, but OK.

 

Like men, they don't know when the next person they actually want to sleep with, who wants to sleep with them, might come around.

 

Wrong, an average woman, who decides to seek sex, (and the act of seeking and obtaining sex, not finding an ideal relationship partner is the crux of the issue in the "he's a s__t too" line of argument), can obtain it from a partner she finds attractive and desirable with relatively trivial effort... every... single... time, unless she happens to be on a desert island or in a cave on a mountain somewhere. She merely has to ask a few men she finds attractive to have sex with her. She may not even have to leave her bed to do so if she has a phone handy. Not so for the average man. To argue otherwise is just being disputatious.

 

Sex is not food, and no one NEEDS to have it. It's about pleasure, not need.

 

Granted, but intend to remember this for the next "needs v desires" thread where I'm swarmed by women who get offended when told there are only three basic needs in life and everything else is a desire after claiming "she was partially justified in cheating because he wasn't meeting all of her -neeeeeeeeeeeeeeds-"

 

Anyway, of course sex is not food, doesn't change the analogy one bit. It could be chunks of gold ore in a mine, or pretty shells from the beach, or flowers in a field.

 

If one person who desires something is unsure of getting what they desire, and has very little control over which of their efforts will satisfy the desire, only knows that if they stop trying, their desire will not ever be fulfilled, and another person is assured that most if not all their efforts to fulfill their desire will be rewarded, and even if they stop trying, they will be offered many opportunities to fulfill the desire, comparing how the two different types of people go about seeking and obtaining whatever is desired, on a normative or ethical level based on results alone, is inapt.

 

Once a man knows for certain that he can get sex from a particular subset of women, he becomes exactly like a woman in the possibility of becoming gluttonous. Recall, though, that we are talking about -average- people, and such is very rarely the case for the average man.

[sally4sara]

words

 

I'm sorry you've had so much trouble finding willing partners. Now I totally get why you'd advise and adult male to go after 14 year old girls.

[meerkat stew]

I'm sorry you've had so much trouble finding willing partners. Now I totally get why you'd advise and adult male to go after 14 year old girls.

 

Ironic that you mention 14 year olds, as the above is identical to the way petulant teenagers attempt to argue with adults. Perhaps you aren't ready to sit at the "big people" table just yet.

[zengirl]

The analogy is apt, huff and puff with "hypocrisy" all you like, you're hot air on this point.

 

It is hypocrisy. Just like an overweight person saying, "I don't want to date fat people because they're lazy and disgusting" would be hypocrisy. The most basic form of hypocrisy is holding one to a standard or value that you, yourself, are not expected to conform to. That's. . . like the definition of the word. You may not find hypocrisy appalling. . . but denying its hypocritical is ridiculous.

 

Wrong, an average woman, who decides to seek sex, (and the act of seeking and obtaining sex, not finding an ideal relationship partner is the crux of the issue in the "he's a s__t too" line of argument), can obtain it from a partner she finds attractive and desirable with relatively trivial effort... every... single... time, unless she happens to be on a desert island or in a cave on a mountain somewhere. She merely has to ask a few men she finds attractive to have sex with her. She may not even have to leave her bed to do so if she has a phone handy. Not so for the average man. To argue otherwise is just being disputatious.

 

I never said it wasn't easy for a gal to have sex, nor did I say it wasn't easier than it is for men. Yes, men are "easy." So? My point was that doesn't mean that she knows when the next man she's actually going to WANT to sleep with is coming around. Your analogy breaks down there, as it presumes the woman (a) Sleeps with everyone (the gluttony of eating everything on the table, as you say!) and (b) Knows precisely where/when she will stumble upon desirable partners.

 

Granted, but intend to remember this for the next "needs v desires" thread where I'm swarmed by women who get offended when told there are only three basic needs in life and everything else is a desire after claiming "she was partially justified in cheating because he wasn't meeting all of her -neeeeeeeeeeeeeeds-"

 

You will never see me defend a cheater. And it's not like men never cheat on such a basis either. Plenty do. People of either gender that cheat disgust me. Really, I'm pretty hard on them.

 

Anyway, of course sex is not food, doesn't change the analogy one bit. It could be chunks of gold ore in a mine, or pretty shells from the beach, or flowers in a field.

 

How is the analogy apt without the food comparison? You suggested that it's okay for men because they somehow NEED it and don't know where they'll get it. If it's seashells, etc, then why do the men need to be picking up a truckload without judgment either, just because they don't know when they might find another? Your analogy makes no sense if it's not a basic need.

 

If one person who desires something is unsure of getting what they desire, and has very little control over which of their efforts will satisfy the desire, only knows that if they stop trying, their desire will not ever be fulfilled, and another person is assured that most if not all their efforts to fulfill their desire will be rewarded, and even if they stop trying, they will be offered many opportunities to fulfill the desire, comparing how the two different types of people go about seeking and obtaining whatever is desired, on a normative or ethical level based on results alone, is inapt.

 

So, yeah, jealousy, as I said.

 

Once a man knows for certain that he can get sex from a particular subset of women, he becomes exactly like a woman in the possibility of becoming gluttonous. Recall, though, that we are talking about -average- people, and such is very rarely the case for the average man.

 

You have a very weird view of life, man. I don't know. Maybe I don't hang out with "average" people. Who are these "average" people?

 

I know loads of fellows who sleep around, and it's not because they've no idea when they'll get to have sex again. It's because they like sex, and they like sleeping around, and they aren't equipped for a relationship at present/haven't met someone who strikes them enough to have such a relationship. The women I know who sleep around do so for the same reason.

 

Personally, I think applying some ridiculous morality to what anyone does with their own bodies is silly, and I think holding someone to standards you don't value in your own life is dishonorable. If someone themselves values their chastity, I think it is plenty honorable to look for the same in a mate. But buy into the value system or don't. Stop trying to fit petty jealousy into it.

[Woggle]

Women can call it sexist all they want but women who are sexually free usually will have no hesitation being sexually free with another guy while you are married to her. They are usually feminists who believe that women have a right to lie and cheat because it is now men's turn to be taken down a peg.

 

They usually only want to settle down because they can't get men like they used to or they realize they can't tame a player but they will always be bored with a good and faithful guy.

[zengirl]

Wanted to ETA, but too late:

 

meerkat stew, I realize actually that your whole analogy here and everything you've added factors in a lot to the worldview you present a lot about "seduction" and all that nonsense. You even asked a girl if the emotional turmoil she felt over a fellow not expressing ILY didn't keep her into a relationship recently, I think. We just have different views here, which is why your analogy makes no sense to me. I don't see scarcity itself as a motivating factor. You do. Something's rarity or abundance doesn't raise or lower its value in my eyes at all. It just doesn't. (I understand this principle in a macroeconomic sense, Re: Oil, but not with things like love, dating, or anything that relates to the individual in their very individual lives. I just don't think I can apply macroeconomics to my dating life and call that healthy.) Thus withholding something from me (like those fellows who can't just snap their fingers and get sex or whatnot) doesn't make me want it more. I'm not saying it always makes me want it less, though I usually wish it did. . . I more or less want things for what they are, not for how easy/difficult they are to obtain. I think that particular facet of human nature exists, but it's driven by a pretty ugly part of the ego. Just my worldview.

 

Women can call it sexist all they want but women who are sexually free usually will have no hesitation being sexually free with another guy while you are married to her. They are usually feminists who believe that women have a right to lie and cheat because it is now men's turn to be taken down a peg.

 

They usually only want to settle down because they can't get men like they used to or they realize they can't tame a player but they will always be bored with a good and faithful guy.

 

But men who are sexually free are totally free from these random generalizations, I suppose? If not, and you're painting "Players" as you call them with the same brush as these gals, well, at least that seems ethically consistent.

 

Woggle, while I don't really judge the morality of sex with whomever. . . (that's a weird religious thing), I think the world would be a healthier place if both men and women were a bit more chaste in their relations until they've found someone they really care about. I only object to applying standards to someone you wouldn't uphold yourself---i.e. This is like saying, "Well, you can't cheat, but I can!" I totally respect fellows who recognize and realize that casual sex isn't usually worth having. (I just don't exclude every fellow who's ever had casual sex or came to that realization later, after having some of it.)

Edited August 9, 2010 by zengirl

[carhill]

Did your wife remain faithful during your marriage?

 

I have no concrete evidence that she didn't, nor did I use methodologies as discussed on LS to determine fidelity or not. I had always been monogamous throughout my life and didn't really consider any other path. I accepted her 'history' as part of who she was. It was the part about separating out the marital years which came to give me pause. I had never thought of the dynamic in those terms prior. I'm making no value judgments at all, merely sharing the data and my impression of the potentials. That part of my life is over now. I hope it works out for her

 

I can tell you, when friends of hers would 'approach' me, it did affect me in the absence of intimacy from her. So, I guess I could see how a woman could be affected similarly and, sometimes, have a difficult choice to make. I can only imagine being approached like that often. Hey, good on ya for having strong boundaries

[Woggle]

Players are not trustworthy for the most part though I have seen a few who changed their ways for the right woman. If a woman wants to snag a player she should act not impressed by him and actually try to look at the real man behind the swagger. For the most part though they are no good.

 

The thing is that while women chase after players and try to change them most men with half a brain know the female version is not to be trusted and don't try to make a relationship work with a woman when she realizes she is losing her appeal and wants to settle down fast.

[zengirl]

Players are not trustworthy for the most part though I have seen a few who changed their ways for the right woman. If a woman wants to snag a player she should act not impressed by him and actually try to look at the real man behind the swagger. For the most part though they are no good.

 

The thing is that while women chase after players and try to change them most men with half a brain know the female version is not to be trusted and don't try to make a relationship work with a woman when she realizes she is losing her appeal and wants to settle down fast.

 

Hmm. . . I've seen men chase female "Players" as well. The ones I consider female "Players" generally aren't the most sexually "free" gals. They use sex in unhealthy ways, and they're the ones who always need orbiters. It ends just as badly as the gals with the Players, usually. Most of the true Players (men and women) don't come off as just plain easy. That's the whole point.

 

I date shy, nerdy nice guys. They also have to be cute and assertive/emotionally healthy, don't get me wrong, but I've never been attracted to Players. So I understand the logic behind saying they're bad news. For sure.

[Woggle]

Men never used to chase female players but in recent years I see plenty of men that do. It is a sign of how men are become increasingly weak. There used to women who messed with and women you married and as sexist as it sounded that attitude worked for men. What produces the best end result is not always what is PC or what sounds good.

[InceptorsRule]

I not only date one, I married her.

[InceptorsRule]

Men never used to chase female players but in recent years I see plenty of men that do. It is a sign of how men are become increasingly weak. There used to women who messed with and women you married and as sexist as it sounded that attitude worked for men. What produces the best end result is not always what is PC or what sounds good.

 

 

No, all women mess around, if they can that is. Some are more honest about it than others.

[InceptorsRule]

I certainly reserve my right to sleep with anyone for any reason I want

 

 

This statement from zengirl perfectly captures the sexual zeitgeist of the modern American woman. (Although I don't know if she's American herself.)

[sally4sara]

The idiocy of this view really plays out when you see the guys who think this way chase women who want nothing to do with them.

In their mind, a woman who has sex with them without using their warped barter system, is a slut. A woman who won't have sex unless the barter system is in place is the "good girl"; the potential wifey.

 

So they'd run around bending over backwards for me, doing me favors and treating me extra special, but I knew the ugly intentions and I treated them accordingly. Somehow, no matter how awful I was to them or how little I responded to their efforts did not diminish me in their eyes - it only made me, so no logical reason, even more a good choice for a real commitment.

 

Funny that, that guys with this view can be so easily worked by their own warped ideal about female sexuality. All I had to do to keep it going was keep being an awful bitch and give them nothing in return, yet my character was still viewed as ideal as a life partner. It made me wonder how well their marriages later in life played out if the only qualifier they used was how little sex the woman had before them.

 

And I did have sex when I met someone I respected and wanted to have sex with - it just wasn't any of them.

[mr.dream merchant]

Just like attractive women have the choice of picking the hotter guy, or the wealthier one over the average joe..young attractive men like myself have the choice between the whores and the ladies. I go with the latter if I'm looking for a relationship, and the former for when I'm just looking for fun.

 

I know a sexually liberated woman. I actually slept with her. She's 28, I'm 21. She's a single mother. After bedding her, she told me she cheated on all of her BF's..I wasn't surprised..she screwed like a champ. She wanted me to date her..I put my foot down, and actually picked up and left her house. Why didn't I do it? She was way too easy. And anything that easy can't be good.

 

Her and I are still good friends. The last time we had sex was around February. Since then she's been with 4 different men. Hats off to her, she's a single woman. But she's easy, and she's slept with all 4. Where is she now? Trapping a 22 year old guy who has alot going for himself. I talked to her about it, she told me "at least it's a relationship, he'll be my fun for now"

 

Guess the point I'm trying to make is don't be a dope for easy chicks. They'll use and abuse you like they do their sex toys. Lol all jokes aside, nymphos are sweet. Just not GF material.

[InceptorsRule]

Here's a point where it gets interesting, and it didn't occur to me until just now. Stbx, of the 33 years she's been an 'adult', was married for 24 of those years, with three different men. By her admission, my recollection was between 40 and 50 partners in total. So, subtract out three men (she was married to) and that leaves 37-47 partners in nine years of technically not being married and as an adult.

 

For ease of arithmetic let's say 45 partners in the nine years of non-marriage.

 

That's "only" five per year.

 

I suspect your wife is more similar to most women in terms of her number of sexual partners, the only difference being you apparently have more insight into her activities than most other guys want to have about whoever they're dating/married to.

 

But five in a year? Heck, a reasonably attractive woman could have five different guys in a week without too much trouble. Or certainly in a month.

 

My wife was married and divorced before I met her. In the year between her separation from her ex-h and when she met me, she probably had about 5-6 sexual partners, as far as I am aware based on what she's told me about that time in her life.

 

I have no reason to believe that the average reasonably attractive woman would NOT have 5, 6, 8 or 10 sexual partners in any given year when they're not in a steady relationship. And I think most women DO. They just lie about it.

[meerkat stew]

The most basic form of hypocrisy is

 

trying to make excuses for one's own behavior by pointing a finger at a person who is obviously differently situated than oneself and claiming "but... but... they did it too."

 

A woman who engages in certain sexual behavior may be, on the discretion of whomever is evaluating, held accountable for that behavior in a way that the average man can never, ever be due to the genders being differently situated in how they seek and obtain sex, due to the relative ease with which average women may obtain sex in comparison to average men.

 

So, arguments that attempt to characterize average men as hypocrites for nixing women who engage in certain levels of sexual activity are bogus arguments on their face.

 

There are indeed circumstances where men should and are held accountable for their sexual behavior by those seeking a certain type of partner, but the topic of this thread, as it applies to average men, is not one of those circumstances.

 

If it's seashells, etc, then why do the men need to be picking up a truckload without judgment either, just because they don't know when they might find another? Your analogy makes no sense if it's not a basic need.

 

The analogy fits, whether need or desire based.

 

Take some straw man...

 

So, yeah, jealousy, as I said.

 

add a dash of ad hominem...

 

You have a very weird view of life, man. I don't know. Maybe I don't hang out with "average" people. Who are these "average" people?

 

add more ad hominem laced with a sprig of non sequitur...

 

and voila! fallacy souffle!

 

I know loads of fellows who sleep around, and it's not because they've no idea when they'll get to have sex again. It's because they like sex, and they like sleeping around, and they aren't equipped for a relationship at present/haven't met someone who strikes them enough to have such a relationship. The women I know who sleep around do so for the same reason.

 

Those are, in all likelihood, not average men. If a man does happen to find himself in the fortunate situation of possessing the same level of control in seeking and obtaining sex that the average woman has innately, then he is certainly subject to the same forms of evaluation and having his judgment questioned in similar ways by prospective partners, no argument from me at all on that point.

 

 

Stop trying to fit petty jealousy into it.

 

and for dessert? more ad hominem.

[mr.dream merchant]

For ease of arithmetic let's say 45 partners in the nine years of non-marriage.

 

That's "only" five per year.

 

I suspect your wife is more similar to most women in terms of her number of sexual partners, the only difference being you apparently have more insight into her activities than most other guys want to have about whoever they're dating/married to.

 

But five in a year? Heck, a reasonably attractive woman could have five different guys in a week without too much trouble. Or certainly in a month.

 

My wife was married and divorced before I met her. In the year between her separation from her ex-h and when she met me, she probably had about 5-6 sexual partners, as far as I am aware based on what she's told me about that time in her life.

 

I have no reason to believe that the average reasonably attractive woman would NOT have 5, 6, 8 or 10 sexual partners in any given year when they're not in a steady relationship. And I think most women DO. They just lie about it.

 

Guess that'd make em all whores then.

[meerkat stew]

I realize actually that your whole analogy here and everything you've added factors in a lot to the worldview you present a lot about "seduction" and all that nonsense.

 

In that particular other thread, though not a practitioner of them, I simply defended lots of the currently faddish "seduction techniques" as not being as bad as you and others seem to need them to be to forward your agenda of finding these techniques offensively "controlling" of women.

 

So what exactly are you claiming that position says about me as a person you don't really know at all again? I'm all ears.

 

You even asked a girl if the emotional turmoil she felt over a fellow not expressing ILY didn't keep her into a relationship recently, I think.

 

First, are you sure "emotional turmoil" is a fair assessment of the OP's state of mind in that other thread? Wouldn't "feeling a little insecure in a young relationship" be more accurate?

 

Second, my main point in that thread was that talk is cheap, try to estimate an SO's feelings for you based on their actions towards you rather than their words, and that upon reflection, we may all find that a bit of uncertainty is better for a young, four month old relationship, than the possibility of boredom that complete certainty of returned feelings entails.

 

So what exactly are you claiming that advice says about me as a person you don't really know at all again? I'm all ears.

 

By citing these other threads out of context, and resorting to lots of fallacious ad hominem in another post here, as certain other posters with similar chromosomal makeup to yours seem to do with wild abandon on LS, you are tempting me towards one of my verbose "Professor Higgins" type gender-baiting posts that no one wants to read, and probably few will.

 

Do we really have to go there? Or can we avoid that unpleasantness, and stick to posts in this thread, cut the ad hominem out, and not make personal assumptions about people on the internet we don't really know based on what they type, and instead stick to the actual material posted going forward?

[sally4sara]

In that particular other thread, though not a practitioner of them, I simply defended lots of the currently faddish "seduction techniques" as not being as bad as you and others seem to need them to be to forward your agenda of finding these techniques offensively "controlling" of women.

 

So what exactly are you claiming that position says about me as a person you don't really know at all again? I'm all ears.

 

 

 

First, are you sure "emotional turmoil" is a fair assessment of the OP's state of mind in that other thread? Wouldn't "feeling a little insecure in a young relationship" be more accurate?

 

Second, my main point in that thread was that talk is cheap, try to estimate an SO's feelings for you based on their actions towards you rather than their words, and that upon reflection, we may all find that a bit of uncertainty is better for a young, four month old relationship, than the possibility of boredom that complete certainty of returned feelings entails.

 

So what exactly are you claiming that advice says about me as a person you don't really know at all again? I'm all ears.

 

By citing these other threads out of context, and resorting to lots of fallacious ad hominem in another post here, as certain other posters with similar chromosomal makeup to yours seem to do with wild abandon on LS, you are tempting me towards one of my verbose "Professor Higgins" type gender-baiting posts that no one wants to read, and probably few will.

 

Do we really have to go there? Or can we avoid that unpleasantness, and stick to posts in this thread, cut the ad hominem out, and not make personal assumptions about people on the internet we don't really know based on what they type, and instead stick to the actual material posted going forward?

 

Moderator meerkat strikes again! I forgot this is HIS site and we have new rules to abide by. Effin tedious.

[meerkat stew]

Moderator meerkat strikes again! I forgot this is HIS site and we have new rules to abide by. Effin tedious.

 

Nah, they aren't -my- rules, simply basic, common sense principles that adults of average intelligence and manners who seek to be taken seriously apply to discussions both on the internet and elsewhere.

 

Now scoot along back to the kiddy table, grownups are talking.

[Woggle]

Just like attractive women have the choice of picking the hotter guy, or the wealthier one over the average joe..young attractive men like myself have the choice between the whores and the ladies. I go with the latter if I'm looking for a relationship, and the former for when I'm just looking for fun.

 

I know a sexually liberated woman. I actually slept with her. She's 28, I'm 21. She's a single mother. After bedding her, she told me she cheated on all of her BF's..I wasn't surprised..she screwed like a champ. She wanted me to date her..I put my foot down, and actually picked up and left her house. Why didn't I do it? She was way too easy. And anything that easy can't be good.

 

Her and I are still good friends. The last time we had sex was around February. Since then she's been with 4 different men. Hats off to her, she's a single woman. But she's easy, and she's slept with all 4. Where is she now? Trapping a 22 year old guy who has alot going for himself. I talked to her about it, she told me "at least it's a relationship, he'll be my fun for now"

 

Guess the point I'm trying to make is don't be a dope for easy chicks. They'll use and abuse you like they do their sex toys. Lol all jokes aside, nymphos are sweet. Just not GF material.

 

This is how most of these sexually free women are but a man is a misogynist pig if he doesn't want to get involved with one of them.

[meerkat stew]

Grown ups recognize the input of others is just as valid as their own.

 

Really? Do tell:

 

The sun sets in the east and rises in the west.

There is a bigfoot in my backyard riding a unicorn.

A>B and A< B.

I have a right to cook and eat people if I so choose, it says so in the Constitution.

 

Stating that there is nothing innately wrong with an 18 y.o. boy wanting to date a 14 y.o. girl = stating a desire to date children oneself as an adult.

 

 

CHILDREN make demands and rules and throw insulting tantrums when they think others are not following the rules.

 

I guess such tantrums wouldn't include "acting out" by bringing in completely irrelevant and out of context posts from another thread, would they?

 

See, I'm raising a kid.

 

Oh dear.

 

I recognize the difference a bit better than someone who has had their genes passed over.

 

I'm not sure flushing lots of genes contained in lots of condoms down lots of toilets over lots of years is the same as being "passed over" genetically, but OK, I can live with that.

 

But then I'd think it would be a struggle for someone who will seek to date children to recognize childish behavior.

 

Really? See I think such a person, in seeking to date children, would in fact be able to recognize childish behavior all the better, due to familiarity with it, no?

 

Better get back to that table or else you will miss your jello!

[K'aycie]

This is how most of these sexually free women are but a man is a misogynist pig if he doesn't want to get involved with one of them.

 

No, no no.

 

I think it's more to do that if the OP is having sex with these women just as "freely", then he's just as much of a (as per MDM quote - "whore") too.