Genuine Classy Lady or a Retired Jump Off?

[zengirl]

No I'm not, didn't, never said nor implied anything of the kind. All people should be held accountable for their behavior.

 

Just not to the same degree, right? Or else your analogy serves no purpose. The issue here isn't "Hey, chaste people don't dig promiscuous people." It's "I'm slutty, but my woman can't be!" Two very different things. I actually agree with the former quite a bit; it's the latter I find disgusting.

 

My analogy and subsequent paraphrases, is specifically targetted at a particular argument that always comes up in these "would you date a s__t?" threads. "Well if she's a s__t, so is the guy doing her in the back of the car!" In essence this tries to make an apples to apples comparison out of a very obvious apples to oranges reality. End of story.

 

If they both have the same level of feelings and commitment involved in the sex, that argument is perfectly valid. Casual sex is casual sex, and the things it tells you about a person are not gender specific, except perhaps in telling you how much they care about social mores that are, luckily, beginning to evolve and become outdated. What they tell you about a person's essential character and view of sex is the same for each gender. Especially what they tell you about their gluttony or "compulsion" which is what your analogy focused on.

 

Two people like peanuts. One has to go out daily and pick them from a single plant five miles away, and comes home with half a cup some days, and none on others. He eats all the peanuts he collects.

 

The other person has three bushels of peanuts delivered to their door every morning. He eats all three bushels every day.

 

Both of these people eat every peanut they can get, yet only one of them is a gluttion.

 

Simple, apt, end of story.

 

What if they ate the same amount? All 3 bushels. They'd both be gluttons still, as nobody needs to eat 3 bushels of peanuts in a day. Nobody is talking about the strike-outs (or peanuts unpicked) but you. That's where your analogy fails.

 

And I find incredibly appalling the posts of zengirl and especially sally4sara. For whatever reasons, these types of discussions always bring out the worst in women. They become completely unable to accept that in order for something to be a double standard and/or hypocritical, the circumstances under which the opposing parties operate must be identical. The ways in which a man acquires sexual partners, the ease of this as well, is far different than the circumstances under which women do the same.

 

I'm just going with the definition of the word hypocrite.

 

hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

Nowhere does it state or imply that the conditions have to be the same. Feeling promiscuous people are flawed and being promiscuous yourself is hypocrisy. At least own your own hypocrisy, like Woggle does.

 

That doesn't mean that promiscuity isn't correlated with being "bad relationship material," however. Promiscuous people are always more likely to cheat, just by the definition of the word. That doesn't mean that you should write a person off though. A holistic approach is always best when evaluating the appropriateness of a potential relationship partner. For most sensible people, however, promiscuity is and should be a red flag.

 

Okay, THAT makes sense to me. I do think that promiscuity (depending on the level, of course) can be only somewhat linked to cheating. Loads of cheaters aren't at all promiscuous, and men and women cheat for various other reasons besides just desiring sex. Generally, I'd link behaviors like lying or self-pity to potential cheating before someone who's just had some sex. But that's me.

 

When a woman burns through a whole circle of socially connected men in a month though, when she dances on a table at a bar with her top pulled off, then hops behind the bar, blows the bartender, then follows three guys out to a van in the parking lot, she gets talked about, is subject to social stigma, and though OP didn't specify, I imagine -that- type of behavior is what is being referenced by the term "retired jump off," not a woman who has a different BF every month, but a woman whom it becomes broadly known is "community property."

 

When threads like this come up, someone always comes in with the "but the men were doing her too! so they are no better than she is!" which sounds perfectly sensible on the surface as a legitimate apples to apples comparison.

 

They ARE no better than she is, and I wouldn't date a fellow who did those things either. Why do you feel the need to defend the men? Why the lame apples and oranges thing? There's no reason or motivation for doing so that could possibly appeal to one's higher nature; the reasons are likely hypocrisy, jealousy, pettiness, bias, or other lower reasons. Please, someone, anyone, name one good reason for defending the men.

 

That said, that does not remain a defense of the woman. Neither party is innocent, and neither is more guilty (unless in the particulars, one has done something to make them more so, which has little to do with their gender).

 

And there is a difference between talking about things like this and the number. Sure, men and women who behave like this get more of my judgment than someone who just has a high number.

 

It is hypocrisy but it works for a man and produces good results for him. That is what it all boils down to in the end. Women have their double standards as well so it evens out.

 

At least you're honest about your bias. Personally, my values are more important to me than my self-interest, so I'd never do something I found hypocritical to get good results. (I'm not necessarily agreeing about what gets a fellow good results, or understanding why anyone of either gender NEEDS to be promiscuous. Though, as I said, I've not a lot of squeamishness about it beyond the health issues.) Many people would. That's up to them. It wouldn't make me happy in life.

[Woggle]

Values work in a perfect world and ten years ago I might have agreed with you but I realize that the more dog eat dog this world gets the more a man should look out for himself because women are doing it and so is pretty much anybody else.

 

I would actually advise women to avoid players just like men should but the fact is that they don't for the most part. Men and women have very different ideas on what is attractive in the opposite sex and that is where the double standard comes from. While women want a man that is desired by other women men tend to run from a woman that has been through a lot of men. We look at promiscuis women as trainwrecks with a lot of issues and in many cases it is right. I have rarely seen a case where a woman has went from sleeping around to being a loving and faithful partner. There almost always comes a time where she gets the urge to be with other men.

 

I praise men who are players because it works. It has a proven record of success with women. Ask any married man and he will tell you he gets hit on ten times as much with a wedding than when he was single. The more women a man has the more women want him. I have known single men to wear fake wedding rings to pick up women.

 

I am all about results and people doing what it takes to achieve what they desire. If being a loving and faithful man who treats women with respect actually worked in finding a man love I would encourage that but more often than not men like this end up being lonely or being played by women that they trusted. I still encourage this for a woman that actually deserves and appreciates but they are very rare. I am all about men doing what they need to do to have the most success in life.

[TheBigQuestion]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just going with the definition of the word hypocrite.

 

hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

Nowhere does it state or imply that the conditions have to be the same. Feeling promiscuous people are flawed and being promiscuous yourself is hypocrisy. At least own your own hypocrisy, like Woggle does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.

 

I should have worded that better. I wasn't referring to anything the OP said, nor anything about my own nature, so I can't be labeled a hypocrite by your or anyone else. I was referring specifically for the conditions necessary for a double standard.

[elaina]

For the fellas.

 

At the gym my friend and I were in a heated discussion about dating women of different calibers. During the discussion, women who used to be, for the lack of a better word, "sluts" but recently decided they're ready to settle down came up. We were talking about if we'd consider them dating material having known of their less than appealing past. My friend answered yes, I disagreed. Interested in knowing what other men out there think.

 

Would you date a woman who's RECENT past (0-2 years) was that of a "slut"? By definition that'd be a woman who gave up the goods easy to whoever she found attractive, and whomever chose to pursue it? Who's been with an off-putting number of males within a small time frame? What if she was a "slut" but a great girlfriend? Would how she carries herself when she's single tarnish/ruin her image for you as far as taking her serious goes?

 

If no, why would you take her seriously? Does the fact of her sleeping with others guys (who had to contribute/sacrifice not nearly as much time, money, and effort) into her as much as you would since she's decided to settle down not bother you? Furthermore, would her putting on a front, and acting out a demeanor to that of a woman of class and self respect bother you?

 

A couple other things. My friend and I are both single. He's more of a "play the game" guy. Meaning, if he knows a woman he's talking to is full of crap, he just plays along with it until he gets what he wants (ass) and that's that.

 

Now me on the other hand, I'm more of a no tomfoolery type of guy. I expect you to be honest about your character. If I'm talking to a girl, and for some reason or another I know she's a not so classy woman, but she's trying to give off the image of one, I personally feel like she is more than likely a deceptive woman which could be a gateway to a boatload of other bad qualities within her that I do not know of ie. dishonest, cheater, etc.. So even if I wasn't planning on taking her serious, the fact that she tried to mislead me puts me off, so in turn I just stop talking to them.

 

Hello Mr. Dream Merchant,

 

Even though this is for the "fellas" I got a little confused when reading it. So, if I get this right, tell me ok?

 

1. You are promiscuous.

2. You don't want to date a promiscuous woman, but you have no problem having sex with a promiscuous woman. You just don't want to give her anything other than sex and a good time?

3. You want to date a "good girl" who does not have a promiscuous (or recently promiscuous) history.

 

Is the above correct?

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not judging you. I'm just confused.

 

There are definitely women (I don't know how many) who are not promiscuous who are Atheists or Agnostics, but many women who take seriously this not being promiscuous thing, at least in American culture, do so because they believe God wants them to not sleep around. However, even many who do believe in God sort of ignore the sexual purity "rules", but anyways, most women who are not promiscuous naturally want to date men who are not promiscuous.

 

You know what I mean?

[sally4sara]

Way to miss the point fellas, in the same way you did through the entire thread.

 

A person came on here, confessed to being a hypocritical liar and then goes on to talk about how the people he lies to are now beneath him and incapable of honest actions.

 

And you all chimed in with theories as to why it is acceptable - even righteous that he act this way.

 

Then all you offer are excuses, none of which are supported by facts concerning ethics OR biology.

[Woggle]

There are no ethics in the dating world today. It is a dog eat dog world so don't blame somebody for getting what they can out of it.

 

Also the majority of people in general are hypocrites. I respect those honest enough to admit it.

[sally4sara]

There are no ethics in the dating world today. It is a dog eat dog world so don't blame somebody for getting what they can out of it.

 

Also the majority of people in general are hypocrites. I respect those honest enough to admit it.

 

Woggle, if someone sold you a car that didn't drive you to work - how pissed would you be?

 

What if you took your complaint the the lying car dealer and all he did was laugh in your face and call you trash for buying the heap of junk?

 

Would he be cool and oh so righteous?

[Woggle]

Woggle, if someone sold you a car that didn't drive you to work - how pissed would you be?

 

What if you took your complaint the the lying car dealer and all he did was laugh in your face and call you trash for buying the heap of junk?

 

Would he be cool and oh so righteous?

 

It would not be cool but you can't compare dating to car sales. I just feel that men are simply protecting themselves and I am sick of women acting like victims these days when they are the ones who sabotage things 9 out of 10 times.

 

I have said time and time again that women are not smart for dating players but most of them still do. Men are actually the ones being smart about our dating choices because we realize that women who sleep around don't usually make the best partners. I encourage men to be players because it benefits them. I think men should do what works and produces the best end result and in these days and times that is being a player. If women don't like it they can stop lusting after men like this and start paying to the type of men they claim to want. Until that day comes they can stop whining.

[sally4sara]

It would not be cool but you can't compare dating to car sales. I just feel that men are simply protecting themselves and I am sick of women acting like victims these days when they are the ones who sabotage things 9 out of 10 times.

 

I have said time and time again that women are not smart for dating players but most of them still do. Men are actually the ones being smart about our dating choices because we realize that women who sleep around don't usually make the best partners. I encourage men to be players because it benefits them. I think men should do what works and produces the best end result and in these days and times that is being a player. If women don't like it they can stop lusting after men like this and start paying to the type of men they claim to want. Until that day comes they can stop whining.

 

It is the same character being employed by the OP. It is fraudulent dealings. It just doesn't bother you because it is a a woman's expense.

You talk often of how the two most vapid and shallow supposedly female posters on this site get your respect for their "honesty". Why not be honest about this too? You like it when men do this BECAUSE it is a the expense of a woman.

[Woggle]

It is the same character being employed by the OP. It is fraudulent dealings. It just doesn't bother you because it is a a woman's expense.

You talk often of how the two most vapid and shallow supposedly female posters on this site get your respect for their "honesty". Why not be honest about this too? You like it when men do this BECAUSE it is a the expense of a woman.

 

I root for my gender just like women do. 9 times out 10 women will always take another woman's side and if the genders were reversed most women would be supporting the OP.

[sally4sara]

I root for my gender just like women do. 9 times out 10 women will always take another woman's side and if the genders were reversed most women would be supporting the OP.

 

That is not answering my question. Come on Woggle, be correct with the honesty. You like it when men do this BECAUSE it is at the expense of a woman - don't you?

[Katie29]

For the fellas.

 

At the gym my friend and I were in a heated discussion about dating women of different calibers. During the discussion, women who used to be, for the lack of a better word, "sluts" but recently decided they're ready to settle down came up. We were talking about if we'd consider them dating material having known of their less than appealing past. My friend answered yes, I disagreed. Interested in knowing what other men out there think.

 

Would you date a woman who's RECENT past (0-2 years) was that of a "slut"? By definition that'd be a woman who gave up the goods easy to whoever she found attractive, and whomever chose to pursue it? Who's been with an off-putting number of males within a small time frame? What if she was a "slut" but a great girlfriend? Would how she carries herself when she's single tarnish/ruin her image for you as far as taking her serious goes?

 

If no, why would you take her seriously? Does the fact of her sleeping with others guys (who had to contribute/sacrifice not nearly as much time, money, and effort) into her as much as you would since she's decided to settle down not bother you? Furthermore, would her putting on a front, and acting out a demeanor to that of a woman of class and self respect bother you?

 

A couple other things. My friend and I are both single. He's more of a "play the game" guy. Meaning, if he knows a woman he's talking to is full of crap, he just plays along with it until he gets what he wants (ass) and that's that.

 

Now me on the other hand, I'm more of a no tomfoolery type of guy. I expect you to be honest about your character. If I'm talking to a girl, and for some reason or another I know she's a not so classy woman, but she's trying to give off the image of one, I personally feel like she is more than likely a deceptive woman which could be a gateway to a boatload of other bad qualities within her that I do not know of ie. dishonest, cheater, etc.. So even if I wasn't planning on taking her serious, the fact that she tried to mislead me puts me off, so in turn I just stop talking to them.

 

what about a man that sleeps with alot of women...is he a slut? or is it just the woman in your warped mind?

[Woggle]

That is not answering my question. Come on Woggle, be correct with the honesty. You like it when men do this BECAUSE it is at the expense of a woman - don't you?

 

It is not about it being at the expense of a woman. It is about me having other man's backs and understanding exactly where their thought process comes from.

[sally4sara]

It is not about it being at the expense of a woman. It is about me having other man's backs and understanding exactly where their thought process comes from.

 

Oh my! You can't even be as honest as you claim you wish women would be.

Are you sure your mama didn't succeed in her threat?

[Woggle]

Oh my! You can't even be as honest as you claim you wish women would be.

Are you sure your mama didn't succeed in her threat?

 

What threat? I like to see women who treat men like garbagr receive their karma but I find no joy in seeing women in general in pain. I like to see people in general get their karma regardless of gender.

[Katie29]

What threat? I like to see women who treat men like garbagr receive their karma but I find no joy in seeing women in general in pain. I like to see people in general get their karma regardless of gender.

 

 

we all get turned down and rejected, its called LIFE.

[sally4sara]

What threat? I like to see women who treat men like garbagr receive their karma but I find no joy in seeing women in general in pain. I like to see people in general get their karma regardless of gender.

 

the threat of what she'd do to you with a knife. You know; sans the balls - like people who can't be honest ARE.

 

You said something similar in other threads.

That people who treat others like garbage don't deserve sympathy. But here, in THIS thread, you have the back of the person treating others like garbage.

 

And yet you want to claim it isn't about liking it when men treat women like garbage. Liar. And an internet liar at that!

[Woggle]

we all get turned down and rejected, its called LIFE.

 

This is not just about being turned down and rejected.

[Woggle]

the threat of what she'd do to you with a knife. You know; sans the balls - like people who can't be honest ARE.

 

You said something similar in other threads.

That people who treat others like garbage don't deserve sympathy. But here, in THIS thread, you have the back of the person treating others like garbage.

 

And yet you want to claim it isn't about liking it when men treat women like garbage. Liar. And an internet liar at that!

 

I fail to see how the OP is treating people like garbage. He knows what he wants in a mate.

[Katie29]

This is not just about being turned down and rejected.

 

 

why do you care so much? I think she turned you down.

[sally4sara]

I fail to see how the OP is treating people like garbage. He knows what he wants in a mate.

 

And he lies and uses people in his pursuit of a mate.

 

Now you're just being obtuse. I'm tired and a bit buzzed at coming home late from the bar. And I already know the answer to the question you can't sack up to an answer honestly. So do you even if you won't admit it.

[Pyro]

And he lies and uses people in his pursuit of a mate.

 

Now you're just being obtuse. I'm tired and a bit buzzed at coming home late from the bar. And I already know the answer to the question you can't sack up to an answer honestly. So do you even if you won't admit it.

 

just give up. In his eyes women can never be right. To him guys are the victim. If a guy cheats she drove him to do it. If a guy beats her she deserved it.

 

Regardless of the real truth he will write whatever justifies his beliefs.

 

I now see why he respects those who tell the truth....because he is incapable of doing it himself.

 

He is hopeless and will never get better. He doesn't want to get better.

[zengirl]

I should have worded that better. I wasn't referring to anything the OP said, nor anything about my own nature, so I can't be labeled a hypocrite by your or anyone else. I was referring specifically for the conditions necessary for a double standard.

 

I've used the word hypocrisy more than double standard (have I used double standard), but let's look at that:

 

double standard

 

 

–noun 1. any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, esp. an unwritten code of sexual behavior permitting men more freedom than women.

 

(dictionary.com; check it out)

 

Seriously, it's IN THE DICTIONARY as a double standard.

 

Now, if you're saying, "Well, there should be double standards," I think that's a weak argument. Mostly because the only time double standards make sense is when there is a higher purpose to having them (i.e. laws that allow child offenders to be charged as children and rehabilitated early on, rather than sentenced at the adult level for most crimes; this is because we realize that our young have both a greater chance at rehabilitation and less control over their circumstances, as well as developmental limitations; nobody does it to impugn adults or increase the severity of a sentence for them, and it is done because they are seen as "weak" and not fully capable of what healthy adults are capable of---standards for mentally ill or developmentally retarded people in a court of law are similar, though sometimes abused). How on Earth is there a higher purpose in this context?

Edited August 10, 2010 by zengirl

[Stockalone]

Way to miss the point fellas, in the same way you did through the entire thread.

 

A person came on here, confessed to being a hypocritical liar and then goes on to talk about how the people he lies to are now beneath him and incapable of honest actions.

 

And you all chimed in with theories as to why it is acceptable - even righteous that he act this way.

 

Then all you offer are excuses, none of which are supported by facts concerning ethics OR biology.

 

That is not true, but it's not important.

 

What matters, is that there is really no point in arguing with the OP (or meerkat for that matter). You are wasting your time. After I initially posted in this thread, I remembered something and eventually found this:http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2105675&postcount=47

 

It's not worth dealing with that kind of BS. The only thing these threads are intended for, is to get people riled up.

[donnamaybe]

Stopped reading your reply right there

No, I'm sure you read it all, but it TOTALLY unraveled your so-called theory which allows men to sleep around, but not women.