Genuine Classy Lady or a Retired Jump Off?

[sally4sara]

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.

 

Thank you Stockalone for shedding a light on this. I wonder if his supporters still agree with him now?

 

I know YOU didn't think he was being righteous in his actions. You live up to the standards you want in a mate.

[donnamaybe]

Thank you Stockalone for shedding a light on this. I wonder if his supporters still agree with him now?

 

I know YOU didn't think he was being righteous in his actions. You live up to the standards you want in a mate.

I do believe the emperor has lost his clothes.

[mr.dream merchant]

No, its wrong to pursue a woman when you've already decided that she isn't the long term mate type, but you waste her time and play with her emotions because she's willing to sleep with you.

 

If you don't date girls who are sexually loose or what ever, fine, but don't say "I'll date them but only when no one is looking" that's where I have the problem.

 

That, and I don't consider my past anyone's business but mine and if my unwillingness to detail every sexual partner for you to decide if I'm good enough is a deal breaker, then you're an idiot.

 

Bro..that's her fault if emotions get involved.

[mr.dream merchant]

This cauldron is starting to bubble a bit MORE out of control than I expected so I want to try to set it on the path I had in mind for it.

 

Fellas - Would you or would you not, seriously date, a promiscuous woman (alot of partners, quick to give the goods up, sleeps with men she barely knows, needs loads of external validation from other men besides her bf/husband/fiance..etc.) ?

 

Furthermore, do you believe that a promiscuous woman (same definition as above) is MORE LIKELY to give in to infidelity/adultery/cheating/lust, WHILE IN A MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP, than a more conservative woman?

 

If you answer a yes to either question, explain why. If you answer a no to either question, explain why.

[phineas]

This cauldron is starting to bubble a bit MORE out of control than I expected so I want to try to set it on the path I had in mind for it.

 

Fellas - Would you or would you not, seriously date, a promiscuous woman (alot of partners, quick to give the goods up, sleeps with men she barely knows, needs loads of external validation from other men besides her bf/husband/fiance..etc.) ?

 

Furthermore, do you believe that a promiscuous woman (same definition as above) is MORE LIKELY to give in to infidelity/adultery/cheating/lust, WHILE IN A MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP, than a more conservative woman?

 

If you answer a yes to either question, explain why. If you answer a no to either question, explain why.

 

I have dated promiscuous women. I just didn't find out until later on.

I attract a certain type of woman.

The type that has random sex with guys they think are hot.

They meet me & want a relationship.

They tell me they "don't want a relationship based on sex" & basically refuse to have sex with me until i've "proven" myself to them.

 

These same women had a FWB I didn't know about also.

 

This happened a lot when I was in college.

Consequently I did not get laid much.

 

These women got fed up with my desire to have sex & then litteraly jumped into bed with another guy before even breaking up with me.

 

What it came down to was I was the type of guy they thought they should be with but not the type they were attracted to.

 

I've wisened up. A woman attracted to me WANTS to have sex with me & does not wait around either because she thinks an attractive guy like me will have other women looking to jump my bones so she gets me first THEN talks about exclusivity & relationships.

[mr.dream merchant]

Hmm, off topic, but you've shed some light on a dilemme I've been going through. I think I mentioned earlier that alot of women, even the promiscuous ones, are always trying to lock me down. I don't understand it so it's hard to even put it down on paper you know?

 

Basically I meet them, we chit chat blahzey blahzey..they want to date. But the issue with this is, some of them are VERY promiscuous, albeit - a hoe. So I don't understand..are they trying to deceive me? Are they trying to lock something down while still fooling around on the side?

 

Another thing you typed that struck home was the attractive guy part. I'm, for the most part, an above average looking guy. I'm in tip top physical shape. Given my ethnic background, I have a slightly different complexion then most of the people living in South Florida. I've had women come up to me just to find out what I'm mixed with because they can tell just by looking at me that I'm mixed...errr that's not even the point, got sidetracked lol.

 

The point is, why do women assume I'm being hounded by other women? Because the reality of it is, I'm not. Women don't really approach me like that. I'm not sure if it's because I look intimidating or because they're shy or because they're assuming I'm some sort of ******* player?

 

With that being said, if a woman thinks you've got other women after you..is she more likely to sleep with, and try to lock you down since you're so "sought after" in her eyes?

[K'aycie]

Another thing you typed that struck home was the attractive guy part. I'm, for the most part, an above average looking guy. I'm in tip top physical shape. Given my ethnic background, I have a slightly different complexion then most of the people living in South Florida. I've had women come up to me just to find out what I'm mixed with because they can tell just by looking at me that I'm mixed...errr that's not even the point, got sidetracked lol.

 

Your attitude and your personality, is god aweful, who cares what you look like.

 

All you've demonstrated through this entire thread, is your fondness and knowledge of the words: slut, whore, hoe. What college do you go to again?

[mr.dream merchant]

Your attitude and your personality, is god aweful, who cares what you look like.

 

All you've demonstrated through this entire thread, is your fondness and knowledge of the words: slut, whore, hoe. What college do you go to again?

 

 

Your input is null. So why are you here?

[You Go Girl]

Your input is null. So why are you here?

 

Her imput isn't null. It's frickin' spot on, dude.

 

Your sexist attitude is enough to make me puke.

[caramel c]

Meerkat, excellent analogy and supporting arguments. I will keep that one in mind for future reference. Ladies, it's nothing to be offended by. Have some respect for yourselves and for the whole world, if you desire to be respected and valued. Take YOURSELF seriously.

[mr.dream merchant]

Her imput isn't null. It's frickin' spot on, dude.

 

Your sexist attitude is enough to make me puke.

 

You to, so again, why are you here? As far as this thread is concerned, your input is not needed. If you direct yourself to the OP, I was looking for male input. Sexist? Not at all. Whorish women just aren't my cup of tea when it comes to serious relationships. It's cool if you don't agree, but I'd rather you take your angst somewhere else. Perhaps your couch, with a pint of ice cream and a Sex In The City DVD collection.

[meerkat stew]

After I initially posted in this thread, I remembered something

 

Oh yeah, you "remembered" it, sure... you didn't scour through OP's entire post history looking for nails for a cross, you "remembered" a single year and a half old post from OP. Is that single post all you could dig up? Out of how many OP has made? and it doesn't deviate from anything at all he's said here, or perhaps you would like to point out specific contradictions rather than just toss the solitary post out for the bandwagon?

 

You're as bad as the worst of them here.

Edited August 10, 2010 by meerkat stew

[mr.dream merchant]

Well in Stockalone's defense, it's good ammunition for the feminist opposition on this thread. I actually got a good laugh out of it, a year and a half ago I was going through hard times with a less than stellar gf/ex-gf. Emotions, logical thinking, and reasoning were out the window.

 

Fast foward a year and a half later to a Healthier, Physically attractive, sexier, and single me - my head is on straight.

 

Now I'm in a situation I never thought I'd be in...trying to weed out the easy broads lol.

 

Off topic - But don't believe your gf when she tells you she doesn't care about looks. My life has become exponentially greater since I obtained an 8 pack, muscles and definition. Women are generally friendlier to me, doesn't matter the creed, race, age, profession.

 

Furthermore, I found it to be that the women who make passes at me the most are the one's who're in a committed monogamous relationship, lol isn't that something? Tells me alot about those said women -

 

1. They're not honest with themselves

2. They tend to settle

3. Just as much of a easy lay as the promiscuous ones for the simple fact of them entertanining the idea of cheating on their husband and or boyfriend(s).

4. Referring to Inceptor here, but he was right - there's alot more dishonest and promiscuous women out there than I could've imagined.

 

So if I sound like a sexist, excuse me - I'm only reflecting on what goes on throughout my everyday life lol.. All it takes is a black wifebeater and the truth comes to the light.

Edited August 10, 2010 by mr.dream merchant

[K'aycie]

Your input is null. So why are you here?

 

Thanks!

 

I'm sorry that you find it perfectly acceptable to be an ignorant bigot.

[Stockalone]

...perhaps you would like to point out specific contradictions rather than just toss the solitary post out for the bandwagon?

 

People who like to follow up on that solitary post, can easily do so (e.g. read the entire thread) and then draw their own conclusions based on what was written.

 

But since you'd like a speficic contradicition:

 

old thread:

I will NOT use a female for sex, then turn around and deem her unfit for relationship. I do not tolerate hypocrisy, even from myself.

 

and

 

...I WILL NOT **** said female, or consider her worthy of my time, or heart, or commitment.

 

new thread:

...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.

 

 

Well in Stockalone's defense, it's good ammunition for the feminist opposition on this thread. I actually got a good laugh out of it, a year and a half ago I was going through hard times with a less than stellar gf/ex-gf. Emotions, logical thinking, and reasoning were out the window.

 

Fast foward a year and a half later to a Healthier, Physically attractive, sexier, and single me - my head is on straight.

 

Now I'm in a situation I never thought I'd be in...trying to weed out the easy broads lol.

 

Last year, you were calling it hypocrisy. Now you are doing that very thing and call it having your head on straight.

 

Fair enough, people change their mind all the time. That said, you'll also have to deal with other people questioning your behaviour.

[MrNate]

Why is this such a huge issue again? I don't really see how men can hold a double standard of that caliber against women. I mean think about it at its basic level..even if the woman is/was very promiscuous, she still needs a male for this sex to happen. So basically, the men keep getting a pass while the woman's hole is dug deeper. I don't know, I just don't think it's far to be like that.

 

I know this comes from the idea that it's easier for women to get sex than men, so men should not be labeled for taking advantage of opportunitites, and women should be ostracized for doing so.

 

This comes across to me as a situation that's been created out of pure imagination more than anything.. This idea that the big bad woman, who understands that sex will never be a problem for her, is going around waving it in front of men's faces and bragging about how easy it is. So because she's doing this, the men feel, in order to level the playing field proceed to label and humiliate women for their sexual acts, while justifying theirs. See the problem here?? Lots of made up mental play.

 

It's safe to assume that most mentally healthy women acknowledge their sexual power, but it no way do they go around abusing it nor boasting about it. Part of it is because they know sex is not the means by which they measure their worth, and the other part is they just really don't care. I assume most of them want to have sex with men they find attractive and want to be around (like us guys)...instead of creeps/stalkers which I'm sure they have to deal with quite often.

 

So why can we just drop the labeling?

[donnamaybe]

I say good work, Stock, at ferreting out the unvarnished truth and the incredible hypocrisy! At least you LIVE what you expect from others. You have the RIGHT to what you expect in a woman, since you live up to those expectations yourself.

 

As for "I only want to hear from the guys" BS, well, sure. While the "men" only are crowing and patting each other on the back for being hypocritical, using jerks, they confirm for each other the notion that they're A-OK.

[meerkat stew]

Well in Stockalone's defense, it's good ammunition for the feminist opposition on this thread. I actually got a good laugh out of it, a year and a half ago I was going through hard times with a less than stellar gf/ex-gf. Emotions, logical thinking, and reasoning were out the window.

 

Fast foward a year and a half later to a Healthier, Physically attractive, sexier, and single me - my head is on straight.

 

You're charitable. Your explanation makes sense, completely understandable, yet were you invited to explain the "remembered" post when it was posted? Of course not, it was not dug up...erm "remembered" to truly challenge you, to give you a chance to reconcile your views now and then, it was tossed out in a conclusory manner for the purpose of discounting anything you say, circling the typical LS wagons, and "proving" that you aren't worth listening to.

 

LS... Springer/Povich for the internet!

[caramel c]

Have been through this before, will do so again. There is very little comparison between how the average man seeks and obtains sex and how the average woman does so. Women have almost complete control over when and with whom they have sex. Men have very little control over which of their advances result in sex and which will be rejected.

 

How a man seeks and obtains sex is like a legally blind man walking into the woods hunting with a shotgun, shooting at noises. He better keep shooting in hopes of hitting -something-. Sometimes he gets lucky and hits lots of critters in a row, sometimes he doesn't hit anything for days. If he stops shooting though, he will definitely starve.

 

How a woman seeks and obtains sex is like someone in a restaurant who is given a choice of a whole table of dishes set before them. They don't know whether the next dish will be unappealing to them, or whether it will be the best dish ever, before they taste the dish. There will always be something to eat though, it just may or may not be a favorite. If this person eats literally every dish set before them, they are a glutton, and gluttony translates into lots of other areas of life.

 

Men who take advantage of eating everything they manage to shoot blind are keeping fed because they never know for certain where their next meal is coming from. Women who eat every dish they can are gluttons because despite knowing they will always have plenty to eat, they eat everything that is set before them anyway. That's the difference, and it's an elementary and very distinct one.

 

There is no comparison between how average women and men seek and obtain sex, so arguments that go down the "well he did it too" path are without any rational foundation.

 

I had to read this again, as it was brilliant. There IS no comparison btw how avg women and men seek and obtain sex. The double standard is there for a reason, whether it's fair or unfair is irrelevant. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. What matters most (as a lady) is that you represent yourself through your actions and words in a respectful manner. Then, you do not need to worry so much about whether or not you're being used or whether or not a guy is going to take you seriously. And that is fair.

Edited August 10, 2010 by caramel c

[donnamaybe]

I had to read this again, as it was brilliant. There IS no comparison btw how avg women and men seek and obtain sex. The double standard is there for a reason, whether it's fair or unfair is irrelevant. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. What matters most (as a lady) is that you represent yourself through your actions and words in a respectful manner. Then, you do not need to worry so much about whether or not you're being used or whether or not a guy is going to take you seriously. And that is fair.

Oh, but only as a "lady," eh?

 

So men can be P's OS and that's okay? Gotcha.

[caramel c]

Oh, but only as a "lady," eh?

 

So men can be P's OS and that's okay? Gotcha.

 

What does P stand for and what does OS stand for?

 

I said 'as a lady' because I am a lady (not a man), so naturally I am speaking from a lady's perspective on this. Also, as a lady, I can use my own discretion as to which types of men I would like to go out with. I don't have to go out with a guy who's slept with the whole city if it turns me off (which it does). But, if I slept with the whole city myself I see why it is not the SAME thing. It does not compare.

[sally4sara]

You're charitable. Your explanation makes sense, completely understandable, yet were you invited to explain the "remembered" post when it was posted? Of course not, it was not dug up...erm "remembered" to truly challenge you, to give you a chance to reconcile your views now and then, it was tossed out in a conclusory manner for the purpose of discounting anything you say, circling the typical LS wagons, and "proving" that you aren't worth listening to.

 

LS... Springer/Povich for the internet!

 

Here is one for you Meerkat; it took me all of five minutes to find. A wonderful post authored by you calling people who operate just as the OP does - lacking quality. Yet in this thread, you back him.

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2655774#post2655774

[meerkat stew]

I say good work, Stock, at ferreting out the unvarnished truth and the incredible hypocrisy!

 

First, do you -actually- model yourself after Tracy Flick in "Election?" or just work at the Daily Planet? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

Second, sure hope one day when someone scours through your, or one of your fellow "bandwagoneers'" 1000 or so past posts on a casual internet relationship forum to find -a- year and a half old one that appears contradictory to something you are saying now, that you will still think that's "ferreting out the unvarnished truth." (how frickin creepy is that btw? brrrrrr)

 

Sure hope that when, to add insult to injury, the person who digs up the post -lies- pretty obviously about "just happening to remember" a year and a half old post so as not to appear that they are "witch-hunting" you, that you will still think that's "ferreting out the unvarnished truth."

 

Then when they take the dug up necro post, plop it in a thread, and deem you unworthy of discussion without offering you the opportunity to explain or reconcile it, that you will still think that's "ferreting out the unvarnished truth."

 

Finally, upon your volunteering a reasonable explanation, and that your stance has changed, when they kind of "half-acknowledge" your right to change your position over a year and a half, then offer a kind of wishy-washy further condemnation without really just coming out and saying it, that you will still think that's "ferreting out the unvarnished truth."

 

Something tells me you won't be offering congratulations for "ferreting out the unvarnished truth" then.

[meerkat stew]

Didn't even read the whole necroed post of mine, and don't intend to, but pretty sure this:

 

A wonderful post authored by you calling people who operate just as the OP does - lacking quality. Yet in this thread, you back him.

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2655774#post2655774

 

is not what it says.

 

It really doesn't surprise me that you people don't see how creepy and wrong it is to necro many months or even years old posts to try to discredit people in a casual relationship forum, so I understand on one level, but it is wrong, I absolutely won't do it or acknowledge it further other than to condemn the practice.

 

If I said something last week that seems to contradict something said this week, or even last month, fine, have at it, fair game. Otherwise, it's over the line, obnoxious, and even a bit obsessive.

 

That is all.

[TheBigQuestion]

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?

 

I don't encourage or condone double standards. Like I've been saying (and to which neither you or anyone else has actually responded to adequately), the differences in general attitudes between male and female promiscuity is not a true double standard. It would only be a double standard if all the facts between the two parties remain consistent. Considering that meerkat's original example is a pretty accurate description of the differences between male and female ease of access of sex, it's obvious that the facts between the two parties are not consistent. Is the OP right to look down on people who behave the same way as him as inferior or broken people? No. This non-double standard is not an excuse for these types of beliefs, and these beliefs are not really even justifiable by the non-double standard if you think about it.