Genuine Classy Lady or a Retired Jump Off?

[Tayla]

The greatest health hazard I've read here is the mental ignorance held and the double standards imposed.

 

George Carlin said it best- NIMBY('S)

[mr.dream merchant]

The greatest health hazard I've read here is the mental ignorance held and the double standards imposed.

 

George Carlin said it best- NIMBY('S)

 

:lmao::lmao:

[meerkat stew]

I copied the entire passage from the dictionary in question. The origin of neither of those is modern. I don't see your point.

 

1. You do realize that "Webster" is not some kind of special, authoritative "type" of dictionary, right? It is merely a tradename which several publishers use. Merriam-Webster is one such publisher, but several other publishing companies use the tradename "Webster's Dictionary," and the definitions contained within are far from standardized. Dictionaries, generally are mere catalogs of usage, lists of words in a language, and are neither unbiased nor authoritative as to the actual meanings of words, they are mere summaries. Whatever else you may or may not get from this discussion, please understand that the previous is a matter of fact and not opinion. You would do well to consider not backing your arguments on -any- issue with appeals to a dictionary unless someone happens to be arguing for a thoroughly incorrect meaning of a word.

 

2. The points I made about relying on a dictionary alone as authoritative are -crystal- clear in my prior post, unlike whatever point you are trying to make above. I won't retype them. The main point is that the inclusion of the supposed male/female sexual behavior double standard in the definition of "double standard" you cite dates back to the 50s, when gender relations were vastly different than today. I think you know this full well though, and are just showing your characteristic obtuseness or trolling.

 

In your newest analogy:

You're saying men are blind

 

You know full well that the blind man analogy was to illustrate merely that a double standard between two groups can not exist if both groups in question are not similarly situated. It was clearly stated as such. You are just being obtuse again.

 

You can say "but the definitions don't matter" all you want, but they do. That said, if TheBigQuestion or anyone else is clear in what they mean, I don't have to resort to whipping out definitions. But the meanings of words are important.

 

Indeed, the meanings of words are important. This is something we all know. Dictionaries are only the very roughest starting point for what the meanings of words really are though. This is something else we all know, and you know, and I have covered this previously in several very clear ways. Just because some supposed sexual double standard was a good example of how the term "double standard" was used in the 50s, was added in -a- dictionary then, does not mean it is applicable today.

 

For example, I looked up the word "apartheid" in my unabridged dictionary and the definition given is "In the Republic of South Africa, racial segregation and discrimination..." South Africa has not been an example of the word "apartheid" for some years now, and neither has the gender sexual behavior difference been an example of the term "double standard" for some years. I can't make the point any clearer than this.

 

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The two have different uses.

 

OK, for the sake of argument...

 

Encyclopedia are for broad information of a topic,

 

and still very brief summaries, but even so, FAR more authoritative with respect to the definitions of the words contained therein than a mere dictionary.

 

and dictionaries are for defining words.

 

Not really, a dictionary has several uses, but the chief use of the kind of dictionary we are discussing is more for cataloging words. It does offer some definitional content and some usage examples, but is neither comprehensive nor authoritative in either.

 

I didn't go to the encyclopedia article for many reasons -- mostly because copying the whole thing in would be tedious, and my point wasn't to discuss the nuances of double standards but to get people to use the words they mean, so things could be discussed.

 

I'm not stupid. Your intent in saying "it's in the dictionary!" was very clear, to dispute the point that thebigquestion brought out that a double standard can not exist between two groups that are not identically or near identically situated.

 

That is not true. Nowhere does it say identically situated.

 

The wiki article specifically mentions the "apples to oranges" reply to the gender/sex double standard claim. That's what I was talking about. I stated that the wiki is not an authoritative source either -very- clearly in my post.

 

But more importantly, You really need to get off the "it says/it doesn't say" tack when talking about dictionaries and sources on the internet. Dictionaries and stuff on the internet are not definitive, authoritative sources for much of anything other than a scrabble game. Arguments are not won or lost nor points made by someone pulling out a dictionary for "definitions." Thought I was clear about this before, guess not.

 

Except both Wiki and the dictionary fail to say this. Y'all are just making it up.

 

More of the same. Neither I nor anyone else conditioned the validity of the points we are making on whether "a dictionary or wiki says something," that's -all- you. Do you honestly think that everything that someone says that is not contained in the one dictionary you happened to pick up or a wiki article is "made up?" Look these words up in your Webster's dictionary, "clawback," "earnout," "true-up," you probably won't find any of them there. Think I made them up then?

 

Men don't get thrown in jail for having loads of consensual sex. I know some who do have loads of it, indiscreetly. They're free.

 

and I accounted for the possibility of those in at least two posts, probably three by now they are not the average, they are outliers, and in those rare cases, they are situated the same as women.

 

I know women who've had lots of sex who are perfectly discreet and men who've had lots of sex who aren't. . . and vice versa.

 

I see three legged dogs from time to time, and six toed cats, and also know those types of folks myself.

 

Except this thread didn't start with "A man was there doing it too." It started with a fellow saying, "I'm going to whore around but judge any woman that does" ---he made no comments about discretion whatsoever.

 

yeah, that's what he said, that he was going to whore around but judge any woman who does. I feel a more fair version of OP's stance is that he is willing to take advantage of an opportunity from a woman who throws herself at him, or is known to be an easy lay, but he will not consider her as relationship material. I did add the "man there doing it too" because as I knew it would, once I questioned one of the sacred cow planks in the feminist agenda, that women are sexually oppressed by being judged for doing stuff men are not judged for, that -that- is what the thread would become, and it has done just that.

[meerkat stew]

Speaking of which, the biggest problem I have here - the misuse of aforementioned terms aside - is the need to negatively label certain (legal) sexual behavior and or a specific gender involved. I don’t see any need for it myself.

 

Granted, my issue with this topic is mostly political. The same "sacred" double standard that women cling to as justification for going around with a mattress strapped to their backs is also used to screw men politically in many ways.

[Engadget]

I don`t know why so many men are so hung up on a womans past.

 

I can guarantee any reasonably attractive guy was a fairly big slut at some point or another yet I seldom if ever hear women asking these questions.

 

Not true. At 25 my number just hit double digits, in about 10 years. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I spent 6 years (with a few sprinkled in between with breakups, and cheating on the ex's part) with the same girl.

 

To me, sex with a girl I love or care about surpasses sex with random women. I'm a horny guy too, and I'm constantly fighting internally over this. Part of me wants to jump in bed with any girl that looks at me, but I don't.

 

If you're my age, 25 and had an insane number of partners...you're slutty. Doesn't matter if you're male or female, just some men are dumb and high five other guys who bang tons of women. I have friends that do this, I'm not one of them.

[zengirl]

I don't understand it really. Women say I'm judging them but honestly I'm not, because I still find them pleasant and good people. I just prefer not to date them. Is that judging? Or playing it smart? I'm not gonna pie some chick who's loose and be like "Ewww bitch you're a slut!" Because even though she's loose, she may be a great person.

 

The title of this thread is judgy, as are your comments. I've no care on who you date, really, but I do think it's lame when promiscuous men say they won't date promiscuous women. While I might date a formerly promiscuous man (I'd prefer not to), I wouldn't date a promiscuous man with this view. Or any view that demonstrated he viewed male sexuality as more important and needing to be expressed than female sexuality. That's not saying I think anyone needs to be promiscuous, but clearly he did if he was, so he has to back up that view with a consistent value system to be attractive to me.

 

Beyond that, I'd like fellows not to call girls names about it. Or act like they're dirty. Even hypothetically. Actually, especially hypothetically. And especially while saying either they do the same thing or it's totally cool for men to do it.

 

Lol, another reason why easy girls are a risk. You DON'T know where, who, or what she's been doing. I mean, I'm sexually active and single, but I wrap my **** up. I live in South Florida, party capital - easy girls ARE the epidemic out there, and along with that? Guess what? HIV/AIDS county capital. Who'da thought. I don't expect other women to know that - but that's the point. You don't know.

 

I imagine plenty of women who sleep around also insist on having safe sex. . . not that any sex is ever safe, but that's health class blahblahblah. What's this got to do with anything? So only girls carry sexual diseases? That's ridiculous.

 

For example, no one blinks an eye when a woman dismisses a potential male suitor because she sees him as being physically weak. And that is despite the fact that he’s, in all likelihood, physically stronger than her. No one negatively judges her, no one asks her to have a good look it herself when she’s judging him.

 

Interesting. Someone has finally brought up a good point. I don't actually seek physical strength in a male---though certain kinds aren't unappealing---but I know some women do. That said, I don't know any women who call less physically strong males "wimps" "half a man" or any sort of derogatory name. Anyone can date whomever they like. The issue is more the attitude in question.

 

There are other factors that make this different from the sexual hypocrisy here. This is being considered a character flaw, not just a quality that is less than attractive. I think that is the main issue I have with it. If the fellow had said, "I prefer women who've slept with fewer men than I have women," I wouldn't have jumped all over it. That's a preference. But stating all the judgments and risks and slurs is something I find hypocritical and appalling.

 

I also think it's a biology thing. To me, our choices and actions are not determined by our biology. I could only get so strong, even if I worked at it, and certainly not as strong as most men or even some women. My body is built how it is. Anyone can choose to say yay or nay to any sexual partner. I don't believe men have some deficiency that makes them NEED to be promiscuous, and I'm not sure how that could possibly be conveyed as me being unfair or unkind to men. I'm saying they don't have to ride the moral short-bus and blame it on testosterone. They may have a stronger desire for sex (and there are men with low testosterone levels and women with ridiculous sex drives, so we can't take this wholesale), but one doesn't have any need to act on every desire. That's the whole point of judging promiscuity and impulse control at all.

 

This issue has never come up in my life. I have never slept with/seriously dated (the two are one and the same to me) a fellow who slept around, assuming everyone I dated was honest, which is pretty sure. I do think it's just an excuse for men to give into poor impulses and hold themselves to different standards, which is hypocritical. Just because many people do it, doesn't make it right. All the numbers I've seen on beliefs like this tell me we're trending in the right direction and men of my generation are far less likely to expect differing sexual standards for women than for themselves than other generations.

 

 

1. You do realize that "Webster" is not some kind of special, authoritative "type" of dictionary, right?

 

You do realize that it's a saying. I understand what a dictionary is. I have a dual Masters, part of which is in linguistics. I understand words evolve, etc, but the point of all of this is that saying it's not a double standard when it is in a commonly agreed upon reference as such is just ignoring whatever doesn't make your point. Anyone calling it a double standard has a pretty firm basis to do so, and common opinion convened in printed form to say so. I like words, and I like playing with them and changing them up, BUT I think you're the one grasping at straws at this point. It's in there. . . part of the zeitgeist. Just because YOU don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's a valid distinction to make. Which was the whole point of quoting the dictionary. I'm not saying "The dictionary is God and will never change." I'm saying it's ridiculous to suggest someone using a dictionary definition of something is somehow wrong for saying it because you disagree with the definition, the circumstances from which it evolved, or whatnot.

 

2. The points I made about relying on a dictionary alone as authoritative are -crystal- clear in my prior post, unlike whatever point you are trying to make above. I won't retype them. The main point is that the inclusion of the supposed male/female sexual behavior double standard in the definition of "double standard" you cite dates back to the 50s, when gender relations were vastly different than today. I think you know this full well though, and are just showing your characteristic obtuseness or trolling.

I didn't notice the date. I'm not being obtuse. I was making the post rather quickly. Think about this for a moment: Consider that I'm not in your generation and that it was a known double standard long before I was born. Why does it even matter to me which era it came from? Most people in my generation agree this attitude is a "double standard", whether they agree with it or dismiss it as bunk. A few outliers exist, but ask a handful of twenty-somethings if they think it's a double standard. A true cross-section. They'll likely be fine with the dictionary definition. It is a commonly referred to double standard. Common enough to be put into the dictionary.

 

You know full well that the blind man analogy was to illustrate merely that a double standard between two groups can not exist if both groups in question are not similarly situated. It was clearly stated as such. You are just being obtuse again.

You are the one being obtuse. My point is that the analogy doesn't fit. Here's what I consider an apt analogy with your same setting and consequences. The whole idea of saying "It's different for men" relies on believing there is a deficiency in the man, or some need that the woman doesn't have, that allows him to act "badly" while she must act chaste because she "should know better."

 

A man walks into a store, angry that he can't get laid, and knocks over a display.

 

A woman walks into a store and knocks over a display just because she can.

 

The two people are equally wrong. There should be no differing of standards applying to them.

 

But more importantly, You really need to get off the "it says/it doesn't say" tack when talking about dictionaries and sources on the internet. Dictionaries and stuff on the internet are not definitive, authoritative sources for much of anything other than a scrabble game. Arguments are not won or lost nor points made by someone pulling out a dictionary for "definitions." Thought I was clear about this before, guess not.

Arguments are generally not won or lost anyway. The only way to win an argument is not to have one. I'm here to assert my points; not to convince you, as I don't attempt the impossible, and I am smart enough to realize you're stuck in your ways.

 

yeah, that's what he said, that he was going to whore around but judge any woman who does. I feel a more fair version of OP's stance is that he is willing to take advantage of an opportunity from a woman who throws herself at him, or is known to be an easy lay, but he will not consider her as relationship material.

Men constantly throw themselves at women. That's the whole crux of your argument. So, I don't buy that his actions are not promiscuous or able to be judged by the same standards as the woman because women are "throwing themselves at him" (if that is even the case; likely, as you said, he has to work for these lays, which makes them even more premeditated and makes him even more promiscuous and indiscriminate).

 

No one has to consider anyone relationship material. That's not my point. My point is that this worldview is hypocritical, reinforcing an antiquated double standard, and kind of ugly towards both men (they're too deficient to act any better) and women (they're whores if they want to have sex).

Edited August 12, 2010 by zengirl

[You Go Girl]

I didn't read all this thread, and I won't, because I won't dedicate such a large part of my day to the immature views of sexuality of women I see portrayed, and sexist views.

I'll have sex with anybody I chose to, I don't care what anybody else thinks about it when I'm single, it's nobody else's business, and whether I chose to have casual sex or only committed sex is something nobody knows but the partner. My sexuality is my private business. Point being--I reserve the right as a free individual to act as I chose, and so does everybody else on the planet.

However, I am not promiscuous, and that is my choice. I am in my 40's and well beyond the age of instant gratification and rash acts.

 

Promiscuity is either a mental problem--such as an attention need or ego trip, or it is a maturity problem. I'll go as far as to say that when a person, (regardless of gender) is young and experimenting, a few acts of promiscuity, is a path to maturity, and not necessarily a problem per se, but a learning path. There's nothing unhealthy or unusual about teenagers experimenting, particularly because they often date more than one person at a time, whereas mature adults do not, or at least do not engage in any full-blown promiscuity.

It doesn't matter which gender the person is. That has no bearing on the judgment of the why a person is promiscuous, and what it says about them. Once past the teenage years, it is a sign of a maturity issue.

The same rules apply is my point, regardless of gender.

Any men that believe that they may be promiscuous but not "ladies" simply have maturity issues.

[mr.dream merchant]

I didn't read all this thread, and I won't, because I won't dedicate such a large part of my day to the immature views of sexuality of women I see portrayed, and sexist views.

I'll have sex with anybody I chose to, I don't care what anybody else thinks about it when I'm single, it's nobody else's business, and whether I chose to have casual sex or only committed sex is something nobody knows but the partner. My sexuality is my private business. Point being--I reserve the right as a free individual to act as I chose, and so does everybody else on the planet.

However, I am not promiscuous, and that is my choice. I am in my 40's and well beyond the age of instant gratification and rash acts.

 

Promiscuity is either a mental problem--such as an attention need or ego trip, or it is a maturity problem. I'll go as far as to say that when a person, (regardless of gender) is young and experimenting, a few acts of promiscuity, is a path to maturity, and not necessarily a problem per se, but a learning path. There's nothing unhealthy or unusual about teenagers experimenting, particularly because they often date more than one person at a time, whereas mature adults do not, or at least do not engage in any full-blown promiscuity.

It doesn't matter which gender the person is. That has no bearing on the judgment of the why a person is promiscuous, and what it says about them. Once past the teenage years, it is a sign of a maturity issue.

The same rules apply is my point, regardless of gender.

Any men that believe that they may be promiscuous but not "ladies" simply have maturity issues.

 

Read the thread..zzzzz....can someone tell Zengirl that I don't believe a woman is a whore for having sex? Lol, pretty sure I stated that already. Is she a whore for having lots of sex? Not at all. But, in MY.EYES., I would not date her. Have fun no strings attached sex with her? Sure, why not. But GF? She doesn't make the cut. Zengirl has a chip on her shoulder for sure, cause I'm pretty sure she's been ignoring the last 3 times I've said that. Perhaps a guy turned her down for a GF because she was sleeping around @ one point in her life. Which is ok, on both the guy's part, and her's (if the scenario is fact). Women have criteria for boyfriends. Penis size, money, the way he dresses, muscles, skin color, hair, past..etc..So why can't men have criteria? To sit here and tell me that I'm immature for my standards and preferences is pretty ignorant, because even though you don't agree with them, at least respect them. To come on my thread and throw slander @ me is wild and beyond me.

 

Here's a great story. I went on a date with this lovely girl from Bangladesh. She was a facebook friend, so she's seen my pictures and my body. Ok, cool. 1st date, we had a good time..at the end of the date we walk out into the parking lot, and things got pretty heated real quick. She ended up in my car with her shirt and bra off. Looking back on it, I could've nailed her pretty good because that's what she wanted, but I didn't because I was looking for a GF at the time. Turns out, she friendzoned me because, I, "moved too fast". Completely ignoring the fact that I did not coerce her into what happened, and that she consented to all of that, she labeled me not boyfriend material. Was she wrong for that? Not at all. What she was wrong for is putting all the blame on me, saying it was my fault all of that happened that night.

 

This leads me to believe that everyone, men and women, have people that they would sleep with but not date due to certain values, expectations and standards. So all you butthurt ass feminist zealots can kick rocks lol. Because your argument is null. And most likely hypocritical as well. Which is ok, because we're human.

 

If a guy wants to bang a woman, but turn her down as serious dating material, that's completely fine. He has his reasons, as he is allowed to. Does this mean the guy is judging the girl? Looking down on her, marking and labeling her a whore and a terrible person? Not at all. He just doesn't see the girlfriend qualities HE WANTS in the said woman.

Edited August 12, 2010 by mr.dream merchant

[a_woman]

Here's a great story. I went on a date with this lovely girl from Bangladesh. She was a facebook friend, so she's seen my pictures and my body. Ok, cool. 1st date, we had a good time..at the end of the date we walk out into the parking lot, and things got pretty heated real quick. She ended up in my car with her shirt and bra off. Looking back on it, I could've nailed her pretty good because that's what she wanted, but I didn't because I was looking for a GF at the time. Turns out, she friendzoned me because, I, "moved too fast". Completely ignoring the fact that I did not coerce her into what happened, and that she consented to all of that, she labeled me not boyfriend material. Was she wrong for that? Not at all. What she was wrong for is putting all the blame on me, saying it was my fault all of that happened that night.

 

 

wrong. she got annoyed with you because you didn't nail her. it's embarrassing for a girl if a guy turns her down when she offers herself up so much.

 

I agree with you on not taking promiscuous people as partner material, I'm the same. I have had casual sex but to my knowledge never with men I would consider players. there is nothing wrong with spontaneous fun but not with people that make a weekly sport out of it.

 

as for relationships, being even more selective is a good thing. I once dated very briefly (never slept with) a serial modeliser who was a very well read and very intelligent man but who relied on his sexual persona so much with the ladies that spending time with him was as much fun as reading a mediocre book.

 

I have friends who have bedded hundreds of girls and none of them are boyfriend material, they just don't have much to offer beyond smooth talk and they take themselves seriously. dull.

[phineas]

wrong. she got annoyed with you because you didn't nail her. it's embarrassing for a girl if a guy turns her down when she offers herself up so much.

 

This was my biggest problem my whole 20's.

Women asked me out & on the first date they want to have sex & i'm knocked off guard.

I don't have condoms, i'm nervouse, afraid to take it all the way because I can't believe she actually wants to do this on the first date.

ect.

 

Then they ignore me after that when I regroup & am ready to go on a 2nd date & give them what they wanted.

 

It's frustrating becuase I like sex (duh) but I was never the type of guy who asked a woman out just because I wanted to sleep with her.

 

I asked a woman out because I wanted to see if she was GF material.

[zengirl]

First of all, you weren't the only one talking in the thread. Though you did say some ugly things, starting with your very first post. Also, the whole "girlfriend material" thing is lame. Why do people say this? Just say, "I don't want to date _____________." That's perfectly reasonable. Saying someone isn't relationship material is one of those needless judgments. As I said many times, I don't care who you date. I actually don't think any woman is in any way bad off if you won't date her, after seeing the way you've spoken about things here and elsewhere, but that's my own value judgment. To each their own.

 

Read the thread..zzzzz....can someone tell Zengirl that I don't believe a woman is a whore for having sex? Lol, pretty sure I stated that already. Is she a whore for having lots of sex? Not at all. But, in MY.EYES., I would not date her. Have fun no strings attached sex with her? Sure, why not. But GF? She doesn't make the cut. Zengirl has a chip on her shoulder for sure, cause I'm pretty sure she's been ignoring the last 3 times I've said that. Perhaps a guy turned her down for a GF because she was sleeping around @ one point in her life. Which is ok, on both the guy's part, and her's (if the scenario is fact). Women have criteria for boyfriends. Penis size, money, the way he dresses, muscles, skin color, hair, past..etc..So why can't men have criteria? To sit here and tell me that I'm immature for my standards and preferences is pretty ignorant, because even though you don't agree with them, at least respect them. To come on my thread and throw slander @ me is wild and beyond me.

 

Love the speculation. I've never had what most people consider "casual sex." To me, "casual sex" is sex with someone I didn't love. I've had that, with a couple people. But I'm a monogamist who's been in a series of a few relationships most of my adult life. Never slept with anyone outside them. Never dated a fellow who slept around much either.

 

You can say "I'm okay with it" all you want, but you've also said other things that suggests character judgments you aren't applying to yourself, though demonstrating the same behaviors. Preferences are a different thing. I prefer a fellow who digs computers and can be nerdy about them. I don't know anything about computers. I'm not saying that people who don't know anything about computers are somehow deficient or making a classy/used up distinction. The thread title is all one has to look at to see your true feelings. Though there have been numerous stand-outs in other posts.

 

This leads me to believe that everyone, men and women, have people that they would sleep with but not date due to certain values, expectations and standards. So all you butthurt ass feminist zealots can kick rocks lol. Because your argument is null. And most likely hypocritical as well. Which is ok, because we're human.

Sure, some men and some women do that, I suppose. I think if you're honest about it and tell the person, "I'd sleep with you but never date you" that's cool, I guess. People can do what they want, so long as it doesn't hurt others----that's mostly my motto. I think such standards are silly and generally hypocritical values, and that getting all wrapped up in sexuality in such a way is just plain ugly. You happen to be ugly in a commonly stereotyped way. The Sex and the City ladies were ugly about sex in "shocking, new, liberating" ways sometimes. I'm not saying men have a monopoly on ugly sexual hangups. You just happen to be a male, and your views happened to start this thread, with it's ugly title.

 

I'm not sure how I'm hypocritical. I hold myself to the same standards that I hold others to. Maybe sometimes I hold myself to a higher standard. For the record, I wouldn't sleep with anyone I wouldn't date. And I wouldn't sleep with anyone prior to a real relationship for that reason, because I know too many men would.

 

If a guy wants to bang a woman, but turn her down as serious dating material, that's completely fine. He has his reasons, as he is allowed to. Does this mean the guy is judging the girl? Looking down on her, marking and labeling her a whore and a terrible person? Not at all. He just doesn't see the girlfriend qualities HE WANTS in the said woman.

If a woman's sexual past in and of itself is that quality, then I find that odd, but generally, I'd accept it's more an issue of his own sexual insecurity. Or strange fetish. Because, really, there's no way the past itself is what directs most of this discussion. It's the qualities that are being projected -- indiscriminate, indiscreet, cheating, whatever.

 

If he's projecting other qualities onto her, because of it, that's judging. Now, everybody judges. But that's judging. And it's judging about something I find kind of ugly, in a hypocritical way. As I've said many times.

 

Just as you reserve the right to judge anyone you like, I suppose I reserve the right to judge you on this. I don't judge people on their sexual numbers, but I fully admit I judge people. And I mostly choose them on how they choose to judge others and/or exercise control. If you can find hypocrisy there, feel free to suss it out. I can't see any. I expect no more from the world than I expect from myself.

Edited August 12, 2010 by zengirl

[a_woman]

This was my biggest problem my whole 20's.

Women asked me out & on the first date they want to have sex & i'm knocked off guard.

I don't have condoms, i'm nervouse, afraid to take it all the way because I can't believe she actually wants to do this on the first date.

ect.

 

Then they ignore me after that when I regroup & am ready to go on a 2nd date & give them what they wanted.

 

It's frustrating becuase I like sex (duh) but I was never the type of guy who asked a woman out just because I wanted to sleep with her.

 

I asked a woman out because I wanted to see if she was GF material.

 

to them that was rejection though, they weren't as confident as they pretended. maybe they only wanted sex - or at least they were really into instant gratification (being young and that) and didn't have to patience to see how things panned out

[a_woman]

First of all, you weren't the only one talking in the thread. Though you did say some ugly things, starting with your very first post. Also, the whole "girlfriend material" thing is lame. Why do people say this? Just say, "I don't want to date _____________." That's perfectly reasonable. Saying someone isn't relationship material is one of those needless judgments. As I said many times, I don't care who you date. I actually don't think any woman is in any way bad off if you won't date her, after seeing the way you've spoken about things here and elsewhere, but that's my own value judgment. To each their own.

 

I don't have a problem with that statement. I know many men would not consider me one because I'm 38 years old or because I don't want children/don't want to get married. I am not girlfriend material in their eyes, ie they would probably have sex with me but my personal circumstances would stop them from making me their serious partner. It's not something I take personally. People have dealbreakers.

[mr.dream merchant]

This was my biggest problem my whole 20's.

Women asked me out & on the first date they want to have sex & i'm knocked off guard.

I don't have condoms, i'm nervouse, afraid to take it all the way because I can't believe she actually wants to do this on the first date.

ect.

 

Then they ignore me after that when I regroup & am ready to go on a 2nd date & give them what they wanted.

 

It's frustrating becuase I like sex (duh) but I was never the type of guy who asked a woman out just because I wanted to sleep with her.

 

I asked a woman out because I wanted to see if she was GF material.

 

Yeah lol, she was a great girl, I didn't expect her to want to have sex after the first date. So I was thrown off guard, and the fact that she kept saying "I don't do this, I don't know what's wrong with me". I was a fool for believing that lol. God, she was a great kisser. Now I have a hardon..

[zengirl]

For a refresher, what I mean by ugly things even in the very first post!

 

Let's start with the title

 

Genuine Classy Lady or a Retired Jump Off

 

I'm sure no one is judging anyone when they call them a "Jump Off." That's a term of endearment now, no?

 

At the gym my friend and I were in a heated discussion about dating women of different calibers.

 

Not different women with different traits, but women of different "calibers." Assuming you weren't speaking of diameter (which. . . a little bit ew when applied here) or firearms, this word means "degree of quality." But maybe you spoke poorly.

 

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.

 

Just because you put it in quotes doesn't mean you aren't calling them that. There are a million other ways to phrase it. None seemed "better" to you. Also, let's note "less than appealing." Not actually describing what happened in the past---just that it was "bad" or "unappealing."

 

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?

 

I don't consider my sexuality "the goods" and find that notion ugly, but I won't even bold that, as it may not be a judgment and just a way of talking. More judgment in the bolded part, and again, putting it in quotes isn't the same as not saying it. Nobody else said it first here. You weren't even quoting your buddy, who said he'd be cool with dating said gal if she were awesome, as you noted above.

 

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?

 

This assumes such a girl could not have class or self-respect. Judgment. And ugly judgment. But, of course, such a male totally could have self-respect! He just needs to get laid, right? The woman has to be some sort of self-hating person lacking class?

 

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.

 

I don't know what this means (I don't like dishonest fakers either, but I don't really trust you to spot one after the rest of this post), but I hope your honesty means you tell girls that you'll screw them but not date them if you think they're promiscuous. Even though you totally are. By your own admission. And have screwed many promiscuous girls.

 

There are other gems, of course, from throughout the thread (my personal favorite being all the dirty STD having easy chicks in South Beach you refer to while yourself sleeping around in South Beach, but it's cool because you wrap it up. . . not that women ever have safe sex or worry about such things, huh?).

 

Don't play off who you are and say, "Yeah, I'm okay with it. It's just not what I want." Because your own words say different.

[zengirl]

I don't have a problem with that statement. I know many men would not consider me one because I'm 38 years old or because I don't want children/don't want to get married. I am not girlfriend material in their eyes, ie they would probably have sex with me but my personal circumstances would stop them from making me their serious partner. It's not something I take personally. People have dealbreakers.

 

For the record, I don't mind people having dealbreakers. At all. I'm all about people having whatever standards and values they need for themselves, personally. It's the phrasing that bothers me with that, as I said.

[a_woman]

zengirl, I get angry as well with other people on LS (and I know they get angry about my posts too because I'm opinionated) and I know you have the tendency to write long posts but I think you get carried away a little too much occasionally. mr. dream merchant is a complete stranger, you have never met him, you must keep things in perspective. if he bothers you so much then you should ignore him, it's what I do.

[a_woman]

For the record, I don't mind people having dealbreakers. At all. I'm all about people having whatever standards and values they need for themselves, personally. It's the phrasing that bothers me with that, as I said.

 

yes that's what I meant as well. it doesn't bother me if someone says I'm not 'girlfriend material'. so what? I see plenty of men who are not boyfriend material in my eyes

[zengirl]

zengirl, I get angry as well with other people on LS (and I know they get angry about my posts too because I'm opinionated) and I know you have the tendency to write long posts but I think you get carried away a little too much occasionally. mr. dream merchant is a complete stranger, you have never met him, you must keep things in perspective. if he bothers you so much then you should ignore him, it's what I do.

 

I'm not actually angry. I know I come off as angry, sometimes, but that's just how I write. It's the old English major essay style. I'm not sure it's an issue of perspective. I just like to say what I think. It's akin to putting notes in the margin of a text for me.

 

Actually, posts like these make me thankful for the lovely men I actually know, so they generally make me happier, not more upset or angrier at the world.

[a_woman]

I'm not actually angry. I know I come off as angry, sometimes, but that's just how I write. It's the old English major essay style. I'm not sure it's an issue of perspective. I just like to say what I think. It's akin to putting notes in the margin of a text for me.

 

Actually, posts like these make me thankful for the lovely men I actually know, so they generally make me happier, not more upset or angrier at the world.

 

ok fair enough

[stillafool]

Women have criteria for boyfriends. Penis size, money, the way he dresses, muscles, skin color, hair, past..etc..So why can't men have criteria?

 

Men have criteria also and more than "not a slut". They want a woman of a certain weight, height, dress, skin color, hair color, education, personality, etc. This applies to both sexes.

[mr.dream merchant]

I'm not actually angry. I know I come off as angry, sometimes, but that's just how I write. It's the old English major essay style. I'm not sure it's an issue of perspective. I just like to say what I think. It's akin to putting notes in the margin of a text for me.

 

Actually, posts like these make me thankful for the lovely men I actually know, so they generally make me happier, not more upset or angrier at the world.

 

How kind of you. I'm a charming guy, I promise lol. Just have standards.

[zengirl]

How kind of you. I'm a charming guy, I promise lol. Just have standards.

 

As I said, it's not about the "standards" -- it's about the implicit and explicit judgments and statements you make in talking about them, and what that leads me to deduce. That's why I went back to the first post to show the phrasing that was particularly ugly to me. I'm glad to know men who don't talk like this! It affirms my belief that I'm apparently lucky in moving about in a world where most people around me are helpful and kind.

[a_woman]

from what I have seen a lot of men think like the OP, I have heard similar views expressed many many times. usually after the consumption of alcohol

[phineas]

from what I have seen a lot of men think like the OP, I have heard similar views expressed many many times. usually after the consumption of alcohol

 

Yep.

Those guys Zengirl says she knows are just enabling their brain to mouth filter around her.