Genuine Classy Lady or a Retired Jump Off?

[Woggle]

I agree. Many men also think that a "former party girl" is only with them because she wants to get married or wants some security that the guys she has been with in the past could never give her. However, those men often assume that the women will get bored with them and then cheat on them.

 

In many cases they assume right.

[zengirl]

Zengirl do you seriously think that gender relations are doing nothing but improving? Men and women pretty much hate each othet these days. Look at the links I posted in that other thread for proof.

 

Look, Woggle, the internet is ugly. And the world is ugly sometimes. But, yes, I think they're doing nothing but improving. That is making some of the fringes --- both men and women --- they're very ugliest, as such things always do. But the ugliest era between gender relations has passed, and I think the core social issues are moving in new directions.

 

P eople never have and that still holds true. No one’s applying a double standard or hypocritical label to their behavior as yet. And bring up any paying-for-dates thread (or mosey along to the next one) and you won’t see anyone hold the posters with negative views towards men who do not pay to their liking, you won’t see them being held to account.

 

For the record, I find it hypocritical if a woman expects (not likes) a man to pay for dates and if he doesn't, calls him cheap or petty or some other meanness. Not likes because everyone likes to have someone buy them things, or most people do. Now, I will call some attitudes towards paying for dates -- men or women -- cheap and petty, but it's because I'm a pretty generous person, have paid for many dates and many things for friends, and don't think about money in an itemized way and some people do. I have never not dated a guy because he didn't want to pay on the first date. . . but I've actually never dated a fellow who didn't insist upon paying on the first date and the only time I seriously fought it to dutch (Not just offering but insisting myself) was if I knew I'd never go out with him again, as I really hate adding insult to injury. I have stated (mostly because of socialization I totally acknowledge and the experiences I've had) that I'd find it odd if a fellow didn't insist or worry about his interest. . . mainly because they always have. But if he was clear on his interest in other ways, I wouldn't give it too much thought, I'd think. It is hard to say what one "would" do with any authority. It's like saying, "I've never eaten such-and-such, but I'm sure I'd love it/hate it/whatever." Not really fair of me to say.

 

I am capable of seeing hypocrisy in men and women. Whether or not it catches my notice so much, likely depends upon how much I care about it. Sexuality -- not just women's but human -- tends to be something I care about a lot. I march for gay rights pretty regularly and have done so on 3 continents. I'm a modern day hippie without the drug use or sleeping around myself.

 

OK. Let’s get to the core issue here. The real problem here is the use of derogatory labels and whatever reasoning lies behind them. That is the core issue. The side issue, to me, is in the use (sever misuse I believe) of the terms double standard or hypocrisy. In order to believe that these terms apply, one needs to believe that the genders are one in the same, that there is no difference between us. That is patently untrue and I’ve already given examples as to why.

I've already explained many times that there is no reason to believe that anything has to be identical to call something a "double standard" or hypocritical. I don't mind repeating myself, and I'll do so forever, but is there really any point in trying to point this out to me more? The term double standard suggests nothing about identical situations, nor does hypocrisy. They suggest differing standards with NO GOOD REASON. I have stated that I believe there is no good reason in great detail again and again. That is not the same as me saying that there is no difference between men and women at all.

 

Men and women are biologically different. That has no meaningful impact on their ability to choose not to be promiscuous. Also, each individual man and woman is biologically different from every other anyway.

 

Men and women are also socialized in different ways. But anyone can choose to change their mindset and evolve past their socialization. I am understanding of socialization to a point, even the most unhealthy socialization like homophobia or racism, so I am certainly understanding of the socialization that makes men and women think differently. However, when that socialization produces something ugly, I still find it ugly.

 

The sexes view and approach certain situations differently based on real gender differences and the situations that derive out of these. It is a total misnomer to use these terms when met with these specific circumstances and as I’ve mentioned earlier, they are used for the same reasoning that people choose to use derogatory language in the first place – it is because they disapprove of the behavior. Accuracy is a moot point in these situations.

I'm not sure of your point. . . Hypocrisy and double standard are not ugly words to me. I don't think I used double standard till a fellow brought it up and said this wasn't, but I definitely used hypocrisy first. It is one of the most common words to use in a classroom setting, and there is no slur intended. If I can say the word to my middle schoolers, I consider it a safe word. Is "slut" a word you can say to middle schoolers as a teacher? I think no. Hypocrite? Absolutely. (Depending on context of course.) For instance, I couldn't call Henry VIII a slut if we read the play, but I can totally call the Sir Thomas in Mansfield Park a hypocrite and no parents would complain. Nor would I be in breech of any professional ethics.

 

The former is everyone’s issue, the latter, is an issue for any man who doesn’t play his cards right, sexually speaking. The bigger point being, it wouldn’t be an issue at all if women felt the same towards sex as men. But we all know they don’t

Not all women feel the same towards sex. Not all men feel the same towards sex. I have noticed that human sexuality is an extremely broad spectrum of people with varied viewpoints on everything.

 

It’s a general sense in that no one has bothered, be it here and certainly within applicable threads, to hold women to account for their actions.

And I think it's hypocritical for someone like the OP to think they are the one to hold women account for their actions. Choosing to do as you please is one thing----Needing someone else to be "punished" for actions that you happen to disagree with is another. ESPECIALLY if you condone the same actions for others, including yourself.

 

Point is that we hear all about this. And the context it’s often used in is one of only women seem to ever get judged for their sexual behavior - that is so unfair they say. That’s what we’re all used to hearing. But most people totally overlook the fact that male sexuality is judged as harshly, if not moreso, and as often, if not moreso. We totally overlook this fact mainly because its so ingrained in us to do this that neither men or women give it a second thought. But when the boots on the other foot – we hear all about it.

I'm not overlooking it. If a man said this had happened to him in a thread, I wouldn't be unsympathetic about it. How does any of it justify attacking others? Too many people use their pain -- personal, gender, generational, whatever -- to attack others. I find it ugly, no matter who they are. Particularly if they're using it to attack whole groups. I'm not saying "Feel our pain" is a bad thing to say, but why bring this in at all? Or the jealousy over women having sex easier? What do the random things "too many other people" who aren't me do have to do with my opinions or hypothetical groups of women who may or may not do them either? Doing something out of anger is one of the biggest possible wrongs in the world, and this as any sort of an excuse for ugliness, just sounds angry.

 

That's not saying it's not worth talking about, in terms of trying to evolve people's narrow mindedness, if that's what you mean, but it doesn't apply to this thread or excuse it.

 

Indeed it is just you. Would love it if there were more like you, lots more like you in regards to this point. And I’m sure I speak for many men here. Unfortunately though, there’s as many, if not more that are the polar opposite to you. And boy, we are very mindful of that fact.

There are lots of crappy men and women out there, lots of great men and women, and lots of people in between, just trying to deal with their own ****. The world isn't perfect.

 

Again, lots of women want to behave in a manner that men are renowned for but they don’t want to cop the same consequences that men face when they do this. Men do not get a free pass for their sexual nature as evidenced by the fact that many men have to prove themselves to be above this, to show that they want more from a woman than just their body. That’s hardly a free passage. In fact, that’s starting behind the sexual eight-ball in many instances.

The OP wants a free pass (a chaste girl) despite wanting to look down on the women who act this way. If you're saying that women shouldn't get a free pass on their actions and neither should men, I agree. 100%. I'm not saying we shouldn't ever forgive a person's past actions, because I disagree with that, too. It's situational. But all people are entirely responsible for their actions, their intentions, the results of their actions, their thoughts, and what they say. I'm accountability all the way, until it gets into needless angry blame games.

 

And here’s your problem – the belief that we’re all one in the same. Many issues on this message board are because of our failure to acknowledge or understand the very real differences between the sexes.

My belief is actually that nobody is the same, but we all have more in common, as people, than we do differences. It's pretty much a belief that's at the core of my life. A good, happy life. And a pretty good love and sex life generally too. So. . . I wouldn't call it a problem. You might have a problem with it, but that's not really what matters, is it? Honestly, once this move is over with (8 days), I won't be around much. . . I have a new boy (long story) who seems pretty cool, a great new job, and a kickass new apartment waiting for me in a new town, and I'm pretty jazzed about everything in my life, my experiences over the past few years and what's to come. I'm still anxious for continued social change in the world, as I dream of an enlightened, peaceful, happy, and free world. . . but it doesn't keep me up at night. I do what I can. I volunteer. I march. I organize. I assert. And I go to bed happy at night. My core views about humanity and our interconnection are pretty much the source of a lot of this peace, so I couldn't possibly label it a "problem." Edited August 13, 2010 by zengirl

[A O]

For the record, I find it hypocritical if a woman expects (not likes) a man to pay for dates and if he doesn't, calls him cheap or petty or some other meanness.

I can gather that but you’re the lone wolf on this one and that’s the biggest point overall. Not to mention it took a bit of prodding to get out of you which is a bit off in itself, but then again, you did make mention about it needing to be something you actually cared about. As this really has little (negative) impact on you then it’s only natural that you’d be rather lukewarm to the point. And that’s the general feeling of most, if not all women in this situation. Their comments towards men doesn’t impact on them in anyway, shape or form so they can let rip. Things change quickly when their behavior is put under the microscope however as we all can clearly see. Question a man’s ability to pay – not a problem. Examine male sexuality – par for the course. Question certain aspects of women and out comes the offensive defense.

 

I've already explained many times that there is no reason to believe that anything has to be identical to call something a "double standard" or hypocritical.

This view doesn’t make sense to me. What I do know though, is that the driver for using these labels is exactly the same one as for those who choose to use derogatory labels. It’s all about disapproval and as mentioned earlier now – a conscious or sub-conscious attempt to modify this behavior. The only difference between the two is that one way is a more acceptable way of doing things but the end game is still the same. And whether these labels actually apply – well that’s neither here nor there.

 

They suggest differing standards with NO GOOD REASON. I have stated that I believe there is no good reason in great detail again and again. That is not the same as me saying that there is no difference between men and women at all.

The good reason is that the sexes are different, thus our approach to sex, what it means to us, and the potential consequences thereof from it – they’re all different. That’s the good reason. In this instance you’re arguing that we’re all one and the same. That simply isn’t true. You cannot dismiss male sexuality as a driver for how men are, or are seen to be (more sexually orientated than women) when that same driver actively influences the decision making process of many women (any man that just wants sex from me can go take a hike – is a common thought process) for instance. There’s a clear difference here that most people get on one level or another (when it best suits usually) that if they ever stopped to think about it – would make them think twice about throwing around certain labels in such a blind, often knee-jerk fashion.

 

Men and women are biologically different. That has no meaningful impact on their ability to choose not to be promiscuous.

And again….this doesn’t stop the differing views and reactions the sexes have towards each other in certain circumstances. Now, if biology had no impact on us whatsoever, then this wouldn’t happen. Many women wouldn’t be suspicious towards the motives of some men. They’d be little need to refrain or be so guarded against sex, especially in the early stages. Women would want exactly the same as men under the same circumstance (the sooner the better and in many cases, without relationship strings attached for example). We would think and behave the same, henceforth; debates like this would be non-existent.

 

And I think it's hypocritical for someone like the OP to think they are the one to hold women account for their actions. Choosing to do as you please is one thing----Needing someone else to be "punished" for actions that you happen to disagree with is another. ESPECIALLY if you condone the same actions for others, including yourself.

The OP is free to exercise whatever preference he chooses. His actions though, should he choose to make them known, as he has, well be and has been held to account by many here. Contrast that with other circumstances where women voice their preferences and note the lack of accountability asked for when they voice their preferences in a similar manner to the OP here. As for the need to punish, I’ve not spotted such a statement from the OP – perhaps that got deleted somewhere down the line, if it ever existed at all.

 

But most people totally overlook the fact that male sexuality is judged as harshly, if not moreso, and as often, if not moreso. We totally overlook this fact mainly because its so ingrained in us to do this that neither men or women give it a second thought.

I'm not overlooking it. If a man said this had happened to him in a thread, I wouldn't be unsympathetic about it. How does any of it justify attacking others? Too many people use their pain -- personal, gender, generational, whatever -- to attack others.

First off, I speak in general terms and while I respect certain stances of yours, overall it simply isn’t a true enough reflection of women either here or in the real world. As for all the other stuff, save that for those who exert this behavior or raise those issues.

 

The OP wants a free pass (a chaste girl) despite wanting to look down on the women who act this way. If you're saying that women shouldn't get a free pass on their actions and neither should men, I agree. 100%. I'm not saying we shouldn't ever forgive a person's past actions, because I disagree with that, too. It's situational. But all people are entirely responsible for their actions, their intentions, the results of their actions, their thoughts, and what they say. I'm accountability all the way, until it gets into needless angry blame games.

As alluded to earlier – here’s the OP’s main crime – looking down on the sexual behavior of some women. That’s his crime. As for a free pass, I don’t even think he’s even given himself one, let alone asked for one. He has a preference; he’s a bit controversial in how he expresses it, but he’s wondering how typical his preference, his thinking is, overall. That’s what he’s doing.

 

My belief is actually that nobody is the same, but we all have more in common, as people, than we do differences

To a certain extent, I believe this also, but this is one occasion where this belief definitely does not hold true.

 

My belief is actually that nobody is the same, but we all have more in common, as people, than we do differences. It's pretty much a belief that's at the core of my life. A good, happy life. And a pretty good love and sex life generally too. So. . . I wouldn't call it a problem. You might have a problem with it, but that's not really what matters, is it? Honestly, once this move is over with (8 days), I won't be around much. . . I have a new boy (long story) who seems pretty cool, a great new job, and a kickass new apartment waiting for me in a new town, and I'm pretty jazzed about everything in my life, my experiences over the past few years and what's to come.

I disagree with quite a few views of yours, obviously, but that doesn’t mean I can’t spot a really cool girlie overall. From the limited amount I’ve seen - I think you’re a top shelf poster….well deserving of a cool guy and then some!

 

 

.

[zengirl]

I can gather that but you’re the lone wolf on this one and that’s the biggest point overall. Not to mention it took a bit of prodding to get out of you which is a bit off in itself, but then again, you did make mention about it needing to be something you actually cared about. As this really has little (negative) impact on you then it’s only natural that you’d be rather lukewarm to the point.

 

Well, yeah, we can't care about everything. Anyone who cares about every controversy in the world must be exploding, I'd think. I'm also lukewarm because it's a matter of degree. I mean, I rarely hear widespread social views that condemn men for not paying on dates (I'm talking about views that impact more than just individuals dating each other), but I often hear pronouncements about human sexuality and how terrible various expressions of it are. One is kind of a silly little specific thing to me, and the other is a giant mass of human issues that has always been at the core of societal upheaval.

 

I find it amusing when men say feminists are hypocrites because men still feel like they have to pay for dates because ladies like it. Honestly, if all the men in the world got together and stopped paying for dates, do you think nobody would go out with them? No. Men do things like this to compete with each other, just like women do various things to compete for mates. It's like me calling a man a misogynist if he likes me to wear make-up or heels or wax various body parts. I find it silly when women do that, too. Feminism or any kind of politics shouldn't try to enter the various mess of all that. Why don't fellows complain about having to register with the S.S. by law, whereas I never will have to? But, yeah, it's also veering more and more off-topic, which is another reason I was lukewarm at first.

 

And that’s the general feeling of most, if not all women in this situation. Their comments towards men doesn’t impact on them in anyway, shape or form so they can let rip. Things change quickly when their behavior is put under the microscope however as we all can clearly see. Question a man’s ability to pay – not a problem. Examine male sexuality – par for the course. Question certain aspects of women and out comes the offensive defense.

While I'll never claim to not make mean comments towards specific men, I don't tend to make mean comments about men as a whole. Or tolerate women who do.

 

The truth is, though, that everyone has some bias. I clump men together because of their actions sometimes "Men who do X" are likely to be incompatible because of such and such, sometimes seemingly unrelated to others without my personal experiences. I definitely do this when deciding whether or not to date someone, and if a fellow does that with anything -- promiscuity, a woman's fingernail color, her job, her family, whatever -- based on his own experiences, I think that's normal enough, so long as he's not complaining and frustrated with his life. I think I am very aware of my socialization and capable of understanding when my biases are created by my experiences and when they're created by forces outside me, but I recognize that everybody isn't. But it's a liar who says they never judge anyone. Everybody judges. And that's cool.

 

I do think it's generally creepy and ugly to engage in sex with the people you're looking down on. Or call them names you wouldn't say in front of a kid or your grandmother. Or, in some cases, question why anybody else would date them. (This wouldn't relate to talking about behaviors like cheating, abuse, etc, of course; hence the "some cases".) Etc.

 

This view doesn’t make sense to me. What I do know though, is that the driver for using these labels is exactly the same one as for those who choose to use derogatory labels. It’s all about disapproval and as mentioned earlier now – a conscious or sub-conscious attempt to modify this behavior. The only difference between the two is that one way is a more acceptable way of doing things but the end game is still the same. And whether these labels actually apply – well that’s neither here nor there.

I'm honestly not trying to change anybody necessarily. I mean, I want to change the world. The world is in a lot of pain, and I don't think we have to be. I want everybody to be happy, accepting, peaceful, etc. I want everybody to love everybody. But. . . I'm not 7, so I know what the world is, and I understand that me wanting any of these things, while totally normal, does very little good. All I can do is work on me and mine.

 

I do disapprove. I disapprove of ugliness in the world, and I see this as ugly. But, as I said above, I would never claim to be someone who doesn't judge people. Everybody judges. I try very hard to judge people as kindly and fairly as I can. And to allow them to change and grow, without being forced to eat their past every minute, because I think too many people are kept unhappy and ashamed by choices they wish they'd made differently. That might be promiscuity. But it might be other things. Mine are relatively minor to most people, but I carried a lot of needless shame around with me until I just tossed it off a cliff. It is hard to change in this world, and yet most of the healthiest people I know have made mistakes----some of them whoppers----and changed from it. So, yes, I always hope unhappy or unhealthy people will change.

 

But, I think you're wrong in saying the poster was hoping to provoke change. By bringing up a person's past and judging them by it, you're not trying to provoke change; you're actively repressing it. You're saying, "This is what you are. This is all you are and all you'll be." We say this to kids about stuff all the time, and it's why people turn out crappy. It's why people keep making the same mistakes. It doesn't provoke change. It is the kind of judgment that does just the opposite----keeps people unhappy and unhealthy, so we can feel better about being unhappy and unhealthy ourselves. (Neither of these things were linked to my main point, but since you brought it up.)

 

The good reason is that the sexes are different, thus our approach to sex, what it means to us, and the potential consequences thereof from it – they’re all different. That’s the good reason. In this instance you’re arguing that we’re all one and the same. That simply isn’t true.

I am not arguing we are one and the same and never have. I think I very clearly stated that not only are we not one and the same, but we're not two and different. We're not 10 and different. Human sexuality is immensely complex and requires consideration of loads of different factors beyond gender.

 

However, human morality, the values and judgments we choose to have, rationalize, and act on, is not significantly impacted by gender.

 

You cannot dismiss male sexuality as a driver for how men are, or are seen to be (more sexually orientated than women) when that same driver actively influences the decision making process of many women (any man that just wants sex from me can go take a hike – is a common thought process) for instance.

That is a value judgment from women, not a sexual impulse. I know men who don't just want to screw gals either. I really do. I dated a man who didn't want to have sex until we were in love. That is longer than I'd generally wait, but he was clear and assertive about it, with a good case for why the value was important to him that made sense to me, so we did wait until we were in love. I'll agree with you here that women can be stupid about male sexuality because some of the gals I was friends with at the time -- many of whom were college or HS friends I'd never befriend now -- said silly things like, Oh, he's probably terrible in bed or drew conclusions about anatomy (all of which turned out to be false). The world is a broad spectrum, and, at any rate, his value wasn't driven by his sexual impulses -- he had quite a high libido -- but rather by his value judgments.

 

We are intelligent beings. We are intelligent enough to create cities, languages, art, music, laws, literature, and machines that can imitate our own brains. We are intelligent enough to explore most of the surface of this Earth and set off into space. We are fully capable of separating our judgments and actions from our sex drive and understanding the difference between the two.

 

And again….this doesn’t stop the differing views and reactions the sexes have towards each other in certain circumstances. Now, if biology had no impact on us whatsoever, then this wouldn’t happen. Many women wouldn’t be suspicious towards the motives of some men. They’d be little need to refrain or be so guarded against sex, especially in the early stages. Women would want exactly the same as men under the same circumstance (the sooner the better and in many cases, without relationship strings attached for example). We would think and behave the same, henceforth; debates like this would be non-existent.

As I said, I think it's a wider spectrum than all this, but I also think that you're confusing biology and socialization here. Men and women are socialized to feel differently about these things. There's no real indication that biology is the driving factor in these differences and several interesting studies in people who were raised outside of the influences of core society show that values and thoughts in these areas can be VERY different if one isn't socialized by the masses. Most people aren't aware of the extent of their own socialization---maybe no one is---but I don't think we should confuse these differences with biology-driven ones. There are biological differences between men and women, but I think they have little to do with these things or our morals.

 

The OP is free to exercise whatever preference he chooses. His actions though, should he choose to make them known, as he has, well be and has been held to account by many here. Contrast that with other circumstances where women voice their preferences and note the lack of accountability asked for when they voice their preferences in a similar manner to the OP here. As for the need to punish, I’ve not spotted such a statement from the OP – perhaps that got deleted somewhere down the line, if it ever existed at all.

He started off the thread, speculating about a conversation he had where his buddy said he'd date these women and he said he wouldn't. He called them sluts and several other derogatory phrases. He said he'd sleep with them but not have relationships with them (Somehow, I doubt he's getting laid after telling them that). He's said they are not girlfriend material---to me, this is very different from saying "I wouldn't date her." It is saying, "No one should date her."

 

If saying, "I like to date chaste women" had started all this fuss, I'd agree with you. But he didn't start it off that way. If I started a thread saying, "Would you rather date a rich guy or a lazy waste of space loser?" as though they were two categories, and then went on about all the reasons men without loads of money were deficient as people and could never be "boyfriend material," I would expect to be judged, too and held to account. (I would never do such a thing, obviously. ) He didn't state a preference. That is some backtracking on his part.

 

First off, I speak in general terms and while I respect certain stances of yours, overall it simply isn’t a true enough reflection of women either here or in the real world. As for all the other stuff, save that for those who exert this behavior or raise those issues.

Noted.

 

Still, I don't think saying, "But there are issues with the way male sexuality is approached, too" really is helped by judging female sexuality. Isn't the best way for us all to get a broader, clearer view of human sexuality. Wouldn't that help men with these issues you bring up too? I kind of think such arguments are akin to a lot of the racial wars over who has it worse. It's silly. I saw a show with a comedian talking about how he hated it when African Americans complained about Mexican-Americans getting rights because they didn't have to march for them, and be enslaved for 100 years, etc, and how that was silly that wanting rights means wanting rights for everybody. It's not at that level, of course, but it's kind of the same thing. "But they're doing it to me!" just isn't a good reason and doesn't get us anywhere. I've no interest in views like that.

 

As alluded to earlier – here’s the OP’s main crime – looking down on the sexual behavior of some women. That’s his crime. As for a free pass, I don’t even think he’s even given himself one, let alone asked for one. He has a preference; he’s a bit controversial in how he expresses it, but he’s wondering how typical his preference, his thinking is, overall. That’s what he’s doing.

He's stating that preference while acting the same way himself. To me, that changes the whole dynamic of the preference. I don't know about the free pass thing. He clearly thinks his promiscuity is okay from his posts here. Just not a gal's.

 

Honestly, my biggest issue rests on the assumption (mine) that he will not be wholly honest about this with the girls he meets. If he always is, then I will say, No harm, no foul. If a chaste girl wants to marry you and a less discriminate one wants to screw you, that's they're business. Just don't hide it or lie about it and make it into true hypocrisy. The first part is an annoyance (but people are hypocrites all the time; I realize that), and the ugly way he expresses it needs to be addressed, the bigger issue is way more gross.

 

The problem is, too, that there have been a variety of posters and facets of this issue that have come up, and things get muddled. This is why one can't put values on trial, as values are too complex to be boiled down to a single issue, generally.

 

To a certain extent, I believe this also, but this is one occasion where this belief definitely does not hold true.

At this point, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Mostly because I think I've said most of what I have to say. . . and this discussion is losing its allure, even for the verbose creature that is me. Clearly, I vehemently disagree with you on this and have stated many reasons as to why.

 

I disagree with quite a few views of yours, obviously, but that doesn’t mean I can’t spot a really cool girlie overall. From the limited amount I’ve seen - I think you’re a top shelf poster….well deserving of a cool guy and then some!

Thanks. Edited August 14, 2010 by zengirl

[A O]

Well, yeah, we can't care about everything. Anyone who cares about every controversy in the world must be exploding, I'd think. I'm also lukewarm because it's a matter of degree. I mean, I rarely hear widespread social views that condemn men for not paying on dates (I'm talking about views that impact more than just individuals dating each other), but I often hear pronouncements about human sexuality and how terrible various expressions of it are.

The actual act – paying for dates – isn’t the point. It’s the behavior that it engenders and how similar that behavior is towards what the OP is displaying here and yet how different the response is to all that behavior is here.

 

I do think it's generally creepy and ugly to engage in sex with the people you're looking down on.

Yes and your reaction is fairly common among women, as is his behavior reasonably common among men. It emphasizes how much more influential the physical is among some men relative to women. It’s yet another difference this subject engenders between the sexes.

 

Or call them names you wouldn't say in front of a kid or your grandmother. Or, in some cases, question why anybody else would date them. (This wouldn't relate to talking about behaviors like cheating, abuse, etc, of course; hence the "some cases".) Etc.

Name calling or looking down on women or feeling insecure or something akin to that aside, there are some valid reasons for being choosy towards dating promiscuous women. The amount of women with self-esteem issues (and yes I know you’re not a fan of this term) is far greater among promiscuous women than non-promiscuous women. And low self-esteem types can be a whole world of hurt to unsuspecting men relative to healthy esteem types.

 

But, I think you're wrong in saying the poster was hoping to provoke change. By bringing up a person's past and judging them by it, you're not trying to provoke change; you're actively repressing it.

I mean you as much as him. From his point of view, he’s disapproving of promiscuous women. Whether he realizes it or not – he’d rather they not be, or at least, that they didn’t come inbuilt with a few issues he’s come to notice (more of the former than the latter though, I believe). Same deal with you – you totally disapprove of his behavior and whether you’re aware of it or not – you’re trying to affect change.

 

I am not arguing we are one and the same and never have. I think I very clearly stated that not only are we not one and the same, but we're not two and different

Your argument or should I say your application of the hypocrisy and double standard labels dictates that we must be the same for any of that to hold water. You firmly believe that when it comes to sex, the genders are exactly the same otherwise we wouldn’t be having this particular line of debate. I’m arguing against this, highlighting a few easily recognizable instances where the approaches towards this subject differ between the sexes along the way.

 

That is a value judgment from women, not a sexual impulse. I know men who don't just want to screw gals either.

You can call it any type of judgment you want. What matters is that it happens and that it has the same sort of consequence towards men as this situation has towards women. What matters also, is that it’s a heck of a lot more common than you seem to want to believe.

 

As I said, I think it's a wider spectrum than all this, but I also think that you're confusing biology and socialization here. Men and women are socialized to feel differently about these things.

Exceptions do not negate the rule; neither does a so-called wide spectrum. It’s like a margin for error and a range, but neither paints an accurate picture of the content within. As for biology and socialization, let’s put it this way – what drives certain socialized views? If it’s not biology then what is it? What drives men to prioritize sex higher than women and vice versa? You appear to have gone full circle (I've only quoted a snippet here), moved between biology and socialization and back to biology again, acknowledging that there are biological differences between the sexes along the way. Clearly, this is just a moral debate for you and you want the ability to apply your morals to those whose morals annoy you. That’s all this is about. Well, you can have it, but just like I don’t agree with the OP’s core judgment, then neither to I agree with yours.

 

He started off the thread, speculating about a conversation he had where his buddy said he'd date these women and he said he wouldn't. He called them sluts and several other derogatory phrases.

Again, he could have gone about things in a less controversial fashion, without doubt. And he gets what he deserves in the process and for the most part, I think he accepts this. The other point is, is the lack of reaction when women display similar behavior compared to when guys do this on here.

 

He's stating that preference while acting the same way himself. To me, that changes the whole dynamic of the preference. I don't know about the free pass thing. He clearly thinks his promiscuity is okay from his posts here. Just not a gal's.

And this is where you and I differ greatly. This is where the differences between the sexes come into play, although in some instances, the outcomes appear to be the same. How we view sex, what it means to us and the consequences if either gender is overtly sexual.

 

 

.

[zengirl]

Name calling or looking down on women or feeling insecure or something akin to that aside, there are some valid reasons for being choosy towards dating promiscuous women. The amount of women with self-esteem issues (and yes I know you’re not a fan of this term) is far greater among promiscuous women than non-promiscuous women. And low self-esteem types can be a whole world of hurt to unsuspecting men relative to healthy esteem types.

 

See, I think people like the OP who sleep with people who they look down upon have "self esteem" (I'd call it emotional health, but I know what you're saying) issues as well. In much higher percentages than the promiscuous. But I wouldn't disagree with the generalization you made, though I could apply it to men as well. Most promiscuous men aren't in a good state of mind for a relationship either.

 

You firmly believe that when it comes to sex, the genders are exactly the same otherwise we wouldn’t be having this particular line of debate.

 

No. I believe that when it comes to sexual morality and promiscuity, the biology of gender is irrelevant. There is a big distinction to be made. Obviously, when it comes to sex, the genders are different. I mean, it is the crux of what divides us---we even have different parts.

 

Exceptions do not negate the rule; neither does a so-called wide spectrum. It’s like a margin for error and a range, but neither paints an accurate picture of the content within. As for biology and socialization, let’s put it this way – what drives certain socialized views? If it’s not biology then what is it?

 

Socialized views are not the same throughout all societies or throughout time. There are trends. What drives them? Generally, I'd say power, or the craving of power. Most socialization is designed to keep people weak in one way or another, though most people who participate in socializing people don't know that or do it purposefully.

 

I will speculate some of the ways in which biology has become irrelevant probably drove a lot of this sexual stuff, yes: Women could theoretically bear an offspring that a man might not know was truly his. This was a practical concern, driven by biology, which is irrelevant today with medicine being what it is. And birth control being readily available.

 

The other point is, is the lack of reaction when women display similar behavior compared to when guys do this on here.

 

Interesting. You'd have to direct me to a post like that for me to see what you mean.

 

And this is where you and I differ greatly. This is where the differences between the sexes come into play, although in some instances, the outcomes appear to be the same. How we view sex, what it means to us and the consequences if either gender is overtly sexual.

 

To me, that comment (I made) wasn't about sex at all. It was about values. You could replace it with another non-sexual, moral value, and it would stand. So, it has more to do with how we view it as people, I think.

[A O]

Most promiscuous men aren't in a good state of mind for a relationship either.

Not necessarily so, thanks again to you know what’s it. There are those who can’t settle down, they’re a well documented group and deemed to be off similar state to which you suggest. Depending on the reasoning (is it a case of too many options to settle or an inability to form close bonds for instance), then I can agree with this stance.

 

You firmly believe that when it comes to sex, the genders are exactly the same otherwise we wouldn’t be having this particular line of debate.

No. I believe that when it comes to sexual morality and promiscuity, the biology of gender is irrelevant.

It’s irrelevant to you because you dismiss the role biology plays in this issue. If women were like men or vice versa then this issue wouldn’t exist. The fact that it does simply highlights the existence of the differing attitudes that each gender has towards sex, which in turn, lends rise to situations that we’re debating now.

 

Socialized views are not the same throughout all societies or throughout time. There are trends. What drives them? Generally, I'd say power, or the craving of power. Most socialization is designed to keep people weak in one way or another, though most people who participate in socializing people don't know that or do it purposefully.

Power – who would of thought that! Can see why you’re arguing so vehemently over this issue if that’s what’s lying in the back of your mind. As for other societies or time periods, I’m only interested in those if they’ve had some sort of impact on me. Can’t say they have.

 

I will speculate some of the ways in which biology has become irrelevant probably drove a lot of this sexual stuff, yes: Women could theoretically bear an offspring that a man might not know was truly his. This was a practical concern, driven by biology, which is irrelevant today with medicine being what it is. And birth control being readily available.

The day that most women stop guarding against, looking for thus weeding out, men who put sex high up on their priority list, or in other words….the day they start viewing sex in the same manner - that’s the day when biology, in regards to issues like this, becomes irrelevant.

 

The other point is, is the lack of reaction when women display similar behavior compared to when guys do this on here.

Interesting. You'd have to direct me to a post like that for me to see what you mean.

Try and pull up any recent paying for dates type thread or catch the next one.

 

Oh, oh, and one more thing - emotional health - that's a nice term. I just might pick up and run with that in the future, depending on whether people understand what I'm trying to say and I don't have to explain myself all the time, that is. Cheers.

 

 

.

[zengirl]

Not necessarily so, thanks again to you know what’s it. There are those who can’t settle down, they’re a well documented group and deemed to be off similar state to which you suggest. Depending on the reasoning (is it a case of too many options to settle or an inability to form close bonds for instance), then I can agree with this stance.

 

Obviously, our views are colored by who we are. To me, most promiscuous men I've met are more trouble than they're worth. They tend to be men who've been in less relationships, so they're needlessly picky, inexperienced at relationship communication, and generally high maintenance in silly ways. I have many male friends like this, and when I see them actually enter into relationships (most of which are short), I find it both sad and funny how they go about things. I've no interest in teaching a man how to be a good boyfriend at my age (25) or being the special one who settled him down. Generally, this does not work out well for women. And it also seems tedious to me.

 

What I've noticed: Anyone who has a lot of (good) relationship sex loses the desire for casual sex in any great quantity. Male or female. Maybe just my circle.

 

It’s irrelevant to you because you dismiss the role biology plays in this issue. If women were like men or vice versa then this issue wouldn’t exist. The fact that it does simply highlights the existence of the differing attitudes that each gender has towards sex, which in turn, lends rise to situations that we’re debating now.

 

I'm going to drop this point, but obviously I disagree, and you know I'm not stating that there are no sexual differences between the genders.

 

Power – who would of thought that! Can see why you’re arguing so vehemently over this issue if that’s what’s lying in the back of your mind. As for other societies or time periods, I’m only interested in those if they’ve had some sort of impact on me. Can’t say they have.

 

I have a minor in Sociology and Anthropology. So. . . I've studied loads for that reason. It's why I am so self-aware and pensive about socialization. Most of the ugliness in the world comes down to power -- personal and societal. Power and control. Most unhealthy human beings are consumed by it, and it's hard not to be, even in small ways. Most people are only honestly seeking some sure-footing when they seek power in the first place, feeling hopelessly lost themselves, but really, that's what just about everything comes down to. I'm not interested in being controlled, nor controlling anybody else, but even I find myself subconsciously seeking power in certain situations and have to actively stop myself. It's the hardest human addiction to break.

 

The day that most women stop guarding against, looking for thus weeding out, men who put sex high up on their priority list, or in other words….the day they start viewing sex in the same manner - that’s the day when biology, in regards to issues like this, becomes irrelevant.

 

Interesting thought. Why not the day when men and women stop lying about sex and admit that individuals want different things, and that it's all okay so long as you're honest and respectful? I don't think all people are ever going to view sex the same way. I don't even think there's a way all men or all women view sex. Honestly, I don't think anybody, even men, like to be used for sex by someone they have deeper feelings for. And, as I said, I know men who won't have casual sex. I even know men who view casual sex rigidly as any 'sex without being in love.' People are a wide spectrum.

 

Oh, oh, and one more thing - emotional health - that's a nice term. I just might pick up and run with that in the future, depending on whether people understand what I'm trying to say and I don't have to explain myself all the time, that is. Cheers.

 

Yeah, the reason I personally prefer it to "self esteem" is that "self esteem" implies how you think about yourself, but emotional health is more a measure of thinking and feeling to me, more akin to "self love" (+ loving and respecting life/the world/etc to a degree of kindness). But "self esteem" doesn't bother me so much when people use it except when talking about confidence, because things get murky. There are shallow confidences and deeper ones.

[carhill]

Try and pull up any recent paying for dates type thread or catch the next one.

 

No endorsement but here's a recent pay for date thread

 

Tangentially relevant might be the 'I'm attracted to party boys who love chicks and one 'got' me pregnant and I'm a pregnancy counselor' thread, titled "New here, pregnant and feeling dumped"

[zengirl]

No endorsement but here's a recent pay for date thread

 

Tangentially relevant might be the 'I'm attracted to party boys who love chicks and one 'got' me pregnant and I'm a pregnancy counselor' thread, titled "New here, pregnant and feeling dumped"

 

I just feel sorry for the pregnant gal. The fellow doesn't sound like a peach either, and I find it hard to kick anyone who's so obviously down. (For instance, if the OP here had gotten a permanent disease from his promiscuity and was posting that he was upset about it, I probably couldn't bring myself to criticize him, despite having the views I have.)

 

But yes, many of the responses to the pay-dating thread are kind of gross. The OP herself seems more wishy washy about it---certainly not being as flagrant as this OP or even knowing what she thinks/feels about it. But loads of the other people say crap things.

 

That said, I do think it's a silly issue that's generally overblown by both sides (same reasoning I stated above). Men are sometimes the people who say the man should pay! It's like women and make-up/hair/waxing/etc; some women feel this giant obligation to be, and other women reinforce it, as do some men. (I had a fellow try to buy me press-on nails once on a 3rd date because he didn't like short nails aesthetically. It was creepy.) But other women reinforce all these things by saying, "No, we need to make ourselves into dolls, practically." And loads of men don't care, as long as a woman looks groomed enough, just as loads of women don't care about paying so long as a fellow doesn't seem petty about things. (For instance, I don't like people in general that are nitpicky about things---like the people who cannot reasonably split a group bill without paying the exact amount they ate, as though calculating their taxes or something. I tend to overpay in these situations.)

[mr.dream merchant]

I'm actually in the middle of working over a girl I wouldn't date but would sleep with. We were talking and she asked me what I was looking for, and I kept it honest. I told her it depends on the girl. She asked why? Then I told her that there's ones I would have fun with, but not date, and there are ones I would date seriously. Her reply?

 

"I've had so many **** buddies I'm sick of it now. I want to be involved with someone who cares about me and me them."

 

I laughed, then told her I appreciated her honesty and that I understood where she was coming from, cause I to sometimes feel the same way. She then told me:

 

"I feel like I'm just going to end up being the girl you just **** and not date."

 

I laughed again, asked her why she said that? She told me because she always ends up being that girl. I decided to help her out, for her future endeavors. I told her not all, but some men do equate the woman's level of freakiness, and willingness to put out easily with the amount of class and self control she has. I also told her that guys are dumb in a way because we all want a woman who will **** our brains out, but at the same time, if she's too easy, too fast, it'll be hard for some men to feel secure with that.

 

She laughed and thanked me for the advice, and then said word for word:

 

"Well now that I know what you want, I have no choice but to give it to you."

 

I laughed, and told her I'd be looking forward to it but for her not to forget that I'm not going to treat her as an object, but rather a person with an awesome personality because that's what she is. And it's true. She's really cool to talk to, sense of humor and alot of personality. Do I look down on her for being a nympho? Not at all. The first day I met her, we were all hanging out on the beach. She was actually the person missing..come to find out, she was in the lifeguard tower (it was night time) with some guy. Doesn't make her less of a person, but what it does for me is let me know that she's not what I'm looking for when it comes to serious dating. She understood and respected that.

 

Is she still cool with me? Yes.

 

Does she still want to **** me? Yes.

 

Am I a sexist/bigot/womanizer? Not at all.

 

Zengirl's personal OPINION? Null.

Edited August 14, 2010 by mr.dream merchant

[Woggle]

If you wanted more than to be a sex buddy to her she would dump you in a heartbeat for being a nice guy. If woman truly do want more than just being a FWB they need to start showing it through actions instead of words.

[mr.dream merchant]

True but I'm not even worried about that, there's no way I'd ever date her lol.

[zengirl]

I'm actually in the middle of working over a girl I wouldn't date but would sleep with. We were talking and she asked me what I was looking for, and I kept it honest. I told her it depends on the girl. She asked why? Then I told her that there's ones I would have fun with, but not date, and there are ones I would date seriously. Her reply?

 

"I've had so many **** buddies I'm sick of it now. I want to be involved with someone who cares about me and me them."

 

I laughed, then told her I appreciated her honesty and that I understood where she was coming from, cause I to sometimes feel the same way. She then told me:

 

"I feel like I'm just going to end up being the girl you just **** and not date."

 

I laughed again, asked her why she said that? She told me because she always ends up being that girl. I decided to help her out, for her future endeavors. I told her not all, but some men do equate the woman's level of freakiness, and willingness to put out easily with the amount of class and self control she has. I also told her that guys are dumb in a way because we all want a woman who will **** our brains out, but at the same time, if she's too easy, too fast, it'll be hard for some men to feel secure with that.

 

She laughed and thanked me for the advice, and then said word for word:

 

"Well now that I know what you want, I have no choice but to give it to you."

 

I laughed, and told her I'd be looking forward to it but for her not to forget that I'm not going to treat her as an object, but rather a person with an awesome personality because that's what she is. And it's true. She's really cool to talk to, sense of humor and alot of personality. Do I look down on her for being a nympho? Not at all. The first day I met her, we were all hanging out on the beach. She was actually the person missing..come to find out, she was in the lifeguard tower (it was night time) with some guy. Doesn't make her less of a person, but what it does for me is let me know that she's not what I'm looking for when it comes to serious dating. She understood and respected that.

 

Is she still cool with me? Yes.

 

Does she still want to **** me? Yes.

 

Am I a sexist/bigot/womanizer? Not at all.

 

Zengirl's personal OPINION? Null.

 

Did you call her a jump off, a slut, or any of the other things you said in your OP?

[You Go Girl]

 

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.

 

No way am I ever going to read this whole thread. But chiming in again quoting this in particular because it is so true for me too. This thread, and some others in the dating section that are so sexist, remind me of how I have a pretty good picker, and no chauvanist is going to even get a chance to mess with me.

 

If the OP and some others have the Madonna/Whore Complex, that's their problem, not the women who will never date them and have no desire to date them, such as yourself and I.

[Woggle]

These lovely men you know will change when they get played themselves. If they are so lovely how come they don't have successful and lasting relation ships with women?

 

It might sound sexist but what myself and others say in this thread is 100% true. It might not be pc but we know our experiences.

[kdark]

These lovely men you know will change when they get played themselves. If they are so lovely how come they don't have successful and lasting relation ships with women?

 

It might sound sexist but what myself and others say in this thread is 100% true. It might not be pc but we know our experiences.

 

I've been played before, but I was always smart enough to recognize it as an individuals shortcoming, and not the shortcoming of all feminist women who enjoy sex.

[mr.dream merchant]

These lovely men you know will change when they get played themselves. If they are so lovely how come they don't have successful and lasting relation ships with women?

 

It might sound sexist but what myself and others say in this thread is 100% true. It might not be pc but we know our experiences.

 

We've been sayin this repeatedly but some women just don't want to hear it. They expect us to accept every woman for what she is, and settle down with her...or at least that's the fantasy they have. It's like a twisted version of that dumbass Twilight Saga. Two guys fighting over one little trampy girl who's in love with two guys? Are you serious?

 

Women can't handle rejection at all. Someone pointed this out before. And I think some of the angrier female posters may be lashing out due to that. They themselves may fall into the, trampy less than classy promiscuous woman category, or once were that woman..so for them to hear, and see that some/most men find that unattractive as far as serious dating material goes, they flip their lid.

 

Matter of fact, that's probably why the girl I mentioned before still will have sex with me even though she knows she's not gonna ever in her life make it to GF status in my eyes..because she doesn't want to feel totally rejected. Or because she's a ****ing nympho that has little to no self control over her legs when it comes to an attractive guy.

 

I mean, all these real life situations, and applicable scenarios/facts are hitting these angry female posters in the face like other better if left unsaid objects in their past days and they still won't accept it. Which has me rolling like a 18yr. old kid on ecstasy. Girls that give it up easy are nothing but trouble as far as serious relationships go. If I were committed to a girl for a year or more, and I found out she was a huge whore a couple months to a couple years prior to our relationship, I'd dump that chick in a heartbeat. Not because she isn't a great person, but because that isn't what I want in a GF. Some broad that's giving up the goods no questions asked to any dickslinging city slicker with a decent word game.

[kdark]

We've been sayin this repeatedly but some women just don't want to hear it. They expect us to accept every woman for what she is, and settle down with her...or at least that's the fantasy they have. It's like a twisted version of that dumbass Twilight Saga. Two guys fighting over one little trampy girl who's in love with two guys? Are you serious?

 

Women can't handle rejection at all. Someone pointed this out before. And I think some of the angrier female posters may be lashing out due to that. They themselves may fall into the, trampy less than classy promiscuous woman category, or once were that woman..so for them to hear, and see that some/most men find that unattractive as far as serious dating material goes, they flip their lid.

 

Matter of fact, that's probably why the girl I mentioned before still will have sex with me even though she knows she's not gonna ever in her life make it to GF status in my eyes..because she doesn't want to feel totally rejected. Or because she's a ****ing nympho that has little to no self control over her legs when it comes to an attractive guy.

 

I mean, all these real life situations, and applicable scenarios/facts are hitting these angry female posters in the face like other better if left unsaid objects in their past days and they still won't accept it. Which has me rolling like a 18yr. old kid on ecstasy. Girls that give it up easy are nothing but trouble as far as serious relationships go. If I were committed to a girl for a year or more, and I found out she was a huge whore a couple months to a couple years prior to our relationship, I'd dump that chick in a heartbeat. Not because she isn't a great person, but because that isn't what I want in a GF. Some broad that's giving up the goods no questions asked to any dickslinging city slicker with a decent word game.

 

I don't think the women are getting upset because they are seeing themselves in the type of girl you refuse to date. I think it is the fact that you yourself sleep around, and yet you refuse to date women who sleep around. It's as if you are claiming that men have a monopoly on self control when it comes to who they sleep with.

 

I think this viewpoint stems from the fact that you refuse to look at woman as complete people, and only look at them as prey to make your own. Since so many of these promiscuous women have fallen prey to your charms, you are afraid of investing in a promiscuous girl, because you are afraid of other men of your kind swooping and taking her.

 

And to that, all I can say is get off your high horse. The same reasons that you can control your urges when you are in a relationship are the same reasons women do it too.

 

You're just being insecure.

[mr.dream merchant]

I don't think the women are getting upset because they are seeing themselves in the type of girl you refuse to date. I think it is the fact that you yourself sleep around, and yet you refuse to date women who sleep around. It's as if you are claiming that men have a monopoly on self control when it comes to who they sleep with.

 

I think this viewpoint stems from the fact that you refuse to look at woman as complete people, and only look at them as prey to make your own. Since so many of these promiscuous women have fallen prey to your charms, you are afraid of investing in a promiscuous girl, because you are afraid of other men of your kind swooping and taking her.

 

And to that, all I can say is get off your high horse. The same reasons that you can control your urges when you are in a relationship are the same reasons women do it too.

 

You're just being insecure.

 

Well I'll applaud your speculation, I'll have to put a couple hollows into it. Insecure? Not at all. Why would I be? Even easy broads who sleep around want to settle down and be my girlfriend. That alone tells me that I'm doing something right, I just don't want THEM as my GF. From experience, I've found promiscuous women to be better left as friends with whom you have fun with.

[You'reasian]

We've been sayin this repeatedly but some women just don't want to hear it. They expect us to accept every woman for what she is, and settle down with her...or at least that's the fantasy they have. It's like a twisted version of that dumbass Twilight Saga. Two guys fighting over one little trampy girl who's in love with two guys? Are you serious?

 

Women can't handle rejection at all. Someone pointed this out before. And I think some of the angrier female posters may be lashing out due to that. They themselves may fall into the, trampy less than classy promiscuous woman category, or once were that woman..so for them to hear, and see that some/most men find that unattractive as far as serious dating material goes, they flip their lid.

 

Matter of fact, that's probably why the girl I mentioned before still will have sex with me even though she knows she's not gonna ever in her life make it to GF status in my eyes..because she doesn't want to feel totally rejected. Or because she's a ****ing nympho that has little to no self control over her legs when it comes to an attractive guy.

 

I mean, all these real life situations, and applicable scenarios/facts are hitting these angry female posters in the face like other better if left unsaid objects in their past days and they still won't accept it. Which has me rolling like a 18yr. old kid on ecstasy. Girls that give it up easy are nothing but trouble as far as serious relationships go. If I were committed to a girl for a year or more, and I found out she was a huge whore a couple months to a couple years prior to our relationship, I'd dump that chick in a heartbeat. Not because she isn't a great person, but because that isn't what I want in a GF. Some broad that's giving up the goods no questions asked to any dickslinging city slicker with a decent word game.

 

Women who give it up easy are not necessarily bad girlfriends. Likewise, dudes who get alot of tail are not necessarily bad boyfriends.

 

Depends on trust and communication. If she's honest and her actions while together are trustworthy, I don't see her past sexual history being an issue.

[mr.dream merchant]

Women who give it up easy are not necessarily bad girlfriends. Likewise, dudes who get alot of tail are not necessarily bad boyfriends.

 

Depends on trust and communication. If she's honest and her actions while together are trustworthy, I don't see her past sexual history being an issue.

 

Yeah, it was wrong to imply they aren't good girlfriends because that isn't true. I know some easy girls that are excellent girlfriends. But as far as standards for women go, I choose not to date an easy girl. Reason being? They tend to be more stress and trouble than what its worth. An easy woman will do easy woman things. It doesn't mix well when in a monogamous relationship because easy women are better suited for the single life.

[kdark]

Well I'll applaud your speculation, I'll have to put a couple hollows into it. Insecure? Not at all. Why would I be? Even easy broads who sleep around want to settle down and be my girlfriend. That alone tells me that I'm doing something right, I just don't want THEM as my GF. From experience, I've found promiscuous women to be better left as friends with whom you have fun with.

 

But refusing, without exception, to date an entire cross section of the female population for being promiscuous or having a promiscuous past sounds pretty insecure to me. Have you been burned a lot by promiscuous women in the past? I've never had any problems dating promiscuous/formerly promiscuous girls. Promiscuity does not equal cheater.

 

And thinking yourself being above this same scrutiny is pretty immature. You don't consider yourself a cheater or a bad person to date I hope. So why lump all "promiscuous girls" into that category? It seems like you view them as beneath you or not worth the heartache they cause.

[mr.dream merchant]

But refusing, without exception, to date an entire cross section of the female population for being promiscuous or having a promiscuous past sounds pretty insecure to me. Have you been burned a lot by promiscuous women in the past? I've never had any problems dating promiscuous/formerly promiscuous girls. Promiscuity does not equal cheater.

 

And thinking yourself being above this same scrutiny is pretty immature. You don't consider yourself a cheater or a bad person to date I hope. So why lump all "promiscuous girls" into that category? It seems like you view them as beneath you or not worth the heartache they cause.

 

In my eyes, they really aren't worth alot of the things that come equipped with a monogamous relationship due to my personal opinion that promiscuous women are more inclined to behave as such, even if they are in a relationship. Furthermore, it is my personal opinion that the risk is not one worth taking.

 

Why do I not view myself in the same light? Because men and women behave differently. As a male, I am naturally inclined to be a promiscuous entity. Any male mammal is. Does this mean I won't be a great boyfriend for a woman whom I see fit for monogamous relationship? No. And again, it isn't so for women either. It's just my personal opinion and preference not to date women who are easy, promiscuous, tramps, sluts, whores, jump offs, etc..whatever you prefer to call them. And this is due to the fact that I have a personal belief of those kind of women. It's all subjective. Is the glass half empty or half full? Depends on perspective, views, and personal opinion.

[kdark]

In my eyes, they really aren't worth alot of the things that come equipped with a monogamous relationship due to my personal opinion that promiscuous women are more inclined to behave as such, even if they are in a relationship. Furthermore, it is my personal opinion that the risk is not one worth taking.

 

Why do I not view myself in the same light? Because men and women behave differently. As a male, I am naturally inclined to be a promiscuous entity. Any male mammal is. Does this mean I won't be a great boyfriend for a woman whom I see fit for monogamous relationship? No. And again, it isn't so for women either. It's just my personal opinion and preference not to date women who are easy, promiscuous, tramps, sluts, whores, jump offs, etc..whatever you prefer to call them. And this is due to the fact that I have a personal belief of those kind of women. It's all subjective. Is the glass half empty or half full? Depends on perspective, views, and personal opinion.

 

So basically, you are afraid that they will cheat on you.

 

That my friend, is being insecure.

 

Calling it "not equipped to handle a monogomous relationship and everything that comes along with it" doesn't change anything.