Genuine Classy Lady or a Retired Jump Off?

[mr.dream merchant]

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.

 

Lol, if that's what you want to believe bro go ahead. More power to you.

[kdark]

Lol, if that's what you want to believe bro go ahead. More power to you.

 

Sorry, but I've dated and met, some really awesome girls who wouldn't fit your criteria, and I hate seeing you, and tons of other men, limiting yourselves because of something as trivial as this.

 

But hey, as long as you aren't creating a wake of broken, bitter women who loathe men in your quest to find love, then I don't care what you do.

[silverfish]

Sorry, but I've dated and met, some really awesome girls who wouldn't fit your criteria, and I hate seeing you, and tons of other men, limiting yourselves because of something as trivial as this.

 

But hey, as long as you aren't creating a wake of broken, bitter women who loathe men in your quest to find love, then I don't care what you do.

 

Having read through, I agree. There are already enough lemon chewers out there.

 

OP, when you meet this awesome chaste lady who you want to settle down with, what are you going to do when she takes offence at your previous?

 

You're backing yourself into a corner. No woman wants to be with a man who uses derogatory terms the way you throw them about. No woman would want to be with a man who had also banged a large number of them as well.

 

It comes across as very creepy.

[Mad Max]

Like I said earlier, the thing with promiscuous women is they lack self-control. They clearly lack self-control as far as sex, but they also lack it in other areas of life. With them, their number of partners isn't the issue. The real issue is the lack of self-control. I avoid those types but unfortunately, I seem to attract them.

[mr.dream merchant]

Like I said earlier, the thing with promiscuous women is they lack self-control. They clearly lack self-control as far as sex, but they also lack it in other areas of life. With them, their number of partners isn't the issue. The real issue is the lack of self-control. I avoid those types but unfortunately, I seem to attract them.

 

Just keep a few of them around man. Get your rocks off until the REAL woman comes around.

[Mad Max]

Just keep a few of them around man. Get your rocks off until the REAL woman comes around.

 

 

I refuse to sleep with anyone that doesn't get an STD test. I don't care if I go a year without getting laid. I would take a committed relationship over casual sex 10/10 times.

[mr.dream merchant]

Meh, fair stance Mad Max. Me? I make sure everything is clean and then I go in with a Magnum on. But as far as easy women go, I care more about the service they're providing than actually dating one. Heh, guess it's the young man in me. Libido is off the ****ing charts.

[zengirl]

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?

 

Many of them have been played. I have male friends who've been treated badly and cheated on and such, just like I have many female friends who have who aren't bitter, angry, and controlling.

 

Some of them do have lasting relationships with women. I have male friends who are married now, male friends who are in relationships, male friends who are single but want to be in relationships (but no one in particular right now strikes their fancy), and male friends who avoid relationships. Obviously, all the men I date are single, but I don't know if that means they don't have any "lasting" relationships at all. Sometimes things just don't work out. All my break-ups were fairly amicable. One was messy at the time, because we were both so angry, but no cheating or anything permanent and we made peace later. Even with people who've had messy, terrible situations. . . I've dated men who've been cheated on or treated poorly who managed to still be healthy, happy human beings.

 

My Step-father's first wife cheated on him and eventually left him with a "Dear John" note and her elderly parents to take care of, living in the MIL suite! (Her brother eventually came for the parents, but my step-father even helped them out and let them stay for awhile, because they were good enough people and they hadn't done anything to him.) Then she came back 2 years later and tried to take the house, even though it had been in HIS family. I cannot really imagine much worse treatment than what I've heard of the way she treated him, but I also cannot imagine a kinder, more fantastic man than my Step-father. Everyone likes him because he is literally the kindest person you'll ever meet, but he's also honest and assertive. Who is ridiculously happy with my Mother and completely trusts her because he realizes that she is not his ex-wife, just as my Mother had a bad marriage and realizes that he is not her ex-husband. I certainly count myself lucky to have seen both good and bad marriages as a child and be able to understand that bad experiences do not negate the good ones.

 

This idea that people cannot be wounded and remain healthy and happy -- perhaps even push themselves to be healthier and happier because of the experiences and what they learned -- is false.

Edited August 15, 2010 by zengirl

[Mad Max]

Meh, fair stance Mad Max. Me? I make sure everything is clean and then I go in with a Magnum on. But as far as easy women go, I care more about the service they're providing than actually dating one. Heh, guess it's the young man in me. Libido is off the ****ing charts.

 

 

I'm pretty sure I'm younger than you(I'm 22). But, I think with the big head. I could have a FWB or something similar, but it's not what I want.

[mr.dream merchant]

I'm pretty sure I'm younger than you(I'm 22). But, I think with the big head. I could have a FWB or something similar, but it's not what I want.

 

I'm actually 21. :S

[Mad Max]

I'm actually 21. :S

 

 

I was wrong, sue me lol. We're about the same page, but not everyone thinks the same. That's what makes life interesting.

[mr.dream merchant]

I was wrong, sue me lol. We're about the same page, but not everyone thinks the same. That's what makes life interesting.

 

Yeah, I just figure might as well get the most out of an easy chick - a good ****.

[K'aycie]

You're posting in it. Does that mean you're trashy? AHA!

 

Nope. My average is about 1 every two years.

[A O]

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.

Despite being more promiscuous than most of my partners and a good deal of women I’ve gotten to know, I’m monk-like relative to some men. Men are promiscuous relative to women. That’s one of my key points here. The problematic promiscuous men will more than likely be the one’s who can’t form close bonds (have emotional issues) or those that either can’t keep it in their pants (when committed) or lie to get into someone’s pants. They’re not to be confused with the guys who simply don’t need relationships or those who’d like to be, but for whatever reason aren’t promiscuous.

 

 

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.

I’ve made mention a couple of times now that what drives both you and the OP here is a need to ‘modify’ certain behavior that both of you, deep down inside find uncomfortable. Guess in one sense I was already talking about what you’re suggesting here because to ‘modify’ is to want to change, to influence, to sway, to ultimately control or hold some sort of power over in this case – behavior that you and the OP are uncomfortable with.

 

Back to sex and the differences between the genders towards it, again it’s down to biology as far as I’m concerned and its biology that drives whatever socialized views we all tend to have. Many use the latter to try and control the former but without differences in biology – arguments like this simply wouldn’t exist.

 

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?

Well that day has yet to come for the majority of folk at least. In the absence of that we have what we have – differences between the sexes. Differences that you rightly point out, should be treated with honesty and respect but open communication especially in the early dating stages and especially in regards to sex – rarely happens. Instead, most folk skirt the edges, guard against, are mindful of or even try to dismiss the notion that there are differences between the genders as far as sex is concerned.

 

Oh, oh, and one more thing - emotional health - that's a nice term

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).

I like the term but on further reflection, it’s too general for me. Self-esteem as in ‘how one views them self’ is exactly what I’m looking for here, given that I tend to use it in a relationship sense, as in, a person with healthy self esteem is far more likely to be sound relationship material opposed to be a person with low self esteem. My wider point being – the whole world knows about low self esteem men (who tend to fit under the bad boy, player or both banners) while the world knows very, very little about their female equivalent - low self esteem women. Most bitter men either have encountered or make mention towards low self-esteem women when they carry on. However they fail to make the distinction between these types and women in general. That needs to change and knowing the existence of these types will help alleviate this.

 

 

.

[zengirl]

I’ve made mention a couple of times now that what drives both you and the OP here is a need to ‘modify’ certain behavior that both of you, deep down inside find uncomfortable. Guess in one sense I was already talking about what you’re suggesting here because to ‘modify’ is to want to change, to influence, to sway, to ultimately control or hold some sort of power over in this case – behavior that you and the OP are uncomfortable with.

 

Modify means change. I don't need to change the ugliness in the world. I do need to label it as such, so that it can be properly filtered for my own experience. There is a difference. I don't want to change the OP's behavior or anyone else's. I just want to see it the ugly parts for what they are. I don't ever seek to change another person. I do label what I see, in order to know what to avoid. Most people do this in some way or another. If you never make any judgments, how on Earth would you navigate the world? I then state those judgments freely. Do not mistake this for trying to change someone.

 

Back to sex and the differences between the genders towards it, again it’s down to biology as far as I’m concerned and its biology that drives whatever socialized views we all tend to have.

See, I think biology drives socialization very little. This comes down to what I've learned in studying anthropology and sociology, and we'll generally just have to agree to disagree if you think biology "drives" it.

 

Well that day has yet to come for the majority of folk at least. In the absence of that we have what we have – differences between the sexes. Differences that you rightly point out, should be treated with honesty and respect but open communication especially in the early dating stages and especially in regards to sex – rarely happens. Instead, most folk skirt the edges, guard against, are mindful of or even try to dismiss the notion that there are differences between the genders as far as sex is concerned.

I don't live my life waiting for 'that day' to come. Instead, I build my life around emotionally healthy people who can already do it or are open to the idea at least.

 

When you talk about genders, you and I disagree where they are. I don't want to be treated in a way for my "differences as a woman." There are many women in the world, and we are wildly different from one another, just as the many men in the world are wildly different. If they weren't, there'd be no need to date to find anyone compatible. I want to be treated as an individual. I don't like it when anyone tries to treat me as anything else. I understand generalizing in statistics and such. But when you have actual individuals in front of you -- dating is an individual process -- why not look at the individual? There is no reason if you're not blinded by larger prejudice (we all prejudge but prejudging based on demos is silly). You can look back on reflective patterns and see what you need/want, but using such generalizations broadly is silly and ignorant, from my point of view.

 

I like the term but on further reflection, it’s too general for me. Self-esteem as in ‘how one views them self’ is exactly what I’m looking for here, given that I tend to use it in a relationship sense, as in, a person with healthy self esteem is far more likely to be sound relationship material opposed to be a person with low self esteem. My wider point being – the whole world knows about low self esteem men (who tend to fit under the bad boy, player or both banners) while the world knows very, very little about their female equivalent - low self esteem women. Most bitter men either have encountered or make mention towards low self-esteem women when they carry on. However they fail to make the distinction between these types and women in general. That needs to change and knowing the existence of these types will help alleviate this.

You really think the world knows very little about women with low self images? Interesting. I think it's rather common and boring to say any gal who sleeps around as low self image. She might. Depends on why/how she sleeps around. But it's definitely a cliche. People know it, whether it's true or not in every case. I don't disagree that certain obvious sexual behaviors usually coincide with a low self image, but it's mostly because of socialized attitudes. Most girls aren't going to break their socialization and most feel some stigma attached to promiscuous sex, so if you see someone promiscuous, you can usually judge one of two things: (1) They're working out issues, (2) They simply realize that their socialization is just that and they've chosen to live more freely. To me, #2 is totally and infinitely cool. Promiscuity isn't something I intrinsically want or chose to challenge, but I think challenging your own socialization is good and healthy. But a lot of people prefer their cages.

 

I have seen female self esteem addressed and talked about more than male self esteem; the "more" is likely because I am a woman. Really, I don't think they're all that different. I think human self image is both relatively universal and infinitely diverse and complicated. We do socialize boys and girls in various ways to express it. This depends not just on gender but other factors. Most people of my particular generation and "grouping" were socialized more similarly, regardless of gender, than some other groups---in this day and age, the more highly educated you are, the more similar the socialization between the sexes (because the more irrelevant physical differences become for things like work and achievement).

Edited August 19, 2010 by zengirl

[A O]

Modify means change. I don't need to change the ugliness in the world. I do need to label it as such, so that it can be properly filtered for my own experience.

I think you’re being economical with the truth. Like I’ve said before, people label because they’re uncomfortable with certain behaviors, thus consciously or sub-consciously – labeling is an attempt to modify, influence, hold sway or hold a modicum of power over these situations. Why bother to comment if all you’re only doing this for yourself after all.

 

See, I think biology drives socialization very little. This comes down to what I've learned in studying anthropology and sociology, and we'll generally just have to agree to disagree if you think biology "drives" it.

As I’ve said to many educated folk down through the years, your education is merely the start point. Sometimes it applies, sometimes it doesn’t. Knowing when to spot this difference rather than becoming a slave to what you’ve learnt is an important distinction worth knowing.

 

I don't live my life waiting for 'that day' to come. Instead, I build my life around emotionally healthy people who can already do it or are open to the idea at least.

This is an ideal world but it’s a world foreign to most people. One doesn’t have to be emotionally unhealthy to keep a few cards close to one’s chest either. Just mindful of the (low) odds bringing up certain subjects within a certain time-frame/situation can bring. In other words, reality is close to how I present it than how you live it, for most in regards to this subject.

 

When you talk about genders, you and I disagree where they are. I don't want to be treated in a way for my "differences as a woman." There are many women in the world, and we are wildly different from one another, just as the many men in the world are wildly different.

We’re not talking about differences within a gender; we’re talking about differences between genders. That is what’s underpinning most of this thread. Your argument and those of many here would be totally different if all you wanted to do was talk about different types of women. But that was never the case. You’re judging a man’s actions based on how you would do things. One culture judging another (and vice versa) basically.

 

But when you have actual individuals in front of you -- dating is an individual process -- why not look at the individual? There is no reason if you're not blinded by larger prejudice (we all prejudge but prejudging based on demos is silly). You can look back on reflective patterns and see what you need/want, but using such generalizations broadly is silly and ignorant, from my point of view.

I imagine that’s what most folk tend to do – even the bitter types. However, we all have preconceived ideas (or warning signs) that need to be successfully navigated.

 

You really think the world knows very little about women with low self images?

In relation to their ability to hold quality relationships with men and especially when one takes into account this ability next to healthy-esteemed women – absolutely!!

 

I think it's rather common and boring to say any gal who sleeps around as low self image. She might. Depends on why/how she sleeps around. But it's definitely a cliche. People know it, whether it's true or not in every case.

It’s not a cliché; it’s a very real problem. Not the sex but what the sex represents to these types and how all this is simply a physical manifestation of a much larger problem – their self image. Most women who sleep around have low self esteem. To argue any differently is to pull the proverbial wool over the eyes of both men and women, but men in particular. And it’s this type of misinformation that leads to a lot of bitter men in this world.

 

I have seen female self esteem addressed and talked about more than male self esteem; the "more" is likely because I am a woman. Really, I don't think they're all that different.

What is different is how the world knows about bad boys and players yet knows next to near nothing about low self esteem women – in a relationship worthy sense.

 

 

.

[zengirl]

I think you’re being economical with the truth. Like I’ve said before, people label because they’re uncomfortable with certain behaviors, thus consciously or sub-consciously – labeling is an attempt to modify, influence, hold sway or hold a modicum of power over these situations. Why bother to comment if all you’re only doing this for yourself after all.

 

I'm not doing it only for myself. I'm doing it partially for myself and partially for the ether. But that is too complex to explain here and goes to the heart of everything I think the world is. Why does anyone bother to comment or write anything? It's all either self-indulgent or it's pressing change -- my comments are entirely self-indulgent. By commenting, I further my own thinking. Why write about the world? There are many reasons other than seeking to change people. I don't seek control. I often actively relinquish it on the instances I catch myself falling into this behavior.

 

I think you're projecting your own value system and the ones you're most familiar with onto me, and that just doesn't work. It creates a fallacy. I do not seek to change or control with this labeling. If people change, they change, and all people should seek to change themselves in productive ways. I definitely always seek to continually change myself in productive ways. But I don't want to change others.

 

As I’ve said to many educated folk down through the years, your education is merely the start point. Sometimes it applies, sometimes it doesn’t. Knowing when to spot this difference rather than becoming a slave to what you’ve learnt is an important distinction worth knowing.

 

Of course, my education is merely the starting point. But I am not a slave to what I know and have learned just because I happen to have both learning/information and experience to back up my opinions. To me, opinions based on intellect are the most potentially informed. That doesn't man I'm a "slave" to it. It means I understand what I value.

 

This is an ideal world but it’s a world foreign to most people. One doesn’t have to be emotionally unhealthy to keep a few cards close to one’s chest either. Just mindful of the (low) odds bringing up certain subjects within a certain time-frame/situation can bring. In other words, reality is close to how I present it than how you live it, for most in regards to this subject.

 

Well, there's a broad spectrum of emotional health. It's not a simple Pass/Fail. I concur with you there. My experience and belief is that you have to become the values you want to live by and experience. This is why I find hypocrisy so ugly. That should make sense.

 

We’re not talking about differences within a gender; we’re talking about differences between genders. That is what’s underpinning most of this thread. Your argument and those of many here would be totally different if all you wanted to do was talk about different types of women. But that was never the case. You’re judging a man’s actions based on how you would do things. One culture judging another (and vice versa) basically.

 

And I don't believe in creating unnecessary borders. This is an unnecessary border to be created between genders. We don't need different cultures. We have learned to share and speak about our perspectives as individuals. At least, that's what I've experienced.

 

In relation to their ability to hold quality relationships with men and especially when one takes into account this ability next to healthy-esteemed women – absolutely!!

 

It’s not a cliché; it’s a very real problem. Not the sex but what the sex represents to these types and how all this is simply a physical manifestation of a much larger problem – their self image. Most women who sleep around have low self esteem. To argue any differently is to pull the proverbial wool over the eyes of both men and women, but men in particular. And it’s this type of misinformation that leads to a lot of bitter men in this world.

 

I would say the majority perhaps do. The vast majority as in almost all of them? I'm not so sure about that nowadays, and it really matters more about the level (or lack of) discretion more than the actual numbers of sex partners.

 

So? The majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush twice. To say he was beloved by Americans would be a gross generalization, wouldn't it? Haven't we seen enough counter-culture to understand that majorities mean nothing. America, for example, was built on the idea (some of this has been eroded) that the majority should never have power over the minority simply by virtue of number. Majorities mean very little to me in terms of navigating my actual life. Also, this is not something that is difficult to assess individually by adding in more screening conditions. When you limit yourself to one or two data points (promiscuous and female), you are creating a useless set of information.

 

What is different is how the world knows about bad boys and players yet knows next to near nothing about low self esteem women – in a relationship worthy sense.

 

I fully disagree on this particular issue. I think people have had issues with female sexuality for a long time and to say otherwise is silly.

 

But furthermore, what does the "World" need to know about promiscuity to assess self-image. Honestly, people can quite easily learn to assess another person's self-image by developing their own emotional health and taking the time to really understand other people. It is not difficult.

[A O]

I'm not doing it only for myself. I'm doing it partially for myself and partially for the ether. But that is too complex to explain here and goes to the heart of everything

Few things are too complex when it comes to human behavior unless it doesn’t make any sense in the first place.

 

I think you're projecting your own value system and the ones you're most familiar with onto me, and that just doesn't work. It creates a fallacy. I do not seek to change or control with this labeling. If people change, they change, and all people should seek to change themselves in productive ways. I definitely always seek to continually change myself in productive ways. But I don't want to change others.

I have little need to attach value to situations like these. Simply observing behavior and agreeing or disagreeing with what I see. I am questioning your desire to label, absolutely. I see it as little different to what the OP is doing with the exception that your form of labeling is far more socially acceptable. But what underpins most forms of labeling especially in situations like these where said labeling is a direct result of folk being uncomfortable with specific behavior, what underpins this is a desire to see change. And again, this can be both on a conscious or sub-conscious level.

 

Of course, my education is merely the starting point. But I am not a slave to what I know and have learned just because I happen to have both learning/information and experience to back up my opinions. To me, opinions based on intellect are the most potentially informed. That doesn't man I'm a "slave" to it. It means I understand what I value.

Sorry, but you like to mention your education, as do many educated folk for that matter, as if it’s the end all and be all. The educated folk that I especially enjoy listening to are those who can contrast what they’ve learnt with actual real-world experience. They can bring proper context to their views in other words. I’m not seeing that from you, as yet.

 

Well, there's a broad spectrum of emotional health. It's not a simple Pass/Fail. I concur with you there. My experience and belief is that you have to become the values you want to live by and experience. This is why I find hypocrisy so ugly. That should make sense.

Again, the biggest point here is that your view –a viewpoint that most people should strive for – is not reflective of the wider population.

 

And I don't believe in creating unnecessary borders. This is an unnecessary border to be created between genders. We don't need different cultures. We have learned to share and speak about our perspectives as individuals. At least, that's what I've experienced.

This is just another way of saying that you believe we’re all one in the same. Again, that simply doesn’t play out in real life. In real life, if a guy is overtly sexual, especially in the early dating stages, his chances take a dive, if not outright diminish in all too many cases. If a woman is overtly sexual, she’ll attract the sort of behavior the OP is displaying here. Call it what you wish, there are situations that most folk need to be, and are cognizant of.

 

I would say the majority perhaps do. The vast majority as in almost all of them? I'm not so sure about that nowadays, and it really matters more about the level (or lack of) discretion more than the actual numbers of sex partners.

What matters the most is that people, men especially, understand that women who sleep around will more than likely have emotional issues. It is these issues, I personally do not give a toss about the sex side of this point that men especially need to be mindful of.

 

When you limit yourself to one or two data points (promiscuous and female), you are creating a useless set of information.

The point is to be mindful and to understand what certain points might mean. The point is not to automatically screen out someone based on these two factors alone.

 

But furthermore, what does the "World" need to know about promiscuity to assess self-image. Honestly, people can quite easily learn to assess another person's self-image by developing their own emotional health and taking the time to really understand other people. It is not difficult.

The world needs to know about low self esteem women and what that means in relationship terms. As things stand, this thought process happened to crop up in this sex-based thread. It can just as likely pop up in non-sexual areas.

 

 

.

[zengirl]

Few things are too complex when it comes to human behavior unless it doesn’t make any sense in the first place.

 

That was getting into my spiritual views. Too complex to type out quickly. My spiritual views are complex in that they've developed over many years and overlap with everything I do. My life is a spiritual experience, but I don't mean that in a pompous, silly way. I think everybody's life should be, if they want it to. Explaining the totality of the way I live would take 100 pages of text.

 

I have little need to attach value to situations like these. Simply observing behavior and agreeing or disagreeing with what I see. I am questioning your desire to label, absolutely. I see it as little different to what the OP is doing with the exception that your form of labeling is far more socially acceptable. But what underpins most forms of labeling especially in situations like these where said labeling is a direct result of folk being uncomfortable with specific behavior, what underpins this is a desire to see change. And again, this can be both on a conscious or sub-conscious level.

 

Perhaps you can say I am uncomfortable with the behavior, in that I think it's ugly.

 

I do not desire change. I don't see why you feel the need to persist in arguing with me that I must have some ulterior motive I'm not confessing. I know precisely why I label and judge things, and it's just a sorting process. Everybody sorts everything, if they're going to get anywhere in life. I'm sure you do, too. Whether you do it aloud is a different matter, I suppose, but to me, it's of little consequence. There is a different between thought and speech, but it's much smaller to me than it is to other people.

 

Sorry, but you like to mention your education, as do many educated folk for that matter, as if it’s the end all and be all. The educated folk that I especially enjoy listening to are those who can contrast what they’ve learnt with actual real-world experience. They can bring proper context to their views in other words. I’m not seeing that from you, as yet.

 

I have real world experiences too. Many of which reinforce the values I learned in education. Some contrast, but not this instance, and not too terribly many. Really depends on the quality of your education and how wide it was---college is not the only education I have undergone.

 

Again, the biggest point here is that your view –a viewpoint that most people should strive for – is not reflective of the wider population.

 

And my point remains, "So what?" You just said most people should strive for it. If most people in the class get a C, does that mean we should look at C papers instead of A papers. No. The example should always be an A paper.

 

This is just another way of saying that you believe we’re all one in the same. Again, that simply doesn’t play out in real life. In real life, if a guy is overtly sexual, especially in the early dating stages, his chances take a dive, if not outright diminish in all too many cases. If a woman is overtly sexual, she’ll attract the sort of behavior the OP is displaying here. Call it what you wish, there are situations that most folk need to be, and are cognizant of.

 

No, it really isn't a way of saying that. We are all connected and more the same than we are different. That's just. . .true, if you look at the very broadest sense. But we are extremely diverse. And not all the same.

 

To your second point----I think it's extremely possible to get out from under your own socialization even while socializing with those entrenched in theirs, so long as they have basic emotional health. They tend to see you for what you are if that's the case. And why do most folks need to be cognizant of any hypotheticals?

 

The point is to be mindful and to understand what certain points might mean. The point is not to automatically screen out someone based on these two factors alone.

 

Well, one should always be mindful. But focusing too much on data points and hypotheticals makes most people less mindful. This has been my experience.

 

The world needs to know about low self esteem women and what that means in relationship terms. As things stand, this thought process happened to crop up in this sex-based thread. It can just as likely pop up in non-sexual areas.

 

I find it funny that you say above not to label, but you've got this "The World Needs To Know!" attitude. You're the one who wants change. Not I. Many people do, though I find it silly, so this isn't an attack.

[A O]

Explaining the totality of the way I live would take 100 pages of text.

Sounds so unnecessarily complicated.

 

Perhaps you can say I am uncomfortable with the behavior, in that I think it's ugly. Perhaps you can say I am uncomfortable with the behavior, in that I think it's ugly.

I do not desire change. I don't see why you feel the need to persist in arguing with me that I must have some ulterior motive I'm not confessing

Rarely do people label – especially in a public sense – simply as a reminder to oneself. I don’t know much about spirituality but to me, it’ll be something that I’d work out or contemplate with to myself, perhaps sharing with like-minded souls. There is an motive behind labeling, sometimes its covert, other times its right out there.

 

I know precisely why I label and judge things, and it's just a sorting process. Everybody sorts everything, if they're going to get anywhere in life. I'm sure you do, too. Whether you do it aloud is a different matter, I suppose, but to me, it's of little consequence. There is a different between thought and speech, but it's much smaller to me than it is to other people

A sorting process – absolutely. One that you just happen to want to share with everyone here but hopefully has very little influence on them. Hard to believe.

 

And my point remains, "So what?" You just said most people should strive for it. If most people in the class get a C, does that mean we should look at C papers instead of A papers. No. The example should always be an A paper.

If it’s the C paper that’s going to get the majority of people where they wish to go, then C is more preferable, in my view, to A. Open and honest communication, is something we all should strive for without a shadow of a doubt. But this is not how most people behave, especially in the early dating sense that we’re talking about here. They behave according to biology and the social offshoots derived from that. Try the open and honest route by all means, but be mindful of the fact, especially for the men who wish to voice their sexual preferences or state of mind very early in the piece, that it might not be the wisest road to take.

 

No, it really isn't a way of saying that. We are all connected and more the same than we are different. That's just. . .true, if you look at the very broadest sense. But we are extremely diverse. And not all the same.

Hate to harp on about this point but if we were even close to being on the same wavelength with this issue – sex – then this discussion and discussions like this simply wouldn’t exist.

 

Well, one should always be mindful. But focusing too much on data points and hypotheticals makes most people less mindful. This has been my experience.

Most men haven’t a clue about low self esteem women. Most men think that most, if not all women are good. That’s why so many get so bitter when they realize that some aren’t. But the biggest point here is to raise awareness – awareness of low self-esteem and what that is likely to mean in a relationship sense.

 

I find it funny that you say above not to label, but you've got this "The World Needs To Know!" attitude. You're the one who wants change. Not I. Many people do, though I find it silly, so this isn't an attack.

Two main points (1) I disagree with the labels you’ve chosen to use based on my belief that the genders have a totally different outlook towards sex and (2) I’m pointing out a driver behind the labeling that surrounds the core subject. Discouraging the use of labels hasn’t been an argument of mine. Further more, this debate has moved into territory that’s allowed me to highlight a certain group of women – with labeling attached – that I hope in the long run does indeed lead to change. You’re bang on the money there only the topic I wish to instigate change in is simply a sub-topic of this one.

 

 

.

[zengirl]

Sounds so unnecessarily complicated.

 

Rarely do people label – especially in a public sense – simply as a reminder to oneself. I don’t know much about spirituality but to me, it’ll be something that I’d work out or contemplate with to myself, perhaps sharing with like-minded souls. There is an motive behind labeling, sometimes its covert, other times its right out there.

 

Ah! But: You cannot find and know like-minded souls so well if you are constantly feeling spirituality is personal and not to be put into the world. I label my judgments precisely to make more and better judgments, all for myself. By doing so quite clearly, especially with value issues, like hypocrisy, which is at the core of everything I believe, I then isolate those who don't share my spirituality or any beliefs compatible with them and can make more and better judgments. Does that make sense?

 

Now, doing so here is pretty pointless, true. But most things we do become habits. This is my habit, though it perhaps manifests differently in text than it would in life. Of course, there is a reason I do what I do. It is simply not about changing others. It is about choosing in the world. When I call a piece of fruit rotten -- in my mind or aloud -- and thus don't put it in my basket, I am not attempting to change that fruit.

 

A sorting process – absolutely. One that you just happen to want to share with everyone here but hopefully has very little influence on them. Hard to believe.

I didn't say it hopefully has very little influence. I say I don't care if it influences others or not. There is a vast difference. I have no doubt that I have some influence everywhere I go---we all create ripples---but I cannot know what they are precisely. Or control them. I can only control myself. I care immensely about my actions and little about the effects, except as directs my own life (where I will examine effectiveness).

 

If it’s the C paper that’s going to get the majority of people where they wish to go, then C is more preferable, in my view, to A. Open and honest communication, is something we all should strive for without a shadow of a doubt. But this is not how most people behave, especially in the early dating sense that we’re talking about here. They behave according to biology and the social offshoots derived from that. Try the open and honest route by all means, but be mindful of the fact, especially for the men who wish to voice their sexual preferences or state of mind very early in the piece, that it might not be the wisest road to take.

See, this is getting more and more spiritual, so you'll be able to understand me less and less. All I'll say is that, along with my belief that hypocrisy is one of the ugliest and most ineffective things anyone can ever engage in. . . I have a very strong belief in the fact that you choose what you see in life and what you experience. Not in a stupid way. But in a very real way. You get what you put out. If you put out a certain quality of thinking, you find that in others. If you strive for average, you find many average people with their average games and average failings and average problems. This has been my experience and is my belief.

 

Most men haven’t a clue about low self esteem women. Most men think that most, if not all women are good. That’s why so many get so bitter when they realize that some aren’t. But the biggest point here is to raise awareness – awareness of low self-esteem and what that is likely to mean in a relationship sense.

At best, it's a negative awareness, and like most defense mechanisms, not going to get you anywhere. But I think it's also misguided in many other ways I've already stated. Generally, people with high self-image themselves are easily able to spot and attract like people (statistics bear this out). If you're suggesting we can use short-cuts and generalizations to keep from developing that ability, I think people will be sadly misguided by that. It's a great way to miss many good people and miss many warning signs in bad people.

 

Two main points (1) I disagree with the labels you’ve chosen to use based on my belief that the genders have a totally different outlook towards sex and (2) I’m pointing out a driver behind the labeling that surrounds the core subject. Discouraging the use of labels hasn’t been an argument of mine. Further more, this debate has moved into territory that’s allowed me to highlight a certain group of women – with labeling attached – that I hope in the long run does indeed lead to change. You’re bang on the money there only the topic I wish to instigate change in is simply a sub-topic of this one.

In a personal sense, you can disagree. You can not like the words. You can even find them wrong. In a general sense, I've used the words as appropriately deemed by the current zeitgeist. I've taken as much care as a person can to justify this by sourcing it. In that sense, there is no denying it.

 

Our personal senses are never going to mesh, but there are two arguments here: One is between the personal beliefs of these words, and one is between the way I've used them and their definitions. On the second point, I cannot see how anyone could object in a real way. This is not to say the dictionary is some sort of invincible "I'm right" tool on the personal argument. The two are two different arguments. Really, words are just tools and not truth. Use them any way you will. But, for the sake of most discussions of 'accuracy' in words, we need to have references, which is why we created dictionaries.

 

At the end of the day, our personal views -- and thus our very worlds -- are completely different. When I speak of things like research, statistics, education, or definitions, it's because I understand that debating anything in a personal sense is beyond pointless. That is me making this impersonal. Hopefully, I am distinguishing between the personal places my beliefs emanate from --- which can neither be proven as right, nor wrong, just as yours can't --- and those definitions and labels. "Ugly" for instance isn't something I can justify with fact, as it is subjective by definition; "hypocrite" is. I have a definition. In a book that was created for just such an occasion.

[A O]

Ah! But: You cannot find and know like-minded souls so well if you are constantly feeling spirituality is personal and not to be put into the world. I label my judgments precisely to make more and better judgments, all for myself. By doing so quite clearly, especially with value issues, like hypocrisy, which is at the core of everything I believe, I then isolate those who don't share my spirituality or any beliefs compatible with them and can make more and better judgments. Does that make sense?

Well this is where you have me at a disadvantage because I know next to near nothing about spirituality. What I do know, and whether this has anything to so with spirituality or not is that I need to be comfortable with myself before I’m of any use to the wider world. Voicing my own concerns to the world primarily for my own benefit runs counter to how I do things.

 

A sorting process – absolutely. One that you just happen to want to share with everyone here but hopefully has very little influence on them. Hard to believe.

I didn't say it hopefully has very little influence. I say I don't care if it influences others or not. There is a vast difference.

You’re defying human nature by suggesting that your labeling of the OP’s behavior is simply for your own benefit. You’re not that spiritual yet – you wouldn’t be here if you were.

 

See, this is getting more and more spiritual, so you'll be able to understand me less and less.

As well meaning as some of your views are, again, they’re not reflective of the wider world. Biology and its social offshoots influences how the genders behave towards each other, in a sexual sense, has influenced the OP’s views and whether it be in the real world or the spirit world – has influenced your views on this matter also.

 

All I'll say is that, along with my belief that hypocrisy is one of the ugliest and most ineffective things anyone can ever engage in.

I’ll get back to the basics. Men want sex more than women – something that most women are well aware of.

 

A man has viewed a woman based on how he sees that gender (as being less sexual or more sexually discerning than men). Both his manner and some of his judgments are highly questionable to say the least. Women have judged this man, sexually speaking, not on how they usually see men but on how they see their own sexual behavior. And this is what’s brought me here; I’m questioning the validity of the labels that have arisen from these judgments. And I’m doing this through pointing out the differences between the genders in regards to sex, differences that are acknowledged on one hand and then overlooked in preference to one’s own behavior on the other, thus allowing for the use of certain labels to take place. It’s inconsistent behavior tailored to suit. But none of this, absolutely none of this means diddly squat in the sort of world that you operate in Zen, to which again I counter by suggesting that your world is alien to most folk out there.

 

I have a very strong belief in the fact that you choose what you see in life and what you experience. Not in a stupid way. But in a very real way. You get what you put out. If you put out a certain quality of thinking, you find that in others. If you strive for average, you find many average people with their average games and average failings and average problems. This has been my experience and is my belief.

I believe that I can handle most things that life throws at me, henceforth my eyes, for the most part, are wide open. Understand what you’re saying here nonetheless.

 

But the biggest point here is to raise awareness – awareness of low self-esteem and what that is likely to mean in a relationship sense.

At best, it's a negative awareness, and like most defense mechanisms, not going to get you anywhere. But I think it's also misguided in many other ways I've already stated. Generally, people with high self-image themselves are easily able to spot and attract like people (statistics bear this out). If you're suggesting we can use short-cuts and generalizations to keep from developing that ability, I think people will be sadly misguided by that. It's a great way to miss many good people and miss many warning signs in bad people.

It’s the start in a long chain of events where the end goal is the elimination thereof or the better management of low self esteem, in this case, low self esteem women. Diagnose a problem, acknowledge a problem – fix the problem or find better outcomes for all. That’s the arse-end of all of this. As things stand – we’re barely at the acknowledgement stage.

 

 

.

[zengirl]

A O, you seem like an okay enough fellow. We may disagree, but honestly, most of the things you're saying. . . I wouldn't have bothered to reply to had they begun the thread. What I mean is, while I disagree, I don't see them as fundamentally unhealthy or too different from what I think for this conversation to need much more continuation. There are points where we agree and points where we disagree, but I don't think you want anything substantially 'wrong' from the world by my value scale either. If that makes sense. If you've seen any of the OP's other posts. . . well, let's say I don't have the same view of him as I do of folks like you. At any rate, I'm only going to reply to a few points below, mainly because the back and forth has been mostly intellectual for awhile now (so far as I feel) and there's very little meaningful argument left to be had.

 

You’re defying human nature by suggesting that your labeling of the OP’s behavior is simply for your own benefit. You’re not that spiritual yet – you wouldn’t be here if you were.

 

Depends on what you mean by spiritual. Am I monk-like? Absolutely not. Do I think I ever will be? Likely, no. I'm not sure it's something I aspire to. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Do I care about the behavior of other people? Sometimes, sure. I don't really seek to change it; that's pointless. I do discriminate by it. That's human. So far as I'm concerned, the thoughts of random strangers on the internet really don't need to be "changed" -- though I'm still happy to challenge them. I don't think I'm defying human nature, though my nature may be different from yours. Attempting to change other people is a recipe for disaster. The truth is, in real life, nobody like the OP would get past or even near any of my social filters.

 

And this is what’s brought me here; I’m questioning the validity of the labels that have arisen from these judgments.

Do you mean you're questioning the validity of them based on how often they might be right? And do you only care if there is clear causation, or if they happen to be right? I have agreed with you that sexual indiscretion --- not the number of partners --- in a woman, in our particular society, with our particular socialization likely indicates some abnormality, either good (free spirited) or bad (lack of self-respect). Of course, that's indiscretion. Many women are promiscuous and nobody knows it. Generally speaking, I don't think you can link the number of partners (assuming it's within a healthy range, but that's true of both genders) or enjoyment of sex to the same abnormalities.

 

But anyone who boldly flaunts social norms --- and there is a social norm against women having sex in certain ways, regardless of how many Sex and the City knockoffs people write --- is demonstrating an abnormality. That is what social norms tell us. Not all abnormalities are bad, IMO. Some happen to be good because most social norms are needlessly restrictive. It depends on where the desire to operate outside of the social norm comes from---a natural, I-want-to-do-this-and-I'm-comfortable-with-myself place or a desperate, insecure, prove-something place. What you're arguing for is the logic of the social norm, and what I'm saying is that your logic for the social norm being correct is based entirely on the existence of the social norm and observing its effects. Now, the only way to prove me right or wrong would be for the social norm to change---maybe someday it will, and we shall see.

 

[A O]

Depends on what you mean by spiritual. Am I monk-like? Absolutely not. Do I think I ever will be? Likely, no. I'm not sure it's something I aspire to. Nothing wrong with that.

Spiritual as in to be at such piece with oneself that the behavior of others bothers you not.

 

So far as I'm concerned, the thoughts of random strangers on the internet really don't need to be "changed" -- though I'm still happy to challenge them.

One can challenge without resorting to labels, especially negative labels. Labeling, in this manner, is a symptom of discomfort and few people seek to live with discomfort.

 

I don't think I'm defying human nature, though my nature may be different from yours. Attempting to change other people is a recipe for disaster

People change all the time, people influence others to change all the time, it isn’t anywhere near as impossible as a lot of people think. Within a relationship, I take your view as gospel but in the wider world, it’s not that black and white by any means.

 

Do you mean you're questioning the validity of them based on how often they might be right?

I’m questioning the appropriateness of their use given the differences between the sexes in regards to this issue – sex. As mentioned before and by a couple of other posters – there needs to be a level playing field before one can attach the same labels (or the labels in question here at least) across the genders. Simply put, most women do not want sex as early as men or under the same conditions (outside of or before a commitment of some sort) and arguably, not as often also. Therefore, to judge male sexuality along the same lines as female sexuality despite clear points difference lacks validity in my book. And that’s especially true for women who judge men based on these differences and whose behavior towards them is influenced as a consequence. They can’t judge men according to these points of difference on the one hand and then judge them according to their own behavior on the other. That’s inconsistent behavior.

 

But anyone who boldly flaunts social norms --- and there is a social norm against women having sex in certain ways, regardless of how many Sex and the City knockoffs people write --- is demonstrating an abnormality.

Like I said before – as long as women look down on, or inhibit the male sex drive – when it suits – then don’t expect a free pass in the other direction.

 

What you're arguing for is the logic of the social norm, and what I'm saying is that your logic for the social norm being correct is based entirely on the existence of the social norm and observing its effects. Now, the only way to prove me right or wrong would be for the social norm to change---maybe someday it will, and we shall see.

My argument is based on overwhelming experience. You only have to observe a few threads on here, let alone anything in the wider world to see the clearly different attitudes and consequences thereof, towards this subject, displayed by the genders. To not be mindful of these social norms, is to shorten one's odds of success with the opposite gender (or person of interest).

 

 

.

[zengirl]

Spiritual as in to be at such piece with oneself that the behavior of others bothers you not.

 

I don't define spiritual in this way, at all, nor does it have to do anything with others. . . but the behavior of others doesn't "bother" me, as in impact my life or inspire me to change them.

 

One can challenge without resorting to labels, especially negative labels. Labeling, in this manner, is a symptom of discomfort and few people seek to live with discomfort.

I disagree. The Tao, for instance, uses words such as "Ugly" and other words with negative connotations to label the world, and yet states all these things exist and the world remains at peace. Being at peace has nothing to do with believing everything in the world is equally good or that some things aren't even substantially bad. I do believe everything is perfect at being what it is to a degree. Even the OP is perfect at being the OP, though what he is might be ugly to me. An oil spill is perfect at being an oil spill. A war is perfect at being a war. A bomb is perfect at being a bomb. But many things in this world would be judged as "bad" and labeled by me, as I find them disgusting to my particular standards. It causes me very little discomfort that bad, terrible things exist in the world -- and this applies to much more terrible things than the OP. I can't say no, because there are a few things that still cause me some dissonance and discomfort (people who molest children, mass genocide, etc).

 

Not to mention all words are labels of a kind. You don't happen to like my words, and that's fine, but your reasoning for why I use them is flawed.