Guys, do you respect women who have fbuddy relationships? Is that a "low-grade"chic?

[Untouchable_Fire]

I asked for clarification -that's what people do when they are unsure.

Even if (some, most?) men have more barriers to getting sex (which I'm not sure I completely agree with), how does that make men more sexual than women?

I think that most women on this thread (our context for this discussion), have made the same point - they would not sleep with a man that they didn't desire. Not sure how that translates to "more selective", but, ok.

As far as your questions to me - we both know the answer to both is yes, so not sure what you are geting at there.

 

Oh... I apologize. I would not have said that if I'd realized you wanted clarification. My bad.

 

When he talks about men being more sexual... I've always assumed he was referencing how we (men) have to push and be forward to get it.

 

As a side note. When you say your unsure if its more difficult for men to get sex than women... what do you have in mind? I've always just considered this as a fact.

 

Uh... I wasn't expecting you to agree with me regarding consequences... and to that point... I've forgotten what I was going to say. I guess you don't have to be a senior to have a "senior moment".

[on a learning curve]

Oh... I apologize. I would not have said that if I'd realized you wanted clarification. My bad.

 

When he talks about men being more sexual... I've always assumed he was referencing how we (men) have to push and be forward to get it.

 

As a side note. When you say your unsure if its more difficult for men to get sex than women... what do you have in mind? I've always just considered this as a fact.

 

Uh... I wasn't expecting you to agree with me regarding consequences... and to that point... I've forgotten what I was going to say. I guess you don't have to be a senior to have a "senior moment".

 

Perhaps men, in general, have to push and be forward with their intentions of wanting sex. Can you see how a FWB relationship might mitigate that a bit? If a woman is clear about her intentions, why pathologize it?

 

As to your inquiry - if a man only wants sex ( a hole to gratify himself) he has means available. It's called hiring a prostitute - and there is plently of historical evidence to support that.

 

I do agree with you as to the consequences of having sex - that is because I am a very literal person. If you wish to discuss emotional consequences - new thread.

[sally4sara]

It means your just keeping him around until something better comes along. You can't assume that he won't develop feelings for you... sex typically leads to emotional bonding. So, you have to be ready to smash his feelings at some point. What kind of person is Ok with that?

 

This is a risk every one of us takes in any style of relationship. I'm not sure how it is worse that a man might take this risk.

 

And to that end, if both people have been up front about their interest, where it begins, where it ends - and yet both still wish to enter into it? Well I only have one thing to say about that.

 

I didn't play you; you played yourself. Compatibility isn't really compatibility when its one sided.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Perhaps men, in general, have to push and be forward with their intentions of wanting sex. Can you see how a FWB relationship might mitigate that a bit? If a woman is clear about her intentions, why pathologize it?

As to your inquiry - if a man only wants sex ( a hole to gratify himself) he has means available. It's called hiring a prostitute - and there is plently of historical evidence to support that.

I do agree with you as to the consequences of having sex - that is because I am a very literal person. If you wish to discuss emotional consequences - new thread.

 

I'm from an age group where FWB is fairly common... and it's getting even more common. It's not some fantastic way to tide yourself over while looking for the right person. It's pretty much for emotionally retarded or damaged people to keep from getting into anything that might make them feel something.

 

 

This is a risk every one of us takes in any style of relationship. I'm not sure how it is worse that a man might take this risk.

And to that end, if both people have been up front about their interest, where it begins, where it ends - and yet both still wish to enter into it? Well I only have one thing to say about that.

I didn't play you; you played yourself. Compatibility isn't really compatibility when its one sided.

 

I view this issue as somewhat gender neutral. I don't usually talk about men since I don't date them.

 

Even if both people enter into the FWB relationship with a clear understanding many times developing feelings happens regardless of whether it was intended or not. It's completely heartless to just look at someone and just say "f*** your feelings, I don't care."

 

Maybe I'm in the minority... but I don't want to date someone who treats people like that. Most quality guys I know think the same.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Untouchable_Fire

[Untouchable_Fire]

Perhaps men, in general, have to push and be forward with their intentions of wanting sex. Can you see how a FWB relationship might mitigate that a bit? If a woman is clear about her intentions, why pathologize it?

As to your inquiry - if a man only wants sex ( a hole to gratify himself) he has means available. It's called hiring a prostitute - and there is plently of historical evidence to support that.

I do agree with you as to the consequences of having sex - that is because I am a very literal person. If you wish to discuss emotional consequences - new thread.

 

Now how would an FWB relationship mitigate that? Ever see that skit by SNL with Tom Brady about sexual harassment? That's pretty much how it works... by being forward you can overcome that. I can't remember the study, but I'm fairly certain that it's been shown that women all tend to go after the same 3/10 guys, while men tend to split up and go for 7/10 women. Being forward makes this balance out. I think changing this dynamic would just lead to more guys being completely ignored.

 

I'm from an age group where FWB is fairly common... and it's getting even more common. It's not some fantastic way to tide yourself over while looking for the right person. It's pretty much for emotionally retarded or damaged people to keep from getting into anything that might make them feel something.

 

As for prostitution... I pretty much put men who buy prostitutes on the same page as women who sleep around. It's gross, and really demeaning to yourself.

[A O]

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that men have more barriers to a woman's body than a woman has to a man's. And, it is for that reason that men are more sexual than women?

Men have more barriers to navigate, or in other words, women are more selective. Correct. Men on the other hand, they want it more hence the barriers they present are less. The 'wanting it more', especially, the sex on the brain’ concept that men are known for (and women not nearly as much), the ease in which men identify any given situation in a sexual sense, relative to women, thanks in no small part to testosterone – the all round attitude that men have towards sex and that most folk, most women have an inherent understanding of (which is usually formed in ones formative years onwards)….all this is why men are more sexual than women and are seen to be so. It’s all baseless to you apparently, but common knowledge to most folk.

 

What more of a reason do women need? Horniness is not enough? Or, are you going to argue the personality/emotional disorder angle?

What women need, more than men evidently – is more of a reason to unleash their sexual urges than men. That speaks for itself.

 

 

When he talks about men being more sexual... I've always assumed he was referencing how we (men) have to push and be forward to get it.

A good summation beforehand U-Fire, but in this regard, it’s not so much about ‘pushing for it more’…it’s about wanting it more, being in tune to it more, being influenced by it more.

 

 

.

[A O]

Can you see how a FWB relationship might mitigate that a bit? If a woman is clear about her intentions, why pathologize it?

Why make an issue out of it!

 

It’s an indicator, not unlike men who spend their lives doing nothing but sleeping around. That can be an indictor of a person with emotional issues, of an inability to commit or form close emotional bonds. Sex with many people, sexual-based relationships, they can be an indicator.

 

I wish people would be more discerning with their judgments, learn to look for clusters of behavior, look for repeated behavior, especially, before making a judgment call on someone (and that goes across the board, not just with this subject)…I wish people would be more like this. But just as bad as poor or rash judgment is misinformation, and while most posters have a good handle of this situation especially in regards to excessive sex, some folk give the impression that there’s simply nothing to worry about here at all. That is wrong.

 

 

.

[sally4sara]

I'm from an age group where FWB is fairly common... and it's getting even more common. It's not some fantastic way to tide yourself over while looking for the right person. It's pretty much for emotionally retarded or damaged people to keep from getting into anything that might make them feel something.

 

Personally, I found it worked fantastic for me. I found more communication in this style of dating than in the more traditional style. With the traditional style, I'd realize one day that we just rattled on in auto pilot. Are we going out this Friday? Of course we are; you're my GF. Oh so you mean I'm coming over and cooking you dinner again while we hang out with your friends. That just gets old. They were getting wifey service. And any concern for where they or I were at emotionally in the relationship was just assumed. I must be happy right? I'm his GF after all. So there was me pulling wifey duty while all they gave was sleeping only with me.

 

But my experiences with a more casual situation, checking in on feelings and happiness level of the situation happened pretty regular. And there was more honesty. Are we going out this Friday? Maybe - and maybe one or both of us found something better to do that weekend. We were still able to maintain our responsibilities better for not falling into the auto pilot routine. So how often we hung out hinged entirely with how enjoyable we found each others company. It either developed slowly with appreciation or it waned slowly for discovered incompatibilities.

 

 

I view this issue as somewhat gender neutral. I don't usually talk about men since I don't date them.

 

Even if both people enter into the FWB relationship with a clear understanding many times developing feelings happens regardless of whether it was intended or not. It's completely heartless to just look at someone and just say "f*** your feelings, I don't care."

 

Maybe I'm in the minority... but I don't want to date someone who treats people like that. Most quality guys I know think the same.

 

Some people call it jaded and others call it realistic. I'm one of the latter. I'm not out to stomp on anyone but I wasn't going to hang up my cattle spurs for just anyone willing (and maybe capable) of giving me their fidelity. My husband has me because he awed me.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Personally, I found it worked fantastic for me. I found more communication in this style of dating than in the more traditional style. With the traditional style, I'd realize one day that we just rattled on in auto pilot. Are we going out this Friday? Of course we are; you're my GF. Oh so you mean I'm coming over and cooking you dinner again while we hang out with your friends. That just gets old. They were getting wifey service. And any concern for where they or I were at emotionally in the relationship was just assumed. I must be happy right? I'm his GF after all. So there was me pulling wifey duty while all they gave was sleeping only with me.

 

But my experiences with a more casual situation, checking in on feelings and happiness level of the situation happened pretty regular. And there was more honesty. Are we going out this Friday? Maybe - and maybe one or both of us found something better to do that weekend. We were still able to maintain our responsibilities better for not falling into the auto pilot routine. So how often we hung out hinged entirely with how enjoyable we found each others company. It either developed slowly with appreciation or it waned slowly for discovered incompatibilities.

 

If your unhappy or feel bored with a situation you need to communicate that clearly.

 

I had a relationship like that were I was really busy at work didn't have time to plan a lot of stuff... and she got bored. I was busy and fairly happy... so it didn't hit me until later. Looking back she dropped hints, which she considered clear indications. She went out to dinner with another guy... (A former FWB of hers) which was pretty much a date... though she fought that label vehemently. We finally had a discussion about the situation and I put some work in to fix it, which was damn hard given my work situation.

 

The whole relationship just didn't work well, because I don't have that super insecure guy "are you sure your happy? Can I bend over farther for you?" attitude. When she wasn't communicating I just started coming in like the Spanish Inquisition... blow torches and pliers at the ready. It was just too aggressive an approach for her in terms of talking about her "feelings".

 

I dumped her about a month later. That was experience #1, with a woman who liked to have FWB situations. The other one was a straight up liar and a cheat...

 

Some people call it jaded and others call it realistic. I'm one of the latter. I'm not out to stomp on anyone but I wasn't going to hang up my cattle spurs for just anyone willing (and maybe capable) of giving me their fidelity. My husband has me because he awed me.

 

I forget you married your FWB... ... which I think you should re-title into something else. There must have been a lot more than just benefits. If he awed you... I assume it wasn't JUST in the bedroom.

[Woggle]

That is fair enough.

 

I agree with the majority of that post, but the point I think most are making is that having had an f-buddy doesn't make you dishonest/untrustworthy/low-grade. It simply doesn't. A person's character makes them that, not what they have done in the past-sexually when they were single.

 

Having an F-buddy doesn't equal promiscuous. Say a woman has an f-buddy for two years, he is the only person she sleeps with but isn't in a committed relationship with him, for those two years. Another woman in the same period of time has five short-term relationships, (or so) which one is more promiscuous? In spite of the fact that they were relationships, it's obviously the woman who had the five right?

 

What I think I'm saying is that ultimately it boils down to misconceptions about f-buddies. Mention the term 'fwb' and instantly people think up words such as 'hoe', 'skank', 'low-grade', 'promiscuous', 'bike'. Those negative connotations harm people's perceptions of such an arrangement, it's not about being dishonest, or a hoe, it's about sex. I agree that if you feel it is wrong on both sides to do it, that's fine, great, whatever, stay true to that, and find someone who agrees to be with.

 

 

Maybe not all women who like this kind arrangement are untrustworthy but there are plenty of men in this thread who have had the same experiences. Do you think this is merely coincidence? We are not making this stuff up and it has more to do with a woman's attitude than it does the actual act of sex. You find that these kind of women just do not value commitment and take it very seriously. They have the view that they are commited only until that in love feeling wears off and if they happen to meet an OM that gives them that feeling so be it. Being married to a woman like this is like being at the mercy of a woman's unstable emotions and it is just not worth the drama.

[EasyHeart]

Having an F-buddy doesn't equal promiscuous. Say a woman has an f-buddy for two years, he is the only person she sleeps with but isn't in a committed relationship with him, for those two years. Another woman in the same period of time has five short-term relationships, (or so) which one is more promiscuous? In spite of the fact that they were relationships, it's obviously the woman who had the five right?

 

What I think I'm saying is that ultimately it boils down to misconceptions about f-buddies. Mention the term 'fwb' and instantly people think up words such as 'hoe', 'skank', 'low-grade', 'promiscuous', 'bike'. Those negative connotations harm people's perceptions of such an arrangement, it's not about being dishonest, or a hoe, it's about sex. I agree that if you feel it is wrong on both sides to do it, that's fine, great, whatever, stay true to that, and find someone who agrees to be with.

 

Personally, I found it worked fantastic for me. I found more communication in this style of dating than in the more traditional style. With the traditional style, I'd realize one day that we just rattled on in auto pilot. Are we going out this Friday? Of course we are; you're my GF. Oh so you mean I'm coming over and cooking you dinner again while we hang out with your friends. That just gets old. They were getting wifey service. And any concern for where they or I were at emotionally in the relationship was just assumed. I must be happy right? I'm his GF after all. So there was me pulling wifey duty while all they gave was sleeping only with me.

 

But my experiences with a more casual situation, checking in on feelings and happiness level of the situation happened pretty regular. And there was more honesty. Are we going out this Friday? Maybe - and maybe one or both of us found something better to do that weekend. We were still able to maintain our responsibilities better for not falling into the auto pilot routine. So how often we hung out hinged entirely with how enjoyable we found each others company. It either developed slowly with appreciation or it waned slowly for discovered incompatibilities.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I doubt many (if any) men would consider either of those situations to be "FWBs" or "F-buddies". We would consider them casual relationships, which are a completely different critter. Go through this thread and look at the actual descriptions people use, and it incredibly obvious that most men and most women are using these terms in completely different ways. And instead of simply acknowledging this, people seem to be either ignoring it or demanding that their definition is right and others are wrong.

 

The problem with using different definitions for terms is that it prevents communication. So I think the take-away from this thread (for the few of us who are trying to learn and not just trying to argue), is to be careful with emotionally-charged terms like F-buddy and FWB. For instance, if I met a woman like Sweetz, and she told me she had a F-buddy for two years, it would send off a multitude of red flags and alarms in my head. but if she said, "I was seeing this guy for a couple years, but I wasn't too serious about it", I'd think, "oh, okay. That's cool." and it would be no problem at all.

 

So I've learned that when a woman uses the term F-buddy or FWB, it does not necessarily (but still could) mean an emotionless relationship based on casual and promiscuous sex. But hopefully some of the women reading this thread will realize that pretty much no man considers a long-term monogamous relationship to be a FWB or F-buddy situation. So if for some reason it is extremely important for you to maintain that label, then of course feel free to do so. But you should realize that most men are going to hear something completely different (and very negative) than what you are trying to communicate.

[sally4sara]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but

 

So if for some reason it is extremely important for you to maintain that label, then of course feel free to do so. But you should realize that most men are going to hear something completely different (and very negative) than what you are trying to communicate.

 

I hate to sound like a broken record too, but I call it that because than is what it started as and its very important to me to be honest.

 

And what some of you men can't seem to wrap your heads around is that some of us women DON'T CARE how you hear our words or what you think of our actions. You either ask for further explanation (applying communication) or you assume the worst in silence. If a guy still hears it as a negative after asking for clarification? OH WELL; some of us don't care what you think as long as we are living up to our own standards. And that, more than anything else shared in this thread, is what female sexual empowerment is about. Living by our own standards and not the standards of some guy we *might* meet or anyone else for that matter.

[EasyHeart]

I hate to sound like a broken record too, but I call it that because than is what it started as and its very important to me to be honest.

 

And what some of you men can't seem to wrap your heads around is that some of us women DON'T CARE how you hear our words or what you think of our actions. You either ask for further explanation (applying communication) or you assume the worst in silence. If a guy still hears it as a negative after asking for clarification? OH WELL; some of us don't care what you think as long as we are living up to our own standards. And that, more than anything else shared in this thread, is what female sexual empowerment is about. Living by our own standards and not the standards of some guy we *might* meet or anyone else for that matter.

Well, obviously that's your choice. But it strikes me as very odd that someone would want to intentionally create impediments to communication and shift all of the burden of communication onto other people. It's always easier to change what you say than to change what you hear. You seem to place your political agenda above human interaction, which I find difficult to fathom.

[Woggle]

Right. Women who insist on calling their casual sex + moderate degree of emotional investment-type relationships "FWBs" do so retroactively, to "prove a point" to the next man, or men in their life, that they just DON'T CARE (LOL all caps) WHAT MEN THINK.

 

We know you don't care what men think.

 

Which is precisely what makes women who think like you do very dangerous as potential serious relationship partners.

 

Exactly. The last thing I want to do is fight the gender war in my relationships and a woman who seems incapable of having anything but an adversarial relationship with a man just makes most men want to run. It is all about giving a middle finger to the patriarchy and I just don't have the tolerance to deal with a woman like that.

[Woggle]

Actually it's not odd, it's a deliberate part of the relationship dynamic women like this--and there seem to be a lot of them--want to impose on their relationships.

 

They have a lot of investment in saying that they DON'T CARE about what men think.

 

It's not that women who think like this actually have sexual relationships, totally devoid of any emotional connection. You've pretty much successfully pointed out that few if any women have actually described any relationships devoid of emotion. What they've actually described are monogamous sexual relationships with desirable men, spanning long periods of time, in which the man involved simply doesn't want to invest much more than it takes to get the sex. The women are obviously hanging around not just for the sex, because they can get sex pretty much anywhere, anytime they want it. They're hanging around because they're hoping alpha male "comes around" and the relationship evolves into something more. Sometimes it does, a lot of the time it doesn't. And the relationship ends.

 

And being used sexually by an alpha male, pining for him, being monogamously committed when likely as not the alpha is not being exclusive (although he may lie about that of course) and then being dumped after a few months or a couple of years when the alpha moves on isn't very good for a woman's ego.

 

So it's the next guy down the road, the betas, the relationship guys, the guys who actually care, who take the brunt of the woman's anger at how she was treated.

 

You see at a relationship site like this, the women like sally who insist on constantly "venting" don't acknowledge that most of the guys are caring betas--or at least have a strong aspect of that in their personalities.

 

Because true alphas wouldn't be wasting their time.

 

An alpha certainly wouldn't tolerate some woman on an internet site responding to a reasoned attempt to communicate with her, saying WE DON'T CARE. The alpha would respond by saying F*CK OFF B*TCH.

 

But we don't because we're nice guys, and women like sally think they can be perpetually abusive.

 

And that's precisely why they're so dangerous for betas to contemplate relationships with.

 

As for an alpha, no risk whatsoever...like lamaman, or a PUA, he will tell them whatever nonsense he thinks they want to hear, whatever key turns the lock that opens the vault to get to wherever the carnal goodies are; once that door is opened, he will just plow them until he tires of them. The alpha nods his head and smiles and sexes until something better comes along. But women who think and express themselves like sally are actually extremely easy for a suave alpha to manipulate, because all he really needs to do is agree with whatever the woman says. The inability to tolerate a different POV is mirrored by a strong desire for validation by people who are willing to agree, even if they are laughing behind their hands.

 

And so they tend to go through an endless cycle of dysfunctional relationships with men, because they never seem to get the picture. They think that degrading themselves to men they perceive as highly desirable and being abusive to men they believe are less desirable is an effective relationship strategy.

 

It's not.

 

This is true. A guy like Lamaman is blatantly just telling women what they want to hear in order to fuel his own agenda.

 

I also notice that nice guys in many ways are just seen as punching bags. These women don't have the guys to go and seek revenge on the alphas who used and abused and in many cases these alphas don't have hearts to break anyway so they are total witches to the betas.

 

As for me I am not an alpha or a beta. I don't play the PUA games but I also am no doormat. I speak my mind and I couldn't care less if some women consider me a misogynist. I can't be silenced by being called a woman hater or anything else.

[stillafool]

So I've learned that when a woman uses the term F-buddy or FWB, it does not necessarily (but still could) mean an emotionless relationship based on casual and promiscuous sex. But hopefully some of the women reading this thread will realize that pretty much no man considers a long-term monogamous relationship to be a FWB or F-buddy situation. So if for some reason it is extremely important for you to maintain that label, then of course feel free to do so. But you should realize that most men are going to hear something completely different (and very negative) than what you are trying to communicate.

 

I doubt if most men care what you label it (FWB, F-Buddy, Casual sex, etc.) just as long as it includes sex.

[stillafool]

I also notice that nice guys in many ways are just seen as punching bags. These women don't have the guys to go and seek revenge on the alphas who used and abused and in many cases these alphas don't have hearts to break anyway so they are total witches to the betas.

 

 

 

That's not true. Alpha males do eventually marry and can be faithful. Why are they jerks just because they "played the field" when they were single?

[americanstreamer]

I do not think there is any thing wrong in this. Have fun. Be safe.

[Woggle]

That's not true. Alpha males do eventually marry and can be faithful. Why are they jerks just because they "played the field" when they were single?

 

Some do eventually change but many still cheat on their wives. I am not talking about strong men but more the players that some women lust after. I know guys who women make fools of themselves over and you should hear how they talk about women in an all male company. A friend of mine who could get any woman he wanted is completely cold hearted to the women he dates. He will sit there playing voicemail messages so the guys can laugh at a woman pouring her heart out yet these women keep coming back for more.

 

Meanwhile my friends who would never think about treating a woman like that get treated like chopped liver.

[on a learning curve]

Men have more barriers to navigate, or in other words, women are more selective. Correct. Men on the other hand, they want it more hence the barriers they present are less. The 'wanting it more', especially, the sex on the brain’ concept that men are known for (and women not nearly as much), the ease in which men identify any given situation in a sexual sense, relative to women, thanks in no small part to testosterone – the all round attitude that men have towards sex and that most folk, most women have an inherent understanding of (which is usually formed in ones formative years onwards)….all this is why men are more sexual than women and are seen to be so. It’s all baseless to you apparently, but common knowledge to most folk.

 

What women need, more than men evidently – is more of a reason to unleash their sexual urges than men. That speaks for itself.

 

It's not that it's baseless to me. I understand where the fear comes from, and I am well aware of the historical context from which it has risen. I don't have time to expand on this at the moment, but will do so if you are interested.

 

I simply disagree with you that men are more sexual than women. Think about the many ways in which various cultures attempt to restict women's sexuality? Why is that necessary unless men feel that women would otherwise run wanton with carnal lust?

 

As for your last comment - well sure, perhaps women do need more of a reason to unleash their sexual urges, but hey, given some of the attitudes on this thread - it seems like social suicide not to.

 

Sorry for rushing my response. Just wanted to add a quick comment for now.

[stillafool]

Maybe not all women who like this kind arrangement are untrustworthy but there are plenty of men in this thread who have had the same experiences. Do you think this is merely coincidence? We are not making this stuff up and it has more to do with a woman's attitude than it does the actual act of sex. You find that these kind of women just do not value commitment and take it very seriously. They have the view that they are commited only until that in love feeling wears off and if they happen to meet an OM that gives them that feeling so be it. Being married to a woman like this is like being at the mercy of a woman's unstable emotions and it is just not worth the drama.

 

My question would be why do these men pick this type of woman in the first place if they no they can't handle her? Why don't they go for a less attractive, less outgoing type of female? To me, these men who complain are as guilty as the women they blame for falling for the Alpha Male. Why don't beta men pick better?

[9Lives]

Some do eventually change but many still cheat on their wives. I am not talking about strong men but more the players that some women lust after. I know guys who women make fools of themselves over and you should hear how they talk about women in an all male company. A friend of mine who could get any woman he wanted is completely cold hearted to the women he dates. He will sit there playing voicemail messages so the guys can laugh at a woman pouring her heart out yet these women keep coming back for more.

 

Meanwhile my friends who would never think about treating a woman like that get treated like chopped liver.

 

I agree that most alpha cheat on their wives because they are so use to being self centered and selfish.

[Woggle]

My question would be why do these men pick this type of woman in the first place if they no they can't handle her? Why don't they go for a less attractive, less outgoing type of female? To me, these men who complain are as guilty as the women they blame for falling for the Alpha Male. Why don't beta men pick better?

 

So you agree with me that men should not consider women like this to be relationship material? Why are we arguing then?

[sanskrit]

This is exactly it - but you are missing the whole point my friend. There is a secret society of 20% of men and many many more percentage of women (majority) that view sexuality positvely - but they understand how threatened that makes men who get left out of the equation and how they will be jueged for it - which is why we are all discreet. Many women Ive been with are today married, Im sure some of them to insecure judgemental men which is why we are always discrete and Im sure he dosent know all her sexual experiences.

 

Once a man gets to a certain age and experience level with women, it is not about insecurity, but about wasting time if the man is looking for a relationship that will last. The odds are very high that a promiscuous woman has other issues that make her a terrible relationship partner. Those other issues, impulsivity and lack of self-control are probably the biggies, make dealing with these types a big hassle or even a living hell.

 

I am well aware of the PUA writings about this secret society. That's just a euphemism for women lying about the extent of their sexual lives and amount of experience, and men accepting this in their pursuit of NSA sex. In most cases in my experience, use of terms like "FWB/F-buddy" is a huge rationalization of what is really going on in the woman's life, and there will be other problems. It's never just about her sexual history, there are almost always other clouds/skeletons.

[sally4sara]

Well, obviously that's your choice. But it strikes me as very odd that someone would want to intentionally create impediments to communication and shift all of the burden of communication onto other people. It's always easier to change what you say than to change what you hear. You seem to place your political agenda above human interaction, which I find difficult to fathom.

 

You just illustrated exactly where the communication breaks down. I do communicate; some men cannot hear the actual words without self insertion filtering. You hear what you assume or expect to hear. At no point have I said I don't care about the important people in my life. What I said was I don't care what people who are not important in my life think. Not men and not women. If you haven't earned my respect beyond that which I naturally give to any stranger on the street - I don't care what you think of my actions. I'm not living my life for strangers. I have my values and it stands to reason, if I believe in them at all, the people I end up caring about share my values. Such as my husband. Yes he is an "alpha male", but I think some of you are confused about what that really is. It isn't the womanizer. It isn't the cocky POS that has nothing to show for it but a bunch of notches on their bedpost. Its a man people naturally gravitate towards because they keep their wits about them, they are capable of real concern for their family and friends. They are the guy who gets **** done and can be counted on. Their word is their bond.

 

Its funny that you assume I don't communicate. I do and I did. But I found a true alpha man will give a damn about what I say and feel rather than assume it all must be good no matter what I say simply because I haven't given up yet - only caring once I'm on my way out the door. I wasn't willing to settle. Women who settle end up being what guys like Woggle fear the most; walk aways. Hell, nay gender of people who settle end up doing that. I have no reason to walk away because I found a true mate WITHOUT EVEN REALLY LOOKING FOR ONE. But you're damn skippy once I figured out what I'd found, I cared a whole lot. Knowing how many fake people there really are out there, it made no sense to be any other way. not to battle patriarchy, not to stick it to the man, but because I didn't want to make a hasty poor decision again for so little a return.

 

But to give fealty to someone I barely know just because they call me GF and don't sleep with anyone else but me? Sorry "nice guys" - not good enough. Not for what I have to give. First marriage almost killed me and even that took a lot for me to give up. This time around you can bet I didn't make an uneducated choice. I can now be that ride or die girl I wanted to be all along because that is the kind of guy I found.