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

[Woggle]

No, and I intended it was a general question. I quoted you because you used the all-too-common "threatened" and it made me think of the question.

Why is it that women are never "threatened" by a man's past, but men are always "threatened" by a woman's past (or her looks, her education, her career, etc.)? Again, that's a general question, not necessarily directed towards you.

 

Because women are allowed to have to standards and criteria when they choose a partner but men are close minded and judgemental if we have standards.

[carhill]

I think a healthy viewpoint is to own one's standards and accept that they will differ from and occasionally be criticized by others. That said, IMO it does no harm and may indeed even be healthy to periodically re-examine one's standards and adjust as appropriate. If threads like this facilitate ownership and examination, then they are a positive force. I for one feel a lot more positive about my standards, having participated and reading other perspectives.

[sally4sara]

I agree with this completely. If men want to be overly-judgmental about a woman's sexual history, it's not your problem or the woman's problem. It's the man's problem.

 

That being the case, it shouldn't bother you in the least if men are overly-judgmental. It's their problem; not yours. You should be more than happy to let them think and express themselves any way they please about this particular issue, it's just their subjective feeling and it's not your problem.

 

So we agree, but I've already heard your opinion on the matter. You want, for a serious relationship, someone with better standards than yourself. But those with lesser standards, you'll dip down and dirty right along with them without wondering if it makes you less viable for a serious relationship for doing so.

And you chimed in that your GF can have sex with another woman without you considering it cheating.

 

So women are "of use" when it comes to sex while you are not? Hmmmm. With all the judging going on here, that would put you in the no good for FWB OR a real relationship wouldn't it?

[9Lives]

Yes, the word "threatened" was used multiple times, to suggest that men feel this way when a women is sexually experienced. Obviously.

 

However, nobody has EVER said that women are NOT threatened by a man's sexual past. Have they? I haven't seen it anywhere. So I don't get the point of your post, because there's no double standard.

 

This thread was STARTED - probably unwisely - as a question about how men judge women for their pasts. Not about how women judge men for their pasts. So that's why you have men saying how they judge women, and in response you have women saying why they think those men are judging them.

 

Because the TOPIC has been, how/why do men judge women a certain way.

 

Get it? I'm not saying it's not irritating that men judge women a certain way. It totally is. But this thread is, unfortunately, only about judging in one direction.

 

If you want to start a thread asking how women judge men for their sexual pasts, and then find a double standard in there, then go for it. That should be good.

 

What do u mean by saying it was unwise to start this thread? Do u see how many ppeople has responded? It needed to be discussed because its a big deal and some women need to see how men think at times. I really can't stand when someone gets in on a thread and acts like they are above the thought process when all u had to do was keep it moving and not respond if u didn't like it. I hope u don't think every time u post everyone thinks its interesting.

 

I'm so glad I brought it up cause I have learned so much and THAT'S what its all about. Trust me, a lot of people have been enlighten even tho it got heated at times

[flying]

What do u mean by saying it was unwise to start this thread? Do u see how many ppeople has responded? It needed to be discussed because its a big deal and some women need to see how men think at times. I really can't stand when someone gets in on a thread and acts like they are above the thought process when all u had to do was keep it moving and not respond if u didn't like it. I hope u don't think every time u post everyone thinks its interesting.

 

I'm so glad I brought it up cause I have learned so much and THAT'S what its all about. Trust me, a lot of people have been enlighten even tho it got heated at times

 

I didn't mean that starting the thread itself was unwise. However, I do think that it might have been less contentious had it been on an equal footing from the start, as in "Everyone: do you respect people who have fbuddy relationships?" Talking only about what men think of women in that scenario is fraught.

 

But perhaps it wouldn't have mattered, in terms of civility. What do I know.

 

Anyway, you've every right to start whatever kind of thread you want, and I'm sorry I offended you. And I assure you that I do not think that everyone is interested in everything I post, nor do I think I'm above anything. You only were curious about what men think of women, and you're happy with the answers. That's cool.

Edited November 2, 2010 by flying

[EasyHeart]

What do u mean by saying it was unwise to start this thread? Do u see how many ppeople has responded? It needed to be discussed because its a big deal and some women need to see how men think at times. I really can't stand when someone gets in on a thread and acts like they are above the thought process when all u had to do was keep it moving and not respond if u didn't like it. I hope u don't think every time u post everyone thinks its interesting.

 

I'm so glad I brought it up cause I have learned so much and THAT'S what its all about. Trust me, a lot of people have been enlighten even tho it got heated at times

I've enjoyed this thread. And I certainly don't think it has (or should have) stayed on topic. If women think they haven't been judging men in this thread, I'd really hate to see you ladies be judgmental . . . .

[on a learning curve]

I’ve had a quick looksy back. On page 37, 42 and 44, alone, you will find your responses to my rationale, to the rationale that you accuse me of not providing. The very same rationale (or lack thereof you’d have us believe) that you also attribute all manner of misdeeds towards me over!

There really isn't much need for this baseless, misleading, accusatory gobbly gook curved-one.

 

Nonetheless, I’ll explain myself again just in case it may prompt you to give an in-depth explanation of your stance for a change.

 

Why do men want/desire sex more than women? Short answer – testosterone. Testosterone fuels the urge, the desire to want sex, to be influenced by it more, think of it more, see sexual connotations in any given situation more, to do these (and prolly a other things as well) more easily/readily than women. There’s various social commentaries that allude to this behavior (and as far as I can tell, is rarely, if ever heaped onto women) as well. Comments like ‘men have sex on the brain’, ‘men think with their lower halves, or little heads’, ‘watch out for him, he’s only after one thing’ and so on and so on.

 

That’s one answer for now, basically a regurgitation of my rationale(s), or the nonsense (as you’ve called it) from beforehand.

 

 

.

 

First, A O, I wasn't directing the nonsense comment to your views at all. I apologize if it came across that way (I see how you might assume that). I've quite enjoyed our exchanges.

 

As far as the testosterone rationale - it's possible? I'm not a physician, so I don't know to what extent testosterone plays in fueling men's and women's sexual desire. Clearly, it has a role in arousal, but again, to the extent that I would demarcate its function as the "driving force" in men's sexual desire...not convincing enough -for me.

 

There are many factors that affect sexual desire, and I lean more towards the psychosocial ones to help identify where differences between individual's desires might be at play.

 

There has been quite a bit of literature over the last 30 years that indicate women's bodies are anatomically designed for pleasure (remember the clitoris?) There is evidence to suggest that if a woman is orgasmic, she will seek out that pleasure. In other words, the more orgasms a woman has - the more she wants.

 

Now, if a woman has been socialized to accept her passive role in sexual encounters, she will likely not be thinking about her own pleasure. And, unless she has a respectful and giving partner, it is unlikely she will reach orgasm - thereby decreasing her desire.

 

I have more to say, but need to do a few "mom" things before I can sit and chill.

[EasyHeart]

Huh.

 

I guess that's why we hear so many people talking about women who "think with their clitoris".

[on a learning curve]

Huh.

 

I guess that's why we hear so many people talking about women who "think with their clitoris".

 

Lol. Yeah, that's kinda the point.

 

I am not arguing that the prevailing notion is false - the one that A O has articulated. I am arguing that the reality is false.

 

I won't get into the reasons for the historical shifts in attitudes - since that has, apparently, been beaten to death already. If you accept that boys and girls are socialized into accepting their "natures" regarding sex, it is little wonder why women have a difficult time expressing themselves sexually. And, it would follow that women would appear to be less sexual than men.

[lamaman3]

Why is it that when a woman avoids a man because of his past, she is being wise and "empowered", but when a man avoids a woman because of her past, he is "threatened"?

 

No one says that men should not avoid women based on her past - we are saying he shouldn't avoid women based on whether she had FWB or not. I challenge you to find women that avoid men because they once had FWB. Women do not avoid men for this reason and even men like Dogbert expect women not to avoid him even though during his 20's he was only focused on "getting laid" and even recommended to another male poster to continue a sexual relationship with a woman but not to get serious with her! But at the same time he says to avoid women based on criteria that he himself fails.

 

So the double standard is the opposite of what you are claiming.

[lamaman3]

I can reword it slightly if you like...why do more men want/desire sex than women do?

 

I could put another slant on it....if women are as sexual or more sexual than men....then why the resistance to it initially, resistance that men do not put up anywhere near as much. And why do more women than men insist on some form of committed relationship before unleashing the drive. If we are the same then why are we even having these discussions. If women are more sexual....then why all the social commentary towards men suggesting the opposite?

 

 

.

 

Women do not put more resistance to sex - they are only pickier in who they will unleash their sex drive with. Just like you might be the horniest man who has sex on the brain 24/7 - but you still would not sleep with a 65 yr old woman or a 350 pound woman because you would rule them out based on the fact that they do not turn you on. It dosent mean you are less sexual. Women put up resistance to most men because a) the majority of men do not turn women on and b) women will be judged by others for giving in so even when they do they make sure to keep it a secret.

 

Put a woman in a room with attractive men that she has lusted after and I guarantee her capacity to engage in sex with these men will completely outlast their capacity - she will want to have more sex and for longer than the men once she finds one that actually turns her on.

[EasyHeart]

If you accept that boys and girls are socialized into accepting their "natures" regarding sex

I don't.

 

So at least between you and I, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree. But at least we know why!

[on a learning curve]

I don't.

 

So at least between you and I, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree. But at least we know why!

 

You disagree? Care to enlighten me?

[carhill]

Most of these women don't even strike me as ever having engaged in casual sex so why are they getting so upset about it?

Sometimes, negative labeling infers debasing of power. Even if one perhaps agrees with the label in a vacuum, when it goes to the essence of power, one may react without regard to their objective agreement. The ability to quickly procure a potential to validate one's attractiveness and satisfy one's sexual wants/needs is a pretty powerful ability to have, and women have it, regardless of appearance, social status, moral codes, you name it. It *is* power. Some women wield it like a scalpel, others like a broadsword. Even when they don't act on it at the genital level, like many of the married women I've experienced in life, they *know* by the look in their eye, and how the man reacts, that they *have* him. That's power. I offer this observation without emotional components. It's based on a lifetime of interacting with women and reaping the consequences of some very unhealthy choices of my own. Myself, I respect that power. With power comes responsibility. That's where the standards come in. Do I respect their standards and the discharge of their responsibilities?

[on a learning curve]

Sometimes, negative labeling infers debasing of power. Even if one perhaps agrees with the label in a vacuum, when it goes to the essence of power, one may react without regard to their objective agreement. The ability to quickly procure a potential to validate one's attractiveness and satisfy one's sexual wants/needs is a pretty powerful ability to have, and women have it, regardless of appearance, social status, moral codes, you name it. It *is* power. Some women wield it like a scalpel, others like a broadsword. Even when they don't act on it at the genital level, like many of the married women I've experienced in life, they *know* by the look in their eye, and how the man reacts, that they *have* him. That's power. I offer this observation without emotional components. It's based on a lifetime of interacting with women and reaping the consequences of some very unhealthy choices of my own. Myself, I respect that power. With power comes responsibility. That's where the standards come in. Do I respect their standards and the discharge of their responsibilities?

 

This is false.

 

We cannot speak objectively of our sexual relationships. This is the problem.

[carhill]

Sure we can, in retrospect. You can surely speak for yourself, but wisdom indicates you surely can't speak for me, right? However, you can attempt to try; I welcome it.

[on a learning curve]

Sure we can, in retrospect. You can surely speak for yourself, but wisdom indicates you surely can't speak for me, right? However, you can attempt to try; I welcome it.

 

That's what I mean. I can speak from subject position - so can you. Objectively, well, probably not.

[sanskrit]

I'm not sure what this debate is about and why so many of the women who have posted seem so upset about it.

 

Getting a modern, feminized U.S. woman to accept any accountability for her behavior is like trying to catch the greased pig at the fair. That's why.

[on a learning curve]

Getting a modern, feminized U.S. woman to accept any accountability for her behavior is like trying to catch the greased pig at the fair. That's why.

 

Getting a modern, masculine U.S man to accept accountability for his behaviour is like trying to catch a greased pig at the fair.

 

So?

[carhill]

That's what I mean. I can speak from subject position - so can you. Objectively, well, probably not.

That's lawyer-speak. I have a lawyer to speak for me. You're parsing words. Good bye.

[on a learning curve]

That's lawyer-speak. I have a lawyer to speak for me. You're parsing words. Good bye.

 

I wouldn't expect your lawyer to speak for you here. However, best of luck.

[tami-chan]

I am a woman, but I asked 2 male colleagues about the OP. One said, he does not care, as long as it is in the past and the other one thinks women who have FB relationships are "cheap" ( his word). I asked why he thinks that and he said women who have a very casual view about sex when they are single will have a casual view about sex when they get married-meaning, they will cheat because apparently sex is not one of those sacred things you reserve for someone you love-these are women who can separate sex from love and vice versa. Hmmmm....yay, for these women , I say!

[sally4sara]

I never said that, you made that up.

 

Yet you said

 

haha ha I was just on one of those casual sex threads a little while ago and posted that I'm cool with it but I won't necessarily want to get serious with a girl I'm just down for casual sex with, I want a girl who takes sex more seriously for a serious relationship. Seems pretty obvious right?

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3075145#post3075145

 

Back to your response here:

 

You have a really really sick mind. And you're completely dishonest. I never characterized either casual no strings sex, or sex in the context of a serious relationship, as "dirty," I never insulted or criticized any casual sex partner, and yet here you are, casting aspersions at everyone. No whoever you are, despite what your twisted brain might think about casual sex, not everyone thinks sex is "dirty."

 

I have a sick mind and it wasn't you in that thread about "Is it cheating if my GF has sex with another girl?" Sure looks like it is you.

 

Nope, never said that at all.

 

Then why is this here; your response in that very thread?

 

I don't consider it cheating at all.

 

Some folks are just way to judgmental about alternative life styles.

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t251496/

 

Yet I'm a completely dishonest whack hob huh? There is a big discrepancy in your views from one thread to the next despite the common theme.

[A O]

As far as the testosterone rationale - it's possible? I'm not a physician, so I don't know to what extent testosterone plays in fueling men's and women's sexual desire. Clearly, it has a role in arousal, but again, to the extent that I would demarcate its function as the "driving force" in men's sexual desire...not convincing enough -for me.

Testosterone is what fuels male sexual desire and the never-ending and ever-familiar social commentary that surrounds it.

 

There has been quite a bit of literature over the last 30 years that indicate women's bodies are anatomically designed for pleasure (remember the clitoris?) There is evidence to suggest that if a woman is orgasmic, she will seek out that pleasure. In other words, the more orgasms a woman has - the more she wants.

A few years of literature stacked up against a world view of male sexuality that can be and often is recalled at a drop of a hat. It’s an interesting contrast.

 

Now, if a woman has been socialized to accept her passive role in sexual encounters, she will likely not be thinking about her own pleasure

Pertinent term here being “if.”

 

Getting a modern, feminized U.S. woman to accept any accountability for her behavior is like trying to catch the greased pig at the fair. That's why

Getting a modern, masculine U.S man to accept accountability for his behaviour is like trying to catch a greased pig at the fair.So?

So, what we know of negative judgments is that they’re a sign of insecurity. So clearly sanskirt is insecure – what is your excuse?

 

 

 

.

[A O]

Women do not put more resistance to sex - they are only pickier in who they will unleash their sex drive with.

They do both – more than men do. They’ll respond favorably to the sexual advances of a high value male, whereas men will respond favorably to anything remotely attractive and above. If they’re looking for a relationship, they’ll hold back on sex until the potential suitor has shown that he’s wanting likewise. And they’ll do this far more readily and often than men will. At this dating stage, a potential lover/partner can see his value lessen or extinguished (dumped) depending on the level/appropriateness of the sexual behavior he exhibits. Any sexual behavior on the woman's part towards her date is greeted with open arms in contrast.

 

Women put up resistance to most men because a) the majority of men do not turn women on

As opposed to the majority of women who do appeal to men. That’s extra resistance men have to put up with and less resistance that women have to put up with.

 

b) women will be judged by others for giving in so even when they do they make sure to keep it a secret

Women will judge each other as much as any man will. Women need to preserve their greater need to be selective. They start acting like men, their ability to screen the worthy from the unworthy, their ability to attract a mate who’ll hand around lessens.

 

Put a woman in a room with attractive men that she has lusted after and I guarantee her capacity to engage in sex with these men will completely outlast their capacity - she will want to have more sex and for longer than the men once she finds one that actually turns her on.

Put a man in a room with a bunch of strangers, a bunch of plain-to-semi-attractive women and he’ll wanna bang most of them. Put him in the same position as your example and he’ll think he’s in heaven.

 

 

.