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

[TheMENemy]

Well there is certainly a double standard.[/QUOTe]"Double standard" has been mentioned several times and I'm just not seeing it.

 

I haven't seen any man, at least not in this thread, state any kind of an expectation, much less any shaming or blaming of the woman, that a woman they would like to date has some sort of obligation to date the man, if the woman feels the man was too casual about sex in the past.

 

 

 

 

It like the woman has to be discrete and protect her past. The man can be loose as hell and we are suppose to see it as men doing their thang. I hate it

Discretion is always a wise choice in personal relationships, regardless of gender. But no one stated on this thread that you have any obligation to date a man who you feel was promiscuous in his past. Nor that you have to perceive male promiscuity in a benign fashion.

 

This all has to be coming from somewhere else, not here.

[donnamaybe]

Well I'd like to believe education is the equalizer of life but sometimes I have wonder.....

 

One must have an open mind first hon.

[TheMENemy]

Well to keep it real, we DO judge the man past but not his sexual past. We judge his ability to be responsible, his cheating habits, his financial status.

OK 9 lives, what you're saying is that "we" (women in general) do NOT judge a man's sexual past.

 

As I was explaining to sally earlier, it's women who generally set the tone and standards on relationship issues of all kinds. (You seem to be confirming my viewpoint which sally disagreed with.)

 

If women in general (the "we") decided that men's sexual past was important, then it WOULD matter. It would HAVE to matter if most men had to worry about being judged on this by most women. But, according to you--they don't have to worry about it.

 

So if there is a "double standard" on this, it's a function of the behavior and attitudes of the "fairer sex." On the selection process women use when picking men.

 

EVERYONE is judging. Truth is...(not saying I agree with it).....men dont want to marry a woman who he knowing knows was a hoe or slept around alot. That is not going to change.

...and I'm sure you were well aware of this before you posted your thread, right? None of this really sounds very new to you, actually.

 

But I dont want to marry a man who cant be loving, respectful, honest, and doesnt have a job. That is to name a few.

And you don't have to marry any man who does not meet up with your personal standards.

 

If your choice is to be very selective and not marry a promiscuous man, by all means, don't do it. However that does not give anyone the right to shame or blame all the other women who decide the man's promiscuity doesn't matter or is not as important as other factors in making the marriage decision.

Edited November 2, 2010 by TheMENemy

[MrNate]

So...805 posts later...and there is still no valid reason as to why women get these stupid labels just for liking sex..and men get none.

 

If a woman who has casual sex upsets you...maybe the reason you get angry lies in...yourself? Women should be, and are, free to do what they want with whom they want, without these stupid labels.

 

No wonder why they keep certain things hidden. Hell, I would too if I knew this was the kind of reaction I'd get from most people.

 

And here's something interesting.. you can always say you'd never date 'so and so' type of woman.. But here's what's funny: It's oh so easy for them to make something up...so you'll never know what's true or not... heh heh. So why not just enjoy women for what they are? After all, no one is innocent these days..

Edited November 2, 2010 by MrNate

[donnamaybe]

Perhaps, Mr. Nate, it's because some men get no sex, casual or otherwise, so they're bitter little beings.

[on a learning curve]

Well I'd like to believe education is the equalizer of life but sometimes I have wonder.....

 

 

All I can say is this thread has made me want to re-read Jane Eyre.

[TheMENemy]

I feel like it empowers us women on here who have read this text to know how to handle these men if we decide to be fwb or fb.

 

Being a fwb or fb indicates that the man you are getting involved with is also promiscuous or casual about sex. Perhaps the solution, for men and women who have these kind of sensitivities, is to avoid such casual sexual relationships, entirely. Certainly more than one man on this thread has clearly renounced such relationships. There is no reason women can't do the same.

 

 

 

It also teaches us that you really cant tell your so what you did before you got with him cause I dont care what he says...he cant handle it.

 

That's an individual choice, but now you're actually talking about a completely different issue which is whether or not to be completely truthful with a partner.

 

 

Men have double standards.

 

If you feel that men have standards, double or otherwise, that are not compatible with what you want in a relationship, then you should not get involved with those men. Only have relationships with people who see things the same way you do on important issues.

 

 

 

They get on my nerves with some of the behavior they deem manly which is really fking stupid and immature and disgusting.

 

So don't be in a relationship with someone like that. Find a man who agrees with your perspective.

 

I'm not sure where all the angst is coming from here.

 

 

 

I have played the mans game in the past and realize that I was following donkeys. Instead now ...I wear my own hat, my own head and I no longer playing their game. Alot of times, they are just trying to see how dump you are or how what they can get away with.

 

....and NOW we may be getting a little bit of "insight" into why some fundamentalist religious communities have such rigid restrictions on sexual behavior. If the subculture imposes the behavioral boundaries on a grand overall scale, individual people have a lot less to worry about. If everyone in my town is a fundamentalist Christian who believes they will go to H*LL if they are sexually promiscuous, then I don't have to worry about whether my next door neighbor is promiscuous or not. Generally speaking that is.

 

 

With a man...respect is EARNED...not given! Not saying all men are donkeys but I have followed them thinking they are leading me to a good place but because I wasnt being a woman and holding my own....I got played. That sht is OVER!

 

Don't let anyone "play" you!

[flying]

"Double standard" has been mentioned several times and I'm just not seeing it.

 

I haven't seen any man, at least not in this thread, state any kind of an expectation, much less any shaming or blaming of the woman, that a woman they would like to date has some sort of obligation to date the man, if the woman feels the man was too casual about sex in the past.

 

 

 

 

Discretion is always a wise choice in personal relationships, regardless of gender. But no one stated on this thread that you have any obligation to date a man who you feel was promiscuous in his past. Nor that you have to perceive male promiscuity in a benign fashion.

 

This all has to be coming from somewhere else, not here.

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3063965&postcount=10

 

is where it all got started.

 

Then there was a series of posts such as this:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3064885&postcount=113

 

that helped keep things chugging along.

 

And then someone says something rational: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3066231&postcount=288

Which is answered by this:

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3066234&postcount=290

And later:

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3066870&postcount=313

 

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Edited November 2, 2010 by flying

[donnamaybe]

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3063965&postcount=10

 

is where it all got started.

 

Then there was a series of posts such as this:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3064885&postcount=113

 

that helped keep things chugging along.

And guess who that poster resurrected himself as?

 

And then someone says something rational: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3066231&postcount=288

Which is answered by this:

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3066234&postcount=290

And later"http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3066870&postcount=313

 

I could go on, but blech. You get the idea.

Yep. Ignorance at it's finest.

[TheMENemy]

So...805 posts later...and there is still no valid reason as to why women get these stupid labels just for liking sex..and men get none.

 

Actually I do think there is a "reason," whether it's valid or not is a personal choice for each of us.

 

What seems to be floated as the "reason" is that promiscuous people, people with a significant history of casual sexual relationships, of both genders, are recognized as or believed to be less emotionally stable and more prone to infidelity.

 

You can agree or disagree with this as being valid but I think that's the underlying rationale.

 

Now as to why women are more likely to get tagged with a negative label than men--9 lives provided the answer for that "double standard." 9 lives states that women as a group simply don't regard male promiscuity as a "disqualifier" in the same way that men do for women.

 

But it's silly to think of a double standard existing in terms of negative connotation towards men, that's the whole "bad boy/nice guy" distinction. The "bad boy" is the exciting promiscuous man who is probably not such good marriage material. So there is no double standard at all--except, as 9 lives pointed out, that women choose not to use male promiscuity as a selection criterion in the same way men do female promiscuity, when choosing a marital partner. But--and this is critical--women are entirely free to disqualify a man if they feel the man is too promiscuous.

 

The fact that most women don't do this cannot logically be blamed on men. So if it's a double standard that is at issue, that's really something that needs to be worked out among the women who are responsible for it, and the women who object to it.

 

Rather than being so critical of men, women who object to this supposed double standard should be critical of their less selective sisters. It is after all the women who do the choosing, for the most part. Not the men.

 

 

 

If a woman who has casual sex upsets you...maybe the reason you get angry lies in...yourself? Women should be, and are, free to do what they want with whom they want, without these stupid labels.

 

I don't think a single man has posted on this thread that he was "upset" by a woman who has casual sex. I think the idea is that most men tend to feel that promiscuous women aren't such good marriage material. Being selective doesn't mean a person is "upset."

 

I think the "upset" is that some of the women who have posted are resentful that other women do not hold their men to the same standards that men often hold women to.

 

No wonder why they keep certain things hidden. Hell, I would too if I knew this was the kind of reaction I'd get from most people.

 

The healthy mature response to a difference of opinion with one's relationship partner is surely not to lie to one's partner. It is truthful disclosure, and if that results in the end of the relationship, so be it. Only a very insecure person would feel the need to lie to their partner about their sexual history, whatever it might be.

 

Obviously you don't have to tell anyone else anything about your sexual past, so who is the "most people" you are talking about anyway? The only one you'd be telling is a potential spouse. How many of those do you think you're likely to have in one lifetime?

 

 

 

And here's something interesting.. you can always say you'd never date 'so and so' type of woman..

 

That's absolutely true. Everyone is entitled to use their own selection criteria for personal relationships without being shamed or blamed for it.

 

 

 

But here's what's funny: It's oh so easy for them to make something up...so you'll never know what's true or not... heh heh. So why not just enjoy women for what they are? After all, no one is innocent these days..

 

Why is it that you seem to assume that a sexually open women would be more likely to lie about her sexual history than anyone else?

 

What support do you think you have for a linkage between sexual promiscuity and lack of truthfulness in a person, male or female? I certainly have no reason to assume someone is going to lie to me simply because they've got an open and casual attitude towards sex.

 

Has something in your personal experience led you to this belief?

 

I'm curious.

[TheMENemy]

Perhaps, Mr. Nate, it's because some men get no sex, casual or otherwise, so they're bitter little beings.

 

Maybe so, but by definition, the men who "get no sex", those who you choose to mock for their sexual naivety, are NOT the men with what you have called a "double standard."

 

Your post is excellent, if unwitting, support for the idea that I floated that all these standards, double standards, and so forth are more a function of women's attitudes and behaviors, than those of men.

 

What you did was attempt to paint a sexually-inexperienced (hypothetical) man with shame and blame just for being sexually-inexperienced.

 

Yet simultaneously you express outrage at the supposed double standard which the sexually confident experienced promiscous man benefits from.

 

If there is a double standard, it is exemplified by the shaming/blaming attitude towards sexually inexperienced men as in your post.

[TheMENemy]

I'll simplify it for you so you don't get confused.

 

Wait I'll go make some popcorn.

 

 

Your OPINION of where this mentality comes from is not supported by fact and it is only reflective of your "outlier" little slice of life.

 

I'm afraid it's up to me to decide what my own opinions are, isn't it?

 

 

YOUR mother must have been quite outspoken about "loose women".

 

Why do you believe that? I was not raised as a fundamentalist Christian like you were; I thought I had made that clear?

 

It was YOU who stated that you were raised in a shaming/blaming sexually repressive fundamentalist Christian environment, not me.

 

 

 

But that does not mean the other men in this thread hold their opinions on the matter due some woman speaking negatively about other women.

 

I don't speak for anyone but myself, so I'm not sure what your point is?

 

 

 

 

Men were not lead to the double standard by women.

 

 

Well K9 seems to disagree with you, as she has stated that most women don't use male promiscuity as a disqualifier in relationships. That's very important because that's the "double standard," if any, in a nice nutshell. There is no other "double standard."

 

That seems intuitively correct to me and it explains pretty much everything so I'm satisfied with what K9 had to say about it. If you disagree--if you think that K9 is wrong and most women have a negative viewpoint towards promiscuous men--please feel free to elaborate on your viewpoint.

 

 

Not here in the US or anywhere else. To believe that, you'd need to ignore a multitude of other factual information. You know - like how you've done in all your posts on the subject.

 

Toodles!

 

Well the only thing you did that could be called "factual" was post a link to a magazine article which I haven't had a chance to read, but I'll try to get to it at some point.

[Untouchable_Fire]

So...805 posts later...and there is still no valid reason as to why women get these stupid labels just for liking sex..and men get none.

If a woman who has casual sex upsets you...maybe the reason you get angry lies in...yourself? Women should be, and are, free to do what they want with whom they want, without these stupid labels.

No wonder why they keep certain things hidden. Hell, I would too if I knew this was the kind of reaction I'd get from most people.

And here's something interesting.. you can always say you'd never date 'so and so' type of woman.. But here's what's funny: It's oh so easy for them to make something up...so you'll never know what's true or not... heh heh. So why not just enjoy women for what they are? After all, no one is innocent these days..

 

Slutty women can't really hide that fact. Yes, I've had women lie about their past... but I have ALWAYS figured it out over time... and dishonesty leads to immediate dumping. One didn't even have a number higher than mine. Why she felt the need to lie about it is uknown to me... but we broke up specifically because of it. 1 month that lasted.

 

In regards to what women can do and do do... I don't really care. She can go about her merry way. I reserve the right to not date her, and actively mock any guy who does. Also, labels are labels... I don't like some labels people give me, if I don't want a particular label... I will avoid any behavior that causes it.

 

Simply stated. If you don't want to be called a drug addict... don't do drugs. It's stupid to expect that you can do as you please and others can't have an opinion on it.

[TheMENemy]

Sally,

 

because I respect your POV, I did actually take a look at the article you linked, about arranged marriages.

 

This is the very first sentence:

 

There is no actual factual informational data available for the exact time in which the tradition of arranged marriages became apart of any individual culture.

 

I stopped reading after the first sentence since the article is not fact-based.

[donnamaybe]

Slutty women can't really hide that fact. Yes, I've had women lie about their past... but I have ALWAYS figured it out over time... and dishonesty leads to immediate dumping. One didn't even have a number higher than mine. Why she felt the need to lie about it is uknown to me... but we broke up specifically because of it. 1 month that lasted.

 

In regards to what women can do and do do... I don't really care. She can go about her merry way. I reserve the right to not date her, and actively mock any guy who does. Also, labels are labels... I don't like some labels people give me, if I don't want a particular label... I will avoid any behavior that causes it.

 

Simply stated. If you don't want to be called a drug addict... don't do drugs. It's stupid to expect that you can do as you please and others can't have an opinion on it.

So a woman has ONE FWB in her life, and that makes her a slut? That's pretty narrow minded.

[TheMENemy]

It's stupid to expect that you can do as you please and others can't have an opinion on it.

 

The OP and some other women seem to be quite upset that a large subset of the set of all promiscuous men (presumably who are considered by these women to be "the most desirable" men) will not consider promiscuous/casually sexual women for serious relationships. Apparently OP and others believe that a desirable, promiscuous man has some obligation to agree to a serious relationship with a promiscuous women, or else the promiscuous man is behaving according to a "double standard."

 

I still don't see the whole double standard thing, not really; but even if it is, the obvious solution is for these women to not seek out relationships with promiscuous men.

 

Of course that's when we get into where the real "doublestandard" actually originates from, as seen in shaming/belittling posts like donnamaybe's, where she mocks some hypothetical man for having had "no" sexual experience. If donna is so offended by the notion of male promiscuity, then a male virgin should be right in her wheel house.

[Untouchable_Fire]

So a woman has ONE FWB in her life, and that makes her a slut? That's pretty narrow minded.

 

I personally would not apply that particular label to that particular situation.

 

However... I reserve the right to apply that however I see fit.

[TheMENemy]

So a woman has ONE FWB in her life, and that makes her a slut? That's pretty narrow minded.

 

No more narrow minded than hypothetically mocking a man for his perceived lack of sexual experience, as you have done in this thread.

[9Lives]

The OP and some other women seem to be quite upset that a large subset of the set of all promiscuous men (presumably who are considered by these women to be "the most desirable" men) will not consider promiscuous/casually sexual women for serious relationships. Apparently OP and others believe that a desirable, promiscuous man has some obligation to agree to a serious relationship with a promiscuous women, or else the promiscuous man is behaving according to a "double standard."

 

I still don't see the whole double standard thing, not really; but even if it is, the obvious solution is for these women to not seek out relationships with promiscuous men.

 

Of course that's when we get into where the real "doublestandard" actually originates from, as seen in shaming/belittling posts like donnamaybe's, where she mocks some hypothetical man for having had "no" sexual experience. If donna is so offended by the notion of male promiscuity, then a male virgin should be right in her wheel house.

 

IMO, it is okay for the man to be choosy but some of those SAME MEN will be the ones having these kind of relationships. That all I was saying. Men can alot of times dish it out but cant take it. Im not upset per say about it. I think Im more amazed that it is this way to a certain degree. It just shows me the mans mind. Im not trying to change it. It is what it is.

[9Lives]

one fb or fwb rel is no big deal to me. It the serial ones that kill me on both sides really. But to each its own.

[TheMENemy]

I personally would not apply that particular label to that particular situation.

 

However... I reserve the right to apply that however I see fit.

 

Just as she does. To each his/her own.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Thank goodness that the world is full of wonderful men, open minded and free thinking, who won't be found on fora such as these referring to any women as "slutty," "trashbags," "low value," etc., whether the woman has engaged in a FWB relationship or had sex with 278 guys! I'm proud to say that several of the (young) men I know like this have been raised by some wonderful men and women themselves who happen to be friends of mine.

 

My position on this topic has remained steady since page 1: Guys who are actually going to harshly judge a woman because she participated in FWB situation are entitled to their opinion. I have no more use for those guys in my everyday life than I do for racists or homophobes. That's just me, though!

[Mme. Chaucer]

And guess who that poster resurrected himself as?

 

Yep. Ignorance at it's finest.

 

Off topic, but I've got to say that this thread must hold the record for the most reincarnations of the same participant. I won't mention any names, of course!

 

Life must be pretty bleak for some folks.

[TheMENemy]

IMO, it is okay for the man to be choosy but some of those SAME MEN will be the ones having these kind of relationships. That all I was saying. Men can alot of times dish it out but cant take it. Im not upset per say about it. I think Im more amazed that it is this way to a certain degree. It just shows me the mans mind. Im not trying to change it. It is what it is.

 

So stop dating promiscuous men and you won't have this problem any longer.

[9Lives]

So stop dating promiscuous men and you won't have this problem any longer.

 

Dude, Im not having a PROBLEM. It is what it is. Just because a man sleeps around at one point in his life doesnt mean he cant be a good man some day.

Same goes for a woman....that is the point that is being missed. For me, I try to stay away from these kind of situations cause it is just not good for my self-esteem or i may get hooked. Plus I think it is important that a woman not have a lot of men floating between her legs. BUT this is me....other women dont see it that way. so that fine.