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

[LiveWell]

When I found out about it and confronted her, she was shocked that I was upset because she said she was being exclusive with me because she said her relationship with those other men was "just sex -- I wasn't dating them!" Those are the kind of women I would never consider as LT partners. If that make me a sexist or a Neanderthal or applying some kind of double standard, then I am happy to wear those labels.

 

Women like that exist. I do not think they should be put in prison, but I do not want to date them.

 

 

Isn't that something of a double standard? Doesn't society applaud men who engage in exactly that kind of promiscuous behavior as "alpha males" or "players"?

[EasyHeart]

When I found out about it and confronted her, she was shocked that I was upset because she said she was being exclusive with me because she said her relationship with those other men was "just sex -- I wasn't dating them!" Those are the kind of women I would never consider as LT partners. If that make me a sexist or a Neanderthal or applying some kind of double standard, then I am happy to wear those labels.

 

Women like that exist. I do not think they should be put in prison, but I do not want to date them.

 

 

Isn't that something of a double standard? Doesn't society applaud men who engage in exactly that kind of promiscuous behavior as "alpha males" or "players"?

I don't applaud it. And I certainly wouldn't do it myself. So it definitely is not a double standard to me.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Yes, again that's fine, but I don't notice you speaking of any need to have a FWB relationship while waiting to meet that special someone. Why do you think that is? What makes you different from people who want or need FWB relationships?

 

I won't engage in FWB relationships. I believe they nearly always result in hurt feelings, and I don't view them as respectful to women in general. Additionally, if I'm unsure about a woman's overall worthiness for an LTR... I just won't sleep with her until my mind is made up.

 

That said... other people do things differently. They may be more callous towards the feelings of others or view themselves in a less than flattering light, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of love or respect.

 

How a relationship starts many times does not reflect how it will be later on. I think Shakespear makes a really good point of that in Taming of the Shrew. The couple that are together for money and begin with a general disregard for one another is the couple that actually falls in love.

[Surrealist]

Women are just like men when it comes to needs. Hypocritical for those guys out there who do these things but hold women to high standard!

 

--Mike

 

PS--THere is a good single group I'm a member of if anyone is intersted--its a travel club with mixers and stuff

 

singlesbythebaytravel.com

 

 

Yes it is hypocritical. Though I cannot speak for anyone else, I dont do 'these things' myself so when assessing a woman for a prospective partner, I would take her engagement (or not) into 'these things' into account.

[on a learning curve]

I don't think it will change much. Here is why.

 

Not all, but most men view sex in terms of domination and power. It's how we are wired. The same is true of nearly all male mammals with high levels of testosterone.

 

That makes it very difficult to have positive feelings towards women who involve themselves is NSA sex. It's also why a high number of sexual partners is unattractive.

 

Most women think that the guy is just insecure if he has an issue with her number of sexual partners, which is the way many women would feel if the situation was reversed. The truth is that many guys will actually see her as less valuable... and often the more secure a man is the stronger he will feel this. Your suddenly just like the French after WW2... the fact that you roll over so easy makes you hard to respect.

 

I am curious about something. Regarding the bolded - If it is your premise that (most) men view sex in terms of domination and power, how do you reconcile that with your previous statement (sorry I can't figure out the multi-quote function):

 

I think it's pretty obvious that the majority of the male population does not look favorably on women who enter into these kinds of relationships. And... No it doesn't stem from fear of female sexuality, or sexual jealousy, or the myriad of other stupid ideas I've heard put forth here to explain it.

 

Doesn't that appear to be a contradiction? I mean, if the desire stems from domination and power, it would make sense to me that (most) men would consider a promiscious woman (cause that's what we are talking about, right?) something to be feared in so far as she is (perceived to be)"out of control" of her sexuality. A natural reaction would be efforts to punish the out-of-control woman by labeling her a bad girl - not worthy of respect.

 

If it isn't a fear of female desire/sexuality, what is it in your opinion?

[Woggle]

God knows S4S and I have had our differences but she does seem to truly love and respect her husband. I have seen posts where she gushes about him and it is obviously sincere. Attacking her is unfair. She is not an example of the woman I encourage men to avoid.

 

The woman that EasyHeart explained is what I encourage men to avoid like the plague. I encourage women to avoid the male version of this like the plague as well.

[sanskrit]

Ironically, as some others point out, you will almost never hear a man use the terms "FWB" or "F-buddy." So it's female vocabulary for the most part.

 

It's usually used to euphemise 1) the term "one night stand" where the woman is hanging on to the notion that "stud muffin," a 6'2" handsome wealthy guy she kept chasing and sleeping with after the ONS, is going to come around and enter an exclusive relationship with her, or 2) she is promiscuous, wants no accountability for that, so rationalizes that all the random sex she is having is with "friends." It's rarely the case that a woman has exactly -one- guy whom she has a NSA understanding, kind of "unicorn" rare, despite that is how women like to frame the concept. If she's banging one guy casually, there are almost always many more.

 

Promiscuity in women is comorbid with many types of emotional and personality disorders. It is not as comorbid in men. This is not always the case, but a high enough correlation to screen women based on promiscuity with a rational basis for doing so. Men have the right to screen as such when they can dig out the truth from a sea of female lies and rationalizations.

 

There is no "double standard." Men and women are apples and oranges in how sex is sought and obtained. So the "for every promiscuous woman there is a man" distinction parroted so much here holds no water.

 

There is no reason to "date" or pay for dates with a woman who may have had sex with 2-3 FWBs in the last few weeks, and may well be going to have sex with some dude after -your- date. Guys... keep your eyes open.

[LiveWell]

God knows S4S and I have had our differences but she does seem to truly love and respect her husband.

 

Woggle, unless you know someone personally, you have no real way of knowing how they actually relate to people in real life. All I know is what's in this thread, and I know that S4S has not been truthful about at least some important aspects of her relationship. That's very clear, it's in black and white, and she has not explained why her story changed. Instead she just decided to make ad hominem comments. You can take what anyone says here for what's its worth on its face.

 

I try to look at whether what someone says makes any sense, their attitude, and their consistency. If they respond to differences of opinion by emotional attacks rather than logic, I take that into account. If their story or facts change, I take that into account.

 

I'm sorry if that shakes your world, to learn that someone on the internet who you've formed an attachment with on some level, might not be everything you thought. It's not my intent to deprive you of any warm fuzzies you're getting from being here, not by any means.

 

 

I have seen posts where she gushes about him and it is obviously sincere.

 

There wasn't too much gushing in this thread, at least not until very late in it.

 

 

Attacking her is unfair.

 

Attacking anyone is unfair. Look through the thread and see who attacked who. I didn't attack anyone. I asked questions and challenged inconsistencies. In return I was attacked by several posters, including S4S herself. Did I respond "in kind"? No, I refrained.

 

She is not an example of the woman I encourage men to avoid.

 

At this point I would want to know quite a bit more about her relationship with her husband's former roommate, you know, her prior FWB/f buddy, before arriving at any conclusions.

 

IME former lovers--and that's what he is--hanging around generally spells trouble of some kind. There's definitely a weird dynamic in play. She made a point of telling us that the three of them were all having a vigorous discussion about the difference between regular and pornographic movies. Sexually-charged discussions between a wife and a former lover strikes me as completely inappropriate, even if the husband is also there, because the dude is several years younger than her and just might be a little naive.

 

 

 

The woman that EasyHeart explained is what I encourage men to avoid like the plague. I encourage women to avoid the male version of this like the plague as well.

 

 

I don't encourage anyone to "avoid" anyone else. It's a free country.

 

I DO encourage people to tell the truth and to be honest, esp. with their partners in intimate relationships, whatever words are used to describe those relationships.

[on a learning curve]

...

Promiscuity in women is comorbid with many types of emotional and personality disorders. It is not as comorbid in men. This is not always the case, but a high enough correlation to screen women based on promiscuity with a rational basis for doing so. Men have the right to screen as such when they can dig out the truth from a sea of female lies and rationalizations.

 

Men have the right to screen women on whatever basis suits their fancy - no argument, here.

 

However, what rational basis is there for concluding a correlation between promiscuity and emotional/personality disorders? That seems like a throw back to the Victorian purity ideal. Yk? When women's lust and desires were thought to be the cause of her hysteria. Come on.

[Woggle]

I have no scientific answer but nearly every woman I have known who has sport sex on a regular over a prolonged period of time had loads of issues.

[on a learning curve]

I have no scientific answer but nearly every woman I have known who has sport sex on a regular over a prolonged period of time had loads of issues.

 

By sport sex, you mean sex outside a committed relationship? I'm not sure what you mean by issues, as that tends to be subjective.

[Woggle]

By sport sex, you mean sex outside a committed relationship? I'm not sure what you mean by issues, as that tends to be subjective.

 

I mean sex like that on a regular basis.

 

What I mean is that almost all of them had an absent or abusive father or an abusive boyfriend or husband in the past. Many of them also had a very hard time getting emotionally close to a male and had a chip on their shoulder about men in general. There was a hardness about them.

[sanskrit]

However, what rational basis is there for concluding a correlation between promiscuity and emotional/personality disorders? That seems like a throw back to the Victorian purity ideal. Yk? When women's lust and desires were thought to be the cause of her hysteria. Come on.

 

I have no scientific answer but nearly every woman I have known who has sport sex on a regular over a prolonged period of time had loads of issues.

 

DSM IV, and when V comes out, the correlation will be stronger unless gender feminists write it, plus anecdotal personal experience of mine and friends. Promiscuous women are much more likely to be emotionally disordered, cheat, have other impulsivity and self-control issues with substance, spending, risk-taking, etc. Men don't because once again, the way the genders seek and obtain sex is apples and oranges.

 

Men have to be constantly looking for sex to get any at all. Women can lay in bed all day and have an endless stream of men coming over and sleeping with them with just a phone call. See the difference? Amazing how many don't grasp this or simply refuse to.

 

Have had GFs "go out and get laid" as payback when I didn't return their call within a couple hours. All my friends have experienced same. Normal women won't do this type of thing, promiscuous "FWB" "F-buddy" types will. Bad news all around. Avoid "FWB" "F-buddy" types like the plague.

 

EDIT: here's a BPD link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719454/

Edited October 27, 2010 by sanskrit

[on a learning curve]

I mean sex like that on a regular basis.

 

What I mean is that almost all of them had an absent or abusive father or an abusive boyfriend or husband in the past. Many of them also had a very hard time getting emotionally close to a male and had a chip on their shoulder about men in general. There was a hardness about them.

 

Fair enough.

 

I think some of the literature supports a connection between absentee fathers, and girls who use sex as a means to fill that void. That said, it is certainly not a causation of promiscuious behaviour, so that alone is not enough to diagnose someone with an "emotional/personality disorder.

 

It just seems that there is something missing from the discussion (in general) - something that is being glossed over in favour of labeling women as somehow "broken" with respect to the FWB dynamic.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I am curious about something. Regarding the bolded - If it is your premise that (most) men view sex in terms of domination and power, how do you reconcile that with your previous statement (sorry I can't figure out the multi-quote function):

Doesn't that appear to be a contradiction? I mean, if the desire stems from domination and power, it would make sense to me that (most) men would consider a promiscious woman (cause that's what we are talking about, right?) something to be feared in so far as she is (perceived to be)"out of control" of her sexuality. A natural reaction would be efforts to punish the out-of-control woman by labeling her a bad girl - not worthy of respect.

If it isn't a fear of female desire/sexuality, what is it in your opinion?

 

Huh? How can she be considered out of control? That makes no sense at all.

 

A promiscuous woman is in fact being dominated/controlled for lack of a better term, by a whole lot of men. That makes her like a party favor being passed around... it's very easy to objectify such women.

 

For example, I knew a girl in highschool who's parents were certified hippies. She felt that by being highly promiscuous she was exerting her feminine powers... controlling her own sexuality. Once before football practice I heard a guy talking about having sex with her his exact words were "I cracked her open like a shotgun and f***ed her till her nose bled". All the guys laughed and joked about it. By senior year it was well known that you needed to double up on the condoms with her or risk catching something. Not a single one of us feared her sexuality... or felt insecure around her... instead she was objectified.

 

Now... some guys have retroactive jealousy... but most times that really boils down to the guy feeling jealous he hasn't had that many partners. It's not that common to find it as pure insecurity.

 

I will admit... I've read some stuff on this site from guys are VERY inexperienced and insecure... but just remember those two issues often go hand in hand.

[on a learning curve]

DSM IV, and when V comes out, the correlation will be stronger unless gender feminists write it, plus anecdotal personal experience of mine and friends. Promiscuous women are much more likely to be emotionally disordered, cheat, have other impulsivity and self-control issues with substance, spending, risk-taking, etc. Men don't because once again, the way the genders seek and obtain sex is apples and oranges.

 

Men have to be constantly looking for sex to get any at all. Women can lay in bed all day and have an endless stream of men coming over and sleeping with them with just a phone call. See the difference? Amazing how many don't grasp this or simply refuse to.

 

Have had GFs "go out and get laid" as payback when I didn't return their call within a couple hours. All my friends have experienced same. Normal women won't do this type of thing, promiscuous "FWB" "F-buddy" types will. Bad news all around. Avoid "FWB" "F-buddy" types like the plague.

 

EDIT: here's a BPD link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719454/

 

Anecdotal personal experience does not equal fact, of course. Are you suggesting that you, and all your friends have met and been intimate with women with BPD? - it is easy to armchair diagnose someone, but not very wise.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded? Not trying to be obtuse, I genuinely don't get it. What does that have to do with a FWB relationship? Presumably, both parties involved have the "right" to make a booty call should the interest arise (that is the point, yes?)

 

Sorry you have had experiences like "pay back". That is ridiculous, and not something I have personal experience with.

[TheBigQuestion]

sanskrit isn't saying that all women who are promiscuous also suffer some degree of mental illness. He's saying that promiscuity is very often a by-product of mental illness. Don't confuse the two and don't assume he's talking about causation.

[on a learning curve]

Huh? How can she be considered out of control? That makes no sense at all.

 

A promiscuous woman is in fact being dominated/controlled for lack of a better term, by a whole lot of men. That makes her like a party favor being passed around... it's very easy to objectify such women.

 

For example, I knew a girl in highschool who's parents were certified hippies. She felt that by being highly promiscuous she was exerting her feminine powers... controlling her own sexuality. Once before football practice I heard a guy talking about having sex with her his exact words were "I cracked her open like a shotgun and f***ed her till her nose bled". All the guys laughed and joked about it. By senior year it was well known that you needed to double up on the condoms with her or risk catching something. Not a single one of us feared her sexuality... or felt insecure around her... instead she was objectified.

 

Now... some guys have retroactive jealousy... but most times that really boils down to the guy feeling jealous he hasn't had that many partners. It's not that common to find it as pure insecurity.

 

I will admit... I've read some stuff on this site from guys are VERY inexperienced and insecure... but just remember those two issues often go hand in hand.

 

I don't know...it has been my experience that a "man" who would speak of a woman like that, isn't a "man" at all. Was the woman in your story damaged by her sexual experiences, or was she empowered? That would be for her to tell us, yes?

 

She doesn't default to victim simply because insecure men want her that way.

[on a learning curve]

sanskrit isn't saying that all women who are promiscuous also suffer some degree of mental illness. He's saying that promiscuity is very often a by-product of mental illness. Don't confuse the two and don't assume he's talking about causation.

 

I am not confused.

 

My point is that promiscuity may be a by-product of being a girl/woman in a culture which continues to devalue womens' sexual desire.

[Woggle]

My ex slept around a lot before she met me and I overlooked it because according to her she was now commited to me. I wish I never trusted her because she ended up betraying me and is all kinds of screwed up. I know many who have had the same experiences. In every case the woman displayed this kind of behavior before hand.

[TheBigQuestion]

I am not confused.

 

My point is that promiscuity may be a by-product of being a girl/woman in a culture which continues to devalue womens' sexual desire.

 

That's possible. However, the kind of promiscuity associated with mental disorders is usually pretty extreme and probably not something anyone would end up defending.

 

Sanskrit does make a good point though. Although this has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, I really do think that the "double standard" in regards to what type of sexual behavior is acceptable from men and women is not really a double standard at all. I believe this is due to the fact that the ease of access that women have to sex is exponentially higher than when compared even the most charming/potent men. A woman who is a "6" could easily outdo a guy who is a "9" in terms of sexual partners/quality of sexual partners if she so desired. Granted, this has no bearing on ease of acquiring pleasant and fulfilling relationships, but we are strictly talking about sex here.

[Surrealist]

I am not confused.

 

My point is that promiscuity may be a by-product of being a girl/woman in a culture which continues to devalue womens' sexual desire.

 

Interesting Im posing a question in the other 'F-Buddy' thread asking if the outcome of this is actually wreaking far more damage to women - everything else aside.

 

That is, regardless of who is to blame, is this promiscuous activity far more damaging to women over the long-term, given men are more than happy to keep playing the field with little regard to entering a monogamous / committed relationship whereas women, generally, will sooner or later be seeking such a relationship as a priority?

[on a learning curve]

My ex slept around a lot before she met me and I overlooked it because according to her she was now commited to me. I wish I never trusted her because she ended up betraying me and is all kinds of screwed up. I know many who have had the same experiences. In every case the woman displayed this kind of behavior before hand.

 

I am sorry, Woggle.

 

I just wish to offer the point of view that healthy women are capable of viewing sex as pleasurable and desired- without needing a committed relationship "disclaimer". Meaning, "I can only enjoy sex within the confines of a marriage...etc.

[LiveWell]

Men have the right to screen women on whatever basis suits their fancy - no argument, here.

 

However, what rational basis is there for concluding a correlation between promiscuity and emotional/personality disorders? That seems like a throw back to the Victorian purity ideal. Yk? When women's lust and desires were thought to be the cause of her hysteria. Come on.

 

I don't think what sanskrit is saying is a function of logic, it's a heuristic:

 

Heuristic (pronounced /hjʉˈrɪstɨk/) or heuristics (from the Greek "Εὑρίσκω" for "find" or "discover") refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery. Heuristic methods are used to come to an optimal solution as rapidly as possible. Part of this method is using a "rule of thumb", an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, or common sense. A heuristic is a general way of solving a problem.

 

[Wikpedia]

[on a learning curve]

That's possible. However, the kind of promiscuity associated with mental disorders is usually pretty extreme and probably not something anyone would end up defending.

 

Sanskrit does make a good point though. Although this has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, I really do think that the "double standard" in regards to what type of sexual behavior is acceptable from men and women is not really a double standard at all. I believe this is due to the fact that the ease of access that women have to sex is exponentially higher than when compared even the most charming/potent men. A woman who is a "6" could easily outdo a guy who is a "9" in terms of sexual partners/quality of sexual partners if she so desired. Granted, this has no bearing on ease of acquiring pleasant and fulfilling relationships, but we are strictly talking about sex here.

 

And again, a FWB situation/relationship affords the parties involved, the right to a comfortable, understanding, familiar and mutually gratifying sexual experience, yes?