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

[Woggle]

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.

 

I guess so but I have not seen many examples at all of women who make the transition from FWB to happy and commited partner and that is what this thread is about. I am not saying women like this should be persecuted but they generally do not make good relationship partners. Look at a few famous women.

 

Madonna messed around with everybody and their brother back in the day and then tried married life with Guy Ritchie. That did not work because she could not deal with a commited relationship.

 

Most recently Christina Aguilera split from her husband. She has always been sexually provocative and can't go two sentences in interviews without taling about sexual empowerment. She also could not deal with a commited relationship.

 

There are plenty of other examples to prove that if a man wants a mate then a former FWB might not be the best choice.

[TheBigQuestion]

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

 

I'd say it depends on their reasons, how straightforward they are, how many others simultaneous f-buddies are out there, and how often the arrangement is made by both parties.

[Untouchable_Fire]

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.

 

The tone of your response gives me the impression that you are just another person so incomprehensibly self absorbed that it is impossible to understand how others think.

 

I didn't call her a victim... and you don't get to choose who is a "man" or even what defines one.

 

Was she damaged? That is a moot point, it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Her thoughts and feelings are irrelevant to the point of the story.

 

The fact that you cling to the fallacy that male insecurity drives down the value of promiscuous women signifies your agenda. It's competition and territoriality which makes promiscuous women less valuable to men.

 

Do you think I avoid women like this because I'm afraid of their sexual empowerment? I don't date them simply because they have less to offer me.

 

Use your brain for a second... why would I be insecure about a woman who slept with 50 guys and not a woman who slept with 10?

[on a learning curve]

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]

 

And that is fine for the purpose of discerning your individual reaction to a situation in which you are invested. Not so effective for discussion of a particular phenomenon.

[Untouchable_Fire]

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.

 

The answer to your question is Evolutionary Biology.

 

Nearly every female that has to put large amounts of energy into raising offspring has a biological imperative to be selective when choosing mates. Especially in primates where the child takes years, and teamwork to raise successfully.

 

It makes clear biological sense for a man to see a promiscuous woman as being diseased or not right.

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

 

The fact that you cling to the fallacy that male insecurity drives down the value of promiscuous women signifies your agenda. It's competition and territoriality which makes promiscuous women less valuable to men.

 

 

 

Because you claim it's a fallacy does not make it a fallacy.

 

Your story was about disgusting behavior from high school jocks. We got that part. They sounded insecure and full of braggadocio.

 

The girl had hippie parents; according to you she had lots of sex because she felt it was empowering. That's all we got about her.

 

On another note, phrases like "drive down the value of women" are truly objectifying. Really. And I have NO problem with you or anyone else choosing to date women (or men) with minimal prior sexual experience if that's important to them. Unless you are the "woman czar," however, I don't think you are in any position to determine the "value" of this woman or that one.

 

Maybe it WAS empowering.

 

I wonder who turned out to have the better life - hippie free sex girl, or big mouth high school jock. Who knows.

[Woggle]

Probably neither had a good life. She probably has tons of emotional baggage and maybe an STD and unless he made a career out of sports he probably is a failure with very few brain cells.

[on a learning curve]

I guess so but I have not seen many examples at all of women who make the transition from FWB to happy and commited partner and that is what this thread is about. I am not saying women like this should be persecuted but they generally do not make good relationship partners. Look at a few famous women.

 

Madonna messed around with everybody and their brother back in the day and then tried married life with Guy Ritchie. That did not work because she could not deal with a commited relationship.

 

Most recently Christina Aguilera split from her husband. She has always been sexually provocative and can't go two sentences in interviews without taling about sexual empowerment. She also could not deal with a commited relationship.

 

There are plenty of other examples to prove that if a man wants a mate then a former FWB might not be the best choice.

 

I though this thread was about FWB relationships, and the degree of respect involved - not about "fallen" women who have seen the errors of their ways and choose commitment over desire.

 

It is all subjective, and one has to be true to themselves.

[Woggle]

I though this thread was about FWB relationships, and the degree of respect involved - not about "fallen" women who have seen the errors of their ways and choose commitment over desire.

 

It is all subjective, and one has to be true to themselves.

 

Much of this thread has been about why women who sleep around do not make good commited partners and I gave two famous examples.

[Mme. Chaucer]

The answer to your question is Evolutionary Biology.

 

Nearly every female that has to put large amounts of energy into raising offspring has a biological imperative to be selective when choosing mates. Especially in primates where the child takes years, and teamwork to raise successfully.

 

It makes clear biological sense for a man to see a promiscuous woman as being diseased or not right.

 

Well, thank goodness that a large portion of society are not slaves to their inherent biological urges!

 

Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to attribute any behavior to "evolutionary biology" at all? Urges, desires, sure ... but actual choices and behavior?

 

I am not just being argumentative. As I said, people like what they like and I accept that. There is a whole other world out here where men DO fall in love with and marry women with all kinds of pasts ... there are even people right here on LS who are in OPEN MARRIAGES and in polyamorous relationships. They are all over the place! The disease, the wrongness!

 

So, just because YOU think that "a promiscuous woman is diseased or not quite right" and you can find plenty of other guys who are in that camp, I assure you that your position is not universally believed to be the norm.

[carhill]

I believe perfectly rational, emotionally stable women are capable of having casual sex, and being amazingly loyal when they're in relationships.

 

This was posted upthread and I've been traveling and missed it, but wanted to highlight the part about rational and emotionally stable; that's been the difficult work for myself, especially with high numbers women who continue to have casual sex with others while they're 'getting to know me', presumably for a 'loyal relationship'. I cannot resolve the schism of compartmentalization regarding how people invest their bodies into intimacies without their spirit nor mind.

 

Perhaps I have 'different' views on what making love is, so, rather than trying to conform to the evolution of casual sex for both men and women, instead follow the path of avoiding such dynamics altogether and seeking rational and emotionally healthy low numbers women for a loyal relationship, since that more closely matches my psychology.

 

Interesting read. It's helpful to view the diversity of perspective. I hope folks find what they're looking for

[on a learning curve]

I'd say it depends on their reasons, how straightforward they are, how many others simultaneous f-buddies are out there, and how often the arrangement is made by both parties.

 

Why the assumption that women who enjoy sex -seek it at every turn?

 

If you (general) have ever looked at a woman in the throes of an orgasm- felt her body twitch and shake - that is a woman who is pleased, and likely not going anywhere.

[on a learning curve]

The tone of your response gives me the impression that you are just another person so incomprehensibly self absorbed that it is impossible to understand how others think.

 

I didn't call her a victim... and you don't get to choose who is a "man" or even what defines one.

 

Was she damaged? That is a moot point, it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Her thoughts and feelings are irrelevant to the point of the story.

 

The fact that you cling to the fallacy that male insecurity drives down the value of promiscuous women signifies your agenda. It's competition and territoriality which makes promiscuous women less valuable to men.

 

Do you think I avoid women like this because I'm afraid of their sexual empowerment? I don't date them simply because they have less to offer me.

 

Use your brain for a second... why would I be insecure about a woman who slept with 50 guys and not a woman who slept with 10?

 

See? If the only strategy you have is to insult me...I am not moved.

 

Yes, I think you are afraid.

[brainygirl]

This was posted upthread and I've been traveling and missed it, but wanted to highlight the part about rational and emotionally stable; that's been the difficult work for myself, especially with high numbers women who continue to have casual sex with others while they're 'getting to know me', presumably for a 'loyal relationship'. I cannot resolve the schism of compartmentalization regarding how people invest their bodies into intimacies without their spirit nor mind.

 

Perhaps I have 'different' views on what making love is, so, rather than trying to conform to the evolution of casual sex for both men and women, instead follow the path of avoiding such dynamics altogether and seeking rational and emotionally healthy low numbers women for a loyal relationship, since that more closely matches my psychology.

 

Interesting read. It's helpful to view the diversity of perspective. I hope folks find what they're looking for

 

I don't think that having sex with other men while dating and attempting to build a relationship with a man I am not sleeping with sounds like a normal or healthy thing to do.

 

I had always thought that FWB relationships occurred when the parties weren't really looking for more complicated or involved relationships. I don't think it is reasonable to attempt to build a relationship with one man while screwing another.

 

But that's just me and I tend to be a bit nieve when it comes to dating.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Because you claim it's a fallacy does not make it a fallacy.

Your story was about disgusting behavior from high school jocks. We got that part. They sounded insecure and full of braggadocio.

The girl had hippie parents; according to you she had lots of sex because she felt it was empowering. That's all we got about her.

On another note, phrases like "drive down the value of women" are truly objectifying. Really. And I have NO problem with you or anyone else choosing to date women (or men) with minimal prior sexual experience if that's important to them. Unless you are the "woman czar," however, I don't think you are in any position to determine the "value" of this woman or that one.

Maybe it WAS empowering.

I wonder who turned out to have the better life - hippie free sex girl, or big mouth high school jock. Who knows.

 

Actually I believe both participants in that story are very happily married with families.

 

What about the story did you find disgusting? The fact that men speak freely with each other regarding sexual encounters? The terms used?

 

I can always count on some people to ignore the point and drive the post way off topic. The core idea is that men tend to view sex differently. You continue to argue that Venus is correct and Mars doesn't exist.

Edited October 28, 2010 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[TheBigQuestion]

Why the assumption that women who enjoy sex -seek it at every turn?

 

If you (general) have ever looked at a woman in the throes of an orgasm- felt her body twitch and shake - that is a woman who is pleased, and likely not going anywhere.

 

Hahah well I've apparently made most of the women I've slept with orgasm (unless they're lying to me and faking it, a very likely possibility since women seem to love lying about sex more than anything else), and they aren't all sticking to me like glue.

[Woggle]

My ex and I used to scream so sloud during sex a nighbor called the cops once and yet she still betrayed me.

[Untouchable_Fire]

See? If the only strategy you have is to insult me...I am not moved.

Yes, I think you are afraid.

 

I asked you to step outside your box for a second and consider something new, to look at something from another persons perspective.

[LiveWell]

 

Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to attribute any behavior to "evolutionary biology" at all? Urges, desires, sure ... but actual choices and behavior?

 

So it's your contention that evolutionary biology does not affect behavior?

 

I'll try to remember that the very next time I have sex.

 

 

 

I am not just being argumentative.

 

Actually that's even worse, because it means you actually believe what you just said about there being no linkage between behavior and evolutionary biology.

 

 

As I said, people like what they like and I accept that. There is a whole other world out here where men DO fall in love with and marry women with all kinds of pasts ... there are even people right here on LS who are in OPEN MARRIAGES and in polyamorous relationships. They are all over the place! The disease, the wrongness!

 

I still am boggled by what you said about evolutionary biology.

 

 

 

So, just because YOU think that "a promiscuous woman is diseased or not quite right" and you can find plenty of other guys who are in that camp, I assure you that your position is not universally believed to be the norm.

 

I'm not sure if it's so much the fear of disease, I would say it might be more likely from an evolutionary biology perspective, that promiscuous women are viewed as more likely to cuckold their long term partners. From an evolutionary biology standpoint, the long term partner would want to avoid a woman more likely to cuckold him, as it would be a waste of his DNA and resources to be raising another man's child.

 

It's just that simple, actually.

[LiveWell]

I asked you to step outside your box for a second and consider something new, to look at something from another persons perspective.

 

Dude drawing a map is not enough, you need garmin's.

[on a learning curve]

Because you claim it's a fallacy does not make it a fallacy.

 

Your story was about disgusting behavior from high school jocks. We got that part. They sounded insecure and full of braggadocio.

 

The girl had hippie parents; according to you she had lots of sex because she felt it was empowering. That's all we got about her.

 

On another note, phrases like "drive down the value of women" are truly objectifying. Really. And I have NO problem with you or anyone else choosing to date women (or men) with minimal prior sexual experience if that's important to them. Unless you are the "woman czar," however, I don't think you are in any position to determine the "value" of this woman or that one.

 

Maybe it WAS empowering.

 

I wonder who turned out to have the better life - hippie free sex girl, or big mouth high school jock. Who knows.

 

Yes, "drive down the value of women" is a truly objectifying position to take.

 

You don't know this woman's feelings. Just because your insecure buddies felt the need to disparage her (probably cuz there was no pleasing her), you think you have the authority to determine her understanding of her choices?

 

That is arrogance at best. Nothing more.

[on a learning curve]

Hahah well I've apparently made most of the women I've slept with orgasm (unless they're lying to me and faking it, a very likely possibility since women seem to love lying about sex more than anything else), and they aren't all sticking to me like glue.

 

Such is the beauty of a FWB relationship - why bother faking orgasm? What's the point?

[Leigh 87]

Do you, or do you not, think that women have to be in a committed, serious, long term relationship, in order for them to have sexual relations with a man?

 

Are people saying that if a women chooses to have sex with a man that she is not in a comitted relationship with, that she is "promiscuous"? I would not feel comfortable having sex more than once every 4 months with a different person - is once every 4 months too " promiscuous" for you?

 

Furthermore, how do you know that women who like to have sex without being in committed relationships, are either promiscuous, will be a bad choice for a long term partner, or are just a " low grade women"?

 

What if a person, such as myself, were to switch from wanting sex WITHOUT a relationship, to one day wanting to be in a serious, monogomus, long term relationship with the one man?

 

What makes you so certain that all women will not be able to go from wanting casual, no strings sex with minimal emotional investment, to one day being a wonderful long term partner?

 

I would allow myself to have sex no more than once every 3 -4 months at the MOST. Usually, I go a lot longer without sex. Are you saying that because I do not want to WAIT to be in a committed relationship to have sex, that I am a. never fit to be good a long td relationship material ( when and if I DO want a long term partner), and b. that I am lesser of a lesser quality as a women ( when you consider a mate), JUST because I like to have sex with men occasionally ( and selectively) yet WITHOUT the intention of long term committing to them?

 

The debate is very plain and simple to me; some people on Love Shack think that a women should have intentions of trying to STAY with a man, in a relationship ( where they are boyfriend and girlfriend), before they have sex.

 

The people who think that sex should only be between two people who aspire to commit to one another, tend to think that the women who DO NOT want to wait until they want a emotionally invested relationship in order to have sex, are some how " lesser quality".

 

 

I have news for you: I want to have sex occasionally, but I do not want to wait until I find a man who I want a relationship with. I just was the sex.

 

Now, I do not want sex very often, I am selective about who I have sex with ( remember, I only found ONE guy in 5 years that inteested me enough). WHY does that mean that ONE DAY when I DO find a guy I want to get serious with, that I WILL MAKE A BAD partner?

 

People can stick their traditions up their bums frankly. There is nothing wrong with viewing sex or sexual acts as a thing that should only occur during COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS. However, there IS something wrong with you if you have so much contempt for women like myself, who want sex outside of a serious relationship.

 

Again I will re hash: I want sex occasionally, without being in a serious relationship witht he guy; one day if I want a long term partnership I will be of no lesser quality to the man due to my sexual history ( because I was not slutty or sleeping around with abandon), and lastly, I am not promiscuous.

[on a learning curve]

I asked you to step outside your box for a second and consider something new, to look at something from another persons perspective.

 

Well geesh, I asked the same of you!

[Woggle]

If you don't want a commited relationship why do you even care if a man won't consider you a prime candidate for one? I have no desire to be an astronaut so I don't care about passing the test so why do you care about men's criteria for a commited partner when you yourself have said you don't want it anyway? It is actually kind of silly.