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

[welikeincrowds]

overtly sexual behavior (exerted mainly by men in days gone by) has been judged, critiqued and labeled since the beginning of time

 

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "overtly sexual behavior," because unless you're referring to the sort of men that walk up to strangers to tell them how fine their asses look -- abusive, desperate men -- I can't see what you're getting at.

 

If you're talking about the sorts of sexual relationships men could have in the past until now, then you may need a history lesson. Men have gotten away with murder. Extramarital affairs were a given; they were seen as a necessary evil to preserve the sanctity of the marriage, as divorces were taboo. "Domestic violence" wasn't a term -- not that it should be, but at least we're talking about it now. As for the vernacular: men "whored around," whereas women who played along were simply "whores."

 

As times have changed, we see that the "scrutiny" you may be describing comes from different places. One of these places is the religious right, which sees sexual liberation as a threat to the American ideal of the family unit. I wonder: what do you know about the sexual revolution? It was not about judging men; it was about liberating women. It's "water off a duck's back" for men because men were never really scrutinized as you say. Women were. Women had to literally march in the streets to bring any attention to this.

 

As for today, you are alive and hopefully well, so you can see that men who decide to have sex with multiple partners continue to evade judgment on a cultural level, whereas women in many cases still cannot. How many partners/ONS/FWBs do you think George Clooney has? How does this affect is desirability? This behavior is part of his image as "eligible bachelor," and in fact, it's expected of him. Furthermore, he is still seen as a "gentleman" -- it doesn't reflect on his perceived moral character. Can you think of a female actress for whom this is the same? An "eligible bacheloress", who is seen not as a slut, but as an elegant woman for whom this behavior is culturally observed as natural, expected, and desirable?

 

The madonna/whore dichotomy hasn't gone away. Or, in other words, "Some girls you wife up, and some girls you ****." It seems that sex is still chained to moral character for women, whereas for men this is not so. Luckily, there exist many people who don't judge women's sexuality this way, especially in cities. I hope this means that it's only a matter of time before women's sexuality is not feared.

 

In a typical dating situation, men have to seriously put the brakes on their sexual nature.

And this I find, from my experience, to be patently false. The line between sexually exciting and vulgar is thick. The "brakes" can (and should) go away as soon as a rapport gets going, which can happen as quickly as the first conversation, depending on the setting.

 

So once again, I really can't see what you're getting at.

Edited October 28, 2010 by welikeincrowds
grammar

[A O]

Apparently you haven't read posts by certain posters in this thread with all the degredation being heaped upon women merely for admitting they enjoy sex and having it with whom they choose just like men. I have yet to meet a woman who bitches about a man JUST because he enjoys sex and wants it regularly (which means a LOT). It's just the means, i.e. lying, they use to get it. In fact, a man who is honest about his wants, even when all he wants is sex alone, is just fine by me and every woman I personally know.

These posters haven't got a free pass for their thinking. You, and many many other posters have seen to that.

 

My point is - is the belief that "only" men think or behave this way. That "only" women are subjected to negativity for their sexual natures.

 

That is patently false as I will not only highlight, but also give relevant every day situations/examples to further back my points.

 

 

.

[carhill]

However, I expected marriage intimacy to make up for what I imagine that I missed out on and it hasn't even come close. So, the LACK of a f*ck-buddy part of my life makes my marriage feel fake or illegitimate.

 

Wogs, TBH, I think this deserves a separate exploration, as IMO the dynamic is beyond the scope of this thread. I've always been of the impression that your W is a loving, intimate and supportive partner so am a bit by this revelation. Seriously, that was my first thought....wha? I realize my impression may differ vastly from how you feel. Anyway, I think it's a valid perspective and deserving of more thoughtful review.

[GoodOnPaper]

Wogs, TBH, I think this deserves a separate exploration, as IMO the dynamic is beyond the scope of this thread. I've always been of the impression that your W is a loving, intimate and supportive partner so am a bit by this revelation. Seriously, that was my first thought....wha? I realize my impression may differ vastly from how you feel. Anyway, I think it's a valid perspective and deserving of more thoughtful review.

 

I'm not Wogs, but I'll try to link my comments back to the topic -- I would be skeptical about a woman's physical attraction to me if she wanted a relationship with me but had a significant f-buddy track record.

[donnamaybe]

These posters haven't got a free pass for their thinking. You, and many many other posters have seen to that.

And only a small handful of men, you may have noticed, have called them out for their "thinking."

[donnamaybe]

My point is - is the belief that "only" men think or behave this way. That "only" women are subjected to negativity for their sexual natures.

 

That is patently false as I will not only highlight, but also give relevant every day situations/examples to further back my points.

I can't WAIT to see all these examples. Now they can't be just stories you've come up with but events we can verify somehow, otherwise they may just be created for the purpose of trying to prove some kind of point.

[carhill]

When a man 'sows his wild oats', a very 'normal' (this is a word my exW used a lot) part of being a man, he shows and acts upon many physical attractions and, if successful, has sex with many women, or fewer women over a longer period of time. Are we stereotyping genders by their 'normal' psychological profiles, as assigned by society, and inferring projected future behaviors based on that stereotype? Is it that socialized stereotyping which allows and impels women to bond to and with sexually successful males even in the face of the 'risks' and even with demonstrated lack of fidelity and/or respect? Why do things work the way they do? Why can't men bond with a sexually successful female (I use volume as an indicator of success for purposes of discussion; sexual 'richness') similarly, even if such bonding presents 'risks'? What's the difference? In my age group, producing and rearing young is long past history. What's the driving factor now? Territoriality? I've got a pre-nup; she can't take my life's work. OK, what's next? I'm trying to embrace a different perspective on this; one of acceptance. Where does it go?

[carhill]

No, I have never had any form of casual sex (NSA, FWB, etc.). This was never an issue between my wife and me -- we had similar dating/sexual histories in terms of quantity and quality. However, I expected marriage intimacy to make up for what I imagine that I missed out on and it hasn't even come close. So, the LACK of a f*ck-buddy part of my life makes my marriage feel fake or illegitimate. I don't get why most women want relationships so badly when it seems that attraction associated with a casual sex situation is much stronger than attraction to a guy for relationship purposes.

My apologies....saw your post and for some reason thought 'Woggle' when I made a prior response. Still think it deserves separate consideration. Having walked a similar path, having few sexual partners and only in relationships, I personally don't feel I've missed out on anything. One datapoint of many.

[A O]

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "overtly sexual behavior," because unless you're referring to the sort of men that walk up to strangers to tell them how fine their asses look -- abusive, desperate men -- I can't see what you're getting at.

I'm specifically talking about the early dating stages where the differences between male and female sexuality often clashes.

 

If you're talking about the sorts of sexual relationships men could have in the past until now

I'm speaking right here and now. I'm speaking about a poster like Donna, whom I saw on another thread, a few weeks maybe a month or so ago, who mentioned that she either dumped a guy or would dump a guy who gave here the impression that sex is all he wanted from her. I'm speaking how this type of behavior is common place among women.

 

. Men have gotten away with murder. Extramarital affairs were a given; they were seen as a necessary evil to preserve the sanctity of the marriage, as divorces were taboo. "Domestic violence" wasn't a term -- not that it should be, but at least we're talking about it now. As for the vernacular: men "whored around," whereas women who played along were simply "whores."

I don't know too much about history, but some well-respected historians I've listened to over the years have made mention about the perils of quoting history out of context.

 

As for today, you are alive and hopefully well, so you can see that men who decide to have sex with multiple partners continue to evade judgment on a cultural level, whereas women in many cases still cannot.

There's a term for these men, its called being a player. Point being, they have been judged. Some health professionals allude to the fact that these types may also have commitment issues or an inability to form close, intimate relationships with people. Again, they are being judged.

 

Absolutely no such thing as male sexuality getting off scott free. Total misnomer.

 

How many partners/ONS/FWBs do you think George Clooney has? How does this affect is desirability? This behavior is part of his image as "eligible bachelor," and in fact, it's expected of him.

I see this guy as an actor - I'm not interested in anything else, other than the causes he gets involved in.

 

Furthermore, he is still seen as a "gentleman" -- it doesn't reflect on his perceived moral character. Can you think of a female actress for whom this is the same?

Well, what about Tiger Woods. Do you think he's been given a free pass either morally or legally? I don't think so.

 

The madonna/whore dichotomy hasn't gone away. Or, in other words, "Some girls you wife up, and some girls you ****."

Anyone that knows anything about how prostitutes operate would see the great folly in the general premise of this statement. The simply fact of the matter is that a prositute will only allow a punter to do what they let them, and that, is usually a lot more restrictive than you average woman will allow. Most prostitutes don't allow kissing. Hardly the free-for-all that many folk think.

 

It seems that sex is still chained to moral character for women, whereas for men this is not so.

As long as women dump men who appear (rightly or wrongly) to want only sex from them, then sex still has a 'cost' for both genders, not just one.

 

Luckily, there exist many people who don't judge women's sexuality this way, especially in cities. I hope this means that it's only a matter of time before women's sexuality is not feared.

To reach this state, they have to not fear male sexuality. That'll never happen.

 

In a typical dating situation, men have to seriously put the brakes on their sexual nature.

And this I find, from my experience, to be patently false. The line between sexually exciting and vulgar is thick. The "brakes" can (and should) go away as soon as a rapport gets going, which can happen as quickly as the first conversation, depending on the setting.

For most men its a dance and its not an easy dance to sway to. Get it right, all is good, get it wrong and a mans value can go from hero to zero in double quick time. This dance is little more than one long (or short) judgment process.

 

.

[Woggle]

Harmfulsweetz just said that this attitude is not about getting back at men but then just unleashed a bunch of anti-male drivel about how men's only purpose is sex. She didn't say that but I get the gist of it.

 

I have to ask her the question that I have yet to get an answer from. If all you want from a man is sex then why do you care that he won't consider you for anything more? Why does this bother you so much? Any woman unless she is repulsive will get men to sleep with her so why care if men look for more pure women to have a relationship with? Is social approval really that important?

[welikeincrowds]

quoting history out of context.

You mean like "since the beginning of time," right? Perhaps you'd like to show me why these examples are inappropriate, or "out of context"? Perhaps you need a better understanding of the time frame: American males in the 20th century before the the second-wave feminist movement. Does this help you?

 

I see this guy as an actor - I'm not interested in anything else, other than the causes he gets involved in.

 

Well, that would be a problem, because George Clooney is not just an actor, but a celebrity. Furthermore, I argued him that way -- I said that he represents a culturally held male ideal. This is why, for example, you will see him on the cover of GQ magazine. Please, if you have evidence to the contrary, refute.

 

Tiger Woods is a different case, because he was married, and he therefore cheated on his wife. We are not talking about cheating or dishonesty here, although can you see why you confused the matter? Because morality is introduced into the discussion where it should not be. Nothing about this sexual behavior is inherently dishonest. People can and do have casual sex/FWB arrangements where everyone is above-board, throughout the course of the relationship. But women are still subjected to moral judgments if they are sexually active.

 

There's a term for these men, its called being a player.

Which leads me to this point. No, "players" are men who lie to their partners about their level of commitment. They are "playing" these women who are unaware of their deception. This is different -- this is, again, cheating and dishonesty, which not a part of this discussion. A sexually promiscuous woman who is up front about her sexuality and other partners is still quite capable of being called a "whore," because that term is specifically insulting her sexuality.

 

prostitutes

I don't see where you got to this, but I suppose you don't realize what "madonna/whore" means. It does not refer to professional sex. It refers to the perception and labeling of women as either pure nurturers or unclean sexual creatures. I've given you the example of the "eligible bacheloress" to illustrate how this dichotomy is still employed in our culture, and how it specifically judges sexual women in a manner that is not applied to sexual men.

 

For most men its a dance and its not an easy dance to sway to. Get it right, all is good, get it wrong and a mans value can go from hero to zero in double quick time. This dance is little more than one long (or short) judgment process.

It is that way for both genders. What you've done is given a metaphor to the process of dating, which, obviously, both genders partake. So far I fail to see what you're trying to argue.

[sally4sara]

Harmfulsweetz just said that this attitude is not about getting back at men but then just unleashed a bunch of anti-male drivel about how men's only purpose is sex. She didn't say that but I get the gist of it.

 

I have to ask her the question that I have yet to get an answer from. If all you want from a man is sex then why do you care that he won't consider you for anything more? Why does this bother you so much? Any woman unless she is repulsive will get men to sleep with her so why care if men look for more pure women to have a relationship with? Is social approval really that important?

 

Woggle there may well be women out there screwing for revenge, but I've never heard a single one say that was her motivation.

 

I have however, heard them say that they had sex to see what sexual autonomy is like and to explore sex without caring what others may think of it. This can sometimes come across like how you perceive.

[Woggle]

Woggle there may well be women out there screwing for revenge, but I've never heard a single one say that was her motivation.

 

I have however, heard them say that they had sex to see what sexual autonomy is like and to explore sex without caring what others may think of it. This can sometimes come across like how you perceive.

 

It is still getting back at the patriarchy. Every woman I know who does that has some issues with men. I never hear of men having sex for power except for rapists and players who both hate women. The female version of a player usually hates men. I am not naming names but I can see the subtle misandry in most of pro-casual sex posts in this thread.

[EasyHeart]

I can't WAIT to see all these examples. Now they can't be just stories you've come up with but events we can verify somehow, otherwise they may just be created for the purpose of trying to prove some kind of point.

Bill Clinton was the first name that popped into my head.

[welikeincrowds]

Bill Clinton was the first name that popped into my head.

 

Not a relevant example.

 

Bill Clinton was treated unfairly. Impeachment was a ridiculous charge and it was also a partisan issue. Regardless, he wasn't being lambasted for his sexuality, but for perjury. Furthermore, it was scandalous not because he was having a sexual relationship, but that it was an extramarital affair. This discussion is not about cheating or dishonesty, so your example is not relevant.

[EasyHeart]

Not a relevant example.

 

Bill Clinton was treated unfairly. Impeachment was a ridiculous charge and it was also a partisan issue. Regardless, he wasn't being lambasted for his sexuality, but for perjury. Furthermore, it was scandalous not because he was having a sexual relationship, but that it was an extramarital affair. This discussion is not about cheating or dishonesty, so your example is not relevant.

Nope. All the Democrats kept saying that he was being prosecuted because he had a blow job. It had nothing to do with perjury or cheating on his wife.

[welikeincrowds]

It had nothing to do with perjury

 

...uhhh. What? Maybe you need a refresher. The reasons why he were prosecuted are clearly outlined, and it was because he was accused of committing perjury.

 

And that he was married was absolutely relevant. Do you really think that the events would have been a scandal had he not been cheating? If his relationship with Monica Lewinsky had been an up-front, FWB situation with no dishonesty coming from either person? It was a scandal because it was a secret, because it was surveilled by Linda Tripp. We are not talking about secret relationships here. We are talking about above-board relationships. Your example is not relevant.

[harmfulsweetz]

Harmfulsweetz just said that this attitude is not about getting back at men but then just unleashed a bunch of anti-male drivel about how men's only purpose is sex. She didn't say that but I get the gist of it.

 

I have to ask her the question that I have yet to get an answer from. If all you want from a man is sex then why do you care that he won't consider you for anything more? Why does this bother you so much? Any woman unless she is repulsive will get men to sleep with her so why care if men look for more pure women to have a relationship with? Is social approval really that important?

 

So you presume I meant that? No, I said that and meant, I have a habit of doing that, see, saying what I actually mean , women want to be seen as equals to men, in and out of the bedroom. It certainly isn't about beating men, or getting revenge, in fact, it's nothing to do with men. Women enjoy sex just as much as men, and why shouldn't we practice it?

 

It bothers me the blanket statements that are being thrown around, placing a group of women into one category simply because they all have done/ are in a fwb set up, and generalized as more likely to cheat than those women who do not. It is utter tripe. Not only are the male posters unable to back this up with statistics/studies or psychological evidence, but they are putting the integrity of those women into question and decimating it without actual cause. Simply because someone has an f-buddy when they are single, does not mean they are any more likely to cheat than one who does not. As I said in my previous post, no one has any idea why the woman does not have casual sex-it may be a healthy viewpoint, or it may not be.

 

Also, no one on this thread is claiming that the penultimate of what we want from men is sex, and sex alone, so of course we are entitled to be slightly bothered. In one time, we may only want sex from a man, it may be an inconvenient time, or simply, the guy may not be relationship-material. But later on, when the time is right and the guy is right, we want more. Is that hard to understand? Really? I don't think it is. It's merely a case of needs and desires fulfilled at the time, and those needs and desires change over time.

 

Social approval isn't all that important for a man. A man does not get judged like a woman for the same thing, if a man has an ONS/casual sex/fwb, he won't be accused of being capable of cheating, or more likely to cheat.He likely won't have integrity ran over the coals, and morals and values questioned. I'm not anti-man, I just would rather it was equal. If a woman is a hoe for doing this, why isn't a man a hoe? Why can't we, genders, be equal?

 

And spare me the biological differences b*llocks, please. In the end, that's just an excuse for men to do as they please, and women to feel restricted and ashamed for *being unnatural*.

 

I'd really love to know where you got the idea that I'm anti-male from in that post. I'm not, it comes off as it, but I'm just anti-the mindset that what's alright for a man to do, isn't alright for a woman. I never actually said men's only purpose was sex, and I don't believe I inferred it either.

[Woggle]

I always encourage women not to try and make a player into a faithful partner. Yes they are hoes as well but it doesn't stop women from trying to tame them. Let me tell you where I get this from.

 

My ex was a woman who had a lot of casual sex before we met and when we started dating I did not judge her. I thought was one phase in her life and our relationship was the next phases. All the guys I know wondered what the hell I was doing with the neighborhood skank and what did I see in her. I brushed them off as being sexist and ignorant at the time but they were right. She ended up cheating on me left and right and damn near slept with guy at the Jersey Shore. If we waited a few more years for us to divorce she probably would have had sex with cast members from the show of that name.

 

When I look back I wonder what the hell I was doing with the neighborhood skank and I encourage men not to make the same mistake I did.

 

Also you said that men's usefulness beyond sex is diminishing so that was pretty clear.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I'd really love to know where you got the idea that I'm anti-male from in that post. I'm not, it comes off as it, but I'm just anti-the mindset that what's alright for a man to do, isn't alright for a woman. I never actually said men's only purpose was sex, and I don't believe I inferred it either.

 

Wog accurately summarized your previous post. It was all about you being able to judge others, but not wanting men to be able to have an opinion on your behaviors.

 

If you want to tell a guy that it's icky for him to buy prostitutes all the time... We are not going to tell you that you don't have the right to that opinion. Give other people the same courtesy.

[Untouchable_Fire]

My ex was a woman who had a lot of casual sex before we met and when we started dating I did not judge her. I thought was one phase in her life and our relationship was the next phases. All the guys I know wondered what the hell I was doing with the neighborhood skank and what did I see in her. I brushed them off as being sexist and ignorant at the time but they were right. She ended up cheating on me left and right and damn near slept with guy at the Jersey Shore. If we waited a few more years for us to divorce she probably would have had sex with cast members from the show of that name.

When I look back I wonder what the hell I was doing with the neighborhood skank and I encourage men not to make the same mistake I did.

Also you said that men's usefulness beyond sex is diminishing so that was pretty clear.

 

I can attest to a similar experience with an xGF... who was a cheater.

[harmfulsweetz]

I always encourage women not to try and make a player into a faithful partner. Yes they are hoes as well but it doesn't stop women from trying to tame them. Let me tell you where I get this from.

 

My ex was a woman who had a lot of casual sex before we met and when we started dating I did not judge her. I thought was one phase in her life and our relationship was the next phases. All the guys I know wondered what the hell I was doing with the neighborhood skank and what did I see in her. I brushed them off as being sexist and ignorant at the time but they were right. She ended up cheating on me left and right and damn near slept with guy at the Jersey Shore. If we waited a few more years for us to divorce she probably would have had sex with cast members from the show of that name.

 

When I look back I wonder what the hell I was doing with the neighborhood skank and I encourage men not to make the same mistake I did.

 

Also you said that men's usefulness beyond sex is diminishing so that was pretty clear.

 

You make statements though assuming a woman is a skank because she engages in casual sex, that does not equate a skank. To me, what equates a skank is someone quite prepared to cheat on someone, and have sex behind other people's backs.

 

No, what I said and meant was that with women becoming "more like men" in other aspects of their lives -career etc, men are having a hard time keeping up. What that means is that for a very long time, women have settled down early, had kids, been traditional and so on, but times have changed. Women are settling down later, and later, divorcing more, choosing to not have children, having children without a man, and with this newfound independence, it's fairly obvious that a more casual approach to sex is adopted. In fact, I'm to go as far to say that women are no longer under the illusion (or delusion) that there is such a thing as "one true love", that sex equates love. I'd imagine for many men, this attitude should be right up their street. That's not saying men are useless, they aren't, they have their uses-i.e. mowing the lawn, carrying the shopping,....

[Woggle]

I can attest to a similar experience with an xGF... who was a cheater.

 

So can many other men I know. I don't know about you but I used to be one of those enlightened and open minded men these women want us to be and look where that got me. I was open minded my brain fell out so I put my brain back in and closed it a little.

[Woggle]

Women can carry their own shopping and mow their own lawns. If women are so independent these days why not? It sure seems that all this new age feminism goes out of the window when it comes to women still wanting chivalry. If woman still want a tall strong man who will protect them from the scary world as so many on this board have attested to then why are men wrong for wanting a more traditionally feminine woman?

[harmfulsweetz]

Wog accurately summarized your previous post. It was all about you being able to judge others, but not wanting men to be able to have an opinion on your behaviors.

 

If you want to tell a guy that it's icky for him to buy prostitutes all the time... We are not going to tell you that you don't have the right to that opinion. Give other people the same courtesy.

 

Oh, wow,another 'enlightened' man who can accurately "guess" what I meant in a post-though the words were never there. Wow, I'd love that talent.

 

I'm not judging anyone, not one bit, if you don't like casual sex, and don't pursue them, you have every right to pursue people who value the same things as you. On more than one most, you have actively stated that women who participate in fwbs are more likely to cheat, "early and often" you said. As I requested in that post, where's your evidence aside from your bitterness? You know, one person doesn't count towards an accurate, rounded study....

 

 

As I stated in the previous post at the very top, every person has the right to their opinion and their beliefs to live their life according to them. And I'm most certainly not the only person who believes your posts are verging on shoving your opinion down people's throats. I like to think I made a valid post, which picked up on the arguments used by other posters, and put my opinion on it. That's just my opinion, and my beliefs. You don't have to agree, but likewise, I definitely don't have to agree with you either.