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

[GooseChaser]

On the other hand, many men out there would be turned off if a woman wanted to wait to have sex until marriage. Maybe people just need to find a good balance? You have the right to avoid relationships with people who are untrustworthy, but you want them to be willing to have sex with you at the same time.

 

Myself, I had one three-month FWB, and recently ended it after meeting a great guy, and I am now in a happy relationship. My past FWB will not affect him, and I will not cheat. We're going surfing this Saturday! I'm so excited!

[harmfulsweetz]

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?

 

'Twas a joke.

[Woggle]

'Twas a joke.

 

I am not sure how much I believe that. Anyway it is true that many expect all the chivalry of the old days but don't want to do their part in any of it.

[A O]

A person does not have less integrity or morals simply because they were involved in an FWB.

Its relative. You have less of everything relative to women who do not engaged in such activity. A similar dynamic befalls men when it comes to paying for dates. If he doesn't pay or doesn't pay to the satisfaction of some women, then he's seen as less of a man. His ability to provide or share has lessened in the eyes of the women where this dynamic is important to them.

 

Why does a woman who is emotionally stable, enjoys sex but is not in the right place for a relationship, or she is only attracted to the man on a physical level, become low-grade? Why should a woman feel ashamed of such activity?

I question whether you are emotionally stable, at that point in time, if you wish to pursue this time of a relationship. Otherwise, you're not low-grade (unless you make a habit of it). Pathetically unnecessary term.

 

On the same note, a man will never get looked down on for pursuing a woman purely for a sexual purpose.

Plenty of women will start off with this mindset – is sex all he wants from me. A man looking for a full blown relationship has to prove himself to be above this. Has to build his value up from a very low start point in other words. A guy who comes on too strong, sexually speaking or a guy who really is only after sex and makes no bones about that will be kicked to the curb, in other words – looked down upon – by most women. You view runs counter to most men’s experiences to how most women operate.

 

It's a man's job to chase and score, a woman's job to say no. But because that woman makes a choice to say yes, and have her wicked way with a man, she's a hoe. But the man isn't a hoe for pursuing her in the first place with those intentions!

In keeping with my general theme – men have never received a free pass for their sexual natures – and never will. The simple fact of the matter is that judging male sexuality is so ingrained in us that we fail to realize that we’ve even done it. Judging ‘mainstream’ female sexuality in a ‘negative’ sense, however, is still a relatively new concept that most people have yet to correctly get their head around.

 

Also, why does an FWB situation mean that HE'S just not that into her? Why not the other way around? Hm?

Because its a no-to-few-strings attached sexually based relationship and men are known more for wanting these type of set-ups than women.

 

In this day and age, it's ridiculous that discussions like these still take place. Women shouldn't be still fighting to be seen as equal

To be equal, to act in a manner precieved to be the same as men has consequences. As I've alluded to before, most men are used to these consequences, some women are usually dishing out these consequences. Few would have thought they they'd be on the end of them themselves. This topic is a microcosm of what's happening in the wider world. As more women assume the same roles and positions once held primarily by men, so to are then exposed consequences, both good and bad that these roles attract. Most women understood the good side, few were aware of the bad!

 

Would men really downgrade a woman of a strong calibre who is highly compatible with them on every other level except this one? Where's the sense in that?

Downgrade possibly. See you odds shorten compared to a proverbial sea of women who haven't engaged in such behavior - possibly. We often compare according to our world view of any given situation. You are swimming against the known tide. That may prove to be a determining factor against you.

 

I think it may be a matter of women's attitudes and ideas and sexuality evolving, and men staying pretty much the same.

It has been said many times that women are the gatekeepers of sex. The more you evolve, the easier those gates are to open, then so to will mens attitudes change. Men for example, will no longer have to hold back, or hold back as much, their sexuality. There will be less shame, embarrassment and discomfort for having sex on the brain. And when this, or if this happens, then women will see a benefit from this too.

 

 

.

[on a learning curve]

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?

 

Woogle, you have referenced feminism a few times in this thread - is it your opinion that feminism (as an ideology) is a negative influence? I don't mean to go to far off point, but I am a bit curious if you feel that feminism may be the cause of womens lack of "traditional femininity" (if I am wrong on that assesment, please correct).

 

I mentioned upthread that I am a feminist. However, on the surface, I would appear to most to lead a very traditional life - I was married, have children...etc. I don't hate men nor do I wish to get back at men - I love men. I guess I get a bit defensive (not quite the right word) when feminism comes up because I don't feel it is properly understood - and that is unfortunate.

 

To get back on point...It's not that men are wrong for wanting a more traditional woman for a mate. Men and women alike are free to choose based on what they want, of course. What bothers me is the assumption that women who participate in FWB relationships are somehow damaged - not feminine, and simply victims of mens sexuality. I just don't buy it.

[A O]

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 was alluding to a time span; I wasn’t quoting the goings on in a particular timeframe and tying 21st century thinking to it. That can be fraught with danger according to people more knowledgeable than me in this area. Other than that, you’ve read the context, the timeframe for my comments

 

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

He represents nada to me culturally speaking.

 

Tiger Woods is a different case, because he was married, and he therefore cheated on his wife.

Tiger, he’s a big-time celeb whose sexual endeavors hardly went without recourse. Whether he’s married or not, sexual endeavors of the like he participated in will not ever get a free pass.

 

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.

There’s no one definitive definition of the term ‘player’ as far as I can tell. It can be a guy who’s deceitful; likewise it can be a guy who sleeps with a lot of women. Point is – do men who sleep around escape negative judgment – no. There is no two ways about that. Even more to the point – a man who gives the impression that that’s what he’s looking to do, that sex is primarily on his brain, that man will have a short shelf life in the eyes of most women. That man has been judged! And that is common occurrence and a likely outcome for any man who gives off this impression.

 

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.

Unfortunate but true. Unfortunate also that as many women as men will in all likelihood use the label. If it makes you feel better, putting the word ‘man’ in front of the term has become a fairly common occurrence when a man is upfront about his sexuality also.

 

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 got this from how most folk interpret the phrase – they see it as wanting a whore in the bedroom and a (prim n proper) lady outside of it. You yourself did not use the term in accordance with how you’re defining it now.

 

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.

When I see the term ‘eligible bachelor’ I think of a reasonably handsome fellow with a good job or decent job prospects or is well-to-do in some financial sense. In short I see it in more of a ‘provider’ context than a sexual one. It’s a throwback to the times when few women undertook paid employment. I fully expect to see female equivalent term spread far and wide should they choose to use it.

 

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.

Simple. In the course of a typical dating process, if a man doesn’t play his ‘sexual’ cards right, then his value lessens, sometimes evaporates altogether in the eyes of that woman. Come on too strong (sexually speaking) and he’s just miss-stepped, possibly blown the whole dance, get it right, and the dance continues.

 

 

.

[GooseChaser]

Its relative. You have less of everything relative to women who do not engaged in such activity. A similar dynamic befalls men when it comes to paying for dates. If he doesn't pay or doesn't pay to the satisfaction of some women, then he's seen as less of a man. His ability to provide or share has lessened in the eyes of the women where this dynamic is important to them.

If she dumps him because he wouldn't pay one time, maybe he dodged a bullet and is better off without her. They weren't compatible.

 

I question whether you are emotionally stable, at that point in time, if you wish to pursue this time of a relationship. Otherwise, you're not low-grade (unless you make a habit of it). Pathetically unnecessary term.

It depends on the person. Ideally, we would be emotionally stable, but that won't always be the case.

 

Plenty of women will start off with this mindset – is sex all he wants from me. A man looking for a full blown relationship has to prove himself to be above this. Has to build his value up from a very low start point in other words. A guy who comes on too strong, sexually speaking or a guy who really is only after sex and makes no bones about that will be kicked to the curb, in other words – looked down upon – by most women. You view runs counter to most men’s experiences to how most women operate.

If a woman gets into a FWB, she is acknowledging that they are both in it for sex alone. In a relationship, however, it benefits a woman to seek more. Most women will want a loving, caring person who she feels safe with to become so intimate with them. We all have to protect ourselves. Therefore, strength (physically and mentally) and the ability to make a woman feel safe are important attributes for a man. Of course, everyone is different and free to hold their own values and preferences. In return, women will bring their own strengths to the table as well!

 

In keeping with my general theme – men have never received a free pass for their sexual natures – and never will. The simple fact of the matter is that judging male sexuality is so ingrained in us that we fail to realize that we’ve even done it. Judging ‘mainstream’ female sexuality in a ‘negative’ sense, however, is still a relatively new concept that most people have yet to correctly get their head around.

I don't know the history of it, but that's an interesting thought. Weren't people just as uncomfortable viewing women as sexual beings during Victorian times? How about the puritans? I'm sure there are plenty of examples.

 

Because its a no-to-few-strings attached sexually based relationship and men are known more for wanting these type of set-ups than women.

Well, as people have proposed, maybe times are changing. The genders are becoming less divided as time goes on. I do agree with your statement though.

 

To be equal, to act in a manner precieved to be the same as men has consequences. As I've alluded to before, most men are used to these consequences, some women are usually dishing out these consequences. Few would have thought they they'd be on the end of them themselves. This topic is a microcosm of what's happening in the wider world. As more women assume the same roles and positions once held primarily by men, so to are then exposed consequences, both good and bad that these roles attract. Most women understood the good side, few were aware of the bad!

That's true!

 

Downgrade possibly. See you odds shorten compared to a proverbial sea of women who haven't engaged in such behavior - possibly. We often compare according to our world view of any given situation. You are swimming against the known tide. That may prove to be a determining factor against you.

Is it really swimming against the tide? You said yourself in the previous paragraph that women are starting to pick up these behaviors that were once dominated by men. (Well, wouldn't it be equal, though? Each FWB arrangement requires one man and one woman.) By that logic, wouldn't women waiting to have sex until after marriage be seen as the best? That's not how it works, though. Many men want the woman to be willing to have sex with them, but then judge them for their past experiences. Just because a woman has had one FWB doesn't mean that she is irresponsible or untrustworthy in her future relationships. She can still do that and be healthy and safe. Of course, if she decides to have casual sex with many people, especially multiple at the same time, that is cause for concern, and it is valid. Both men and women always have the right to choose and be picky if they desire.

 

It has been said many times that women are the gatekeepers of sex. The more you evolve, the easier those gates are to open, then so to will mens attitudes change. Men for example, will no longer have to hold back, or hold back as much, their sexuality. There will be less shame, embarrassment and discomfort for having sex on the brain. And when this, or if this happens, then women will see a benefit from this too.

That's true too! I agree! Edited October 29, 2010 by GooseChaser

[Woggle]

Woogle, you have referenced feminism a few times in this thread - is it your opinion that feminism (as an ideology) is a negative influence? I don't mean to go to far off point, but I am a bit curious if you feel that feminism may be the cause of womens lack of "traditional femininity" (if I am wrong on that assesment, please correct).

 

I mentioned upthread that I am a feminist. However, on the surface, I would appear to most to lead a very traditional life - I was married, have children...etc. I don't hate men nor do I wish to get back at men - I love men. I guess I get a bit defensive (not quite the right word) when feminism comes up because I don't feel it is properly understood - and that is unfortunate.

 

To get back on point...It's not that men are wrong for wanting a more traditional woman for a mate. Men and women alike are free to choose based on what they want, of course. What bothers me is the assumption that women who participate in FWB relationships are somehow damaged - not feminine, and simply victims of mens sexuality. I just don't buy it.

 

 

The dictionary definition of feminism is a very positive but the modern mutant version is a negative thing that has pitted men and women againt each other. It has made women feel that traditional femininity somehow makes them a sellout or a doormat.

 

I don't feel that women who frequently engage in FWB relationships are the victims of men but many of them have a gender war attitude towards sex which in many ways brings nothing but drama.

[Woggle]

Also I would guess that George Clooney has more of a female fan base than a male fanbase. I wouldn't boycott a movie he made if it was good but he is not one of my favorite actors. He is certainly not up there with the greats.

[GooseChaser]

The dictionary definition of feminism is a very positive but the modern mutant version is a negative thing that has pitted men and women againt each other. It has made women feel that traditional femininity somehow makes them a sellout or a doormat.

 

I don't feel that women who frequently engage in FWB relationships are the victims of men but many of them have a gender war attitude towards sex which in many ways brings nothing but drama.

I had a FWB because it was a good friend of mine who I trusted, so I felt safe enough with him to do that. I was not a victim. I even went to the police and told them so, in fear that my parents would go to the police and claim that I had been victimized. (They had talked about it at home to me, and of course I strongly disagreed.) It was totally consensual. Neither of us was seeking to continue a gender war or create drama. We just took it as a learning experience and experimented together. I think it brought us closer. Now that it is over, I do not regret it, there is still respect and trust between us, and we remain good friends. Let me assure you, my current boyfriend sees me as highly valuable. I am in no way "low-grade".

 

As for traditional femininity, I do not shy away from it at all. I am quite feminine, actually, if I do say so myself. I am planning to make a nice gift basket for my new boyfriend, and plan to treat him well. I will also expect him to treat me well. All I ask of him is respect and love. He can express it however he wants. He doesn't have to carry heavy objects for me. He doesn't have to pay for me if he doesn't want to. The thing is, often they want to of their own accord. It makes them feel positive, because they want to take care of their girl and make her happy. I look forward to marrying the one I love someday, having children if he so desires (very likely), and raising them. I am not afraid of my role as a woman. I also hope to have a great career of my own and help earn income for our family. I am working towards that by going to college and earning my bachelor's degree, possibly going on to a graduate school, and in the meantime spending quality time with my boyfriend and growing closer. I look forward to the future and know I will find success.

[on a learning curve]

In keeping with my general theme – men have never received a free pass for their sexual natures – and never will. The simple fact of the matter is that judging male sexuality is so ingrained in us that we fail to realize that we’ve even done it. Judging ‘mainstream’ female sexuality in a ‘negative’ sense, however, is still a relatively new concept that most people have yet to correctly get their head around.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this post. Curious as to how you have come to such conclusions.

 

How is judging male sexuality ingrained in us? And, how is that relevant to a discussion about FWB anyway, given that the nature of the relationship is understood?

 

And how is the modernist tendancy to negatively judge female sexuality a new concept (not sure women have made much headway with a postmodernist view, but it's a work in progress ).

[on a learning curve]

The dictionary definition of feminism is a very positive but the modern mutant version is a negative thing that has pitted men and women againt each other. It has made women feel that traditional femininity somehow makes them a sellout or a doormat.

 

I don't feel that women who frequently engage in FWB relationships are the victims of men but many of them have a gender war attitude towards sex which in many ways brings nothing but drama.

 

I don't know, Woggle. What do you mean by a "gender war attitude" towards sex (if you don't mind).

[welikeincrowds]

He represents nada to me culturally speaking.

 

What you happen to think about him is not important. I cannot for the life of me understand what you mean by "culturally speaking" when you're simply discussing your opinion. I personally don't care about George Clooney either, but that doesn't take away from his status as cultural icon. Stay on topic.

 

Tiger, he’s a big-time celeb whose sexual endeavors hardly went without recourse. Whether he’s married or not, sexual endeavors of the like he participated in will not ever get a free pass.

I have no idea what you're talking about. How many athletes, musicians, actors have their own harem of groupies that nobody cares about? Tiger Woods had a scandal because he was cheating on his wife with tons of women. I cannot believe you just ignored that detail like it was nothing. If you really think the infidelity was irrelevant, come up with another male celebrity who was targeted by the media for having sex with multiple women, but where no cheating was involved. This should be easy for you, considering how widespread you claim the critique of male sexuality to be in our culture.

 

That man has been judged!

There is a difference between "I would like to subjectively judge this person as to whether or not I personally would like to have sex with him or her" and "This woman is objectively a slut, because she has a FWB." I'm not even going to go into how "player" is a far more positively-spun term for men. I'm sure you can come with an edge case for an unfavorable man, but this is all beside the point. Men who have multiple partners are far less likely to be seen as unfavorable than women are. You can refer to my examples for evidence of this, and engender your own thought experiment to follow along, but you refuse to do so, for reasons you refuse to share.

 

 

I got this from how most folk interpret the phrase – they see it as wanting a whore in the bedroom and a (prim n proper) lady outside of it.

No, you don't understand. It's a specific terminology in feminist rhetoric. Look it up. "Madonna/Whore". I already tried explaining it to you, but it didn't seem to get through.

 

When I see the term ‘eligible bachelor’ I think of a reasonably handsome fellow with a good job or decent job prospects or is well-to-do in some financial sense. In short I see it in more of a ‘provider’ context than a sexual one. It’s a throwback to the times when few women undertook paid employment. I fully expect to see female equivalent term spread far and wide should they choose to use it.

And the number of sex partners? Can you identify for me a cultural equivalent of the male example I have given in George Clooney, for whom a large number of sex partners is seen as expected and even attractive?

 

You don't seem to be reading what I'm writing. Instead, you are stubbornly repeating your own ideas, with no evidence and no coherent response to my challenges. If you want to talk about what everyone does, be ready to show examples of everyone doing it. So far you have shown nothing.

[Woggle]

I don't know, Woggle. What do you mean by a "gender war attitude" towards sex (if you don't mind).

 

They want to beat men at their and view it as reclaiming their sexuality from the patriarchy.

[on a learning curve]

They want to beat men at their and view it as reclaiming their sexuality from the patriarchy.

 

I think that what (most) feminists want is a dismantling of the patriarchy - build something that is mutally beneficial to men and women.

[sanskrit]

I don't know, Woggle. What do you mean by a "gender war attitude" towards sex (if you don't mind).

 

No one will have a gripe with "equity" feminism. The problem is with the use of "gender" feminism as a political tool over the last 40 years. Political interests learned in the 60s that creating a "victim" culture among women and children by vilifying men and encouraging women to act out against "bad men" in the voting booth and in day to day living reaps massive political capital. Most of modern feminism is lies told to solidify a female voting bloc.

 

An example of the true nature of what is disguised as "feminism"... Hillary Clinton, one of the shadiest people to ever enter politics, is given a complete free pass for her past, and considered a wise and effective statesman, despite tons of potential material to lambaste her with, it is ignored. Sarah Palin, a relatively "clean" politician (if there is such a thing), on the "wrong" side of the aisle, is roasted for every tiny detail of her life, especially by feminists. If modern feminism were anything other than a political tool, such would not be the case.

 

If one can be convinced that one is a victim, any kind of bad behavior, such as wanton promiscuity, for which men are judged just as harshly today, is gainsaid under the guise of "empowerment."

[sanskrit]

I think that what (most) feminists want is a dismantling of the patriarchy - build something that is mutally beneficial to men and women.

 

There never was a "patriarchy," just a political fiction. Life was pretty mediocre, if not lousy, for all but the top 1% of nobility, which included equal numbers of women, up until very historically recently. 99% of the people on the planet, regardless of gender, were "oppressed" in one way or another for 99% of human history. Oppression is not the franchise of any race or gender, all of our ancestors felt it.

 

What there was, in a world of high infant-mother mortality, was a need to protect the reproductive capacity. That's why men died in wars and in miserable labor while women worked, near equally miserably, in the home. My great granmother had 9 children. Three survived and she was permanently physically damaged in childbirth.

 

Modern feminism hates it when historical fact interferes with a conjured up alternative history.

[on a learning curve]

No one will have a gripe with "equity" feminism. The problem is with the use of "gender" feminism as a political tool over the last 40 years. Political interests learned in the 60s that creating a "victim" culture among women and children by vilifying men and encouraging women to act out against "bad men" in the voting booth and in day to day living reaps massive political capital. Most of modern feminism is lies told to solidify a female voting bloc.

 

An example of the true nature of what is disguised as "feminism"... Hillary Clinton, one of the shadiest people to ever enter politics, is given a complete free pass for her past, and considered a wise and effective statesman, despite tons of potential material to lambaste her with, it is ignored. Sarah Palin, a relatively "clean" politician (if there is such a thing), on the "wrong" side of the aisle, is roasted for every tiny detail of her life, especially by feminists. If modern feminism were anything other than a political tool, such would not be the case.

 

If one can be convinced that one is a victim, any kind of bad behavior, such as wanton promiscuity, for which men are judged just as harshly today, is gainsaid under the guise of "empowerment."

 

I hardly think that is a fair comparison - ambitious women on either side of the political game will always garner suspicion.

 

Men are certainly not judged as harshly for promiscious behaviour - I challenge you to prove that assertion.

[Woggle]

It's not just promiscious behavior. Outright murder is excused by feminism.

[on a learning curve]

There never was a "patriarchy," just a political fiction. Life was pretty mediocre, if not lousy, for all but the top 1% of nobility, which included equal numbers of women, up until very historically recently. 99% of the people on the planet, regardless of gender, were "oppressed" in one way or another for 99% of human history. Oppression is not the franchise of any race or gender, all of our ancestors felt it.

 

What there was, in a world of high infant-mother mortality, was a need to protect the reproductive capacity. That's why men died in wars and in miserable labor while women worked, near equally miserably, in the home. My great granmother had 9 children. Three survived and she was permanently physically damaged in childbirth.

 

Modern feminism hates it when historical fact interferes with a conjured up alternative history.

 

And, you cannot re-write history to met your current need to argue.

[on a learning curve]

It's not just promiscious behavior. Outright murder is excused by feminism.

 

Not sure what you mean, but that is not the subject of this thread, so I apologize for bringing feminism into the overall discussion.

[sanskrit]

I hardly think that is a fair comparison - ambitious women on either side of the political game will always garner suspicion.

 

Sorry, it's a plain fact. Palin is crucified for things like wardrobe expense and what have you while Clinton had lots of very shady doing back in Arkansas in the Rose Law Firm. BTW, I don't like either political party, so the example doesn't spring from any partisan interest on my part.

 

Men are certainly not judged as harshly for promiscious behaviour - I challenge you to prove that assertion.

 

Spare the "challenges" please. Where I'm from, men get a bad reputation for flagrantly sleeping around with easy, low quality women. Women in my circle go "Ewww!" at such. The point is that women can have sex casually with no judgment at all provided they are discreet, just like men. A different issue arises when they use euphemisms such as "FWB" or "F-buddys" to euphemize a randomly promiscuous sex life. Stating again, lots of posters in this thread want to couch this as "just something casual between relationships."

 

That's fine, but a straw man. The reality of what the terms usually really signify in practice is quite a different matter. That the terms even exist at all, and that men rarely use them, says fairly plainly that the women using such terms would generally be ashamed of their impulsivity and lack of self-control were it not for the "FWB/F-buddy get out of jail free cards" to "empower" away their compulsive promiscuity.

[sanskrit]

And, you cannot re-write history...

 

I don't have to, facts are facts

[Woggle]

Men certainly get as much flack as women. If Tiger Woods was a woman I honestly a good portion of women would support him and cheer him on for turning the tables.

[on a learning curve]

Sorry, it's a plain fact. Palin is crucified for things like wardrobe expense and what have you while Clinton had lots of very shady doing back in Arkansas in the Rose Law Firm. BTW, I don't like either political party, so the example doesn't spring from any partisan interest on my part.

 

 

 

Spare the "challenges" please. Where I'm from, men get a bad reputation for flagrantly sleeping around with easy, low quality women. Women in my circle go "Ewww!" at such. The point is that women can have sex casually with no judgment at all provided they are discreet, just like men. A different issue arises when they use euphemisms such as "FWB" or "F-buddys" to euphemize a randomly promiscuous sex life. Stating again, lots of posters in this thread want to couch this as "just something casual between relationships."

 

That's fine, but a straw man. The reality of what the terms usually really signify in practice is quite a different matter. That the terms even exist at all, and that men rarely use them, says fairly plainly that the women using such terms would generally be ashamed of their impulsivity and lack of self-control were it not for the "FWB/F-buddy get out of jail free cards" to "empower" away their compulsive promiscuity.

 

Again, to compare the two women is ridiculous. Palin is criticized for ridiculous things because she is ridiculous. Clinton has experience and has taken her lumps with grace. Are you suggesting that she be treated differently than her male-counterparts?

 

"Where you're from" is not evidence of anything. So what if women have adopted a euphemism for describing a relationship that suits their particular needs. It doesn't speak to shame, but creativity.