Once a slut, always a slut?

[rafallus]

Meh, guys who use double standard probably secretly want to sleep with those girls, they are just pissed off those girls aren't giving them the time of the day, so they keep calling them names.

[donnamaybe]

Meh, guys who use double standard probably secretly want to sleep with those girls, they are just pissed off those girls aren't giving them the time of the day, so they keep calling them names.

Yep. All these wanton women scurrying about screwing all these men. Oh, wait. But men can NEVER get laid! Just who ARE these sluts screwing anyway?

[Blood]

I expect like in the fruit fly study the distribution of sexual partners for males vary widely while for females it is more concentrated.

[Sanman]

Yep. All these wanton women scurrying about screwing all these men. Oh, wait. But men can NEVER get laid! Just who ARE these sluts screwing anyway?

 

 

Jesse James and Tiger Woods apparently

[samspade]

The most important thing to keep in mind - for men, anyway - is that a woman who wants to have sex with you will find a way to have sex with you. Negotiating for or waiting for sex (past an acceptable amount of time to build sexual tension and rapport) is a waste of time and the sex will never, ever be worth it. It doesn't matter if the woman was "easy" in the past or a nun - if she is withholding sex past a point that's acceptable to you, you move on to the next woman. When a woman negotiates sex or uses it as a bargaining chip, she's degrading the process and wasting your time, not to mention showing you her true colors. Don't throw a tantrum or get angry about it - just walk away.

[Blood]

I will start off and say I agree with the notion that it is her body and she has the right to decide what to do with it, but as a man who was in this situation, albeit briefly, I will explain my view.

 

My ex was very promiscuousness, 10 guys in less then 2 years. Most were FWBs, and only 1 was an actual relationship. She admitted to it.

 

When we were dating, in he second month she asked to take a brake from sex, she wanted to see if she loved me for me, or if she simply loved for my large penis. Her words.

 

I agreed, because i wanted her to love me for who I was, for my mind and personality.

 

But after a month of no sex, I was growing frustrated, I never told her I was frustrated, but I think she may have known.

 

I was upset because I was the first man she ever did this with, everyone else she put out instantly. She even slept with me on the first date, and to tis day, she has a reputation as being one of the easiest women on campus.

 

So for me to be denied sex was frustrating towards the end, because she was so willing to give it up to anything with a penis, but stopped with me, I felt like I was being used slightly because I still took her out and stuff.

 

ANy man would feel that way over time. My head and my heart said she was doing it to see if she loved me, my hormones said I was being used and it wanted sex.

 

See the problem?

A romantic relationship is a sexual union. Without the sex there is no longer a union and the relationship is fictitious. By the time physical intimacy is lost, other forms of intimacy have withered away making it a relationship in name alone.

[Mangomonkey]

i had to make a comment on women have an easier time getting laid then guys.

 

That is true for PRETTY women but not so much for unattractive women. same for guys. they can get laid but its all about lowering their standards.

 

And lets face it. to the people who said its bad for men to be sluts to. you guys are full of yourselves. I remember a thread on virgin men and how they are looked down on. Some of the posters here gave other people some major insecurities on their lack of experience.

 

So. Men + slutty = good

men - slutty = bad

women - slutty = good

women + slutty = good

 

by my math. its all good girls. its all good.

[Blood]

Women no matter their attractiveness have more options.

 

Women don't consider physical attractiveness when picking mates. More often they pick the opposite so ugly guys don't need to lower anything. Wallflowers will have trouble though.

[Blood]

With chubby chasers lurking about fat women still have it easy.

[betterdeal]

Even more misleading when you consider that it seems the results come from simply compiling data from old paternity tests (ie tests not specifically taken for the purpose of the study). therefore you would have to assume this is 1/25 from a test group comprised mostly of people who already have suspicions about the legitimacy of their children. so basically the test is jsut telling you that if you THINK you child might not be yours for whatever reason then YOU have a 4% chance of being right.

 

You're missing the point, i.e. that men don't want to settle down with a women who is or has recently been having sex with multiple men in short succession, because they do not want to unknowingly raise someone else's child.

 

It is optimal to some women to have a caring, dependable guy at home and be getting her sperm from a hunk elsewhere. Best of both worlds. It is also optimal for the hunk too. The caring, dependable guy is losing out, unless he wishes to be a cuckold, which most caring, dependable guys do not.

 

Hence men will tend to avoid emotional bonding with a woman who is in a sexually gregarious stage in her life. Those of us who do not most often end up with deep psychological wounds.

[rafallus]

Yep. All these wanton women scurrying about screwing all these men. Oh, wait. But men can NEVER get laid! Just who ARE these sluts screwing anyway?

 

Who said so?

[Mme. Chaucer]

Just in case anyone is listening, I know of quite a few women who were extremely "free" sexually at a point in their lives (forgive me if I don't use the words "slut," "Slatternly," "ho-bag," etc; I find them offensive) and who, for any number of reasons, changed their behavior in that area.

 

I also know guys (plenty), once very into "sowing the wild oats" who came to a place in life where they were ready to choose monogamy, and did so successfully.

 

Don't you?

 

Personally, though, I'm always a ... that which shall remain nameless.

[sally4sara]

A bit of a specious comparison methinks. That is a lesson most learn as a child without a fully formed frontal lobe. Most people don't need to do this for every aspect of their lives. I could also assume that an ex-heroin addict has learned his/her lesson. Yet, facts show that such a person is more likely to use than someone who has never tried heroin and I would not want to chance it if I had other options. Besides, how many men does a woman really need to sleep with to learn that lesson? It took one session with the candy. Perhaps 2-4 men? Not 10 or 15 or 20.

 

I'd eaten candy, good amounts of candy, many times before having a bad experience with eating a lot of candy. Logic would have it that not all women get burned right out of the gate to learn to be more discerning when choosing who to have sex with. So lets not be coy; sex can be fun and pleasurable. Someone new to it could easily believe more sex equals more fun and pleasure. Until that person has a negative experience, why would they need to reexamine that belief?

You're saying the only way to avoid being seen as a slut, a woman needs to pick the worst douche she can find and learn that lesson ASAP. Super! You place more value on the girl who picks the poorest rather than one that picked better options and didn't have to learn that tough lesson till someone real sneaky taught it too her.

OR you're saying women should just not seek fun and pleasure because *something* bad MIGHT happen.

 

P.S. Husband WAS a heroin addict till 17 years ago. One of his friends ODed. Fun thing brought negative result causing him to reexamine what he thought was fun. He hasn't used since changing his mind on what is fun.

[Blood]

Just in case anyone is listening, I know of quite a few women who were extremely "free" sexually at a point in their lives (forgive me if I don't use the words "slut," "Slatternly," "ho-bag," etc; I find them offensive) and who, for any number of reasons, changed their behavior in that area.

 

I also know guys (plenty), once very into "sowing the wild oats" who came to a place in life where they were ready to choose monogamy, and did so successfully.

 

Don't you?

 

Personally, though, I'm always a ... that which shall remain nameless.

A guise by any other name would smell just as sweet.

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

You're saying the only way to avoid being seen as a slut, a woman needs to pick the worst douche she can find and learn that lesson ASAP. Super! You place more value on the girl who picks the poorest rather than one that picked better options and didn't have to learn that tough lesson till someone real sneaky taught it too her.

OR you're saying women should just not seek fun and pleasure because *something* bad MIGHT happen.

 

I have just skimmed this whole thread, so maybe I'm missing something important ... but why are we talking so much about "learning a lesson" and "something BAD happening"?

 

What if the women just liked having sex, did not attach a huge emotional or social meaning to having sex for fun and pleasure (you know, like they do in less Puritanical cultures than we have in America - like Sweden), and then later decided that she'd had plenty of that and was ready for a change of approach to her sexuality?

 

Human beings are capable of making such decisions and living by them. Really.

[sally4sara]

I have just skimmed this whole thread, so maybe I'm missing something important ... but why are we talking so much about "learning a lesson" and "something BAD happening"?

 

What if the women just liked having sex, did not attach a huge emotional or social meaning to having sex for fun and pleasure (you know, like they do in less Puritanical cultures than we have in America - like Sweden), and then later decided that she'd had plenty of that and was ready for a change of approach to her sexuality?

 

Human beings are capable of making such decisions and living by them. Really.

 

I'm talking about the concern for someone being impulsive and that promiscuity can be a sign of being impulsive or poor decision making. This would lead me to believe someone would not want to be with an impulsive person because their impulsive behavior brings about more instances of a negative result they wish to not be involved in second hand. I am suggesting to those of that school of thought that if nothing bad happens, why would they ever think to limit themselves?

[Blood]

I have just skimmed this whole thread, so maybe I'm missing something important ... but why are we talking so much about "learning a lesson" and "something BAD happening"?

 

What if the women just liked having sex, did not attach a huge emotional or social meaning to having sex for fun and pleasure (you know, like they do in less Puritanical cultures than we have in America - like Sweden), and then later decided that she'd had plenty of that and was ready for a change of approach to her sexuality?

 

Human beings are capable of making such decisions and living by them. Really.

Kinsey tried to do that by creating a sexual Utopian community but it failed. People can't separate the emotional and the physical.

[Sanman]

I'd eaten candy, good amounts of candy, many times before having a bad experience with eating a lot of candy. Logic would have it that not all women get burned right out of the gate to learn to be more discerning when choosing who to have sex with. So lets not be coy; sex can be fun and pleasurable. Someone new to it could easily believe more sex equals more fun and pleasure. Until that person has a negative experience, why would they need to reexamine that belief?

You're saying the only way to avoid being seen as a slut, a woman needs to pick the worst douche she can find and learn that lesson ASAP. Super! You place more value on the girl who picks the poorest rather than one that picked better options and didn't have to learn that tough lesson till someone real sneaky taught it too her.

OR you're saying women should just not seek fun and pleasure because *something* bad MIGHT happen.

 

P.S. Husband WAS a heroin addict till 17 years ago. One of his friends ODed. Fun thing brought negative result causing him to reexamine what he thought was fun. He hasn't used since changing his mind on what is fun.

 

 

First of all, men (or women) are not single use items. You can have plenty of sex the same person. Even different kinds of sex. We all limit our behavior based on what MIGHT happen. If we had to learn every lesson the hard way, life would be a lot more painful. So you would be alright with your child using heroin and being promiscuous, since it is alright until something bad happens? I mean your child never saw anyone OD from heroin and we all have to try things and learn, right? I never said that she needed to pick the worst douche ASAP. Believe it or not, I have met women who did not date gigantic a-holes and still managed to realize that quickly jumping in bed with people they barely know usually isn't the greatest idea. I never said people don't EVER change or that people with always go back to their old ways. However, we all take a risk on a relationship and try to make the best choice possible. I find that particular history to be a poor bet.

[sally4sara]

First of all, men (or women) are not single use items. You can have plenty of sex the same person. Even different kinds of sex. We all limit our behavior based on what MIGHT happen. If we had to learn every lesson the hard way, life would be a lot more painful. So you would be alright with your child using heroin and being promiscuous, since it is alright until something bad happens? I mean your child never saw anyone OD from heroin and we all have to try things and learn, right? I never said that she needed to pick the worst douche ASAP. Believe it or not, I have met women who did not date gigantic a-holes and still managed to realize that quickly jumping in bed with people they barely know usually isn't the greatest idea. I never said people don't EVER change or that people with always go back to their old ways. However, we all take a risk on a relationship and try to make the best choice possible. I find that particular history to be a poor bet.

 

I tried many different kinds of candy in my candy eating history and I'm glad I did. Otherwise I wouldn't have discovered my favorite candy; Toffeefay. I could choose to never eat anything but my favorite or I could choose to still sample others. There is nothing wrong with someone deciding not to eat candy with me because they only want to eat Snickers and I don't. But if they also ascribed a whole bunch of other, unfounded characteristics to apply and judge me by simply because I didn't do as they did even if one day I choose to begin to do what they did, well - they're a c**t and I'm glad they won't date me.

 

If my son is of legal age happy and makes workable, his promiscuity or drug taking I don't have a problem with it. His life doesn't belong to me. Some people can take a substance once in a blue moon and be fine. Sex can actually be good for you and the lack of it can be bad for you.

[betterdeal]

Sex can actually be good for you and the lack of it can be bad for you.

 

Just like sh*t, which seems to be another touchy subject in the Anglo-phonic world.

[Blood]

I have never known semen or vaginal secretions to be the elixir of life. I'm sure you'll be fine without sex.

[pureinheart]

Yep. All these wanton women scurrying about screwing all these men. Oh, wait.But men can NEVER get laid! Just who ARE these sluts screwing anyway?

 

Oh, they (sluts) are mostlikely screwing men with halos above their heads calling the women they screw (a different woman every other day) "sluts" to make themselves feel better.

 

Double standard ya think:rolleyes:

[stepka]

For some, not all, and addressing your post to all men is sexist.

I'm not addressing my thread to all men. I'm addressing it to the men that I quoted as well as those who agree with them as well as anyone else who would like to chime in. I don't need everyone to agree with me but I'd like a discussion on this and I think I got one.

 

It's plainly obvious that someone who admits to some combo of TEN different FWBs at any given time over a two year period pretty much has a mattress strapped to her back, and is sleeping around lots. Your quote above makes it seem somewhat that she only had sex ten times , and that's not at all what CG's post conveyed.

 

No, I'm not that innocent. I assumed that some were ONS, and some were FWB and one or two may have been relationships that failed to launch.

 

Anyway enough about that.

 

The answer is simple, and the scenario you premise on is not how things actually play out for men who arrive at a sceptical stance on this topic. The way it plays out is that men, as we gain experience with women, are eventually fooled by at least one woman (and if you are old like me, many women over decades) who represents herself as one way with us, while she is -simultaneously- another way with other men. You find out that the girl you just took out on a second date and got a demure kiss from slept with three guys you know last week, maybe even one the night before your date. While that same girl has portrayed herself to you as sexually conservative and seeking monogamy.

 

It's not some "life stage" that she did last year or ten years ago, as it is so often conveniently rationalized, we learn this harsh lesson while she is doing it. And if she -was- capable of that behavior then, she -is- still. There are women who are governed by rational thought... some... and there are others who are governed strictly by emotions and stay that way their entire lives. Those latter ones don't change... ever, and they are the ones who tend towards promiscuity due to whatever reasons. The best predictor of future individual behavior is past behavior.

 

She purposefully deceives the relationship -prospect- as to her character and attitudes while doing as she likes with the -non-prospects- whom she rightly figures aren't going to take her out, be nice to her, do things for her, and maybe most importantly don't represent emotional threat to her, but are still fun and supplies of attention, if only sexual. This -duplicity- is what pisses guys off, "Why am I, the good one, being penalized for my good behavior while others are -simultaneously- being rewarded for their nonchalant or even bad behavior? and moreover, what a conniving, self-serving bitch this one is!" Why should I court -this- "precious flower" when she's giving away the store for free... right now this minute?

 

And as you get even more experience, you end up in the other role (and if you are old like me, with many women), the guy getting a quick NSA BJ from a girl who mentions she has a date as she casually walks out the door WITH YOUR SEMEN IN HER MOUTH. Or it could play out that the -prospect- takes her out, feeds her a nice sexy meal, gets her buzzed, and because she wants to preserve some illusion with him, she calls ME over to sex her after and may even give details about her date!!:sick:

 

After a few cycles of this, or many, over decades, can you blame us for becoming somewhat immune to the "mystery of romance?" Somewhat judgmental about a woman's slatternly past, inured to women's pleas that their past shouldn't matter and that they have the right to change their character back and forth like a chameleon as their emotions dictate? Of course you have the right to do that, and we have the right to get you the F OUT!

 

We AREN'T STUPID. We do learn eventually. We know that if you are doing it -with- us, you are equally capable of doing it -to- us. It may take us 15-20 years to figure this out, but most of us other than the most abject chumps, DO figure it out eventually.

 

We know the score, and get used to it. It gets us laid more. Women in today's culture do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it, governed nearly entirely by emotions, with no accountability or moral compass whatsoever, and then backwards rationalize into "being a good person" despite that their character is entirely inconsistent, their treatment of the male "pawns" in their lives despicable and duplicitous, and their self-image merely a "puff-piece" of empty rationalizations.

 

We know the score, and if those to whom the above rant applies would just OWN UP, own it instead of the constant lies and deceit, we would come much closer to accepting you, mattress back and all.

 

I feel the anger bristling off you sanskrit and it sounds like much of it is justified. I know there are crazy women in this world who use men and spit them out just as there are men who do the same with women. However there are plenty of nice women in this world who don't do that and even plenty of nice women who are going thru an "easy" phase in their lives who wouldn't do that. (And you're talking to the woman who was fooled into being married to a gay man for over 2 decades.)

 

Here's the thing though--suppose you get a date with a girl who's been on a roll for a couple of years--slept with 10 guys, some of whom she regretted and some that she didn't. She starts thinking that maybe this isn't the way she wants to live the rest of her life--that if she keeps it up she might get some kind of STD despite precautions--that the kind of man that she wants to end up with wouldn't deal well with knowing she's been sleeping around. Then she has a date with someone she really likes. Maybe he knows of her past--he saw her getting wild at the wet t-shirt party last year and he's sure getting some is a done deal. She's trying to reform or at least she doesn't want him to think that she's "that kind of girl" so she slows things down, but he's confused--didn't she boink his frat brother on the first date last month and now she's saying no to him? Maybe she's not into him, but maybe she really is. After all, she doesn't care what you think of her sluttiness if she's not into you. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's actually a compliment, unless she's one of those crazy women who leaves a lot of broken hearts behind her and uses men to buy her expensive engagement rings. Of course I'm aware that those women are out there, but don't be thinking that men are a piece of cake that way either.

 

And yes, women can get laid a lot easier than most men can, but that doesn't mean that it's guaranteed--I know plenty of women who would like to but just can't--yeah maybe she can pick up a drunk but we're no more likely to do that than you are--it's too much like scraping the bottom of the barrel and we need him to be able to perform if we get that desperate, lol.

 

The issue is whether or not they actually turn over a new leaf, or are putting the nice guy on the backburner (while pretending he's on the front burner), all the while sleeping with bad boys.

 

That's the issue.

Yes it is, and I'm talking about the gals who are honestly trying to turn over a new leaf. Personally I think the best way to do that would be to not date at all until she can get her head together, but it doesn't always work out that way. And no, I don't agree that all women have it in them to be sluts any more than I believe that all men would be players if they could. Some people seem to have a built in monogamy gene and as I get older mine gets stronger also--I've had my fun in life but no longer desire casual sex or FWB--I'll wait for the real thing--and it's not due to lack of temptation anymore either. The cute 30ish interpreter was eyeing me up and down today and I thought about it--and left it at that.

 

My other point was that many perfectly normal women go through a phase of being somewhat less than discriminating--more women than you might think, and most of them grow out of it because it's not working for them and they grow to realize that they can't do sex like a man--there are too many emotions involved for most of us and we can't separate the two, though we may try. Some women can do sex like a man and more power to them and I'll be the last one to call them a slut.

[Sanman]

I tried many different kinds of candy in my candy eating history and I'm glad I did. Otherwise I wouldn't have discovered my favorite candy; Toffeefay. I could choose to never eat anything but my favorite or I could choose to still sample others. There is nothing wrong with someone deciding not to eat candy with me because they only want to eat Snickers and I don't. But if they also ascribed a whole bunch of other, unfounded characteristics to apply and judge me by simply because I didn't do as they did even if one day I choose to begin to do what they did, well - they're a c**t and I'm glad they won't date me.

 

If my son is of legal age happy and makes workable, his promiscuity or drug taking I don't have a problem with it. His life doesn't belong to me. Some people can take a substance once in a blue moon and be fine. Sex can actually be good for you and the lack of it can be bad for you.

 

 

Wow, you would let your son be a functional heroin addict. We clearly have different values. Sex can be good for you. Since when is sex the same thing as promiscuity (which increases likelihood of STDs and can be bad for you)? I am hardly a prude, but there is a reason these are referred to as high-risk behaviors.

 

If you want to play anecdotes I have one for you. I dated an impulsive bi-girl not too long ago. A lot of ONS in her past (15) and her family has all cheated on each other. Her longest relationship was with her bff/ex-gf who had a similar history until current relationship of 2yrs, so this girl thought she could do so as well. Months after we broke up I looked at my old contacts on OKC and recognized a pic. It turns out the wonderful, monogamous bff had contacted me and given me her phone number (and a fake name) 6 mths before I met my girl (or over a year into her wonderful relationship). I can also tell you about the co-worker who was bored and unhappy in her marriage and propositioned me in my office one day.

 

If you prefer heroin sob stories, I have many as I work with heroin addicts.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Oh we figure this one out after dating 8 women in a row who have been with exactly "3" men in their entire lives. We just chalk it up as another self-serving lie in the big agenda summarized as "I have the right to do whatever I want, whenever I want, without accountability as it suits me, even if that involves misrepresenting who I am, and if anyone says otherwise, they are just part of an oppressive patriarchy that has been holding women down for centuries."

 

To whom are women supposed to be "accountable" with regards to their own sex lives? I mean, outside of a person with whom they're in committed relationship where the people agree that each are accountable to the other for their sexuality? And why is this worthy of your omnipresent smilies?

 

The ones who navigate emotionally, the majority of women, never grow out of it, never even make it to this conclusion, they just continue self-medicating the pain caused by living a lie until they cultivate a full blown personality disorder or trap Prince Charming and make his life much less charming.

 

Really? So "the majority of women," because they (we) "navigate emotionally," "never grow out of it" (being "sluts"?!?!?!) "self medicate," "cultivate a full blown personality disorder," and "trap" some find fellow and ruin his life?

 

Sanskrit. You really seem to hold and espouse horribly ignorant, insulting, hateful stereotypes of women.