Once a slut, always a slut?

[Woggle]

I want to ask the women here how they would judge whether a woman is good relationship material or not if they were a man. How are men allowed to protect ourselves.

[betterdeal]

Nordic has the right idea, he/she is just expressing it with vulgar language, as we all tend to sometimes do.

 

Most men have a ton of pride, myself included. With pride comes reputation. So when you've got a rep to uphold, it doesn't fair well to be emotionally involved with a recently retired slut, or a present day slut. Why? Because many men have had her without having to commit or put in any kind of effort. Men talk. You slowly become kind of a joke to the public, basically THAT guy. The one who's in love with a whore. Plus there's just an audacious factor to it. You slept with HOW many men for nothing...and I had to jump through all of those hoops? Lol.

 

Personally speaking here, but there's too many risks on the table when dealing with a slut. So my natural response is to tell her I'm not looking for anything serious, have NSA sex with her (if I'm horny enough) and go about my business, seeking out a woman with less baggage than a slut would have. That's it in a nutshell. Nothing wrong with a slut morally, she's just a slut with a TON of baggage. Baggage that I'll sit down and question to myself in privacy, then ask "Why would you SETTLE for all this baggage with a slut when you could have another woman who isn't a slut?" And that is the question that puts the nails in her coffin of a possible relationship with me.

 

Except he's not saying that, common parlance or no. He's saying he wants a wife and to sleep around behind her back, and for her not to do the same. Furthermore, he's saying this is some sort of immutable law of the Universe, rather like the law of gravity.

 

Someone who is indiscriminate in their sexual activity, male or female, does tend to be pretty unstable generally, and avoiding any serious emotional connection with such a person as anything other than being a caregiver for them (e.g. professionally), is quite a sensible safety first attitude to have.

 

Recent or active indiscriminate sexual activity is a sign that as much as this person may genuinely want a serious, dependable relationship, they are almost certainly not suitable for it, yet.

 

That's a pretty narrow (but significant) portion of women who are described as "sluts" in the States, or "womanisers" as their male counterpart.

[stepka]

drop the labels along with child support and alimony and you got a deal.

 

the problem is the woman any time she chooses can simply decide to leave and continue to take about a quarter to a third of the average middle class man's salary with him while she 'plays'.

 

unless he's earning far more than the average middle class person and thus isn't daunted by the child support/alimony, he's probably scared to death of that exact thing.

 

So by your logic, my homosexual husband should be able to use me as a breeder to beget his children and then walk away scott free? I know what you'll say next--that it's only if the woman applies for the divorce. Well this woman did apply for and pay for the divorce b/c Mr. Brokeback Bastard didn't really care if he got divorced or not. He was willing to stay married and even live with me if only I'd be willing to put up with him going out and doing whoever he wanted. And how many of you men would have been willing to date me, knowing that I was still married to a gay guy? Whether I was a slut, former slut, or only had one man ever my husband? Zero, zip, nada, but you would have been willing to use me as a slut. Sorry, those laws are put there to protect women and children, but even we women have to admit that they go too far sometimes, as anything can but at least you can get a paternity test to prove that it's yours or not.

 

This has been an interesting discussion, but I must say that I'm blown away by the hypocrisy here. Not because of the double standard, as I first thought. I can actually see the points of your arguments there. It's because you guys have benefitted from the sexual revolution--in the bad old days if a guy wanted to get laid, he either had to compete for one of the town prostitutes, who was probably really trashy, or he had to do another dude. Nowadays, with so many women "set free" from care by birth control and general society change of thinking, many more of the average women are putting out for your benefit, and believe me, you guys are taking advantage of it.

 

And then after a few years of having your fun, or at least trying to, you want to settle down with the closest thing to a virgin. Just as we women have to pay for our fun by being with punishing men who started out knowing that she had a history but now that he's developed feelings for her, he's going to knock her around to get a few more details of her past history, you guys have to pay for your fun by competing for the last holdouts, who are either very Christian or not much interested in sex. I am not putting down virgins, but the 2 girls that I knew who married as virgins, also married men who were virgins, and both were very good looking manly men, so it wasn't for lack of opportunity that these men were virgins. And guess what? So far both marriages are doing very well. So guys, if you want to marry a virgin, do this: stay a virgin yourself, become a Christian and get yourself into a great church youth group and stop dating--court instead--that is, only be with her under the watchful eye or hers or your family. Your first kiss and your first sex will be mind-blowing.

[Queen Zenobia]

I want to ask the women here how they would judge whether a woman is good relationship material or not if they were a man. How are men allowed to protect ourselves.

 

I would judge by history. If a woman is young enough (say 18-24) and doesn't have much history that's completely understandable and I think it's safe to take a chance with them. After that people tend to establish certain patterns, and men should not be criticized for making judgments based on those patterns. You have to seek out a partner who shares your values.

 

That being said I have zero sympathy for men who think they can be promiscuous and hope to find a chaste woman to settle down with. If that's what you want, feel free to try, but good luck with that you're going to need it.

[stepka]

I want to ask the women here how they would judge whether a woman is good relationship material or not if they were a man. How are men allowed to protect ourselves.

 

A. Drop the silly "3-date or I'm outta here rule." Be willing to wait at least 3 months b/c you'll weed out a lot of women who are only after a penis that way and I don't think 3 dates is nearly long enough to size up someone for a possible relationship.

B. Date her at least 2 years before you marry her--people's true colors tend to come out within that time period.

C. Choose her by sharing of common values, not by sharing of hot body chemistry.

D. Consider becoming a member of a faith community if you're not already--most of the stable, over 50 years marriages that I'm aware of are people that I know from church.

E. Realize that there are no guarantees in life--I knew my ex for 7 years before we started dating, and 2 more before we married, and there was nothing I saw that indicated that he might prefer men.

[carhill]

That's how I qualified my exW. However, due to our advanced ages and the desire to have children, we 'dated' only 18 months before marrying.

 

Thank you for E. That's healthy.

[stepka]

That's how I qualified my exW. However, due to our advanced ages and the desire to have children, we 'dated' only 18 months before marrying.

 

Thank you for E. That's healthy.

 

Thanks carhill--and BTW, the hypocrisy label did not apply to you--I know from this and other posts that you live up to your own standards.

[carhill]

Ha, but I've fought my own demons being an emotional 'slut', so have been reading on with interest. Never too old to learn.

 

I recall an old friend facing the same thing you did, except with genders reversed. He was devastated. It was like his marriage was a farce.

[stepka]

I recall an old friend facing the same thing you did, except with genders reversed. He was devastated. It was like his marriage was a farce.

 

Yes, at least with a cheating spouse you can figure that at least the love was once there. Not with this--it's like the love was never there.

[thatone]

So by your logic, my homosexual husband should be able to use me as a breeder to beget his children and then walk away scott free? I know what you'll say next--that it's only if the woman applies for the divorce. Well this woman did apply for and pay for the divorce b/c Mr. Brokeback Bastard didn't really care if he got divorced or not. He was willing to stay married and even live with me if only I'd be willing to put up with him going out and doing whoever he wanted. And how many of you men would have been willing to date me, knowing that I was still married to a gay guy? Whether I was a slut, former slut, or only had one man ever my husband? Zero, zip, nada, but you would have been willing to use me as a slut. Sorry, those laws are put there to protect women and children, but even we women have to admit that they go too far sometimes, as anything can but at least you can get a paternity test to prove that it's yours or not.

 

yea and a lot of people get hit by the bus while walking across the street too. i feel sorry for them. but that doesn't stop any of those things from happening. we're talking about the reason why people think the way they do about a person's past. all you can do is the best you can do. that means looking both ways while crossing the street, and taking note of red flags early in relationships.

 

This has been an interesting discussion, but I must say that I'm blown away by the hypocrisy here. Not because of the double standard, as I first thought. I can actually see the points of your arguments there. It's because you guys have benefitted from the sexual revolution--in the bad old days if a guy wanted to get laid, he either had to compete for one of the town prostitutes, who was probably really trashy, or he had to do another dude. Nowadays, with so many women "set free" from care by birth control and general society change of thinking, many more of the average women are putting out for your benefit, and believe me, you guys are taking advantage of it.

 

as for me personally, i'm not hypocritical. i'm not looking for marriage and don't want children. i'm perfectly fine with women who feel the same way. but i don't pretend that every first date is a potential wife. they aren't, obviously.

 

And then after a few years of having your fun, or at least trying to, you want to settle down with the closest thing to a virgin. Just as we women have to pay for our fun by being with punishing men who started out knowing that she had a history but now that he's developed feelings for her, he's going to knock her around to get a few more details of her past history, you guys have to pay for your fun by competing for the last holdouts, who are either very Christian or not much interested in sex.

 

yes.

 

the OP and all of these other women who complain about not having their cake and eating it too are not content with their choices, though. they have convinced themselves in their own minds why they deserve everything they want. they're worse than an actual whore, to be honest. the women who are after money, or status, or the bad guy with the tattoos, or other such things for a quick fling are at least honest about what they want. but when the same women complain about not being able to find a husband to support them when they're ready for children they are not honest anymore. they are now liars who are desperately looking to take advantage of some poor bastard who's willing to marry them despite all better judgment.

 

just as our society says it's ok for women to tell their husband to get out of his own house but continue paying her while she screws around, our society also tells men that it's ok to chase 25 year olds with no intention of ever marrying them or fathering their children.

 

the difference is we as men are ok with our stereotypes. going by my above examples, i can get some of the women who are after money and status, since i have those things. the ones who are after the bad guy with the tattoos, not so much, because i'm not that guy.

 

but i'm content with the fact that i won't get the slutty girl in the bar who's after the bad guy with the tattoos. women aren't ok with the fact that if they ARE the slutty girl in the bar after the bad guy with the tattoos, they're not going to get the clean cut business guy who will most easily provide for them and their children.

[thatone]

and since you've replied as i was typing that stepka, i will give you one word of advice, the MOST judgmental and LEAST willing to accept your past with a bad husband will be those whose social life revolves around a church. they might very well be outwardly sympathetic, but not enough to paint themselves as the savior of the damsel in distress.

 

not to say that church isn't a great crutch for many people, i know lots of women who wind up in their late 30s/40s with kids, alone, that use religion as a crutch to get through the days.

 

but the fact remains that it is just a crutch.

 

here's a fun fact from a study i recently read:

 

people called random households identifying themselves as anthropology students taking polls about religious beliefs, and asked people in concentrated areas whether they attended church regularly or not. they then went out on wednesdays and sundays and counted cars in church parking lots from the areas they called.

 

the bottom line?

 

well over half of the population lies about going to church. the over half that insist that they go translates to roughly 19% that actually go when it comes time to get up early on sunday. people who start out the first conversation they have on the phone to a stranger with a lie sound like great potential partners...

Edited June 5, 2011 by thatone

[stepka]

I want to ask the women here how they would judge whether a woman is good relationship material or not if they were a man. How are men allowed to protect ourselves.

 

A. Drop the silly "3-date or I'm outta here rule." Be willing to wait at least 3 months b/c you'll weed out a lot of women who are only after a penis that way and I don't think 3 dates is nearly long enough to size up someone for a possible relationship.

B. Date her at least 2 years before you marry her--people's true colors tend to come out within that time period.

C. Choose her by sharing of common values, not by sharing of hot body chemistry.

D. Consider becoming a member of a faith community if you're not already--most of the stable, over 50 years marriages that I'm aware of are people that I know from church.

E. Realize that there are no guarantees in life--I knew my ex for 7 years before we started dating, and 2 more before we married, and there was nothing I saw that indicated that he might prefer men.

 

I thought of a couple more.

F. Find a woman who has more solid qualities than the ability to dress and act like a Barbie Doll. I rather liked Sanskrit's list about the army--it was right on target.

G. Find a woman who is closer to your own age. While I realize that it is natural for an older man in his 50's to seek out women 15-20 years younger, just realize that you will really raise your risk of being cheated on if you do. What most older men don't realize is that many of the younger women are rather contemptuous of them as dates and will play with Daddy and then run around behind his back. Not always--I know some couples who've made this work, but in general. And a for instance: many younger women find baldness rather unattractive--I know I did when I was young. Now I actually prefer it. Older women are more likely to be patient when things don't work like they used to. Younger women could use it as an excuse to. . . you know.

Again, rules of thumb, and still no guarantees, but more likely to work than the alternative.

[stepka]

the OP and all of these other women who complain about not having their cake and eating it too are not content with their choices, though. they have convinced themselves in their own minds why they deserve everything they want. they're worse than an actual whore, to be honest. the women who are after money, or status, or the bad guy with the tattoos, or other such things for a quick fling are at least honest about what they want. but when the same women complain about not being able to find a husband to support them when they're ready for children they are not honest anymore. they are now liars who are desperately looking to take advantage of some poor bastard who's willing to marry them despite all better judgment.

 

just as our society says it's ok for women to tell their husband to get out of his own house but continue paying her while she screws around, our society also tells men that it's ok to chase 25 year olds with no intention of ever marrying them or fathering their children.

 

the difference is we as men are ok with our stereotypes. going by my above examples, i can get some of the women who are after money and status, since i have those things. the ones who are after the bad guy with the tattoos, not so much, because i'm not that guy.

 

but i'm content with the fact that i won't get the slutty girl in the bar who's after the bad guy with the tattoos. women aren't ok with the fact that if they ARE the slutty girl in the bar after the bad guy with the tattoos, they're not going to get the clean cut business guy who will most easily provide for them and their children.

 

You seem to be confused. You seem to think that I'm defending women who cheat on their spouse. I have never, not in one single post, defended such a thing. When you take vows, you take vows and you stay faithful. When the woman cheats, I also don't think it's fair that she can take the kids and move in with Romeo while the poor schmuck at home who was working 2 jobs has to foot the bill. I know these things happen and I do not defend them.

 

The original intent of the post was to point out that many women go through a fun phase and then realize that it's not good for them and they pull it in and stop being so indiscriminating, but (some, all?) men will hold that against them forever. If these women were not having ONS, you guys wouldn't be either, so stop partaking and creating your own problems is all. Stop being hypocrites. You also can't have your cake and eat it too, but you seem to think we're the only group that is trying to get away with anything. We're not--we've all benefitted from this, but we've also all suffered for it. We all love sex--ladies too--you're not the only horny ones. We're all in the same boat.

 

As for you guys who are saying that men hate it when women cheat for evolutionary reasons b/c no man wants to raise another man's child--well women have evolutionary reasons for hating it when men cheat too. Back in the bad old days, if a man walked away from his wife and family to chase after another woman, the family was at real risk of starving, so there are strong reasons why the monogamous marriage unit has most often been favored throughout the world.

[tami-chan]

I think that women who have been "slutty" (jeez...what a word:o) will have to expect that there are men who just wouldn't want to be with them because of their history-a consequence of past actions. Women should also not be in a relationship with men who have been with numerous women-if that is something they think is indicative of future behavior.

[stepka]

Oh yeah, and I went to church today and last Sunday and the one before that--just being there doesn't make me a Christian any more than being in a garage makes me a car though, and I don't really need anyone to point out to me that many Christians are hypocrites. That thought alone kept me from darkening a church door for years.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Oh yeah, and I went to church today and last Sunday and the one before that--just being there doesn't make me a Christian any more than being in a garage makes me a car though,

:laugh: That was funny!

[Queen Zenobia]

The original intent of the post was to point out that many women go through a fun phase and then realize that it's not good for them and they pull it in and stop being so indiscriminating, but (some, all?) men will hold that against them forever. If these women were not having ONS, you guys wouldn't be either, so stop partaking and creating your own problems is all. Stop being hypocrites. You also can't have your cake and eat it too, but you seem to think we're the only group that is trying to get away with anything. We're not--we've all benefitted from this, but we've also all suffered for it. We all love sex--ladies too--you're not the only horny ones. We're all in the same boat.

 

Look, no one should be having a "fun" stage (why is casual sex looked at as "fun" anyway?). Ideally the only sex you should be having is with someone you're in a relationship with. There are plenty of men who are interested in relationships when they're young (I found one). Some men will have ONS with women but my advice is to avoid those kinds, find an upstanding gentleman and date him. There may or may not be a double standard, but as women we have as much choice in the matter as men do, it's time to start making some better ones.

[stepka]

Look, no one should be having a "fun" stage (why is casual sex looked at as "fun" anyway?). Ideally the only sex you should be having is with someone you're in a relationship with. There are plenty of men who are interested in relationships when they're young (I found one). Some men will have ONS with women but my advice is to avoid those kinds, find an upstanding gentleman and date him. There may or may not be a double standard, but as women we have as much choice in the matter as men do, it's time to start making some better ones.

 

I agree with that, but not everyone is so wise at all points in their life. Some have to learn the hard way.

[thatone]

I agree with that, but not everyone is so wise at all points in their life. Some have to learn the hard way.

 

just like some people will die in a car wreck because they were texting while driving.

 

everyone makes choices, and gets the consequences of those choices.

 

no one is owed a free pass.

[TheLawmaker]

Some of us learn with experience. And some of us learn through other people's experiences.

[nordic]

Except he's not saying that, common parlance or no. He's saying he wants a wife and to sleep around behind her back, and for her not to do the same. Furthermore, he's saying this is some sort of immutable law of the Universe, rather like the law of gravity.

 

Someone who is indiscriminate in their sexual activity, male or female, does tend to be pretty unstable generally, and avoiding any serious emotional connection with such a person as anything other than being a caregiver for them (e.g. professionally), is quite a sensible safety first attitude to have.

 

Recent or active indiscriminate sexual activity is a sign that as much as this person may genuinely want a serious, dependable relationship, they are almost certainly not suitable for it, yet.

 

That's a pretty narrow (but significant) portion of women who are described as "sluts" in the States, or "womanisers" as their male counterpart.

 

learn to read. i never said that.

 

i said a way to keep a relationship with a slut, or a woman who does not feel sexually exclusive to you, is to keep the relationship non-exclusive with her.

 

i am fine with being exclusive and even married. but a wife is something different from a slut. a wife is somebody you feel proud of and bring along in life and keep by your side, maybe, if its really good, look up to in certain ways. not somebody you feel sorry for, coz she keeps confusing love for sex.

 

dont know what you mean with indiscriminate sexual activity. but i have been on dates and the chick was not as hot i would have hoped for, but i still had sex with her. sometimes that has even been surprisingly good, especially if she has a nice body but isnt that cute.

 

in a man that doesnt mean anything for the mans personality. it means he is horny, so a man, and possible lazy, so he doesnt get himself a decent back up plan for a dry date:-)

[stepka]

Some of us learn with experience. And some of us learn through other people's experiences.

 

And some never learn at all.

[nordic]

So by your logic, my homosexual husband should be able to use me as a breeder to beget his children and then walk away scott free? I know what you'll say next--that it's only if the woman applies for the divorce. Well this woman did apply for and pay for the divorce b/c Mr. Brokeback Bastard didn't really care if he got divorced or not. He was willing to stay married and even live with me if only I'd be willing to put up with him going out and doing whoever he wanted. And how many of you men would have been willing to date me, knowing that I was still married to a gay guy? Whether I was a slut, former slut, or only had one man ever my husband? Zero, zip, nada, but you would have been willing to use me as a slut. Sorry, those laws are put there to protect women and children, but even we women have to admit that they go too far sometimes, as anything can but at least you can get a paternity test to prove that it's yours or not.

 

This has been an interesting discussion, but I must say that I'm blown away by the hypocrisy here. Not because of the double standard, as I first thought. I can actually see the points of your arguments there. It's because you guys have benefitted from the sexual revolution--in the bad old days if a guy wanted to get laid, he either had to compete for one of the town prostitutes, who was probably really trashy, or he had to do another dude. Nowadays, with so many women "set free" from care by birth control and general society change of thinking, many more of the average women are putting out for your benefit, and believe me, you guys are taking advantage of it.

 

And then after a few years of having your fun, or at least trying to, you want to settle down with the closest thing to a virgin. Just as we women have to pay for our fun by being with punishing men who started out knowing that she had a history but now that he's developed feelings for her, he's going to knock her around to get a few more details of her past history, you guys have to pay for your fun by competing for the last holdouts, who are either very Christian or not much interested in sex. I am not putting down virgins, but the 2 girls that I knew who married as virgins, also married men who were virgins, and both were very good looking manly men, so it wasn't for lack of opportunity that these men were virgins. And guess what? So far both marriages are doing very well. So guys, if you want to marry a virgin, do this: stay a virgin yourself, become a Christian and get yourself into a great church youth group and stop dating--court instead--that is, only be with her under the watchful eye or hers or your family. Your first kiss and your first sex will be mind-blowing.

 

your husband is homo? that is kind of mind-blowing.

 

doesnt help your cred discussing this topic stepka, you need experience from a heterosexual man and his way of looking at sluts. i am pretty sure a homosexual mans view would be different. for starters, non-sexual. kind of takes the who charge of topic away.

[nordic]

A. Drop the silly "3-date or I'm outta here rule." Be willing to wait at least 3 months b/c you'll weed out a lot of women who are only after a penis that way and I don't think 3 dates is nearly long enough to size up someone for a possible relationship.

B. Date her at least 2 years before you marry her--people's true colors tend to come out within that time period.

C. Choose her by sharing of common values, not by sharing of hot body chemistry.

D. Consider becoming a member of a faith community if you're not already--most of the stable, over 50 years marriages that I'm aware of are people that I know from church.

E. Realize that there are no guarantees in life--I knew my ex for 7 years before we started dating, and 2 more before we married, and there was nothing I saw that indicated that he might prefer men.

 

stepka, really? where are you from? how do you come up with stuff like this?

 

A. very few women only wants a penis and when they do they can be spotted a mile away, tehy will be on vacation and very drunk. women dont work like that. women want relationships and money. dating them forever without sex is not gonna weed anything out for a man. just get him frustrated and disinterested.

 

E. stepka. you married a homosexual man thinking he was hetero. are you sure you want to give out advice on these things to normal people? of course he waited 3 months with sex. he didnt want to sleep with you, he was a homosexual man.

[nordic]

I thought of a couple more.

F. Find a woman who has more solid qualities than the ability to dress and act like a Barbie Doll. I rather liked Sanskrit's list about the army--it was right on target.

G. Find a woman who is closer to your own age. While I realize that it is natural for an older man in his 50's to seek out women 15-20 years younger, just realize that you will really raise your risk of being cheated on if you do. What most older men don't realize is that many of the younger women are rather contemptuous of them as dates and will play with Daddy and then run around behind his back. Not always--I know some couples who've made this work, but in general. And a for instance: many younger women find baldness rather unattractive--I know I did when I was young. Now I actually prefer it. Older women are more likely to be patient when things don't work like they used to. Younger women could use it as an excuse to. . . you know.

Again, rules of thumb, and still no guarantees, but more likely to work than the alternative.

 

only objection to G would be that we are just more into younger women. i am sure dating a 80 year old would be even safer, when it comes fidelity. any takers on that one here?