Once a slut, always a slut?

[Fondue]

this is so hard and yet so easy.

 

easy part is to describe how it works.

 

men love sluts. we cant get enough of them, as long as they have sex with us, they are just great, and make the world a better place.

 

we hate the idea that out LTR/GF/wife or other women close to us do these things. The pure idea that our wives put herself drunk in a bar, got picked up by somebody, and then let him **** her a few hours later, makes just go cold.

 

so easy to explain. men love sluts. we dont want to marry one. ever.

this is stable cross-culture all over the world.

 

difficult part. how do you explain this a somebody who has a compltely different emotional set-up, given that it has no rational reason? its clearly close to impossible. women will just never ever get this. they just cant understand it. thats why they struggle to make sense of it and come to weird conclusions that it has someting to do with morals or anything that can ever be changed. it hasnt. its within us, and it has been since forever, and it will always be there.

 

if you think otherwise you will just be very disappointed. this will never go away. the idea of your loved one, the woman you want for life, under another man, whose name she doesnt know, just getting ****ed, will just never work. its the perfect cure for love.

 

Sorry, ladies. This is the complete truth right here.

 

Promiscuous women are used as vehicle for sex. That's all. We enjoy the easy ride. We'll go to the dealership, take the car out for a spin, but would never commit to the actual purchase.

[OpenBook]

Sorry, ladies. This is the complete truth right here.

 

Promiscuous women are used as vehicle for sex. That's all. We enjoy the easy ride. We'll go to the dealership, take the car out for a spin, but would never commit to the actual purchase.

 

Agreed. And this is precisely why our mothers and grandmothers are constantly telling us ladies: "Never give a man what he wants." Enter, stage right: Game-playing. It's all a game, the dance of love.

[betterdeal]

Right. So, everyone is different, many have issues, we all like sex.

 

Can we have the party now, please?

[Fondue]

Right. So, everyone is different, many have issues, we all like sex.

 

Can we have the party now, please?

 

Only if we all end up getting naked and having sex, otherwise I'm not interested.

[Taramere]

No, psychology pathologizes sadistic personality disorder and masochistic personality disorder, not at all the same thing as casual BDSM sexplay.

 

Homosexuality has been declassified as a mental disorder. Sexual sadism and masochism, which come under the realms of BDSM, were modified, but continue to be regarded as disorders in certain situations.

 

So if a serial killer turns out to have a kink for BDSM play, that sexual predilection is going to be regarded as part of his disorder. It makes no difference that many law abiding citizens get involved in BDSM play....sexual sadism is still classed as a disorder in certain situations.

 

If he were gay, that would not be deemed part of his disorder. It's the difference between declassification of something as a disorder, and modification.

 

Technically, it's -impulsivity- that continues to be something that is used to identify a woman as having a mental health problem, eating disorders, substance abuse, risk taking, spending, etc. in addition to promiscuous sex. But since -this thread- was started to discuss female promiscuous sex, the discussion has focused on that as opposed to the other impulsive behaviors.

 

And mental health issues notwithstanding, as several posters have noted here, it's those other types of impulsivity, even not rising to disorder level, accompanying promiscuity that make promiscuous women a bad bet for stable relationships and marriage. After all, who wants to live with a spendthrift, risk-taking drunk or drug user?

 

Very few people, I should think. However, there are plenty of men out there who have had bouts of being promiscuous spendthrifts, risk-taking drunks or drug users in their youth. Some get their acts together, some don't. Those who do go on to have a more mature, considered and controlled approach to life would probably decry the notion that people can't change, if they found themselves obstructed by the negative judgements that flow from such thinking.

 

I would think that the best bet, partner-wise, for anybody would be to go with somebody who is in a similar place to them. I had a distant relative who was a very successful person. People couldn't understand his choice of a second wife who had a past that made her the epitome of most people's idea of a "wrong wife". His previous wife had been a very straight-laced professional. He was pretty well off, so it was generally thought that he could have his pick.

 

His new wife's issues were well known. His weren't...but nonetheless, he had issues. They met in a rehab centre - and they were both there as patients. They're both dead now (old age...nothing sinister), but their marriage was a long and successful one. Maybe it wouldn't have been if they'd had kids together, but they were both on their second marriage.

 

As far as promiscuity goes...the emerging definition here seems to be of people who routinely get drunk or high and have one night stands with strangers they've met in bars. I would think the presenting problem there is one of substance misuse. Lots of things happen as a result of substance abuse. Dancing on tables, bonding sessions with strangers that transform into angry brawling, loud singing in the street, sex.

 

A former female poster here who I won't name was well known for her promiscuity, which she was quite open about. I remember her saying that she was strictly teetotal. She wasn't promiscuous because she was out of control. She apparently just enjoyed sex, and seemed to view men as conquests in the same way that men often perceive women they've slept with as conquests. Why would somebody like that - sober, holding down a job, having a nice home etc - be regarded as having a disorder if her male counterpart doesn't?

Edited June 4, 2011 by Taramere

[oldguy]

Deconstructing the Double Standard

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanskrit

1. The ways in which women and men seek and obtain sex are completely different. The average woman has near complete control over exactly when, with whom, and how many whoms she has sex with. She merely has to ask men she finds sexually attractive. The average man has almost no control over when, with whom, and how many whoms he has sex with, he must always be looking and approaching to get any sex or he will get none. Apples and oranges. An average promiscuous man is lucky, on a winning streak, that could end at any time with a long dry spell, a promiscuous woman is purposeful and a glutton, and it's reasonable to judge her as such.

 

2. Men suffer biological risk of raising offspring that is not theirs when involved with a promiscuous woman. Women never suffer this risk when involved with a promiscuous man, as the offspring is always hers.

 

3. Promiscuity is comorbid with lots of nasty personality and emotional disorders in women, as Sanman alludes to. Promiscuity in men is -not- comorbid with such disorders.

 

4. Women who have a discrete sex life are -not- judged for frequency or number today, it is the obvious ones who burn through a whole town or campus indscriminately who are judged. Men, OTOH, are judged more and more for wanton promiscuity, the few such is available to are anyway.

 

5. It's not so much the promiscuity itself that condemns promiscuous women in many modern men's eyes, but the simultaneous duplicity many promiscuous women display in dealing with dating and relationship prospects v fun sex prospects. They live a lie with men who make a good catch in hopes of not scaring them off. (see my prior post). Once this dual nature is exposed, what man in his right mind would want a liar like that?

 

6. Men are judged harshly for lack of sexual experience by many women, women are not so judged by men.

 

7. Women, not men, are the harshest judges of female sexual behavior. Men form much of their pre-experience attitudes about loose women based on what they are told by the -women- in their lives whom they respect and who love them and are concerned for their well being. Most men are first cautioned about "da hoochies" by a mother, grandmother, sister, etc. So if there ever was a double standard, it was perpetuated by women in concern for the men in their lives as much as it ever was perpetuated by men.

 

8. "Boys will be Boys" - Whereas most men do not typically judge women harshly for the sexual reputation of their prior relationship and marriage partners, most women will judge men harshly for the sexual reputation of their prior relationship and marriage partners. This creates incentive for men to avoid LTRs and marriages with promiscuous women, with no such corollary incentives for women to avoid LTRs and marriages with promiscuous men.

 

9. Justifying female promiscuity based on an imaginary double standard prevents many mentally ill women from realizing how badly they need medical help. When women are told, "You are just like men sexually, your promiscuity is your right, as it's the same thing men do," it perpetuates the illusion that promiscuity in women is no more significant from a mental health perspective than it is in men.

 

Thank you for reposting your list. Where did you get this?

 

The apples to oranges statement is spot on. We are different; I wish people would just learn to deal with it, hell celebrate it. I think it would avoid so much of the self imposed confusion.

 

Alluding to point 3; “Promiscuity is comorbid with lots of nasty personality and emotional disorders in women, as Sanman alludes to. Promiscuity in men is -not- comorbid with such disorders”. IME I have seen men who have experienced emotional traumas often do exhibit relationship problems also, the “Promiscuity in men not associated with such disorders, may be largely & tragically be an oversight. Men have been taught to hold things in, to not talk about things. But that could be the topic of a thread in itself. Tyler Perry did a great job recently of bringing his childhood abuse to light.

 

I can’t say I agree with point 6; “Men are judged harshly for lack of sexual experience by many women, women are not so judged by men”, no matter how I read it.

 

7. Women, not men, are the harshest judges of female sexual behavior. Men form much of their pre-experience attitudes about loose women based on what they are told by the -women- in their lives whom they respect and who love them and are concerned for their well being. Most men are first cautioned about "da hoochies" by a mother, grandmother, sister, etc. So if there ever was a double standard, it was perpetuated by women in concern for the men in their lives as much as it ever was perpetuated by men.

I would classify that as good loving advice, wouldn’t you? In the same way woman are warned about, “the bad boys”, they can’t resist. I keep repeating the; credit score” analogy in several of my posts but I think it’s a good one. People can change but until they do their history is what they will be judged on. That goes for men & women, promiscuous behavior or just being “the bad boy”.

 

8. "Boys will be Boys" - Whereas most men do not typically judge women harshly for the sexual reputation of their prior relationship and marriage partners, most women will judge men harshly for the sexual reputation of their prior relationship and marriage partners. This creates incentive for men to avoid LTRs and marriages with promiscuous women, with no such corollary incentives for women to avoid LTRs and marriages with promiscuous men.

This is a good point too as it alludes back to; making good choices based on recent history. It’s just common sense to wonder why some one had been divorced 3, 4 or more times as there is a problem with them choosing the wrong SO or there is some other pathology that needs to be looked at & corrected, I would think, before becoming the next ex.

Edited June 4, 2011 by oldguy

[Stockalone]

I pulled these quotes off of another thread b/c I think this topic needs its own thread. Guys. We need to talk. I'd like to know why it is that you think that if a girl has a "past" that you feel that you're entitled to the goodies. Yeah, I know that word gets around that a girl is easy and suddenly she's quite popular for awhile with very little effort on her part. Problem is that many women go thru a stage where they're fairly indiscriminate. Maybe they grew up in a crappy homelife and they're reacting to that. Maybe they just got out of a bad relationship. There's a million other reasons, but it happens.

 

Most women who go through this do not stay this way. At some point they wake up and realize that giving it up too easily is not taking them where they want to go and it's keeping them from getting into a serious relationship with a nice man and that if they keep this up they'll be at much greater risk for STDs and the loss of their friends' respect. Whatever. So they pull it in a little bit--they decide that maybe they'll get to know their dates a little better, but they maybe don't realize that the guy they're with tonight only asked them out because he thought he had a sure bet to get some and now she says no and he has a little temper tantrum. Too bad--it's her body and her call as to how she chooses to use it and if you were only asking her out to get easy sex, well, whose fault is it if you didn't get it as easily as you'd hoped? Yes, we women love sex, but from these posts it's obvious to me that the old double standard is still alive and well. I'm here to tell you that there is no good girl/bad girl--simply a lot of women confused as to how they too can enjoy sex and a relationship when all the rules have changed and good ole mom is clueless as to how to help her.

 

If the rules have changed, at least in this case, the women were the ones who changed them. If a woman wants to have sex with whoever she wants to, she can. But then, she should also own her decisions, not make excuses for them.

 

I judge women based on their sexual history, because I am not interested in a woman who is okay with casual sex.

 

 

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?

 

At least for me, whether they have changed or not isn't the issue. I have a problem with them being extremely "free" sexually in the first place. That's not something I'd be willing to accept in a SO.

 

 

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?

 

Then she probably should find a man who shares her views or had a similar lifestyle transformation.

 

If a man rejects her for her past, why is that a problem? Shouldn't she be happy to have dodged a bullet if a man would be bothered by her past?

 

 

 

I disagree with you about the reformed ho's being in the minority but don't have statistics to back it up so I'll leave that for now. However, whether reformed ho's are an appropriate focus for this discussion or not, it is how I introduced the topic. I'd like to throw out some further questions for this though: 1. How do you define slut? A gal who has 10 or more partners within a 2 year period? Or less, and what number defines it? A woman who's had at least one ONS? A woman who occasionally enjoys FWB "relationships"? A woman who has as many partners as she can take on, but doesn't lie about it and doesn't use it to trap unsuspecting men? A woman who is too softhearted to tell a man no? A girl who sleeps with your best friend on the first date and then turns around and tells you no, she'd rather wait? 2. If you believe that it is possible for a woman to go through, say, a year of living dangerously and then reform, how long of a period do you think needs to pass before you would consider her relationship material? Should she stop dating while getting her shyt together?

 

Honestly, while I think it's possible for people to change, that is not a risk I'd be willing to take.

 

I also wouldn't want to be involved with a cheater. People who cheat (that includes the other person) thoroughly disgust my. But I would also never be able to trust them.

 

 

Actually Madame brings up a very good point. I get the feeling that most of the bitter feelings that men have on here come from the fact that they've been misled more than once in the past by a bad girl trying to pose as a good girl. What if a woman is open and honest about her sexuality and doesn't lie to you about her present or her past? Of course you have the option to take it or leave it, but would it bring out your feelings of anger?

 

If a woman is open and honest, it wouldn't bring out the feelings of anger. I wouldn't date her, though, if her past is something I am not okay with.

 

 

Yes, this is also my understanding of men's thinking (although I will never understand why... although I suspect it has a lot to do with the male ego). It's totally and completely unfair to women. But that doesn't seem to factor in anywhere with you guys.

 

You might want to put a qualifier on the word "love", though - at least the way you're using it here. When you say "men love sluts", you really mean "men love to bang - and use - sluts to take care of their own sexual needs." That ain't love - at least in my book. But it appears to be in yours (and 99% of the male population's).

 

In any case, thank you for your honesty and putting it in writing. This is how most men I know IRL think.

 

Life isn't fair, and double standards are alive and well in both genders. From my POV, it also seems that there are hardly ever consequences for men who believe in that double standard.

 

As long as they can get away with that lifestyle and double standard, most won't change.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Stockalone

[oldguy]

Deconstructing the Double Standard

 

Homosexuality has been declassified as a mental disorder.

(Mainstream), Mental health possessional for nearly 30 years & in that time never classified ones sexual preference as a "disorder".

 

Very few people, I should think. However, there are plenty of men out there who have had bouts of being promiscuous spendthrifts, risk-taking drunks or drug users in their youth. Some get their acts together, some don't. Those who do go on to have a more mature, considered and controlled approach to life would probably decry the notion that people can't change, if they found themselves obstructed by the negative judgements that flow from such thinking.

We do change, we do what works for us mostly.

 

I would think that the best bet, partner-wise, for anybody would be to go with somebody who is in a similar place to them. I had a distant relative who was a very successful person. People couldn't understand his choice of a second wife who had a past that made her the epitome of most people's idea of a "wrong wife". His previous wife had been a very straight-laced professional. He was pretty well off, so it was generally thought that he could have his pick.

 

His new wife's issues were well known. His weren't...but nonetheless, he had issues. They met in a rehab centre - and they were both there as patients. They're both dead now (old age...nothing sinister), but their marriage was a long and successful one. Maybe it wouldn't have been if they'd had kids together, but they were both on their second marriage.

 

As far as promiscuity goes...the emerging definition here seems to be of people who routinely get drunk or high and have one night stands with strangers they've met in bars. I would think the presenting problem there is one of substance misuse. Lots of things happen as a result of substance abuse. Dancing on tables, bonding sessions with strangers that transform into angry brawling, loud singing in the street, sex.

 

A former female poster here who I won't name was well known for her promiscuity, which she was quite open about. I remember her saying that she was strictly teetotal. She wasn't promiscuous because she was out of control. She apparently just enjoyed sex, and seemed to view men as conquests in the same way that men often perceive women they've slept with as conquests. Why would somebody like that - sober, holding down a job, having a nice home etc - be regarded as having a disorder if her male counterpart doesn't?

]I didn't see people who had disorders, per say, I saw people who had issues, emotional difficulties. Being promiscuous, for instance, was never the issue even though it was at times the symptom of an issue. You are totally right, sometimes people just like sex or as Freud would say; "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Personally, I like to know a little about the person before getting into a serious relationship with. If they've been married 5 times in 20 years & 4 showed up dead & the other went missing, I want to know. If she slept around in college I don't so much care as long as she's gotten that out of her system, so to speak, & is ready for a monogamous relationship.

[sally4sara]

1. The ways in which women and men seek and obtain sex are completely different. The average woman has near complete control over exactly when, with whom, and how many whoms she has sex with. She merely has to ask men she finds sexually attractive. The average man has almost no control over when, with whom, and how many whoms he has sex with, he must always be looking and approaching to get any sex or he will get none. Apples and oranges. An average promiscuous man is lucky, on a winning streak, that could end at any time with a long dry spell, a promiscuous woman is purposeful and a glutton, and it's reasonable to judge her as such.

 

Then it stands to reason the less opportunities a woman gets, the greater the "pass" she deserves for being promiscuous - yes? Fat chick? Glutton away! Chick working 2 jobs with little free time? Hit it while you can! If you're going to stand on opportunity to justify it, then the guys who get more opportunities need practice more restraint, not get cheered for their gluttony. They're just easy rides that women (or anyone) can use and toss. They're sluts, not role models because its easier for them than YOU. Sound like being a hater and that is what you'd call it if some guy got on you for a ONS.

 

2. Men suffer biological risk of raising offspring that is not theirs when involved with a promiscuous woman. Women never suffer this risk when involved with a promiscuous man, as the offspring is always hers.

 

Why are we talking about babies? No one said sluts are exclusively women who lie about paternity. It seems sluts are just women who view sex in a way men want to corner the market on despite being less capable of achieving it than women. Why are they less capable? Because they're EASIER THAN WOMEN and have no standards; will say yes to anyone of any character. THIS is a good choice for a LTR or marriage? Someone easier than yourself and lacking standards?

 

3. Promiscuity is comorbid with lots of nasty personality and emotional disorders in women, as Sanman alludes to. Promiscuity in men is -not- comorbid with such disorders.

 

I say hogwash to that. It appears this way to whomever whats to believe it and fluctuates depending on what school of head shrinking one chooses. Just because one supposed shrink says women are more likely to have promiscuity be a sign of a mental disorder, it doesn't mean he said or that its true that male promiscuity is never a sign of a mental disorder.

 

4. Women who have a discrete sex life are -not- judged for frequency or number today, it is the obvious ones who burn through a whole town or campus indscriminately who are judged. Men, OTOH, are judged more and more for wanton promiscuity, the few such is available to are anyway.

 

This level of promiscuity is hedging more on a destructive promiscuity pattern. Both men and women make themselves vulnerable to detrimental promiscuity fall out with this level of sexual activity. Unplanned pregnancies don't just happen to women. Stress and drama over being so socially messy doesn't just happen to women. STDs don't just happen to women and yes we are still judged by others no matter how discreet or lower on the promiscuity spectrum we live. I was dubbed a slut what I was still a virgin who'd never been kissed.

 

5. It's not so much the promiscuity itself that condemns promiscuous women in many modern men's eyes, but the simultaneous duplicity many promiscuous women display in dealing with dating and relationship prospects v fun sex prospects. They live a lie with men who make a good catch in hopes of not scaring them off. (see my prior post). Once this dual nature is exposed, what man in his right mind would want a liar like that?

 

Yes because men are never duplicitous in obtaining fun sex prospects OR relationships. Men never have the so called "serious" GF or a spouse by promising fidelity while being promiscuous with the more disposable (in his eyes) options. They never ever claim to be a better man after burning through a town or campus. Get real. Of all the lines I've had floated or heard floated, they've never been about advertising how slutty they've been prior to some new prospect. They would be afraid of scaring her off and getting rejected.

6. Men are judged harshly for lack of sexual experience by many women, women are not so judged by men.

 

This is an outdated belief. 40 year old virgins are not 40 virgins because women won't toss them a bone for their virginity. They are often very obviously socially awkward. Come off like they - wait for it -have a mental disorder or are aspie. The ones that are not so socially awkward or seem mental get laid. You got laid as a virgin did you not?

7. Women, not men, are the harshest judges of female sexual behavior. Men form much of their pre-experience attitudes about loose women based on what they are told by the -women- in their lives whom they respect and who love them and are concerned for their well being. Most men are first cautioned about "da hoochies" by a mother, grandmother, sister, etc. So if there ever was a double standard, it was perpetuated by women in concern for the men in their lives as much as it ever was perpetuated by men.

 

This is another outdated excuse. One woman vying for a particular man who has another woman vying for him might speak harshly about the other girl to up her appeal (cuz you all are swayed by it) and is likely just as promiscuous as the one she bags on. Its also not always a factual claim. You have umpteen excuses as to why you don't trust women; why put much stock in this strategy? I can't remember the last time one of my female friends harshly judged another woman for her promiscuity. Judge her for lying? Judge her for treating some undeserving guy shabby? Sure. People can do that without it being about sex.

We also got mothers who struggle to stop seeing their little boys as little boys and the women who date them as interlopers wanting to take their little boy. THAT happens way more than what you're trying to express here and women know it because we are the ones who have to deal with your mother's hail mary grasp on the phantom umbilical. No different than the grumbling fathers you've had to face.

8. "Boys will be Boys" - Whereas most men do not typically judge women harshly for the sexual reputation of their prior relationship and marriage partners, most women will judge men harshly for the sexual reputation of their prior relationship and marriage partners. This creates incentive for men to avoid LTRs and marriages with promiscuous women, with no such corollary incentives for women to avoid LTRs and marriages with promiscuous men.

 

Yes. I will completely agree with this one but it isn't about how much sex they had. Its about how they treated other people in obtaining it. Yes there are incentives for women to avoid trying to be serious with men who treated other people as disposable and low. Its the same reasoning behind avoiding someone who is ****ty to waitstaff or the people who should be important to them.

 

9. Justifying female promiscuity based on an imaginary double standard prevents many mentally ill women from realizing how badly they need medical help. When women are told, "You are just like men sexually, your promiscuity is your right, as it's the same thing men do," it perpetuates the illusion that promiscuity in women is no more significant from a mental health perspective than it is in men.

 

Oh for effs sake! Freud Jr even admitted promiscuity isn't a clear indication of a mental disorder! He spoke of impulsive behavior. Something that isn't exclusive to promiscuity. Men are neeeevverrrr impulsive ? What do you call jumping into bed with a stranger you just met based on the possibility you might maybe who knows have to wait a bit for such an offer to rinse repeat, be so impulsive again? Impulsive is impulsive no matter what dangles (or doesn't) between your legs. What do you call reading what some stranger tells you is sometimes a connection and then running with it like its 2+2 equaling 4? I call it impulsive. Maybe you have BPD? I said in on the intarwebs so it must be true.

Edited June 4, 2011 by sally4sara

[stepka]

Ever been in a locker room? or privy to hearing men talk about their exploits with women? young men (and immature older ones) lie incessantly about their exploits with women. I did, only once or twice, and not concerning any particular woman, but I did. I lied in H.S. that I had experience that I did not actually have to fit in.

 

And you actually -believed- that? FIVE brothers and a father all raping a single girl? the 18 y.o. brother "raping away" beside the 13 y.o. brother? I guess this "wealthy" family never took the children to the doctor for checkups, she never bled at school alerting teachers, or rather they just had her chained up in the in the torture dungeon before deciding to let her out one day when she instantly ran out and started having promiscuous sex. I know I'm gonna get flamed for devaluing the experience of real rape victims, but come...on... isn't that EXACTLY what this liar is doing herself by trading on such tales?

 

What became of her? She's probably a very successful used car salesman. Want to ask you some questions to think on 1) If you had experienced that kind of outrageous thing, would you sit down and tell strangers or casual acquaintances about it at the drop of a hat? 2) Are you aware that such a lack of boundaries and accompanying -fabrications- of stories exactly like that is a hallmark symptom of BPD and the cluster disorders Dr. Sanman has described here? finally 3) Do you recall the nationwide epidemics, mass hysterias really, in the early 90s concerning supposed sexual abuse in preschools, repressed memories of sexual abuse by family members, and ritual satanic abuse by cults? ever wondered how those things happened to spring up at the same time? ever wondered if those were real ongoing social phenomena, why we hear nothing, I mean nothing whatsoever about them today?

 

This woman's supposed experience didn't happen to occur between 1985 and 1995 did it? or rather when did your convo with her take place? Next time you see her ask her if they wore hoodoo masks and sacrificed babies in the room while raping her.

 

No I've never been in a men's locker room while it is full of men. I'm not that kind of girl! And you only lied once? Right!

 

OK, I resent the hell out of having to type all this again, as I did it earlier this morning and now can't find the post, so it must not have posted. I did believe the girl, and here's why. This was told to me back in the late 70's when we were both 16 and she was a classmate. I'm guessing I"m a little older than you but you may remember that back in the day there weren't a whole lot of options for young people who'd been abused in the home and to complicate matters, her family was one of the wealthiest and most respected families in town. No one would have taken her word over that of her father's and I think she confided in me because I was willing to listen non-judgmentally and because people often do confide in me. She was not just slinging this stuff around to all of her friends, and maybe that's because she didn't have any, as you can imagine. After that conversation, I was able to discreetly inquire around and many of the tidbits I picked up pointed to her story as being mostly true. My guess is that she took off to the big city and became a prostitute.

 

As for me being a gullible person--well I can be sometimes. But, my younger sis is a pathological liar and I've had years of experience trying to sort out her lies from truth and I finally just got so tired that now I assume that everything she says is a lie, but my nose for bullshyt is pretty sensitive and I can't even stand to be around people who are mostly honest but insincere, if that makes sense. And because of her, I'm pretty familiar with the pathology of PD.

 

Also wanted to say that women really do get why men don't want to be in relationships with loose women. It doesn't take a stretch to figure that out. My point in bringing out this thread is that women have been sold the idea in recent years that they can have sex like a man because now we have birth control and having babies out of wedlock is no longer a stigma. Fewer consequences so to speak. And many women do dive right in, because after all we enjoy sex as much as, if not more than men--(yeah, we can have mulitple orgasms:bunny:) And it's pretty easy to get laid and there doesn't seem to be any really good reason to say no these days.

 

But, what often happens is that these same women, assuming they're normal and not pathological, discover that the emotional consequences can be severe. Sure it's easy to find a ONS, and you know rationally going in that this is just sex, but still you're pissed or hurt when he doesn't call back because you've already started to feather your little nest. Sex really is sacred to us, whether we know it or not, and biologically we're wired to be in relationships--most of us anyway. Many of us get smart and pull back at that point--but the men are confused, and for good reason. I don't really see this as a moral issue either--we were created to enjoy sex so as to ensure the continuation of the species, but because of our fundamental differences, we will get hurt and hurt each other.

 

Another thing I'd like to say and this is really hot a button. No, we don't always have a choice in whom we can have sex with. When society changed and dating became the norm rather than courting, it has put a lot more women at risk of date rape. Before, young people would sit and visit under the watchful eye of relatives but now the girls are finding themselves in more vulnerable positions when around men and many men do take advantage of that fact. I know many women who've been raped, and generally this took place during her "transition" phase when she was becoming more conservative about just hopping into bed quickly and then she says no and he goes ballistic. These men are not always obvious when you meet them--when it happened to me, he appeared to be someone I could take home to mom. The sad thing is that the girls often blame themselves as I did for years. I think we blame ourselves b/c nature dictates that you go into self protect mode during a rape crisis (maybe to protect the new life that may be forming?) and you do whatever it takes to survive, but then you're ashamed later and torture yourself with thoughts of how you could have gotten out of that, even if you would have gotten hurt or killed.

[Taramere]

You're not having much luck with quote function, oldguy! Just highlight the part you want to quote and click the cream coloured speech bubble. That'll wrap the quote code around it.

 

Mental health possessional for nearly 30 years & in that time never classified ones sexual preference as a "disorder".

 

I hope not! It was declassified more than 30 years ago. (checking) 1972. A friend of mine is gay, and was talking recently about his father's reaction when he came out. "We'll get you help, son. Private counselling. It's just a phase....we'll go the private route and get you sorted."

 

I think his dad had this idea that even though homosexuality is no longer regarded as a disorder, a therapist could be paid privately to treat it as one.

 

 

We do change, we do what works for us mostly.

 

I think that's it in a nutshell. It's when people carry on doing what isn't working for them that it starts looking disordered.

 

 

]I didn't see people who had disorders, per say, I saw people who had issues, emotional difficulties. Being promiscuous, for instance, was never the issue even though it was at times the symptom of an issue. You are totally right, sometimes people just like sex or as Freud would say; "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Personally, I like to know a little about the person before getting into a serious relationship with. If they've been married 5 times in 20 years & 4 showed up dead & the other went missing, I want to know. If she slept around in college I don't so much care as long as she's gotten that out of her system, so to speak, & is ready for a monogamous relationship.

 

Yes. I can see that if somebody is promiscuous because they're lonely and looking for affection, it's probably going to exacerbate all the bad feelings underlying their problem. Like somebody who has been abused deciding "I'm inherently unlovable anyway, so I might as well just grab bits and pieces of affection where I can".

 

Before I made my career switch, I worked with young people who had been abused and/or were outside of their parents' control. In some cases they didn't have parents. I think doing that kind of work makes you far more touchy about terms like "slut" and "damaged" being thrown around. You see the impact it has when you're trying to motivate young people to improve their lives and increase their self respect (and their personal happiness), when society's bombarding them with these "you're worthless....slut....damaged goods...." messages. It's a real uphill struggle.

 

I understand that adolescents will always fling those terms at eachother, but it's discouraging when adults insist on doing it. One time, another member of staff boasted to me that she'd given one of the sexually active girls a real pep talk. "I told her...those boys just see you as a piece of meat. They've got no self respect for you at all. They're laughing at you."

 

As if that kind of humiliating "tough love" directed at a vulnerable young teenager going to achieve any more than to make her hate boys and men for a couple of days before descending into another bout of self destructive, drink-and-drug-fuelled behaviour.

[sally4sara]

the idea of your loved one, the woman you want for life, under another man, whose name she doesnt know, just getting ****ed, will just never work. its the perfect cure for love.

 

And knowing your new BF hopped into bed with some woman or women, he doesn't know the name of, just getting effed, especially if he is thinking she or they were unworthy of his respect and consideration has never made me feel all warm and fuzzy either.

 

So why no altering your behavior? Especially in light of how hard it supposedly is to get a woman to want to be intimate with you and treat you well?

 

If it isn't enough of a reason for you, why should it be to anyone else?

 

If you want to know why women tend to judge male sexuality less, look no further than social conditioning. You've been conditioned to believe cock will sully a woman's worth. We've been conditioned to accept your sullied hide and it seems by reading threads on this site, grow resentful and dissatisfied over time with the poor quality of the merchandise that is you (collectively, not personally) . Oh how the tide is turning.............

[stepka]

And knowing your new BF hopped into bed with some woman or women, he doesn't know the name of, just getting effed, especially if he is thinking she or they were unworthy of his respect and consideration has never made me feel all warm and fuzzy either.

 

So why no altering your behavior? Especially in light of how hard it supposedly is to get a woman to want to be intimate with you and treat you well?

 

If it isn't enough of a reason for you, why should it be to anyone else?

 

If you want to know why women tend to judge male sexuality less, look no further than social conditioning. You've been conditioned to believe cock will sully a woman's worth. We've been conditioned to accept your sullied hide and it seems by reading threads on this site, grow resentful and dissatisfied over time with the poor quality of the merchandise that is you (collectively, not personally) . Oh how the tide is turning.............

 

Oh how I wish we had a rep button on here.

 

OK, got another question for the men. Two women available to you, and you must choose. Both of them adore you equally and both want a relationship with you and both are equally attractive. The first one loves and adores sex with you and has a bit of a colorful past, but has left that all behind, well before she met you. She's taken time off to work on herself and she's not in Sanskrit's "army." Warmhearted as they come and she loves sex--she'd be fine with every night--no less than every other night--with you.

 

The other one is practically virginal--maybe has had one partner in her life and he was long term. Trouble is, she just doesn't much care for sex. After a couple of years with her, your love life is whittled down to 1x/week and only so she can say you did. She loves you but treats sex as a chore.

 

So, which is it guys? Note: I'm mainly directing this towards the men who've said that they wouldn't consider having a relationship with a slut--not even a reformed one, and no matter what you guys believe, there are plenty of them--they're just not likely to share their history, and for good reason it seems to me.

[ConfusedGuy28]

Oh how I wish we had a rep button on here.

 

OK, got another question for the men. Two women available to you, and you must choose. Both of them adore you equally and both want a relationship with you and both are equally attractive. The first one loves and adores sex with you and has a bit of a colorful past, but has left that all behind, well before she met you. She's taken time off to work on herself and she's not in Sanskrit's "army." Warmhearted as they come and she loves sex--she'd be fine with every night--no less than every other night--with you.

 

The other one is practically virginal--maybe has had one partner in her life and he was long term. Trouble is, she just doesn't much care for sex. After a couple of years with her, your love life is whittled down to 1x/week and only so she can say you did. She loves you but treats sex as a chore.

 

So, which is it guys? Note: I'm mainly directing this towards the men who've said that they wouldn't consider having a relationship with a slut--not even a reformed one, and no matter what you guys believe, there are plenty of them--they're just not likely to share their history, and for good reason it seems to me.

 

Based on those options - I'd choose the first, here's why.

 

If a woman truly left her past behind (for a good amount of time) and had shown signs of growth, etc and was truly in love with me (and I with her) - then absolutely I'd pick the first one.

 

My reason for not picking #2 is the following: Sex is an important part of a committed relationship. Probably more so for men, but maybe not why women think so. Men, by nature, "show" their love (buy nice things, stand up for you, bring flowers, etc etc etc). In return, it's nice to receive that same "show" of affection. So, when a woman you are involved with suddenly has a decreased interest in sex (married or not), even if you're in love, you do begin to feel slightly inadequate. Is she not attracted to me anymore? Did I do something wrong? (Same feelings a woman would get if a man stopped having sex with you...)

 

Sex is a physical expression (or at least, can and should be) of how you feel towards another person. It embodies experiencing pleasure together as one and for those moments being completely in sync with one another. When you lose that bond, you're relationship can and will suffer.

 

So yes, I'd take the first girl.

[carhill]

I'd take neither, remain celibate, and have. I've walked the colorful history path and found it incompatible. Lack of intimacy is also an incompatible path. Giving of one's self, emotionally and physically, to an intimate relationship cannot be a uni-lateral venture. Synergy is paramount.

 

I add my datapoint because, although I did consider and have relationships with self-described promiscuous (reformed or not, IDK) women in the past, I no longer consider that potential healthy, globally. If such a position is a detriment to my 'success' with women, so be it. Life is full of so much more. I didn't get that message before. I get it now.

[Woggle]

Let me ask a question of who is more likely to cheat. Is it the woman with a colorful past some people like to refer to as a slut or is it a virgin or at least a woman with not many partners who associates sex with emotion. If you were a man and didn't want to end up a betrayed husband who would you pick? Men tend to associate female promiscuity with cheating and men want to avoid being cheated on. Is there anything wrong with that?

[Sanman]

Alright, I just wanted to clear up a point that was mentioned here. I never said that male promiscuity was not a sign of mental health concerns. I simply said that it is more commonly a sign of female mental health issues. The reason for that is a straight male who may want to act out in that way cannot do so as easily as a female. Male impulsiveness is more commonly seen in fighting, gambling, spending, and other behaviors. Commonly, sexual acting out by men is seen more in gay communities or with prostitutes. However, there are exceptions to this. I mentioned Jesse James earlier. I will also mention Charlie Sheen. For years, people just considered him a playboy and guy out for a good time. While we all watch him decompensate on national television, it is clear that he has mental health issues and evidences some mania.

 

As for the double standard argument mentioned, Women tend to put more weight on whether men can support them and be good providers and fathers. Men tend to put less emphasis on this and more on other areas such as sexual history. Historically, one can assume this comes from the man not wanting to provide for something others have received for free.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Sanman

[sally4sara]

Let me ask a question of who is more likely to cheat. Is it the woman with a colorful past some people like to refer to as a slut or is it a virgin or at least a woman with not many partners who associates sex with emotion. If you were a man and didn't want to end up a betrayed husband who would you pick? Men tend to associate female promiscuity with cheating and men want to avoid being cheated on. Is there anything wrong with that?

 

Let me ask you a question Woggle; who is more likely to cheat? The guy who sticks his cock into women he barely knows but suspects are lesser to him in worth and justifies it with "they didn't matter" or the guy who will be intimate with only someone he has gotten to know well enough to be fine with it if in the long term the relationship doesn't go the full distance because he at least likes and respects the girl?

 

Which one would you tell your daughter, sister, cousin or female friend to pick? Would you just tell her both are equal because that's just how guys are and the other one might just be a fag. Because I distinctly remember hearing guys razz other guys for not going through with promiscuous behavior by calling them "fag" or "pussy" and that they were stupid for not going for it.

[Woggle]

Let me ask you a question Woggle; who is more likely to cheat? The guy who sticks his cock into women he barely knows but suspects are lesser to him in worth and justifies it with "they didn't matter" or the guy who will be intimate with only someone he has gotten to know well enough to be fine with it if in the long term the relationship doesn't go the full distance because he at least likes and respects the girl?

 

Which one would you tell your daughter, sister, cousin or female friend to pick? Would you just tell her both are equal because that's just how guys are and the other one might just be a fag. Because I distinctly remember hearing guys razz other guys for not going through with promiscuous behavior by calling them "fag" or "pussy" and that they were stupid for not going for it.

 

The former is certainly more likely to cheat and I would advise any woman not to date a player. Men wonder all the time what women see in these players because it is clear from my point of view they are not good men. I give women the same advice I give men.

 

Do you think that a man who is faithful himself has a right to ask that from a wife or a girlfriend or is that trying to control her sexuality as well because these days I hear a lot of you go girl kind of comments when female infidelity is mentioned.

[sally4sara]

Women tend to put more weight on whether men can support them and be good providers and fathers. Men tend to put less emphasis on this and more on other areas such as sexual history. Historically, one can assume this comes from the man not wanting to provide for something others have received for free.

 

Social conditioning that is no longer necessary. You are sighting a value that began when women could not support themselves. Keep going back through our history you will find that women use to not disclose who the father was to their offspring because they would then only receive aid for their kid from one man rather than all in the tribe. Things changed didn't they. Things can change now too. But men don't want to give up the advantage afforded them by the double standard because it isn't logical or factual but is to their benefit for it being an easier and more physically gratifying way to roll.

[Sanman]

Let me ask you a question Woggle; who is more likely to cheat? The guy who sticks his cock into women he barely knows but suspects are lesser to him in worth and justifies it with "they didn't matter" or the guy who will be intimate with only someone he has gotten to know well enough to be fine with it if in the long term the relationship doesn't go the full distance because he at least likes and respects the girl?

 

Which one would you tell your daughter, sister, cousin or female friend to pick? Would you just tell her both are equal because that's just how guys are and the other one might just be a fag. Because I distinctly remember hearing guys razz other guys for not going through with promiscuous behavior by calling them "fag" or "pussy" and that they were stupid for not going for it.

 

I honestly think your depiction of men here is quite slanted. I don't think I have seen this behavior since high school. Most of my male friends would never say anything of the sort to me. Most of my friends and myself would and have steered women who are close to us away from known players.

[Woggle]

Social conditioning that is no longer necessary. You are sighting a value that began when women could not support themselves. Keep going back through our history you will find that women use to not disclose who the father was to their offspring because they would then only receive aid for their kid from one man rather than all in the tribe. Things changed didn't they. Things can change now too. But men don't want to give up the advantage afforded them by the double standard because it isn't logical or factual but is to their benefit for it being an easier and more physically gratifying way to roll.

 

So according to you men should not know if they are a kid's father or not? Maybe I am wrong but I am surprised you would think that way.

[sally4sara]

I honestly think your depiction of men here is quite slanted. I don't think I have seen this behavior since high school. Most of my male friends would never say anything of the sort to me. Most of my friends and myself would and have steered women who are close to us away from known players.

 

Then strike down the justification of mothers being the ones to cause men to think less of promiscuous women. If this happens, its mainly in high school.

You can't say "we do this because you make us" and then not question how much of male promiscuity is based on the same manner of instruction by male role models promoting it rather than some uncontrollable urge we should pity you and give you a pass over.

[sally4sara]

So according to you men should not know if they are a kid's father or not? Maybe I am wrong but I am surprised you would think that way.

 

Woggle where did I say that? I am only siting an era of difference from long ago showing what is standard does not always remain standard.

[Woggle]

Woggle where did I say that? I am only siting an era of difference from long ago showing what is standard does not always remain standard.

 

You didn't say it but you seem to think it was a good thing that nobody knew who the father was. Do we really want life to be like one big Maury Povich episode?