Once a slut, always a slut?

[phineas]

Bottom line, if a chick isn't putting out when she put out previously for other guys she just isn't all that attracted to you.

 

She will string a guy along then drop him for a guy she finds "HOT" & all that BS about "taking it slow" goes right out the window & she's sleeping with him immediately.

 

I've met & dated WAY WAY WAY too many women like this & it's the same thing EVERY time.

 

No sex for me because she "needs to take things slow", "doesn't want a relationship based on sex" blah,blah,blah then hops into bed with the first "HOT" guy that shows interest.

 

sorry but exclusive relationship = regular sex.

[Ginger Beer]

Well, it's a proven successful strategy to keep a nice guy for safety while living excitement with a bad boy from time to time.

Is this true?

[robdrm32]

If women have "it in their nature" how come I've never once heard a guy say "I want to take things slow and get to know you. I don't want to sleep together right away". Its not just women who can be sluts.

 

I've said that to my past 2 g/f.

 

Past behavior doesn't dictate future behavior, but its a good barometer.

 

If a girl told me that she had been with 10 guys in her lifetime i'd more than likely move on, let alone a 2 year span. It just shows that she can separate emotions and sex, which isn't a quality i want in a mate. doesn't make her a bad person, just a person i don't want to risk my heart on.

 

Sure sluts can become "reformed" but there are plenty of women who have made the choice to hold a high self esteem and not sleep around so i'd rather pass on the reformed slut and find a girl who was never a slut in the first place.

 

Nothing is certain but you have to play the odds. Thats why business look into criminal records and will hire the person with no record over a person with things on their record. It's a risk vs. reward.

[utterer of lies]

Is this true?

 

Yes.

 

If this wouldn't be a successful strategy, it wouldn't be such a deeply ingrained behavior.

[Ginger Beer]

Yes.

 

If this wouldn't be a successful strategy, it wouldn't be such a deeply ingrained behavior.

 

Thanks. I have a feeling that's what's happened/happening to me atm.

[betterdeal]

I agree with the original poster. There still is a double standard and I can't see it changing. If a man sleeps around he's hero, but if a woman sleeps around she's a whore.

 

In your mind, maybe.

 

I've been called a womaniser for having lots of female friends and getting jiggy with some of them from time to time. I was called a womaniser by the same women who also happen to have lots of male friends and have got jiggy with some of them, from time to time.

[betterdeal]

Well, it's a proven successful strategy to keep a nice guy for safety while living excitement with a bad boy from time to time.

 

This is true in some cases:

 

A study from Liverpool John Moores University in the UK has found up to 1 in 25 fathers are unknowingly raising another man's child.

 

http://menshealth.about.com/od/lifestyle/a/paternity.htm

 

Makes sense in this world. Being a serious, bookwormish type provides stability, a good place to nurture a child, whilst a brutish hunk will provide brutish hunk genes, which some women are in to.

[EasyHeart]

This is true in some cases:http://menshealth.about.com/od/lifestyle/a/paternity.htm

The 1 out of 25 is a little misleading:

 

"The range of research findings did show big variations in rates, from one per cent in some studies to nearly 30 per cent. The figures did vary by country and groups; for instance, rates were higher for disadvantaged people, for those with more than one sex partner at a time, and for younger women."

[Andy_K]

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.

 

I think your interpretation of the thought process behind the two quoted posts differs significantly from mine.

 

There's no double standard in my world. I've got nothing against girls having sex with whoever they want. I just have no desire to be the chump who agrees to 'take it slow'. If a girl has slept with guys early on in the past, that's clearly her natural behaviour. So if she wanted to date me I'd expect the same. I'm a decent guy, and I expect that level of trust and openness. I'd expect that level of natural progression, and I certainly wouldn't judge her negatively for it. I don't want to pay the price for her previous mistakes or mistreatment with her putting up some artificial walls to intimacy.

 

When a girl says she wants to 'take it slow', it's generally a blatant lie, for one of two reasons:

1) She'd still jump the really hot guy if she got a date with him (in which case, I must be 'not as hot', therefore she's not who I want)

2) She wants to have sex, but is afraid to trust or insecure she'll be judged for it (in which case, she is probably too neurotic for me)

 

I'm here to tell you that there is no good girl/bad girl

 

Agreed. A good girl is just a bad girl who hasn't been caught

[donnamaybe]

It works both ways, stop being a simp.

 

Men that sleep with loads of women get called players, other way round and the women get called sluts.

No. Men who lie to get women in bed are "players." I have no problem with men who are honest in their quest to get laid.

[Ginger Beer]

No. Men who lie to get women in bed are "players." I have no problem with men who are honest in their quest to get laid.

Well I suppose so.

[tman666]

I mean, don't do something that might bite you in the ass later, then complain when it does bite you in the ass later.

 

Exactly. Some of you people that post these kinds of threads seem to think that you have some sort of right to be exempt from the consequences of your actions. Everyone gets judged for everything they do: welcome to the planet Earth.

 

Everyone has different interpretations (whether conscious or subconscious, logical or illogical) and limits of what they can live with in terms of their partner's past. If something in my partner's past makes my stomach knot up, then I'm damned well allowed to feel that way. Yes, people change, but the decisions lie with the judge, not the defendant.

[thatdog]

If women have "it in their nature" how come I've never once heard a guy say "I want to take things slow and get to know you. I don't want to sleep together right away". Its not just women who can be sluts.

 

Lol. I've done this twice actually. The first time I did it she cheated on me the next day and blamed me for it.

 

second time I did my gf cried inconsolably for about an hour because hearing a guy say that was so shocking she assumed that meant I must have been repulsed by her physically to knock back sex.

[thatdog]

The 1 out of 25 is a little misleading:

 

"The range of research findings did show big variations in rates, from one per cent in some studies to nearly 30 per cent. The figures did vary by country and groups; for instance, rates were higher for disadvantaged people, for those with more than one sex partner at a time, and for younger women."

 

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.

[Woggle]

If I dated men I would have the same standards. Ask any man here if a known player is a good relationship prospect and most of them will say no so why is a guy wrong for not seeing the female version of a player as a good relationship prospect?

[carhill]

Is this true?

IME, yes. As sanskrit alluded/stated, the passage of time and life experience reveal all truths.

 

FWIW, I think men who are promiscuous are just as sexually indiscriminate and should be viewed with caution. The drama queens who lust after them have told me this, whilst crying on my tampon shoulder over the 'evil man' who threw them over. Sanskrit, in the dozens now, eh? I didn't make it to 100 but might have if I hadn't gotten married.

 

The way it is now for me is basically this. If a woman desires intimacy and she isn't interested in expressing it contemporeously sexually, she's a Hoover. EOS. That doesn't mean I won't observe her as a science/psychology experiment, but she won't 'get' me like those dozens in the past have. Too many male friends to hang out with and have good times. Plenty of bad boys to give those ladies the intimacy they desire.

 

My disclaimer: I don't ask for anything I don't bring to the table. Stable family life; low sexual partner number; focus on LTR's and marriage. Difference now is I won't accept any other path. They have theirs. I have mine. I hope both are fruitful.

[Sanman]

Its one thing to say people in general who cant rein in their impulse in one thing are probably also impulsive when it comes to other things. This is something I agree with to a degree.

 

However, it is another thing to judge a behavior based on the person's gender.

 

Being a slut doesnt equal being a cheater. Although sluts (men and women) tend to be cheaters since the fact that they are sluts means that they have higher sexual appetite.

 

 

Not trying to be gender biased. The same is true of men. Women may be attracted to him, but did anyone really think Jesse James was truly reformed?

 

I never said that being slutty is the same as cheating. However, both are impulsive decisions that generally don't take into account the consequences of your actions. A person like this is much more likely to cheat IMO. As Sanskrit mentioned, they are more emotional.

[collegeguy_24]

From my own experience I think there is such a thing as a reformed slut but its just very very rare.

 

I was the most serious relationship my ex has had, and when she dumped me she went back to her old habits of sleeping around with FWBs. She dumped the guy she left me for for someone else.

 

And as some people here have stated their are consequences. Statically speaking my ex is due to receive an STD pretty soon if she doesn't already have one.

 

Her reputation is set in stone on campus as being super easy and slutty, I over heard some of her dorm mates talking about it once when I went to go get coffee, and this was after she dumped me.

 

I don't think she can reform, and most of the super easy women I used to know, (I cut them off from my life), they have never reformed. One has an STD last time I heard, and two other got knocked up and are looking for a nice guy to raise the kid. Its sad.

 

There is only one woman I know who is a reformed slut. She has a pretty slutty past, but she fell for a nice guy, and they have been together for 2 years. She has no STD, or kids, or anything.

 

She turned her life around by studying real hard in college and getting some good job opportunities and she toned down the partying, and she never goes partying without her BF.

 

But that is just one woman, out of a whole lot.

[Bertram]

I agree with the original poster. There still is a double standard and I can't see it changing. If a man sleeps around he's hero, but if a woman sleeps around she's a whore.

 

This is still probably true (even in the era of sex and the city), however it is mainly because you are comparing things that are enormously different in terms of difficulty.

 

For a woman it's a matter of walking into a club and snapping her fingers. Hardly "heroic". For a man, it is a non trivial accomplishment. Of course a man can have sex easily too if he lowers his standards a lot but he's probably not going to brag about it with his friends.

[sally4sara]

When I was little and new to Trick or Treat, I would have loved to be allowed to eat my candy until I put myself into a sugar induced coma.

 

Until the first time I earned a good chuck (for a child) of money, bought a bunch of candy, and ate till I got sick. That day I learned that candy is best in moderation.

 

No one has a problem with believing I learned a lesson that day and changed my candy eating habits from that point on. Funny how some can't apply the same logic to other life lessons people go through. Funny how this thread's particular life lesson isn't such a hurdle men have to work hard to get people to stop treating them poorly over. Perhaps another childish idea I use to have really does hold merit? Cock causes stupidity and leprosy. Makes sense to me that men know having one stupid, leprosy afflicted person in a relationship is bad enough - even worse when their female half is inflicted too.

[donnamaybe]

It's because certain *ahem* "men" can't handle the thought of their wee wee being compared to that of others who came before them.

[samspade]

Every man wants a slut - he just wants her to be HIS slut.

[Sanman]

When I was little and new to Trick or Treat, I would have loved to be allowed to eat my candy until I put myself into a sugar induced coma.

 

Until the first time I earned a good chuck (for a child) of money, bought a bunch of candy, and ate till I got sick. That day I learned that candy is best in moderation.

 

No one has a problem with believing I learned a lesson that day and changed my candy eating habits from that point on. Funny how some can't apply the same logic to other life lessons people go through. Funny how this thread's particular life lesson isn't such a hurdle men have to work hard to get people to stop treating them poorly over. Perhaps another childish idea I use to have really does hold merit? Cock causes stupidity and leprosy. Makes sense to me that men know having one stupid, leprosy afflicted person in a relationship is bad enough - even worse when their female half is inflicted too.

 

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.

[Fondue]

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.

 

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.

This has got to be one of the best, if not THE best, posts I have ever read on this forum. I'm surprised most of you just skipped over this. It means to be said again.

[donnamaybe]

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.

OMFG this would be HILARIOUS if it weren't so tragic that people actually buy into this BS.

 

Yeah, let's paint all men with the same broad brush of a pathetic loser who goes panting after anything with a vagina because he can only get laid once a millenium.

 

Whatever gets you by, I guess.