Once a slut, always a slut?

[Queen Zenobia]

Not if they move on to treating said diagnosis. Are you willing to take a bunch of meds based on what someone THINKS is wrong with you? Are you going to take advise on how to correct what someone THINKS is your problem?

 

If so cool. I think you're a dead language. Take these pills.

 

I think you've just described exactly what the health care system is. People are often told "I think you have x disease; here's a bunch of pills. "

[Scorpio6913]

I think this article has a much nicer way of putting it than I would at the moment..

 

http://ca.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith/42_dating_advice.html

 

I also believe personality disorders such as HPD & BPD are far more prevalent with women today than is really known.

[rafallus]

So, put on your glasses and re-read my posts. *Every* woman I've had sex with *and* the woman I married had promiscuous pasts. I did not. Engage your brain before drumming on the keyboard.

I struck a nerve, didn't I?

 

You didn't define what you meant by "competition," for women, so there are three possibilities, competition for sex, competition for LTR, competition for marriage, that reasonably encompass what "competition" might be.

I rejected the competition for marriage as a concept twice. Maybe you should take a hint that it meant I'm not talking about marriage. Just maybe.

 

It's obvious you don't know what a straw man is, and in the future, if you don't want people to make reasonable attempts to fill in holes in your arguments, fill them in yourself by describing exactly what you are talking about. What it boils down to is you just wanted to toss out another offhand troll post, as you have done several times in this thread, this particular one made no sense at all, and now you don't like that you were called out on it. Tough.

It makes two then.

 

Surely you have met women who have had sex with plenty of people they weren't in a relationship with. One night stands, casual flings, that sort of thing? If someone has a long string of those I would say they're clearly having sex "indiscriminately".

"Plenty of people" doesn't mean "indiscriminately". Per self-referencing analogy, I may have trolled plenty of people overall, but I certainly haven't done that indiscriminately.

 

(Hint to those two gentlemen above: I'm sure you're great guys, but don't get so agitated over sb else's post and you won't be! This is just an internet, isn't it?)

Edited June 3, 2011 by rafallus

[Scorpio6913]

Once I knew what it was, noticed lots more tendencies towards BPD in women I know, so it's useful for men to educate themselves, especially when deciding "what is too promiscuous" to date, marry, etc.

 

Don't know whether there are more or less than really known, but do know that once you have tangled with a real one or two, the behavior is so outlandish and bizarre that it's hard to believe there are a whole lot of them out there.

 

Or rather imagine getting 900 texts in a month from a woman you are dating, thinking it's just because she loves you, then realizing eventually that she is feeling abandonment pain due to separation.

 

Or imagine getting up to go to work on an average day and as you walk out the door, your 45 y.o. GF has suddenly transformed into a bawling infant, crawling around on the floor, wrapping her arms around your legs, and begging you in complete baby googoo talk not to leave. This happened with both of the ones I dated.

 

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.

 

I've dated a HPD and have also worked with a BPD, I'm fully aware of the hurt and damage they inflict. I completely agree with you. I only say that there are more than are known, because of the high rate of instances being reported by men everywhere, whom like myself, didn't know who or what they were dealing with.

That aside, I've been hurt by former(or so I thought) slvts who may or may not've had a PD, but was hurt just the same. They simply cannot bond like a healthy non-promiscuous woman can, at least that's what I have found.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Scorpio6913

[Woggle]

If I were a woman I would not want to be with a player. It is well known that players make the worst partners in men yet women seem to throw themselves at these men. Just look at A Rod. He cheated on his wife and left her to go play around and has dumped every woman who gets to close yet women still try to tame him. For some reason the worst men to have a relationship with also seem to be the most attractive to women who try to tame them.

 

Unlike women who try to change players men are under no illusion that a promiscuous woman will make a good wife or girlfriend. Most of us know what we are getting with them. If women approached selecting a partner like men do they would actually spare themselves a whole lot of pain.

[betterdeal]

While we are on the topic, there are many women in the world who don't particularly mind that men have sex with promiscuous women outside relationships. They accept the key sexual differences between men and women, and have no problem with them as long as men are loyal while in a relationship and are disease free. However, many, if not ALL of those IME, WILL judge a man for forming a LTR with or marrying a tramp. It devalues the man's social value in their eyes.

 

I'll add that I personally feel being or being seen to be a cuckold is the male equivalent of how I imagine a woman must feel being or being seen to be a slag.

 

The vernacular is different here in the UK, with slags being generally indiscreet, out to f*ck the pain away and generally looked down on; sluts generally being more discrete, sexually liberal women who don't see sex as a sin or use it as a painkiller, and are generally socially successful; and whores being a pretty old fashioned word for full-time prostitutes.

 

But, really, it's about the whole experience. Couples who have a don't ask don't tell attitude (such as the Clintons, whose problem was publicity not sex) are fully functional people living fulfilling, long lives. I know couples who are like this and they do well in life. On the other hand, all the swingers I've known have all split up before or shortly after any major commitment (home buying, marriage, children).

 

Then there's the women and men who thrive on flux, controversy, pushing boundaries, and they don't find a way to live that makes them happy until they have a long fallow period in which they calm down, and develop a wider aspect on themselves, life, the world, and can put sex in a context or give it a priority within a larger lifestyle such that it's a recreational activity not a form of self-medication, a sin to be avoided, or a duty to be undertaken.

 

In my experience, women around the age of 30 are much more likely to crave sex. Men, in my experience, tend to be more craven earlier in life, decline, then have a manic swan song around the late 30s. Is it cultural or biological? Maybe a bit of both. Is it limited data? Certainly, and I think it necessarily more pertinent to me to work with a limited data set of the people near me, rather than trying to build a one-size-fits-all framework based on millions of people's lives. It doesn't affect me in the slightest that The Mosuo culture is matriarchal, and the idea of fathers is foreign to them, other than to show me how much our values are externally facing and determined.

 

Now, if anger is a secondary emotion almost always preceded by fear, that would make evolutionary sense as it can be a very good tactic for dealing with predators like a pack of wolves or a pride of lions even, for example. Since we aren't facing a pride of lions, our fear may be misplaced, or it may be more about complex social interactions. But if fear is as infectious as laughter or yawning, so is calm confidence. Learning what are our personal core values and what we're putting up with for convenience sake, or a greater good IOW helps us weed out ourselves from the rest of the world, and be less fearful, and to feel grief, melancholy, sorrow with less sense of guilt.

 

Erm, not sure where I'm going this! Maybe I'm saying it's okay to relax and enjoy life, to accept that it is affection, our gregarious nature, that binds us together, and that sometimes we will feel sad. So even if this post, or thread even, never reaches a conclusion, it is the act of conversation that we enjoyed.

 

I've certainly had things to think about reading other post here, and feel the arguments are becoming more nuanced, like we're into the slow dance part of the ball.

Edited June 4, 2011 by betterdeal

[stepka]

Why does anyone decide to make a change. Maybe they noticed they were drawn to a set of characteristics in partners that wasn't serving them well and they take a dating hiatus to work on that? Maybe they just wanted to have some fun but are now thinking of a life that is better suited to a monogamous way of living and they feel they might as well start practicing only sleeping with one person to see if they're ready for such a relationship? Every new relationship starts out as an experiment because even if you have an ideal mold in mind, you don't know if they fit into it immediately. You won't know for a while. Are you willing to wait 6 months to a year's worth of semi serious dating before sex to make sure the next girl is "the one"?

I'm all for getting to know someone before you share your body with someone. It doesn't mean we each will always be able to wait out our desire long enough for every fraudulent person floating a fake image to make an appearance. Who hear can claim that? Is everyone who can't a slut? I bet that makes all the people bitching about sluts qualify for the term themselves. Tell me, are they all BPD cases?

Well this makes me wonder about some things. I've been reading on this forum for awhile and there are always questions about how long you should wait before sleeping with someone, and there are lots of guys saying that there is no way they would wait past 3 dates, giving me the impression that the 3 date rule is common. Now, in my opinion, 3 dates is not nearly a long enough period to get to know if you want to be in a serious relationship with someone, so which is it guys? I'm thinking that if I slept with my dates on the 3rd date it would turn into FWB, and FWB enjoyers of the female species seem to get labeled as sluts here. BTW, I make no judgments about these types of relationships, except to say that they seem to benefit the men more than they do the women and they don't work well for me so I don't do them.

So guys, before you go cutting down women for being overly sexually active, please take a good look at your own back yard..quit contributing (buying porn in any form), and have some compassion for those that are in the extreme sexual situations, as their may be things that have happened to that individual to cause the extreme.

 

Yes, I knew a woman like this. She was the most promiscuous woman in town and everyone knew that she slept with anything. I had a chance to talk to her one night and I was so glad that I kept myself non-judgmental because she really opened up and told me her whole story. It turned out that from a small child she had been repeatedly raped by her father and her brothers--all six of these men had used her repeatedly and her mother would never believe her. They were a wealthy family too and I wonder sometimes what became of her.

 

Threads like this always go one forever. It's all just wasting breath.

 

This debate won't reach a conclusion because:

1. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how much they contrast with others. People rarely, if ever, change their opinions.

2. No one is right or wrong. Which, even then, is up to the individual

Couldn't we say that about any thread on here? Why have a forum if not to discuss hot button issues--and I have learned a lot--mainly about how little men understand women, and vice versa. I disagree that people won't change their opinions too because I change mine all the time when new info becomes available. For instance, I no longer believe that Pluto is a planet.

 

Oh, and Sanskrit: LOL on "The Army" post. I'd agree with most of that too and guess I'm not in the army then because I cook and will ride in any old car and volunteer at the homeless shelter and have gone without, ahem, for over 2 years, lol.

[MrNate]

Well this makes me wonder about some things. I've been reading on this forum for awhile and there are always questions about how long you should wait before sleeping with someone, and there are lots of guys saying that there is no way they would wait past 3 dates, giving me the impression that the 3 date rule is common. Now, in my opinion, 3 dates is not nearly a long enough period to get to know if you want to be in a serious relationship with someone, so which is it guys? I'm thinking that if I slept with my dates on the 3rd date it would turn into FWB, and FWB enjoyers of the female species seem to get labeled as sluts here. BTW, I make no judgments about these types of relationships, except to say that they seem to benefit the men more than they do the women and they don't work well for me so I don't do them.

 

 

Yes, I knew a woman like this. She was the most promiscuous woman in town and everyone knew that she slept with anything. I had a chance to talk to her one night and I was so glad that I kept myself non-judgmental because she really opened up and told me her whole story. It turned out that from a small child she had been repeatedly raped by her father and her brothers--all six of these men had used her repeatedly and her mother would never believe her. They were a wealthy family too and I wonder sometimes what became of her.

 

Couldn't we say that about any thread on here? Why have a forum if not to discuss hot button issues--and I have learned a lot--mainly about how little men understand women, and vice versa. I disagree that people won't change their opinions too because I change mine all the time when new info becomes available. For instance, I no longer believe that Pluto is a planet.

 

I think these 'hot button issues' hurt the cause, more than support it. Go look at how 95% of these threads in here end up. Now how little men and women understand each other....hm. I think we understand each other quite well. I mean, it's hard to use the opinions in this place to draw conclusive evidence.

 

And yes, Pluto will always be a planet in my eyes.

Edited June 4, 2011 by MrNate

[pureinheart]

 

Yes, I knew a woman like this. She was the most promiscuous woman in town and everyone knew that she slept with anything. I had a chance to talk to her one night and I was so glad that I kept myself non-judgmental because she really opened up and told me her whole story. It turned out that from a small child she had been repeatedly raped by her father and her brothers--all six of these men had used her repeatedly and her mother would never believe her. They were a wealthy family too and I wonder sometimes what became of her.

 

 

Wow...unfortunately this is mostly the case....your post brought me to tears and I'm really glad that you took the time to see what the root cause was.

 

Almost everyone I know has been sexually abused in one form or another. One of my exes was severely sexually abused and abused in many other forms from the time he was a baby also (totally sick)...he reacted by becoming addicted to porn...really bad, worst porn addiction I've ever seen.

 

When I was growing up being VERY sexually active was popular in my area...it wasn't with me, and always felt like I was some sort of a freak. I remember in the 8th grade all the girls were talking about "how many times they did it"...I said, "hey what did you guys do????"....well I think you can imagine the reaction I got...lol...I didn't care because I do what I want to and am not influenced very easily, usually going against the grain.

 

You've got a way with people...go for it, you most likely saved her life:)

[pureinheart]

No you didn't, that's a plain lie, but anyone can read what you posted and judge for themselves, so won't argue with you.

 

Your right, and I meant to comment sooner, although had to run somewhere...my last sentance was just thinking off the top of my head:)

[pureinheart]

If I were a woman I would not want to be with a player. It is well known that players make the worst partners in men yet women seem to throw themselves at these men. Just look at A Rod. He cheated on his wife and left her to go play around and has dumped every woman who gets to close yet women still try to tame him. For some reason the worst men to have a relationship with also seem to be the most attractive to women who try to tame them.

 

Unlike women who try to change players men are under no illusion that a promiscuous woman will make a good wife or girlfriend. Most of us know what we are getting with them. If women approached selecting a partner like men do they would actually spare themselves a whole lot of pain.

 

Woggle, I have seen guys who were VERY active, dating different women every other day of the week, sometimes having 3 and 4 gf's at a time, yet they meet that "one" girl and that's all she wrote.

 

I think all of us at one point in our lives has tried to change someone they are close to. I gave that up with the first real bf I had...he wanted to join the Army when he turned 18...I did everything possible to talk him out of it. A very valuable lesson was learned at a young age...never try to change anyone...give your opinion, debate it if it's debatable, and if it's something I simply can't live with I roll.

[betterdeal]

I think all of us at one point in our lives has tried to change someone they are close to. I gave that up with the first real bf I had...he wanted to join the Army when he turned 18...I did everything possible to talk him out of it. A very valuable lesson was learned at a young age...never try to change anyone...give your opinion, debate it if it's debatable, and if it's something I simply can't live with I roll.

 

Even that doesn't work with a strong PD. The craving to be loved, to belong, and the lack of identity means the person will agree to and attempt to be almost anything. They are constantly looking for clues as to how to behave in life, what will make them the perfect partner for the person they are close to, and believe they can make a Road to Damascus conversion. They people please as much as they can.

 

So you can't just give an opinion without it being taken as an instruction. If you then believe (rightly IMO) the change is superficial, rather than deep, you will have broken your implicit end of the bargain. You end up the villain. Maybe you comfort them, attempt to undo the harm they have blamed you for, or you take it slower this time, but you just rinse and repeat all the same.

 

Depending on how well your sense of self is developed, you can end up in a ridiculous cycle of two people hurting lots by trying to please each other and not themselves, throwing all your emotional effort into the other's happiness, and getting lost in the mirror ( good book on BPD ).

Edited June 4, 2011 by betterdeal

[Taramere]

I think this article has a much nicer way of putting it than I would at the moment..

 

http://ca.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith/42_dating_advice.html

 

I also believe personality disorders such as HPD & BPD are far more prevalent with women today than is really known.

 

This is no different from somebody suggesting that narcissistic personality disorder and psychopathy are far more prevalent amongst men than we realise.

 

I think there's a very specific reason you Americans are all "Bat**** Crazy"...

 

Please show me an insurance company that will reimburse me for multiple sessions of therapy or medication without a diagnosis.

 

To put it less controversially, most of you are probably not anywhere near f*cking bat**** crazy at all. However, if life has suddenly thrown more at you than you can handle and you're not getting over it all with all the vigour and speed that one would expect of an automaton, then you think something must be wrong. If you need a bit of extra help in the form of several counselling sessions to get you back on the right track, then you'd better find a clinician who is willing to agree and slap a label on your wrongness.

 

Either something's wrong with you - or, more appealingly, there must be something wrong with the person whose behaviour left you feeling this way. Maybe a psychopath, or a narcissist. Perhaps having a not yet diagnosed (by anybody other than you) bi-polar disorder. Or maybe they've been driven round the bend by that undiagnosed ADHD child of theirs.

 

For the sun to once again shine, and the birds to sing, somebody must be diagnosed and medicated. You just need to figure out which brand of bat**** craziness is responsible....and it might take longer than you think, because there are hundreds to plough your way through. The American Psychiatric Association DSM of mental illness has introduced more than 100 new ones since its inception. One way or another, the profession will get that cash out of the sweaty grasp of insurance companies.

 

As for whether women whose sexual behaviour is comparable to that of a successful male's have a mental disorder....I think history has already shown us that the nuttiest, most abusive "bat**** crazies" out there tended to be the ones who thought that way about sexual women. Google the Magdalen sisters, and you'll find plenty of info.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Taramere

[betterdeal]

If the thrill of the chase is what you like, it's unlikely you'll make a reliable farmer. It takes time to convert from one to the other.

[betterdeal]

This is no different from somebody suggesting that narcissistic personality disorder and psychopathy are far more prevalent amongst men than we realise.

 

I think phimosis, frenulum breve and other diseases of the cock are vastly under-reported in men. Control, fear, loss of confidence, self-esteem, anger, issues can be related to that (imagine being in more pain the more sexually aroused you get, and you get the idea).

 

Higher diagnosis of mental health problems in women correlates with women's tendency to be more willing to ask for help with health problems generally. The failure of 60 year old clinical practices (occupational health + tablets = it) to achieve a satisfactory outcome is a sign of the state of medicine, not the sate of the service user. If the root cause of most mental health issues is anxiety and fear, a nice chat and a bit of TLC with someone you can and do trust may be all that's needed. That's an integral part of lots of complimentary and alternative medicine. Homeopathic water is just water. The hour and a half consultation in confidence is what makes the difference. Even better is being able to calm down and cheer yourself up without needing price reassurance of paying for a private service.

 

Men's misplaced stoicism, refusal to consult doctors, therapists - anyone - about ailments, to eat less "manly" food in order to get healthier, is, in my opinion, a mental disorder. Especially here in the UK where most medicine is completely free. But it's understandable when they are or perceive to be derided by men and women for being weak - for not growing an extra pair of testicles, which seems to be the universal cure for all male problems according to popular belief.

Edited June 4, 2011 by betterdeal

[Taramere]

Higher diagnosis of mental health problems in women correlates with women's tendency to be more willing to ask for help with health problems. Men's misplaced stoicism, refusal to consult doctors about ailments, to eat less "manly" food in order to get healthier, is, in my opinion, a mental disorder. Especially here in the UK where it's completely free.

 

The difficulty, as I see it, is that on the one hand there is this movement to de-stigmatise mental health problems in order to encourage people to get help they need. On the other hand the stigma remains - and always will. For some fairly obvious reasons. Mental health problems are associated with irrationality and lack of insight.

 

I'm not a mental health professional, but I've often had to instruct reports by people who are, when I've represented clients at mental health tribunals. The killer phrase always seemed to be "lacks insight into (his/her) condition". Or to put it another way, the craziest people tended to be the ones who thought they were completely sane and that everybody else who was mad.

 

When people are struggling emotionally, I think it's certainly a good thing for them to get help in finding positive new coping strategies. Often people just didn't learn them as children. Inherited, from their parents, quite destructive ways of coping - ways that might help in the short term but caused longer term problems. So those coping methods weren't irrational....they were just not helpful on a longer term basis. Counselling might help people to break out of those bad habits.

 

I suppose you could call it a mental health problem if a person tends to ruminate on misfortunes to the point where they make themselves ill with depression....but it's a health problem in the same way that, as you say, eating the wrong food is a health problem. Something that's connected with bad habits that can be altered with counselling more than with anything being organically wrong with the person.

 

The word "slut" tends to be used in the same way that mental health labels are used. It often says more about the issues of the person using the term than it does about the person it's being aimed against. We've seen in the past how people got horribly abused in mental health institutions as a result of society's hysteria about them not fitting in to the mainstream.

 

I meant to edit my previous post. Magdalene Sisters. I don't know if you ever saw the film? Very disturbing. Here's a Guardian Review.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2003/feb/16/features.review1

 

Unmarried mothers, having been separated from their babies, were bundled off to the laundries, usually with the collusion of families anxious to avoid the shame of having a 'loose' daughter or sister.

 

Mullan's film accurately describes the way that, in a climate of sexual hysteria, virtually any young woman could become a Magdalene. Not just conceiving a child out of wedlock but the suspicion that a girl might be in danger of having sex outside marriage was good enough reason to have her locked away. Often, the mere fact of being a defenceless orphan was sufficient proof that a girl was in moral danger and in need of rescue.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Taramere

[betterdeal]

The difficulty, as I see it, is that on the one hand there is this movement to de-stigmatise mental health problems in order to encourage people to get help they need. On the other hand the stigma remains - and always will. For some fairly obvious reasons. Mental health problems are associated with irrationality and lack of insight.

 

Sounds harrowing, and a bit like the Swedish eugenics programme in the 1960s where they sterilized socially undesirables such as single mothers and schizophrenics.

 

I agree with what you say about the labels being used as fear responses. Overcoming those fears, by explaining the situation in a way that helps the fearful person by less fearful, and better able to handle what they fear (or respectfully moving on) and dealing with the fears and bad habits that the labels are shorthand for, is how I see better chances of better outcomes for all. Accepting the labels, but not the insults, renders them as just words. Fighting the insults by fighting the words gives the insult more potency and has proved to be ineffective so far.

[Taramere]

OK. let's play. I read the link from the socialist newspaper you cited and found it most interesting.

 

So, 30,000 women put in these laundries over a period of 170 some odd years? That's 200 per year or thereabouts. Wasn't the primary function of this place a women's prison for prostitutes? So some unknown, likely very high, percentage of these 200 women per year were prostitutes, criminals, lawbreakers, thus serving some criminal sentence? Right?

 

In any event, a significant unknown % of these women were hookers.

 

And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most feminists believe that prostitution should be... illegal? So the existence of such places comports with feminist doctrine? Or not, please clear that up for me.

 

Now, if prostitution is illegal, is it fair to estimate that there would be many more than 200 prostitution arrests per year in the whole of Ireland during that period? So these 200 were likely repeat offenders and hardened whores. Should the women be jailed with male prisoners in large co-ed type prisons? That doesn't sound like a very good idea for some reason, does it? So we split em up, men on this side (you break rocks and do excruciating labor all day), women on this side (you do laundry all day). Hmm. I'll be the first to agree, sucks to be them.

 

Now is it also possible that women did in fact commit some other crimes besides prostitution during this 170 year period? Is it possible that lots of these other types of female criminals could have ended up in these laundries? arsonists? thieves and burglars? con artists and swindlers? etc.? For some reason, I couldn't tell from the link or any of the glowing movie reviews? They just kinda left that out I guess. Why would they leave that out?

 

Now of this 200 per year, my understanding is that many were released after a year or two or a few years of confinement, how many? How many were released after a month or two? I have no idea. Why doesn't the linked article tell us that rather important number? Perhaps to create the illusion that women were never released and were all life sentences? That more of those 200 prostitutes per year died serving a life in there than actually did?

 

So to summarize, between 1820 and 1990, Irish judges sent 200 whores, many of them repeat offenders, together with other female criminals, per year to Catholic prisons where they had to do laundry and life sucked. Some had longer sentences than others.

 

That's a strange perspective...that girls who had no parents, had been a rape victim, or has become pregnant - or were simply unlucky enough to be born into a particularly paranoid family should be termed "whores".

 

I am not interested in engaging with people who can't get their anger under enough of a leash to converse like reasonable adults rather than vexatious litigants. I already made that point when you posted it as Meerkat Stew, and it stands regardless of whatever username you post under. So let's not play.

 

Regarding the link....the first one was one of the top entries for that subject. I replaced it because it didn't comply with forum rules.

[Taramere]

Sounds harrowing, and a bit like the Swedish eugenics programme in the 1960s where they sterilized socially undesirables such as single mothers and schizophrenics.

 

I agree with what you say about the labels being used as fear responses. Overcoming those fears, by explaining the situation in a way that helps the fearful person by less fearful, and better able to handle what they fear (or respectfully moving on) and dealing with the fears and bad habits that the labels are shorthand for, is how I see better chances of better outcomes for all. Accepting the labels, but not the insults, renders them as just words. Fighting the insults by fighting the words gives the insult more potency and has proved to be ineffective so far.

 

I think the labels tend to be used for adversarial purposes in day to day life. I agree that lots of time spent arguing with people for using those labels is unproductive. It's astounding how often it boils down to what people are into sexually and how that impacts on others. So back in the day when it was okay for a straight man to be terrified of being viewed as an irresistible Adonis by gay men, society pathologised homosexuality.

 

Psychiatry still pathologises BDSM - sadism and masochism still being defined as mental disorders. As evident from this thread, promiscuity continues to be something that is used to identify a woman as having a mental health problem (though what people mean by the term "promiscuity" is anybody's guess).

 

In a marriage that is being torn apart by infidelity, hope might come from the existence of sex addiction therapists. Nobody wants to stay with a partner who doesn't love or respect them (often the first suspicion that sets in upon a discovery of infidelity)...but if it can be argued successfully that the straying spouse has a sex addiction that they're determined to overcome, then suddenly the stigma of staying in the marriage is lessened. The betrayed spouse can move from feeling like a victim to becoming a rescuer of this person who hurt them.

 

So in the context of this thread.....a promiscuous woman is a threat in that she might expect a man to assist her in raising children that aren't actually his. Which is a valid male fear, but not one that justifies questioning the mental stability of the promiscuous woman.

[betterdeal]

I think the labels tend to be used for adversarial purposes in day to day life. I agree that lots of time spent arguing with people for using those labels is unproductive. It's astounding how often it boils down to what people are into sexually and how that impacts on others. So back in the day when it was okay for a straight man to be terrified of being viewed as an irresistible Adonis by gay men, society pathologised homosexuality.

 

Agreed, and people are generally adversarial because of fears of perceived or real threats.

 

Psychiatry still pathologises BDSM - sadism and masochism still being defined as mental disorders. As evident from this thread, promiscuity continues to be something that is used to identify a woman as having a mental health problem (though what people mean by the term "promiscuity" is anybody's guess).

 

I thought that psychiatry had opened up and become less fearful with regard to sex play. Certainly all the therapists and psychologists I have met appear to be of the mind that what they offer is help to those that ask for it, or are in significant danger of not being able to perform the basic function of life (i.e. stay alive) or significantly harm others, and that they feel personally comfortable working with. Otherwise, it's none of their business.

 

In a marriage that is being torn apart by infidelity, hope might come from the existence of sex addiction therapists. Nobody wants to stay with a partner who doesn't love or respect them (often the first suspicion that sets in upon a discovery of infidelity)...but if it can be argued successfully that the straying spouse has a sex addiction that they're determined to overcome, then suddenly the stigma of staying in the marriage is lessened. The betrayed spouse can move from feeling like a victim to becoming a rescuer of this person who hurt them.

 

Whatever works for them. If it gets them both out of cycles of maladaptive coping mechanisms, great. If it placates the press and general public's approbation of virile sportsmen having sex with pretty women, and the wife is honestly not too fussed so long as he doesn't get anyone pregnant, great too.

 

So in the context of this thread.....a promiscuous woman is a threat in that she might expect a man to assist her in raising children that aren't actually his. Which is a valid male fear, but not one that justifies questioning the mental stability of the promiscuous woman.

 

In many cases, true, and maybe a root cause behind our cultural expectations too. However, their are more nuanced harms felt too, such as shame at your other half being more open about his or her past in your social life than you're comfortable with, for example. Lots of people don't want to know about their partner's past sex life, or have them flirting openly in front of them. Do you? I don't.

 

That said, BPD is a troublesome condition because the sufferer is never, ever, happy and those that get close to them end up unhappy too, be they men or women, same sex, different sex, friends or lovers. Just like a surgeon's scalpel, an active sex life can be a good thing or a bad thing. In the case of PD sufferers (i.e. both parties), it's the constant shifting goals, the instability of the relationship, the sense that there will always be something sinister moving in your periphery vision, that makes it so stressful.

 

And that is because they have deeper issues that keep them unhappy, in constant search of some external fix to bring them the love and peace they desperately want. Sex, drugs, rock and roll, can all be distractions from that inner turmoil, and when they attempt to be lovely and peaceful, it works, but it takes time to deal with all the bad habits, the inner turmoil, to get used to being the loveable, peaceful selves. Being told that their behaviour has hurt other people is part of helping them to find out who they are.

 

So yes, some "tough love" is often necessary. But by that I mean asserting ourselves, men and women, as ourselves, when faced with something that hurts us, not by following some didactic set of rules that we sort of agree with but don't really feel.

 

Accepting that some women are very difficult to get along with because of how they think and behave, just as are some men, helps me to filter out the artificial rules and see the people and the interactions that lead to the anger, the fear and the unhappiness.

 

We are all mad, but if we're happy, what does it matter?

Edited June 4, 2011 by betterdeal

[nordic]

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.

 

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.

[OpenBook]

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.

 

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.

[oldguy]

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.

 

The only exception I find with this is with the line; "men love sluts". Love has nothing to do with it as men are sluts but with men it's all about sex.

 

Men simply like sex but most women want something more emotional, most of the time & sex can sometimes appear to be the avenue to that, even if it is short lived.

 

"a slut will have sex with anyone, a biatch will have sex with anyone... but you"

[oldguy]

Readwholethread? Have listed out and numbered very clearly here 9 ways in which men judging women as unfit relationship or marriage partners due to promiscuity is completely fair and not a product of some imaginary double standard. Feel free to disagree with those if you like, but the supposed double standard has been well addressed in this thread.

 

Please repost the list, ("9 ways in which men judging women as...").

[OpenBook]

That's actually one of the 9 factors disproving the "double standard" that I have listed and numbered very clearly previously in the thread.

 

The well proven comorbidity of female promiscuity with personality disorders justifies questioning the mental stability of the promiscuous woman, that's yet another of the 9 factors.

 

Readwholethread? Have listed out and numbered very clearly here 9 ways in which men judging women as unfit relationship or marriage partners due to promiscuity is completely fair and not a product of some imaginary double standard. Feel free to disagree with those if you like, but the supposed double standard has been well addressed in this thread.

 

Thank you for your condescending efforts toward females to win the argument.

 

Good luck getting laid.