Dating a woman who has slept around....

[Maleficent]

You know for some reason this thread has made me into an anthopologist thinking about how prehistoric humans might have created this fear of sex and promiscuity for their own protection and survival.

 

Lets say you had a real wild man in your tribe. This guy would get drunk or take some psychedelics and start banging all the hot cave women after everyone else got drunk/did drugs and went to sleep. By observation perhaps others noticed that when you do the sex thing, a little while later the women gets pregnant. Perhaps the people that "went wild" also caught diseases from each other with greater frequency?

 

So somewere back in prehistoric civilization, people decided that too much sex was a bad thing.

 

Prehistoric men worshipped fertility goddesses. I really don't think this comes from prehistoric cultures. I tend to think this started happening with the big religions (judaism, christianity and islam)

 

Even pagan religions used by more primitive societies used sexual rituals.

[SawtoothMars]

The way we view sex is social conditioning (thank you, religion). If it were not, there wouldn't be tribes like the Mangaia and the Ineas Beag

 

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cultural_differences_in_sexuality

 

Cultures which suffer from genetic stagnation are instinctually pushed to find ways to increase diversity. That is why some Eskimo culture often required women to sleep with travelers.

 

We are all creatures of instinct. The culture you layer on top of it can only change things so much, and if you try to change beyond a certain level you begin to create social dysfunction and unhappiness.

 

Men on the whole will always prefer less promiscuous women as long term partners. Promiscuous behavior is strongly linked to psychological and emotional deficiencies, along with cheating behaviors which increase your chance of inconclusive paternity.

 

The caveat to this is within cultures that lack genetic diversity.

 

But people have an odd idea of what is natural and what is not.

We are natural biological beings who create things and alter our environment to benefit us. We create tools, build homes and other complex structures. These are all natural creations just as a birds nest is a creation of nature. Humans are just leading the naturally evolutionary process in this particularity part of the cosmos so we are more advanced and the things we create are also more complex and advanced. That's essentially all evolution is ... a movement towards greater complexity. One of the natural things we created was birth control and condoms. They are every bit as natural a creation as a birds nest or a rabbit hole.

You think as a human you are somehow disconnected from nature .... that everything you do or create is separate and "man made" like we are some how not an expression of nature like everything else in this universe. Its tough for most people to wrap their head around the fact that a car ..... is actually just as natural as a tree. Birth control and Condoms are part of our natural evolution .... the human psyche will adjust accordingly just as it has done to other changes over hundreds of thousands of years. Those who don't adapt .... well you know what happens to them in nature

 

Two generations are not enough to effect an instinctual change in evolutionary biology.

 

Additionally, people who cling to more "traditional" views of sex are much more likely to produce the next generation of people.

[Keenly]

No interest in a promiscuous woman. Sorry. I'm not like that so I don't want my partner to be either.

 

 

If she gets filtered because of her own choices in life, that's on her.

 

 

You ladies get the same answer men get when discussing who pays. The too bad it is what it is answer.

[Maleficent]

Cultures which suffer from genetic stagnation are instinctually pushed to find ways to increase diversity. That is why some Eskimo culture often required women to sleep with travelers.

 

We are all creatures of instinct. The culture you layer on top of it can only change things so much, and if you try to change beyond a certain level you begin to create social dysfunction and unhappiness.

 

Men on the whole will always prefer less promiscuous women as long term partners. Promiscuous behavior is strongly linked to psychological and emotional deficiencies, along with cheating behaviors which increase your chance of inconclusive paternity.

 

The caveat to this is within cultures that lack genetic diversity.

 

 

 

Two generations are not enough to effect an instinctual change in evolutionary biology.

 

Additionally, people who cling to more "traditional" views of sex are much more likely to produce the next generation of people.

 

So a culture's view on sexuality IS social conditionning. If it was all biological, all cultures would have the same sexual beliefs.

[SawtoothMars]

Prehistoric men worshipped fertility goddesses. I really don't think this comes from prehistoric cultures. I tend to think this started happening with the big religions (judaism, christianity and islam)

 

Even pagan religions used by more primitive societies used sexual rituals.

 

We know from written history that many of these fertility cults used slave girls as ritualized prostitutes, while also being extremely repressive of marriageable women.

[Keenly]

It's been a while since there was a 'man who pays' thread but from the ones I participated in, a lot of women don't mind going dutch even paying for full dates.

 

The social expectations are still changing.

Why can't it be the same for women's sexuality?

 

Woman can do whatever they want, and I'm glad they can. I, however, reserve the right to choose my partner based on any criteria I deem necessary. Sleeping around is one of them, because I'm not like that and I don't want to be with a partner that is.

Edited August 26, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Maleficent]

We know from written history that many of these fertility cults used slave girls as ritualized prostitutes, while also being extremely repressive of marriageable women.

 

But not all. All humans are biologically the same so if our views on sexuality was biological, there would be no difference from one society to another.

 

Kind of like eating. Biologically we need to eat. What/how/when we eat influenced by social and environmental factors.

[elaine567]

Plenty of women on LS who will walk out on a date when they find out he sleeps around a lot. Does that make them misandrists?

 

No it doesn't, but if a woman then proceeds to use foul derogatory terms to describe him, then she may well be a misandrist.

 

I know being obtuse is a ploy, but it doesn't half get old pretty quick.

[Justanaverageguy]

Men on the whole will always prefer less promiscuous women as long term partners. Promiscuous behavior is strongly linked to psychological and emotional deficiencies, along with cheating behaviors which increase your chance of inconclusive paternity.

But with birth control and paternity tests those ideas don't make sense any more because a woman can control getting pregnant in a similar way that men always naturally could. Also if promiscuous behavior is strongly linked to psychological and emotional deficiencies - what does that say about men throughout all of history where it has been actively encouraged ??? The rules to the game have changed and they are going to continue moving in the current direction.

 

Two generations are not enough to effect an instinctual change in evolutionary biology.

 

Additionally, people who cling to more "traditional" views of sex are much more likely to produce the next generation of people.

 

Yeah usually but not always true. There have been significant events that have triggered accelerated changes in many species in the past. Cataclysmic events, genetic mutations, a more dominant species or trait exterminating another and also the emergence of a completely new species. Personally I just think that the age we live in is special. Ancient civilizations and philosophers referred to a period in human history they called "the quickening". Massively accelerated change and increased complexity. I personally think the old rules that applied to our development .... don't so much any more. I see our development line as an exponential curve. If you look back it seems like things have changed very very slowly over long periods of time .... but you hit a point along that line where it just starts to go straight up.

 

Look at the technology but more importantly the behaviors and consciousness of people in the 1600s vs 1800s vs 1900s vs 1950s vs 1990s vs now. What was accepted as normal in these times - slavery, rights to vote, sexual rights of women and homosexuals ? Do you notice something interesting happening ?

Edited August 26, 2015 by Justanaverageguy

[Methodical]

It's been said many many times here. It's not the preference that bother us. What is bothersome is some men on here seem to want to fight for their right to use abusive language towards women who have views that differ.

 

There are many instances where preferences are asked for or stated, and because a person's preference steps on someone's toes, verbal daggers come out of the woodwork. As Mal stated, having a preference isn't wrong, but slinging mud, name calling, and shaming are judgmental atrocities that are uncalled for.

[William]

Since language is apparently a hot topic in this thread, rather than sharing personal experiences regarding the topic, I'll bump this prior directive from moderation up as a bookmark outlining what we've cleaned up so far. We find the topic to be valid as it discusses interpersonal relationships and will leave it open for members who chose to respond in a topical and respectful way and we thank them for their participation.

Link to prior directive

[Keenly]

Everybody seemed like they were getting their feelings hurt, I was just asking. I didn't just make that up and it does have bearing IRL. I think dating/marring a promiscuous women is a good way to land in the infidelity section. She'll probably land in the OM/OW section. You can say whatever whatever you want and I might sting you back. If you're in my area you can PM me and I'll more than happy to meet you in person.

 

 

Agreed. That's actually exactly what happened to me.

[SawtoothMars]

But not all. All humans are biologically the same so if our views on sexuality was biological, there would be no difference from one society to another.

Kind of like eating. Biologically we need to eat. What/how/when we eat influenced by social and environmental factors.

 

99.99% of humanity shares very similar views on sex and sexuality. Just like food, the spices may change the flavor, but beef is beef. Don't focus on the minor differences and instead look at the overall biological imperatives at work.

 

You seem to think that lions chase gazelles because they were not taught to eat grass like a proper animal. If you take that approach to people you will never understand why we do the things we do.

 

But with birth control and paternity tests those ideas don't make sense any more because a woman can control getting pregnant in a similar way that men always naturally could. Also if promiscuous behavior is strongly linked to psychological and emotional deficiencies - what does that say about men throughout all of history where it has been actively encouraged ??? The rules to the game have changed and they are going to continue moving in the current direction.

Yeah usually but not always true. There have been significant events that have triggered accelerated changes in many species in the past. Cataclysmic events, genetic mutations, a more dominant species or trait exterminating another and also the emergence of a completely new species. Personally I just think that the age we live in is special. Ancient civilizations and philosophers referred to a period in human history they called "the quickening". Massively accelerated change and increased complexity. I personally think the old rules that applied to our development .... don't so much any more. I see our development line as an exponential curve. If you look back it seems like things have changed very very slowly over long periods of time .... but you hit a point along that line where it just starts to go straight up.

Look at the technology but more importantly the behaviors and consciousness of people in the 1600s vs 1800s vs 1900s vs 1950s vs 1990s vs now. What was accepted as normal in these times - slavery, rights to vote, sexual rights of women and homosexuals ? Do you notice something interesting happening ?

 

Two points you say that are of interest. The first is that YES the vast majority of men in ancient societies were emotionally disturbed. In fact you had entire cultures where every single man suffered some form of PTSD. I don't think you fully comprehend how violent and connected to death people were in the past. Death was a constant and in your face companion, as were ultra violent people. Additionally, alcohol and drugs were much more common place among men of ancient times. It was not uncommon for the average medieval peasant to be drunk by noon every single day, because beer was the safest liquid to drink.

 

The second point is that you don't seem to understand how biology works. You must actually have babies in order to effect the next generation. Western Europe does not have babies. They are the Dodo Birds. They do not have a future genetically.

 

All the egalitarianism of Western Culture is great, but it requires capitalism and wealth. Without those two things it's just Soviet era propaganda and bull$hit.

[Vercetti]

No-one here is suggesting that anyone, male or female should date someone whose ethics and morals do not coincide with themselves, as that tends to lead to conflict, upset and heartache.

But thieves and murderers do not seem get the dogs abuse that women who exercise their sexual freedom, get from some men and that is a totally ridiculous state of affairs.

 

Some misogynistic men see the subject as a huge opportunity to bash women, and see their abuse of such women as justifiable, but for some men there is an element of projection here and that needs to be taken into consideration.

 

Well even the crass *******s have a right to express. Yet I do tend to think many of the men that slander can just be ticked some women sleep with anything that moves except them..

 

Only for men or women to get knocked in real life, they almost have to be carrying themselfs in a way that goes beyond privicy of bedroom. Act to crazy do get kicked out of circles or get bad reputation.

 

Anyhow guy down the street calls himself a player. Yet is with the most trashy women ever. I consider him trashy as well. Rather sure the reality of those people would make the PC never say slut people spew out some uncouth words. Half a dozen kids different dads, not knowing who the dad's are, stacks of stds, nonstop cheating, going after married people. Some words were invented for a reason.

 

Beyond that I've never encountered anyone that overtly slept around to be that stable in life. Juggling so many people and the cost of staying in the field, they have always been mutable and spinning in circles. Action with no progress outside where started. With all the talk of human nature, how about the difference between always being on the hunt vs captured what needed so can progress. I know the way my mind works when single, I would hate my mind being clouded with the next kill forever. Seeking, never finding, filling in the hole with a blank, sinking deeper and deeper...to the point forgot what was doing or why care.

[deadelvis]

...There are about 30k people living in the nearest city to me. I have dated women where it was a given that you would run into one of the many guys she has been with when you hit Walmart for groceries. And as a guy, you better stay out of the bar or club she likes to hang out at, because she has definitely built up a crowd of dudes there she has banged after a few too many drinks.

 

Part of the problem is the guys, too. When you are with a promiscuous girl, that guy coming up to talk to her that has already been with her? He's doing it just to rub that in the boyfriend's face. They come up to her, go for the hug, give the boyfriend that smug look that lets him know he's already been with your girl...

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You nailed it 100%. I can't have more than a couple drinks now if I go out with her because I know there's always a strong possibility I could get into an altercation. My GF is respectful, but other guys are not. When a guy gives me that "smug look" you're talking about... it takes all my self control not to drag him outside.

[BluEyeL]

I know we women get upset by the double standard and the misogyny that are still rampant in the society.

 

But, the way we tell men a certain behavior is expected, right or wrong from their point of view, the reality for us women is that if you want to be taken seriously, it's safer to be more conservative in your sexual behavior. You don't "have to", but it works better on the long term. You'll find your partner anyway nevertheless, so if that's your nature, it is what it is, and nobody will convince anybody else to change their views. Maybe in some more years.

[harkkam]

It's hard to respect women these days.

 

Can I mention "girls gone wild" and "jersey shore" and on and on.

 

It's lots of fun to mess around with easy women

 

But the one I marry I don't want her to be easy.

 

But then I have to pick my behavior as well, it would be hypocritical for me to sleep around and then expect the woman I marry to not be easy.

 

So I need to make sure I live up to my own values that I expect others to meet.

 

[off-topic rant redacted]

Edited August 26, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Shepp]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You nailed it 100%. I can't have more than a couple drinks now if I go out with her because I know there's always a strong possibility I could get into an altercation. My GF is respectful, but other guys are not. When a guy gives me that "smug look" you're talking about... it takes all my self control not to drag him outside.

 

When I bump into guys my missus has slept with in the past it's me giving them the smug look!

They had their shot, they blew it! She left them come sunrise, she married me! Jokes on them!

[autumnnight]

When I bump into guys my missus has slept with in the past it's me giving them the smug look!

They had their shot, they blew it! She left them come sunrise, she married me! Jokes on them!

 

BAZINGA!

[Woggle]

I know we women get upset by the double standard and the misogyny that are still rampant in the society.

 

But, the way we tell men a certain behavior is expected, right or wrong from their point of view, the reality for us women is that if you want to be taken seriously, it's safer to be more conservative in your sexual behavior. You don't "have to", but it works better on the long term. You'll find your partner anyway nevertheless, so if that's your nature, it is what it is, and nobody will convince anybody else to change their views. Maybe in some more years.

 

Be who you are but just accept the fact that not every man will be into it. You probably don't want these men anyway so why do women care so much about their opinions?

[katiegrl]

Question for the guys who make judgments about women who have sex with them "early" (say first or second date).

 

 

Would it make a difference if you and said women really, I mean REALLY clicked, felt an awesome chemistry (not just physical), and you were BOTH so attracted to each other, that you BOTH decided to throw caution to the wind and go for it? As opposed to some random chick you met at a bar one night?

 

 

Would it make a difference if said woman had a super low number and the only reason she had sex with you quickly was because of, again, the awesome MUTUAL chemistry you BOTH felt? And the fact she was SOOOOO attracted to YOU....and of course YOU to her as well.

 

 

Would you still judge and get turned off afterwards if said woman had NO expectations of it leading anywhere, and essentially left you alone, as opposed to acting clingy, and like you were already in a relationship?

 

 

From the men I know, the main reason they get turned off after early sex is NOT because the women had sex with them too soon....but because of her behavior AFTERWARDS.

 

 

Clingy, insecure, expectations and acting like you are "supposed" to behave a certain way (like text and call her all the time, take her out)....just because you had sex.

 

 

Anyhoo, just wondering because as you could guess....I am one of those women who has SUPER low numbers (like three!)...yet when I met my boyfriend we had such an intense chemistry (not just physical) and were BOTH so attracted to each other, we decided to have sex the first night.

 

 

I have NEVER had sex early on and like I said, I had sex with three men prior to him (two were within the context of a long term relationship) and the other was with a guy I dated for about three months but changed my mind about.

 

 

Afterward I had NO expectations and let him lead the way. Which he did. That was five years ago.

 

 

Anyhoo just wondering guys.... so thought I'd throw it out there for your thoughts.

[BlueIris]

Be who you are but just accept the fact that not every man will be into it. You probably don't want these men anyway so why do women care so much about their opinions?

 

Exactly!

Even women who haven't slept with many men just might not want to be around men who think and talk that way.

 

 

Knowing that it is an unpopular way to think, they generally don't say it to people they know in real life, especially women they want to have sex with. And that's yet another reason (or maybe the same and consistent reason) for people to talk and listen to someone, watch how they act over a period of time and in various circumstances, before getting attached to them- especially women, who are at risk of pregnancy if they have sex. I've known seemingly very nice, family oriented men in everyday life who shocked me months after I met them with opinions they held about men and women, relationships and sex. Ya just can't tell....

[deadelvis]

When I bump into guys my missus has slept with in the past it's me giving them the smug look!

They had their shot, they blew it! She left them come sunrise, she married me! Jokes on them!

 

What if they left her come sunrise? or just hit it but had no intention of staying with a promiscuous woman, like many posters in this thread? then who's the joke on?

Edited August 26, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[mr_dave]

Question for the guys who make judgments about women who have sex with them "early" (say first or second date).

 

 

Would it make a difference if you and said women really, I mean REALLY clicked, felt an awesome chemistry (not just physical), and you were BOTH so attracted to each other, that you BOTH decided to throw caution to the wind and go for it? As opposed to some random chick you met at a bar one night?

 

 

Would it make a difference if said woman had a super low number and the only reason she had sex with you quickly was because of, again, the awesome MUTUAL chemistry you BOTH felt? And the fact she was SOOOOO attracted to YOU....and of course YOU to her as well.

 

 

Would you still judge and get turned off afterwards if said woman had NO expectations of it leading anywhere, and essentially left you alone, as opposed to acting clingy, and like you were already in a relationship?

 

 

From the men I know, the main reason they get turned off after early sex is NOT because the women had sex with them too soon....but because of her behavior AFTERWARDS.

 

 

Clingy, insecure, expectations and acting like you are "supposed" to behave a certain way (like text and call her all the time, take her out)....just because you had sex.

 

 

Anyhoo, just wondering because as you could guess....I am one of those women who has SUPER low numbers (like three!)...yet when I met my boyfriend we had such an intense chemistry (not just physical) and were BOTH so attracted to each other, we decided to have sex the first night.

 

 

I have NEVER had sex early on and like I said, I had sex with three men prior to him (two were within the context of a long term relationship) and the other was with a guy I dated for about three months but changed my mind about.

 

 

Afterward I had NO expectations and let him lead the way. Which he did. That was five years ago.

 

 

Anyhoo just wondering guys.... so thought I'd throw it out there for your thoughts.

 

I've heard said that one of the last things a woman will say before a first nighter is "I don't normally do this" However, in your case that is the truth, so if I were the guy involved I would find it hugely flattering that you fancied me that much! However, if it were the 30th time you had done that... it doesn't have the same impact, does it?

[BlackOpsZombieGirl]

Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of dating. Both women and guys have their double standards when it involves dating and having sex with the opposite gender. Arguing about it or trying to convince others that what we believe (or that what our opinions are) is fact is really just a waste of time!

 

I, myself, have a very low number of partners that I've had sex with...and, it's NO ONE'S business except mine and the guy that I choose to disclose this info with. If I'm exclusive with a guy and he one day asks me, I have no shame in telling him my low number. If he's turned off by it because he assumes that I won't be experimental enough, wild enough or fun enough in bed, then that's ON HIM; and he can just go on his merry way to date and get in bed with a woman who has high numbers.

 

Guys shouldn't always assume that a woman with a lower number is a "prude" in bed, not "experienced enough" or is "too vanilla" in bed. When they do assume such things, it's just them missing out on a possible match and amazing chem and sexual compatibility!

 

One should NEVER assume ANYTHING whether the person they're dating has a very low number, a very high number or somewhere in between. Each person is an individual.

 

I mean, I could be considered a hypocrite...because even though I can count on one hand how many sexual partners I've had (all of which I was involved in LTRs with), I *prefer* to date and be in a relationship with a guy that has had at least SOME sexual experience (...preferably as much or MORE experience as I've had). I've already been in a relationship with a younger guy that had almost zero sexual experience...and even though I didn't mind teaching him and showing him the ways of sexual techniques, bliss, tantric sex and giving (and receiving) orgasms (especially with regard to teaching him how to pleasure ME specifically), I'd rather have my next boyfriend to be knowledgeable in that area; and for me to only have to SHOW HIM what actions and techniques that give me pleasure.

 

Would any of you consider me to be a hypocrite because - even though I have a limited number of sexual partners (and therefore, limited overall sexual experience with different people) - I prefer to date and (eventually) enter into a relationship with a guy who has MORE sexual experience than I do and has had MORE (or at least just AS MANY) sexual partners than I have?

 

I can't believe this thread has gotten the number of posts that it has, but then again, I can believe it.

Edited August 28, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator