The Essential Truth About Female Promiscuity

I had a laptop disaster over the weekend (Mac says the crash was caused by old liquid damage, ouch. No more wine while writing.) Anyway, I got a brand new computer today, and am up and running once again. It’s good to be back and I learned something important during this period: I’m not indispensable! The discussions continued without me, which is so great. Let’s dig in.

Mating, romance, sex and love are inherently strategic.  Our strategies are designed to solve particular problems for successful mating. Though modern conditions of mating differ from ancestral conditions, the same sexual strategies operate.

David Buss, Professor of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin

It didn’t surprise me when there was pushback from sex crazed feminists on last week’s post about Jaclyn Friedman seeking encounters on Craigslist. What did surprise me was the absolute tenacity with which Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon demanded to know how many sexual partners it takes to make a woman a slut. Like a dog with a bone, she growled and defended her turf, wary and distrustful of an interloper who dares to question, much less refute feminist orthodoxy.

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/20164716797"]

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/SusanAWalsh/status/20165520286"]

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/20164853176"]

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/20165429421"]

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/SusanAWalsh/status/20165715041"]

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/20246407239"]


She belabored the point again in her rebuttal:

We got into a Twitter battle over this, and I kept trying to get Susan to define a “slut” for me, based on the universally understood idea belief that you’re a slut once your Number gets over a certain point.

While I suspect that she was trying to bait a trap, so that she could proceed to deride my definition, she lent validation to the concept that sluthood can be achieved after one has climbed (or descended) a ladder of sorts. If sluthood is a good thing, a badge that feminist “badasses” proudly wear, then they must need a metric to know when a woman has met all of the requirements. She needs to have been sufficiently indiscriminate in her choice of sexual partners in order to claim membership in that hallowed sisterhood. When I suggested that for women who want relationships, casual sex may not be the best strategy, Marcotte replied:

[blackbirdpie url="http://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/20168205799"]


Apparently in the femosphere, having a lot of casual sex is a way of communicating that you are confident, and sexy, and have no needs, or at least not any that might be fulfilled by a male. I believe there are less risky ways of getting that message across.

The Sexual Double Standard

Sexual promiscuity has always been a real issue for women. I’ve written about this previously, in The Sex Risk for Women That No One Likes to Talk About. Known as the double-standard, invented and perpetrated by patriarchy, feminists refuse to accept it, which is entirely their right. However, ignoring what is largely a matter of biology is erroneous. The double-standard has historically served a very important purpose in sexual relations, namely that of decreasing false paternity claims, which cost men dearly in emotional and physical resources. Indeed, jealousy is believed to have evolved as a means of discouraging cuckoldry:

“Jealousy, experts agree, is a survival mechanism, although what is most at stake is a matter of debate. The most destructive of passions—it is a leading cause of homicide—and the least studied, it is, like all emotions, born of necessity, with roots deep in our evolutionary past. Its purpose: to help maintain intimate relationships.”

This explains why men have always placed a premium on sexual inexperience when selecting for long-term mating. American men, in selecting among 67 desirable traits, ranked sexual faithfulness and loyalty #1. According to The Evolution of Desire (Buss, 1994):

“Studies demonstrate that women’s preferences for short-term mates include availability as a marriage partner. They strongly resemble their preferences for a husband: kind, romantic, understanding, exciting, stable, healthy, humorous, and generous with resources. In other words, women have high standards for both short-term and long-term relationships, or at least that’s how we’ve evolved thus far.

Conversely, men select for very different traits when seeking short-term sexual partners. Compared with their long-term preferences, men don’t want casual partners who are prudish, conservative or have a low sex drive. In contrast to standards for committed relationships, for short-term sex they want: sexual experience, including promiscuity, and a high sex drive.”

These evolved differences mean that historically, men have not been shamed for having many sexual partners, and indeed they benefit from social proof when women observe their success in attracting other women. In recent years, as the ratio of casual sex/relationship sex has increased dramatically on college campuses, there has been a backlash of sorts, with women indicating that they find extremely promiscuous males unattractive and unworthy. The study is explained more fully in my post It’s About Time: The New Reverse Double Standard.

Men’s natural preference for sexual faithfulness and loyalty in women means that many will reject women who exhibit behaviors that contraindicate for that. A woman’s sexual history serves as a proxy, or indicator of future behavior. It is not perfect, but men can and do make use of this information when selecting partners. This does not mean that a promiscuous woman cannot find a mate, but it does mean that the pool of men from which she may select has shrunk dramatically. A woman may say, “I would never want a guy who felt that way,” and that’s perfectly legitimate. Still, it’s important that she understand the effectiveness of various sexual strategies in mating so that she may make informed decisions.

It’s also true that a woman who is expending energy seeking and engaging in no-strings sex is not wholly available for a longer-term relationship. Halfwaying it always exacts an opportunity cost and distracts from the long-term objective.

Promiscuity is a poor strategy for women who seek a long-term relationship, or life partner.

Other Negative Characteristics of Sexual Promiscuity

Aside from evolved male preferences, there are other risks associated with promiscuous sexual behavior. Most of these apply to men as well.

1. Increased prevalence of STIs, compromised fertility.

2. Research shows that 20% of men and 41% of women strongly prefer dating to hooking up.

“Women more than men seem to want a relationship. They fear, both in dating and hooking up, that they will become emotionally attached to a partner who is not interested in them.

Men more than women seem to value independence. They fear that even in hooking up relationships, which are supposed to be free of commitments, a woman might seek to establish a relationship.”

When those hopes fail to materialize, there is often some degree of emotional distress. Over time, a repeated pattern of post-hookup avoidance makes young people cynical and jaded about relationships.

3. Research shows that children of divorce are more likely to engage in no-strings sex, and to avoid relationships. They hook up earlier, more frequently, and have sexual intercourse during hookups earlier.

4. Risky sexual behavior may reflect genetic personality traits, including a high degree of risk-seeking, high degree of extraversion, and high degree of neuroticism.

5. The use of copious amounts of alcohol before hooking up is commonplace. Indeed, both women and men indicate that they drink heavily in order to summon the courage to hook up. Alcohol use is also a primary factor in sexual assault.

6. Hookup sex is generally rated as lower in quality by participants than relationship sex, due to lack of intimacy and knowledge of one’s partner. This is more true for women, obviously, as men often express that “The sex wasn’t great, but there was lots of it!”

7. Marital stability is correlated with the number of pre-marital sexual partners:

“Consider the 2003 study of over 10,000 women which found that as the number of non-marital sexual partners went up, the probability of marital stability went down.  For example, once a woman has had 5 sexual partners, the probability of pulling off an intact marriage dips under 30%; it is under 20% when the number of sexual partners reaches the upper teens.”

What is the Magic Number?

How many cupcakes can you eat without gaining weight? How many sick coworkers will it take to make you ill with the flu? How many drinks does it take to make an alcoholic?

It depends. It’s not an exact science. It’s not one-size-fits-all.

The right number of sexual partners for a woman will depend on a variety of factors, including:

  • age
  • personality traits
  • family history
  • relationship history
  • relationship goals
  • life goals

Some women feel badly about hitting double digits. Others celebrate with a round of tequila shots. Some women are embarrassed to be virgins, or to have had only 1-2 partners. Others love the dopamine high that comes with impulsive, risky, or even dangerous behavior.

Some men object to 5 partners. Men with a great deal of sexual experience themselves may consider 20 rounding error. Some men will judge sexual history depending on the nature of the relationships. As indicated above, men prefer promiscuous women with a high sex drive for short-term mating. If that’s your goal, you should have no difficulty in getting all the casual sex you can handle. If you hope to marry or cohabit and possibly have children, you should understand the tradeoffs so that you can make an informed decision about which strategy you wish to pursue.

In closing, I will share one last thought. This excerpt from the post Marcotte linked to really pissed her off and led her to call me a liar. It’s #15 of the 20 Reasons You Don’t Have a Boyfriend:

Your number is too high. OK, fine, you don’t want any guy who cares about how many people you’ve slept with. Problem is….that’s most guys. You don’t have to tell anyone your personal data. Just be aware that when you’re making the rounds within a certain community or group of friends, word gets out fast. I don’t think there has ever, ever been a guy who got laid and didn’t tell anyone about it afterwards. If your number is high and that fact is well known, you have every right to find a new pack of males and reinvent yourself.

I’ll stand by this. Your sexual history is your personal business. You are not obligated to share it with anyone. I’ll preempt the guys right here who claim they have a surefire list of “slut tells.” If you’re a woman who has been trolling for sex online, that’s bound to come across in a myriad of ways. But if you’re feeling regrets, or like you may have overindulged, there’s no reason you can’t change your behavior and change your life.

Think about what you want, and pursue a behavioral strategy that suits your objectives. You’ll feel better about yourself if your choices are congruent with your goals as well as your nature.

10 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/ Hambydammit

    Asking how man partners makes one a slut is like asking how many ounces are in a yard. It’s not about a number. It’s about the meaning behind the number.

    As you know, I’m squarely on the side of sexual freedom for women. But from a psychological perspective, there’s a difference between advocating the legal and cultural freedom to be promiscuous and the emotional advisability of doing so. As with most things, it’s context dependent. For instance, I know women who have been on vacation and hooked up with a hot guy because hell… it was definitely short term, it was uber-romantic, and it had been a long dry spell before then. Good on you.

    On the other hand, there are women who jump into bed with the first guy who asks to help them hide their own dissatisfaction with their lives, or their low self esteem, or something like that. That’s bad news.

    Is the girl who really wants a relationship but keeps choosing asshole alphas a slut? Probably not, even if she’s had sex with ten or twelve of them. Her intention is to get a relationship out of the deal, and she’s just choosing poorly. Is the girl who makes a habit of banging sports stars just for the street cred a slut? Very possibly. Why is she doing it? Is it part of a strategy of high self-esteem and self-actualization, or is it making up for some perceived deficiency?

    This leads us to another question. Is it possible for a woman to have a really high number — say, 50, and have gotten to that number while pursuing positive emotional goals? I think it’s extremely rare if it’s possible. Perhaps within an alternate community, like swingers, or something like that, it’s possible. I don’t know. Never been a swinger. But for the average woman, we have to wonder what kind of self-actualization comes from that many short term encounters.

  • pops3284

    Thats the real problem I have with the so called liberated and promiscuous woman. They for some reason dont understand that biology warrants that men want to make sure that women arent easy or promiscuous so they have a better chance of passing on genes. They just dont wnat to accept that the opportunity costs for being a hook up is that you may never be seen as a wife.

  • Artem

    I wonder if she is capable of understanding that men are different from women.

    “Well, that’s a straight up lie. Lots of men fall in love with sluts, especially since sluts don’t have that desperate vibe.”

    It’s such a clear case of projection – men DO NOT CARE if the woman has a desperate vibe. In fact, if they want to fuck her, they’d be glad she does. Same goes for confidence. We don’t like clingy women not because they are desperate for sex (whooray!) but because they will suck in all our time and energy. You may be a world class slut and still become clingy if you feel that your men has “long-term potential”. It’s completely unrelated.

    Women dislike desperate men because they assume (rightfully) they don’t get laid. Men don’t care if you get laid. A lot of men are put off (not to be confused with “intimidated”!!) by an overly sexual woman, too. Not everybody likes sluts, some men actually want to have a warm/protective/patriarchal feeling towards their women, and being a sexually aggressive slut can be a huge put off.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Hamby
    Is the girl who really wants a relationship but keeps choosing asshole alphas a slut? Probably not, even if she’s had sex with ten or twelve of them. Her intention is to get a relationship out of the deal, and she’s just choosing poorly.
    Hamby, I think this is a really important point. Intentions matter. And I do think men know perfectly well than any young woman can be taken in by a cad or two. But for good men who are already on the defensive about cads cleaning up, this becomes problematic very quickly. Many would say that they’d rather hold out for a woman who learned that lesson very quickly. Choosing cads 12 times – that tells me a woman is not learning from her experiences, and that signals decreased LTR fitness, IMO.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @pops
    It’s imperative that feminists deny biological differences between the sexes. Without that underpinning, the whole theology tumbles down.

  • Reinholt

    @Susan

    I think you hit the nail on the head. A woman who needs to fail 12 or more times to learn something is not the kind of person you can trust in a long-term relationship. I mean, if you touch a stove and it burns you 12 times in a row, you’re just a fool.

    This is part of the issue with the promiscuity thing. The other part is just playing the odds. If my girlfriend is good at keeping her legs closed, I know she’s less likely to cheat on me. If she’s not, she’s more likely to do so, purely from a numbers perspective.

    Or, as I have said once or twice before, being a slut for a woman is like being unemployed and living in your parents’ basement for a man.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Reinholt
    Good to see you! I have learned a great deal from the men here about their view of female promiscuity. It’s not something one sees covered in the mainstream media, and I believe that many women just have no idea that men will hold it against them when considering an LTR. It’s clear that while men will often try to escalate, if they really like a woman they’re hoping she will hold out. Several guys have said that a woman’s behavior wrt sex early on determines whether she goes into the LTR pile or the fling pile. It’s very difficult for women to comprehend that a man will make moves, while secretly hoping you’ll not allow it.

  • Chili

    n=0. Say you have a woman who’s slept with n guys. She finds a guy she likes. She holds out. They start getting serious. She gives in. It’s goes well. Then it doesn’t. They break up. Rinse and repeat: n=n+1.

    Even with the best of intentions, eventually some guy is going to start holding your “n” against you. You get depressed. You die alone.

    This blog just makes me sad sad sad. Seems like none of us ladies can do it right. Either your number’s too high, or too low, too old, or too young, not pretty enough, too pretty, not smart, too dumb. What do you men want anyway? And how do you explain the droves of people that get married and live happily ever after every gosh darn day?

  • Reinholt

    @Chili

    If you read what the men on this site have to say, it’s not all that complicated:

    - Be trustworthy and responsible.
    - Don’t sleep around or cheat.
    - Keep yourself in shape.
    - Be pleasant to be around.

    That’s not a complicated list.

    With regard to some of your other points: men don’t mind women who have had a few partners. Men mind women who have had a lot of partners, or have been irresponsible about it. If you had good reasons and dated for two years, I won’t hold it against you relationship-wise if you slept with someone. If you banged someone you met in a bar last night, I will. It’s not complicated.

    Lastly, there are healthy marriages (most of them start young and don’t sleep around first), but the number out there are declining by the day. The younger demographic is simply not marrying as much as they used to, so my advice is start young and get real about who you can marry and what you want to do about it.

  • http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/ Hambydammit

    Choosing cads 12 times – that tells me a woman is not learning from her experiences, and that signals decreased LTR fitness, IMO.

    Yeah. So in function, there’s little difference between a girl who’s been suckered into a “slut number” and a girl who’s slutted her way there. Both are seen as bad risks for guys looking for a LTR. Whenever I’m contemplating a relationship with a girl who’s had lots of partners, I want to know the specific reasons why she’s had so many, and I want to be well convinced that I am not likely to be a stop on the way to wherever she’s wandering. In other words, I need to see that there’s been a wholesale change in her such that she doesn’t need or want to pursue that lifestyle anymore.

  • verie44

    Can someone comment about “grudge fucking”? I’ve heard this argument from one of my guy friends. It’s basically an idea from the opposite side of the fence. A guy is interested in a girl, but because she waits too long to give it up (according to him) and makes him “jump through hoops” by taking time to get to know her and spend time with her without being sexually satisfied, he’s no longer really interested in her as a person because he’s annoyed. Now he just wants to screw her and leave her when she finally does have sex with him.
    .
    How often does this happen? Does it only happen when a guy’s in general not looking for something serious or can it happen during the dating process that a girl gets put into the GF category (grudge fuck, not girlfriend :) )?

  • http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/ Hambydammit

    @Verie: I dunno how much it happens during the hunt for a real GF, but any guy that would do that isn’t good bf material, so it doesn’t matter. It definitely happens in Playerville. In fact, sometimes guys use annoyance as a way to guilt a girl into sex, and then think less of her when she falls for it, which makes them uninterested in more than a one time thing.

    Great trick, eh?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      In fact, sometimes guys use annoyance as a way to guilt a girl into sex

      Undoubtedly, some of these couplings turn into relationships, and eventually marriage. I always wonder how the woman will feel about the way the relationship started. It’s not exactly courtly behavior. Once a guy invited me over for a first date – swimming and bbq’ing at his apt. After dinner, he grabbed my hand and pulled me behind him toward his bedroom, very confident and knowing. I balked. There was no way. He wound up angrily driving me home, acting petulant and sulky the whole way. A few days later he called to apologize profusely and ask for another chance. I did go out with him a few more times, but I would never have considered him for an LTR.

  • Chrissy

    Hey Susan
    This is my first time commenting on this blog so I hope this isnt too long(I just need to rant). But I’m a sophomore in college and I want to date and hopefully get into a relationship but its soooo hard because it seems nobody wants to be in a relationship. I had sex with two people and regret each of them. Im one of those girls who feels depressed after hooking up if theres no emotional attatchment. But I guess I didnt know that was me until I tried it. I thought I could do it but I really couldnt. And then I started to like them when I didnt even like them that much in the first place. And even though I dont hook up with them or speak to them I still feel a little broken from those experiences. I guess you wrote this blog from girls like me. And then Im also trying to figure out my sexuality. Im struggling between bi and gay and have been for years…before I even had sex. And I would like to date a girl but its soo hard to find girls to date. I dont know whos gay and who isnt. lol. oh well. Yea…I just had to vent about that. Whats a girl like me to do?? But I eventually came to the conclusion that I might just have to kick it solo until I find someone who wants the same things I want. It sucks. But it gives me a piece of mind and I wont be broken.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Chrissy
      Thanks so much for sharing your story. It is very hard, and it must be exponentially more complicated if you’re figuring out your sexuality. However, you’ve already figured out what doesn’t work for you, and that is critical. I love how you say you won’t be broken – that shows strength and determination. You’re in it for the long haul – just remain true to yourself and your needs while you figure things out. As for finding gay women, that’s bound to be tough in any given class, but there are always active LGBT groups on campus. College is the probably the easiest place to meet gay women, so check it out. Student Health Services or Counseling should be able to direct you, but I think most schools have that information easily accessible online.

  • Mike

    I’ll stand by this. Your sexual history is your personal business. You are not obligated to share it with anyone.

    Agreed (operative word being ***obligated***)……..but the conversation *WILL* probably come up at some point and the guy will probably ask….and then you have 3 options:

    1. Tell him it is none of his business which is a de facto admission of a high number or past “slutty” behavior.

    2. Tell the truth.

    3. Lie.

    Frankly, many guys are going to want to know in the context of a potential LTR/marriage. Really, I see nothing sacred about keeping one’s sexual history some sort of secret. For a LTR/marriage, I would want to know the person’s financial history and job history as well (generally speaking slutty spendthrifts with poor credit and a spotty job record probably aren’t the best future wives). If I am going to buy a used car, I want to know everything about it prior to purchase. If I am just going for a test drive, I couldn’t care less.

    Generally speaking, I think #2 is the best option, and if it becomes a dealbreaker for the guy…well….then it wasn’t meant to be. But again, this gets back to the one of the messages I think of this post which is if you want marriage and kids with a quality guy who has options you’d better think very carefully about what sexual path you follow in your 20s.

    #3 could work tactically, but carries the large risk of the truth eventually getting revealed. Depending on the situation and context, this could be enough for the guy to break it off, and then you’ve wasted alot of time.

    I’ve been with my GF now for 4.5 years. We just moved in together last week, and I will most likely marry her at some point (she is wonderful). Very early in our relationship she revealed she had a one night stand (although her overall number is low). This rattled me because it made me question the judgement/assessment I had made of her character. However, she spent her ENTIRE 20s as extremely obese with ZERO male attention, and then lost all the weight in her early 30s (she is a solid 8 now). As she lost the weight, she started to get male attention she never got and made some mistakes. Ultimately, I got past it and it became a non-factor. As a side point, former fatties who lose the weight and turn hot are prime targets for player types. They don’t have bitch shields, and unlike hotties from the teen years aren’t tired of male attention to their beauty. They are particularly responsive to the neg but I digress.

    What’s my point? I think telling the truth is better, and maybe some explanation will make the guy understand the behavior. Again, this only matters if you actually think this is a guy you could be with very long-term and desire a LTR/marriage with.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike
      I keep thinking about that guy who wrote in to the Boston Globe, having recently learned that his very serious girlfriend had a number of 36. He was devastated by this information, and clearly seriously considering ending the relationship. They’d been together for a couple of years before the subject came up. Nearly all of her partners had been in college, and she is now 26. She explained that she is “reformed” but he was having a lot of trouble getting past it.
      I’ll be honest here. If I were her, I would not have told the truth. If I’d achieved real understanding of what promiscuity had meant for me, and changed my behavior 4-5 years ago, I might know that I was a good LTR bet. If that history is enough to derail the relationship, then perhaps truth is just going to make them both miserable.
      There is always the risk of discovery – I’m reminded here of the movie Best in Show where an old boyfriend asks Katherine O’Hara (in front of her husband) if she can still do that crazy thing with her legs, and reminds her of the time they had sex on a roller coaster.
      There’s also the burden of keeping the secret for a lifetime – I would find this very difficult, so that must be weighed as well.

  • Mike

    Well, that’s a straight up lie. Lots of men fall in love with sluts, especially since sluts don’t have that desperate vibe.

    Read this, then read it again, then read it again, then read it again. Amazing stuff here because you have a feminist essentially admitting the Gamers have it EXACTLY RIGHT.

    This is clearly classic female projection. She is projecting what she finds attractive onto men of course being absolutely clueless to men’s brains and biological instincts…but this sentence could essentially be rewritten:

    “Lots of women fall in love with players, especially since players don’t have that desperate vibe”.

    BAM. Right there is the most important thing for any guy to internalize. You can’t come across as desperate which unfortunately many betas/omegas reek of. A guy told me many years ago when I was first learning this stuff “THE HUNGRY DO NOT GET FED”.

    Of course, men could care less about whether a woman is desperate or not for a short-term sexual interaction. Shit, if you could find a hot women who was desperate (most likely impossible) that would be the ideal for a guy who just wants to get laid.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike

      Well, that’s a straight up lie. Lots of men fall in love with sluts, especially since sluts don’t have that desperate vibe.

      Interesting. I took this to mean that men will avoid women who signal any desire for a committed relationship. They don’t want a “Stage 5 clinger” so they happily have sex with women who appear not to care. Pity them if they do fall in love with such a woman – it’s exactly the same as women falling for players. However, research shows that players hook up primarily with promiscuous women – in which case, no one is falling in love. Marcotte’s claim makes no sense.

  • Mike

    It’s clear that while men will often try to escalate, if they really like a woman they’re hoping she will hold out.

    This is so spot on. I think I mentioned this before but I think you could think of this as the male equivalent of a “shit test”. You want to see what kind of resistance the girl puts up when the sexual pressure is applied.

    I was skimming the Game the other day, and I think you’ve read it. There is that story early on where Style is hanging out with the one guy and they get the girlfriend of the guy to come back to the place and the guy with Style basically just sticks his dick into this girl with a boyfriend with basically no resistance.

    I think women are biologically wired to sexually submit to a male they perceive as high or higher status. I’m thinking about conversations I’ve had, and I am thinking back to a grad school situation where looking back I have ZERO doubt I could have fucked this girl the same night I met her (my conscience activated as I was in a relationship at the time and once we got to a certain point I was like I can’t do this). Interestingly, she specifically mentioned she had seen me in the gym all the time so I already had status before that night. About a week later, I ran into her and she called me out for trying to play her like a “slut”. Funny thing is I am close to certain she is NOT yet I have no doubt I could have fucked her that night. And I attribute that entirely to the perceived value differential (she had a pretty face but was chunky and when I was in grad school I was in the best shape of my life, probably only time I was a 9).

    What’s my point? I think guys have to have some confidence that if they are in a LTR/marriage that they can trust that if their partner encounters a super high value male with really tight game, that she isn’t just going to spread em. I think testing how “easy” a girl is gives some indication of that.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I think guys have to have some confidence that if they are in a LTR/marriage that they can trust that if their partner encounters a super high value male with really tight game, that she isn’t just going to spread em.

      This is why women should NOT EVER flirt with other guys when they’re trying to lock it down. Indicating the desire or need for male attention, despite that fact that you’re getting it from one guy already, is a clear disqualifier for men. I think women often want to keep proving to the guy they like that he would be lucky to get them into a relationship – “Look how many guys find me attractive!”
      In reality, she’s telegraphing that she is a woman likely to induce constant feelings of jealousy, at least for a guy who isn’t a player. I’ve read that men will dump women who make them feel jealousy – even if they really like her. It’s just the worst feeling imaginable for men.

  • Mike

    Can someone comment about “grudge fucking”? I’ve heard this argument from one of my guy friends. It’s basically an idea from the opposite side of the fence. A guy is interested in a girl, but because she waits too long to give it up (according to him) and makes him “jump through hoops” by taking time to get to know her and spend time with her without being sexually satisfied, he’s no longer really interested in her as a person because he’s annoyed. Now he just wants to screw her and leave her when she finally does have sex with him.
    .
    How often does this happen?

    I think this is a rarity because honestly only borderline sociopathic guys would engage in this type of thing. I think the vast majority of guys even player types have some basic level of respect for a girl who is being authentically chaste (only sexual partners in a LTR). I think it was you in fact that mentioned that some of your player friends were actually very respectful and protective of you and your choices.

    I think where this “grudge fuck” might come into play is with a “reformed slut”. In other words, you’ve got a girl who has engaged in a ton of casual sex, banging the guy on date 1, 2, or 3, and then all of a sudden she is going to make guy A wait 3 months, 6 months for the same thing she previously was handing out right away. This will piss a guy off for sure, and make him feel like she is trying to play him. In this situation, I’d probably be inclined to the “grudge fuck” myself. It’s like you go to a store and you see 10 people buy something for .05 and then you go to purchase and the price has changed to $100. You are going to feel like you are getting ripped off. Maybe you just walk away, and maybe you try to pull something on the store.

  • ATS

    The thing that gets me about certain sex pos feminists who keep insisting that reckless casual sex is good for women is that they consistently refuse to listen to the male viewpoint. Men commenting in this blog, and men I have encountered in real life have consistently said that they value a woman with a lower number of sexual partners for LTRs. And yet it would seem these sex pos feminists think if they repeat their mantra about reckless and rampant sleeping around not being damaging to women amongst themselves often enough, it will come true.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @ATS
      If feminists admit that there are biological differences or preferences between the sexes, the whole theology falls apart. If we have sex differently, that means our brains are not identical, and if that’s true, then I’m worried you’re going to claim women are no good at science or math. Etc. However, there is so much solid science on this now that hanging on tenaciously to these views is just digging them deeper and deeper into a hole. There’s already some defecting going on in that camp, and I believe it will get worse. This will require them to become even more strident – eventually winding up in a Munch Scream.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Chili

    Seems like none of us ladies can do it right. Either your number’s too high, or too low, too old, or too young, not pretty enough, too pretty, not smart, too dumb.

    I understand your frustration. The truth is, the sociosexual environment is pretty harsh. Women (and some men) are frustrated in their inability to find healthy and committed relationships, at least during college and in the years immediately following. This blog is an attempt to tease apart the social influences that make it so difficult and offer concrete suggestions for improving your chances of getting what you want. It’s also meant to inform – sometimes there is no easy solution, but we’re always better off with more information rather than less, in my view.
    For women, that means fully understanding what men seek, which pretty much amounts to cues indicating fertility. It’s also important to understand what women seek, which heavily emphasizes social dominance – this can and does get many women derailed, as they prioritize social dominance and minimize the importance of a man’s character.
    I believe that when things aren’t going well, we have no way of improving our lives unless we understand where we’re running into trouble, or shooting ourselves in the foot. So it’s natural that many of my posts will identify and address those trouble spots. It is a bit depressing, but at least it gives you a way of exerting some control over your own life. You don’t have to do anything – but if you’re not proactive, then you’re bound to be an unwitting victim of the culture.
    Re all the marriages happening, I agree that’s real. It is true that the marriage rate is declining, but the truth is that most Americans will still marry, though the rates are closely tied to socioeconomic status. I spent yesterday at the Science Museum with my brother’s children, and it was packed with young families. Thousands of parents and children. There is no reason a woman can’t have that if she wants it. She just needs to not waste her youth and beauty on cads. She should also seek out men who are approaching the age when they might consider commitment, 25+. Obviously, that’s impossible in college, but not forever.

  • Vincent Ignatius

    Whether it was a one night stand or serious relationship, the number still counts the same. The only difference is whether it detracts from a girl’s ability to bond to a man or signals her propensity to cheat.

    5 is my absolute max for a serious girlfriend.

  • Average Joe

    @Verie44

    Grudge fucking doesn’t happen that often, because well it requires a grudge. And grudges are hard to generate, but it still happens. I have done it personally and felt really shitty about it afterward. From that experience, I learned that it’s generally better to be vocal than passive aggressive… and it is a passive aggressive move. You can generally achieve the same “revenge” affect with words sans the guilty feelings.

    Guys don’t begrudge a woman for “too long”. That’s a myth. We might complain or look elsewhere, but we won’t go into grudge fuck mode. We begrudge a woman who sets bad sexual expectations and makes us feel used/manipulated and strung along. The recipe for a grudge fuck is as follows: A woman sends lots of mixed signals… over time… regarding her sexual availability to a guy and then doesn’t follow through. In my case, in college I had a woman make very overt sexual comments towards me that were both direct and indirect. She took her towel off in front of me, commented on my “nice” legs, and made suggestive remarks about a couple of drawings that I had made for art class. Anyway to make a long story short, I visited her (9 hour drive) during a spring break a couple of weeks later and for whatever reason she didn’t want to seal the deal. So fast forward 7 months and she calls me and we hookup in DC. I definitely made sure the experience was frustrating, yet at the same time very memorable. I didn’t call her afterward, so of course a few days later she called me. I didn’t answer. She made more calls and left a couple of voice mails, but I ignored them all. I saw her at a friend’s wedding last year and we apologized to each other non verbally with a big hug.

    Here’s a few helpful suggestions to keep you from being a target.

    1.Do not make a bunch of erotic remarks around a man with whom you spend a lot of one on one time… unless you are gonna go to bed with him. You can be bawdy in a group, but not during coupling.

    2. If you like to wait weeks/ months/ years before having sex, then always go Dutch.

    3. If you like to have NSA sex with folks from craigslist DO NOT tell your male friends about it.

  • Aldonza

    @Chrissy

    I still feel a little broken from those experiences.

    You’re not broken. Experiencing negative experiences is how we learn.

  • Aldonza

    @SusanWalsh
    You know I dislike it when you use quotes as “evidence”, particularly from blog entries that don’t even include citations to the studies they quote as backup to their assertions.

  • Aldonza

    @Average Joe
    Interesting that you call grudge fucking a “myth” and then explain how you did it yourself.

  • http://jadekeller.com Jade @ Tasting Grace

    It’s so strange that Amanda Marcotte puts such a high status on quantifying a “slut”, and pinning it to an exact number whereby if you are one below you’re fine, but one above you’re labeled. This is the problem I have with a lot of feminists I see in the media – they seem to have forgotten some core essential points about feminism. They’ve lost sight of the value of finding freedom to be who you are and be authentic and instead are hell bent on setting up paradigms and ideals and insisting everyone MUST be this way to be “properly liberated”, thus undermining their own liberation.

    She seems to be entirely missing your point (or at least what I believe to be your point) that who-gives-a-crap-about-”slut”, what matters is how YOU feel. If you feel good about yourself and feel in your heart you’re doing the right thing, then that’s fabulous. Go for it. If what you’re doing makes you feel badly about yourself, then STOP. It’s not about a number, it’s about the reasons behind an action and whether you can feel proud of yourself the next day. It’s not about what anyone else thinks about you; it’s about how you think about yourself. You’re not “freaking out about women having sex”; you’re watching out for the ones who do it for the wrong reasons and end up hating themselves after. [Meanwhile they seem to be saying "Ignore how you feel" or "you're not feeling the right way about this" - not a very girl-positive or sex-positive position.]

    The part I found so utterly sad about the Jaclyn Friedman piece was that she said she was using sex to fill an emotional hole in herself – except it sounded like she thought that was a positive thing (I did just skim the thing, so I might have missed something). Well, that’s clearly unhealthy and tells me at least how utterly lost she is. Not because she used sex. But because she was using sex to fill a hole. You can take out sex and fill it with anything: food, alcohol, shopping…it’s still unhealthy. And it still fails to fill that hole. That’s because sex is NOT the answer. If it were, that hole would be filled. I think she mentioned there was some early trauma in her life. What she needs to do is start there and start being honest.

    I think the reason Marcotte (and others like her) get so upset about that is the same reason some religious fanatics get so upset at any disagreement about their worldview – that somewhere, deep down, they know something about it is bunk. If you’re truly secure in your beliefs, it won’t matter to you what others think or say. But instead, they seek conformity for a sense of validation.

    About LTRs and your number, I think the key issue at root is if you feel you’ve made good choices for you (or if you haven’t, you’ve at least learned from them). The key point is whether you’re comfortable with yourself. I think, most probably, the number is just a symptom, a signpost, that people use to determine the risk of a relationship (one among many factors). If everything else in the relationship is solid and there’s true love, a high number is not something you can’t get past, after some truthful and open conversation (including your reasons and lessons learned, if any). In any case, if you’re going to start a LTR/marriage with a lie about this, it doesn’t bode well for your ability to get through major problems later with honesty. Part of the point in marriage is that you know the truth about each other, and even faced with the truth, you’re willing and ready to commit.

  • Ellen

    @Aldonza, Average Joe didn’t say it was a myth, just that “waiting to long” as a cause for it was a myth.

  • Average Joe

    @ Ellen
    Thank you.
    @ Aldonza
    please go to what Ellen said.

  • http://ft.com VJ

    It’s not a number. It’s not even exactly how you ‘feel’ or how he/she makes you ‘feel’, precisely. Sure that certainly helps. Everything & everyone. But that part of the neurological & limbic system is our most very basic. It can be and has been easily fooled in the past. Witness the ‘make-up’ & beauty industry empires. Why do they exist? Because some of this stuff does work. And even on the margins, that’s seen as somehow ‘significant’.

    It’s all about your ability to make choices in your life & how well you’ve done this in the past. A woman or man who’s constantly & forever ‘unlucky in love’ has several handicaps perhaps. The most benign might be a streak of ‘bad luck’. Among the least benign are those who continually happen to choose to be or are inevitably attracted to dangerously abusive and/or uncaring partners, again & again. If you as a woman are inedibly drawn to those ‘bad boys’ or had a decade or so of ‘playing around’ with them to sow your wild oats (or whatever other rationale there exists for same)? That says something about your maturity & your readiness for adult life. Sorry about that. Ditto for the cads slutting it up on their end. Sure as socially constructed the guys are not going to be as sanctioned for this behavior as are the females. But there’s plenty of good sound biological reasons for that too, and BTW? If you’re looking for the Dads & Not the cads? Their numbers are accordingly fractional by way of comparison.

    So again no hard numbers. And feelings can ever be elusive guides to life & ‘character’ even. But what are your choices saying about YOU? Can you explain all what has gone on to Granny/Uncle/Momma at the family picnic? (Not that anyone actually asks anymore in most families!) Can you rationalize it to yourself w/o using silly excuses? (But he/she looked so damn hot/cute/’doable’, that was a ‘one off for the month/year/week, but he/she was a banker/broker?!) That’s what it’s all about. Are your choices healthy for you. Not for the moment, but in the context of the rest of your life? Slutting it up? Sure it’s fun for everyone. But long term? The only advantage that might accrue to anyone is the slight pick up in temporary self esteem & orgiastic release perhaps. There’s little possibly upside here other than fodder for racy adverts & the ever occasional yes, ‘inconvenient’ but fatherless child. Which BTW? Can also be a blessing for many, strangely enough. Not that I’m recommending it for anyone. Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • dragnet

    I find it really hard to believe that people like Amanda Marcotte don’t understand short-term mating drive vs. long-term reproductive investment. Just because you get a boner for a girl you know is promiscuous doesn’t mean you want to be with her on a long-term basis.

    I’ve noticed a greater tendency to conflate the sexual drives with regards to other topics as well. I recently read an article on the cuckoldry/hotwife niche—some third rate scientist said that because some men get aroused after after hearing their wives have cheated on them, they should ignore their anger and mental anguish and welcome being cuckolded because ‘Hey! It obviously turns them on, right?!?!?’. Apparently, the notion of engaging in “sperm wars” as a strictly short-term strategy to mitigate the wife’s infidelity completely eluded her. It’s really the same with the whole apparent taste for sluts some men display.

    As for those men who fall in love with and marry sluts, I have no doubt that a minority of these men are really fine with it. But most of these men have bought wholesale into their feminist social conditioning, and have become so brainwashed and so lacking in self-awareness they are confusing their short-term drive for these women with suitability for a long-term investment. And the facts bear this out, as study after study show that more promiscuous people (of both sexes) are much less likely to be faithful. For a wife, that means your husband will probably banging other women…but for a husband, that means he will be investing in and rearing children that are not his own without knowing it. The stakes are just so much higher for men.

    Statements like, “Lots of men fall in love with sluts, especially since sluts don’t have that desperate vibe” really just make it clear that a significant men have been conditioned away from knowing what is in their best interests and are now confusing their short-term preferences for their long-term desires. Which has been the point all along.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @dragnet

      I find it really hard to believe that people like Amanda Marcotte don’t understand short-term mating drive vs. long-term reproductive investment. Just because you get a boner for a girl you know is promiscuous doesn’t mean you want to be with her on a long-term basis.

      This is a stretch. AM is clearly a highly intelligent woman, and all I can figure out is that her hamster wheel is spinning at 200 mph. Also, she’s in a self-selected group of people all saying this, and all believing that men and women have sex in exactly the same way. This results in an especially noxious form of pluralistic ignorance.

  • dragnet

    About grudge-fucking—it’s really only reserved for women who are known to give it up easily, but hold out for some reason. I know a few guys who have done this—they were with a girl they heard was easy and for some reason she made him wait a few weeks or months….when he finally got in there, he just hit it & quit.

    So, yes, it does happen.

  • dragnet

    “I’ll be honest here. If I were her, I would not have told the truth.”

    Eh, I don’t think so highly of this. If he asks her point blank, then he is entitled to an answer. Maybe the answer is, “I don’t want to tell you”—-which is what I hope you’re suggesting she say as opposed to giving him lower, fake number.

    “If I’d achieved real understanding of what promiscuity had meant for me, and changed my behavior 4-5 years ago, I might know that I was a good LTR bet.”

    It really isn’t for you to decide whether or not you are “a good LTR bet”, that’s for your potential partner to decide. This is true for men & women, btw.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Aldonza

    You know I dislike it when you use quotes as “evidence”, particularly from blog entries that don’t even include citations to the studies they quote as backup to their assertions.

    Huh? Are you talking about quotes from Buss’ Evolution of Desire? I cited that in the post. His bibliography is chock full of sources. Or are you talking about places where I said “research shows…”? In those cases, the link to the source is in red type. I don’t believe there are any “quotes” here that are unsubstantiated. If so, I would be happy to provide the source.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Jade

    [The feminists] seem to be saying “Ignore how you feel” or “you’re not feeling the right way about this” – not a very girl-positive or sex-positive position.

    I agree. Jaclyn Friedman did feel badly – in fact, she described feeling physically ill after her encounter. Instead of sitting with that admittedly bad feeling, she sought a way to soothe herself as fast as possible, without any introspection. Her goal is to make the bad feeling go away, rather than investigate what choices might result in good feelings. This is bad enough when doing it to oneself, but I believe that many women emply the “misery loves company” strategy. If they can all be in it together, no one needs to acknowledge what a disaster it all is. They can just keep saying “We’re awesome!” to one another in a big circle.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @VJ

    Can you explain all what has gone on to Granny/Uncle/Momma at the family picnic? (Not that anyone actually asks anymore in most families!) Can you rationalize it to yourself w/o using silly excuses?

    This is actually an excellent approach, in my view. Are the people who love you most going to be on board with your choices? The feminists like to say that “oldies” like myself just don’t have a clue about sex and relationships. They also are convinced that there’s a conspiracy among us to ruin the fun for women still fertile and beautiful. I was accused of jealousy by quite a few commenters over at Pandagon.
    The truth is that sexual dynamics have not really changed in 10,000 years. Yes, the sexual marketplace has changed, but the things that motivate men and women to interact and mate haven’t. Young people are trying hard to figure out what the other sex wants, and the older people in their lives usually have quite a bit of insight into this. They will certainly have a sense of when something is “off” or not in the best interests of their loved one.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @dragnet
    I’m not familiar with the term grudge fuck, but it seems to me it’s any sex where you feel an active dislike or antipathy toward the other person. It can be done to exact revenge for someone else – the whole karma’s a bitch thing. I remember the story you told about hooking up with a woman who had been really rude about another guy, and enjoying blowing her off after that.
    There’s also hate sex with an ex – if you were the dumpee, and the dumper comes back looking to hook up, you could go for it to show them what they threw away, etc. The common theme seems to be the desire to teach a woman a lesson.
    .
    Re my admission that I would have lied about my number to keep a guy, I share your disapproval of the tactic. That’s why I admitted it as a confession. In thinking about what I would have done in her place, I think I probably would have tried to gloss over it in some way. Of course, this is nothing new. Everyone knows (especially sex researchers) that women exaggerate their numbers downwards and men upwards. It then becomes a question of degree, and we’re back to the same question. What number is reasonable? Can you fudge it by two partners? 32? It’s very difficult to know where to draw the line.
    .
    Honestly, I don’t even understand the fixation on a specific number. This was never a question 20 years ago. I have never been asked this question, even by my husband. Nor do I know or wonder about his number. It seems to me that that conversation is almost never useful.

  • dragnet

    “I remember the story you told about hooking up with a woman who had been really rude about another guy, and enjoying blowing her off after that.”

    Yes, that could definitely be classified as a ‘grudge-fuck’ now that I think about it. I find it weird you remember that waaaaaay back detail of my sex life, but I guess that’s what I get for posting on the Internets :-)

    “Everyone knows (especially sex researchers) that women exaggerate their numbers downwards and men upwards. It then becomes a question of degree, and we’re back to the same question. What number is reasonable? Can you fudge it by two partners? 32? It’s very difficult to know where to draw the line.”

    Yeah—which is why you shouldn’t fudge it. It’s selfish and counterproductive. The best response is really just to say you don’t want to tell them and that it’s not important, or that you made some mistakes and you’ve done a turnaround and that you feel like this relationship is it for you blah blah blah. But fudging really shouldn’t be among the list options if you feel like the other person is LTR material—they’re entitled to a truthful answer if you want to be with them: either the real number or the fact that you aren’t interested in discussing it.

    “Honestly, I don’t even understand the fixation on a specific number. This was never a question 20 years ago. I have never been asked this question, even by my husband. Nor do I know or wonder about his number. It seems to me that that conversation is almost never useful.”

    Once again, this strikes me as extremely self-serving, and I’m sure you’re aware of this. The usefulness of the information about promiscuity is really for the other person to decide—it’s wrong to make that decision for them. If you don’t want to answer, then don’t.

    And it’s easy not to care or wonder about your hubby’s number after you’ve been successfully married and blissfully happy for decades. When you’re about to take the plunge though, this really is indispensable information for a lot of guys, and I really don’t blame them. The “number” has become more important as women have become increasingly willing to available themselves of all the escape hatches and opportunities for infidelity that abound in our society. These days a guy needs to know exactly what he is getting. The good news is that a savvy guy (a guy with Game) can eventually suss out what kind of girl she is without asking the “number”. The bad news is that most guys don’t have Game.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I find it weird you remember that waaaaaay back detail of my sex life

      First of all, I have a memory like a steel trap. My kids have found this extremely inconvenient. Second, that was the first comment I ever read by you. It was on Obs’ blog, and I was quite struck by how strongly you had felt about that woman’s behavior. I remember Obs accused me of having a problem with you, and I realized that I didn’t. I thought your treatment of her was reasonable. That was a significant step in my understanding of the way that men employ Game.

      The “number” has become more important as women have become increasingly willing to available themselves of all the escape hatches and opportunities for infidelity that abound in our society.

      This is really the answer to my question, and it makes total sense. Back in the 80s, people did have casual sex, but promiscuity was not as rampant or widespread in the female population.
      It’s not entirely self-serving – if you believe that women are profoundly damaged by each and every casual sexual encounter, then total accuracy is important. While I think that a habit of hooking up casually does take its toll on many women, I am not convinced that a ONS here and there makes much of a difference. Obviously, I’m aware that many men feel otherwise, and that’s the whole point. Women need to understand how men perceive the issue, because perception is reality in this case. However, I do think many women are able to assess their own experiences in terms of long-term effect. Yes, a man has every right to decide a woman is not a good bet, but a woman who has some casual sex and doesn’t feel permanently damaged shouldn’t be told that she is.
      In my own experience, worth .02 and nothing more, the casual sex I did have was mostly bad and empty, but it didn’t mess with my head. It just wasn’t worth the trouble.

  • Rum

    My advice to a guy would be to take into account his own proven ability to attract causal sex. Given that hook up partners are chosen more on the basis of raw, unprocessed gina-tingles than anything else. If he has often been chosen and dragged to bed by reasonably hot partners a womans higher number should be of much less concern to him than if he rarely were so blessed. When her number is much higher than his the picture suggests that she is looking for something other than hot sex with the guy and that if she were more open about what she was really after the guy would run.
    Like, if the mind reading device came up with,”He looks like he always work hard, so I can quit my boring job when I feel like it. And I bet he will stick around even when I can no longer pretend to want to have sex with him.”

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Rum
    Though the literature I cited here doesn’t state it specifically, I’ve wondered if part of the problem is that men cannot stand the thought of being with a woman who has more sexual experience than they do. I think this is understandable for a whole host of reasons listed in the post, but also because the guy may have some performance anxiety.
    As I’ve said elsewhere I think the Carousel Rider Seeks Beta Provider meme is grossly exaggerated. I think it’s got to be a tiny minority of women who might engage in the cynical reasoning you offer here.

  • Rum

    Susan
    I think the whole question of the importance or value or impact of “sexual experience” is grossly over-rated. At least when compared to the matter of “sexual desirability”.
    If a woman is not attractive while naked to the guy she is with it makes very little difference what skills she might deploy. It might get things over with a bit more quickly but he will still not be more eager to come back for more because of it. Likewise, a shy, needy guy who happens to come equipped with a porn-star package (horse-dick, can go for hours) is likely to completely ignored by the hotties.
    Performance anxiety is a complicated subject. I mean, if the woman is not really fuckable, the guy is much better off saying, “Oh, look. I guess my dick has performance anxiety” than “You look like you are carrying a 30 lb cellulite-fetus.” Doing the later could easily get him injured since women are not wired to deal with that kind of rejection.
    It has been my experience that about 97% of a woman response to a cock is her interpretation of the rank and value of its owner rather than what it happens to be doing to her at any given time..

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rum

      It has been my experience that about 97% of a woman response to a cock is her interpretation of the rank and value of its owner rather than what it happens to be doing to her at any given time..

      I would amend that to her feelings about its owner, while acknowledging that said feelings may be directly affected by her perception of the rank and value of its owner. Love of the cock follows from love of the man, never the other way around.

  • Rum

    Susan
    OK, “Love of the cock follows from love of the man…” Sure, we knew that. But you yourself brought up the subject of the actual performance of the cock itself – I mean, “performance” anxiety says what it says.
    I had this girlfriend, once, who would collapse at her knees with orgasmic paralysis whenever I twisted her nipples hard enough. Especially in the toilet rooms of skanky bars.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Rum,
    Well, just to clarify, when I said performance anxiety I really meant just a general sense of not being experienced enough, not having all the moves, etc. One young guy told me that after his friends hook up, they’re always talking about how they made the girl scream like crazy and beg for more. He worried because no girl had ever done that with him. Your nipple-sensitive ex notwithstanding, most women won’t put on that kind of a show. I suspect that guys borrow liberally from porn when describing their exploits.

  • tspoon

    ‘If you are female and have a high partner count, you should not mention this fact to your potential LTR male partner, while knowing that this is of extremely high importance to that person.’

    I’m not sure if that’s such great advice Susan. Although I do realise that your advice is pitched toward women manily.

    Picture yourself as a 35 year old female using her dwindling powers of attraction to find an LTR. Even if the subject never comes up, males are acutely aware of the subject, any man with half a brain will ‘know’ eventually what kind of lady this is. There’s just too many ‘tells’ most of which males pick up without it even registering conciously.
    So eventually he’ll know and decide. The possibilities are :

    A/ Doesn’t care, has a high partner count himself. Probably the best you could hope for, although her ability to get this guy is somewhat reduced. Unlikely to happen…

    B/ Doesn’t care, just wants a woman. The next best you could hope for? IMO it would take a hell of a man to successfully sublimate this most powerful of male imperatives, it would likely manifest itself as recurring jealousy, disrespect and argumentativeness. Coupled with the fact that the female will feel that she is settling somewhat, and having a general lack of respect for that male, it’s a rocky road all round. Despite your words to the contrary, this is an increasingly common occurrence.

    C/ Does care, goodbye. Really the girl just wasted that time, nows she’s older, more bitter, and less likely to find what she wants. She should have just said so right at the beginning, knowing, as women do, what a deal breaker this usually is.

    I don’t know if B or C are more common in society, but combined, they are the two options most likely IMO to present themselves to the female who, in more than one sense of the word, feels that it’s time to retire.

    One last, with modern legal systems practically guaranteeing huge accompanying financial risk for the average male who marries, and in some places the male who cohabits, men are more than ever looking for some show of good faith from the female they are getting to know.

    Misleading him about an essential part of your past probably won’t qualify as such.

  • (r)Evolutionary

    @Verie, Susan, et. al.

    Re: the Grudge Fuck,

    I don’t think it happens too often, but it does happen. Some anecdotal evidence:

    In high school, a cute girl whom I really liked played me pretty hard, acting interested, but never granting affection nor kindness. She also dated most of the football team. Granted I acted very beta back then, for the most part.

    Fast forward about 8 years, I had been working out, and had much success with women in college. I ran into this girl, she looked like life had not been kind to her. But she was sweet and seemed to want to make amends from HS, and wanted another shot. She gave many clear signals of attraction–if I wanted to grudgefuck her, that would have been the time. But I chose instead to just walk away. Better choice than risking an STD or accidental pregnancy.

    On the other side, I had just started seeing a woman & had only consummated sexual intimacy a few times, and we went out to a club. There, she proceeded to flirt & grind on a bunch of guys. I already suspected she was a bit of a slut, but her actions & demeanor proved it beyond a doubt. I pulled her out of the club, took her back to her house, we had very vigorous intercourse, and I never called her again. That time, it was about dominance–a refusal to be played in the moment. A GF? Maybe.

    My advice for men & women alike in choosing sexual partners: Would you have a child with this person? Because that is the biological imperative of sex, and a natural consequence. If you’re not prepared to have a child with a person, you probably have no business banging that person. Period. This is a tough maxim to follow, but it has kept me out of trouble. FYI, I’m a natural alpha (with recovering beta-pedestalization tendencies in LTR), and my notch count could be WAAAY higher had I capitalized on all of the opportunities I let pass by in following the maxim above. But my notch count would be drastically lower, had I followed that rule all the time. I do what I can do, what can I say.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Men are more than ever looking for some show of good faith from the female they are getting to know. Misleading him about an essential part of your past probably won’t qualify as such.

    I hear you. I really struck a nerve with this admission. Here’s the thing. I understand and believe that this information is of paramount importance to men. In that case, men should reflect their use of this statistic as a disqualifier by asking for it early on. In that case, there may be disappointment, but neither party is terribly invested yet. If either one has dealbreakers in mind, the sooner they can be discarded the better. If a man asked me for this information early on, I would probably not hesitate to give it, or if I had a high number, I might refuse to say. However, in the case I referred to, the guy in question had the number talk after two years, prior to getting engaged. I’m not sure how a couple goes two years with no sense of sexual histories, but so be it. It seems a shame, when their relationship was wonderful in every way, that he was ready to end it over her number. To be fair, I wrote a post about it called The Sex Risk for Women That No One Likes to Talk About because many women are unaware how important this is to men. For women seeking an LTR, this is critical information.
    .
    Oh, and welcome, tspoon!

  • jess

    @susan
    i always think truth is the way forward. i could never condone people lying about their sexual history.

    apart from the fact the truth will probably come out, lying is wrong anyway surely?

    @jade
    i agree on the idea of choice. however its often difficult to distill true feelings from indoctrination. some women report feeling awful after a one night stand and then develop a real taste for it. shaming is still a part of our society. males sometimes suffer severe guilt over masturbation becuase they were taught it was dirty. AM et al are asking us to throw out old notions and look at life anew. if you only want to have traditional relationships then good for you- if not, also good for you.

    ps i 100% agree with your point about arguments and temper loss

    @rum
    you are not totally right about the ‘hotties’. if a guy gets a good reputation about his bedroom skills he gets to pick the girls. looks are an advantage of course but good press makes you a LOT more attractive. (it works the other way around too- if a good looking guy gets bad ‘press’ with girls his attractivness plummetts)

    however with men, looks are paramount- I have seldom heard of a girl being known to be great in bed other than ‘being a bit freaky’. im not sure girls even want to be known to be good in bed gnerally speaking.

    @all

    i really must call time on this assertion that feminists deny biology. its nonsense.
    many feminists have for decades decried the effect of a ceetian male chmeical on socirty- testosterone. the diferences between males and females is a corner stone of feminist theory.
    evidence such as 99% of sex crimes being doen by men and 90% of violent crimes done by men is hard to argue with.
    orgasms are diffferent for both sexes sure but there are plenty of similarites and arise from identical tissues. And anthropogists are suggesting that females are naturally more promiscuious than males!! go look it up….. so i think that needs to be understood better by the posters here

  • http://www.citizenlemonade.wordpress.com Citizen Gatorade

    ” It’s very difficult for women to comprehend that a man will make moves, while secretly hoping you’ll not allow it.”

    I think you hit on something here. It’s also very difficult for men to comprehend that a woman will pretend to “not allow it”, while secretly hoping that he keeps on pushing the envelope, eventually overwhelming and seducing her into a wild passion, so swept away that she could not resist.

    So we have to look at the subconcious motivators behind the odd behaviour of both.

    It seems men make moves hoping women will resist, and then stop when they do, because they are subconsciously hoping she is “the one”.

    While it seems women resist, secretly hoping he’ll persist, because they are subconsciously hoping to live out fantasies of wild, no strings attached sex.

    So actually both of the sexes subconsciously want what the other is supposed to CONSCIOUSLY want.

    Weird world we live in!

  • Chili

    @Susan

    I actually totally agree with you regarding the lie about your number thing. Try to understand it from the girl’s pov, guys. If you have a colorful past, but have been in a stable relationship with someone you really really care about for a significant period of time, why would you throw all that away just because some people have trouble handling the truth? I get that it’s important to guys that a woman “not be a slut,” but if you’ve been seeing a girl for years, obviously you’ve deemed her worthy of LTR material and don’t view her as a slut. So how is asking this question actually going to help anything? It’s a lose-lose situation; a surefire way to start a fight.
    .
    I remember talking to a close (very alpha) guy friend about this subject and this is what he told me: “Basically, if I’ve never fucked a girl and I don’t know anyone who has, then she’s a virgin as far as I’m concerned.” Guys are just not comfortable with numbers. Any number bigger than 0 is another dick they feel they have to compete with, so I do think that the “performance anxiety” you were talking about kicks in.
    .
    And I totally agree that if you’re a guy to whom the numbers question is important, I suggest you ask it as early as possible. That’s the only real way it helps either of you.
    .
    And for the record, when a guy asks me for my number, he always strikes me as really insecure. I’ve never been asked this kind of question by anyone that seemed at all confident in himself. It’s a surefire sign of immaturity to me.

  • Rum

    Chili
    So, you are walking, talking pump and dump.

  • Chili

    Rum, you really don’t know anything of my past.

  • Rum

    Ha Ha
    The Hamster is about to fall down from over-exertion.

  • Rum

    The hard, cruel truth of the matter is that human females are not sentient in regard to their sexuality. They are all drifting along in a sort of coma. If a guy pushes the right buttums, a womams thighs will automatically spread, her pussy will lube up, and she will grind her pelvis hard against the penetrating cock more or less on auto-pilot. She will orgasm; and the next day present the notion that she was not even there. “It just happened” Or, have him arrested. I feel FEEL, like I wus raped.

  • Chili

    I assume doing the virgin thing gets harder as you get older–both because of mounting desires and because of an increasingly low pool of men who are used to this. (I’m only 19).
    .
    The only thing that really helps me deal with my guilt is finding some friends to talk about it with and who don’t judge me. My most promiscuous friend is actually the least judgmental, so it doesn’t have to be other virgins. (I live in NYC too, and, really, I don’t know any others). The worst part of virgin guilt is you feel like no one really gets it, but trust me there are people out there who do.
    .
    I’m confused as to why you don’t ask for exclusivity (or at least make it known that that is what you want). You’ll never reach your goal of getting married if you do that, right? Or am I missing something? The guys that did choose to become exclusive with you are not, I repeat, are not, suffering. They chose to do it knowing what they were getting into. Has anyone ever actually broken up with you because you wouldn’t have sex with them? Seriously, you, and I, have nothing to feel guilty about. People have different values and interests, and the key to love is finding someone who shares yours. You may think people having sex have it easier, but they don’t–that’s why this blog even exists.

  • Kat

    @Verie44

    You just gotta find the right men, but understandingly I suppose those aren’t the ones you want.

    Just drop this idea of the man “suffering” if he’s not having sex. Go be in a relationship, but make your limits clear.

    I’m sort of stuck on the same boat. I don’t really want a bunch of relationships that I know aren’t going to last, I just want to find the right person for marriage. But in my case, that’ll probably be nearly impossible and I’ll just end up with an arranged marriage.

  • Chili

    I’m confused, Susan. My comments get moderated but rum can compare me to a rodent and it’s all good? :p

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @chili
      Sorry, the filter caught you after I’d crashed for the night, but I’ve whitelisted your IP address, so it shouldn’t happen again. As for how the filter works, I have no idea. The most benign comments get held for moderation, while some pretty nasty ones sail on through.

  • PJL

    @Verie,

    (1) I think your concern shows a slight misunderstanding of male sexuality. While the sex drive in a man is significantly higher than in a woman, not having sex doesn’t reduce us to convulsions on the floor, burning skin, and screams of pain when you’re not looking–so the word “suffer” is a little dramatic and unhelpful. You’re well within your rights to say when appropriate “I am member of X religion; this is what I think marriage is; this is what I think dating is. If you’re not okay with that, sorry.” If he is, indeed, not okay with that–if he’s the sort of man who would shame or use cheap, passive-aggressive tricks to get an honest woman to compromise her values–why on earth would you want to date him? To answer this question honestly, you must do so with no reference to your “feelings.” Second and third points are more philosophic food for thought. Don’t take them seriously. Although raised in a largely unobservant home, I have–through friends–had a long flirtation with the Christian religion and philosophy of religion is an enduring interest of mine.
    .
    (2) You use words like “need” and “suffer” to describe your forcing these men to be chaste. Apparently, the division in your mind is between your convictions and their needs, without which they suffer. Now, is having sex before marriage wrong because God commands it or does God command it because it is wrong? While God’s command–if he exists (but you believe he does so we’ll just leave it at that)–presumably is sufficient to make something moral or immoral, the question I’m asking raises the further question: why does God command it? In your version of things, God commands it because he commands it. I would urge that the more cogent view is to argue that God commands chastity because his Law is written in nature. Therefore, his commands correspond to what everyman in reality needs. When you force someone to live chastely, therefore, you force him to live in accordance with his needs and, actually, relieve the suffering caused by his vicious manner of life–according to the Christian view, at least.
    .
    (3) There’s a certain tribalism in all religions, and the Christian religion is no different. Check out 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
    .
    Just my 2 cents. Take it as you wish.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @jess
    I think we would all agree that lying is wrong. However, this is not a black and white issue. For example, most mental health professionals who counsel people consumed with guilt over an affair do not automatically condone confession. There are a myriad of factors to be considered. Asking a woman to go through life feeling compelled to offer her number in order to be qualified for an LTR does not strike me as fair or reasonable, in part because of its limited use as a measurement of mental health or character, which is what guys are claiming they need the information for. It’s a fair proxy, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. For example, a woman may have spent 10 years with one abusive partner and be a basket case. The teenage daughter who was kept in her cage and raped by her father for many years only had one partner. On the other hand, a young woman in college may have sex with four guys her freshman year, and learn from that experience that she wants to live her life very differently. She’s not leaving the trade of prostitution, she’s had four casual hookups, just as many of her classmates have, and she’s decided to stop. Is she now required to walk through life broadcasting the indiscretions of her 18th year? One may honestly debate this issue, but if we were all compelled to go through life mandated to confess our indiscretions to anyone who asked, every one of us would be miserable.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Citizen Gatorade
    Welcome!

    a woman will pretend to “not allow it”, while secretly hoping that he keeps on pushing the envelope, eventually overwhelming and seducing her into a wild passion, so swept away that she could not resist.

    I won’t deny the rape fantasy – there’s ample evidence that it’s real, and I’ve written a post about it:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/11/20/hookinguprealities/are-women-hot-for-edward-cullen-psssssst/

    However, women fantasize about being taken by force only by men they are already attracted to. Also, most women prefer to keep this as a fantasy. We may enjoy role playing the rape scene, or rough sex, but most women will not actually say no in hopes of being raped. It’s very tricky, the fine line between fear and arousal, and women do not want to forfeit the right to consent.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Rum

    They are all drifting along in a sort of coma. If a guy pushes the right buttums, a womams thighs will automatically spread, her pussy will lube up, and she will grind her pelvis hard against the penetrating cock more or less on auto-pilot.

    This is so offensive I can’t even begin to comprehend why you think this comment would be welcome here. Save it for Roissy, where you can get all the validation you want for such statements. Ugh.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    While the sex drive in a man is significantly higher than in a woman, not having sex doesn’t reduce us to convulsions on the floor, burning skin, and screams of pain when you’re not looking.

    LOL! That’s good to know! So many women have been made to feel guilty for making a guy endure blue balls! Now we don’t have to worry about it, he really will be OK until he gets home, at which time he can rub one out and be none the worse for it.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Citizen Gatorade

    OMGOMGOMGOMG I love your blog. It is beyond hilarious. Everyone run right over there and read it.

    http://citizenlemonade.wordpress.com/

  • dragnet

    While it pains me to stand athwart this stalwart thread yelling, “Stop! Stop it, I say!” I find that I must.

    @ Susan, Chili:

    Asking a woman to go through life feeling compelled to offer her number in order to be qualified for an LTR does not strike me as fair or reasonable, in part because of its limited use as a measurement of mental health or character, which is what guys are claiming they need the information for. It’s a fair proxy, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.”

    A interesting bit of strawmanship. If you read my posts above, I never intimated that a woman had to offer her number when it was asked, only that she was obligated to be truthful. One way of being truthful is to offer her real number, and the other way I suggested to be truthful was to say that she didn’t think it was relevant and didn’t want to discuss it. Both of those are honest answers, but only one of them reveals her number. I’m sorry to crush your rationalization hamster underfoot, but there is never any justification for giving a false number.

    And I, apparently, cannot say this enough: it’s not your call to decide whether something is good enough information for a man to make a decision about an LTR—the decision is his entirely. No, your “number” doesn’t tell the whole story—but if you’ve been seeing a guy for awhile, then he has lot of other information to go on in addition to your “number” so of course he won’t only be considering that. Nonetheless, his information is incomplete without an honest accounting of your sexual history. The “number” in and of itself is not sufficient, but it is necessary. Honesty, not the number, is your obligation.

    “I actually totally agree with you regarding the lie about your number thing. Try to understand it from the girl’s pov, guys. If you have a colorful past, but have been in a stable relationship with someone you really really care about for a significant period of time, why would you throw all that away just because some people have trouble handling the truth? I get that it’s important to guys that a woman “not be a slut,” but if you’ve been seeing a girl for years, obviously you’ve deemed her worthy of LTR material and don’t view her as a slut. So how is asking this question actually going to help anything? It’s a lose-lose situation; a surefire way to start a fight.”

    Once again, this is presumptuous and self-serving in the extreme. The bf has formed an opinion of your LTR worthiness based on incomplete information. If he asks for this additional information, you are obligated to be honest with him. Telling a false number is not honest. Lying to him is not an act of love—it’s an act of selfishness and fear and no LTR should be built on that shaky foundation.

    I’ll end by saying that I recognize that this a woman’s site dispensing advice to women, by a woman. As such I understand that these questions are approached from the viewpoint of women. I have no problems with this and am happy to be a guest. But the delusional thinking, presumptuousness and empty rationalizations here were just too glaring for me not to protest so strongly.

  • Average Joe

    “Another question: what would people’s advice be for me as a virgin who doesn’t believe in sex before marriage?”

    Verie44,
    You get better advice from better detail. Help us help you.
    What do you mean by “sex”? Masturbation, 1st base, 2nd base etc? And by “sex before marriage” are you using the strict definition or the Catholic rule?

    For my recommendation I am going to assume you insist on nothing but kissing… because any advice that works for just kissing, will surely work for more liberal limits. I also deduce from your comment that the groom’s virginity is not required.

    From what I can tell about you so far you won’t need to struggle that much more than any other woman looking to get married. You have the right attitude about being fair & considerate… which especially in the early stages of a relationship will get you lots of points from men.

    In essence your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to create a situation that makes ” it” worth the wait. You can do this several ways.

    1. Make the wait short. Don’t expect that a 3 year span between 1st kiss and wedding night is gonna fly. Pick a time frame that males can deal with. Find out how long soldiers deployed are away from their fiancés, find out how long expectant/new dads typically go without some. Select a window based on good research.

    2. Make decent picks. Date guys who are in general, extremely patient and hard working. A guy who can rack up 8 years in student loans, before he ever sees 1 dime as a doctor may be a good fit. A guy who just started his own business knowing that he’ll won’t hit it big for 5 years may also be worth a chance. Ultimately you are looking for a guy who knows how to delay gratification in other aspects of his life outside of sex. Date older men. I don’t know how old you are but I would think you are more Verie24 than Verie44. Tina fey’s husband was 34 and 10 years her senior when they wed . She was virgin. Use the age gap to your benefit. Older guys appreciate having a younger woman, and also the novelty of being with a virgin so many years after high school …which makes them more willing to wait.

    3. Make his cost low. Go dutch on dates and buy him things. They should be small and personal things. A bottle of good tequila… minor league baseball game tickets. A man will not sign up for 6 months of footing all the bills with nothing but a promise and hope to show for it along the way. It’s much too economically risky. So do what you can to lower his risk of sticking it out with you.

    4. Make the journey fun. Satisfaction outside the bedroom is key! When I first started dating my lady, I didn’t mind waiting 3 months for her… because those 3 months flew. She was very successful at making sure I would rather spend time with her than with anyone else on the planet…even without the sex. She’s still just as awesome to me and so I always love tell her friends that I would never leave her because I would need three women to replace her… a comedian, a chef, and a porn star.

    5. Make the sex promising…and pace. One of the biggest feminist lies is that a woman must have lots of partners to be good at sex. Well that’s extremely untrue. Some of the best sex I have ever had was with women who all had 3 or fewer partners. Good musicians practice 8 hours a day solo before they even attempt to play with someone else. To be good at sex requires that you put effort into being good as sex. It does not require that you put effort into drinking yourself into a new guy every Friday night.

    And it is very import that you show him you are a virgin, not a prude… because that’s the stereotype you will be fighting against. And that will cause doubts. In the beginning talk to him in a very general way about sex in marriage. Highlight the good stuff. If you think a married couple should try to have sex daily, then by all means share that. He will be ecstatic.

    If you think he’s a keeper, make him drop you off at belly dance class. Once things get more serious go the beach and let him see you in a bikini. Once you guys are in love (make sure he has said it more than once), have him help you pick out a bunch of new VS panty and bra sets. When he does propose spend as much time with him planning the wedding night as you do the wedding day.

    And by all means be sexually prepared for the honeymoon. Figure out if you can orgasm via just penetration or if your body position matters. If you don’t know how to give a good blow job, then get a banana, a instructional video and practice deep some throating. Figure out now if you wanna spit or swallow. Don’t wait till the moment and make it awkward. In short bring your A game to bed, you’ll be married now and so don’t have any reasons not to go all in. The last thing you want to happen is for your groom to have second thoughts about waiting to bed you.

  • Chili

    @Average Joe

    Good stuff, appreciated. I’m confused about this though: “Make the wait short. Don’t expect that a 3 year span between 1st kiss and wedding night is gonna fly. Pick a time frame that males can deal with.”
    .
    Girls can’t really make a guy propose at any specific time frame, so what do you mean by this?

  • http://www.poetry-of-flesh.blogspot.com Poetry of Flesh

    “[...]I’ve wondered if part of the problem is that men cannot stand the thought of being with a woman who has more sexual experience than they do.”

    I’ve found this incredibly true, especially within the Game community. A good deal of the hostility floating around seems to originate from this insecurity, rationalized through evo-psych theory. It’s almost becomes such an inability to deal with the idea on a case-by-case basis, instead becomes a blanket theory.

    As for the slut number, while I don’t agree with a good deal of this post, I do believe there is certainly not a universal number that suddenly tips a woman into sluthood. I’ve known girls with a whopping partner-count of five that are more slutty than women I know in the 20s, much less myself in the mid-70s.

    I believes this slut idea comes from external expectations internalized, a sort of internal conflict where a woman allows herself to be defined by behavior and stereotypes, rather than who she is and who she wants to be. This is, I think, made even worse by the value emphasis placed on beauty and chastity as being LTR-worthy “selling points” (see above comments made by a few male posters for reference), as opposed to the ideas of honor and intelligence that are supposed to be so valued in very masculine males.

    But that’s just my experience.

  • dragnet

    @ POF

    “I’ve known girls with a whopping partner-count of five that are more slutty than women I know in the 20s, much less myself in the mid-70s.”

    Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

  • http://www.poetry-of-flesh.blogspot.com Poetry of Flesh

    Also, Reinholt:

    “- Be trustworthy and responsible.
    - Don’t sleep around or cheat.
    - Keep yourself in shape.
    - Be pleasant to be around.”

    I like how #2-4 is “be pretty, be pleasant, sleep only with me” and #1 is ambiguous on levels of trust and responsibility. Responsible enough to do your laundry? Responsible enough to care for your children? Responsible enough to not overspend at Nordstrom? I’m assuming the trust just goes back to “sleep only with me”.

    If I was a straight man looking for an LTR, I would be more concerned with integrity, respect, personal responsibility, and honesty before I was concerned if she hit the gym three times a week and was “pleasant”.

    I only bring this up because this goes back to my previous comment, and that if there is an enforcement and expectation of mostly superficial and ambigious values for a little over half of the world population, then we are socially crippling ourselves. Placing value and dateability on a woman’s partner count is reducing her value to her quantified sexual experience and causing commenters like Chrissy to question herself and her own value, causing self-doubt and unneeded internal conflict, after sleeping with two men.

  • http://www.poetry-of-flesh.blogspot.com Poetry of Flesh

    @dragnet

    Hold on, your witty originality is causing me to realize that all these years I’ve been lying to myself and have no value or personality aside from being a cock-sheath. Oh, the horror.

    Please get out more. Expand your social horizons. Read a book that isn’t mired in your own world philosophy so you become at least somewhat well-rounded instead of living in that bizarre world of MRA-induced paranoia. You’re a smart man, or so you seem thus far. I have faith in your ability to learn and grow.

  • Höllenhund

    Ms. Walsh,

    your hatred of Roissy is becoming tedious. It really is. I know you morally object to much of what he writes, but come on. You find a guy who makes a lame attempt at parodying him and trolls his own site under false names (because nobody actually reads it) and you think it’s beyond hilarious and everyone should check it out. Oh please.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Hollenhund
    1. I don’t believe I’ve ever expressed hatred for Roissy. That would require some level of emotional investment. I disrespect his views. I respect his intelligence and writing ability.
    2. If you find me tedious, I give you permission to stop reading me. No hard feelings.
    3. I did not find Citizen Gatorade. He found me, and I checked out his blog. I thought it was funny – it’s actually quite well done, IMO. I have no clue as to his traffic, but it looks as if he has just started blogging within the last month or so. Surely Roissy should be flattered!

  • Reinholt

    @Poetry

    Cute strawman argument, but there is a reason I put trustworthiness and responsibility first, not last, and not in the middle. Ignore that as you see fit, of course, but from what I’ve read of you and your blog, I wouldn’t touch you with a ten foot barge pole, so my opinion is probably not the most relevant for you at this point, no?

    Either way, the point is this: everyone has subjective levels for trust and responsibility that they believe are important; you have to understand what yours are, what those of your partner are, and then live up to them. You also need to know what areas matter the most with regard to trust. Failing to do so will torpedo any LTR that you are in. I’m not going to tell people how to make decisions or live their lives; I am trying to provide them with perspective on what I have seen work and what I have seen fail. Everyone, naturally, is welcome to experiment as they wish.

    Also, nothing I have said is an unreasonable expectation. You can disagree with them all you like, but that won’t change my mind. It just means I screen you out. Which, in the end, is part of the point and why I wrote this comment: your decisions and your priorities mean that you always make trade-offs. For the peanut gallery, Poetry is an example of a woman who wouldn’t get a second look from me with regard to a relationship, and you can draw your own conclusions from that.

    @Chili

    I think, if I read it correctly, what Joe is saying is this: neither extreme is good. You cannot be a wild slut, but you also can’t be an ice queen. The trick is to find someone who you genuinely like, evaluate them within a reasonable timeframe as to what real long-term potential they have, and then decide to stay with them or not. A key variable here is if they see long term potential with you as well, because (as you stated) you cannot force someone to marry you or have a relationship with you. Be realistic, be grounded, and be neither grindingly slow nor startlingly fast, and you should be fine. Moderation and reasonableness are key.

    You sound like you actually want to listen and figure it out, though. A good start, at least.

  • Average Joe

    “Girls can’t really make a guy propose at any specific time frame, so what do you mean by this” – Chili

    Thank you. I’m glad it will be of use. Reinholt’s advice is helpful as well.

    Nope you can’t make a guy propose, but the time spend dating (pre proposal) is only part of the total period that he will be without sex. The other part is the engagement (post proposal). And a girl can make that whatever she wants it be. The average engagement is 14 months and that amounts to another year plus without sex. I would recommend no longer than a 3 month wait between the engagement party and a wedding. Doing so will save a whole year. And that’s a lot of time.

    In addition, though you can’t make a guy fall in love, a girl does control the incentives to expedite a proposal. And if you have been paying attention then you should be ahead of the game because…

    1. You have made him aware that on the other side of the proposal is a lifetime of frequent, mind blowing sex. That’s a great catalyst.

    2. You haven’t made this relationship about money. No man welcomes the idea of more debt. The average wedding is 25K, the average ring is 6K. That’s a lot of bacon in a bad economy. If your parents have promised to pay for your wedding, then let him know that at the next one you attend. He’ll feel financial relief. If the two of you must foot the bill, say nice things about people who have small, inexpensive weddings.

    3. You have shared your dreams.. in a non pushy way. A man naturally wants to fix, solve and provide. If he knows you want to get married before 30, he’ll pop the question before you turn 29. If you like the Yankees, expect to see a proposal on the Jumbotron during a game seven. Just as well timed pause at the door welcomes a 1st date kiss, a little female proactivity can elicit a proposal. I promise you that if a girl is willing to set up an opportunity to be asked, a man that really loves her will not disappoint.

  • PJL

    Just one niggling point that does not detract from some wonderful advice and may just be a personal pet peeve of mine. Going Dutch is tacky and charmless. Dating shouldn’t be 50/50; it should be 100/0 AND 0/100. I invite; you invite. If sex is a part of an LTR it should not free a woman from doing her fair share of the inviting. Presumably, she isn’t having sex to get taken out once a week or so. That would be a euphemistic form of prostitution.

    And I quote the impeccable Miss Manners, who gives very, very good advice.

    Dear Miss Manners,
    I am an independent 24-year-old woman. I own my own home and have a career I love. Don’t get me wrong, I am not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but I do well enough to get by. I don’t mind that I usually make more money than the men I date, but it often bothers them.

    I have been dating a guy for about six weeks. He is kind and considerate. In all the times we have been together he always pays when we go out, except once that I insisted I pay. I know for a fact I make more money than him, but he won’t let me pay for myself. We usually go on very modest dates to stay in his budget, which I don’t mind. When the check comes, I still reach for my purse, but he never lets me pay. I always say thank you and tell him I had a wonderful time.

    Is it appropriate that he continues to pay for our dates? Should I continue to say thank you and leave it at that? Do I insist on paying once in a while? At what point in a relationship do the dating expenses become 50/50? I don’t want to push too hard to pay and I don’t want to hurt his ego, but I also don’t want him to think I expect him to pay all the time.

    Gentle Reader,
    Sharing starts on the second or third date, but not in the way you frame it. It should be more like 100/0 followed by 0/100.

    While Miss Manners appreciates and agrees with your desire to do your share, you are taking a business like approach. And this is a social situation.

    Even back when gentlemen were expected to pay all the dating bills, ladies were supposed to reciprocate. They did it by inviting the gentlemen to home-cooked meals and through subterfuge — pretending that they had been given theater tickets, for example. While it is good to have this out in the open, you are attempting to do so by co-opting his privileges as a host and then offering to pay only for yourself.

    Splitting things on alternate dates would be 75/25, but in any case is not courtship behavior. “Yes, I had dessert and you didn’t, but your drinks cost more” is not a charming negotiation.

    What you should be doing is reciprocating the gentleman’s invitations. This means inviting him for outings that you plan and pay for entirely. The only relevance of your income is you would naturally plan something you could afford. A lady who made less would choose something more modest. The point is not the cost, but the graciousness of offering hospitality. Miss Manners’ guess is that the other gentlemen you mention are not so much bothered by your large income as by your small attitude toward entertaining.

  • Snowdrop111

    ” It still feels really unfair to me that they should have to suffer.”

    As others have said…The dreaded “Rules” and the dreaded John Gray would say that they are not suffering at all. The right guy (for you) is loving every minute of it. At first I didn’t agree with this, but John Gray is of the opinion that a man enjoys the challenge, quest, or what have you, of wooing and trying to win the woman who isn’t easy. His frustration may be somewhat more enjoyable to him than he lets on. If it’s not, and he leaves, his loss and he knows it. After all, you, too, want a marriage partner who can keep it in his pants as much as he wants a woman who can keep her pants on.

    The Rules says that a little bit of male frustration about waiting is a good sign because it indicates interest. The Rules community also says don’t engage in long makeout sessions or put yourself in a position that a long makeout session begins. That is VERY hard to stick to.

    There’s a scene in a stupid book I read, and I’ve heard of other scenes like this, (the one I am thinking of was something like Meg Tilly in a Swing or Something Like That by the author of Watership Down or something like that.) I am mixed up because it was a movie too. By the way the woman turned out to be evil but sorry to spoil it. Anyway she has decided to wait till the wedding night and they start to make out and she says “We have to stop because if we go on I won’t be able to stop.” You can indicate you have a sex drive without pulling out the banana and showing what you are planning to do to a banana on your wedding night.

    I agree with the other commenter…be the one he’d rather be with than anyone else on the planet, sex or no sex. Always tell him “I had fun!” John Gray (Vomit, I know) says a man feels like a victor when you tell him you had fun. He feels like he personally wrote, directed, and produced the movie (HURL) Thankfully, my boyfriend really DOES bring the fun so I don’t have to remind myself to say “I had fun.” It’s the #1 thing I appreciate about him. I think women today are so stressed that one of the best things about guys is balancing women out (hopefully while being willing to do the no-fun work of keeping life going too.)

    What Average Joe suggests doesn’t quite work that way. Average Joe suggests the virgin be sensually awakened enough to express rrrrowr! she’s looking foward to their wedding night etc. I grew up like this and while there were some who were like that, they were kind of the aggressive ones with bossy personalities. If that’s your thing fine. The demure ones who were a little shy and blushed and giggled at lingerie parties just happened to be the more forgiving, easygoing, friendly, loyal to their friends, you get the idea. Here’s what my ooooold fashioned mother said… “A man deserves to be the one to wake up his princess.” But I personally would not want to live with one of the bossy ones brought up in evangelical sects. There are no shortage of those and they grow up to be the church busybody. Beware! The bossy ones were the very ones who had enough boldness to act like Average Joe said during the courtship.

    There might be a few raised like that who are confident to be bold about that stuff at that age, but in my experience, they tended to be the bossy ones who were not agreeable and all that other good stuff.

  • Average Joe

    RE: About “suffering”…

    You are correct to conclude that sexual frustration is “suffering”. If you recall it was my own “suffering” that led me to seek a grudge fuck. How did I get back at the “tease”? I gave her lots and lots of stimulation, but no finish. And then I frustrated her even more, by not answering her calls.

    “Blue balls” and “Blue bush” both exist and while they won’t kill anyone, arousal without release is really not fun. I had two booty call companions, junior year in college, and one of the main reasons the relationships lasted for 12 months longer than the average college booty call was because I never left either with “blue bush” . And both ladies were very quick to let me know that appreciated it.

    Booty calls are great for both men and women … when done properly (they keep her partner count down for starters), but because of condoms, lube, alcohol, and stupid feminist programming a woman’s orgasm is a coin flip. These artificial elements really mess up the sexual process, because they urge students to cut corners without understanding the basics of sex, sex difference and pleasure. It’s like spell check for small kids. It’s bad for them because they never learn how to spell on their own.

    With that said, the point of my advice about how to make “it “worth your future husband’s wait is this… just because a man is not having sex with you doesn’t mean he is going to be sexually frustrated. Yes, sexual frustration is “suffering”. But all the hints I gave you previously should allow you to make sure he won’t get sexually frustrated in the first place. So don’t ever feel guilty about not having sex with someone, because his celibacy does not automatically mean he is suffering.

  • http://www.poetry-of-flesh.blogspot.com Poetry of Flesh

    Reinholt,

    I’ll easily admit that I focused on the three qualities I consider superficial, but even though you put it first in your list, 75% of what you find desirable falls under the Stepford category. Also, if we’re going in order to establish value, you’re putting their looks above their social company. Which is great for you, I’m glad it works and you’ve possibly found the relationship/marriage/woman of your dreams by those standards, or at least you’ve had enough experience within relationships to determine what works for you. And I’m sure that, if you haven’t already, you’ll find it eventually. It’s wonderful that you’re so open about other people having other value systems and respecting those values, even though they are not your own.

    Out of curiousity, though, what four qualities, in order of value, do you look for with your good male friends? The men you look up to or model yourself after? Personally, I find that the qualities I expect from my friends, both male and female, are the same as what I expect from my LTR partners. Are we alike in that regard?

  • Mike

    Interesting. I took this to mean that men will avoid women who signal any desire for a committed relationship. They don’t want a “Stage 5 clinger” so they happily have sex with women who appear not to care.

    @Susan,

    Like most things in this area, I think it is a bit more nuanced. I do NOT think men instinctively avoid women who signal any desire for a committed relationship. Firstly, you’ve got two types of guys (for the most part). Guys who are ONLY interested in casual sex, and guys who are interested in BOTH casual sex AND a committed relationship if the “Right women” comes along. I think want any guy wants to avoid, at least any guy with some sense, wisdom, experience, is to avoid the type that simply wants motherhood and children and is simply looking for ANY guy to play the role of daddy and provider. If you want the Bachelor, there was a girl a few years ago who fit this bill perfectly.

    I’ve often thought there was a segment of women, hopefully very small, who on their wedding day, you could substitute a different guy for the groom and they would barely notice. It is NOT about the guy and starting a life together. It is about the event, the fairy tale, the “being princess” for a day.

    Going back to the “clingy” type, this is usually the type with little self-esteem and sense of self. They define themselves by their relationships. No smart guy wants to be someone’s savior. Ultimately, that is a recipe for doom.

  • Mike

    I hear you. I really struck a nerve with this admission. Here’s the thing. I understand and believe that this information is of paramount importance to men. In that case, men should reflect their use of this statistic as a disqualifier by asking for it early on. In that case, there may be disappointment, but neither party is terribly invested yet.

    You are probably right on the ethics/morality of asking this early, but tactically/strategically this is a mistake for the guy to make. The guy is trying to ascertain whether the girl is “fuckbuddy”/sex rotation material or LTR/marriage prospect. Rule #1 for a guy trying to have sex with a promiscuous girl quickly is to NOT give any indication whatsoever of being judgemental. Asking this question too early is the “tell” that you are in fact looking to judge her, and thus you disqualify yourself from getting sex. If the guy waits longer, he can get the sex and then try to figure out if she is in fact LTR material or not.

    Not saying this is right but this is the game theory at play.

  • Mike

    @Susan,

    Though the literature I cited here doesn’t state it specifically, I’ve wondered if part of the problem is that men cannot stand the thought of being with a woman who has more sexual experience than they do.

    Speaking for myself and guys I know, no they cannot. I think though it has to be a huge difference, not a few partners. A guy with 8 isn’t going to be torn up over a girl with 10.

    As I’ve said elsewhere I think the Carousel Rider Seeks Beta Provider meme is grossly exaggerated. I think it’s got to be a tiny minority of women who might engage in the cynical reasoning you offer here.

    Just curious, out of the population of women who are 30+, never married and no kids, what percentage do you think fall into this group. I don’t know, but I’d bet a huge sum it is more then 1-2%.

  • Mike

    @Susan

    It’s not entirely self-serving – if you believe that women are profoundly damaged by each and every casual sexual encounter, then total accuracy is important. While I think that a habit of hooking up casually does take its toll on many women, I am not convinced that a ONS here and there makes much of a difference.

    I think this does NOT get to the crux of the issue. The primary issue with a large number of casual sexual encounters doesn’t have to do with whether the women is “damaged” or not although that is important. The ABSOLUTELY PRIME IMPERATIVE is to make a determination of how likely the women is to commit adultery once married. Statistics show that female adultery IS JUST AS HIGH IF NOT HIGHER then male adultery now. It strains credulity to not realize that is correlated with the increased frequency of casual sex by women.

    Susan, and women readers, and men readers, I would say spend some time over here:

    http://www.womensinfidelity.com/

    There is a message board out there too where cheating women post their situations and thoughts. A few years back I spent a good deal of time reading there. It was disgusting and terrifying. Fact. Guys have alot at stake in Marriage 2.0. You marry and have kids, and then your wife gets bored and cheats and decides to get a divorce, and now you are financially fucked. The risk is MASSIVE. You absolutely have to try to determine what type of woman you are getting.

    I don’t know that the study has been done, but I would literally bet $1 million dollars that higher levels of casual sex show a strong correlation with eventually cheating, and possibly even cuckoldry. That is the main issue at play here, not whether the woman is damaged.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @dragnet
    I fully understand the point you are trying to make, and I don’t disagree with it. I want to make it clear that I am in no way condoning lying about one’s sexual history. For a lot of reasons, including protecting oneself and one’s partner from disease. I also agree that it’s fair for both men and women to judge for themselves whether they want to invest in a person who has a specific kind of sexual history. Really, the point I was trying to make is that if we brand every college girl who’s had casual sex with a scarlet letter, and expect her to recite her stats along with her preference for white vs. red wine, we’re setting up a lot of people for disappointment, both men and women.
    I did say that I would not tell the truth if my fiance asked my number after two years, and I knew he would freak out about 36. Not having been in the position of either having had 36 partners, or been asked about it, it’s hard to say exactly how I would have responded. I think I would have probably explained that I had a phase where I was indiscreet (which she did), but would have neglected to share the precise number. After that, the chips would just fall wherever. As I stated above, going through life with the secret that you married someone having told them you’d been with 6 men, when the reality is 6 times that, would be a tremendous burden for anyone with a conscience. I would not want to enter a marriage with that dishonesty between us.
    While I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I understand the male preference for chastity in a woman, I will also say that I’d be much more sympathetic to a man whose number was low, than one who had had 30-something partners himself. (Yup, steel trap memory.)

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Average Joe
    Just want to say thank you for your excellent advice to the women here – it’s both strategic and empathic.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @PJL

    Dating shouldn’t be 50/50; it should be 100/0 AND 0/100. I invite; you invite. If sex is a part of an LTR it should not free a woman from doing her fair share of the inviting. Presumably, she isn’t having sex to get taken out once a week or so. That would be a euphemistic form of prostitution.

    I couldn’t agree more. I believe that women have no right to expect men to be chivalrous or provide for them. They should always offer to pay their share, but personally, I think it’s classy when a guy declines. In that case, the woman should pay for the second date, second round, whatever. She should give as much as she takes, cooking dinner, surprising him with tickets, etc. In my experience, when both people are generous, they wind up sharing the expenses and no one feels taken advantage of.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Mike
    As I’ve said elsewhere I think the Carousel Rider Seeks Beta Provider meme is grossly exaggerated. I think it’s got to be a tiny minority of women who might engage in the cynical reasoning you offer here.
    Just curious, out of the population of women who are 30+, never married and no kids, what percentage do you think fall into this group. I don’t know, but I’d bet a huge sum it is more then 1-2%.

    SW: I think a reasonably large percentage is saying to themselves, “OK, you’ve made some bad choices, time to get serious. Maybe it doesn’t matter so much if he has a thick head of hair, or six-pack abs.” They’re aware of the need to let go of certain requirements, and be more open minded. However, most of them will not be able to do this. They will continue to follow the tingle, and to constantly disqualify guys after one date because there is “no spark.” So yeah, I think that’s a large group. I think a much smaller group, but still perhaps 10% or more, will actually concoct a strategy to snag a beta guy. While they might not feel attracted initially, the hamster will serve them well in this instance, and they will present a picture of bliss that last through the wedding and at least a couple of kids. After that, watch out.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Mike
    I would literally bet $1 million dollars that higher levels of casual sex show a strong correlation with eventually cheating, and possibly even cuckoldry.
    I don’t doubt this is true, and that’s why men really have a right to judge women based on their sexual histories. But I think the key here is the frequency or pattern. Basically, I’m trying to argue the point that not every young woman who gets through college with a few hookups is totally f*cked for an LTR. Are there guys who will refuse to have anything to do with a woman who had sex with a few alphas in college? Yes, and some of them comment here. But I think it’s a disservice to my readers, both male and female to describe that as the middle of the bell curve. Lots of people are hooking up in college. Lots of people. Not just alphas and sluts. The notion that all the guys are good to go, and all the girls are tainted forever just doesn’t make sense. Plus, it pisses me off, regardless of whether it can be explained by evo psych.

  • Average Joe

    “Just want to say thank you for your excellent advice to the women here – it’s both strategic and empathic”.

    @Susan
    Thank you for the website. Similar advice when shared on the feminist blogs too often got me digitally lynched. I have noticed things are different here and that as a whole the community is open minded, wants to grow, and has their collective hearts in the right place. I think that is just awesome. It is truly a pleasure to feel I am helping.

  • Clarence

    Susan@9:07:

    I just want to say that I agree. I can’t speak for all men, obviously, but to me it’s the pattern of her hookups (more so than how many) and how she treats the men in her life (an excellent piece of advice for both men and women is to ask how does the one you are infatuated with treat the members of your sex in his or her life? How do they treat weaker people?)that I judge a woman on. Given certain circumstances I could see going for a woman who has two or three times my “number” , given other circumstances, I might turn down someone who has only had one sex partner if I smell trouble ahead. Men are, as you’ve noted concerned with cheating and cuckoldry, moreso than probably anything else except maybe a false accusation.

    So, I do feel confident stating this:
    Though men vary in their desires, MOST men (except very religious on average) will judge more on background than number, but of course a good background is bound to keep the number rather low for the most part, say 20 or less for a 30 year old barring exceptional circumstances. other men may think it’s 10 or less, please remember its not the number, its what is behind it and many men will disagree as to what number one needs to “worry” the woman about. Men who are looking for LTR DO worry about “bonding” and most of do worry that the larger the number of her lovers the more chance we’ll bore her and come up short in some way. In other words, either she’ll be content to marry us, but after the kids pop out no sex, or she’ll cheat on us. After all, while I can lose weight and bulk up, I can’t become 6 foot 4 with eyes of brightest azure and a beautiful Spanish accent. And of course STD’s etc, that everyone with basic sex ed knows about.

  • http://www.jeffreybrauer.blogspot.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    So, it seems that “sex-positive feminism” is just some of the promiscuous women wanting all the benefits of being promiscuous AND all the benefits of not being promiscuous, without the costs of either.

    @Clarence:
    “…rather low for the most part, say 20 or less for a 30 year old barring exceptional circumstances. other men may think it’s 10 or less, please remember its not the number”
    Whoa, you think 20 is rather low? I think “most” men will have a problem with the woman’s number being anything in the double digits. And yes the absolute number matters, not just how she FEELS ABOUT it.

  • PJL

    @Susan,

    “I couldn’t agree more. I believe that women have no right to expect men to be chivalrous or provide for them. They should always offer to pay their share, but personally, I think it’s classy when a guy declines. In that case, the woman should pay for the second date, second round, whatever. She should give as much as she takes, cooking dinner, surprising him with tickets, etc. In my experience, when both people are generous, they wind up sharing the expenses and no one feels taken advantage of.”

    .
    Feeling taken advantage of is probably the no.1 reason I began searching the internet for advice on handling women. If you scratch that one hard enough, you’ll even discover smoldering resentment that I’m sincerely trying to smother. I’m not half as generous an entertainer with single women as I am with men & their wives/girlfriends for this very reason. The latter get home-made meals and desserts (I cook better than most); the former get tea if they’re lucky. This is a new policy. In response to years of flaking and BS, I’d finally decided that I’d had enough with that shit–if you’ll pardon my language–and man’d up. My next love interest will faint when I make her a grilled cheese sandwich. My pals get the three course meal. Unfortunately, this is how jerks are made.

  • Clarence

    JOT,

    No, in my opinon UNDER a certain number (which varies by man but is hardly ever over 20 for a 30 year old and is often less) most men just need to know she had decent reasons for it. Unless you are a secular nutcase who thinks every woman you meet should be a virgin, or very religious the SMART man will consider things in context. It’s easy for a woman to rack up 5 or even ten notches in the 4 college y ears for example. In my example that would be HALF her life time sexual partners in 4 years. The other eleven “active years” (say from 15 or 16 up to 30) she would then be averaging LESS than one per year. That’s hardly the behaviour of some girl who goes out every weekend and skanks it up, plus it allows some room for some decently long monogamous relationships.

    Men can disagree about this of course, but most men aren’t banging 30 year old virgins. Almost everyone older than the mid 20′s these days is approaching double digits if not there already in terms of partners and I do not consider the wishes or standards of religious men to be applicable to the larger hookup culture.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @PJL

    My next love interest will faint when I make her a grilled cheese sandwich. My pals get the three course meal. Unfortunately, this is how jerks are made.

    I see nothing jerky about this. Your friends love you unconditionally, and attraction is irrelevant. A woman who is interested in you will want to work to earn your affection. If you do all the work, she will perceive that you are insecure and need to perform to earn her affection.

  • Pingback: Weekend Link Fest – Too Damn Hot edition « Seasons of Tumult and Discord

  • PJL

    @ Susan,

    Yeah, you’re right that perception is reality. One strikes up friendships in various ways; and I typically just invite people over for food. It’s somewhat pragmatic: it’s cheaper and easier to cook my own food in bulk. But this often means that leftovers spoil before I can get to them. Ergo, food becomes my social medium of choice. I’ve sense learned that one must be less “generous” when trying to romance than when trying to make friends. I suppose what is perceived as generous when courting friends is perceived as needy when courting romance. Counter-intuitive but it makes sense. Heheh, unfortunately the dog metaphor used by some gaming sites is a very helpful one, because I am an amateur dog trainer: rewards, including affection, comes after good behavior.

  • Mike

    @ POF

    I’ve known girls with a whopping partner-count of five that are more slutty than women I know in the 20s, much less myself in the mid-70s.

    OK. Let’s go with this. This should be interesting. You are saying that a woman with a count of five could be more “slutty” then someone with a count of 75. OK. Obviously, your perception of what constitutes “slutty” must have more to it then just count. So what specific quantitative metrics, indicators, behavior patterns beyond just count do you use to assess “sluttiness” or is this just some random fuzzy completely subjective judgement.

    If I was a straight man looking for an LTR, I would be more concerned with integrity, respect, personal responsibility, and honesty before I was concerned if she hit the gym three times a week and was “pleasant”.

    Haha. I love this. This is hilarious. And if I were a straight female looking for an LTR, I would be more concerned with intelligence, reliability, loyalty, character before I was concerned if he was tall and buff, and the dominant guy.

    But guess what. We guys don’t get to change what you women respond to nor the other way around. So yeah, “pleasant” matters for a LTR. Whether you like that or not doesn’t matter.

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: White is Right Edition (NSFW)

  • slumlord

    A slut is clearly a woman who is promiscuous and the danger, from a male perspective, is that a slut is not good wife material.

    Whilst we may debate the pros and cons of sluthood statistically as a woman who as a result of her past sexual history has a significantly higher risk of marital instability.

    “THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF EARLY SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND MULTIPLE SEXUAL PARTNERS AMONG WOMEN:A BOOK OF CHARTS” by Rector et al, 2003 published by the Heritage Institute makes for rather sobering reading. Chart 17 is really an eye opener!

    A woman who has never slept with anyone apart from her marriage partner has an 80% chance of having a stable marriage in her 30′s, if a woman has had one partner then the rate drops to 53%. Basically marrying a woman one sexual partner outside of marriage exposes a man to a 50% chance of divorce. With two partners a man has is more likely to fail in his marriage than succeed. Therefore the actuarial definition of a slut is a woman who has had more than one partner outside of marriage.

  • slumlord

    Dyslexia at play again

    Whilst we may debate the pros and cons of sluthood statistically as a woman who as a result of her past sexual history has a significantly higher risk of marital instability.

    should read.

    Whilst we may debate the pros and cons of sluthood, statistically, a slut is a woman who–as a result of her past sexual history–has a significantly higher risk of marital instability.

  • Average Joe

    @ Susan,

    My posts under the VR sex topic keep disappearing.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    JOT:

    So, it seems that “sex-positive feminism” is just some of the promiscuous women wanting all the benefits of being promiscuous AND all the benefits of not being promiscuous, without the costs of either.

    Bingo. And that involves punishing, or pressuring the selective women, which has been pretty effective to date.

  • Doug1

    Susan Walsh—

    Your number is too high. OK, fine, you don’t want any guy who cares about how many people you’ve slept with. Problem is….that’s most guys. You don’t have to tell anyone your personal data. Just be aware that when you’re making the rounds within a certain community or group of friends, word gets out fast. I don’t think there has ever, ever been a guy who got laid and didn’t tell anyone about it afterwards. If your number is high and that fact is well known, you have every right to find a new pack of males and reinvent yourself.

    I’ll stand by this. Your sexual history is your personal business. You are not obligated to share it with anyone. I’ll preempt the guys right here who claim they have a surefire list of “slut tells.”

    I disagree in the strongest terms with this. This bit of logic is entirely female biased and is utterly unfair the prospective husband. The prospective fiancé or living together LTR partner has a right to know the outlines of his partner’s sexual past. You’ve just spent a post arguing that a slutty past DOES in most if not all cases predict the likelihood of “marital instability”, aka divorce. Getting married is the biggest investment of money as well as time that most men will ever make in their lives – especially if it ends in divorce, which it does in apparently 70% of the cases where the woman had more than 5 pre marital sex partners and 80% of the cases where she had in the high teens number of same, according to a study of 10,000 women referred to in a Psychology Today article. Particularly with feminist 2.0 divorce laws and family courts so incredibly tilted against men, your advice to women is immensely unfair to men. Damn right it’s his business. And if she doesn’t think so: NEXT.

    I think a man should probe this extremely carefully and skillfully. He should perhaps even hire a private detective to investigate her reputation among her former circle of friends, if the guy can’t get a good feel himself.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I disagree in the strongest terms with this. This bit of logic is entirely female biased and is utterly unfair the prospective husband. The prospective fiancé or living together LTR partner has a right to know the outlines of his partner’s sexual past.

      I’m on record as saying I don’t condone lying about this. However, this conversation is between the two affected individuals. If you choose to hire a PI to check out your girlfriend, that’s entirely your legal right. And if you tell her that’s what you’ve done, she may have some feelings about marrying a man who had her investigated. If you want to know a woman’s number and you say no marriage if she doesn’t fess up, she has a choice to make. She is clearly in her rights to deny you that information, and you would be within your rights to call off the relationship.
      As I’ve said before, the notion that a woman’s number is some sort of vital stat that a man is automatically entitled to is unacceptable. However, I think the vast majority of couples, if they have this conversation, will be open and work through it. The number of women with 36, marrying guys with 6, is going to increase, as guys who were not getting laid in college come into their own and find that they can date women who are quite attractive. Some of those women will have been promiscuous in college. For this reason, many of the men who comment here urge women to eschew casual sex – beta guys who are in the market for marriage want a sizable pool of chaste women to choose from, ideally.

  • Doug1

    Susan Walsh–

    Are there guys who will refuse to have anything to do with a woman who had sex with a few alphas in college? Yes, and some of them comment here. But I think it’s a disservice to my readers, both male and female to describe that as the middle of the bell curve. Lots of people are hooking up in college. Lots of people. Not just alphas and sluts.

    Yes this is true. There’s a slut avalanche in college now. A large proportion of college girls are sluts on graduation now it seems. (Girls with high numbers are prone to not tell the truth about them to anyone, even in surveys promising anonymity – they often lie to themselves or “forget” lots of episodes, or consider that they “don’t count”.) I think this bodes very ill for future rates of marital cheating and divorce.

    With the divorce 2.0 laws and family courts / divorce industry which so rape men these days as a result of feminist lobbying, this really suggests men shouldn’t marry but rather cohabit when they get to that point of commitment, for legal reasons. Or at the least if they want kids imminently, to require a prenup that mimics living together in the event of a divorce. It can’t affect the child support=also stealth alimony sky high rates of after tax income in high tax states that feminists pushed through in the late 80s and early 90s, which don’t genuinely take into account the ex wife’s earnings or ability to earn if she got serious about it, at all.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      There’s a slut avalanche in college now. A large proportion of college girls are sluts on graduation now it seems. (Girls with high numbers are prone to not tell the truth about them to anyone, even in surveys promising anonymity – they often lie to themselves or “forget” lots of episodes, or consider that they “don’t count”.)
      Studies show that about 15% of women are virgins at graduation. The mean number of sexual partners at graduation for college women is <1.5. You claim that women lie in surveys – fair enough. In that case, may I ask where you get your data? How do you know that women lie to themselves, "forget" episodes, or claim that sex doesn't count?
      I ask because in my own limited experience blogging here women have been quite open about their sexual histories and experiences. Or is the "it seems" the loophole that allows you to make such a claim?

  • Doug1

    Susan Walsh–

    However, research shows that players hook up primarily with promiscuous women – in which case, no one is falling in love. Marcotte’s claim makes no sense.

    Maybe so in terms of she numbers. But players and semi players (lesser alphas) often turn former good girls who’s convictions were so strong and who listen to the feminist messages, into sorta good girls and then often pretty slutty ones.

    Btw these same players or semi players, though they can really enjoy one night stands and flings or hookups with sluts, when they themselves want a LTR are usually gonna want an at least sorta good girl most often, and can often get her. One who is highly sexual but was brought up to be a good girl and only have sex with relationships she thought would last and maybe even turn into something permanent — with a slip up or two.

    Alphas probably to tend to be more emotionally at ease with a somewhat higher number but they are also in a position to be a lot choosier than betas or mate/dad types who are a bit low on the sexual pull side.

    The real problem with sluts is that 1) they tend not to consider having sex with someone else if they’re feeling the urge to do it a big deal, and so are much more likely to cheat – and cheating in women tends to break their pair bonded feelings with their husband completely, at least as a lover if not as a friend or companion necessarily; and 2) they tend to not fall nearly as deeply in love in the first place.

    How many 30 you former sluts in a relationship that will soon turn into a marriage, truly honestly are in adoring deep love with their fiances? No, the great majority of them will be in a “more mature, partnership sort of loving relationship”. I.e. mutual affection rather than deep passion. So the deep bonding never comes for most sluts, with the one they finally decided to settle down with and vice versa that is. It’s a very real sort of settling to have kids. Which greatly increases the chances of American feminist created divorce theft 2.0 for the man.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Btw these same players or semi players, though they can really enjoy one night stands and flings or hookups with sluts, when they themselves want a LTR are usually gonna want an at least sorta good girl most often, and can often get her.

      That’s unfortunate, because they don’t deserve her. I encourage women to disqualify manwhores from their consideration. Some men just have way too much social proof.

      How many 30 you former sluts in a relationship that will soon turn into a marriage, truly honestly are in adoring deep love with their fiances? No, the great majority of them will be in a “more mature, partnership sort of loving relationship”. I.e. mutual affection rather than deep passion.

      This is a popular meme on men’s blogs, but I have not seen any scientific evidence for this. Oxytocin is not a non-renewable source, so I don’t see why a woman who stops being promiscuous should be unable to fall in love. She may have a proclivity for adultery, but that’s another topic.

  • verie44

    @Kat:
    “But in my case, that’ll probably be nearly impossible and I’ll just end up with an arranged marriage.”
    .
    Why is this?

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    I’m also of the belief that if a guy likes you enough, he’ll be the one to have “the talk.” Both of the guys that I was exclusive with asked me first. Yes, I didn’t ask because of my guilty feelings, but I think the fact that they asked first made it more valuable to them or something. It certainly turned out better than me pressuring them like a lot of my friends do.

    Well, this approach certainly avoids the “reluctant boyfriend” syndrome. Of course, sex being off the table would probably prevent that anyway – most women get reluctant boyfriends by giving an ultimatum and get their way because the sex gravy train is better than calling it quits.
    Some significant portion of men want to initiate the relationship milestones, including saying “I love you.” Perhaps most. Perhaps all, I don’t know!

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    I think game is great if you’re using it for good. But it’s also a dangerous weapon in the hands of a lot of unscrupulous men that’s taking down some innocent victims.

    No question! Men who feel angry with women in general are toxic when they get Game. That’s a real problem, because often it’s exactly those men who are most motivated to study Game. I don’t really understand it – if you accept the tenets of Game and change your life, you’re basically saying that you were unattractive to women before, but figured out how to change that and now are attractive to women. So why blame the women from before?

  • verie44

    “I don’t really understand it – if you accept the tenets of Game and change your life, you’re basically saying that you were unattractive to women before, but figured out how to change that and now are attractive to women. So why blame the women from before?”
    .
    I think they’re just being irrational & want to believe society’s tripe about how people should like you for who you are inside and resent that they had to rely on something external to their natural state of being to become attractive. It’s like a woman losing a bunch of weight and having a ton of suitors that she now views as too superficial (I spoke with a woman in Sephora who said this is how she looks at men who want to date her because she’s skinny now). That’s why she lost the weight in the first place, to attract more men!

  • Clarence

    verie44 @7:55 pm:

    That’s actually a pretty insightful post there.

    It’s often said that when you learn game..when you SEE what women are attracted to, and what SOME women will do at the slightest sexual pass -well, you lose all respect for them.

    I think that’s partly true IF..and I say IF..you overpedestalized them in the first place, and/or had ONLY run into honorable ones. For instance my grandmother was a good mother, a faithful wife, a smart as nails book keeper, a farmgirl, and a very christian lady who is very popular and has only ever had in her 88 years fewer enemies than I can count on one hand. I also used to live with grandparents when I was a child for a few years when my parents split and I hardly ever heard them say an unkind word to each other. It happened but it was rare – and they NEVER yelled at each other.

    Imagine if that had been my only experience with women or marriage.
    Luckily, I had my mom and dads high conflict miserable marriage (included cheating on both ends, and many other things I’d rather not get into) to ground me.

    Point is, by the time I started learning game..and since I’ve not done it full time , I’m still at a relative “beginner” level though I’ve probably spent 200 hours on it all told..I had already had some experience with both the MRA world and r/l women to “ground” me.
    Not all their sexual behaviors – and one of my friends used to be an instructor for Mystery’s group and once showed me he could take a girl from her boyfriend- caused me the total shock that many men feel when they see this stuff first hand, esp if they grew up with women they loved.

  • Sox

    I don’t really understand it – if you accept the tenets of Game and change your life, you’re basically saying that you were unattractive to women before, but figured out how to change that and now are attractive to women. So why blame the women from before?

    It’s a bitter pill to swallow. Personal change is extremely difficult and painful, but you don’t hear men complain so much about this…it’s all about the before and after, and not the in between.

    It requires men accepting that they’ve essentially been living a lie. Acknowledging that as a result of it, they’re NOT good enough. It involves painful realizations about true female nature, unflattering realizations that knock women off the pedestal many men were raised to put them on. The cognitive dissonance involved leads to a total mind-fuck that many guys refuse to accept and even fewer act on.

    The resulting bitterness is a response to pain and feelings of betrayal, compounded by incredulity and near-horror at true female sexual preferences. It’s hard not to judge and shame women for that. Women aren’t shielded from the reality of male nature like men are from women’s. If many women can’t even openly accept it, how do you think men feel? The more a man practices Game and reaffirms its tenets, the more he loses sight of the ideal he used to hold women up to. The more he focuses on what is, instead of what should be.

    Some men never get out of that bitter pattern. Others come to realize that nature is nature, and it’s amoral. Still, even the most reformed betas and biggest Game success stories still get totally pissed off when they see women denying the obvious and demonstrating a total lack of self-awareness and insulting mens’ intelligence.

    These same men see sluts as walking reminders of the painful truths they had to accept and change in order to compete in the SMP today.

    EDIT- I see Clarence beat me to it…ah well.

  • Mike

    I think they’re just being irrational & want to believe society’s tripe about how people should like you for who you are inside and resent that they had to rely on something external to their natural state of being to become attractive. It’s like a woman losing a bunch of weight and having a ton of suitors that she now views as too superficial (I spoke with a woman in Sephora who said this is how she looks at men who want to date her because she’s skinny now). That’s why she lost the weight in the first place, to attract more men!

    You are 100% right. Too many people with the victim mentality, BOTH male and female. One guy poster here exemplifies that attitude, and if I were Susan I probably would ban him from posting. There is a difference between unbridled hostility to women, and offering a candid although perhaps not what women want to hear male perspective. The former serves no purpose here, the latter can be very useful to the young woman willing to do some introspection about her views and behavior.

    Being attractive to the opposite sex, acquiring a high status job, gaining financial wealth. All require you to potentially change. People unwilling or resentful of having to change should just grow up or STFU.

  • Mike

    The resulting bitterness is a response to pain and feelings of betrayal, compounded by incredulity and near-horror at true female sexual preferences. It’s hard not to judge and shame women for that.

    This is where many of the MRA types completely lose me. It is what it is. It is biology/nature. It is stupid to judge someone for what simply is the state of nature. We men are turned on by youthful women with certain body ratios. Should that be shamed/judged? Now the difference becomes to what degree are you a slave to your hindbrain, and to what degree do you use your brain to overrule bad choices? That is the part that can be judged.

  • Mike

    Sox,

    I responded too quick. Should have read the rest of the post where you acknowledge the amorality of nature. The bitter types need to internalize that fact.

  • PJL

    @Verie,

    Very helpful posts–thank you. So I guess game, even when you know about it, does hit the biological buttons? I’m fine with finding the need to change so far as my moral scruples will let me. Really, right now my best indicator that there’s a good deal right with “game” is this. For personal reasons, I disqualified certain girls a priori from my pool of potential partners. Strangely, it was precisely those girls, which I had disqualified, that showed me the most interest. My best indicator that there’s a great deal wrong with, at least, the method and the manners of game and its community is stories like yours.

  • Sox

    @Verie

    I’m not trying to say I’m a special flower because I’m not, but I do have to say that game doesn’t work on all women the same depending on their backgrounds. The guy who gamed me hard said that NOTHING seemed to work on me when it came to sleeping with me

    You’re probably right…although he may not have employed it correctly. IF a guy’s only focus is getting a girl into bed ASAP, then yea, he’s going to have varying results with different girls depending on their backgrounds. I dated a very religious girl in college who was saving herself for marriage and she came very close to changing her mind with me a few times, ’til she finally asked me my opinion. If I’d wanted, I probably could have slept with her right there. I have a feeling that if I’d been pressuring her for sex or maneuvering to get it, she would’ve resisted and been much more resolutely against it.

    Game has guys select for girls who have sex quickly. Not going to sleep with her in 3ish (varies) dates? On to the next one.

    Not necessarily…that depends on the guy. LTR Game wouldn’t be about that. My own goals in studying it weren’t about that.

    When people first jump into learning about it, they go to the obvious tells that you see in the Mystery Method and all that. That really paints an incomplete picture. It ignores all aspects of Inner Game (which could have plenty of other more conventional terms in its place) and the full scope of how it plays out in relationships past the initial seduction phase. Look at Mystery- he couldn’t even maintain a LTR when he wanted to. Just my opinion, but any healthy man will DLV himself (and maybe this could just be seen as vulnerability Game) and submit to “oneitis” at some point if he truly wants a deep relationship. Game’s more about keeping that and its manifestations in check than making sure it never, ever, ever happens.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Game is designed to generate sexual attraction in the female. Mystery marketed his book as a way to get beautiful women into bed, but that was overpromising, IMO. A woman may be sexually attracted, even tempted to have sex, but perfectly steadfast in her decision not to. Game is not something that breaks down all barriers and turns women into sexbots. Neil Strauss said in The Game that Lisa was neg proof. Game gave him the social skills he needed to attract her, but she wasn’t “glamoured” into having sex with Strauss before she was ready. Another thing to keep in mind is that Mystery wrote his method to be successful with the women he wanted most. He called them “hired guns” – strippers, pole dancers, cocktail waitresses, etc. Obviously, that’s a self-selected group who view sex differently than the average woman.

  • Sox

    I just wanted to add that I think it’s a huge mistake for a guy to suggest that say, he won’t consider a LTR with anyone who’s been with more than 5 or even 10 partners. I’ve been no stud and I easily racked up 6 of mine in relationships; I’m in the double digits now.

    A story…I met my “one that got away” in college. Prior to dating her I’d slept with 2 people: one in a 3 1/2 year relationship through HS and the other one was a one night stand with a girl in our dorm at the beginning of the semester. That was my first experience with the power of social proof.

    Anyway, this girl and I fell hard for each other quickly. As time went on it was obvious how into me she was. When I met her family, they said, “you really swept her off her feet” and “you seem like the first guy she’s ever dated that she’s actually liked”. The latter was a bit of a red flag. Soon after, I found out she’d been with what I considered to be a lot of guys by age 21. I immediately judged her, I told her how I felt about it, and I asked her for details.

    Predictably, most happened between her freshman and soph year. She’d tried one ONS and hated it. From her other accounts, she came across as a girl who might’ve been a little slow to learn but in general, she’d always been looking for a connection with the guy and had a lot of bad luck. She was also stuck rooming with two of the biggest sluts on campus who’d already racked up 40+ guys.

    Anyway…long story short, I dumped her. I got it in my head that she was “settling down” for me and that I was only attractive to her once her party phase was over. I was ignoring a lot of the facts and projecting my insecurities onto her. She was great to me throughout it all, and to this day is sweetest, most giving girl I’ve been with. She deserved a chance. Once I found out her number (not even by asking, through a drinking game w/friends), I was right in having issue, but it should’ve stopped soon after that, since I knew deep down she wasn’t a slut.

    It’s just my advice to guys to be careful using the number as a disqualifier. Only do so if it confirms what you’d already noticed through her personality and whatnot, not as a sole factor in and of itself. Up to a point obviously, every guy has their hard limit- mine’s probably around 25. Girls can easily reform but they need to know that after a certain point they will have definitely alienated at least half of the male population.

  • Clarence

    Susan:

    Re: Mystery

    You are remembering incorrectly. Mystery had tremendous problems with women in general so he set about to “crack the code” so to speak. The MM book does NOT teach you how to get “hired guns”, indeed these women -who are used to being hit on all the time- are much harder to “crack” than your average woman and you have to pay Mystery extra to get techniques for them or search the web pretty explicitly. I stumbled across such a post once on how to date strippers. If you want, I’ll quote from it a bit. Basically you can spend hundreds of dollars on a stripper and get absolutely nowhere, so an understanding of their underlying psychology is essential.

    And yes, I know such girls are trouble and often not LTR material, and the only reason I even have the info is that they could be fun and by far the most dramatic girls I’ve ever dated should I choose to make use of it. Of course right now I’m happy with my Swedish sweetie, and I actually do kind of hope it develops into Something Serious..so maybe I’ll never date a stripper after all. Oh well, I’m old enough that I don’t value drama for the sake of drama or sex simply because it’s “hot” sex.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Clarence,

    I stand corrected – thanks for clarifying. I’m glad that you are relationship oriented! I’m sure strippers need love too, but yikes, it’s not what I’d want for my own son.
    As for Mystery, I do recall that his dream was two incredibly hot bisexual women, whom he could live in a perpetual threesome with. I don’t believe he ever found that.

  • Clarence

    LOL!
    Well, even though my friend , as I said, was an instructor for Mystery’s group and traveled with him to the sets of his VH1 show and things, all I know about Mystery’s desire for a 3some comes from The Game. And dang it once or twice he was SOOOOOOOOO close..but no cigar, lol.

    Oh well, he seems happy with his kid now :) I always wish Mystery the best of luck because even though he’s often been a self-destructive person he’s done alot of good for alot of men.

  • Pingback: How many partners makes you promiscuous? Here is a definite formula | Kid Strangelove

  • http://kidstrangelove.wordpress.com/ Kid Strangelove

    Hi Susan. First of all I would like to say great blog, you take a really good non extreme but realistic view of dating without yielding too far to the sexually liberal or sexually conservative. I’ll spend the next few hours looking through your archives:-)

    I have taken the liberty of coming up with a “promiscuity formula” on my blog (http://kidstrangelove.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/how-many-partners-makes-you-promiscuous-here-is-a-definite-formula/)

    It’s the same for men and women, and what one does with that information is up to them.

    You are promiscuous if you total number of sexual partners is more than your age in years

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Kid
      Welcome, thanks for the feedback. I read your post, so I see that you’ve already discovered many men would not be so liberal in their views. It’s an interesting thought, tho. I find it extremely interesting that there really is no consensus on this question, even among the guys commenting here. Basically, the men are all over the map on this one.

  • Clarence

    Susan:

    Very important: In terms of numbers ,yes. In terms of behaviors, no. And it’s already admitted that a minority of men don’t much care. So there’s hope for committed relationships for women who may have acted “slutty”, but not if they continue the behaviors that led to high promiscuity in the first place.

  • The Deuce

    You want to wait till marriage. That’s good, but you also mention that you feel guilty about this, and so don’t ask for exclusivity from guys. Think about this for a second. Let’s say you do get married. Are you going to be okay with the guy sleeping with other women all the way until the wedding? I don’t need to tell you that’s not a good way to start a marriage. And yet, if that’s not what you want, you’re going to have to deprive the guy of sex for some amount of time prior to the wedding (barring breaking your principles). And he’s not going to be real happy about that.

    The fact is, you need to look for guys who are already on the same page with you, and have similar convictions. Otherwise, you’re just front-loading the relationship to be poisoned.

  • verie44

    @Deuce:
    .
    You make good points, and yeah, I didn’t know what I would have done if the two guys I have been exclusive with hadn’t asked me first.
    .
    Re: ny, yes, it’s a bad place for dating. I have a possible job offer to move to washington state, but I’m terrified of the constant rain. Ny is a great fit for me other than the dating marketplace unfortunately, and one of the only places where I can do what I love (beyond this bizarre opportunity). Where would you say would be good places to go?

  • http://ft.com VJ

    Geez, long story short? NYC is full of very frustrated virgins. Some of them even (had) blogs too. There’s really few places in the Western world that are ‘good’ for 25 yo virgins. Even for the very religious. Among the places I’d suggest are the more deep Red States of the South or Mid-West. Which despite their obvious near veneration of the virgins:
    http://www.alternet.org/books/147399/red_state_families_vs._blue_state_families%3A_the_family-values_divide

    Do also happen to contain plenty of other fairly ‘toxic’ (or severely contradictory) attitudes towards ‘modern’ women & working women & modern families especially. Again see the book for the details:
    http://www.amazon.com/Red-Families-v-Blue-Polarization/dp/0195372174

    Sadly there really needs to be some sort of middle of the road solution here in the 21st Century, right? It’s certainly a Catch-22 and one who’s contradictions only get worse & more complicated & difficult with age too. For many obvious & very good biological reasons, BTW.

    There is some sort of middle ground occupied by a plurality of the population at least who are neither ‘sluts’ (by most reasonable definitions), nor actual virgins. And most of them seem to meet, mate & get married seemingly just fine. (Sometimes not in that exact order!)

    But this goes to my original thought above. All this is about making better choices. You need not have the capacity for making perfect choices at all times. Indeed it would be quite remarkable (& unusual) to do so, but actually imagining you can or might? Can be just as destructive as a psychological condition or crutch.

    There are plenty of pretty lousy bets as partners who might be willing to wait for sex until (or nearish) marriage. It’s really not the ‘be all & end all’ of the necessary conditions for a decent spouse here. It’s probably not even within the realm of a ‘good predictor’ for compatibility either. Or even later ‘faithfulness’, actually. As a General indicator of human behavior? It can and does easily predict those who are sexually inexperienced. And more than likely also inexperienced at intimate personal relationships as well.

    That can mean many things to many people. To some it’s a clear sign of a romantic virtue, and it clearly can be. But it’s value, sadly enough, is indeed time dependent. A virgin @ 25 is something different than one @ 35 and again at even 45. At the upper limits here? It’s certainly regarded almost universally as pretty freakish & a sad state of affairs, even by both men & women alike who are thus similarly ‘afflicted’!

    So there’s a reason & a purpose here. It’s a deliberate decision, and one that you hold dear. Which is fine & respectable. Always. But perchance anyone comes close to fulfilling what you think you might want or desire in a mate and/or someone you’d want to marry? I’d certainly consider all my options on an open basis. Virtue can be it’s own reward. But not to share this fact with anyone, ever, is still regarded as something of a tragedy. Unless of course you’re really, really great at sublimation and are producing fantastic art or literature instead. Which again in this day & age, seems to be supremely unlikely. But hey, we can be surprised! Cheers & Good Luck! ‘VJ’

  • http://ft.com VJ

    Susan says…”As I’ve said before, the notion that a woman’s number is some sort of vital stat that a man is automatically entitled to is unacceptable. However, I think the vast majority of couples, if they have this conversation, will be open and work through it”.

    This number is her/his weight when married. Which is a State Secret, and needs only to be guessed at within the realm of ‘Stones’. Other vital stats will be issued to the applicable SU on an ‘as needed basis’. Which in most households, means practically Never. ‘Working though’ such issues means a willingness to walk though a deeply mined landscape in Lebanon. Barefooted & naked. Where they shoot at even the UN Blue helmet ‘observers’ on a regular basis. For sport, mainly too!

    And yes, I’m still happily married, why do you ask? Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • Mani

    Hey Susan, long time no post! :) One thing that makes me wonder is what Amanda said here:

    “Well, that’s a straight up lie. Lots of men fall in love with sluts, especially since sluts don’t have that desperate vibe.”

    I disagree with 1/2 of this statement. The first part (lots of men fall in love with sluts) I cannot prove, although I have to say in my life yes, I have seen guys fall for girls who have had promiscuous behavior. These relationships, however, are always tumultuous (the classic break up make up couples), and a lot of them haven’t ended well. So from what I’ve seen, they fall in love, but it doesn’t last, or it’s heading down the road that won’t last. Who knows though, there may be some out there who have a happy, strong, relationship, but usually I think when one or both partners had a history of sleeping around, the tendencies are still underlying, but there.

    The second is not true. I have seen “sluts” with desperate WAY desperate vibes. In fact, many of the girls who are “sluts” (god I hate using that word, it’s so crass) get the guys they do by being desperate, by acting that way. That’s the thing – they’re not looking for an LTR, or presenting themselves in that way, when they throw themselves over men. So they do it shamelessly. And most men will not hesitate to jump in when a window of sex opens, regardless of how the girl looks (especially with a little alcohol in their systems, that alleviates ~everything in the aftermath…) I distinctly remember my friend telling me about an instance she recalled when a girl who was known to be promiscuous (in fact, she was one of those girls who HAD had a guy fall for her, but they were on one of their “breaks”) literally dragged a boy by his collar into another room to mess around, and as he left, he shot my friend a “help me”, pleading look.

    That’s just my two cents so far…I have to finish reading the article now though, so perhaps I’ll have more to say in a moment :)

  • Mani

    I’m also curious for a male opinion out there:

    If a girl you were in a LTR had a one night stand once in her life once, but ONLY once, and learned that it wasn’t for her, would this bother you?

    Yes, this is promiscuous behavior, but if it was stopped very early on since it was an experimental thing as opposed to, oh, over and over again until the numbers are far past double digits, would you judge her for it?

    Just curious :P

  • Clarence

    Mani:
    Depending on age, and less than five, I wouldn’t care.

    Of course I can only speak for myself. I mean here’s what I think alot of guys both religious and chauvanist in the mansophere will say:

    Slut! Slut! Slutty McSlut! 25 and a one night stand? Save That For Marriage. Now yourhusbandwontbespecialtoyouandyoullleavehimforthehunkypoolboyfirstchanceyouget. Slutttttttttttttttt.

    There, I’ve saved alot of men alot of replies ;)

  • http://ft.com VJ

    Sure Verie, There’s no shortage of men now, but when needed/wanted deep into the future? Who knows. But not something to be unduly alarmed about @ 25 certainly. And No Sex & the City? Geez, just start googling and you’ll come up with plenty of surprises. So you’re not alone. And that’s part of the problem actually. This ready & neat bifurcation of the quality of a woman’s virtue has always been more than a little suspect in a modern Western context. It’s not the single best delineation of either the best predictive for being a ‘good wife’ or mother or partner. It’s just the ‘terms of entry’ into the market, and one that most women & men will obviously fail at slightly better than 90% of the time. Depending on their age. Religiosity actually has a rather limited effect here too. But it is what it is. And people have always been fixated on this for one reason or another. But it’s an aspect of control that without relinquishing your own would never need to be employed against anyone. (Within reasons of health & safety, naturally!) But a complicated topic for sure. Cheers & Good Luck! ‘VJ’

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    MANI IS BACK!
    I think that what you’ve described here is falling in LUST. That explains the constant conflict, the reluctant boyfriends, the amount of cheating that goes on in these relationships. As for desperate behavior, I agree with you. I believe that many very promiscuous woman are caught in a cycle of seeking short-term sexual validation, then crashing when the interest is withdrawn. Which leads to finding the next hookup, and on it goes.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Clarence
    So true. I think this nearly always exposes a big chip on the shoulder, probably born of sexual inexperience. Either that or the religious angle, but I get very few of those types here.

  • PJL

    I think both Susan and Clarence are being a little unfair. If a woman has a one night stand it does say that at one point in her life she didn’t value sex highly–or rather valued it as an itch to be scratched. So it does objectively devalue meaning of sex, at least for you. There’s the desire, in love, to possess the other person entirely and to be possessed by them. Multiple sexual partners comes between that, I think. You can become more mature, yes, which is why this isn’t the number one criteria; but you still are who you make yourself to be. That’s the strongest case a secular man could make. A religious man could make a case involving the woman’s willful act of self-desecration. Still, in the case being described, it would be hard to view it against the girl for both the religious and the secular man, because we all make mistakes. Indeed, the Christian man ought not even masturbate, for it too is an act of self-desecration.

    Still, on the overall answer I agree. I wouldn’t like the idea of her callously screwing someone just because she wanted to do it. Moreover, if she still viewed sex as some sort of appetite like any other I would probably boot her. But if she had seen she didn’t like it and thought about why that was, then it shows intelligence and maturity. We all make mistakes growing up. Mine just never got me laid.

  • Clarence

    PJL:

    The problem is you assumed her thoughts for her.
    “Obviously” if she had a ONS she could not have been mislead and listened to promises of the moon.
    She couldn’t have been lonely. Maybe she’s played the old virgin “Virtue” game with many men and they all ended up dumping her.
    She coudn’t have been curious.
    She couldn’t have been worried that a man she wanted wouldn’t want a virgin.

    Nope, obviously she had to have devalued sex and love and all that instead.

    By their acts, ye shall know them. Unless she claims to be religious a few ONS (esp the older she gets) give you very limited knowledge into her motivations. Context is key.

    As for religion, I’m agnostic and religious concerns and arguments do not sway or concern me, though obviously they are very important to those who hold them. So to me, sex is NEVER a “sin”, and unless one did something terribly unsafe, or behaved in a totally ethically selfish and vacuous manner, there’s never anything to be ashamed of.

  • The Deuce

    verie:

    The big cities are the worst. A lot of the success of Roissy and Roosh comes down to where their stomping ground is. You get a lot of these neurotic, highly competitive, feminist career women who are very hung up on their status and not at all family-oriented, and they are absolute ripe pickins’ for the Gamers. I live not far from DC, and I’ve been to New York a couple times, and New York looks to be even worse in being chock-full of that kind of woman. Of course, the guys there are part of the same culture, which means you’re going to primarily have men that go after that kind of woman, and have a view of sex and marriage to match. If I were still single, and looking to go buck wild with hot women that were easy to find and bed, I’d probably go to NY. I would never think to go there if I was looking for a sweet virgin who wanted a family (which is what I was looking for when I was single).

    The best place to go, if you’re looking for a guy who’s dominant and confident enough to be attractive, but who will also treat you well and isn’t an amoral asshole, is probably Dixieland, as VJ mentioned. Perhaps whatever kind of work you do prevents you from being able to do what you like there, though.

    The second best option, if you need to be somewhere metropolitan for your work, is to find an area where you have easy access to a major city, while actually living in a surrounding area where there are a lot more people with traditional values. My area (central Maryland) isn’t too bad, for instance. It’s actually pretty conservative and even semi-rural in a lot of areas. Lots of people here take the metro into DC, or drive to Baltimore. Both cities are less than an hour away by car. You’d have similar options south of DC, in the Virginia suburbs. Both places are a far cry from, say, Mississippi (where I went to college), but they’re closer to that than they are to a crazy-land like NYC or DC.

  • PJL

    Clarence,

    Since we agree on the end, let’s not disagree too much. I think intrinsic to a ONS is a lowly view of sex, because it’s having sex with a stranger. All the motivations you give may attenuate the level of callousness with which she treated sex, but they do not rid it entirely. The one I find most convincing is her being mislead and manipulated. Still, each mitigating factor speaks to a different character flaw.
    .
    As to the devaluation of sex, I was thinking in surprisingly economic terms: scarcity makes something valuable. Once sex becomes less scarce, it ipso facto becomes less valuable.
    .
    “So to me, sex is NEVER a “sin”, and unless one did something terribly unsafe, or behaved in a totally ethically selfish and vacuous manner, there’s never anything to be ashamed of.”
    (1) Sex for you couldn’t be a sin, since presumably you don’t believe in sin. There’s nothing to sin against!
    (2) you’re begging the question, since the (hypothetical) debate between you and the person who espouses the position that I’m outlining is precisely about what is ethically selfish or not, and because…
    (3) It doesn’t follow from being an atheist or agnostic that “sex is never a [misdeed--(see 1)]. For an interesting read, try http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Desire-Philosophical-Roger-Scruton/dp/0826480381/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282117962&sr=8-2
    .
    BTW, I’m not myself defending any position–except ironically–on this forum, because Susan has said many times that this is a value-neutral place to pragmatically discuss things. It’s, again, not my goal to convince you of XYZ, just to convince you that XYZ could be well argued for, which is very, very different & much more modest. This could just be a case of me taking a lighthearted joke too seriously.

  • Mani

    @ PJL: I feel the same way about what you said. I used to be completely opposed to the idea of a ONS, but when I heard this story (from a close friend) it made me think about it a little more, what it meant for her, what it could mean for me in the future. Learning a lesson and then not doing it again is better than not learning a lesson and continuing that kind of behavior. The argument of “if he doesn’t accept me the way I am, I need to find a new guy” I feel at least is still applicable in this scenario because unlike someone who continuously sleeps around, it was stopped early on, and like you said, everyone makes mistakes.

    To be honest, I will straighten one thing out – the person in context was not led on. She knew exactly what she was going into and was prepared for (some) of the consequences. And, she did know the person in question, although for a short period of time. In fact, she went to school with him (had a class.) She slept with him, discovered she wasn’t even interested in him as a friend OR FWB and most certainly did not want to date him, and then just completely lost all interest, asked him to just “be friends” (which he was cool about), and resumed her life as normal for the remainder of the class. So, I guess Clarance was right in that she did devalue sex and love, but the assumption that it wasn’t for curiosity is not correct because I think it was. It didn’t go awry or anything, as she was safe and thankfully didn’t get pregnant or contract anything, but she realized after the emotional stress (not attachment, surprisingly, because she felt NO emotional attachment to him afterward, probably from not knowing him long enough) but the emotional stress of worrying how he would react around their mutual friends, etc, bothered her, and the physical stress of an STD and pregnancy scare just was something she decided then and there was the end of all ONSs for her. To have sex irresponsibly, even if you are safe, was just not for her. I am glad she felt this way too.

    @ Clarance: You are right, context is key. And the motivations in question were purely out of curiosity, and I guess partially sexual frustration. The best way I could describe it is it being an experiment. We both know a lot of people who sleep around, and after being single for a very, very long time she tried it out to see how she would feel about it (after reading all of these feminist empowering stories about sex and doing what you want, should have sent her to HUS first!) turns out, she absolutely hated it. Obviously I don’t think the guy and her had any chemistry either, because she didn’t keep doing it. Maybe it was a blessing in disguise that the sex didn’t turn out wonderful, cause this one experience was enough to turn her off from it for good.

    Something to also consider is this girl was a virgin before this happened and single for all of her life. Shakes this up a little bit, huh? She just never ran across the right guy. And I think she also had very twisted and jaded views on sex at that point…not good, but like PJL said, she grew from the experience, A LOT. And her views on sex changed even moreso (I feel for the better) after the whole situation. She knew that she wasn’t going to emotionally attach herself to the guy because in her head, she THOUGHT she knew exactly what she wanted. She felt like the time was right to lose her virginity contextually, he wanted to have sex with her and I doubt much else. So they used each other. I guess it turned out a little bit unbalanced cause he kept asking her out afterward (although always last minute, and at his convenience, in a FWB way…he wouldn’t text her otherwise) but she straightened things out fast before she led him on too far. Does she regret it? I’m not sure. When you hear the story on its on, of course the first thing you want to do is chastise her (what were you thinking?! how could you give it away to someone you didn’t even love?) but I try to be open minded, and I don’t want to judge her for it. A potential mate, however, I don’t know what he would say or think. I just hope that one little blip in her life (and all girls who have been through similar situations) wouldn’t ruin her chances of marriage or a happy LTR for good. The difference between her and other reformed “sluts” I guess, is that she whipped her behavior around instantly. It didn’t take her 10 guys to realize that this wasn’t working. It only took one.

    /end novel

  • Mani

    And @Clarance: Haha, although that may be true about men in the chauvinistic and (extreme) religious manosphere, I’d like to hope that the men on HUS are a ~little more understanding and intelligent than to be so quick to label a girl that, especially when there’s more to the story :)
    .
    Hope being the operative word…
    .
    (I don’t think any girl would want to date someone in the chauvinistic manosphere anyway)

  • Clarence

    Mani:

    To clarify you misread my post. I am not one of the type to think that all ONS indicate some devaluing of love or coupling. I was responding to PJL and offering various other reasons for the behavior that could mitigate any ill effects of it or aspersions on a woman’s character.

    Fact is, time waits for no-one, so if no one is willing to buy your milk at an unlimited price, you have to lower the price or forget the idea of selling it. This advice is esp pertinent to non-religious girls who don’t believe they can count on the reward of an afterlife or something to compensate them for missing out their chances to reproduce while on Earth.

  • Clarence

    PJL:

    Reducing my arguments to strawmen? Or perhaps I didn’t write well enough for you to understand me.

    There are certain things that one can do with one’s sexuality which across religions and customs and moral philosophies over the ages and through various cultures have long been considered “wrong” or “sinful” or even certainly not wise :) Cheating, for one. Raping for another. Sleeping with a different partner every night and not even getting their name is yet another, though I wouldn’t put it in the same class of shameful approbriem.

    Regardless, I disagree with the idea that sex has to inherently be coupled sex. Sex can be a fun and positive experience between strangers or various degree of friends. Coupled sex is often best, and its certainly best if one is looking for a LTR which I believe the majority of men and women are. But not everyone has access to it, because not everyone is paired up. Furthermore, at least some of the time non-coupled sex LEADS to coupled sex, so who has really devalued what?

    Now obviously , a large degree of uncoupled stranger sex is very risky -heck I’d say its inherently risky, both in terms of STD’s and also in terms of heartbreak. And I could easily see someone with lots of sexual partners be jaded and think either they’ve seen it all or women and men are all the same in bed. But I am not all that worried about a few single acts, esp since I know humans have a million different reasons for the same behaviors. It’s the reasons I’m worried more about and also how her sexual history reflects wisdom and by the way..if she had any monogamous relationships before me, how did she act within the relationship?

    Anyway, that’s my take on things.

  • PJL

    “Fact is, time waits for no-one, so if no one is willing to buy your milk at an unlimited price, you have to lower the price or forget the idea of selling it. This advice is esp pertinent to non-religious girls who don’t believe they can count on the reward of an afterlife or something to compensate them for missing out their chances to reproduce while on Earth.”

    Clarence, 2 points. (1) I don’t want to be pedantic, but you miss the point of the person against whom you’re arguing. Read the classics if you insist on a secular account of what I’m saying. The basic point of the person arguing against you is that virtue makes one happy & that chastity is a virtue. Therefore, you should act chastely. Now, we can get into a debate on what chastity entails (marriage may or may not be part of the story). It definitely doesn’t include a ONS. The premise underlying your argument seems to be a philosophic hedonism. Against this any number of schools of thought, some explicitly atheist, can be arrayed claiming that happiness does not lay down the path of physical pleasure.

    (2) If no one is buying the milk, the thing to do is to ask yourself why that may be. This is far, far better than having sex with the first person with a part that fits.

  • Clarence

    PJL:

    There’s another philosophy you should be aware of: Everything in moderation or the Golden Mean.

    I’m not a philosophical puritan. Perhaps you are. Life is too short for any non-theistic person to consider “chastity” a virtue, though its best not to be LEAD by your gonads. That doesn’t mean you don’t sometimes acknowledge you have sexual needs.

  • PJL

    Like I said, I wasn’t arguing for one position over another. Just trying to get you to acknowledge that this premise, “life is too short for any non-theistic person to consider ‘chastity’ a virtue,” is not apodictic. . . . I am ultimately unsuccessful.

    And even Aristotle, to whom you refer, considered chastity or temperance a virtue. Where you got the idea that any position I articulated contra your assumptions believed that you don’t have sexual needs is a mystery to me.

  • A Concerned Mom

    Even in Atheistic philosophies such as Buddhism, celibacy/chastity is considered a virtue because it is the retention and sublimation of the vital source of life which if redirected toward the pursuit of liberation can result in, well, liberation.

    This is also the basic premise of yoga.

  • Anonymous

    I have several issues with topics like this.

    If a promiscuous woman leaves doubts of faithfulness within men and have more of a likehood to cheat, then wouldn’t promiscuous men also have more of a likehood to cheat as well?

    The whole idea of sexual proof. Is it really about the number of sexual partners or simply the ability to attract women?

    Related to the above point. A common arguement in support of male promiscuity is that male chastity is shunned by women and that they prefer men with sexual experience. Why degrade yourself to the lowest common denomonator just to get laid and attract that type of particular woman?

    Why don’t we also hold men to a standard in not dropping their pants to any woman who spreads her legs? Why not expect them to be selective as well?

    Personally I’ve always found it hypocritical and a little silly for a guy to have many, many sexual partners and then call a woman a slut. I mean, who are they to judge a women for her sexual history and talk down about them. This is one of the things that drives me crazy about men and blogs like Roissy. And yes I think sluts should apply to men too.

    I also think that importance that men place on losing their virginity and getting laid with as many women as possible is problematic.

    In conclusion, I kind of see the point that Amanda was trying to make – I’ve used the same arguement myself. The word “slut” gets thrown around so much to the point that you question it’s meaning, at least in that particular instance. I mean, you can be a virgin and be called a “slut” just for pissing somebody off.

    To be honest, I kind of think that guys overexaggerate the promiscuity of women, at least Western women, but that’s just me. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I just don’t think it’s THAT bad. Of course there are other issues when it comes to sexual relations between men and women.

    Let me say though that I don’t support casual sex for men and women. As a Christian, I don’t believe that God intended for only women to be chaste until marriage.

  • http://sweetebonyrose.livejournal.com/ Renee Griffin

    Oh and that above comment is me :)

    One more thing lol. I’m aware that women are part of the problem when it comes to men feeling that they need to rack up many sexual partners in order to be attrative. That’s part of the problem, but it looks like that’s starting to change.

  • Clarence

    Renee:

    You should carefully read all of this thread and any of the most recent blog posts that deal with this topic.

    I will answer one question for you that has been answered repeatedly here: It’s not a number, it’s a cluster of behaviors.

    Good luck.

  • Höllenhund

    Renee,

    “If a promiscuous woman leaves doubts of faithfulness within men and have more of a likehood to cheat, then wouldn’t promiscuous men also have more of a likehood to cheat as well?”

    Of course they are – but such men are usually “only” sexually unfaithful, so to speak. And women tolerate male infidelity more than men tolerate female infidelity (as long as it is done purely for short-term sexual release). Women will readily share one high-value man; they won’t be happy about the fact that they have to share, but they will do it. Men will NEVER share one woman in a relationship. Women don’t fear sexual infidelity that much for the very simple reason that they cannot get cuckolded.

    “Personally I’ve always found it hypocritical and a little silly for a guy to have many, many sexual partners and then call a woman a slut. I mean, who are they to judge a women for her sexual history and talk down about them. This is one of the things that drives me crazy about men and blogs like Roissy. And yes I think sluts should apply to men too.”

    This has been repeated dozens of times but I’ll repeat it to you here: this sexual double standard exists for the very simple reason that it takes effort, social skills and innate abilities to be a womanizer whereas being a slut takes zero effort and skills, in fact it doesn’t even require above-average beauty.

  • Brendan

    Renee –

    The reasons why men and women (leaving Christianity aside for a minute, I’ll address that below) have generally viewed the pre-marital sexual histories of each other differently has to do with sex differences in general.

    For men, the main “risk” they run in an LTR/marriage with a woman is that he gets duped into investing his time, effort and energy into raising the biological offspring of another man against his will. This is a risk that is unique to men. If a man cheats on his wife, it’s of course a horrible betrayal, but it doesn’t place the offspring of that sex in his wife’s womb against her will and so on — a wife can never be duped into raising the children of another woman the way a man can be duped into doing so. That’s a risk unique to males, and its the underlying reason why men have historically been so concerned about female chastity — even virginity (because the duping sex could come right before the marriage, too). This is simply one relationship risk that women do not run when it comes to the infidelity of their male partners. Sure, the risk for women associated with that, other than disease (an equal risk for both if the partner strays), men would leave the wife and invest all of his resources in the new woman — but as horrible as that is, it is not at all like investing in a child who is not yours against your will. The cuckolding risk is uniquely male, and it lies at the root of the male interest in women being chaste (or what counts for “relatively chaste” today).

    Women generally prefer men who are attractive to other women. One often hears the question asked: “Don’t men, too?” The difference is that a woman’s attractiveness is more or less objective — it needs no social confirmation. Yes, men may disagree as to whether a given woman is somewhat more or somewhat less attractive, and spend eight paragraphs waxing poetic in favor of their choice, but at the end of the day that’s a discussion about relative attractiveness. Every guy learns as he is growing up that any girl he finds attractive a ton of other boys find attractive, too — that’s just the way it is. It needs no “social proof”. Men, on the other hand, tend to need social proof to demonstrate how they are attractive. That’s because there’s a whole host of factors that go into a woman finding a man attractive, and quite a few of them are personality/persona/approach/manner related (hence Game, and why it works). When other women find a man attractive, that provides the social proof that he is, indeed, an attractive man, and someone whom other women find attractive. For men, this is something that generally requires social proof, whereas for women it really doesn’t — another sex difference.

    So in that sense, it’s true that this doesn’t necessarily mean that the man has to have a lot of sexual history to be attractive, but as a practical matter in today’s secular SMP, that is, up to a certain level, something which is attractive. Or let me state it inversely: a male virgin is, generally speaking, not attractive to most women in concept today, because it implies negative social proof in the context of a sexually permissive culture (i.e., the assumption is that he can’t convince a woman to have sex with him, which is a massive black eye in terms of social proof).

    In the Christian context, of course the rules are the same for men and women alike in terms of casual sex and, in general, sex outside marriage. However, even among Christians the secular permissive sex culture has made massive inroads. And Christian women, in my experience, still like their social proof to confirm the attractiveness of a man. Whether that has to include some sexual history (as it does in the secular SMP) really depends on the woman, I think. But in many cases it will. As for men, both Christian and non-Christian generally prefer a rather limited sexual history when it comes to selecting a LTR/mate. Very few today expect virginity, of course, given how the sexual marketplace has developed, but in this area, for the vast majority of men, “less is more” when it comes to evaluating a woman’s LTR potential in light of her sexual history.

    Double standard? Yep. But the basis for it is explained above.

  • Clarence

    Hollenhund:

    Be sure to mention you are speaking in generalities, please. I happen to have some neo-pagan friends where 2 guys and 1 woman have been married for a good 8 years now.

    What can I say? I don’t like cuckolding either, but some guys get off on it.

  • Höllenhund

    Clarence,

    “I don’t like cuckolding either, but some guys get off on it.”

    Yes, and some Japanese girls eat sh*t on camera. What does that prove?

    “Women generally prefer men who are attractive to other women. One often hears the question asked: “Don’t men, too?” The difference is that a woman’s attractiveness is more or less objective — it needs no social confirmation.”

    The difference can be explained in simple, blunt sentence: no man is attracted to a girl BECAUSE other men are attracted to her as well.

    With regards to cuckoldry: I think one obvious proof of the innate differences between the sexes is that many women simply cannot comprehend why men make a big issue out of it. When they hear a story about a man who protests about being forced to pay child support for a child that isn’t even his, many say “oh that’s so heartless, I mean yeah technically the child was fathered by another man but this guy should treat it as his because he raised it, why can’t he get over the fact that his DNA didn’t get replicated, we aren’t slaves to genetics” etc.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Renee
    Welcome, and thanks for leaving a comment. Brendan has given you an excellent overview of the justification for a double standard. As women we may not like it, but biology is irrefutable, so we’re better off accepting it if we are seeking an LTR.
    However, the permissive sex culture that Brendan describes has resulted in a few men reaping a veritable bonanza of sexual partners. They are perceived as the highest value men and receive many opportunities for no-strings sex with women who are looking to trade up or snag a top dog for a relationship. Of course, these men have strong incentives not to enter a relationship with anyone, but in any case, they will not commit to women who have demonstrated promiscuity, in most instances.
    I’ve written about the dilemma these men can face, especially if they’re not in large metropolitan areas, or still on a college campus. They have so much social proof, they’re viewed as manwhores. Most of the women who have been very selective about their sexual partners will reject men who boast very high numbers – the Reverse Double Standard that I referenced in the post.
    I think it also includes some element on the chaste woman’s part of not wanting to reward men who spurned her when she was younger – much as beta males don’t want to settle for women who didn’t value them in their youth. There’s also a desire to punish fellow females who produced such a supply of casual sex in the first place – by saying that a guy is “dirty” by virtue of who he’s been with, she’s condemning those other women as sluts, even if she doesn’t say so explicitly. Female intrasexual competition has always been fierce, and in this SMP the gloves are off. If there’s anything good that can come of this, it’s that promiscuous people will mate with one another (from lack of choice) and less sexually experienced people will likewise self-select. There’s a link I’ve seen recently that talks about like marrying like:
    http://dspace.uta.edu/bitstream/handle/10106/529/umi-uta-1430.pdf;jsessionid=142B66E99613185682188920F30EDFBC?sequence=1

  • http://sweetebonyrose.livejournal.com/ Renee Griffin

    Before I take the time to read the great responses, I just want to thank Höllenhund for responding so politely and patiently even though I made a similar comment over at Roissy’s :)

    I guess I like reading other people’s take on this topic. Personally I know that there are reasons for the double standard but I question whether they’re right and ok. Like if people are fine with it or do they think it should be do away with.

    But anyway, off to read the comments ;)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Renee
      As I’ve said, I don’t think it is possible to do away with the double standard. Certainly the 40+ years since the Sexual Revolution has made little difference. However, if one could eliminate it, I wonder what that would mean for relationships. If men didn’t care about a woman’s sexual faithfulness enough to attempt to gauge it before marriage, for example. Or if women everywhere stopped competing for men, including using sex as a way to get access to commitment. Would monogamy survive at all? What would that mean to family life?

  • http://sweetebonyrose.livejournal.com/ Renee Griffin

    Thanks for the responses, especially yours Brendan :)

    I guess it’s possible to understand the basis of something and not be fine with it at the same time ;)

    A few things.

    —Susan,
    I guess what I meant about doing away with the double standard is that both sexes are expected to be chaste, or at least not have sex with numerous partners, or expect both to be selective of their partners or who they sleep with.

    —One reason that I hate the double standard is because of the confusion that it causes in young people. Also, (and I think this is due in part to the double standard) while the girls are the focus of many discussions about sex, the boys are kind of left to the wayside – left to fend for themselves for the most part and have sex, which is very problematic since you’re only talking to a half of a population. People make a big deal about girls loosing their virginity at a young age, but not a peep about the boys most of the time.

    —Höllenhund,

    Yeah, I’ve read this reason before, but something has always bothered me about it. On one hand I understand what you’re saying. On the other, I’m thinking that it doesn’t excuse anything. Promiscuity is promiscuity. To me, you don’t have to be a womanizer to prove anything. This is due to my beliefs and morals though.

    —Yesterday, I read a comment over at Roissy’s blog under the topic Virginity Is More Important To Men Than Women Would Admit.

    The quote behind the link (if I did it correctly) got me wondering. From a man’s perspective, what makes being with a virgin so great besides the practical reasons. I figure that for male and female virgins, there’s something special about experiencing sex with someone who’s new to it too. But for men, this seems to be especially true. Why is that?

    Well that’s all I can remember (for now maybe ;))

  • TeflonExpat

    Men of all ages are traveling to foreign countries to establish love relationships. Many expatriate and marry into an extended family. Is the feminist toxic sex positive contraception hook up culture driving men into the arms of foreign women? Are men “voting with their passports?” I imagine that American women would find the actions of these “escapees” deplorable.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I don’t know about deplorable, but if this is happening in significant numbers, it’s certainly regrettable. It’s not a realistic strategy for most men, but it reflects a perception that American women have rejected a lot of what women in other countries consider feminine.

  • TeflonExpat

    Well, SPF sure is affecting “good” American women who travel to places like Asia

    This is a comment from Bonn at the feministe site:

    The one thing that bothers me about the “hookup culture” is that it shapes the view that “western women are all whores.” Living in Asia, the one thing that bugs me above all else is how guys will assume I am just a hooker because I’m white, and hey, white girls “hook up” and give away sex all the time! (And yes, I’ve been asked how much I charge. I mean “hooker” in a pretty literal “prostitute” sense.) If I try to just meet guys to hang out, it is assumed I will have sex with them. I told a guy I wasn’t interested in relationships or sex and an hour later he asked if I wanted to go to a hotel. It’s terribly confusing, because from what I’ve observed, foreign women are far more sexually conservative than the locals, but PERCEPTION is what matters in this case, not reality. And western women are all Paris Hiltons–who herself may not be as promiscuous as she’s been painted–who dress in scraps of cloth and have sex with whomever asks.

    But for American men, well we get A LOT of sympathy from the local women. Nice sympathy :). Yep, we are all from Manhattan and have traded in those little black books for little blue ones, aka a passport. Date locally, marry globally. Treat yourselves well gentlemen.

    http://alvanista.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/u-s-scene-white-men-go-another-way-white-women-panic/

  • http://freesoc.wordpress.com sconzey

    Apparently in the femosphere, having a lot of casual sex is a way of communicating that you are confident, and sexy, and have no needs, or at least not any that might be fulfilled by a male. I believe there are less risky ways of getting that message across.

    Well indeed; in my opinion the greatest error many feminists have made is reducing guys and their desires and motivations to nothing more than walking, talking cock-and-balls. Yes, promiscuity signals those things to guys, but the unstated assumption is that when guys look for a long term partner, they look for one who’s independent sexually. A thesis evbio, history and talking to men contradicts.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Sconzey, welcome, thanks for the comment. I agree that feminists refusing to accept the sexual double standard is likely to come back to haunt them, at least if they hope to partner with a male. A number of the women who are very outspoken and pro casual sex are 40, not in a relationship, and not likely to settle down any time soon. If a woman can look at them and say, “that’s what I want,” then fine.

  • theman

    “No, in my opinon UNDER a certain number (which varies by man but is hardly ever over 20 for a 30 year old and is often less) most men just need to know she had decent reasons for it. Unless you are a secular nutcase who thinks every woman you meet should be a virgin, or very religious the SMART man will consider things in context. It’s easy for a woman to rack up 5 or even ten notches in the 4 college y ears for example. In my example that would be HALF her life time sexual partners in 4 years. The other eleven “active years” (say from 15 or 16 up to 30) she would then be averaging LESS than one per year. That’s hardly the behaviour of some girl who goes out every weekend and skanks it up, plus it allows some room for some decently long monogamous relationships.

    Men can disagree about this of course, but most men aren’t banging 30 year old virgins. Almost everyone older than the mid 20′s these days is approaching double digits if not there already in terms of partners and I do not consider the wishes or standards of religious men to be applicable to the larger hookup culture.”

    Wrong Clarence, Askmen.com had a poll question for men and asked the acceptable number for most men.
    40% >5
    35% >7
    75 percent of men don’t want a women with more than seven sexual partners. Your comment about most people hitting double digits by their mid 20′s is also wrong most people, men or women never even have seven in their lifetime. If you like sluts go ahead, but most sane men won’t go past 5 or 7 for a LTR

  • Sox

    75 percent of men don’t want a women with more than seven sexual partners. Your comment about most people hitting double digits by their mid 20′s is also wrong most people, men or women never even have seven in their lifetime. If you like sluts go ahead, but most sane men won’t go past 5 or 7 for a LTR

    I’m always surprised when I see numbers like these. Is it possible that most of these men are say, 23 or under?

    When I was 21, I thought 7-8 was an extremely high notch count. I’m 25 now, and it seems like the norm. Every guy’s got his own threshold, but I’m just not sure expecting a girl nowadays to have 5 or less partners is reasonable. Especially not if she’s attractive, social, and went to college.

  • TeflonExpat

    Another Amanda Marcotte recruit:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/ad3om/2_years_ago_i_slept_with_over_50_men_and_my/

    ____________________________________________

    2 years ago I slept with over 50 men and my current BF can’t get over it.

    I had a period in my life where I wanted to have some fun. In doing so I slept with just over 50 men in a short amount of time. I told my current boyfriend of 11 months this last night and now he’s being really distant. He has been with 25 women he claims, so I don’t see what the big difference is. I’m not fucking these 50 guys currently as I only want to be with him. He says that he is worried that I will cheat on him even though I’ve never cheated on anyone before. Please help me make sense of this reddit. thanks

    Wow. I’m really surprised at the number of negative comments calling me a whore or implying that I have mental problems. Why is it OK if a man were to sleep around with 50 women over a short period of time, he would be called a Player/Baller/Pimp/Hero yet when a woman does it, she’s labeled as having mental issues/slut/whore/cunt. Why is America so puritanical? So I had sex with 50 healthy men, sometimes 2 per day, but mostly a few a week. I am an attractive female who attracts good looking men. I like to have sex. Why is this so hard for the hive mind to comprehend a woman who knows what she wants? The reason why I’ve been in a relationship with my BF for 11 months is because I’m through with that. I got my kicks and got out. I am a lot more happy where I am today but that doesn’t mean I didn’t have fun doing what I did.

  • dragnet

    “2 years ago I slept with over 50 men and my current BF can’t get over it…I told my current boyfriend of 11 months this last night and now he’s being really distant.”

    Good grief. I don’t know which is worse—that she’s been run-through by 50 guys, or that her bf is in any way, shape, form or fashion hesitant to dump her. This is but one example of what I mean when I reference the “feminist programming” that has gripped men. Any guy who has unplugged from that would’ve probably realized that it’s in his best interest to dump her on the spot or soon thereafter. But this guy is hanging on, in all likelihood because he has been shamed by his feminist conditioning to feel guilty if he has trouble accepting the fact that his girl was probably gangbang fodder in the recent past.

    This guy really has a golden opportunity—a woman was actually honest with him about her real number. That rarely happens. He should take full advantage of this knowledge.

  • Sox

    This guy really has a golden opportunity—a woman was actually honest with him about her real number. That rarely happens. He should take full advantage of this knowledge.

    It’s probably the last time she’ll be honest about it.

  • TeflonExpat

    At some point, the number of “partners” is so mind boggling that the brain cannot even conceive it. You”re in a state of shock and awe that essentially chills your sexual desire for a person that you initially needed to elevate to a high level of respect so that love could prosper. Its an incredible sinking feeling that no man should ever subject himself to. The label girlfriend will never be put on a woman who accepts the tenets of the cock-hopping cult, let alone participates in it.

    Sex sells. Its an easy sell. Feminists know this and recruitment into the cult grows exponentially. Marcotte, Friedman, Valenti and their friends were on the front lines martyring their nude bodies around, taking 50, 80, 100+ for the team. They paved the way and their lemur slut minions are now jumping off the cliff daily in mass.

    The idea was that if more/most women behaved promiscuously, men w0uld not have have a choice to avoid them — they would be unavoidable, and men would, if they wanted a female partner, simply have to accept a long sexual history. The idea was that this would liberate women from the double standard by not giving men an opportunity to exercise it since, following this plan, there would be very few non-slut women in the market.

    The feminists are using women to spite men in this experiment and to achieve their ultimate goal.

  • Sox

    The idea was that if more/most women behaved promiscuously, men w0uld not have have a choice to avoid them — they would be unavoidable, and men would, if they wanted a female partner, simply have to accept a long sexual history

    They’re actually succeeding- 20 is the new 10. It just lowers the bar, it doesn’t do away with it entirely.

  • TeflonExpat

    As Susan said, its not feasible for most men to expatriate to where these circumstances do not exist. An alternative is to keep working in the US, earn dollars, and travel at least every six weeks to any place south of Mexico not including Brazil or Argentina. The travel is quick and time zones are similar to the US and prices are very low. Then select one area that you like and go there repeatedly. It will be less expensive financially and emotionally than “dating” in the US and far more interesting. Learn Spanish. All this is much less effort than the effort being put in to morph good women into double-standard-destroying cock hoppers. Once you get the pattern of travel set up, you will never ever imagine yourself with an American woman again. Guaranteed. An added benefit is the flip off to Amanda Marcotte!

  • dragnet

    “They’re actually succeeding- 20 is the new 10. It just lowers the bar, it doesn’t do away with it entirely.”

    They are and they aren’t. The median number of lifetime partners for women is three, I believe. I think the sex-positive crowd is having a lot more success in urban centers and college towns—but life is pretty much the same as it always was outside of these areas. The fact that women feel pressure to lie about their number is pretty convincing proof that they male preference some degree of chastity is alive and well still.

    “An alternative is to keep working in the US, earn dollars, and travel at least every six weeks to any place south of Mexico not including Brazil or Argentina.”

    I guess this is an option, but most guys won’t be able to do this.

    Believe it or not, the solution for guys is simple. 1) Deplug from your feminist programming. This means being completely unashamed to make decisions in the context of your self-interest as a man, and 2) learn to recognize the kinds of females who are most likely to have been promiscuous. Look particularly for self-centeredness, narcissist traits, low-impulse control, risk-taking, etc. And when you get to know a girl particularly well you can probe her—sometimes directly in the right contexts—to gain valuable info on her past and/or how she thinks about issues like this.

    You don’t need to expat—just a little patience is all that’s needed.

  • TeflonExpat

    ” learn to recognize the kinds of females who are most likely to have been promiscuous. Look particularly for self-centeredness, narcissist traits, low-impulse control, risk-taking, etc. And when you get to know a girl particularly well you can probe her—sometimes directly in the right contexts—to gain valuable info on her past and/or how she thinks about issues like this.”

    Good points. If she makes statements about how its OK for women in general to do whatever they want, watch out. She is putting herself in the best light. People with certain convictions about sexuality tend to defend others with similar convictions or similar past behaviors. In pursuit of a long term relationship, she will try to define the norm for you because she may be fearful that you have already defined it. Its a battle for what is considered normal and appropriate.

  • TeflonExpat

    Promiscuity And Marriage Don’t Mix

    by Joanne Parrotta

    Shortly after the release of a new booklet I wrote this past summer entitled The Promiscuous Woman: Modern Attitudes about Love and Sex (WiseAdviceBooks, 2007), I began to receive numerous letters and emails from many single women who after many years of promiscuous sexual behaviour, now decided they want marriage; however, these women are having a hard time finding someone who will commit to a long term relationship. Many of these attractive and successful young women are feeling their biological clocks expire and desperation for many of them is setting in.

    Sadly, promiscuity for more and more women has become a way of life. These women mistakenly thought they could hop in and out of bed and still find Mr. Right whenever they wanted; however, they are finding that this is not the case. It seems that the more sexually liberated our culture becomes, the more difficult it becomes for many to find marriage. The more women emulate some of men’s bad behaviours (casual sex) the more difficult it becomes to find Mr. Right.

    Our promiscuous culture has allowed women to exercise their sexual liberties in a way that would have been impossible in the earlier part of the twentieth century, but there is a trade-off. These relationships without commitment do come at a price, as many women are finally beginning to realize. In the not so distant past, women seeking marriage would wait to have sex until a man could demonstrate love and commitment. These women did not want to be just another sexual conquest.

    It is a fact that promiscuity reduces a woman’s attractiveness as a potential marriage partner. Men are programmed to react disapprovingly to signs of promiscuity in a potential long term mate (although they don’t seem to mind it in a short-term partner). Women today don’t realize the importance many men (those looking for a serious relationship) place on a woman’s promiscuity. Many of these men feel that they would be selling themselves short if they end up committing to a woman who has been promiscuous. People are mistaken if they think that the sexual revolution has eliminated the problem of a girl getting a bad reputation if she sleeps around. Yes, the double standard still exists, and to a certain degree will probably always exist. Times may have changed but our DNA has not.

    http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Promiscuity_And_Marriage_Don_t_Mix.html

  • TeflonExpat

    Want to see through that slut-cloak early on? In addition to already mentioned traits – self-centeredness, narcissist traits, low-impulse control, risk-taking – here are some clandestine probers:

    1)…What does she think about the double standard regarding promiscuity? Frame this with sympathy to the feminist perspective. This is a bit of a trick question. The right answer is disgust with promiscuity across the board. The wrong answer is an instinct to shelter sluts from judgment for their actions. This question has the bonus of drawing out a feminist vibe she might be concealing, although in the scheme of things a little feminism in a young woman isn’t the end of the world. But you should know what you are getting into.

    ________________________

    2)…Why does she think so many women have to date “bad boys” before they learn to look for good guys? Again, a bit of a trick question and should be framed non judgmentally. Ideally she should have disgust with those girls who chased alphas while she looked for something different. A convincing story about why she made this transition isn’t what you want to hear from a potential wife, but you should frame this question in such a way so this seems like a perfectly acceptable answer.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/interviewing-a-prospective-wife-part-ii/

  • TeflonExpat

    @slumlord – here is the report you mentioned

    .

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

  • TeflonExpat

    FROM FEMINISTING! YES, SLUT REJECTION IS A REAL FEAR!!!
    .

    http://feministing.com/2010/09/09/fatslut-acceptance-and-the-meritocracy-myth/
    .

    Joy Brondite
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 7:21 pm
    .

    I have been doing a lot of reading about this topic and this is my first comment. Its started with the Jaclyn Friedman Craigslist article and that led to a site called hookingupsmart. That site is so verbose and quite frankly, overly analytical and critical. There is quite a bit of cross attack between bloggers there as well. I do not know why all this is such a big deal. Men and women have been having sex before marriage all along and Western society has not collapsed. So why in just the last 10 years or so has this become a media topic?
    .

    But no matter the cause, it seems to come down to a war of words and meaning. It is VERY confusing. I cannot pin down the real issue. There is this notion of slut shaming in the media and it happens on a more personal level among people who shame one another. There is also something that is discussed on other websites but never in the wider media – something called slut rejection. The latter is what heterosexual men who seek a life partner supposedly engage in. I have personal experience with this. My ex did not try to shame me but upon knowing more about me, he just sort of faded away. Its so wrong that women may have to lie or not say anything and either strategy is prone to backfire. I believe that if men had less alternatives, that is if most or many women had a fruitful sexual history, then that would become the norm and therefore acceptable.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Teflon Expat
      Thanks for calling that to my attention! What an interesting comment – of course my being mentioned helps :-) What blows my mind is the suggested strategy of getting all women to slut it up! Misery loves company!

      • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

        @Hope
        I’m sorry, I deleted your comment. I did so because in my judgment you were setting yourself up for more condemnation and ridicule, and I don’t want to encourage that here. You don’t owe anyone here an explanation for your past. Personally, though you didn’t ask my advice, I would be very careful about telling your personal story of that relationship online. It can and will be used against you.

  • Sox

    I believe that if men had less alternatives, that is if most or many women had a fruitful sexual history, then that would become the norm and therefore acceptable.

    Well, that clears that up. I really don’t even know what to say, other than “wow”.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Well, that clears that up. I really don’t even know what to say, other than “wow”.

      Yeah, I think there’s actually a post in that. Not sure whether I have the stomach to write it, though.

  • Mike

    I believe that ******if men had less alternatives*******, that is if most or many women had a fruitful sexual history, *******then that would become the norm and therefore acceptable.******
    .
    Well, that clears that up. I really don’t even know what to say, other than “wow”.

    Well…to be honest it is not the thought that surprises me, but the rather candid admission of what the real agenda here is with SPFs.

    Ya know, when there was the extensive discussion/debate about JF’s piece, the refrain from that corner was “she is just telling her story” and NOT trying to push any lifestyle on others. That really is a crock of complete bullshit.
    .
    I think it was Brendan/Nova who had a quite insightful/pointed comment that there is most certainly an agenda here and an attempt to influence what is perceived as societal/cultural “norms” and part of that is redefining 20-50 sex partners not as a “slut” but an “empowered” female engaging in “perfectly normal” sexual behavior. \
    .
    In that sense, strategically it is absolutely necessary to browbeat the Susan Walsh’s and Grerps of the world because you cannot be seen to have legitimate female disapproval. Hence, the need to paint Susan as a reactionary who wants to women to be virgins at marriage and barefoot and pregnant despite the sheer absurdity of that portrayal given her background (MBA) and body of work here. Tactically, it is actually a smart maneuver I think because many won’t see through the BS, propaganda, and misinformation
    .
    Ultimately, it is an uphill battle (the comment above about forcing men with respect to “alternatives”) because you are trying to squelch men’s innate biological programming with some sort of broad cultural re-education. Deep inside, most men recognize the BS message about “respecting” and “accepting” some woman’s decision to get banged by 50, 100, or 1000 guys. I think it was Dragnet who said it best, that men just have to be men, “man up” and unplug from the cultural matrix trying to influence their views and decisions with respect to dating, LTRs, and marriage.

  • Sox

    Tactically, it is actually a smart maneuver I think because many won’t see through the BS, propaganda, and misinformation

    It’s very smart tactically because the anti-shaming rhetoric pervading society’s at its zenith. Consequences? Those are soooo pre-millenium.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      It’s very smart tactically because the anti-shaming rhetoric pervading society’s at its zenith.

      That comment was actually left on a post that railed against both slut-shaming and fat-shaming, and the frequent linking of the two. I’m sorry, but I think that says something about sex pos feminists in general. Just saying.

  • TeflonExpat

    @Sox
    .
    The anti-shaming rhetoric may lead to diminishing negative feelings toward women who currently bring shame to a man if his family and friends were to also know about a multi-man past. That is a strong reason men avoid promiscuous women for relationships – they don’t want to be look down upon as a man who just took what he could get. Achieving matrimony with a known non-promiscuous women is now trending toward being a status symbol. A very proud accomplishment indeed.

  • TeflonExpat

    “If women view sex as an emotional exchange and want their partners to respond with commitment and support, they are not weak prudes bowing to unfair social pressures. They are normal young people who instinctively resist conforming to a novel feminist definition of what “liberation” means. Young women should know the facts about sex and love so that they can make informed decisions about how to achieve their own long-term happiness.”

    http://www.iwf.org/files/9888844f27bd6410607ab2d89e35fe86.pdf

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      TeflonExpat, you’re my best new source of links! Thanks, that’s a good one.

  • TeflonExpat

    “That comment was actually left on a post that railed against both slut-shaming and fat-shaming, and the frequent linking of the two. I’m sorry, but I think that says something about sex pos feminists in general. Just saying.”

    .

    Says GLUTTON and food and sex are seen as equal in significance. What sort of failed parents raised theses SPF’s anyway?
    .
    Fat people are denigrated because its a known fact that just because mass amounts of cheap food are accessible and its easy to eat does not mean you are excused from the consequences of your actions. Lack of discretion and quick self gratification are not hallmarks worthy of respect.
    .
    Promiscuous women are denigrated because its a known fact that just because mass amounts of men are accessible and its easy to screw does not mean you are excused from the consequences of your actions. Lack of discretion and quick self gratification are not hallmarks worthy of respect.

  • TeflonExpat

    WHY IS THAT FEMALES WHO WRITE ABOUT THIS TOPIC NEVER REALIZE (OR ADMIT) THAT A SMALL MINORITY OF MEN ARE SCREWING MOST OF THE WOMEN?
    .
    “A recent survey notes a difference between the sexes, 42 percent of men report having had had sex on a first date; that drops to 17 percent of women. Additionally, men were more than twice as likely as women to say it’s acceptable to have casual sex without an emotional relationship — “just doing it for the sex.” (That’s OK with 35 percent of men, compared with 15 percent of women.) But ladies, these men are hooking up with you casually, so someone is lying.”
    .

    http://poshlifeposhstyle.com/2009/06/casual-sex-is-screwing-relationships/

    .
    Otherwise its a good article

  • TeflonExpat

    Best comment from that site:

    .
    Welcome to the world of feminism and “equality”… back in the 20′s, 30′s, 40′sm 50′s etc… women understood that they had the control and exercised that control. Men were the head but women were the neck and the neck turns the head. Some women in that day were still having sex casually but it was extremely rare and not sanctioned by society. Women of that day understand that they were different from men and behaved as such. Those women also understood that sex was not to be given away without commitment. What did you get as a result? Solid marriages, children being raised by both parents and a social sanction against OOW births and single parenthood.

    Fast-forward to the world of feminism and equality and what have we? Single moms, no fathers in the lives of their children, increased prison presence, and the blame laid on the men for allowing women to have what they ‘said’ that they wanted. LOL!

    Simply put… ‘Brothers’ don’t have to reform anything because ‘Brothers’ didn’t start this.

    __________________________________________________________

    So why do women today have sex with more men than prostitutes did from an earlier era? Its not because feminists are pro sex per se. Its because feminists want women to not have to marry or marry if they choose and when they want to. That is, not be slaves to some imagined patriarchy. Women will not be able to accomplish that if satisfying carnal desires is only acceptable (non shameable) in a committed relationship. Too bad for theses women and the feminists that men who play along are actually needed in this sick experiment.

  • Karen

    I also agree with what the author says. I have a relative who is only in her mid-20′s but has slept with around 30 guys already. It is telling that everytime she starts a new relationship she tells a guy that he is only her 3rd boyfriend. She also plays the sweet and innocent girl-next-door routine because she has discovered that is what many men want in a girlfriend. Oh, and she tells every boyfriend (in an innocent voice) that she has never given a previous boyfriend a blowjob. And whoever her current boyfriend is just falls for this routine. It works everytime!!! At the same time, she also slept with a number of guys from the same small town so she already has a reputation because WORD GETS AROUND. GUYS DO TALK ABOUT SHORT-TERM SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS. She now lives in a major city where she can remain anonymous but eventually her lies and past will catch up with her.

  • Rufus

    You guys keep banging your heads together over this!
    The bottom line is: sex is a powerful drive for both sexes- its called biological survival.
    The only reason some women, in SOME societies are chaste is religion.
    In some societies MEN are chaste ie monks
    That doesnt make it natural.
    In fact evidence suggests women are MORE promsicious than men. See this link:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/06/women-penis-size
    Also look up the work of Helen Fisher MD
    At the end of the day all people are drawn to sexually attractive people.
    To quote Frank Skinner “just because you are ugly yourself doesnt mean you fancy ugly people”

  • Rufus

    Sorry- that link doesnt seem to work so here are the key bits:

    ……….Correlations can be found between primate mating systems and male genital anatomy.4 In multi-male/multi-female groups, males must compete to reproduce and frequently the competition takes place inside the female reproductive tract. The more sperm a male produces and ejaculates inside a female the greater the probability that one of his will fertilise the ovum. Female chimps or bonobos in oestrus often mate with several different individuals, so males must reproductively compete……….

    …..hominids needed to keep females with choice sexually satisfied. Ancestral females would have experienced a sexual freedom denied in Western cultures today and it has been suggested that our ancestors went through a period of matriarchy and enhanced female choice……….

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Karen
    Yup, her lies will probably catch up with her at some point. Even if she finds a new guy in the city, how will she explain her reputation or the inevitable comments and jokes when she brings him home? She has every right to live her life however she wants to, but she shouldn’t be lying about it. If she knows that a lot of casual sex decreases her value in the eyes of men, and she cares about that, she should stop doing that. Otherwise, even if she deceives them, she’ll always know that her “real history” would be unacceptable – and that she’d probably get dumped for it.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Rufus,
    I love Helen Fisher’s work and have written about her often. However, the direct application of bonobos’ behavior to human sexuality is problematic, and I don’t believe Helen Fisher has ever referenced it.

  • Rufus

    You may well be right there Susan. But the article is sourced from anthropology texts. Helens work made the same conclusions re female promiscuity.

  • Rufus

    here we go:
    “Helen Fisher suggests four reasons why women have adopted adulterous survival strategies. First, receiving presents from lovers could improve her subsistence by giving her extra food and shelter. Second, if she was married to an unattractive or unpleasant man, she might try to upgrade her genetic line by taking a lover with “good genes”.

    Third, if a woman had offspring with an array of fathers, each child would be different and there would be increased chances of some of them surviving the rigours of the environment. And finally, for some women adultery would be an insurance policy. If her husband was to die or desert her, she would have another male to enlist in parental chores.

    So, according to the Fisher hypothesis, our most successful and fertile female ancestors pursued a daring dual strategy: social monogamy on the one hand, tactical adulterous liaisons on the other. To pursue this, extreme secrecy would be paramount. According to David Barash, in the animal world females are very cagey about their sexual flings, while males are brazen. Secrecy is also vital because the adultery game is a dangerous one. Throughout history there have been hideous punishments for women who dared to stray, from whipping to having their noses chopped off. Sexual relations between men and women have been like a secret war, a battle to reproduce, in which nature has equipped both sexes with certain weapons, including physiological ones. The sperm-wars theory of the sexual biologists Robin Baker and Mark Bellis is hugely controversial. Their idea was that sperm from different men mingle in the reproductive tract of females and compete to fertilise an egg. Supporting the alpha egg-getting sperms are an army of kamikaze sperms whose job is to kill off sperms from rival men. Thus a whole ejaculate works together as a winning or losing team. The fittest team gets its man to the egg.

    This type of sperm competition was first discovered in insects in 1970 and then found in virtually every animal group. But could it really be an important factor in human evolution? It would mean that a significant minority of women would be sleeping with two men or more within five days around their fertile periods. From their surveys, Baker and Bellis concluded that 8% of human children were born as a result of sperm competition. The surveys also showed that an adulterous woman tends to favour her lover’s rather than her husband’s sperm. She is less likely to use contraception with a lover, more likely to sleep with him on a fertile day, and retains more of a lover’s sperm in her vagina.”

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Rufus, thanks that is awesome info! The sperm competition theory is fascinating – I’ve read that the glans of the penis is shaped in a way that enables it to scoop out any sperm left by a previous lover. Also, during ovulation a woman’s testosterone spikes, and this is when she is most likely to cheat – and obviously most likely to get pregnant. So yes, it appears that women are daring and brazen in their efforts to get the best genes.

  • Tamir

    Oh, so slut hood is a natural state of being then? One nil for the feminazi I guess?

  • http://www.atpworldtour.com Tennis Pro

    ” Men were the head but women were the neck and the neck turns the head.”

    Quoting MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING now are we?

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Tamir
    Good point! I would actually say that yes, women exercise many different sexual options when they may choose without restraint. Monogamy developed as a means of civilizing human behavior and creating productive societies. Polygamous cultures, where a very few men get all the women – harems essentially, do not produce because there is no incentive for the male population to work hard, i.e. no one to provide for except themselves.
    What we have today, thanks to feminism, is a culture of soft “harems.” Many (not all) women exercising sexual choice without restraint, focusing primarily on a minority of men. The net result is a scarcity of relationships. Society cannot thrive without relationships.

  • TeflonExpat

    “What we have today, thanks to feminism, is a culture of soft “harems.” Many (not all) women exercising sexual choice without restraint, focusing primarily on a minority of men. ”

    Feminists and female writers in general are either ignorant of this or merely deny (aka refuse to admit) it. In any event, creating a neo-polygamous culture would just be seen as necessary collateral damage fallout. The goal after all is to enable women to be sexually satisfied and therefore out of marriage and worshipping the feminist goddess of “equality.”

  • Höllenhund

    “Monogamy developed as a means of civilizing human behavior and creating productive societies. Polygamous cultures, where a very few men get all the women – harems essentially, do not produce because there is no incentive for the male population to work hard, i.e. no one to provide for except themselves. What we have today, thanks to feminism, is a culture of soft “harems.” Many (not all) women exercising sexual choice without restraint, focusing primarily on a minority of men.”

    I find it ironic that you arrived at the same conclusion many male bloggers (who probably freak your female commenters out) already have. Parts from one of Whiskey’s epic but nevertheless predictable and repetitive comments bears repeating here:

    “That’s your female sexual paradise, your matriarchy, your society of single mothers and sexual selection by the most A-hole dominant. Where every guy tries to be the most dominant, threatening, A-hole, or the best singer, or dancer, or athlete, or what have. Anything but a steady, companionate father and husband.[...]

    Single motherhood means guys know they are disposable by women, so they don’t invest in them. Their own mothers model the “spread your seed” mode of sexual behavior, and this is what they internalize, a constant battle to be King of the Hill because that is what women have sex with. In such a society, things can be very stable. Sub-Saharan Africa has been that way forever. But its a hell-hole, as all Matriarchies are, violent and superstitious and ignorant.[...]

    The pill, condom, vastly improved living standards for women, anonymous urban living, all bring blessings. But every sword cuts two ways: the cost is the collapse of companionate marriage for all but those just moderately rich, for whom marriage is a consumption partnership and divorce too costly. For the rest, single motherhood as women pursue sexual thrills of Alphas is what is happening. At best we are Chav Britain or Ghetto Black behavior. That’s at best.”

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/01/07/hookinguprealities/all-the-single-ladies-and-their-babies/#comment-3342

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Hollenhund
      In truth, I’ve been profoundly influenced in my thinking by male bloggers, as well as men who comment, such as yourself. The way I see it, being wedded to a political ideology prevents one from discovering the truth. Often we remain willfully ignorant. This is the problem I’ve had with the feminist bloggers and commenters – they don’t want to hear evidence that contradicts their world view. I may disagree with certain bloggers, or certain concepts popular within the manosphere, but I recognize that there are a lot of smart men who have given these matters considerable thought. I’m interested in what they have to say.

  • Tamir

    So if all the women are going to be promiscuous with all the tall, handsome men with large genital sizes will that mean the short, ugly guys will ‘die out’ or will the women eventually settle for a chump and produce babies with ‘ugly’ genes?

    or do the feminzi’s wanna dispense with motherhood altogether?

  • TeflonExpat

    The following are just some of the topics that will be covered in The Promiscuous Woman
     

     Ø Why Men Place Great Value on a Woman’s Sexual Restraint
        Ø The Dangers of Promiscuity
        Ø Why Promiscuous Women Have a Hard Time Finding a Mate
        Ø Why Playing the Male Game Will Backfire
        Ø Why Early Sex Can Hurt a Relationship
        Ø And so much more!

    http://www.wiseadvicebooks.com/CMS__The_Promiscuous_Woman_.html

  • TeflonExpat

    Here are some choice quotes from a palpably frustrating rant:
    .

    Part of the sexual liberation movement was supposed to free women to fuck as they liked it — but recent studies show that far too many women aren’t reaching orgasm while they do it. Women who do are still decried as sluts — something Jaclyn found out after she wrote about the role casual sex played in helping her heal after a relationship — and told they can never be happy.

    .
    Maybe far too many (American) women are partaking in sexual situations that makes no satisfaction sense – when will they learn? Maybe, just maybe, most men do not give a rats ass about your orgasm when throwing your (probably drunken) body at them. Who is decrying women as sluts and if that is true, why is does it matter what other people think? Unless of course those people are self-respecting men of high marriage value. And those women can be happy, if they can accept rejection from the aforementioned men.
    .

    don’t expect to be loved if you’ve been too slutty

    .
    Well, at least don’t go whining about it if men, yes the gender you have been hopping all over for years, denies you their love for doing exactly that.
    .

    And when we’re actually fucking, I respect their boundaries and demand mine be respected

    .
    Boundaries? what boundaries? You. Are. Fucking!

    .
    And women who explore exhibitionism, sex work, poly relationships or BDSM are told that they’re just fooling themselves and hurting other women by allowing themselves to be objectified — as though the male gaze still determines a woman’s sexual agency.
    .

    You can do whatever you want with your “sexual agency”
    But your long-term-relationship agency is absolutely determined by the male gaze. And it always will be.
    .
    http://jezebel.com/5665654/fcking-while-feminist-when-principles-meet-intimacy-what-then

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Teflon Expat
      Oh boy. I might have to take that one on. Did you read the comments? There’s hilarity there. It’s nearly impossible to tell what sex those folks are, what sex they’re screwing, what kind of screwing they like. It made my head spin.

  • Mike

    Teflon,
    Went back and read one of the links:
    Excerpt from JF:

    JF: Oh God. There is a type of feminist guy who is so eager to fall over himself to be deferential to women and to prove his feminist bona fides and flagellate himself in front of you, to the point that it really turns me off. And it makes me sad, because politically, these are the guys that I should be sleeping with! You know what I’m talking about?
    YES.
    JF: Everyone knows what I’m talking about. And some of them are even really cute! I want to say to them, “If you could be a person, like a whole, complicated person, who I feel like I could crack jokes around, then I would really like you.” But they’re so serious about their feminism at every moment that I don’t feel like a person to them. I feel like I’m on a pedestal, almost. I know that they’re not going to disagree with anything I say under any circumstances. And I don’t feel like I can make a raunchy joke about sex, because they’ll be horrified. . . . I hate to be critical of our allies in any way, because we need them, but there’s something about that certain kind of hyperfeminist guy that makes them unappealing to date, to me. I suspect it has something to do with our internal conceptions of masculinity, which is terrible on my part.
    .
    Wow….wow…just f’en wow.  Read that.  Process that.  That is a super feminist saying those words.  I wonder if she even fully grasps the full implication of what she is saying there.  That right there is proof positive from a feminist’s own words that the “Game worldview” in terms of dating is the correct one.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike
      This blew me away:
      .
      . I hate to be critical of our allies in any way, because we need them, but there’s something about that certain kind of hyperfeminist guy that makes them unappealing to date, to me.
      .
      An endorsement of Game indeed. But even worse, her steady white knight is some hyperfeminist dude named Thomas – the one who started talking about how he likes to be bottom to his wife. I recall your leaving a funny comment for him ;-)
      The real revelation here is that feminist women consider feminist men eunuchs.

  • TeflonExpat

    This manner of thinking is so outrageous…it can’t possibly pervasive even in the US.  Where do these ideas come from?  Who are these people?
    .
    http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/10/16/fucking-while-feminist-the-unfuckables/#more-2157
    ,
    http://jezebel.com/5666182/a-few-final-thoughts-on-fcking-while-feminist

  • TeflonExpat

    When asked about gender, no one brought up the fact that women have much easier access to casual sex.
    .

  • TeflonExpat

    The feminism wave du jour: The latest must be called the “Desperation Wave” where men are the target for reprogramming.  While the Sex+ cult is groveling for men to marry from the same cesspool of women they have been screwing for years, the Wipe-the-Babies-Ass+ crowd is begging men to abandon other aspects of their natural masculine tendencies.  In summary, you should be happy staying home potentially raising another man’s (or other men’s) children and have dinner ready whenever  your whore wife gets home from the office.
    .
    http://feministing.com/2010/10/16/the-feministing-five-joan-c-williams/#comments

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Interesting quote from Williams re what feminism is today:

      I see feminism as divided into at least three distinctive and overlapping pursuits. One is work-family, which is the one I work on, one is the sex-violence axis, and the third is the queer axis.

  • Bob

    Perhaps this is reopening an issue long since closed, but I feel compelled to comment on the question: “Is a woman who had sex with 12 alpha males while sincerely pursuing an LTR a slut?”

    Face the fun fact that people cannot read minds or see intentions, and the answer becomes obvious. Unless she is 80 and widowed 10 times over, the answer is yes, of course, she is. Behavior defines everything.

    It is just plain easy for a woman to fuck above her status. To a 1st-order approximation, every man is low-hanging fruit to a willing woman. There are alpha males who regularly bed 10′s who also bed 2′s. Look at Hugh Grant: At the same time he was fuck buddy to (a young) Elizabeth Hurley, he paid a street hooker to fellate him. (For that matter, any woman with a fuck buddy is a slut.)

    If the hypothetical woman sincerely thinks she is going to land one of these alphas for an LTR when clearly she cannot, she’s deluded. Who wants to get hitched to a psychotic? I don’t see how the underlying psychosis makes her any more desirable as a mate.

    I am not an alpha male, and I never will be. At best, I have average endowment, and even that’s probably a stretch. As a geek who is stable, responsible, and who has high earning potential, I would have no interest in such a woman.

    If she was deluded enough to think she was going to land one of these alphas before she met me, I have to assume she’s deluded enough to think she can trade up from me. Why would I invest anything emotionally or financially into a relationship when there is any chance my partner might try to land someone “better”?

    As Dr. Phil would say: “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”

    I don’t see how it makes any difference whatsoever whether a slut is just horny or trying to fill some emotional void or pursuing higher status males than she can land or anything else.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Bob
      I sympathize with your point of view. From my perspective, you have high mating value and should pursue a woman who has made good choices, despite enormous cultural and peer pressure to participate in casual sex. They’re out there, though not generally found in places where Game was tested and developed.

  • Jess

    Bob,
    I would have to say that if you demonstrate such attitudes in public most women, regardless of sexual history, are likely to avoid you.
    Just put all the hooking up culture aside for one minute and analsye what you are saying:
    If you maintain that a women who has an occassional liason whilst hoping for an LTR is a slut then you are ‘binning’ massive sections of the female population. What if a woman doesnt have an LTR for 7 years- is she to remain celibate, in the prime ofher life, during that period?
    Would you be happy to be celibate for 7 years?
    It may well be that women have easier access to casual sex and plenty indulge but they are only doing what many men would do if given the same opportunities.
    Please put aside the claptrap about women being naturally demure and men needing to spread their seed. Its 2010. Treat people as individuals. Not many people are inherently evil. Plenty of warm, affectionate, trustworthy people have had a few flings in their youth. There is no need to hold that against them. ‘Let he without sin etc etc’

  • Bob

    What if a woman doesnt have an LTR for 7 years- is she to remain celibate, in the prime of her life, during that period?

    If she cares about having a stable, long-term relationship, sure, why not? Most women’s arms do extend past their navels; nobody has to jump into bed with anybody just to bust a nut.

    If she cares more about the immediate pleasure of bedding some stud, that’s okay too. It’s not like anybody has to care whether I would consider them for an LTR.

    However, I suspect most women would be happier and better off if they chose very carefully and young starting a family earlier rather than later. But as the saying goes, youth is wasted on the young.

    Would you be happy to be celibate for 7 years?

    Sure, why not?

  • Jess

    Bob,
    Well if you are happy to be celibate for 7 years then you have most certainly called my bluff! And fair play- if you are happy with that then thats totally ok, I would be the last one to criticise you for that.
    But by the same token you shouldnt insult the majority who take an alternative view of course.
    Also, I assume you are willing to accept that you are part of a tiny minority that are happy to embrace voluntary celibacy. I mean I know ‘onanism’ has its virtues but sexual union is such a powerful and wonderful act and frankly the 20-45 years are when everything works properly so theres that to think of to.
    You see some people, both sexes, get lonely, they worry life is passing them by, they worry about fading looks, they want to feel desired, worth something, part of something. And if a perfect situation isnt in immedaite reach? Well, sometimes any port in a storm will suffice.
    I just hope you dont miss the love of your life because a decade earlier the girl in question had a few flings and you refuse to consider her- that would be such a pity.

  • Mike

    What if a woman doesnt have an LTR for 7 years- is she to remain celibate, in the prime ofher life, during that period?
    Would you be happy to be celibate for 7 years?

    .
    Just curious, except for unrealistic pickiness/choosiness what possible reason could there be for a woman to go without a LTR for 7 years despite wanting male companionship/sexual relations?

  • TeflonExpat

    @jess
    .

    If you maintain that a women who has an occassional liason whilst hoping for an LTR is a slut then you are ‘binning’ massive sections of the female population.

    .
    True, unless you’re speaking of the entire planet of women. Then, the “binning” would only be of a very small and avoidable section of the female population. So bin away.

  • Jess

    Mike,
    Wait! I actually agree with you- most women could not go for 7 years like that.
    But if they do seek some temporary compansionship (of a horizontal nature) then apparently they might get insulted as being a ‘slut’.
    Women do find themselves in this situation quite often. I have younger friends, who when they left college suddenly found offers dried up. They didnt fancy anyone at work, they didnt like hanging out in bars, they couldnt bare a dating agency scenario.
    Before you know it, a year passes, then 2, they almost forget what sex even feels like. Unless your friends are happy to play date maker its slim pickings you know!
    I bet there are plenty of woemen who go 22-29 or 31-38 or 33-40 with limited romantic opportunities. Personally I always advise using an agency but I have heard mixed reports.
    Teflon,
    What a charming comment. Real classy.
    For the Western world, I think you will find its most women adopt that perfectly appropriate human behaviour. and avoidable? Do you use a lie detector when on a date?

  • TeflonExpat

    @jess
    .

    For the Western world, I think you will find its most women adopt that perfectly appropriate human behaviour. and avoidable? Do you use a lie detector when on a date?

    .
    Most women do not reside in the Western world. Women in the West may indeed adopt that behavior and of course they would consider it appropriate, until they decide to marry and such behavior is called into question – by men – and these women should respect that selection criteria and not shame men, even promiscuous men, for thinking that way. And its about probability when dating outside the West (the big world) where the chance of meeting a Western-type woman is very very low.

  • Jess

    Teflon,
    You do know this is a US site dont you?
    “these women should respect our criterea”
    “not even promiscious men”
    Well as long as you are being fair and reasonalbe then!!!
    What tickles me is that if you had been born a woman you would be the most vociferous feminist out there! (and a sex positive one at that!)

  • Mike C

    Mike,
    Wait! I actually agree with you- most women could not go for 7 years like that.

    Jess,

    You either didn’t understand my question or artfully dodged it. So let me try again. What possible situation could occur that would lead a woman to the point where she could NOT get a LTR for 7 years, and as a result go the casual, promiscuous sex route to have consistent sexual relations with a male?

    I would submit that a woman who goes 7 years without a LTR, and substitutes a high number of casual sex partners is either:

    1. Way too choosy about LTR material relative to her SMV value. This points toward someone who is either unrealistic or feels entitled. If you are quality guy with options you don’t want to marry this person.

    2. She really enjoys casual sex with a variety of partners,and prioritizes that over the emotional commitment of one man. Again, if you are quality guy with options you don’t want to marry this person.

    Again, if a particular woman wants to lead this lifestyle, more power to her, and I’ll even refrain from pejorative or judging comments, or calling her a “slut”. All I’m saying is from a PURELY PRACTICAL SENSE a woman who wants to SOW HER OATS with a bunch of hot, alpha guys before she “settles down” is someone who is revealing a whole host of personality characteristics that any savvy guy doesn’t want any part of for a lifetime experience.

  • Mike C

    Before you know it, a year passes, then 2, they almost forget what sex even feels like. Unless your friends are happy to play date maker its slim pickings you know!
    I bet there are plenty of woemen who go 22-29 or 31-38 or 33-40 with limited romantic opportunities.

    Slim pickings? Limited romantic opportunities?

    Hmmmmm…I think you are proving my point for me. I’m sure the quantity of single men and single women in any given age group are roughly equivalent, so this doesn’t pass the smell test……UNLESS…we have a situation where women are being way too choosy about who they would consider for a LTR yet for the guy who is 2-3 points above them and having a slow night, he’ll slum it for a night.

  • Jess

    Mike,
    Hi, no I got what you meant.
    It may be hard to beleive but womaen can go for a while without a decent LTR.
    If I go to a bar (pretty rare these days) I get hit on by total jerks.
    They are either drunk, or randy or a combination. When I was younger it would be once in a blue moon that I would get chatted up by a guy who I could be into. The rest were tossers.
    So you are left with set ups, dating agencies, work or the supermarket (apparently)
    Honestly once college is over, all those opportunities can vapourise.
    Dont you know any attractive women who are single? I bet you do.
    I dont know if its being picky (although I accept some women should be more realistic) but most women want a guy who is moderatley attractive, successful, decent and caring. Not always easy to find one.
    Maybe its because men are scared to approach pretty girls
    Maybe its because porn has removed the desperation of some men to find partners?
    Maybe porn/promiscious culture has made men reluctant to commit
    Maybe women are too picky
    Maybe men need to up their game
    Maybe poeple are ashamed to use agencies
    All I know is that for an attractive woman to not have an LTR opportunity for a protrated time is very common indeed.

  • Tom

    Explaning the way modern men think, to evolution, is total nonsense.Truth be told, “some” men do not want to get into a long term relationship with a very experienced sexual woman who has has a lot of sex partners, because they do not want to be comparied to other men. They do not want their member to be compared, they do not want their sexual prowess to be compared, they dont want to be compared at all.
    With a 4th generation of women now on the pill, IUD etc, women now can have “sex like a man”, and many insecure men dont like it.
    The fallacy of past behavior being a good predictor of future behavior is total BS. There are millions of women who have sucessfully transformed from being a “loose” woman to a great wife and loving mother. There is some truth about the fact that they have experienced other men, so they do not have to “wonder” what it might be like to be with another man.
    All this evolutionary nonsense about men having to spread their seed to many women and men needing to know that the child is theirs is immature thinking, at best.We are thinking feeling beings, not evolutionary cavemen. It is an excuse to hide mens real fears. They are afraid that she has experienced bigger penises and better lovers.(not that bigger is always better) Just look how Muslim women are treated and made to dress,total male domination.
    Women I have known who were promiscuous, eventually got tired of the single life, and wanted more to their life. Some did not want a relationship for various reasons, some were looking for love in all the wrong places. Many times, due to a nasty breakup, women will chose to see different men as a healing process. It my not work well, because the sex becomes like a drug. It feels good while it is taking place, but once it is over, they feel worse than before, so they go looking for the next “emotional” fix. A catch 22. These women will come to find how empty that lifestyle can be. It may not be the best choice, but they do the best they know how with the knowledge they have “then.” Experience is the best teacher.
    As for me, I met a woman who soon after meeting her told me she had been around.Lets just say she is a very uninhibited, very experienced woman who has done it all. She has done fmf and mfm threesomes, had a few “friends with benefits” on call at the same time and had several one night stands.
    She too grew very tired of the single life, and wanted to find the “one” for a relationship.She had not wanted a relationship for about 3 years because she was totally destroyed by a man who dumped her. Her self esteem was in the toilet so she got caught up in the fixing her self esteem by seeking men who would show her some affection. Ofcourse all they wanted was sex, but for now, that is all she wanted too. To experience some closeness and perceived affection…
    Then she met me. I got to actually know her, and found what all those other men didnt see. She is a wonderful woman, smart, funny, a great mother to an 11 year old boy(whom she shares custody with an exhusband) has a great job in corporate with a major bank. She is also uninhibited sexually, but totally committed to me and our relationship. She has had some of the other men contact her for hookups, but tells them the is now in a relationship and this is a permanent thing, and wishes them well. I asked her if she misses that single life and the variety, and she states a resounding “NO” She says it was empty and nothing compares to what we now have.
    How does this benefit me? I have a woman in my life who loves me dearly, loves to have sex a lot, gives me stimulating conversation, is good looking and is my best friend. What else do I need?. I put my ego aside, I dont dwell on the other men (everyone has a past) and I look forward instead of backward. If you find a woman like her, love her, protect her, and most of all repect her, she has done nothing wrong. That is if your fragile male ego lets you.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Tom
      Good for you, I give you a lot of credit for appreciating this woman for who she is now. It sounds like she wasn’t very happy in her old lifestyle, and she is indeed lucky to have found a man who doesn’t judge her for her past. As you rightly point out, many men would not feel the same way.

  • Tom

    You all use the term slut like it is a bad thing…. Got some news for you…. Men
    AND women can be and are sexually promiscuous.(sluts) Normally the “reasons” they are ARE promiscuous are different.
    Anyone who thinks people can not change their behavior are fools. There is a huge difference between ,”Just sex” and relationship sex. Most formally promiscuous people , both male and female will tell you that.
    Face it there is not much difference if a woman has sex with one guy 1,000 times or 20 guys 50 times.
    The biggest difference is the perception of insecure males. They know if a woman has had 20 sexual partners, she has encountered men of all sizes and skills. Their own insecurities about their own size or skills tend to make them look at the challange of being with an experienced woman, especially in a relationship, too much to handle so they name call and label.
    I dont buy the angle that the more partners a woman has the worse long term partner they will be…. Millions of low number people get divorced.It isnt about missing the variety, it is about getting along with your mate. People cheat because there is something missing from the relationship, not just because they want to fuck someone new.
    Sure there are formerly promiscuous people who cheat, but so do low number people.
    I have to laugh at men who label women as sluts, they obviously have no clue what they are missing once the promiscuous woman has had enough of the single life.
    Let go of the ego all you insecure men, women fall for you as a person, not your dick.
    LOL poor guys

  • TeflonExpat

    “It begins here. How is a hookup culture related to the fact that men are permitted (especially on the weekends) to regard women as less than full human beings? Does this treatment help men forget that their female friends’ intelligence is at least as formidable and valuable as that of their male friends? Does this treatment then affect the friendships men share with women and what types of relationships we seek with which girls?”
    .
    http://www.vanderbiltorbis.com/hooking-up-and-playing-hard-a-feminist-perspective-on-campus-identity-1.1766391
    .
    Now, just who is permitting these men to regard women as less than full human beings? And why would this lead a man to define the nature of his relationships differently with one girl than with another?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Teflon Expat
      I read that piece and thought it was ridiculous. That guy has really drunk the feminist Kool Aid.

  • Tom

    @ Susan

    I would like for some of the men or women who think women sleeping around is a bad thing, explain EXACTLY why it is a bad thing.(or a man sleeping around , for that matter) no double standards please,the double standard is not only illogical but hypocritical also.
    First lets set the parameters.
    A woman of legal age, single, having a high libido, uses protection, only sees other single men.

    So what is inherently wrong this woman choosing to have sex with multiple partners? She may not be interested in having a relationship right now, but if she fell in love that would be fine.

    Lets not bring religion into this because not everyone is religious. Obviously a religious person might have puritan reasons why this is wrong.

    Is it she is ruining her vagina? Is it she actually LIKES sex? Is it she may be learning what she likes and dislikes about sex? Could it be she is getting a lot of practice so someday she could please her significant other? Is it because sex is FUN? Do you think she will become so accustomed to having muliple partners, she will never be satisfied by ONE man ever again?

    Come on people so what is wrong with a healthy, high libido SINGLE person(male or female) who used protection, who has multiple sex partners?

    I know the real reasons, I have stated them before.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Tom
      No doubt you are right about men fearing comparison. Also, in this era of unrestrained female sexuality, women are free to “trade up” to a higher status guy, even if it’s only for one night. This has resulted in many men, who in previous generations would have been able to attract a woman of similar attractiveness, now getting no women b/c they’re all fixated on 20% of the highest status men. In practice, this means that many men have very limited sexual experience, and they hate the idea of being with a woman who is more experienced than they are. I think that’s pretty understandable. Finally, there is research that shows divorce rates climb with the number of previous sexual partners. Men who are especially cautious about marriage will hedge their bets by seeking out a chaste woman.

  • Tom

    I really appreciated your comments. Some of the guys on here have some serious issues- it’s good to know there is some male sanity out there.
    I can’t know if your analysis of the male psyche is accurate. It’s certainly logical I suppose- in my work I have seen couples dissolve into violent chaos due to male jealousy and insecurity. It’s a powerful force for sure.

  • Tom

    @ Susan

    Jealousy is one of the most heated and hated of all emotions. It is settled in insecurity. Think about it. A man doesnt want a woman so experienced that she may be able to know if he is actually up to snuff sexually. His fears are a result of being jealous of her experiences with other men, her knowledge of sex in general, and the fact that he may not measure up in bed. Or in short, insecurity. All it may take is one person in a relationship to overly flirt with a stranger, and the other person in the relationship might go balistic.. I am aware of the study that suggests the more partners a person has the less likely they can sustain a LTR. I have also seen a couple studies that suggest otherwise.
    When you think about it, sexually free people seem to be a little less traditional, so they are probably not going to stay in a bad marriage the way their parents or grand parents did.There are obviously a lot of bad marriages out there, being the divorce rate is over 50%. Staying married for the rest of ones life, although an admirable idea, is not totally realistic in todays age. This goes for sexually active people as well as virgins, and everyone in between.Sure it happens, but not like it used to.
    I was an athlete, I think I know men pretty well. Sometimes I am ashamed of my own gender the way they stereotype women. Some men put women into the ,”only good for cooking, cleaning, having children and having sex withslot. They have no idea there is a person attatched to that female body, who could be sensitive, funny, intelligent,insightful AND sexy.
    To them promiscous women are only good for sex. Even though they themselves act in a similar manner sexually. They will fuck them , but not take them seriously. Why? Because they do not have to interact with them, so they could care less if the woman thought he was good in bed. But that same woman, probably will make some good guy who is mature and rational, a great life partner when she tires of the single life. Why won`t the players take her seriously? Because she knows their game as well as he does. She knows if her “measures up” both in and out of the bed. And that drives him crazy. Players tend to be insecure people to begin with. They normally have to keep the conquests going to keep proving to themselves they are a real “man.” A promiscous woman is an insecure man`s worst nightmare when it comes to settling down. Because she “knows”

  • Abbot
    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Abbot
      Interesting article, but I thought the ending was odd. The writer asked, “Should a man have sex more like a woman?” I’m surprised Dr. Gupta would endorse such a notion – that emotional intimacy is female. In any case, “should” is irrelevant.

  • Abbot

    Maybe the Dr meant that if men had access to casual sex like women do, meaning without much effort and basically whenever they wanted to, men would be more selective and therefore select women they are deeply attracted to and that would lead to heightened emotions.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Abbot
    Yes, that makes sense. I wish it were so!

  • Abbot

    Although not brought up in this article, would the same attitude by women regarding promiscuity-acceptance apply?
    .
    “The feminism of the future is shaping up to be about pulling men into women’s universe”
    .
    “We’ve got to wake up,” said Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, chief executive of 20-first, a gender management consultancy. “We’ve got to start focusing on the guys.”
    .
    It seems like the article is saying – “unfortunately, we resolve that we need you men – to satisfy this and that – so rather than accept you for the way you are, you need to change if you want us…because us changing is not an option.”
    .
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/europe/23iht-letter.html?_r=1

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Abbot
    America will never go the way of Sweden. American men have already said “No thanks, we don’t want to enter the traditionally female professions.” And women will always do more housework. Trying to change men’s roles to be more female is a non-starter. That’s why it’s such an intractable problem. A limited number of economic opportunities is now being shared by men and women. The ones who benefit most are the dual high income earners who marry.

  • Badger Nation

    “Trying to change men’s roles to be more female is a non-starter. That’s why it’s such an intractable problem.”
    .
    It’s really freakin’ insulting to see Newsweek or whoever it was run a cover story telling men to “man up” by becoming more feminine – and doubly insulting for the entire justification to be “so that women can get what they want,” which was the whole point of the story. Grerp ran a post on it as did many others in the manosphere.
    .
    That’s what we’ve been doing for the past generation, resulting in a huge corps of socially sterile men (guys who can’t get laid because sucking up to women is not attractive).

  • Tom

    Am I the only one who thinks many mens attitudes about promiscuous women is hypocritical, to say the least?
    Why do these Neanderthals think they can go around having sex with many different women, and it is no big deal, but when they encounter a woman who has lead a similar lifestyle, they look down their noses at them?
    Do they honestly think a womans only value lies between their legs? That a woman who had sex with other men is somewhat devaluing them as a person?
    Funny, a lot of these men who think their woman has had only a couple other sex partners, are in a relationship with a woman who may have had 20+ other men. Thing is, the guys dont know that, so they observe their womans value differently. Just goes to show these sexist men have no clue as to what REALLY lends value to a woman. For sure it has nothing to do with how many times a woman has had sex or how many bedfellows she has had

  • Florence

    @ Tom
    “Thing is, the guys dont know that, so they observe their womans value differently. Just goes to show these sexist men have no clue as to what REALLY lends value to a woman.”

    I absolutely agree. What if your number went up, not because you wanted to be promiscuous on purpose but because you always landed up on jerks up to now? You were just unlucky and had to kiss many frogs before finding your prince.

    Many good looking and smart women land on jerks all the time. Our numbers go up because we give you chances. If we didn’t give chances, maybe the current guy who feels bad that we have a high number, would have never gotten a chance with us!

    The problem with men not liking a girl with a high number is that they automatically put her in the category of being a slut. This is not true for many women with high numbers.

  • Florence

    @ Susan
    “The ones who benefit most are the dual high income earners who marry.” = so called “power couples” …

  • Tom

    @ Florence

    You said, ” If we didn’t give chances, maybe the current guy who feels bad that we have a high number, would have never gotten a chance with us!”

    BINGO!

    Exactly how I met my fiance…… It started out to be a one nighter and we are still together @ a year later. I couldnt ask for a better woman.

  • Badger Nation

    Florence,
    .
    I hear the hamster working overtime.
    .
    “What if your number went up, not because you wanted to be promiscuous on purpose but because you always landed up on jerks up to now? You were just unlucky and had to kiss many frogs before finding your prince.”
    .
    Except that choosing to sleep with a jerk is a choice, not a chance event.
    .
    “Many good looking and smart women land on jerks all the time. Our numbers go up because we give you chances. If we didn’t give chances, maybe the current guy who feels bad that we have a high number, would have never gotten a chance with us!”
    .
    Oh please. It’s not about “giving men chances,” it’s about chicks digging jerks and hoping they can “turn” them.

  • Sox

    @Florence, Tom:
    “What if your number went up, not because you wanted to be promiscuous on purpose but because you always landed up on jerks up to now? You were just unlucky and had to kiss many frogs before finding your prince.”
    .
    There’s a difference there. Guys are (generally) very understanding of this. I know I am. People make mistakes. There’s a difference between that and a record of chronic bad judgement. And the red flags in personality traits and emotional baggage.
    .
    “Do they honestly think a womans only value lies between their legs? That a woman who had sex with other men is somewhat devaluing them as a person?”
    .
    No, it’s not devaluing them as a person. It’s devaluing them in men’s eyes as on the dating market. Quintessential value =/= SMV/DMV. Just like your average celibate beta may be a great person, just as valuable and deserving of happiness as any other human being. But on the dating market? Sorry, he’s not judged on that kind of value. Neither sex is fair, so I take exception when I see this idealistic rainbow-up-ass crap. Women are JUST as shallow as men in this regard, except they REWARD men for promiscuity.

  • Tom

    @ Badger

    The problem is, people are normally on their best behavior when they first meet. Lets say a woman meets a guy, they go out a few times, end up sleeping together, then he dumps her, or maybe later on his true colors show thru, so she dumps him… If this happens several times, up goes her number.
    Some people feel there is no reason not to sleep with someone new. Since sex is good, how can sleeping with people be bad? (assuming they are safe)
    Using the word slut just comes from peoples own insecurities. People who sleep around are doing nothing wrong. If you dont agree please explain to me what is wrong with having sex, which we all agree is a good thing. If having sex with one person is a good thing, then why is having sex with more than one a bad thing? (again assumimg they are single and safe)

  • Tom

    @ SOX

    You said,”No, it’s not devaluing them as a person. It’s devaluing them in men’s eyes as on the dating market.”
    This is true only to shallow men who are afraid this promiscuous woman will be able to compare him to other men. I can understand his attitude, and respect that, but it does stem from the male insecure ego. However it is a fact of life and women need to know this fact.

    If you disagree, then explain EXACTLY what is inheritly bad about multiple partners.

  • terre

    “[sex] … which we all agree is a good thing”

    Er, “sex” is not de facto a good thing. By that argument rape is “a good thing”. There are all kinds of serious externalities involved with sex, not limited to STDs (it’s impossible to fully protect oneself because of the nature of diseases), bonding chemicals, etc.

  • Florence

    @ SOX
    “There’s a difference between that and a record of chronic bad judgement. And the red flags in personality traits and emotional baggage.”

    What is a “record of chronic bad judgement”? Is that a specific number that has to be lower than your number?

  • Tom

    @ terre

    Please dont compare two consenting adults having sex to rape. That is a totally different arena.

    The issure here is the hypocritical attitude of men who look down on women who have behaved the same way they have. No one has yet explained why two consenting adults who choose to have sex is a bad thing. If it is not a bad thing once, how can it be a bad thing more than once?

  • Tom

    @ terre

    Please dont compare two consenting adults having sex to rape. That is a totally different arena.

    The issure here is the hypocritical attitude of men who look down on women who have behaved the same way they have. No one has yet explained why two consenting adults who choose to have sex is a bad thing. If it is not a bad thing once, how can it be a bad thing more than once?

  • Florence

    Not every girl with a high number did not intentionally chose to sleep with jerks. Maybe she attempted on having a LTR, but the guy broke up with her for one of the 20 reasons of “Why you don’t have a bf” mentioned by Susan. Some of these are hard to change.

  • terre

    “The issure here is the hypocritical attitude of men who look down on women who have behaved the same way they have. No one has yet explained why two consenting adults who choose to have sex is a bad thing. If it is not a bad thing once, how can it be a bad thing more than once?”

    There are dozens of reasons women are frowned upon for having loose sex while men are not. Many are evolutionarily-driven (a man who has to worry about paternity is not a happy man) and many are basically emotive (a girl with many partners does not have standards, which implies the man is not anything special).

  • terre

    It’s also worth noting that girls are absolutely free to frown upon a man for being sexually loose. It’s just that by and large, they don’t.

  • Tom

    If she picked him over all others I`d say he is special. ..LOL @ dozens of reasons.. Name two that have substance.

    Evolutionary? what are we cavemen? Todays man is capable of rational thinking, that over rides cave man instincts.

  • Abbot

    terre
    .
    you wrote:
    .
    “It’s also worth noting that girls are absolutely free to frown upon a man for being sexually loose. It’s just that by and large, they don’t.”
    .
    Maybe they don’t because its so much easier for women to have more sex mates and don’t want to get called on it, as it were, so they don’t bring it up.
    .
    so here are some notable writings:
    .
    http://manofexception.com/advice/pick-up/why-women-have-more-sexual-partners-than-men-do/
    .
    Though a small sample, I asked 10 men and 10 women I knew to give me their honest answers, and I believe most gave me a truthful response. After tallying the numbers, I wasn’t looking more for average as I was range. The male average was 9.4 partners, but only three men had over 10 partners and one had over 20. The female average was 11 partners, but six of the women had over 10 partners, and two had over 20. The males had a range of over 30 while the women had a range of 18. Staggering difference, even more so if the sample size was larger.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Abbot
      This is the first inkling I’ve had that you are a blogger! I just spent some time on Man of Exception – you have a huge body of work, and some excellent posts! (And I’ve just scratched the surface.) Be sure to sign up for Comment Luv so that readers can see your latest post title.

  • terre

    “If she picked him over all others I`d say he is special. ..LOL @ dozens of reasons.. Name two that have substance.
    Evolutionary? what are we cavemen? Todays man is capable of rational thinking, that over rides cave man instincts.”
    .
    Uh, she didn’t pick him over all others. That’s my point. He’s one of many.
    .
    “Maybe they don’t because its so much easier for women to have more sex mates and don’t want to get called on it, as it were, so they don’t bring it up.”
    .
    Precisely why it’s frowned upon by men. It devalues the nature of their relationship if a girlfriend has had dozens of partners. For a man, whose sexual value is by no means guaranteed by virtue of his birth, more partners generally is a boon.

  • Abbot

    “Precisely why it’s frowned upon by men. It devalues the nature of their relationship if a girlfriend has had dozens of partners. For a man, whose sexual value is by no means guaranteed by virtue of his birth, more partners generally is a boon.”
    .
    Ah. So if it were as easy for men as women, then men may be less inclined to attach value to sex and cut women more slack. Its difficulty, rarity, etc, places a sort of value on it for men and if a women just did it so many times its assumed effort was not required by her and therefore she is taking advantage of what she has and not what she can accomplish. If women today are seeking equal relationships as they say they are, well, that’s not a good way to start. An example is people who had to work from nothing to be established on their own, well, they typically are not close friends with those who were trust fund kids. There is this sort of knowing that there is a disconnect so deep that can be overcome perhaps with free will to do so, but why bother. The value chasm is assumed to be too vast.

  • terre

    “Ah. So if it were as easy for men as women, then men may be less inclined to attach value to sex and cut women more slack. Its difficulty, rarity, etc, places a sort of value on it for men and if a women just did it so many times its assumed effort was not required by her and therefore she is taking advantage of what she has and not what she can accomplish. If women today are seeking equal relationships as they say they are, well, that’s not a good way to start. An example is people who had to work from nothing to be established on their own, well, they typically are not close friends with those who were trust fund kids. There is this sort of knowing that there is a disconnect so deep that can be overcome perhaps with free will to do so, but why bother. The value chasm is assumed to be too vast.”

    As I’ve said, women are absolutely free to feel one way or the other about a promiscuous partner. The issue does not appear to be one of double standards, however, but one of getting more than a handful of enlightened men to understand that there’s no such thing as a slut. This is spite of the fact that all research shows a higher rate of sexual encounters drastically reduces the probability of future fidelity.

  • Abbot

    “getting more than a handful of enlightened men to understand that there’s no such thing as a slut.”
    .
    Does that imply they should explain to men what they seek and then ask nicely for it? It does not seem that is the case as much of what I read is an attempt to shame men and call them names and make statements that women can do whatever they want and even boast about it. Was it this Jaclyn Friedman who was saying too bad and accept me? Better to use sugar and not vinegar, yes? Because it will drive men even more distant, and why alienate the objects of your desire?
    .
    “research shows a higher rate of sexual encounters drastically reduces the probability of future fidelity”
    .
    I suppose that applies to men and women. But since its being shown more and more that women are the more promiscuous then its assumed men are more on guard these days where women are guilty until proven otherwise. I can see how that may anger women who desire a life partner. Of course, the woman can use her free will and better manage her sex life early on since now it is quite well known that men will have a negative reaction when considering dedicating his life to her. That is, claiming ignorance is no longer an option.

  • Tom

    WOW…………..The male ego is a hateful thing.
    I just posted on a topic “the sex risk no one likes to talk about” It is about a guy who mutually fell in love with a great woman. They get along great, and make each other happy. They are even considering marriage. But then, they discussed their “numbers” hers was 35. Now he views her as damaged goods. My point is, WAIT a second! Not so fast…. Isnt she still the same wonderful woman she was yesterday BEFORE you knew her number? There are women who liked to have sex with a varriety of partners, EXACTLY the same way men have done for years. But they tired of the single life and wanted to find the one and settle down. Trust me a woman can be a wonderful woman, wife and mother, and it has nothing to do with how many men she fucked in her past.
    There are millions of happily married men who have wonderful wives. Yet many of the men do not know the truth about their wifes sexual past. My point is, it DOES NOT MATTER TO THE SECURE MAN. Only insecure men who do not want to be compared to other men in the sexual arena care. For some reason they only want their wife to know them sexually, which is pretty unrealistic these days. The fact she fucked a lot of men has little to do with whether or not she can be a great wife. It is not always a personality defect, but only a sexual preference that suited her at that time. There is a lot more VALUE to a woman than what has taken place between her legs.
    We are the sum total of our experiences. Maybe to become the great women they are NOW they had to experience what they did THEN.
    Think about it. Women have had to accept mens sexual past for many years as, “Boys will be boys” Well guess what my insecure friends, Girls will be girls. Get over it. Why else would a guy care what she did in her past before she met him?
    The fact she has had a lot of bedfellows and selected YOU means a lot. YOU have all the manly qualities she wanted but maybe didnt find in the other men.
    I can hear the insecure man now…”WHAAAAAAA she had an orgasm with another guy.. WHAAAAA.. Only I should be able to give her that… WHAAAA.. Guess what? You are not the only guy on earth who knows his way aound a womans body. WAY too much emphasis is put on to sex…. Guess what guys, there are almost 7 BILLION people now living on earth. That my friends is a whole lot of sex going on. I read a study that guesstimated about 200 milliom couples are having sex on any given day. It is a COMMON occurance worldwide. Get over it. This old fable of once a slut always a slut is total BS. So is “past performance will predict future behavior is alo total BS. Sure it might be true for some, but not for all. Sexually inexperienced people also cheat. I guess we could say the wondering those women do about other men in bed is too much for them to bare, so they look for that experience. Obviously that may happen, but not for all women who have been chaste. I say get involved with a wonderful person, and dont worry about their past, because wonderful is wonderful reguardless of their sexual past.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Tom, your whole argument rests on the belief that men and women are biologically identical, which has been thoroughly disproved. We experience sex extremely differently, physiologically speaking. And our brains are hardwired very differently as well.

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/08/18/relationshipstrategies/biology-drives-gender/
      .
      There’s a lot more going on here than ego, which is why is why social reengineering has been a massive failure wrt relationships. The Sexual Revolution ultimately created hookup culture (along with coed dorms and the end of universities acting in loco parentis).

  • terre

    “I suppose that applies to men and women.”

    Yes, there’s actually no gender variance as far as I know.

    “The fact she fucked a lot of men has little to do with whether or not she can be a great wife.”

    No, it really does. In fact it may be the strongest determining factor. You should really read this. http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

  • terre

    “There is a lot more VALUE to a woman than what has taken place between her legs.
    We are the sum total of our experiences. Maybe to become the great women they are NOW they had to experience what they did THEN.”

    Dude, you sound a lot more insecure about this than the hypothetical male you’re speaking about. These two don’t even make sense: which is it? She’s the sum of her -cough- “experiences”, or we should let these experiences pass because the true value shines from without?

  • Abbot

    “No, it really does. In fact it may be the strongest determining factor. You should really read this. http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
    .
    The report does not say if the husband was aware of her past. I would think a woman with no or few sex encounters would boast that fact as it something special these days and cause her husband to feel special and more dedicated to her. She may also be more inclined to focus on being a wife or place higher importance on that. Also, if she had been around the block as it were, well past practice of wandering may be tough to break with as it is quite familiar and there was a lot of fun involved. Like a drug you were on, then got off, well you are more likely to get rehooked. Birth control allowed that to happen and its a relatively new concept and not much precedent out there for woman to learn to come off that high of easy access to no strings sex pleasure. I read that women in general are more addictive to things, so why not that.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Abbot
      I don’t disagree with you, except to say that many young women are ashamed of being virgins. Most virgins in college are sheepish about the fact, or even lie about their number. They are worried about being perceived as not worthy of a sexual experience. They’re abdicating their role in selecting a sexual partner, perceiving themselves as having not been chosen by a male.

  • Jess

    Tom,
    Very well said Tom. I liked the bit about 200 million couples copulating at any moment.
    Good for the Kleenex industry.
    Just to remind everyone that many scientists DO think we are sexually similar.
    Promiscuity is actually more likely to fit women better than men.
    This is true for sexual response reasons as well as natural selection and ancient tribal health and security.
    Do look up the work of Helen fischer et al
    Any animal system where females select men the males havento be attractive and the females promiscuous.

  • Abbot

    “Any animal system where females select men the males havento be attractive and the females promiscuous.”
    .
    Very interesting. Since it is quite easy for females to be promiscuous and a matter of circumstance for men to be attractive, then that works for those two parties until the women attempts a life partnership as she may be spoiled with capturing attractive men with sex. But for the final person, what will she do especially with all her friends going for the same man? Seems like being painted into a corner, as it were. It may be best for her to just stay promiscuous until and even after entering the nursing home. Sort of funny and sad at the same time.

  • Mike C

    Forgot I was subscribed to this comment thread. That poor horse! Darn thing is already dead, and now its carcass is a bloody pulp mess from being beaten over and over. :)

    I’m wondering if Tom is Thomas whose girlfriend gives it to him in the rear. Just wondering?

    Bottom line, what is the “essential truth about female promiscuity”? The truth is most guys aren’t going to be enamored of it for potential wife material.

    Just guessing, but maybe 5% to 10% top of guys feel like Tom. “Oh yeah, honey, I’m glad you sucked 200 different cocks, and had 50 different guys loads shot in you”. It was just good practice, and I know you are all mine now. Yup.

    Hypocritical? Maybe. Biologically justified due to cuckolding risk? To a degree, maybe. A male ego thing? Probably to some extent.

    But here is the thing. All the whining, and bitching, and complaining, is just whistling past the graveyard, because it isn’t going to change a thing. Many women instinctively know this, which is why they lie about their “number”.

    One of the things that amazes me about 99% of human beings and I see this across a variety of things I am interested in is that most people NEVER progress beyond their own self-delusion about “how things should be” versus “how they are” and are likely to remain.

  • terre

    I think Thomas is Jess, since both just so happen to share identical views. He doesn’t really write like a man but it’s possible (although most ‘enlightened’ men I’ve met only don’t care about her past in theory, and quickly recant if they happen to want marriage).

  • terre

    “Also, if she had been around the block as it were, well past practice of wandering may be tough to break with as it is quite familiar and there was a lot of fun involved.”

    Oxytocin and organic opiates are released during sex as well as during any act of affection. However as with opiate-based painkillers, the body develops a tolerance to deal with these and (which is why without some external purpose or meaning to the act, sex becomes steadily less gratifying and fetishes develop. This is even the case for married couples; therapists who recommend that dissatisfied couples ‘try out new things’ rather than shift the basis of their relationship away from sex are doing a grave disservice) people become incapable of the projection that love demands. Houellebecq calls it the phenomenon of “epitomizing the opposite gender in a single loved being”.

  • Anonymous

    It would seem that mostly all women seeking a life partner would select from men who were not so called playboys and for good reason. The sex was associated with basically nothing, in the context of nothing. Plus, the fun of it not balanced with non-fun sometimes that happens in relationships. Also, some woman may be disgusted by the shame he brings to her family and friends if they know about him, knowing how he cheapened sex or placed little value on it and she would have to deliver better than so many past women… etc etc. All around, just best to avoid him. But lucky for women, few men behaved in this manner. Unlucky for men now, many women in the US, UK etc did behave this way. Now I can see why only half of men survey would garner enough comfort to date a women with up to only ten past men – because most women are well past that and therefore he eliminates nearly all if he chooses to focus on the US, UK.

  • Abbot

    That last post was from me. Dont know why it shows anonymous

  • terre

    Ten men is a lot. Dating is one thing, but if half of men were prepared to marry a woman with a ten partner history it’s no wonder the divorce rate is so high.

  • Abbot

    Yes, I see. It is up to ten but of course, the less the better. I am certain that men will seek women with far less and are not seeking women with anything close to ten as some sort of good trait. I think it was the other half that would be good for none to up to five men. But really, how many women have ten or less? Not a lot for men to choose from so maybe that is why the marriage rate is so low in addition to the divorce rate being high. The women have sexed themselves out of the market, as it were.

  • Aldonza

    Oxytocin and organic opiates are released during sex as well as during any act of affection. However as with opiate-based painkillers, the body develops a tolerance to deal with these and (which is why without some external purpose or meaning to the act, sex becomes steadily less gratifying and fetishes develop.
    .
    Oxytocin is also released in huge quantities during childbirth and nursing. I was pregnant or nursing for over six years straight. Nursing sometimes 8-10x a day or more. Each was a dose of oxytocin. At this point I should be completely incapable of feeling the affects of oxytocin…but somehow I’m still able to love. Go figure.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Mike C
    Your comment is a perfect summary of reality, and had the added bonus of making me laugh. I wondered the same thing about Tom, but I doubt it. He was Jaclyn Friedman’s butt boy and really only interested in defending her.
    .
    @Abbot,@terre
    One thing to keep in mind about a woman’s number. Today a woman goes 15 years between the onset of menses and marriage. It is unprecedented. It was one thing to expect women to be chaste when that period was more like five years. The question now is what is a “reasonable” amount of sexual activity by the age of 26? One partner per year beginning at age 18? Less? And how to compare the woman having sex with a bad boy for 6 years while he sleeps with a bunch of other women? Her number is one for that period, but she is surely emotionally damaged. While a woman who has had four serious relationships in that period and two flings may be just fine.
    .
    The judgment about a person’s past can only be made by their prospective partner. I advise women to keep their number low because it’s a far more “saleable” state (low mileage) than the reverse.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Aldonza
    Yeah, I don’t think it’s true that we lose our ability to respond to oxytocin over time. That’s a myth perpetrated by conservatives. If it were true, we’d also lose our ability to respond to dopamine, adrenalin and everything else. We’d be zombies in old age. I hope that’s not what I have to look forward to…

  • terre

    “Oxytocin is also released in huge quantities during childbirth and nursing. I was pregnant or nursing for over six years straight. Nursing sometimes 8-10x a day or more. Each was a dose of oxytocin. At this point I should be completely incapable of feeling the affects of oxytocin…but somehow I’m still able to love. Go figure.”
    .
    First of all, it’s not a switch. The threshold for total tolerance (you’ll still feel a buzz, just extremely diminished and trivial) depends entirely on the person in question and their subjective experiences. The higher ordering functions unique to humans enable lifelong monogamy because the meaning shared between two people supplants the chemical high. If you’d care to dispute the existence of drug tolerance, however, I have a few rehab clinics I can take you to. All the primary source evidence you’d need to come to your senses.

  • terre

    “One thing to keep in mind about a woman’s number. Today a woman goes 15 years between the onset of menses and marriage. It is unprecedented. It was one thing to expect women to be chaste when that period was more like five years. The question now is what is a “reasonable” amount of sexual activity by the age of 26?”
    .
    I don’t expect women to do anything. I expect men to avoid marriage, or at the very least purge their ideations of romantic love.
    .
    “Yeah, I don’t think it’s true that we lose our ability to respond to oxytocin over time. That’s a myth perpetrated by conservatives. If it were true, we’d also lose our ability to respond to dopamine, adrenalin and everything else. We’d be zombies in old age. I hope that’s not what I have to look forward to…”
    .
    Uh, it’s a fact as well established as gravity, Susan. Oxytocin is an opioid. Hell, most OxyContin users can’t last a few months without needing to at least double the daily dose. Most users who end up dead from OxyContin abuse are overdose cases.

  • Aldonza

    If you’d care to dispute the existence of drug tolerance, however, I have a few rehab clinics I can take you to. All the primary source evidence you’d need to come to your senses.
    .
    I don’t dispute drug tolerance. But we’re not talking about man-made drugs, we’re talking about natural brain chemistry. Are you telling me that a woman who’s had 3,4,5 or even 10 children is less able to love and bond with her 10th child because her oxytocin receptors have been burnt out?

  • Aldonza

    Further, Oxycontin is a narcotic opioid. Oxytocin isn’t even close in the chemical family. The closest synthetic we have for oxytocin is pitocin, which is given to women to speed up labor, and sometimes as a nasal spray to help nursing mothers with letdown. Some research has also been done in using it to improve sexual response in women.
    .
    Oxytocin is not the “love drug” either. It’s the bonding drug. The love drug is PEA (phenylethylamine), which is more like an amphetamine than opioid in how it acts on the brain. It improve mood, energy, sex drive, etc. This is the brain chemical that normally fades over time (usually 9-18 months), but not because it’s burned out the receptors. There is apparently some kind of feedback loop in our endocrine system controlling levels. The levels actually go down, as opposed to becoming tolerant of them.
    .
    PEA is the drug that some men and women crave as part of a continuing stream of new partners. Strangely enough, there exist couples out there who’ve been together for decades and manage to keep high PEA levels. I’m not sure those studies haven’t ruled out chocolate as a correlating factor though.

  • tom

    @ Susan.

    Susan I understand the differences in the brain chemistry involved when men and women have sex. However, you must be assuming all men and all women are the same as the rest of their gender. They are not. Just look at the studies that have taken place that show differences in libido, risk taking etc according to the amount of testosterone they are exposed to in the womb.
    My point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with people having a lot of sex with many people. However it is the PERCEPTION of some people that make it wrong or undesirable. That preception can be based on many things. Moral or religious beliefs, conditioning,superstitions,upbringing etc. Obviously not all men (or women) have the same “beliefs”.. I am proof of that.
    At one time women wearing anything, such as a bathing suit that showed a lot of skin was taboo, now it is not. At one time the topic of sex itself, even as late as the 70`s, on TV was taboo, now it is not. I am guessing a couple generations from now, hooking up will be no big deal. I still say , in many cases, not all cases, women (and men) can lead a promiscuous lifestyle, change their priorities, fall in love and lead a normal lifestyle. I am not saying other mens perceptions are wrong “for them.” In their case their perception is their reality.
    However many of their beliefs are flawed as a result of their biased opinion.
    Her body is normally not damaged from all that sex. So that is not a legitimate reason. In most cases she is not scarred emotionally from all that sex, so that is not a legitimate argument. So what is it that men find undesirable? The possibility of her backsliding to her former ways? Sure that is a concern. But from many conversations overheard and had with many of my male friends, they can not get over the “THOUGHT” of her having sex with several other men. That “thought” is not based on any science, but it is seeded in their own ego. They , in error, think sex with her has lost its value. I say in error because there are legions of men who “perceive” that sex with their woman has value, but they do not know the woman`s actual number. If he knew the actual higher number, his peception of the value of sex would be different with her. In reality he fell in love with who she is NOW, not who she was then, so his now perception is his reality. That is why her past really should not matter. It was who she was then, not now.
    Some say she might get bored with just one man and want the variety back. Sure I guess that could be a possibility. However many women want out of that lifestyle because they get to know loneliness, and emptyness first hand, and want more for themselves.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      However, you must be assuming all men and all women are the same as the rest of their gender. They are not. Just look at the studies that have taken place that show differences in libido, risk taking etc according to the amount of testosterone they are exposed to in the womb.

      Correct. In fact, the women who seek sexual variety, i.e. promiscuity are probably markedly different from most women. They probably do have higher testosterone, the hormone that controls the female sex drive. They probably also have the long DRD4 gene variation. In other words, women who behave with promiscuity in youth are probably hard-wired to do so, and there is no reason to suspect or hope they will change their preferences over time. They may, but are unlikely to. That’s a risk that most men are not willing to take when it comes to marriage.

      My point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with people having a lot of sex with many people. However it is the PERCEPTION of some people that make it wrong or undesirable.

      You could say that about any behavior. There is nothing wrong with consuming vast quantities of alcohol. There is nothing wrong with lying in relationships. There is nothing wrong with incest. The fact is, we as a society decide what is right and what is wrong. A behavior is wrong if it harms other people, in my view, and I believe that unless you are 100% honest about your sexual history, you are stealing something from another. If you are 100% honest, from the beginning, then you can only hurt yourself, in that your pool of potential mates has just shrunk considerably. In that case, I agree, promiscuity is not wrong. Jaclyn Friedman didn’t do something wrong when she sought sexual partners via Craigslist. She just did something incredibly stupid, in my view. What I try to do here is advise women of the very real risks and consequences of their choices.

      But from many conversations overheard and had with many of my male friends, they can not get over the “THOUGHT” of her having sex with several other men. That “thought” is not based on any science, but it is seeded in their own ego.

      They are one and the same in this case. It is believed by scientists that jealousy evolved as an emotion precisely because men needed a way of making women less likely to cuckold them. It’s estimated that 10-20% of newborns were conceived by someone other than the man who believes he is the father. A woman who is not sexually selective – the very definition of promiscuous – makes a man uneasy because the risk of raising someone else’s child is much higher. That was always a very costly proposition for men, but U.S. family law makes it extremely so.
      .
      It strikes me that perhaps thou doth protest too much. If you are 100% comfortable with your fiance’s sexual history, that’s great. As I said earlier, she’s a very lucky woman. I have no idea what her number is, but for the record, I’m not speaking about women who have been with a few guys, or several guys. I’m speaking about women who rack up large numbers. I know several college students with numbers in the 30-50 range, and they’re totally freaked out about it. Yes, they lie because they know their bf’s will balk, but also because they want to erase those memories of irresponsible, drunken, crappy sex (most of which they had for ego reasons, speaking of ego.)

  • Abbot

    “I expect men to avoid marriage, or at the very least purge their ideations of romantic love.”
    .
    Sadly, that seems to be the trend in the West. It may get worse as women become more promiscuous or if women do not take steps to reverse this unprecedented trend. Of course, that is if they are interested in romance and marriage at all.

  • tom

    @ abbott
    You said,”Sadly, that seems to be the trend in the West. It may get worse as women become more promiscuous or if women do not take steps to reverse this unprecedented trend. Of course, that is if they are interested in romance and marriage at all.

    OR
    Maybe men could change their attitude or beliefs. Women are promiscuous for a lot of different reasons.
    Men are normally promiscuous from an ego standpoint (got to keep proving to themselves they have “it”) Many men however just do not want a relationshop now, but have a high libido. They see nothing wrong with they, themsleves, enjoying a variety of women. Quite hypocritical, I must say.
    I fail to see any big difference, other than an adolescent attitude, of a woman having one man cum inside her 1000 times of 25 men cuming inside her 3 times each. Would these men, who have a problem with a promiscuous women, also have a problem with a woman who was married for 10 years?.. Obviously she has had a ton of sex, only it was with one person. Sure most guys wouldnt, because they are only being compared to one man, not 25 others. Their fragile egos cant handle that, so they put her down, think less of her. In reality she was doing the exact same thing in both cases, only different men.

  • terre

    “Further, Oxycontin is a narcotic opioid. Oxytocin isn’t even close in the chemical family. The closest synthetic we have for oxytocin is pitocin, which is given to women to speed up labor, and sometimes as a nasal spray to help nursing mothers with letdown. Some research has also been done in using it to improve sexual response in women.”

    This is extremely misleading to anyone reading. Oxytocin produces its antinociceptive effects through stimulation of mu-receptor received opioids (this includes heroin, and in all likelihood OxyContin). These effects can be quite opposite (there are opioid antagonists which inhibit oxytocin secretion) but nevertheless follow the same chemical play-by-play.

  • terre

    “I fail to see any big difference, other than an adolescent attitude, of a woman having one man cum inside her 1000 times of 25 men cuming inside her 3 times each.”
    .
    Um, even putting aside the possibility for disease transmission (which you keep studiously refusing to address) there’s the drama involved in a woman’s company as well as her tendency to rate lovers, to keep the first as being special, etc. If the differences are so small that you “fail to see” them, perhaps its an effect of your undersized male ego. You know what they say about big feet.

  • tom

    @ terre
    Ohh so now your own insecurity and immaturity is coming out.

    Most smart single women will protect themselves all the time. A married woman could be exposed to disease from a cheating hubby because married couples dont use condoms, as a rule. So if you date a divorced woman(or a cheating woman) you could be at the same risk

    Women rate lovers? Really? That is EXACTLY what men fear. That is their biggest reason for not wanting to even consider getting involved with an experienced woman.

    A mature man understands cum is cum, a penis is a penis. It shouldnt matter if she experienced one penis many times or several peni several times. It is basically the same thing, EXCEPT the expeienced woman now knows enough to compare, and that scares the hell out of insecure men.
    Not sure if you were making an attempt to attact my manhood, but rest assured I am happy with what I have.
    I can also assure you I have a healthy ego. I was a college athlete, you dont play at that level without an ego. I just do not judge people , especially women, for how they cope with life, and I certainly do not look down upon them for having sex. People can and do change their methods of living, to say otherwise is just stupid. Most men just need to grow up and understand a woman who is experienced is not damaged in any way. If she is, it is not the sex she had with others that did it, she was that way even before she became promiscuous. So dont put all promiscuous women in the same group, judge them as an individual. There are many wonderful women out there who understand that “libral” lifestyle is not for them anymore.

  • terre

    “Not sure if you were making an attempt to attact my manhood, but rest assured I am happy with what I have.”
    .
    Dude, you’re the one who’s spent about 50 comments insinuating that men have “fragile” egos because they can’t accept that it’s really a wonderful thing their partner’s jerked off so many boners. You’re either projecting or acting like a hypocrite.
    .
    “Women rate lovers? Really? That is EXACTLY what men fear. That is their biggest reason for not wanting to even consider getting involved with an experienced woman.”
    .
    I can’t tell if you’re asking a question or making a statement? In any case, why wouldn’t that be sufficient grounds to avoid ‘experienced’ women? Would you feel comfortable knowing your mother thought your brother was more successful than you?

  • Sox

    This is getting ridiculous. After this many posts, we’re back to the same crap? Tom, I have a very hard time believing you’re a man based on your writing. And if you are, well, you’re either a mangina (read: Thomas) or one of these “enlightened” types of white-knighting feminist men that don’t even have the respect of the feminists they champion.
    .
    And before you ask, yes, I’m using shaming language in direct response to your allegation that all men who don’t hold your opinion on female sexuality are insecure. And finally, I suppose that the same argument can be made for alpha-chasing women, right? They’re too insecure about themselves to go after a guy that is on their level? They need to be with someone who validates them, no?

  • tom

    @ terre
    Just because a man has an ego doesnt mean he can not think logically.
    I try to never let emotion get in the way of logic, and that is exactly what most men do when they fear and dismiss an experienced woman.
    Since most women know the ego gets in the way of a mans understanding, they will lie about their “number.” Again there are millions of men in happy relationships with perceptively undamaged women who have a lot higher number than the man thinks she has.

    I suppose if a man can not handle the fact a woman might compare him to other men then I guess it is his right not to get involved with her, But that is a pretty lame excuse. they could be missing out on a wonderful woman.

    What most men fail to understand, most hookups, especially for the woman are not always a great experience sexually. However in a relationship you have the time to get to know what each other likes and dislikes. That will normally make fo the best sex she has ever had, especially when her loving emotions are involved. She probably wouldnt even begin to get involved with you if she wasnt attracted in some way.
    Most men, during a hookup, are only really concerned with themselves and getting off. Wham bam thank you mam is pretty common. A good lover knows there is more to it than that. Foreplay and lots of it. Stroking, carassing, oral, getting her off first, then getting ours, is what most women see as a great lover.

  • terre

    “Just because a man has an ego doesnt mean he can not think logically.
    I try to never let emotion get in the way of logic, and that is exactly what most men do when they fear and dismiss an experienced woman.”
    .
    People don’t ‘love’ logically. The experience is entirely an emotive process, based on trust, intuition, shared experiences and mutual values. One cannot force someone to love by demonstrating that their distaste is “illogical”.
    .
    “What most men fail to understand, most hookups, especially for the woman are not always a great experience sexually.”
    .
    Oh is that so? So why do girls have hookups at all?
    .
    “Most men, during a hookup, are only really concerned with themselves and getting off. Wham bam thank you mam is pretty common. A good lover knows there is more to it than that. Foreplay and lots of it. Stroking, carassing, oral, getting her off first, then getting ours, is what most women see as a great lover.”
    .
    You seem to have misunderstood me. I used “lover” as a polite euphemism for “man she’s had sex with”. His actual ‘performance’ means nearly nothing in the grand scheme of who she’d rank the highest. The ranking comes from elements both present in the seduction and in his person (i.e. dominance).

  • Abbot

    “In any case, why wouldn’t that be sufficient grounds to avoid ‘experienced’ women? ”
    .
    Well I suppose any grounds are sufficient if that is the way you feel. You are making a life changing decision so all should be on the table, yes? It is not so much judgement of a woman but accepting this person as your one and only. or rejecting if that is the outcome. I see this as not the problem. The problem is the harsh critical feedback from women or women’s groups that men are being assholes or some such comments for their personal selection criteria rather than consider that their own behavior is causing men to be on guard. That feedback just causes men to be on guard even more. Read Jaclyn Friedman and the guard will go way up, I mean what did you expect? Women avoid certain men for a whole host of reasons including being compared to other women. I went on a date with a woman who is 35 and she found out I dated a woman 2 yrs ago who was 24 and that alone caused her a lot of uneasy and I could tell why there was not a date number 2. She did not want to be compared to a younger woman and I dont blame her. Women should also not blame men when being rejected for similar manner of thinking. Fair is fair, no?

  • tom

    @sox
    It is the male ego that prevents men, in most cases, not all cases, from getting involved with an experienced woman. Sure their preference might be a woman less experienced, but why?
    He has a burning desire to teach her? ..laughable
    Most guys want an inexperienced woman because he doesnt want to be compared OR he just can not get over the fact other men have “been there” before him… That my friend is a choice based on ego or ignorance. Putting her sexual experience aside, she may be a wonderful woman who wants to live a more normal life.
    Trust me my insecue friend I am a man. A man who has survived the death of both my parents, a sister and my wife. Maybe I see a different side to life you can only imagine. I undestand what is important and what is not. I will judge a person on who she is right now, not in some distant past. Most people have a past, some more extensive than others. I have learned that the valuse of a person is not always connected to what they have done behind closed doors and with whom.
    One more comment…. Some people, both male and female, love sex. They find themselves single and really have either not found the “one” or have no desire, for whatever reason to be in a relationship… If some guys cant handle that, so be it, it is their problem.

  • tom

    @ abbott

    Finally someone who makes sense.
    A lot of truth to what you say…..
    That date of yours didnt want to be compared to a younger woman. Fine, but that is still based on an insecurity, yes?
    Some men AND women do not want to date experienced people, and I agree that is their right. However their reasons are ego or security based. That doesnt change the fact it is their perception and their reality. I understand a peson who could be thinking to themselves, ” eww just think of all that sex they had, all those dicks (vaginas) all the mess…… But is that the same view if they would go out with a divorced person of 10 + years who has had even MORE sex than the promiscuous ones?
    Everyone has their own preferences, but most do not even know why they think that way because their “decision” is based on emotion, not logic.

  • tom

    I do have a question.
    From those of you who view a formerly pomiscuous woman as damaged goods, how so? how is she not worthy.
    What if…. She is a great mom, all her friends love and respect her, she has a great job in managment in a large corporatation, she is funny, she is intelligent, and she is a loving soul. Please tell me how this woman is damaged goods…..

  • terre

    I’m sorry if you can’t come to terms with the fact that sex is not a trivial thing, that it has effects and repercussions and that a string of partners is not indicative of a person healthy in either body or mind. Yes, some of the issue is with the male ego, but why someone who supposedly wants love from this man would inflict the terrible pain of male jealousy on him is beyond me. It’s not a simple feeling akin to an uncomfortable airplane chair or a strong itch, it’s an interminable sinking agony (probably so powerful due to its heritage as an indicator of paternity doubt). Few men who experience this kind of jealousy will argue their way out of it.

  • terre

    Tom, you can’t even keep your arguments straight. If there’s nothing wrong with being promiscuous, why did the mom give it up?

  • tom

    terre

    Maybe she found that life style wasnt for her..maybe she found out it was, for her, lonely. Maybe she found , for her, she was again ready for a relationship? maybe the fun wore off and she was feeling used?.. who knows.

  • terre

    Er, okay, so you accept that there are downsides, then.

  • tom

    @Terre
    Jealously is an emotion, and all emotion is thought induced. Control your thoughts and you control your actions.
    Not all men are jealous of an experienced woman, they understand there are things more important about a woman than how many people she selpt with.(or how many times she has had sex) Some men would never get involved with a divorced woman or a widow. That their choice. “””””””a string of partners is not indicative of a person healthy in either body or mind””””””””
    LOL you have GOT to be kidding………

  • terre

    “LOL you have GOT to be kidding………”
    .
    No, I’m quite serious. Aside from – once again, something you studiously ignore – the risk of disease, partner-hopping is a sign of approval-seeking, insecurity, superficiality and the pursuit of the pleasure principle to the detriment of character or one’s future. The pain is less apparent in today’s climate because women’s sexual power is so tremendous, rendering relationships disposable. I’m quite certain a slut could rationalize her way to the grave. But rationalize she will.

  • tom

    Ofcourse there can be downsides.. /’There could be a rape, there could be disease, some people who are already unstable could really go off the deep end by all the using and used feelings. There are people who use it to validate, to find closeness (even if it is only temporary) and some do it only for the sex.
    However there are some people who handle being promiscuous responsibly and with the right atttude. They dont expect much and not much is expected from them. Just sex.. Many people have the Friends With Benefits arrangement, and it works well for some of them.

  • terre

    You’re not really painting a great picture for your cause here.

  • tom

    @ Terre
    you are the master of generalizing. Sure there are people who are promiscuous for some of the reasons you stated, but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only types people and the only reasons people sleep around.
    If these women are so damaged as you state, then why are millions of them able to lie about their number (too bad they know they need to) and fall in love with a great guy and lead a normal loving family life? how was sleeping aound hurting them now?

  • tom

    well maybe if I was debating with an open minded person who could see past his preconceived notions and emotions, I might make some sense to him.
    You want to lump all people who sleep around into the same group. There are people from all walks of life, all professions, and all mental make up who sleep around.
    There are also all kinds of people who will deny those people a chance… as there are people who will evaluate people as individuals and look at the “why” they did the things they did. Those people can see past emotional baggage and insecurities

  • terre

    “If these women are so damaged as you state, then why are millions of them able to lie about their number (too bad they know they need to) and fall in love with a great guy and lead a normal loving family life? how was sleeping aound hurting them now?”
    .
    A girl who’s capable of being duplicitous enough to pretend she’s a virgin is duplicitous enough to pretend she really loves the man she intends to have children with. A shared semi-platonic affection might over time develop, but she won’t really “love” him. In that hypothetical, assuming she somehow managed to marry during her remaining fertile years and she didn’t give him genital warts, I suppose no one hurts. And we’ve even managed to discover a vision of love that includes lying to get what you want as part of its charm.

  • Abbot

    “That date of yours didnt want to be compared to a younger woman. Fine, but that is still based on an insecurity, yes?”
    .
    I was not concerned with why. Is that important? Just respect her feelings. Move on. Women should move on if rejected for whatever reason too. Its only about emotions/feelings. Not something you think about or analyze.

    The deep problem here I see is the uneveness. Women are significantly more promiscuous. So much evidence out there now. So of course either man or woman can be rejected for promiscuity but its women who are more often because that behavior is more pervasive among them. That is why its the women who are hooting and hollering over this and since women are more vocal in general than men, it appears more in blogs, articles, papers etc. So then the “problem” is blamed on the men for being insecure, stupid, weak, etc. If women would have sex with new men at same rate as men with women overall among the entire dating population then there would far less to hardly any rejection.

  • tom

    Again you are generalizing…
    She only lied because she knows people like you exist. Who might judge her on something she did before she even knew her new man existed.
    If you think a promiscuous women can not leave that life behind, genuinely fall in love then , dude, you have a lot to learn about life in geneal. You know how many college girls slept around in college who are now married and living a good decent life??????(and her hubby has no clue)
    In most cases he never asks, so she doesnt tell. They live a great life. So now tell me how is she damaged again?

  • terre

    “That is why its the women who are hooting and hollering over this and since women are more vocal in general than men, it appears more in blogs, articles, papers etc. So then the “problem” is blamed on the men for being insecure, stupid, weak, etc. If women would have sex with new men at same rate as men with women overall among the entire dating population then there would far less to hardly any rejection.”
    .
    I don’t know if this is really true. As Devlin has said, the ‘double standard’ exists less due to men than due to female fascination with it. Women have every right and every opportunity to reject men because they’re too promiscuous, it’s just that they don’t. It’s an area where the sexes simply aren’t the same and can’t be equated.

  • tom

    the only damage done is in your perception. She just might make a great wife, mother, and excellant lover, and people like you wont even give her a chance, because you “know” her number…lol…and cant handle the fact she knows what it is like to be with other men.

  • terre

    “the only damage done is in your perception. She just might make a great wife, mother, and excellant lover, and people like you wont even give her a chance, because you “know” her number…lol…and cant handle the fact she knows what it is like to be with other men.”
    .
    True, she might. If other men want to take that gamble, the choice is theirs.

  • Abbot

    Damaged? what does that mean? where is mentioned? Its not about damage I don’t think. It is about people making careful decisions about selecting someone for life. If she is a liar and lies about her past, then she should find someone she not need to lie too. There are very many women who dont have to lie because they truly dont to hide anything so perhaps a concerned man should operate in that crowd.

  • Mike C

    (and her hubby has no clue)

    That’s for sure. And no clue about the guys shes bangin on the side either. You know what Tom, humor me. Google “Errant Wife” Blog and do some reading. What’s funny?/sad? is there are a shit/ton of these “slut wife” blogs where the woman is married, has a lover or multiple lovers on the side, and yes the guy is clueless. I suppose ignorance is bliss, but I’d rather know exactly who/what I am dealing with.

    I’ll be very interested to see if anyone can get study done with data integrity that looks the correlation between female adultery (now reaching the 50-60% level) and promiscuous history. I’m a betting man…I make alot of money betting every day, and I’d bet the correlation is at least .7 if not .8 to .9.

  • tom

    Abbott, like I said before, it could be he never asked and she never told. But again I can guarantee that there are many many men who are happy not knowing and love their wife who is good the them, faithful and loving. Im sure there are cheating wives too, but that doesnt always mean they were also promiscuous at one time either.
    If you go back far enough, there are opinions that some how a woman who has slept around is damaged goods. Im sure in some guys eyes, they are, I just dont personally think that way automatically. I see a difference between a woman who slept around and was and still is stable vs a woman who is unstable, and on meds and has a hard time coping. The later woman I might not get involved with, even if she had no other sexual experience. Not my type and whether or not she slept around has nothing to do with it.

  • tom

    Mike, so you would turn down a possible relationship with a woman who 3 years ago was sleeping around,and had ,say, 15 lovers, but you know her to be a stable, single mom divorced 6 years ago, has a great job, is funny and smart and really likes you? I guess if you are convinced that all promiscuous women will live to live that life again, I guess your answer will be ,yes I`d turn her down…

  • Abbot

    “I’ll be very interested to see if anyone can get study done with data integrity that looks the correlation between female adultery (now reaching the 50-60% level) and promiscuous history.”
    .
    Unfortunately, the media in the US/UK does not help the matter. Neither does the shocking behavior of more and more women. Men are typically quiet until pressed and after for years reading and hearing of all this. It is in short very scary. Of course its easier to sleep around today if you slept around last week or last month or sometime before becoming married. Watch for old patterns to emerge more easier when things go wrong in a marriage…those men are still out there and there are always new ones. Those men are out there, maybe a dozen, also saying – oh you married her? Ha, ok, Im done with her, lots of fun. Men should really be careful and evaluate every aspect of someone you will throw your life to. Women have created a situation where now they are more highly evaluated and they hate it.

  • terre

    Tom, if I have issues with generalizing too much, you have issues with generalizing at all. The existence of one “reformed slut” does not invalidate the trend, which is even more paramount because something like marriage is a gamble whose stakes are incredibly high these days.

  • tom

    Abbott…..Can we not say the same things about promiscuous men? Are not their former women still out there?. Isnt it just as easy for a man to shed his clothes for another if the marriage gets a little rocky?
    women have accepted men in the boys will be boys senario for years. So what is wong with men? why cant they do the same?

  • tom

    terre
    You are forgetting my comments about the mulitudes of college girls who “got around” in college, who left that life behind, married and now are soccer moms…..
    you still think once a whore always a whore and I am here to tell you that is hog wash.. Some of you guys think a promiscuous woman is a recent phenomina. its not… I grew up in the hippy era, you know, free love. So I have seen many times women (and men) change to a more conservative life style, with little problems.

  • tom

    terre
    I guess you missed my comment about the millions of college girls over the years who got around in college, but managed to get married and are now soccer moms?…lol…Kinda blows your “one reformed slut” theory out of the water doesnt it?

    I grew up in the hippy era, you remember, free love. Being pomiscuous is nothing new, it is just talked about more now. I know of MANY women who slept around and yet now live humble modest lives……
    You guys must have met some real losers who were also promiscuous, because, having lots of sex “can” be just like why people start smoking. the cool thing to do, peer pressure etc…not all people who sleep around as psycotic

  • Abbot

    “Can we not say the same things about promiscuous men? Are not their former women still out there?. Isnt it just as easy for a man to shed his clothes for another if the marriage gets a little rocky?
    women have accepted men in the boys will be boys senario for years. So what is wong with men? why cant they do the same?”
    .
    Of course its the same for men. But there are far fewer men with the number of people he has had sex with compared to women. The point is women are NOT doing the same! They have gone way beyond what men were or are doing because its so much much easier for them to do that. This is not equality at all…its a very skewed activity and men are very uncomfortable with what is going on and are on alert when a woman says she wants to “settle down.” The current situation places women as guilty until proven otherwise, and I think rightly so.

  • terre

    That “hippy era” you’re talking about left a lot of single mothers and broken relationships in its wake. It’s a legacy not worthy of championing.

  • terre

    Bear in mind that paternity fraud might be less of an issue today (given greater male-female interaction, cohabitation and over-the-counter paternity tests) but there’s a long lag between an evolutionary holdover and its fading-away. It’s comparable to the female preference for tall men (which serves no practical purpose in today’s world).

  • tom

    Susan. I have read all the info you posted…….. before.
    I didnt like nor do I agree with your comparisons.
    drinking too much, lying,/incest????
    those are activities where there are generally victims.
    who is the victim in promiscuous activity where two concenting adults are having sex?
    Please..Because of mens attitudes, the women are victimizing themselves, nothing more. Ive said this before it is a mans perception of the “loose” woman that gets in the way, not her LEGAL activity. When it gets right down to it, most men want their cake and eat it too. Its ok for them to sleep around, but if a woman does it it is wrong?
    If jealously is this ominous debilitating primitive emotion, then why are there men like me who , with logical thinking, can get past those feelings or not expeience them at all? Its because I do not buy into what immature, insecure men think. Men say they have a preference of a small number.I say many men love their wife (who secretly have a large number) and think the world of her. WHY? because she is a wonderful loving wife. Did all that sex she had hurt her? Obviously not. That is why I contend it is not that impotant in the big picture. Now if that man found out her real number, did she suddenly become this lying scheming bitch? Or did his perception change? Could it be in those studies that are bent on saying former promiscuous women have a small chance to make a marriage work, also ask what the mans past sexual history was???… Case closed..lol

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @tom
      The Marriage Project, university based, is not “bent” on any particular ideology. Nice try. As I explained in my comment, a man who is lied to about his wife’s sexual history is a victim. The truth has been stolen from him, a truth that might have influenced his decision to marry. Women are free to make choices about their sexual lives, but they should be prepared to defend them, not hide them, regardless of male attitudes. If women know that most men don’t want to marry sluts, and they choose to be sluts, they don’t get to feign chastity to snag a partner. You keep mentioning hypothetical husbands who never asked. Come on, that’s got to be unusual. Perhaps just the 5-10% of men who truly don’t care. In which case, no lies need to be told. I truly don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish here. You’re certainly not going to succeed in “re-educating” men on this issue. More power to you, but I can honestly say in the two years of writing this blog, you are only the third male to espouse this view, and the first one who didn’t identify as queer.

  • tom

    That “hippy era” you’re talking about left a lot of single mothers and broken relationships in its wake. It’s a legacy not worthy of championing.

    Every era has those, the 60`s and 70`s are not unique.

    My point is millions of those people got married, settled down lived a decent life. Obviously some did not. but that is true in any generation

  • tom

    I wrote something similar to this in my post to Susan and I`d like some othe responses…

    A man and woman get married. He never asks her “number” so he doesnt know. 10-15 years later they are in the middle of raising a couple kids, they have a good relationship, still love each other. She has been a model wife, loving helpful and a great mom.

    Some how the topic comes up and he asks her, so she tells him the truth…”18″
    Now did she suddenly just become this lying scheming bitch,not worthy of a good man, or a good marriage, or did only his perception change?

  • terre

    “Some how the topic comes up and he asks her, so she tells him the truth…”18″
    Now did she suddenly just become this lying scheming bitch,not worthy of a good man, or a good marriage, or did only his perception change?”
    .
    More than anything, what would put me off is the notion that she’s overcompensating. That she knows she spent something special and she’s trying to ‘sucker’ me in with other means.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Now did she suddenly just become this lying scheming bitch,not worthy of a good man, or a good marriage, or did only his perception change?

    Neither. Her worthiness is demonstrated by her parenting and relationship skills. First of all, I don’t think 18 is such a high number, depending on how many years she was single. For the purposes of the debate, and since you’ve been essentially arguing that the number doesn’t matter, let’s say it’s 50. Women have commented here with that claim.
    .
    Here’s what he does:
    .
    He is overwhelmed with a sudden sense of nausea. “Jesus”, he thinks, “what does this mean? Who were all those guys? Does she miss it, all the novelty? The conquest? What did she compromise to settle with me? Wait, has she ever cheated? OK, she says no, I totally believe her. But our sex life has definitely hit the skids with two little kids. She used to loooove sex, couldn’t get enough. Now she doesn’t seem into it at all.
    .
    50 men? And I met her when she was 26. She says it was mostly in college. Oh God, it’s like that Karen Owen f*ck list! Nine months of school, times four, so 36. That’s more than one partner a month. Were these all ONSs? Or was she banging multiple guys at the same time? I wonder if she ever did a gang bang. She once told me she would consider a threesome. Now I know why!
    .
    I do not like the way that tennis instructor looks at her. Why did she choose him? He’s the only young, good looking guy. And her personal trainer. I wonder how good looking he is? He’s single, 28. She drops his name casually all the time.
    .
    etc. etc. etc.

    That would be the typical male response, in my view. It doesn’t make her a bad wife or mother. It makes him extremely nervous about her deepest desires.

  • Sox

    tom,
    A person’s sex life says a lot about them. Just like their work ethic may, or their dating life, or what they do in the free time, or whatever. We look for cues about others that might help give us insight to what’s going on beneath the hood. Personally, 18 wouldn’t be that high a number to me. Say it was I don’t know, 50, then yea, we’d have some serious issues.
    .
    I don’t want to torpedo my own argument here but I’ve posted on this site already about my own experience in this area. I found out my ex’s number a couple of months after dating her. At 20 years old, it seemed like a lot. And the truth was, this girl did have some issues that led to her being as promiscuous as she was…so my fears weren’t unfounded. She was a former party girl of sorts. She had a cadre of male friends (including her exes) that she remained fairly close with and enjoyed the attention of, denying the obvious fact that they all were maneuvering to get with her. She was VERY playful/flirty/physical, always hanging on guys in photos etc. She admitted that before me, she never really enjoyed sex with the guys she’d been with, that it was never a big deal. She admitted that during her most promiscuous phase, she’d been extremely insecure and wanted to fit in at college. She had a tendency of bottling up her feelings.
    .
    Even knowing all of this, I was still too unfair and I regretted eventually having broken up with her for it, because she had actually learned her lesson and changed. So I’m more forgiving than many here wrt history now, but I’m very in-tune with other aspects of a girl’s personality to see if she’ s got baggage, or issues with over-indulgence or entitlement. Believe me, those often come hand-in-hand.

  • terre

    Susan, I appreciate your efforts to understand the double standard from the male perspective, but 18 is a lot; it’s a very high number. Even if the woman was 30-years-old and became sexually active at 15, that’s still more than one partner a year. Such a girl would be easy pickings for men trawling the bored housewife circuit.

  • terre

    “Even knowing all of this, I was still too unfair and I regretted eventually having broken up with her for it, because she had actually learned her lesson and changed.”
    .
    Sox, I’ve had much the same issue as you (and she wasn’t even a party girl. She was the earthy, so-goody-you’d-think-she’s-Christian-but-she’s-not type). Don’t beat yourself up over it. It sounds judgemental but there’s no better indicator of a person’s future behavior than that of their past. It’s just too much to ask for.

  • tom

    however only his perception has changed. If we could get past thinking having multiple partners as being a bad thing he wouldnt have those negitive feelings….. Obviously her 50 didnt have an effect on her ability to have a good relationship, and that is my point

  • Sox

    Susan, great comment. That captures it pretty well. Other thoughts include, “I didn’t think she was that kind of girl!” and “god, did she make out with other girls at parties for attention?!”
    .
    Honestly, I don’t know if there’s an easy way to sum it all up. It may be ego/insecurity driven in part, but I don’t see what’s so wrong with that. Guys place a huge value on female sexuality and sex overall that women often underestimate. They think that guys sleeping around makes it mean less to them. That’s not true. Guys may bond less as a result of sex and find it easier to detach, but they’ll always value it differently due to what’s involved to actually get it. Women on the other hand traditionally value it because they know its value to men and they know giving it up can be a big deal. It’s when women stop valuing it that everything gets all screwed up. And yea, this “insecure guy” is terrified of the idea of dating a girl that doesn’t value sex or bond as much. A girl like this will always be a riskier bet.

  • Sox

    terre,
    In the U.S. at least, 18 by age 30 is probably the norm by now, despite poll results saying otherwise because I simply don’t trust them. Anyway, thanks for the support. And you may actually be right…but compared to some of the girls I run into now who are that age, she was not nearly as bad and learned MUCH quicker than her younger peers seem to now. All things considered, I’m actually saying that I would’ve taken her with those flaws over the crap I see in people lately.

  • terre

    “In the U.S. at least, 18 by age 30 is probably the norm by now, despite poll results saying otherwise because I simply don’t trust them.”

    My problem with the “It’s relatively not so bad/high” argument is twofold: a) it encourages ever looser and more lax standards, exacerbating the issue and b) women’s relative behavior doesn’t diminish the negative effects of any one girl’s past in terms of a relationship with a man. It’s true that she might be normal by American standards, but that just makes me pour one out for the men intending to marry abnormal girls.

  • tom

    I think there is a big diffeence between the value of casual sex and relationtion sex

  • tom

    Maybe it is because I understand it makes no difference what she did before. Too bad so many males pit so much importance on sex, and are totally hypocritical. There can be two women who were promiscuous. One may make a good life partner, and one may not. That goes for virgins as well. Choose wisely my friends, and let go of the ego.

    LOL @ your gay comment

  • Abbot

    Actually, its seems that there are two groups of women. One group is the big group and they are not promiscuous, at least as defined in the US/UK and a dash of other smaller countries. The other group is the college crowd shall we say, the Sex and City crowd, the urban girls, career girls what have you. There are very good women to make wives, mothers, nice life partners among both groups, very true. So a man can have his fun with the promiscuous ones and then decide later on – do I choose the good woman who was promiscuous or the good woman who was not promiscuous? Fortunately for him, such options exist. However, it is sad for the promiscuous good woman that he has this option because this option allows him to satisfy his ego or whatever satisfaction he thinks he is entitled to.

  • tom

    Abbot

    Well said, there ARE good women in both groups, as well as not so good in both groups…

    That is why I feel it is foolish to automatically dismiss an experienced woman. I can respect those guys who cant handle the thought of all their experience, I understand why they feel that way. I just personality think there is a lot more important criteria involved to decide if a woman is relationship material or not.

  • Abbot

    Well, that seems to be what the experienced women want too. To be evaluated less on that aspect. But most men seem to feel that way and I think the women know it, this Jaclyn Friedman and I think Amanda Marcotte know that and they dont like it one bit. Why? I think because there is not this other large of men to just turn to for life parters – they have to deal with what is out there. They should then ask men in a nice way to change. But they do not. They come across as bitter about the situation and call men names and just alienate them more. If the women do not want to reduce their promiscuity, the least they can do find another way to ease men into accepting them. And telling other women to be freely sexual as a ploy to take away options from men is going to lead to not a good outcome for anybody.

  • Jess

    Dear all,
    It might be worth reminding people that recent research suggests its biologically normal for women to have promiscuous tendencies.
    Also a poster cited research saying over half of men would be happy with a LTR with a girl with 10exes and a fifth of men are happy with girls with 20exes.
    Although I can imagine a women ’rounding down’ when asked (arguing perhaps it’s her own private past and her own business) but most women I know have been open and honest and guys don’t seem to care that much. Guys are into attractiveness and SOH and a decent and caring personality. Chastity just doesn’t have the level of importance some people here think it has. I’m quite sure there are men who it’s really critical to and the best of luck to them I say. But I find it hard to believe they are the majority.

  • Höllenhund

    “Also a poster cited research saying over half of men would be happy with a LTR with a girl with 10exes and a fifth of men are happy with girls with 20exes.”

    Underreporting and all other potential problems aside, what you need to keep in mind is that a girl with 10 exes is rather promiscuous and hypergamous and therefore very unlikely to be attracted to the kind of man (read: beta) who would happily form a serious relationship with a girl who had 10 exes, not to mention the supposed 20% of men who would be happy with girls with 20 exes (these are obviously lesser betas and omegas, well-known for scraping the bottom of the barrel). Promiscuous girls are attracted to the alphas who have many options and are well-known for their reluctance to commit to any woman, much less a promiscuous one.

  • Abbot

    Since it is claimed that it is biologically normal for women to have promiscuous tendencies then that is for life. The urge to do that must be painful for a woman in marriage and most especially for those who acted on those urges in the past as they have experienced it. Could that not lead to women cheating even if all at home is just fine? Does that happen in the US and UK? If so, men should be careful and perhaps avoid marriage with them. Or maybe those women could have, whats it called, an open marriage so they will not be so miserable. Are there men open to that?
    .
    Those survey findings are most sad. That may mean that less than 20 percent of men in say New York and London are available to satisfy about 95 percent of women there seeking a final partner. Does not sound so good. If you are a willing man in those places, you may be so overwhelmed that in the end, you choose nobody because the attention could be more fun than marriage.
    .
    As for other places in the Western society, most women would be rejected based on that survey as they seem to surpass ten men by senior college year. Maybe its good that most women do not read that survey so at least they can be happy and hopeful for the future.

  • Abbot

    Some more ideas about this female tendency to promiscuous. There are many natural tendencies that all people have. It is a spectrum and some have stronger and some have weaker. It being natural does not mean it the tendency is evenly applicable and that it should bring comfort to someone who finds out that the women engaged in it frequently. Women will vary in this regard. The only gauge a man has is prior exposure so of course that is what he uses. If a woman did it with less men, well then she may have a high tendency but he is going to make the bet that she does not and be more comfortable with her. She could just naturally have a low tendency or just used her free will knowing the repercussions in the future. Men knowing that it is biologically normal for women to have varying degrees of tendency to promiscuity is a good thing – it allows him to weed those who have less if that matters to him. Based on that survey, or the fact there was a survey in the first place, indicates that this subject does matter to men. Based on the hateful speech aimed at men on the Internet indicates that this subject really irritates women. How will a change come about?

  • terre

    Surveys on what men find important in the West, and especially the United States/Western Europe, are a waste of time – we’re living in an extremely low investment society where paternity isn’t even an issue because no one intends on having children. Saying that 20-year-old men don’t care about a girl’s past is misleading; they don’t care because it’s just sex to them. Less and less people take marriage seriously. I mean even I wouldn’t care less about a girl’s past if I only intended on screwing her, just as I wouldn’t really care about her aspirations or personality either.

  • Jess

    I think the last 3 posters may have missed the point I was trying to make.
    I mention the biology thing because it means women who enjoy sex are healthy and normal.
    They still should exercise civilised decisions and judgements of course.
    And with stats I wasn’t talking about casual sex. I meant men don’t seem to mind a varied past of a woman they want to marry or have kids with. This is bourne out by research and my own experience.
    Also the research was done by a source likely to minimise number allowances and I hardly think 10 is highly promiscuous.

  • Abbot

    True, about half of men surveyed do not think that up to ten is highly promiscuous. But where does that leave the vast majority of women in Western countries as most have well exceeded that? And why was the research conducted in the first place? Why is this topic so often discussed in the media?

  • terre

    “I mention the biology thing because it means women who enjoy sex are healthy and normal.”
    .
    Can you please show me this research? Promiscuous sex is extremely poor for your health. It can even put your life at risk.

  • Abbot

    I think it is important for some women to in general society to be promiscuous beyond what the majority of men would accept as worthy for a wife later on. It seems to always have been that way and maybe a good chance that group served and serves some important evolutionary purpose. It brings no harm to anyone really. It is quite healthy normal natural in the scheme of things as it were. But why this group of late is out there being vocal, trying to remind men that it is healthy, normal, natural AND only recently not unworthy of love marriage babies? They also call men names trying to make the fell ashamed for not accepting and that only means there is anger, frustration and those feelings must have followed a long period of rejection by men. This is self evident by the fact that there is any research in the first place…why does there need to be research – well because there must be open ends – something not solved, not concluded – someone is trying to get to the bottom of something. But what is it and is their a goal to draw biased conclusions?

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @terre

    I mean even I wouldn’t care less about a girl’s past if I only intended on screwing her, just as I wouldn’t really care about her aspirations or personality either.

    Wow, good point here. Who you ask makes all the difference, depending on their own relationship goals. Men prioritizing short-term sexual encounters prefer a woman with plenty of sexual experience, even with the risk of STDs. In fact, I’ve heard from several women who wanted to give up their virginity in a random hookup just to “get it over with,” but once the guy got wind of the situation, they declined, not because of the meaninglessness of the sex, but because they didn’t think the sex would be any good, and they didn’t want to deal with any potential bleeding.

  • Jess

    Wow… I always had the impression men would love to deflower a girl. A real coup no less..
    .
    I still think some have missed the point I made….
    Just because men and/or women may have the urge to sleep around doesn’t mean they have to..there are considerations like STDs though I would hope most use protection no matter how heated or intoxicated they are. The research is there just goggle it, I’m fed up posting links.
    If a 5th of men don’t mind 20exes that’s a lot of men. And I don’t think most women have had more than 10 anyway. Research I looked at varied a lot.
    I also dont think the sex positive crowd are worried about themselves. I get the impression they are being altruistic and supportive of womens rights. Again, the women who I know who have had plenty of experience have had no problems settling down with attractive, kind, successful men. This Victorian prudish man that people keep talking about just hasnt appeared on our radars.

  • Abbot

    “Men prioritizing short-term sexual encounters prefer a woman with plenty of sexual experience”
    .
    Interesting. That means men still have two lists. Women they play with and women they marry. Or at least, they wold like to have two lists. But what does that imply for women as the list of women available to play with is much longer these days in certain cities?

  • Abbot

    “I don’t think most women have had more than 10 anyway”
    .
    Yes, for the non college, non urban crowd, it is a good bet. I read that in a place like New York, it is well over that, and that applies to the majority. So a fifth of men there would be ok with that. The marriage rate is very low there and I understand that women there stay single for a long time, cant find a man beyond sex etc. This is what happens. The men probably leave and marry a southern girl, I guess.

  • Mike C

    The marriage rate is very low there and I understand that women there stay single for a long time, cant find a man beyond sex etc. This is what happens.

    Hmmmm….this would make for an interesting study. Percentage of women not married in say the 30-40 age group versus # number of sex partners.

  • Mike C

    If a 5th of men don’t mind 20exes that’s a lot of men.

    The population is still 50/50 roughly speaking. If roughly 20% of men “don’t mind”, then it depends on what the percentage of highly promiscuous women are whether they are competing for a smaller pool of available men. If it is 20%, then you still have a 1 to 1 ratio. If it is 50%, that means 30% will not be able to find a partner.

    This is obviously an oversimplification because what I will agree with Tom on, is there is more to a woman then her partner number. In my view, a super high count is a negative, but not an absolute disqualifier.

    I’d actually say a high count with a super attractive girl versus an average looking girl is a big difference. Let’s see if anyone can figure out why.

  • Abbot

    Because the average looking girl will believe it was her “good looks” and charming personality that got her all that “challenging” sexual attention. But really, she was just duped and used and thinks most guys are jerks for doing that. So in addition to the mildly disgusted feeling you get in your stomach when she tells about her “feminist movement fun” that you are now about to make part of your life, you got a bitter girl who feels like she is settling. In summary, I feel sorry for you guys there in the US/UK. But I feel more sorry for the woman who cannot seem to get their way.

  • Höllenhund

    “If a 5th of men don’t mind 20exes that’s a lot of men.”

    Jess, why don’t you bother reading what I wrote at 10:57 pm?

  • jess

    to holleunhund
    my responses were in part, aimed at your post.
    I dispute your assertions.
    Attractive men, dont discriminate against experienced women in the way you claim.
    At least not in my experience.
    Also you say ‘bottom of the barrel’ in regards to expereinced women- again the men in my life dont feel that way- they are interested more in attractiveness (however shallow that may be) and kindess etc.
    there is no way that I can say no man feels the way you claim, clearly you do, and others on here but given that many people here also think such men are rare I dont think there is a crisis as such.

  • jess

    to Mike C,
    You make a great point about relative attractiveness and over simplification.
    You have phrased it well “high number maybe a negative but not a disqualifier”.
    I think this hits the nail on the head.
    Which is why I was a bit surprised about Susan’s virginity comment.
    Everyone is a bundle of pluses and minuses and to some extent we all ‘settle’, even those of us who are deeply in love. (eg. I’m not keen on my partners smelly feet or love of curry).
    Yes there are dealbreakers, cheif amongst them would be height with women for example, but generally people are able to look at the whole package.
    I can only re-assert that for many normal, secure, attractive men, strict chastity tends not be one.

  • Abbot

    There may or may not be a crisis, but I still wonder why there are surveys, studies, articles about this topic. Why is that? Sorry, this is about my fourth time asking this question.
    .
    I do believe the virginity comment was aimed at men who only were going for casual sex. That makes sense since its about sex and not marriage in the mans mind. For marriage, I think men would very proud to marry one. and boast about it maybe.
    .
    One thing I am getting from all this is that no matter what, if a women is a little, shall we say, overactive, it will have some range of impact on her future regarding a final partner. I also know that women would not like it to be that way. A crisis…no, maybe not. But clearly a sticking point that just festers, does not go away, and a source of frustration.

  • Abbot

    There may or may not be a crisis, but I still wonder why there are surveys, studies, articles about this topic. Why is that? Sorry, this is about my fourth time asking this question.
    .
    I do believe the virginity comment was aimed at men who only were going for casual sex. That makes sense since its about sex and not marriage in the mans mind. For marriage, I think men would very proud to marry one. and boast about it maybe.
    .
    One thing I am getting from all this is that no matter what, if a women is a little, shall we say, overactive, it will have some range of impact on her future regarding a final partner. I also know that women would not like it to be that way. A crisis…no, maybe not. But clearly a sticking point that just festers, does not go away, and a source of frustration.
    .
    What is strict chastity and who said that men have this goal? I think the goal, which is actually quite easy, is to avoid women with a prolific past.

  • terre

    “Again, the women who I know who have had plenty of experience have had no problems settling down with attractive, kind, successful men.”
    .
    You should really read Michelle Langley’s book, as well as the statistical material on the subject. “The women [you] know” are not a reliable barometer for what’s actually the case.

  • jess

    I did actually read most of langley’s book (I didnt quite finish it as its doing the rounds amongst my friends).
    A lot of what she said made sense and I will accept there are a range of dynamics out there. Maybe there are women, highly atttrractive and decent, but due to their experienced past, are disqualifying themselves from LTR’s.
    I have seen data both for and agaisnt but its the sort of data that is always going to be open to intrepataion and critiscm.
    I know I cannot extrapoalte from my own circle of friends and as a woman i cannot claim to know a man’s ‘true’ thoughts on this issue.
    BUT my work brings me (or did) into contact with a lot of men and women and also into the details of their relationships. 99% of men are not judmental and seem to make relationship choices commensurate with their claimed views. The 1% that did overtly state puritanical preferences are currently incarcerated at her majestys pleasure (no joke).
    Some women do go a while without LTRs due to limited meeting opportunities but they tend to be the shyier type with less experience. As I said, the attractive, experienced women are getting constant offers and have no trouble settling down. This is true of the people i have dealt with in many countries and not connected with my own circle.
    But if you know women who are rejected for purity reasons and are lonley and upset then I totally accept that as your direct observation which carries equal validity to my own observations.

  • terre

    Well I don’t use anecdotes to disprove data, so I’m not going to say one way or the other. Like “Tom”, you sound a lot more invested in coming to a positive conclusion than I am. If sex really is that meaningless to you (as it appeared to be in the other post with the adult virgin) I’m not too surprised.

  • Abbot

    “attractive, experienced women” “women who are rejected for purity reasons”
    .
    From reading much of this site, I did not find suggestions that purity is the goal. Or experience is worthy of rejection. It seems that is about behavior patterns that may men really like when out having fun and just sex but those same behavior turn to disgust when being presented with a woman who desires a relationship. The men most on guard are the player types – the 15% or so that casual sex women flock to – because they have first hand knowledge of what these women do. Maybe those men switch to a different group of women when its time to settle down, and they can because it seems that there are two groups of women out there.
    .
    “men are not judmental”
    .
    I also do not think men are judging women. They do seem to be making quick decisions, and probably should not, but then you are asking a lot from men or giving them too much credit.
    .
    As for the comment about value of sex. Well, its seems that there is a group of women in the West that does not want or does not see a value or high value to it. Perhaps those are ones who sleep around a lot. Why not? If value is low, its easier to treat it as low value. Maybe men who are serious have an issue with that because the woman is no longer or not able to be vulnerable – she comes across as harsh, non-demur. The romance is dead on arrival as it were. That is sad. Women and men fall in love with each for some same reasons and many not same reasons. I think men in the US/UK are being dealt a bad hand if they want certain traits in a woman worthy of love. Your grandfathers were probably the last lucky ones.

  • Badger Nation

    “The 1% that did overtly state puritanical preferences”
    .
    Pardon my French but this is bullshit. It is not a bimodal choice between “non-judgmental” and “puritanical.” There is nothing puritanical about a man wanting a relationship partner who has been sensible with her sexual choices. Sensible does not mean 100% chaste nor does it mean riding the cock carousel.

  • Abbot

    The words used seem to be an attempt at shaming and polarization. Yes,”puritanical,” “judgemental” “experienced women” “rejected for purity reasons.” More and more, I see this attempt. So its important to set it right, here and now. I do not see any writing on this site that even suggests that men are passing judgement, don’t like experienced women, are puritanical or have purity on their minds. However, there are patterns of behaviors that few men would want in a woman who is making a bid to be his final partner. Those women reading this know who they are. If you went on vacation say to Jamaica last year and it seemed normal to you and your supportive girlfriends to have slept with three men in 11 days of fun in the sun, well…it seemed normal to you.

  • tom

    Hummm lets see……..

    Here we have a woman, she is a wonderful mom, has a great corporate job, is a lot of fun to be around, has a great sense of humor, is very intelligent, well liked by her friends, loves to golf, snow ski, watches sports center, loves girly movies, is very sensitive , is physically attractive, works out at least a couple times a week, is not on any mood elevators, and is stable.
    How many men would go for a woman like this? (Most men, I`d say)

    Ut Oh, she has slept with 30 men and she is 38 years old. She must be a worthless slut, forget her, she MUST be damaged in some way.

    You see how stupid this way of thinking is?
    The fact of the matter is(and this is supported by some of the immature comments that have been said here) most men and their ego just can not handle the fact that this woman “knows” other men….. When in fact she is not damaged at all, but their way of thinking is damaged, and I understand their insecurity. I dont agree with it, but I do understand it.
    If the stats stated earlier are correct, (1in 5 men would still give this woman a chance) then that means their are millions of men who would. Less than 20 % of women are this promiscuous, meaning there are plenty of men who are secure and mature enough not to let her experience get in the way of his decision.
    Someone earlier made the chidish comments about (cant remember the exact number he used) shes had 50 other mens cum in her. REALLY? First off she probably used condoms, so that isnt true. Secondly if she had ever been married for any length of time, she has had a lot more than that in her, but only by the same man. Good grief, a secure man knows none of that matters, it is in the past.
    The only semi valid reason for not giving her a chance is the commitment issure. Can she commit to a LTR? I can tell you THAT is not THE issue for most men. They are a lot more shallow and immature than that thought process. Then there is the hypocrite, looking down his nose at a woman who has done the same thing he has done. THAT is real mature. Basically we are dealing with the locker room mentality, and trust me, I was in the lockers in High school and at Ohio St, and this mentality IS there . A ton of immaturity as well.

  • Badger Nation

    “If you went on vacation say to Jamaica last year and it seemed normal to you and your supportive girlfriends to have slept with three men in 11 days of fun in the sun, well…it seemed normal to you.”
    .
    Try my girlfriend’s college friend, who slept with eight guys in seven days of spring break in a foreign land (she had a boyfriend at the time but rationalized it as he had trouble getting it up so it was OK to seek sex elsewhere). Unsurprisingly, this girl is a walking miasma of attention-/pleasure-seeking behavior. I think the guy she’s dating now is absolutely nuts.

  • tom

    Badger Nation, you said,
    ” There is nothing puritanical about a man wanting a relationship partner who has been sensible with her sexual choices. Sensible does not mean 100% chaste nor does it mean riding the cock carousel.
    _________________

    Sensible?……….. ….Definition of SENSIBLE
    1: of a kind to be felt or perceived: as a : perceptible to the senses or to reason or understanding.

    Again it is perception. You say “cock carousel” That promotes a negitive connotation…
    What if one said, “she had experienced a lot of men sexually.” Doesnt sound near as bad does it?
    My version comes from a mature attitude while yours is from an immature attitude. At what point does she slip away from being acceptable to becoming a slut who is damaged in your eyes? Why? How do you come up with a precise number? Some men have said 10..so 9 is A-OK while ten is too many?…LOL
    It isnt the experienced woman who has the hangup, it is the man who judges her on one and only one aspect of her life and discounts all the real value she has in ALL the other aspects of her life.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @tom
      Speaking of being sensible, please address the STD issue. If a woman has had sex with 30 partners, all of whom have also had sex with 30 partners, then from a health standpoint she has been sexually exposed to 900 people. Condoms do not prevent all STDs – and are largely ineffective against HPV and Molluscum Contagiosum. Furthermore, 75% of new genital herpes cases are Type 1 – in other words, from mouth to genitals. 75% of those cases are in women, who are much more likely to have herpes outbreaks than men are. Also, studies estimate that condoms are dispensed with at least a third of the time, across all age groups. In short, for a woman with a sexual history like that to be free of disease or virus is possible but very unlikely.
      .
      Both men and women have every right to avoid those with extensive sexual histories in order to protect their health, wouldn’t you agree?

  • Abbot

    Why does this word “damaged” come up? Who is using this language here? Is that one more phrase on this growing list? When a man is getting his comfort bearings with a woman, I do not assume its on any one aspect. Its a spectrum. Sure, it would be nice for women to know that past sex – especially that Spring Break romp – was not on the table. And it would not be on the table if every woman a man is considering engaged in these pattern of sex behavior. Not about a series of unfortunate well-meaning failed relationships.

  • tom

    @ badger….”Try my girlfriend’s college friend, who slept with eight guys in seven days of spring break in a foreign land (she had a boyfriend at the time but rationalized it as he had trouble getting it up so it was OK to seek sex elsewhere). Unsurprisingly, this girl is a walking miasma of attention-/pleasure-seeking behavior. I think the guy she’s dating now is absolutely nuts.”

    And that my friend is why we do not lump all “experienced” women into one catagory. There has to be a personality checkup before one enters into a relationshop with ANY woman, reguarless of her sexual background. Not all women who have slept around have done so like a wild sex manic. Some women do really like sex, as men do. Some are not in a relationship, or many do not want or can have a relationship at the present time. So if they find themselves attracted to a man, whats the harm? we men have been doing the exact same thing forever. I myself probably would not be attracted to a woman who beded a different man several nights a week. my guess is she “may” have some issures to be worked out. The women I have known over the years are not like the woman you described. They have have a bit larger number, but it has taken place over a period of time, and it was with some discression.

  • tom

    damaged = unsuitable, because the perception is she is unworthly because either her body has been damaged or her mental well being has been damaged by multiple partners.

    I`m here to suggest that in MANY cases, niether one is true. They can be as normal as any one. Could be their pryorities have now changed.

  • Abbot

    No, of course women are not lumped into one category. That is because there is such a huge variety of women for men to choose from. Its actually, like, how you say – a bell curve, that is skewed with a long tail. If men did not have all those options, well, they would just throw in the towel and accept. Sometimes too many choices leads to more confusion.

  • Abbot

    From reading this site a bit, I do not get the idea that men think a womans mind or body is damaged. But as I said, as long as there are choices and most women qualify, then its just easier to pass another by no matter how good a wife she may have been. Perhaps that is why those so-called sex positive groups like the one to which Friedman and Marcotte belong attempt to get women to relax more and treat sex as part of making out. or something like that. So in the end, men can’t pass up a woman for that reason.

  • terre

    “I`m here to suggest that in MANY cases, niether one is true. They can be as normal as any one. Could be their pryorities have now changed.”
    .
    I really don’t understand how other men don’t find this insulting. Why would I want to succumb to changes in her “priorities”? Oh, so other men could treat you like shit and still receive sexual and spiritual surrender, but with me I’m supposed to give her my best? Get real.

  • Badger Nation

    “I really don’t understand how other men don’t find this insulting. Why would I want to succumb to changes in her “priorities”?”
    .
    The always-entertaining Great Books For Men had the best line on this – “she wants me to pay for what she gave away for free.”

  • Abbot

    “Why would I want to succumb to changes in her “priorities”?”
    .
    Wow, that gets right to it. I assume that is what a woman expects, or probably give it no thought at all. Wants to meet a man she likes to build a life and sex is just part of that plan. But before is was about sex with many men as the plan. That’s the switch in priority? That switch between the old version of her and the new could have been a few months. This has nothing to do with how great a wife and mother she will be. This has to do with wanting to be with a person who is two-faced and I do not think someone would choose a friend who is two-faced. Especially with the number of men she could have very easily, by virtue of her just being a woman, racked up while she was her “old self” that long period when men were very willing no-challenge-whatsoever sex objects. I guess when she gets used to manipulating men for a dozen or so years, that carries into the new version and just expects the husband qualified man is just as manipulatable and accepting.

  • Abbot

    “other men could treat you like shit and still receive sexual and spiritual surrender, but with me I’m supposed to give her my best”
    .
    That…that is the main rub. Its not just her behavior – its the attitude of the other men. Just another conquest to boast about to their friends. She had a few drinks, dude picks her up, throws her in a cab next day. Back slap, laugh. Men know best how men think. His friends would not marry her after that. Should you? But who allowed it to happen? Yep, yep…miss priority. Men dont get crapped on and disrespected when out for sex, but women do often. A sad scene, but its not on you to pick up the pieces when she is done.

  • terre

    “The always-entertaining Great Books For Men had the best line on this – “she wants me to pay for what she gave away for free.””
    .
    I have to admit that part of it is spite. If the kitten didn’t want me, I don’t want the cat, etc.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I confess I am somewhat baffled by this debate. Does Tom hope to convince other men to change their criteria in mate selection? To each his own, right? Tom should feel great about the woman he has chosen to marry if she meets his criteria for a great relationship. I don’t really understand why he insists that others feel great about her too. Perhaps Christopher Guest nailed it in Best in Show, where Katherine O’Hara and Eugene Levy play a married couple that keeps bumping into men she knew before. They are quite happy to see her again, saying things like, “Can you still do that thing with your legs?” and “That’s the only time I ever did it on a roller coaster!” Of course, Eugene Levy is a total chump – we are meant to have zero respect for him.

  • tom

    Maybe she grew tired of the single life and the lonely nights. Maybe she has buried the hreatbreak that drove her to not want a relationship, and live a single life. Maybe she no longer travels with her job 5 days a week and is ready for a relationship and or family. There are a lot of reasons why a womans pryorities might change….LOL All I get from you insecue boys is the EWWW factor. Dont worry boys a woman falls for you first, and your dick comes after that, not the other way around.

    No one, and I mean one one here has stated EXACTLY what is wrong with a woman who is experienced.They say men wouldnt want her I ask why not? All I hear are reasons an insecure man might state. Why is experience a bad thing. I doubt anyone here can give factual answer without jealously or insecurity showing thru.

  • tom

    Susan , No I`m not trying to convince anyone to do anything. I am trying to get them to see that their bias is seeded in insecurity. Since no one can explain what exactly is wrong with an experienced woman, it must be in their own head.
    Kind of like a person who has never eaten lobster before. They have no idea, really if they will like it, but just the “thought” of eating it repels them.They surmise they just are not into sea food. Is that REALLY an answer?…. Well she has just had too many lovers..And why is that a valid answer? “she has to much experience? she can compare? What about experience is bad… Even you Susan, cant answer that question.
    As for disease.. A wife can get it EASIER from her cheating hubby than a protected woman can get it from a one night stand. I never had a disease. My Fiance has never either, None of my friends, as far as I know, has ever had a disease either. Some people DO protect themselves EVERY time.

  • tom

    And Susan I dont know why other guys seem to think men like me are nuts for accepting an experienced woman. Are they not trying to get me to see their point of view? That is all I am doing. As long as a woman is clean, and disease free I have no problem, under certian circumstances, considering that an experienced woman could make a great life partner. But then again I am secure in my thoughts. I could care less that she may have encountered another man/men who was a good lover. I`m smart enough to know there are other men out there who know their way around a womans body. Now if that thought is too much for the average guy to handle, so be it. their loss. I am not saying all promiscuous women will make a good LTR prospect, just like not all women in general will make a good LTR. I can tell you right now, I know of a few experienced women who would make a lot better prospect than some limited experienced women I know.
    Some people are afraid of rollercoasters. Is it the rollercoaster that is at fault, or the thought process of the person who is afraid?
    If there is nothing wrong with two concenting adults having sex, what makes it wrong if that has taken place 30 times? Is she dirty? is she damaged? is she deranged? If the answer to those questions are no, then there is NOTHING wrong with the woman, only the thought process of the one who judges her.

  • terre

    “As for disease.. A wife can get it EASIER from her cheating hubby than a protected woman can get it from a one night stand”
    .
    Uh, first of all, that isn’t even remotely true. Second of all, if you’d actually read Susan’s comment you’d realize that it’s impossible to be “fully” protected. I’m not saying we all have to become monks and live in a plastic bubble but to pretend there are no risks to promiscuous sex is both dishonest and dangerous.

  • terre

    “Why is experience a bad thing.”
    .
    i. Fosters poor instincts (pleasure-seeking over fidelity, selfishness over self-giving, cynicism over true confidence, supermarket mentality: i.e. infinite choice refraining you from making a choice and sticking with it);
    ii. Risk of disease, battery of heartbreak, drama;
    iii. Introduces uncertainty over paternity;
    iv. Statistically more likely to divorce.
    .
    Bear in mind, there are many benefits to bed-hopping for both men and women. Indeed, few would do it if there were only downsides. But when it comes to marriage, it’s a clear negative. A very clear one.

  • tom

    um it is true a wife can get a disease easier from a cheating hubby. She gernerally isnt using any protection while having sex with her hubby. if he has it, it is much easier for her to get something than a person who uses protection.
    I never said it cant happen, but the chances are almost nill. And to suggest otherwise will force some to become a monk…lol

  • terre

    “And Susan I dont know why other guys seem to think men like me are nuts for accepting an experienced woman.”
    .
    No one thinks you’re “nuts”. We think you aren’t making your case well at all.

  • tom

    Terre, are those same qualities true for a promiscuous man?
    I say its a pretty close match.

    Protection and testing takes care of one of your “problems”
    A woman in it for only sex, has little or no drama..That takes care of another one of your “problems” “””””””””””‘pleasure-seeking over fidelity, selfishness over self-giving, cynicism over true confidence, supermarket mentality: i.e. infinite choice refraining you from making a choice and sticking with it);”””””””””””””

    This could be true of some people , but they would be in the minority. Women who are “out there” for non committal sex understand the difference between casual sex and relationship sex. Casul sex is selfish, indeed, but that does not stop them from having an awesome sharing sex life when they do settle down. Pleasure seeking ove fidelity?? Please, That is true while they are not in a relationship, but not true when they do committ.
    you did describe a person who is out for non committal sex. But once they settle down that all goes away, if she has the rest of her act together.
    You suggest that all women who play around can never be normal again, Im here to tell you that is the biggest cock of crap.Just another case of men fraring what they do not understand.

    “”””

  • terre

    “I never said it cant happen, but the chances are almost nill.”
    .
    No, they aren’t. You should read this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19265739

  • terre

    “Terre, are those same qualities true for a promiscuous man?”
    .
    Yes? When have I ever said otherwise?

  • Höllenhund

    “No one, and I mean one one here has stated EXACTLY what is wrong with a woman who is experienced.They say men wouldnt want her I ask why not?”

    Because she is more likely to leave you, cheat on you and cuckold you than other women wilth more impulse control and less promiscuity and emotional baggage.

  • tom

    Terre. so then you are one who sees a woman as damaged goods if she has been promiscuous?

    All women who slept around are pleasure seeking , selfish, non-committal types who probably carry a disease….

    Righttttt!

    That may be why it is wise to evaluate every woman before entering a LTR.

    So sad if you really think that… Some women just enjoy sex and are not in a relationship, PERIOD. Every other aspect of their life might be perfect.
    Remember my rollercoaster story? Is it really the person who is flawed, or is it the judging person that is flawed?

  • terre

    “So sad if you really think that… Some women just enjoy sex and are not in a relationship, PERIOD. Every other aspect of their life might be perfect.
    Remember my rollercoaster story? Is it really the person who is flawed, or is it the judging person that is flawed?”
    .
    It’s the person. Sex is not something you “just enjoy”; people underestimate how even today it’s not an act arrived at trivially. It involves exposing yourself as you really are, a side many are too inhibited to consider, to another person. It’s why girls in the West are such chronic alcoholics; they need the social lubricant to remove the tremendous obstacles between themselves and ending up in bed with a man or in an alley or whatever.
    .
    It’s extremely rare that people suddenly change with any measure of sincerity. Their past behavior is probably the best indicator of what they’ll be like in the future. Those who do make some kind of sudden change are usually equivalent to Born Agains who keep the faith for all of a few months before lapsing back into old habits.

  • tom

    terre, your entire last post is total BS.

    I suppose , once a cheater, always a cheater? That in itself is BS.

    I wish I could find the study that took a big poll of “soccer moms”. 90% after 10 years of marrage had not cheated over 50 % had more than 10 partners while in college. 20% had 20+
    Your responses are typical of the locker room mentality I spoke of earlier

    Maybe to YOU sex is just not something one just enjoys. Men have been doing that for eons, detatching feelings from sex, and there are millions of men who have made the switch from casual sex to relationship sex. Now there are a lot of women who can do the same thing and it scaes the heck out of some men…

    Im done, Its hard to relate to people who govern their lives by emotion alone.

  • terre

    I can see I’m wasting my time. If you want to get men to marry adulteresses, knock yourself out.

  • Abbot

    Its not scary at all. The vast majority of women on Earth did not engage in multiple sex detached from feelings. Otherwise, yes, it would be very scary.

  • Jess

    A hearty laugh at reading all this.
    at Tom and others,
    I agree with both sides regarding STD. Yes wives do get infection from husbands and there is also an STD explosion in the UK. A huge % of teenagers have a deseases. It’s also true that condoms don’t offer 100% protection.
    For this reason I do actually argue against promiscuity but I endorse toms ethical analysis completely.

  • Abbot

    In summary, after reading much of what is here -
    .
    People do, to a wide variation of degree, do consider the physical sex past of someone they are considering to take into their lives. Should that not be? I do not know. Maybe its convenient for some people to not be evaluated on this subject, and so they are vocal about it.
    .
    People come in sets, or shall I say, as a spectrum of interrelated traits. If a women is sexual active with multiple men, well then she is probably quite relaxed about it, and maybe a related non-sexual trait is general permissiveness. Some men may not appreciate a women who is so permissive. If a man decides that non-sexual trait is not for him, well there is a higher probability that he would not be dating promiscuous women. If a man likes the thrill of sex early in dating, well he should be prepared to be dating women with many past men because there is a higher chance that is what he will end up with.
    .
    If a man would have sex with a woman but not want more from her because she is too “out and about” well, really, that harms nobody. True, he may have lost a great life partner, but that will never be known so why speculate. There are many women out there and he will find another. So will she. This is why I am very confused as to why there is so much written about this topic all over the web. Unless I am missing something, what is the problem? Im also confused as to why people -mostly women – attempt to offend men who state that they dont want to marry women who behave this way even though those same men mind their own business and dont denigrate others for making their life partner choices.
    .

  • Jess

    For the most part I agree with you. Where indeed is the crisis or harm?
    .
    The reason some women might get offended is when they hear terms like slut or whore or worse ( a lot worse)
    .
    People are free to choose their mates on whatever criteria they wish. And long may it remain so.
    .
    It may be germane to point out that this hasn’t always been so and indeed in some parts of the world it still isn’t. You may be aware of arranged marriage, honour killings and so on.
    .
    In fact choice is still quite recent so as true male and female sexuality is emerging there will be waves in society hence the debates on this site. I guess we are all struggling to make sense of our freedoms and urges.

  • Jess

    My last 2 posts here have gone

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jess
      I’ve whitelisted you so that shouldn’t happen again. For some reason, I’ve been getting literally thousands of spam comments this last week. I can’t possibly sift through them for the occasional legit comment. Sorry about that.

  • Mike C

    Abbot,

    That is an excellent summary there
    .
    Maybe its convenient for some people to not be evaluated on this subject, and so they are vocal about it.
    .
    Bingo.
    .
    Im also confused as to why people -mostly women – attempt to offend men who state that they dont want to marry women who behave this way even though those same men mind their own business and dont denigrate others for making their life partner choices.
    .
    Yeah, I don’t get this part either. If you go back, for example, and read many of Tom’s and Jess’s comments, there is a consistent theme that is sold over and over again. Only “insecure” men who have something “wrong” with them are going to make this an issue for a LTR/marriage partner.
    .
    Here is the part where the hamster is running on crack/meth. Over and over and over on this subject, I keep reading women saying “well, I wouldn’t want to date/marry a guy who would judge me on this”. He is just a Neanderthal not worthy of me anyways. Yet, we know with certainty that women tend to massively underreport and flat out lie to their significant other about this number. See Susan’s comment about the 20-somethings freaking out over having 30-40 partners. So which is it? Does it matter or doesn’t it matter?
    .
    I mean, if the reality is, it isn’t important, and only insecure, emotionally stunted guys care about it, then you would think you would tell a prospective partner early in dating. Right? If that is the case, then it is an excellent screening mechanism to weed out “insecure” guys with emotional issues.
    .
    But ahhhh…..that is just hamster going into overdrive. On some level, most women do in fact realize, that a very promiscuous past does in fact reduce their “value”/make them less desirable as marriage partners to normal, reasonable, decent guys who would make good boyfriends/husbands. Otherwise, there would be ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL REASON TO LIE ABOUT IT.
    .
    But like I said earlier this isn’t an absolute disqualifier depending on the magnitude. There is a massive difference between a 35 year old with 10 versus a 23 year old with 30-40. The latter is pure pump and dump material. My GF had a few indiscretions, and when she told me (this was years ago) I was initially extremely upset, because I did call into question if she was the person I thought she was. However, she had very good reasons, I stewed over it for a few days, and then moved on, and it has never been an issue. My sense is different guys have different levels of what they can accept and live with it when it comes to female promiscuity.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike
      I think you’re right – it does vary a lot by individual. You correctly point out the logical fallacy in Tom/Jess’s position. Does it matter or doesn’t it? A woman who hides her number, even from herself, with “slut math” knows that men care. She says it doesn’t matter to her, but she knows it probably matters to him. That right there is all I need to know – if you want to marry, keep your number down. Forget the question of whether promiscuity causes emotional damage – it causes reputation damage. That’s a real cost. Women can’t have it both ways – they either have to come clean or live a lie. If a woman says she wouldn’t even want a guy who cares, fine. Have at it. There are some out there.

  • Sox

    Great post Mike, couldn’t have said it better myself.

  • Abbot

    “I wouldn’t want to date/marry a guy who would judge me on this”
    .
    but
    .
    “then it is an excellent screening mechanism to weed out “insecure” guys with emotional issues”
    .
    so what to do, what to do?
    .
    Well, it seems that for most women in the West, there is a vast shortage of men who would embrace her promiscuity on her journey to marriage. She absolutely knows this so is stuck, as it were. Live a lie and maybe get a husband or screen and stay single. The third approach – not treating sex as a redundant repetitive attractive-man-mixed-with-alcohol lab experiment in the first place – that suggestion will get you labeled with a host of nasty names.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The third approach – not treating sex as a redundant repetitive attractive-man-mixed-with-alcohol lab experiment in the first place – that suggestion will get you labeled with a host of nasty names.

      No question. It is extremely uncool to be a prude. Even women who don’t do casual hate being called that. Just as women were always the biggest practitioners of slut shaming, today they are engaging in prude shaming. And a lot of guys just won’t bother with girls who don’t have a rep for putting out. Not all guys, obviously. But that’s the perception.

  • terre

    I don’t think there’s a shortage. The sheer strength of women’s sexual position in the dating game today ensures that the vast majority of men are basically at their mercy. I personally tried to overlook promiscuity in my last girlfriend because I was scared of losing her and had nowhere else to go.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I personally tried to overlook promiscuity in my last girlfriend because I was scared of losing her and had nowhere else to go.

      This sounds like the frequent claim in the manosphere that women ride the carousel for years, and then look for a nice guy to settle down with. She may truly be “reformed” and want a good man, but she also knows that a man with fewer options is more likely to commit, even to a woman with a past.

  • Mike C

    I don’t think there’s a shortage. The sheer strength of women’s sexual position in the dating game today ensures that the vast majority of men are basically at their mercy. I personally tried to overlook promiscuity in my last girlfriend because I was scared of losing her and had nowhere else to go.
    .
    I don’t think there is a “shortage” either, but I think it depends on how we define shortage. I think that word describes a pretty extreme condition, and we are NOT at an extreme condition.
    .
    Something…..something is happening at the margin, you see it in the declining marriage rate. This discussion would not be happening if something wasn’t happening:
    .
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/are-men-morally-obligated-to-marry/
    .
    To borrow from Obsidian if there “was no there there” then you wouldn’t hear single peep from women about men “manning up”, “growing up” and getting married.
    .
    To your personal example, and I don’t mean to offend, but your comment illustrates that there are men with options and men without options. As I pointed out in a previous comment, men without options will drive the beat up jalopy that has been driven hard if the alternative is walking. It can get problematic I think though when the jalopy thinks it is a brand new Mercedes or Infiniti.

  • tom

    Am I the only one who sees the hypocricy here? A woman who is promiscuous is good enough to have sex with (man risks disease being with her) but not good enough to have a LTR with?
    LOL
    He doesnt care if she thought he was good in bed, she was only a lay to him.
    I am not saying every promiscuous woman is worthy of my attention. There are some real head cases out there. What I am saying is I will not shun a woman based solely on her sexual past. There is more to it than that. I am also saying a man CAN discount all women who have a past, based solely on her past. It is the later case that I say are insecure. It is their right, no doubt, but it is the “why” behind their decision that doesn`t make sense.
    Sure some women will lie about their past. Not because they regreat what they did necessasarly, but because they understand the double standard hypocricy that exsists.
    Man,” I can screw anything that walks, but, woman, if you do the same thing you are a tramp”..LOL No, you sir are a hypocritical moron.
    Trust me I know both men and women who have not survived very well a long single life. On the other hand I know plenty of men and women who have done quite well for themselves after tiring of the single life and settled down.
    Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with sleeping aound. Men do it a lot, so do a lot of women. However before making a judement of a promiscuous person past, I try to look at who they are, what makes them tick, why did they sleep around etc. In other words I look at each person as an individual, I do not lump them all into just one catagory.
    Comparing a woman to a car is just adolecent nonsense. Cars wear out, women do not.
    This holier than thou attitude that many men exibit, just slays me.
    Ever hear the old saying, have to kiss a lot of frogs to find your Prince? This is the 21st century, the puritan era is long gone but someone forgot to tell most of the men. They put way too much stock on something so common as sex.
    “Go away you are a walking disease “… But I have been tested, I`m clean
    “Go away you value sex too little”…..In a relationship you get my heart and devotion
    ” Go away you will cheat on me”…. I have never cheated before
    ” Go away you have too high of a number”….It could have been higher.
    ” Go away you have “known” too many men”…None of them compare to you, out of the bed oom ,are you afraid YOU wont compare IN the bedroom?

  • Mike C

    It would be interesting for shits and giggles to run “toms” comments through one of those gender analyzer algorithms out on the web. The more I read tom, the more convinced I am tom really is a woman trying to play the “enlightened” male. Many particular aspects of this latest comment really point in that direction to me.
    .
    Now, “tom”, I’m not going to dissect your entire comment. Let me say something. I agree with you that it is hypocritical to hold male promiscuity and female promiscuity to not totally identical standards. That said, I don’t necessarily view hypocrisy as automatically a pejorative. Fact of the matter is human existance is full of hypocrisy, much of it warranted by common sense. We wouldn’t hold women to the same standards on the battlefield during war as men. The sexes are different. Biologically, hormonally, etc. This notion that everything must be an absolutely equivalent standard really is post-modernist tripe
    .
    There really is only one part of your comment I want to address because it is a non-sequitur and attempt at obfuscation. If there is one thing that really annoys me in discussion/debate it is attempts at obfuscation of the main point
    .
    Sure some women will lie about their past. Not because they regreat what they did necessasarly, but because they understand the double standard hypocricy that exsists.
    .
    The issue here is NOT one of regret versus double standard of hypocrisy.
    .
    Your position, and Jess’s position, and the position I see amongst many, many women is that only INSECURE, JUDGEMENTAL, IMMATURE men care about this issue, and they are a MINORITY of men. If you are woman looking for a “quality” man who is NOT insecure, judgemental, immature, there is absolutely no reason to lie because the quality man won’t care one bit anyways. Why lie about something that is inconsequential to your target market? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
    .
    And because it is “only a minority of men” who aren’t comfortable with a LTR with a promiscuous women, there are still PLENTY of guys who won’t care at all.
    .
    You see, lying serves no pragmatic purpose. Again, you want to tell the truth, because you want those “judgemental, immature, stunted” guys to hit the road ASAP.
    .
    So again, lying about this makes no sense UNLESS…..UNLESS that position above is a complete, total, utter crock of shit in that the pool of guys who don’t care is in fact really small, and comprises what most people would consider quality men. In that case, lying becomes a pragmatic necessity because if you don’t lie, the pool of guys to ensnare for a longer-term committment dwindles dramatically.
    .
    Now please address this specific point as I have laid it out. Explain to me the pragmatic necessity of lying if only “judgement jerks who are in the minority” care.

  • Mike C

    One more thing,

    “tom” keeps bringing up this single woman who was promiscuous, and is now the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think “tom” is in fact this woman, and arguing her case. I could be wrong, but my radar is going off. “tom” just seems way too vested in converting and/or focusing on these “shameful/insecure” men who simply might not prefer highly promiscuous women.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C
      I’m afraid you’re right about Tom. It actually makes me very sad. If you are correct, and Tom is this woman he keeps describing, then it’s a dramatic example of how a promiscuous past can affect women, and their prospects. Seeking validation in this way, under a pseudonym of the other gender. Terrible.

  • tom

    You see Mike, the judgemental, insecure men are NOT in the minority. They are definately in the majority.
    That doesnt make them bad guys. Many people react certain ways without really knowing why.
    Some women lie BECAUSE most guys are going to judge them on their past. MANY of these same guys who will judge a woman on her past, alone, are guilty of the same promiscuous behavior. That my friend IS hypocricy.

    I`m not here to say men do not have the right to judge a woman because of her past, I am only pointing out that the judgement itself is tainted, in many cases, if the men are evaluating a persons total worth based on their sexual past.
    If a woman is, by all standards a really good person (save their sexual past) is not that person worthy of further evaluation? Many logical thinking men will say, “yes she is” A man afraid of her past, or distainful of her past will say, “no she isnt”
    So My question is, How is this otherwise really good person, who might have all kinds of “value” to offer a man NOT worthy of further evaluation? If she is a quality person, how has her past sexual escapades made her damaged goods? What if her promiscuous past was seveal years ago and has not led that life style since?
    To dismiss this type of woman HAS to be based on insecurity, ignorance, or immaturity.
    A quality person is a quality person, reguardless of what they did in their past sex life. Obviously it didnt harm them because they ARE a quality person NOW.
    By locker room mentality , this is what I mean. These immature guys get a vision of her having sex with many guys. Their response is something like EWWW. My contention is, if it is EWWW 30 times, it is also EWWW once, in the mind of a person who still sees sex as a dirty thing to do, as many young teens do.
    I see sex, whether it be in a casual setting or a relationship setting. a beautiful thing.
    Some will say, but sex is suppose to MEAN something…. Oh Really, who says so? Certainly not the men who have been having casual sex for eons.

  • tom

    Mike get off the ,”you think I am a woman BS”

    Maybe YOU are exactly the immature, insecure locker room moron I have referred to.
    How does that feel, boy?
    I am an ex college football player, one who played in the Big Ten, probably long before you were born.
    I have empathy fo women because I raised a great daughter who also was a Big Ten athlete. I have seen the injustices and, yes the hypocricy my own daughter had to put up with in sports and life also.
    You are wrong about me being a woman, and you are wrong about judgeing a woman based solely in her sexual past.

  • Mike C

    Maybe YOU are exactly the immature, insecure locker room moron I have referred to.
    How does that feel, boy?

    Maybe I am. Considering you are just an anonymous person on the Internet, it really doesn’t “feel” any way at all, “old man”. LOL
    .
    One of my favorite shows is Criminal Minds, and I have to admit one of my favorite pasttimes has sort of been trying to profile people. I find you interesting along with your comments. You sort of popped in out of nowhere, and I’ve been trying to figure you out.
    .
    This whole topic has almost taken on a comical aspect so now I am just amusing myself. Ultimately, as I said in an earlier comment, the reality is what the reality is. Most men have pretty deep-rooted feelings on this that are basically immutable which sort of leaves me wondering what your objective is. I understand your opinion. You certainly repeated it enough times.

  • tom

    Your comment of “amusment” was so predictable.
    LOL @ old man. This old man still benches over 300 lbs.
    Just remember, with age comes wisdom.
    Some people learn to think for themselves.

    you said ,”most men have deeply rooted “feelings” on this.”

    Feelings often lie, logic doesnt.

    I have no objective, really. Im here to give a mature look at the “possibility” that many of these promiscuous women are actually good people. Not the “slut” types most immature guys label them as.
    I do admit , however there ARE slut types. That is why I advocate evaluation of her personality, before getting involved.

    One can take a woman who has sex with 30 guys, and a woman who has sex 100`s of times with the same guy, and “physically”, one could never tell the difference.

  • Mike C

    Some women lie BECAUSE most guys are going to judge them on their past.
    .
    Just curious, do you consider this morally acceptable, especially at the marriage stage? To be clear, I fully, absolutely, emphatically support a woman’s prerogative to say that is none of your business, or I don’t want to tell you. I’m just curious if you think lying is permissible, or if in certain instances it is or is not. I’m wondering if you are a “hypocrite” along with us “immature boys”?
    .
    Tom, here is your homework assignment. Google “behavioral interview”. Now ask yourself, why do companies try to assess past behavior? Is past behavior a perfect predictor of future behavior. Of course not. Nothing is infallible. And it is completely within the realm of possibility that the woman who engaged in threesomes and had a train run on her could be a loyal monogamous wife. Absolutely. And she might be smart, kind, heck, maybe the “angels sing” when she walks in a room.
    .
    Here is the thing. We live in a society that is extremely unfriendly to men when divorce occurs even if that divorce is prompted by female adultery, or the woman just deciding she got bored. A smart bettor would always bet she’ll get full custody unless she is a crack addict, and the guy can count on ridiculous child support payments that are really pseudo-alimony.
    .
    In stock market parlance, marriage from the male perspective is potentially a low-return, high risk investment. There is that classic scene in Indiana Jones where they have to identify the Holy Grail. Choosing the wrong one means death. The knight says “Choose wisely”. That’s today’s marriage market. I
    .
    My GF likes to watch this show Bridezillas on TV. I watch it and ask myself “what the h*ll are these guys thinking”, and for them it is either that pussy or no pussy.
    .
    So again, to summarize, although you appear impossible of comprehending it, a highly promiscuous past is indicative of personality traits and behavior patterns that could ***potentially*** be a recipe for a difficult life. I would actually say the EXACT same thing about male promiscuity except that the consequences are not as damaging (a woman cannot get cuckolded for example, nor do men tend to leave their wifes for extramarital partners).
    .
    You want to think in black and white, while the real world is shades of grey. A promiscuous woman isn’t necessarily a “bad” woman, but she is a “riskier” stock to buy and hold for the long-term.

  • tom

    First , I do not think it is a good idea a woman lies about her numbe, I do, however understand why they do.

    I also understand the risks involved in entering into a relationship/ marriage.

    I do not believe the premise of past behavior is a good indecator of future behavior, in most people. Some people yes, but not certainly all.

    Men can and do get cuckolded. Women cheat on men all the time, and many men look the other way. I personally do get why.

    I undestand AND agree “some” promiscuous women could be a problem in a relationship. That is why I say to evaluate each woman, not matter their past with caution.

    You are right this is a gray world. Some men will say an inexperienced woman might be a risk because after a few years, she may wonder what it may be like to be with another man…See it works both ways.

    all relationships come with some degree of risk. Some promiscuous women may increase that risk, others might not…

    Choose wisely grasshopper

  • Mike C

    First , I do not think it is a good idea a woman lies about her numbe, I do, however understand why they do.
    .
    I didn’t ask you if it was a “good idea”. I asked if you thought it was morally acceptable. You’d think by your age with your wisdom, you’d understand the question asked.

    Heck, tactically it might be a GREAT IDEA. If I’m a woman who has landed a great guy who might have an issue that it could be a dealbreaker, then pragmatically, LYING might be a GREAT idea if you can pull it off.

    Some men will say an inexperienced woman might be a risk because after a few years, she may wonder what it may be like to be with another man…See it works both ways.

    all relationships come with some degree of risk.

    Nope. EPIC FAIL. And if you really believe that, then I wonder just how much wisdom and experience you really have. The vast majority of women, except for high testosterone women, simply do not instinctually crave variety like men do. Normal women do NOT crave an assortment of random cock. When a woman is “curious” or “bored”, it is because the guy she is with isn’t fulfilling her in the relationship. You run proper LTR game, and deliver the big Os, and she isn’t going to wonder.

  • tom

    dude you are so brainwashed by stats. How about the abused young woman with low testoterone, and low self esteem.. They are VERY promiscuous.

    If you think it is just high testosterone women who are promiscuous, you are crazy. Many women are of low self esteem and are looking for validation.
    By the way I guess your reading comprehension is lacking. You asked a question if I thought it was acceptable, and I said I didnt think it was a good idea. MEANING, no it is not acceptable, morally or othe wise.
    By the way, you can guesstimate that MILLIONS of men out there THINK they are married to a pollyanna near virgin, when in fact their sweet little wife has possibly more than 1/20 past partners. THAT my friend is very common.

  • Abbot

    “MANY of these same guys who will judge a woman on her past, alone, are guilty of the same promiscuous behavior.”
    .
    That implies that many men have the same unfettered access to casual sex. Is that really true?
    .
    “promiscuous women are actually good people. Not the “slut” types most immature guys label them as”
    .
    Is a man who quietly and respectfully decides that a woman was a bit too promiscuous for his comfort level labeling her a slut?
    .
    “Sure some women will lie about their past. Not because they regreat what they did necessasarly, but because they understand the double standard hypocricy that exists.”
    .
    Perhaps over time they attain some wisdom and finally understand how marriage-minded men think and that can lead to regret
    .
    “I don’t necessarily view hypocrisy as automatically a pejorative”
    .
    But it is very clear that many people want you to feel that way and is meant to neuter your argument.
    .
    “It is their right, no doubt, but it is the “why” behind their decision that doesn`t make sense.”
    .
    It does not make sense if it does not make sense to the person making the decision.

  • Mike C

    How about the abused young woman with low testoterone, and low self esteem.. They are VERY promiscuous.

    If you think it is just high testosterone women who are promiscuous, you are crazy. Many women are of low self esteem and are looking for validation.
    .
    I guess I’ll keep this up a bit more til I get bored with it.
    .
    LOL, you are proving my entire point with this sentence above. Promiscuity is often linked with other negative personality traits such low self-esteem and validation seeking. My point, which apparently you did not grasp, is that normal, well-adjusted women generally do NOT crave sex with numerous male partners simply for the sake of variety.
    .
    As you yourself point out, usually some other dynamic is at play, such as low self-esteem which manifests itself in needing male validation. In any case, what you just said is a perfect example of how promiscuity is a good indicator of someone to avoid for a LTR. You don’t want to be some woman’s “rescuer”, you want a partner, so a wise man would want to eliminate low self-esteem women or validation seekers as marriage material. It really is funny that you used an example unwittingly to demonstrate exactly what I have been saying which is that promiscuity is a marker for other undesirable personality traits.
    .
    By the way, you can guesstimate that MILLIONS of men out there THINK they are married to a pollyanna near virgin, when in fact their sweet little wife has possibly more than 1/20 past partners. THAT my friend is very common.
    .
    Neither you nor I know that for sure. You are really just pulling stuff out of your ass. This gets very tricky. We know women lie and underreport so it is difficult to know what the honest numbers here are. That said, the numbers for median partners is still fairly low. My sense is the vast majority of women are at some reasonable number, and then you have a vocal minority of super-sluts.
    .
    Furthermore, my sense is there is an absolute chasm between maybe over 30 and under 30 years of age. I’m 36, I was in high school from 87-91 and college from 91-95. I was in grad school in 99-00 when I first started to notice things changing. I think the last 10 years have seen another sexual revolution in terms of sluttiness. When I was in college, I bet 1 girl in 500 was over 20 by graduation. My sense is this far more common today. I’ve got more then a few guys I know in their 20s, one who is a super-alpha player. He tells me stuff that blows my mind. Today’s 22-25 year old is way different then 20 years ago or even 10 years ago. I suspect if Susan is following any of this discussion, she could probably confirm this.
    .
    But you are right that most guys are clueless. Statistics show female adultery has climbed to match or exceed male adultery at I think around 50-60%. In most cases, the guys are absolutely clueless. That said, I really have no idea what your point is on that. You seem to make a lot of statements which have no point.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C
      Haha, yes, I’m following the convo.

      When I was in college, I bet 1 girl in 500 was over 20 by graduation. My sense is this far more common today.

      This is a total guess, but I would estimate that 20% would hit that number now. So we’ve gone from one girl to 100 in fifteen years. Others would probably put that number higher, but I maintain that only about 20% of women are truly promiscuous.

  • Mike C

    This is a total guess, but I would estimate that 20% would hit that number now. So we’ve gone from one girl to 100 in fifteen years.
    .
    Wow, I have to admit I find that mind-boggling. Surreal, almost. I mean, I don’t think that I’m old, but it seems like I grew up in a completely different era.
    .
    I remember college. Girls had boyfriends, and might cycle through a couple of guys by graduation. And in high school and college there was always “that girl” or a few.
    .
    The idea that 20% of women 22-24 are finishing college with 20, 30, 40, 50 male sex partners……I don’t know….hard to wrap my mind around it. I’ll tell you this, for the alpha guys at the top of pyramid, it literally must be like paradise, a non-stop smorgasbord of tail. I think they will pay a price too although they don’t realize it yet. I think men can have a lot of indiscriminate casual sex without suffering the emotional damage most normal women would, but they will lose the ability to appreciate. Sort of like what $10,000 feels like to a billionaire I suppose.
    .
    Wow.

  • Jess

    To Susan –
    thanks for the whitelisting – I was beginning to think it was my connection.
    .
    To mike c-
    disappointed to hear you tow the biology line. There is no reason behind men wanting more variation than women. It’s a convenient line by the boys ok, but it’s pure BS.. In fact new science suggests that naturally speaking girls are tuned to be more promiscuous than guys. How about that studs?
    .
    To all
    I actually think one should limit numbers to reduce STD risk. Have a bit of fun at college, rubber up, marry a nice person that attracts and interests you.
    As to lying about numbers, it’s tricky one. I never lied myself, in fact I recently discovered i had over estimated all these years when I did a thorough audit. I prefer total honesty in life but i do get the rationale here. What if I fell passionately in love with a puritan and I knew he would be scared by my 22 exes.? Big temptation to fib. How would he ever find out? I would like to think I would be honest and let the chips fall where they may.
    I should point out I don’t have the slightest remorse about my sex life. I had some great times and life is for living. I learnt from good and bad experiences.

  • Mike C

    To mike c-
    disappointed to hear you tow the biology line. There is no reason behind men wanting more variation than women. It’s a convenient line by the boys ok, but it’s pure BS.. In fact new science suggests that naturally speaking girls are tuned to be more promiscuous than guys. How about that studs?

    .
    I’m kind of wondering what your agenda is as well on this. You are playing fast and loose with the science/biology. The science clearly shows women are hypergamous and naturally SERIALLY MONOGAMOUS, not polygamous. Women are wired to bond with one man, want one man sexually, and eventually switch to a new guy down the road. Read the Langley book. Which means a guy has to work hard in a relationship during that itch to switch guys. But the science says women are absolutely NOT wired to have multiple sexual relationships at the same time. I’ve read some anecdotal stuff from women themselves about this wreaking havoc on their psyche. There is plenty of evidence of this. For example, women having affairs usually lose sexual desire for their husbands. Again, see Langley. You can see the experiments on this. There is absolutely no evidence to support any sort of “Coolidge effect” in females. It doesn’t exist.
    .
    The small minority of women having a male harem of sex partners almost always have some sort of psychological dsyfunction.
    .
    What if I fell passionately in love with a puritan and I knew he would be scared by my 22 exes.? Big temptation to fib. How would he ever find out? I would like to think I would be honest and let the chips fall where they may.
    .
    Does one have a moral obligation to be truthful to someone they supposedly love? Again, I can see the rationale for a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, but to flat out lie to a direct question. In some sense, the relationship is then a fraud from the very beginning. And if you are justified in lying about that because of the potential reaction, then what about lying about A, and B, and C, and D and anything else that could be potentially upsetting.
    .
    Again, and I can’t emphasize this particular point enough, but the fact that we are debating whether or not it is OK to lie to a potential partner reveals that this isn’t the triviality you have been wanting to make it out to be.
    .
    I’d be pretty p*ssed off if my GF lied to me about some important financial issue because her values on finances didn’t align with mine, and she felt she was “justified” in lying.

  • terre

    As I’ve said, you generally don’t lie about anything if, at the same time, you hold the belief that you have no reason to lie about it. Putting your wishes above your partner’s is not building a loving relationship; it’s fashioning a custom dildo.

  • Abbot

    “it’s fashioning a custom dildo”
    .
    Ha, just like old times; the past merges into the present

  • Abbot

    “What if I fell passionately in love with a puritan and I knew he would be scared by my 22 exes.?”
    .
    According that that survey mentioned before, a heavy majority of non-puritans would, as you say, run for the hills.
    .
    “You don’t want to be some woman’s “rescuer”, you want a partner, so a wise man would want to eliminate low self-esteem women or validation seekers as marriage material.”
    .
    Rescuer is the “new” partner
    .
    “if you are justified in lying about that because of the potential reaction, then what about lying about A, and B, and C, and D and anything else that could be potentially upsetting.”
    .
    Duped rescuer is the “new” partner. Ah, the many faces of promiscuous women
    .
    “How about that studs?”
    .
    Natural or not, few women on Earth act it out. Studs win. Now, how about that?

  • Jess

    I am often in the habit of showing my friends and work friends these threads and/ or sending them links. This one went a bit viral this morning.
    I wasn’t totally comfortable because they all know my blog identity and so a lot mote people other than close friends now know my sexual history. Not that I’m ashamed it’s just that I preferred a little privacy- it’s a bit odd knowing that mere acquaintances know details about you. Ah well my fault for sending links. – no biggie.
    Anyway, loads of emails coming back. 2 women extolling chastity, the other 15 hurling insults at mike and abbot et al.
    It’s funny but people are interested in this topic. I have previously sent the odd link about poverty and womens rights abuses and got minimal responses!

  • Jess

    Anyhooo,
    Mike c,
    Bizarre denial of the science. Never heard of sperm competition? Never looked up the modern theories behind sexual selection, genital design, pride dynamics? Promoscuity is indeed hard wired whether you like it or not.
    Hilarious to accuse all promiscuous women of being mentally ill. So have many men makes you a nutter? Many college girls have some flings prior to settling down. As do men. No straight jackets required thank you.
    .
    Lying about past:
    As I said I prefer honesty. But I do make the point about societal pressure. I think 5 or 22 or 32 is trivial really but I’m aware that society still has bizarre pockets of hostility in this regard. Hence the pressure to make one lie. Gay people often struggle to come out because they know some people Harbour prejudices. But there is no real reason for gay people to feel this way.

  • Abbot

    Well, given what I have learned just in the last few weeks, the insults are not at all surprising. In fact they are quite revealing. The reaction to being called on making insults is to throw more insults as if one should not complain about being insulted and just accept the promiscuity path to marriage. Typically, insults are thrown by individuals when one feels insulted by people who mean something to them – in this case the mass of men who surround their everyday lives. Insults are manifest from an attempt to protect the ego and express a need to defend oneself. Its not what is being said that they find so “offensive” – rather its the sudden revelation – knowing that men are not required or willing to accept certain traits among an array of clearly available options and are not ashamed and even proud to make those choices.

  • Abbot

    ” I’m aware that society still has bizarre pockets of hostility in this regard.”
    .
    Did not know that merely avoiding certain traits is an act of hostility or is bizarre. Perhaps those pockets are male. in the world society, there just might be pockets of suitable females. Is that painfully possible?
    .
    “Hence the pressure to make one lie.”
    .
    That suggests that men are influencing women’s behavior and actions, albeit too late to be meaningful and useful.
    .
    “Gay people often struggle to come out because they know some people Harbor prejudices.”
    .
    Interesting. Perhaps women should “come out” just like many gay people do and show their true selves. That would actually be a welcome change by many many men. Do you know how much easier that would make things? Of course, gay people do not fell that coming out would reduce their chances of ensnaring someone in a relationship.

  • Mike C

    As I said I prefer honesty. But I do make the point about societal pressure. I think 5 or 22 or 32 is trivial really but I’m aware that society still has bizarre pockets of hostility in this regard.
    .
    Boy oh boy…I’ve got that hamster running on hyperdrive.
    .
    “Society” is an abstraction. It is not an individual entity with a personality. It is certainly not capable of exercising “hostility” on something like private sexual conduct. Unless you go around broadcasting your private endeavors (which would be really stupid) how would any random member of society know your partner count (being gay is outwardly visible and obvious, partner count is not). When I am walking in the grocery store, and I see random women, I have no idea which ones have racked up 50 partners versus 5.
    .
    What you really mean is NOT society, but individual men who are prospective partners. LOL. So now we’ve come full circle as I catch you in complete contradiction/cognitive dissonance. You have maintained over and over that most men don’t care, and only ones you wouldn’t want anyways would. Now, you’ve completely changed your tune in that regard, in that lying may be justified for that “puritanical” partner who is “right” for you, but may “unjustifiably” have issues with your past behavior.
    .
    Honestly, what I find distasteful, is this playing both sides of the fence and the equivocating. If you honestly believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with femal promiscuity, then OWN IT. State it proudly. You should have no reluctance to tell a potential long-term male partner if asked, “Hey, I fucked alot of different guys, I don’t regret it, and if you have a problem with it, that is your problem”. “Take or leave it”. But what is troubling is this sort of rationalizing for sort of living two different lives, and not really wanting to own/embrace the first life and be deceitful about it.
    .
    Never heard of sperm competition? Never looked up the modern theories behind sexual selection, genital design, pride dynamics? Promoscuity is indeed hard wired whether you like it or not.
    .
    This is all explainable though from the male preference for promiscuity/variety. Tens of thousands of years ago, I highly doubt there were any “courtship” rituals with women exercising much choice in males.
    .
    To your comment about the insults, I’m not surprised. Abbott nailed it. I’m hitting a very raw nerve with my comments, because on some subconscious level you and those other women know I am right which is that many perfectly normal, high-quality men would in fact have issues with very high female promiscuity, and that if you don’t lie or distort it you do in fact remove a very large percentage of the male population as potential partners. You don’t like that. It offends your sense of what is “fair”.
    .
    Lastly, we keep referring to different things in terms of what constitutes promiscuity. I don’t think a 22-24 year old woman who has had a few flings is super promiscuous. Now 20-50 partners by college graduation is a different story, and is what I am referring to.

  • Jess

    Bless.. There is always a degree of sadness when a guy pretends not to be angry but then words betray him.
    Once again, if you don’t want to accept the science then argue with the university professors. I am sure you know better than them.
    I quite happy with my use of the word society and I employ it in it’s usual way. I myself don’t mean men I know because I didn’t know any with the sentiments you expouse. But I know of some women who have used slut shaming. I have seen it in the media, by preists, the odd family member, by men on this blog etc etc. Does that define society enough for you? You will also understand that the shaming used is often hostile too? ‘You ugly slag’ is not generally a term of endearment.
    In terms of what I choose to own publically I shall do as I see fit.
    I happen to think anal sex is fine but I’m not going to ‘own it’ if that’s ok with you.
    In case you are confused I did say I advise and observe honesty in relationships including numbers talk.
    I think it’s fine for girls to have a blast at uni if that’s their preference but to use condoms and not get too wasted or drunk. I think 20 guys over 3 years is about 2 per term so no big deal but would advise against much more than that because of STD risk increasing. But if a girl has 1 parnter over 3 years and had a great time then that’s great too.

  • Abbot

    “What you really mean is NOT society, but individual men who are prospective partners.”
    .
    This is why there is such a huge response to this topic, over other what would seem to be more pressing concerns like world hunger, etc – which actually is a societal issue. Because it hits close to home. Its deeply personal. The females are saying – WTF, I can’t believe we are being evaluated this way, our unprecedented behavior is getting such an unprecedented response. The initial reaction is knee jerk, and that is normal. Some would go on to lie about their other life, some would go on to write blogs to denigrate men in a futile attempt to change their way of thinking. But at some point, some, if not many, are going to avoid living two lives altogether and modify their behavior early on. Of course that is only if men continue to have the option to avoid marriage to promiscuous women. Now, that is the ultimate coming full circle.

  • Abbot

    “the shaming used is often hostile”
    .
    How does that have anything to do with men who quietly and respectfully choose to avoid relationships with certain women?
    .
    “I think it’s fine for girls to have a blast”
    .
    Me too! Who here stated that it was not fine for them to behave as they wish? The future consequences be damned!

  • tom

    @ Mike

    Tit for tat….You said,

    I’m kind of wondering what your agenda is as well on this. You are playing fast and loose with the science/biology. The science clearly shows women are hypergamous and naturally SERIALLY MONOGAMOUS, not polygamous. Women are wired to bond with one man, want one man sexually, and eventually switch to a new guy down the road
    Oh Really?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5213956/Men-are-no-more-promiscuous-than-women-survey-finds.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/sep/03/anthonybrowne.theobserver

    These studies suggest otherwise.

    LOL at you all who think I am a woman…too funny

    Mike you said,”When I am walking in the grocery store, and I see random women, I have no idea which ones have racked up 50 partners versus 5.
    Thank you… And if you got to know them, you wouldnt be able to tell either. The only place it matters is in your own mind. Why? insecurity!. A good person is a good person, no matter their sexual history.

    Jess…… Dont waist your breath on these locker room mentality “men”.. The stereo typing here just blows me away…
    I am really surprised at Susan. In her profile she admits she “enjoyed” her sexual freedoms. So she has had at least a “few” by her own admission. So is she not worthy of a good man?
    Ofcourse she is. It doesmt matter what the actual number is. Doing 5 isnt much different than doing 25, especially where a longer time frame is involved.
    But it does matter to the closed minded men who judge a womans worth solely on her past.

    I really have to laugh at the ignorance and stereo typing going on here.

    LOL at the “agenda” questions.
    .

  • Mike C

    There is always a degree of sadness when a guy pretends not to be angry but then words betray him.

    FWIW, I’m not angry…a bit annoyed yes because I do realize I am probably wasting my time trying to get you to address the contradiction of your position which you still are dancing around/dodging. I’m past debating this part:

    I think it’s fine for girls to have a blast at uni if that’s their preference but to use condoms and not get too wasted or drunk. I think 20 guys over 3 years is about 2 per term ******so no big deal*****but would advise against much more than that because of STD risk increasing. But if a girl has 1 parnter over 3 years and had a great time then that’s great too.

    OK, I’m with you. Not going to argue this. But….but….if it is “no big deal” then it is no big deal. It is no big deal what I ate for lunch. If someone asks me what I ate for lunch I am not going to lie about because it is “no big deal”. So if you’ve been dating a guy 6 months, and he asks “I’m just curious, how many people have you been with”. IF IT REALLY TRULY is no big deal and you really honestly believe that, then you should have no reluctance about being 100% candid about it. What I am trying probably in futility to get you to see is the absurdity of that position.
    .
    I quite happy with my use of the word society and I employ it in it’s usual way.
    .
    Not sure how to respond to this except simply to note you have completely 100% avoided addressing my specific poin as I raised it. This is a non-sequitur. I used to read a few of the feminist type blogs long ago but no longer do, but one thing I’ve noticed about much of feminist discussion is the inability to directly address a point as asked. There are a lot of what I would call “non-answer answers”. Again, unless you go around shouting your private sexual behavior from rooftops, there is no way for “society” to know what you are doing, and thus no way for hostility to be exercised.
    .
    In terms of what I choose to own publically I shall do as I see fit.
    .
    I’m not saying you go around telling everyone “Hey, I am a proud promiscuous women”. I’m not saying you have to have a parade like “Gay Pride”. When I say “own it”, I am specifically referring to being forthright with someone you have a close personal relationship with.
    .
    In case you are confused I did say I advise and observe honesty in relationships including numbers talk.
    .
    “I prefer total honesty in life but i do get the rationale here. What if I fell passionately in love with a puritan and I knew he would be scared by my 22 exes.? Big temptation to fib. How would he ever find out? I would like to think I would be honest and let the chips fall where they may.”
    .
    I dunno, that sounds pretty ambivalent/ambiguous to me. Sounds to me like you “prefer” honesty, but it is OK to be dishonest where “justified”. Very Clintonesque. We are venturing into silliness here about what the definition of “is” is.
    .
    I just don’t get the equivocating. Either it is a big deal or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then lying makes no sense. And either lying is OK or morally unacceptable. Really, what I’m hoping for in vain is to get you to actually commit to a solid position rather then dance around all the lines here. I can respect differing views, but it is hard to respect equivocation.

  • tom

    I agree women should not lie about their number if the topic comes up. I also think it is a shame they feel they have to lie, because of some mens attitudes towards sex. It is just sex. Not all women who have multple partners are these low self esteem types who turn out to be half pysco.By contrast, they are not the sex fiends with excess testosterone either. (yes both cases do exist) Many if not most are very normal women , who for what ever reason are not ready to setter down yet.What are they supposed to do, learn to knit? Men sure have no problems seeking out women to have sex with, now do they? Do they expect to be judged for it?

  • Mike C

    The articles you linked are mixing concepts. Neither human male nor human female are wired for lifelong monogamy. What the articles are calling “female promiscuity” is what is already well known and been discussed and I totally agree with which is that females are hardwired to seek out a beta provider and cheat and get impregnated by an alpha.

    So is she not worthy of a good man?

    Men don’t talk/write like this. I’d still bet you are a woman.

  • tom

    here is my email mike ekabo@aol.com
    Email me and I will give you my facebook account. LOL at me being a woman

  • Mike C

    Not all women who have multple partners are these low self esteem types who turn out to be half pysco.
    .
    Earlier in the thread:
    “If you think it is just high testosterone women who are promiscuous, you are crazy. Many women are of low self esteem and are looking for validation.
    .
    Whoosh. I’m having a hard time keeping up with what you actually believe as your position is ever-shifting. Yes, these statements are not mutually exclusive/100% contradictory, but to read one after the other is funny.
    .
    who for what ever reason are not ready to setter down yet.What are they supposed to do, learn to knit?
    .
    Settle?
    .
    What does this mean? Are you saying that once a woman decides she is ready to “settle down” that she is entitled to a “worthy” man for a long-term relationship? Is that your position?
    .
    Men sure have no problems seeking out women to have sex with, now do they? Do they expect to be judged for it?
    .
    Probably not. Frankly, they should be as well, but as anyone who has studied Game knows “preselection” is a powerful attractor, not a repeller. That said, there is a threshold where it appears to turn off many women as well. And for the record, I think men should be truthful as well. Guy at work (today is a total slow day hence my posting) just told me about #200.

  • Jess

    Non-sequitur?
    Is that something that doesn’t cut bushes?
    .
    A big round of applause for all these posh words please….
    .
    In regards to mikes question I thought I had been candid. I (personally) advise and observe honesty, specifically with relation to numbers.
    I however do understand why a girl may lie about her numbers due to societal pressure. As to it’s ethics it’s a grey area. Some might argue it’s unethical to fib full stop whilst others may argue we all have things in our past and the guy has no right to ask. For me, I say tell the truth girls. If he dumps you then consider it a close but lucky escape.

  • Jess

    Sorry forgot to reply to the science bit. No mike has the wrong idea again. Women didn’t just want one alpa male for reproduction they wanted multiple alpha males which may explain the shape of the male glans and female capacity for multiple orgasms.
    In any case, regular consecutive monogamous relationships isn’t a huge difference to simultaneous multiple partners (well not in the same evening obviously)

  • Mike C

    Non-sequitur?
    Is that something that doesn’t cut bushes?

    .
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Jzp&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:non+sequitur&sa=X&ei=RIoTTc-KGMbinQeRyunLDg&ved=0CBMQkAE

    # a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it
    # (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    # A non sequitur is a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes. It is a comment which, due to its apparent lack of meaning relative to what it follows, seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing, as in the following

  • Jess

    Well done mike. I’m sure we are all impressed and humbled in equal measure.

  • Abbot

    “Women didn’t just want one alpa male for reproduction they wanted multiple alpha males”
    .
    Well, that seems to explain why there are so many frustrated single women out there. Perhaps more than the current tiny percentage of women should act out their natural tendencies. But alas, they do not. It sure has been fun reading about the defensive posture and transparent bitterness exhibited by the ones who do.

  • tom

    Mike you really do have reading comprehension problems. If you have been reading all along, here is my position on promiscuous women and their qualification for a LTR.

    It may shock you, but these types of women might or might not be promiscuous, so that is why one must choose wisely.

    High testosterone woman who normally has a high libido.
    Low self esteem woman who needs validation.
    a normal woman who chooses not to be in a relationship at the present.
    Combinations of the above.

    You even said you could see women at the store and have no idea of their number. My point is, even after meeting them you STILL wouldnt have an idea. Why? Because many pomiscuous women are very normal and undamaged by their sexapades. One could have a good opinion of a woman. She is successful, nice, polite, admired, bright, funny. Then the immature guy (most men with inflated egos) hears her number.. All of a sudden she is no longer the same woman, she is a tramp….VERY logical thinking….LOL…not!
    I am not saying men do not have the right to think what they want. But being a man, I see more value to a woman other than some fun she might have had in the past. If she is this really cool, together woman, she must be the sum of her total experiences, right?

  • Aldonza

    The science clearly shows women are hypergamous and naturally SERIALLY MONOGAMOUS, not polygamous. Women are wired to bond with one man, want one man sexually, and eventually switch to a new guy down the road.

    .
    Sources please? Everything I’ve read supports the notion that women are naturally promiscuous, as Jess mentioned with the latest research on sperm competition. New research supports the idea that even vocalizations during sex are really just a mating call for nearby males to take their turn.
    .
    Personal experience is that I’m pretty happy with one man most of the time. But during ovulation I’ve been known to walk around thinking to myself…”Hey, he has a penis. Hey, I’ll bet that guy has one too! Oooh! Look over there!” It is merely impulse control that keeps me from following any of those ideas.
    .
    Further…there is no such magical notion of “pair-bonding” in woman any more than there is in men. All LTRs take commitment and work, whether with a virgin or slut. A rank beta or super-alpha.

  • Mike C

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Are+Women+Naturally+Monogamous%3F+Asks+%27Women%27s+Infidelity%27+Author…-a0133273597

    Here would be my question. For women who are cheating on husbands/boyfriends, how many are cheating/having an affair with a single man. Not multiple men/penises in a compressed time frame. On the flip side, for men who are cheating, how many are cheating with perhaps multiple different women.
    .
    There is that old expression. Follow the money. It doesn’t lie.
    .
    How big is the market for pornography? For men? For women? How about the strip club market? For men? For women? How about the high-priced escort/call-girl market? For men? For women?

    Again, I think we don’t mean the same thing when we are talking “naturally promiscious”. There is a whole spectrum of behavior outside of “lifelong monogamy”. I don’t think women are biologically hardwired for lifelong monogamy, but I am skeptical of the assertion that they are hardwired to be gangbanged.
    .
    New research supports the idea that even vocalizations during sex are really just a mating call for nearby males to take their turn.

  • Aldonza

    And just curious…is it damaged women who engage in lots of casual sex…or it’s the casual sex that irreparably damages otherwise healthy women?

  • tom

    Aldonza, please dont confuse them..lol

  • Mike C

    Aldonza,

    One more thought for consideration in terms of what is “natural”.
    .
    Take gay men and lesbians. Gay men are gay but they are MEN. Obviously, lesbians are women. So simple logic would dictate that examining the typical sexual behavior of gay men would point in the direction of what men are “naturallly” disposed to, and examining the typical sexual behavior of lesbians would point in the direction of what women are “naturally” disposed to.
    .
    This is a good alternative sample to examine, because you are examining the same sex with simply a different sexual preference.
    .
    What conclusion would that point to?

  • Mike C

    And just curious…is it damaged women who engage in lots of casual sex…or it’s the casual sex that irreparably damages otherwise healthy women?
    .
    I’m assuming you are being sarcastic here, but I’ll treat it as a serious question.
    .
    First off, I hate the word “damaged” because it creates a caricature of the position. I don’t like the “damaged goods” concept. The more accurate point would be that lots of casual sex ***may***….may…not guaranteee…a woman with some negative personality characteristics such as self-esteem issues or predilection to cheat.
    .
    In any case, I think it could work either way. As Tom did point out, and I agree low-self esteem women with Daddy issues could engage in a lot of casual sex to try and deal with that. In that case, the problems lead to the casual sex.
    .
    On the flip side, take a 6-7 swinging way out of her weight class who gets serially pumped and dumped and never learns. Those experiences may make her cynical, jaded, guarded, skeptical, and less giving all because she has been burned so many times. In that case the casual sex leads to the personality issues.
    .
    All that said, I have no doubt many women can have plenty of casual sex and be completely well-adjusted, and be acting strictly out of pleasure and sexual desire and not any negative personality traits. Still, a wise guy in today’s society has to weigh her future infidelity risk as the behavior shows that pleasure supersedes impulse control.

  • Jess

    I suppose mike has been around here for too long to suppose he is a troll but the latest posts do cause one to wonder.
    .
    I few things about female sexuality world wide:
    Male strip routines are massive in the uk and have proven recession proof
    Male escort workers have been established in australia for decades and the US series ‘hung’ portrays male escorts in the USA.
    The vast majority of sex aids are bought by women in USA and uk
    Female oriented porn has exploded including female directors (source my friends!- honest)
    Let’s indeed look at the gay scene. It’s true that the male scene is highly promiscuous but so is the female one! It may not be AS promiscious but it’s still pretty full on.
    Don’t forget women are conditioned from birth which would explain differences there anyway.

  • Abbot

    “is it damaged women who engage in lots of casual sex…or it’s the casual sex that irreparably damages otherwise healthy women?”
    .
    I do not know what the damage implies. But if a man from the outset prefers random fun sex not be a big part of his woman’s past then he needs to look for the markers to reduce the probability although there are never assurances of course. When he is ready to not be out for sex any longer, he should switch to a different profile of woman that does not include tattoos, smoking, swearing, a college degree, immodest clothing, non-ear piercings. It may be best to stick with woman who are shy, has always held strong convictions, religious-leaning, demur, deferential…well like the super majority of women on Earth.
    .
    So its not a damaged woman who has a higher probability of engaging in lots of casual sex. It is probably a character type or a certain personality and peer pressure could be thrown in the mix, depending on the culture she comes from. That is why its is more important to select among the right group rather than ask questions about her past. If there is a need to ask, you are fishing from the wrong place, as it were.

  • Aldonza

    How big is the market for pornography? For men? For women? How about the strip club market? For men? For women? How about the high-priced escort/call-girl market? For men? For women?

    .
    Actually, women are growing as a proportion of porn buyers. They may not be as high as men for the simple reason that most porn is aimed at men. And women don’t pay for sex for the simple reason that they don’t have to. A promiscuous woman has to merely post a message on Craigslist or any sex-site to have her pick of casual partners.
    .
    Be careful that you’re not mistaking women submitting to cultural pressures with natural inclinations. I submit as my counterpoint that women are promiscuous…this blog which attempts to persuade young women to be less casual about their sexual encounters.

  • Aldonza

    On the flip side, take a 6-7 swinging way out of her weight class who gets serially pumped and dumped and never learns. Those experiences may make her cynical, jaded, guarded, skeptical, and less giving all because she has been burned so many times. In that case the casual sex leads to the personality issues.

    .
    I don’t think it’s the NSA one-nighters that make a woman cynical and jaded. It’s the pseudo-relationships and game-playing that some guys do to keep easy sex accessible that can do a number on a woman. I’d argue that a woman might be emotionally better off admitting that she just wants sex, getting it on her terms and walking away than she would by convincing herself of relationships that don’t exist and never will in order to justify having sex.

  • Abbot

    “A promiscuous woman has to merely post a message on Craigslist or any sex-site to have her pick of casual partners.”
    .
    What a great concept. Man gets to screw with no investment and add another woman to his no-marry list. All that is needed is for men to share their lists on a website.

  • Mike C

    Actually, women are growing as a proportion of porn buyers.
    .
    You are correct, but the percentages aren’t even in the same galaxies. My question would be what “drive” is creating that massive differential.
    .
    They may not be as high as men for the simple reason that most porn is aimed at men.
    .
    So you are saying that porn “aimed at women” would result in the same magnitude of sales? In business, you could have two different strategies, create the product and then use marketing “to create the need” or create the product to fulfill some previously unfulfilled need. Perhaps you are right, but I am skeptical that the right “type of porn” would fulfill some previously unfulfilled female drive. Actually, we already have that. They are called romance novels. What is the template for the typical romance novel? Is it one ravishing, dominant hunk or is it multiple men taking their turn?
    .
    And women don’t pay for sex for the simple reason that they don’t have to. A promiscuous woman has to merely post a message on Craigslist or any sex-site to have her pick of casual partners.
    .
    True enough. But if the drives were naturally similar, you’d think you see and hear about a robust market for 20-30 year old hunks to service older women, but you don’t. I don’t feel like going digging right now, but I suspect the market for male prostitutes for gay men is way bigger then women. That said, perhaps, this speaks more to the visual attractiveness angle then difference in preference for promiscuity.
    .
    Be careful that you’re not mistaking women submitting to cultural pressures with natural inclinations. I submit as my counterpoint that women are promiscuous…this blog which attempts to persuade young women to be less casual about their sexual encounters.
    .
    Perhaps. Could be. But Susan herself has said she thinks it is around 20%, and as I noted it was much less in the late 80s/early 90s. I would actually argue the exact opposite may be the case, that cultural pressures may be in fact increasing female promiscuity as it was the late 90s that really saw the hypersexualization of teen girls (Britney Spears/Christina Aguilera) and the whole Sex in the City effect.
    .
    Additionally, and again Susan could confirm or disconfirm this, but I believe she has indicated many young women are disatisfied, depressed, and unhappy about the current state of affairs. In other words, the higher casual promiscuous sex rate with multiple males is not being driven by some core biological drive that has been suppressed for ages and suddenly set free, but more likely due to extraneous factors such as competition for the top alpha males.
    .
    Anyways, good points, and you may be right on some of it. Complex issues. Some of the women commenters would do well to study your comments and Susan’s on how to actually construct a logical argument.

  • terre

    I’m not really sure how Jess and others can argue against the evidence that promiscuous women make extremely poor bets for marriage. They may or may not be “screwed up” — who isn’t, after all — but it does reflect the negative qualities I mentioned before: namely choosiness, perfectionism, irrational idealism and a preference for buying something new rather than repairing the old model. Studies on promiscuous women who go on to marry would appear to strongly corroborate such an assessment.

  • terre

    It’s also worth noting that marriage is not a trivial concern for any man today. I was naive when I was younger (I’m 21 now) and I did think of marriage to the right girl, but it sure as hell wouldn’t even be on my radar now. I’ve no intention to enter some bond of modern serfdom.

  • Abbot

    True, the promiscuous may or not be a good bet. Why chance it. Its sooo easy to avoid these women if you’re not a lazy guy and take some initiative. These women represent such a small minority – but they are so vocal that there numbers seem larger. Dont be fooled.

  • terre

    And again, the biological origin behind male jealousy (and hence the alleged double standard) is so obvious I don’t know how many times it bears repeating, or if slut champions just prefer to ignore it. Women are rarely, if ever, in doubt about the provenance of their offspring. Men have absolutely no guarantee bar placing a woman under 24/7 guard, hence the traditional institutions which amount to a less intense version of exactly that. It may not be pleasant, and it may conflict with a woman’s wishes, but that’s just how things are. The animal kingdom is seldom kind.

  • terre

    “Its sooo easy to avoid these women if you’re not a lazy guy and take some initiative.”

    As I’ve said before, a lot of girls believe they’re capable of fooling their partners so that they never think of her as anything but chaste. I don’t doubt the female capacity for Machiavellian operations, but I do think they possibly overestimate their practical effectiveness. There are countless dozens of cues, many or even most of which are non-verbal, that tell a man just what kind of girl he’s dealing with. Roissy fatuously mentioned some in one of his posts (the more subtle yet more potent ones are not as shocking and make for less blog-worthy material). Even should a girl try and “pretend” or “disguise” her past, it has a way of coming out, and often in short time.

  • Aldonza

    I’m not really sure how Jess and others can argue against the evidence that promiscuous women make extremely poor bets for marriage.

    .
    Honestly, I don’t know whether or not promiscuous women make bad marriage bets. The “evidence” I’ve seen posted here and other places has been less than overwhelming and the “studies” (if you can even call them that) are rife with inconsistencies, poor design and lack of oversight. Further, there are other studies out there with contradictory data, including one I’ve cited here where the happiest couples seem to be between partner-number parity couples. That is, sluts with alphas and prudes with betas.
    .
    I’d also never argue that men prefer women with lower numbers. They do. All things being equal, most men prefer lower partner numbers. But this is only *one* factor in choosing a mate. Not even the top factor for most men. This is why hot sluts still do pretty well even in the marriage market, while fat/ugly prudes end up cat ladies far more often than sluts.

  • terre

    Anyone who also believes promiscuous women are likely to change to some kind of paragon of moral virtue ought to read a bit of this thread.

    http://www.secretsocietyofwomen.com/secrets/sex/forum/topic/christmas-party-secret%E2%80%A6/?topic_page=1&num=15

  • Sox

    I’d argue that a woman might be emotionally better off admitting that she just wants sex, getting it on her terms and walking away than she would by convincing herself of relationships that don’t exist and never will in order to justify having sex.
    Oh, so these women don’t actually want relationships, they are just pressured by society to, and that’s what causes their feelings? Apologies if I’m misinterpreting, but I just don’t buy it. I’ve tried the FwB thing with quite a few women now, and even when they go into it willingly saying it’s just about sex they’ve without fail developed feelings. I’m not saying this is a universal thing, but widely observable. I’ve seen it play out the same way again and again with my friends. The more self-aware, balanced female friends of mine have been honest about this as truth, it’s the deluded ones that seem to claim otherwise. I’m not a moron, I can pick a deluded, damaged girl out by talking to her.
    .
    No, women aren’t the same as men sexually. When a woman wants to have sex with me, I generally don’t worry about her not calling me back or losing interest. I don’t believe it’s society making her continue to want me. That’s why women are often projecting when they think sex—>feelings—>commitment. It just doesn’t work that way for men.
    .
    And wtf? A growing porn market for women? OMG! The chains are finally being lifted! Give me a break, the smugness coming from some of you is nothing short of ridonculus. Women aren’t as visual as men. They aren’t turned on by watching sex as much as men are.
    .
    A women currently engaged in promiscuity is not attractive to a man in the present past a lay. A woman who WAS promiscuous becomes less attractive as a long-term partner. A promiscuous man is an entirely different story. How is this even up for debate? Why are the female posters consistently ignoring female mating preferences?
    .
    Oh, and the girls that can and do detach themselves from sex regularly? NO THANKS. That’s not a healthy girl, it’s a girl with HUGE issues. It’s more often than not a girl who admits to not being able to going more than a week without sex. A girl who NEEDS that. A girl who gets wasted regularly to facilitate said encounters. I don’t need to get sloshed to have sex. Most promiscuous girls do. You can claim otherwise how you want, I’ve been in the field, and I’ve seen it. There are shades of gray, but I’ll only tolerate so much of that gray in a potential life partner.
    .
    P.S. – tom’s clearly a woman. Susan, have you cross-referenced “his” IP? :)

  • Aldonza

    Anyone who also believes promiscuous women are likely to change to some kind of paragon of moral virtue ought to read a bit of this thread.

    http://www.secretsocietyofwomen.com/secrets/sex/forum/topic/christmas-party-secret%E2%80%A6/?topic_page=1&num=15

    .
    Anecdotes, while more emotionally compelling, are not a substitute for data.

  • terre

    That’s quite rich coming from someone who’s posted nothing but anecdotes and disparaged data because a poor study is somehow inferior to vignettes from the life of an urban professional.

  • djb

    I don’t know what a woman’s natural tendencies are, however, they do seem to eventually prefer maximum investment from men. Marriage, which under the patriarchal system is meant to maximize male parental investment, has been undermined by large amounts of available casual sex. Thus, women live in an environment where men seek to minimize investment while acquiring easy sex for large portions of a woman’s prime productive years. I cannot believe this is what women want. Feminism, which taught women to maximize their sexual autonomy, thus comes at a cost. I think this is at the root of the “numbers” debate. Male investment is predicated upon the scarcity principle. The exchange is simple in traditional societies: the women exchanges free access to sex to one man for his material and familial investment. Society puts all kinds of restrictions on out-of-wedlock sex among eligible partners and pushes extramarital sex to the ineligible, mostly prostitutes. Its not elegant, but it works to ensure male parental investment. For women, the scarce resource appears to be male emotional investment. This is the case in all matriarchal societies. Biologically aware that a child from any union will be genetically hers, her greatest fear is that she would be abandoned. Humans operate on this “instinct” even if we rationalize it away. This, combined with natural hypergamy, leads most women to discount the number of partners, and focus on “love,” the emotional indicator of investment. Men and women will never see eye-to-eye on this. The more partners, the less scarce access becomes, the less worthy of his investment.

  • Aldonza

    Oh, so these women don’t actually want relationships, they are just pressured by society to, and that’s what causes their feelings? Apologies if I’m misinterpreting, but I just don’t buy it. I’ve tried the FwB thing with quite a few women now, and even when they go into it willingly saying it’s just about sex they’ve without fail developed feelings. I’m not saying this is a universal thing, but widely observable. I’ve seen it play out the same way again and again with my friends. The more self-aware, balanced female friends of mine have been honest about this as truth, it’s the deluded ones that seem to claim otherwise. I’m not a moron, I can pick a deluded, damaged girl out by talking to her.

    .
    And I’ve known plenty of women who have successfully done FWB or had men fall for them. Personal experience, while interesting, proves little more than people believe what they see.
    .

    No, women aren’t the same as men sexually. When a woman wants to have sex with me, I generally don’t worry about her not calling me back or losing interest. I don’t believe it’s society making her continue to want me. That’s why women are often projecting when they think sex—>feelings—>commitment. It just doesn’t work that way for men.

    .
    A lot of women do delude themselves about the sex->feelings->commitment thing. They also mistake sexual interest for emotional interest. A smart woman learns the difference. But most women don’t analyze it like that. The meet a man they like, sleep with him, and hope for more, usually in vain. Just like most men don’t analyze it when a beautiful woman is giving him attention for reasons other than her genuine interest in him as a person.
    .
    <blockquote.And wtf? A growing porn market for women? OMG! The chains are finally being lifted! Give me a break, the smugness coming from some of you is nothing short of ridonculus. Women aren’t as visual as men. They aren’t turned on by watching sex as much as men are.

    Nielson has it at 1 in 3 porn viewers online are women.
    http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-24/living/o.women.watching.porn_1_arousal-candida-royalle-explicit-sexual-imagery?_s=PM:LIVING
    .
    And…turns out woman are pretty visual in what turns them on. When studies *asked* how turned on women were by porn, they answered differently than when devices actually measured their physical arousal.
    .
    “Or, better, it depends. In his landmark interview studies in the 1940s and ’50s, conducted with nearly 17,000 men and women, Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues found that 54 percent of men and only 12 percent of women reported being erotically aroused by seeing photographs, drawings, or paintings of nude people. Kinsey also found that during masturbation, men tend to fantasize visually while women generally don’t do so. This does not mean, however, that porn does not elicit sexual arousal in women. Laboratory studies have shown that women almost invariantly show physical signs of sexual excitement to porn movies, as indicated by increased vaginal blood flow. Interestingly, this can happen even when women don’t like the movies or when they experience negative emotions such as disgust or anger. And studies have also shown that women show stronger physical sexual responses to porn than to more romantic erotic stimuli. ”
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/special/why.html
    .

    A women currently engaged in promiscuity is not attractive to a man in the present past a lay. A woman who WAS promiscuous becomes less attractive as a long-term partner. A promiscuous man is an entirely different story. How is this even up for debate? Why are the female posters consistently ignoring female mating preferences?

    .
    Women don’t necessarily want a promiscuous man. Women want a man who has other options but chooses not to exercise them in favor of her. She settles for a promiscuous alpha man…just like men settle for sluts if they’re hot enough.
    .

    Oh, and the girls that can and do detach themselves from sex regularly? NO THANKS. That’s not a healthy girl, it’s a girl with HUGE issues. It’s more often than not a girl who admits to not being able to going more than a week without sex. A girl who NEEDS that. A girl who gets wasted regularly to facilitate said encounters. I don’t need to get sloshed to have sex. Most promiscuous girls do. You can claim otherwise how you want, I’ve been in the field, and I’ve seen it. There are shades of gray, but I’ll only tolerate so much of that gray in a potential life partner.

    .
    I heartily agree that if either side regularly needs alcohol to facilitate their encounters, that’s a clue that they aren’t completely comfortable with it. And why would a woman who can detach sex from love automatically have issues? If you ask me, there are enough issues among the women who can’t detach them.

  • terre

    djb, feminism had locked out women from having the power to choose their own partners — as in the ability to have any man at any time. This is why the chronology of marriage was rewritten so that it was some kind of historical slavery; a few of the more astute and mercurial women had desperate inclinations to sleep with the most attractive men, but they were bound by monogamy to serve in marriages that were often more practical than full of fireworks and lust. The emotional drive, the spirit behind feminism, was to crack the restraints on sexuality for both men and women that prevented the latter from access to a select amount of the former. Monogamy has and always will serve children over their parents, but women have a somewhat more acute disgust for it because of their higher value genetic material. It’s the equivalent to harnessing a jaguar.
    .
    Until recent times, the most attractive men of age were quickly taken off the market by marrying the most attractive women, and even by sleeping behind their wives’ backs, they could only service so many other wanting femmes. But feminism, accompanied by technologies that hypercharged the sentiment to strengths way beyond its past efforts (late Rome for instance) sufficed to sell a vision of ceaseless open sex to “men”; at least in the theoretical, it’s possible many women really believed this could come true. Instead, feminism represents the absolute apex of what amount of the female sexual ideal can be put into practice; she cannot get the most attractive man to commit to her alone, but she can prevent him from committing at all. It is a grave mistake to underestimate the power of the female sex drive, and as with the male, it clouds out many other seemingly important or even crucial considerations.

  • terre

    djb, monogamy had locked out*

  • Höllenhund

    I’m kind of surprised you’re having this discussion in the first place. Promiscuous women are viewed by men as worse LTR prospects than non-promiscuous ones because they are more likely to cheat and cuckold and less likely to be emotionally pair-bond with one man. Many women hate this because it means they cannot exactly have it all in life. It’s really that simple.

  • Badger Nation

    Good God, this thread is still going?

  • Jess

    To aldonza,
    Wonderful posts. Entertaining to see these guys fail to respond adequately. And I doff my cap at someone better able to articulate than myself.
    .
    To others,
    .
    Paternity confirmation……. Somebody tried to sneak this in.. It’s bullshit due to DNA tests. Men can now be sure of paternity.
    .
    Porn/sex drive. …. Anyone who has been to a male strip show can attest to aggressive female sexuality. A dash of alcohol can really set some girls free.
    .

  • Jess

    Numbers of girls With modern attitudes……. In the uk 45% of girls go to college. Those that don’t tend to party hard in town centres on fri and sat.
    Most teenage pregnancy is by non college girls.
    According to all our health agencies teen sex and stds are a pandemic.
    .
    I would say that combined about 75% of uk college and non college girls are having frequent sex by the age of 20. I don’t have any medical contacts in the USA so don’t know your figures.
    .
    I would also say that the 25% who don’t is because of religion, appearance or confidence.
    .

  • Abbot

    Interesting. The number of girls with “modern” attitudes. What does that mean? So it is isolated to pockets in the UK and US. Does that leave the rest of the world with women who have “normal” attitudes. It would seem so. Well then, men in the US/UK would be well served with that knowledge. Thanks Jess

  • Jess

    Bitterness accusation………well, who is bitter?. Susan? Me? Aldonza? Miley cyrus?
    .
    I am very happy with the freedoms I enjoyed and was lucky enough not to have awful experiences. I am very grateful to be born in this age. I would have been very bitter if I had been locked in an unhappy union for 30 years. I would not wish that on anyone.
    .
    I can imagine a cat woman (respect to aldonza-great line) being bitter but as it’s been pointed out the ugly/ fat girl is more likely to become one regardless of chastity. .
    .
    Whilst numbers may be a factor they play second fiddle to other qualities.
    .
    ( my partner has just shouted out ‘like a tight ass!’ from the kitchen when I read this out to him-classy)

  • djb

    If I told my new partner that I had fallen in love with 100 women by the time I was 21, I wonder what her response would be? Would she be thinking wow, this man has great LTR potential, or would she be thinking there must be something a little off? It doesn’t mean he would be off the market entirely, but, come on, 100 women? Wouldn’t his love be, then, something a little less valuable? Remember, the fundamental exchange for most men is love for sex. There’s a reason more men watch porns than love RomComs.

  • Jess

    Djb,
    I think you have used a highly extreme example. 100 partners is a lot. To fall in love 100 times? That’s pathological.
    But what if a 30 yo girl has had say, 24 exes over 12 years and been in love say 3 times.
    What if a 40 yo girl has had say 44 exes and been in love 5 times?
    What if this same girl was super hot? And loved you?

  • Mike C

    100 partners is a lot. To fall in love 100 times? That’s pathological.
    .
    But 100 partners would NOT be pathological?
    .
    LOL, it is funny to watch the hamster in action

  • Jess

    Also you make a genralistaion about romcoms. I know men who like them and women who hate them. Its true that woman often Like emotional films. That’s got nothing to do with sex drive. Some men like gear boxes. Doesn’t harm their sex drive either.
    .
    Also people are complex. I like some romcoms if they are well made.
    But other ‘female’ programs I hate:
    .
    Sex and city
    Desperate housewives
    Hung
    Any British copy – there are loads

  • Jess

    Mike c,
    Your obsessing with rodents is charming. I did say 100 by 21 is a lot did I not?
    I assume you would accept that sex and falling in love are usually not the same thing?
    .
    By 21 eh? Let’s assume that he started at 17. So 100 by 4 years is 25 a year or 2 escapades a month on average. For many guys that’s believable. A lot. I would advise a health check but hardly pathological.
    .
    But to actually fall in love twice a month, for 4 years? surely that’s a mental issue?
    .
    You know what mike, my dear, my friends and colleagues singled you out as either sexually inadequate or a wind up merchant and I can’t believe you meant your last post. So I will email a few medical friend and ge tbtheir view

  • Mike C

    I assume you would accept that sex and falling in love are usually not the same thing?
    .
    Yes

    You know what mike, my dear, my friends and colleagues singled you out as either sexually inadequate or a wind up merchant and I can’t believe you meant your last post. So I will email a few medical friend and ge tbtheir view
    .
    LOL. Interesting how you resort to a sort of passive-aggressive insulting. This is typical feminist type tactics which is to move the debate to ad hominem. FWIW, my GF would disagree. :) I have no idea what a “wind up merchant” is. Must be some British slang.

    FWIW, I would absolutely agree that having 100 sex partners is NOT the same as “falling in love” 100 times.

  • Abbot

    Everyone who has posted here has clearly stated that numbers do matter. Now it comes down to leaving people along about the choices they make based on numbers. The only reason people are bothered by what other people decide is because it puts them at some disadvantage. That is true because people act in their self interest.

  • Abbot

    “Many women hate this because it means they cannot exactly have it all in life. It’s really that simple.”
    .
    That seems to be the undercurrent of all that is written about this topic: women who engage in casual sex want it all. As if it is some sort of right. However, repeatedly, it is stated as something that “should be” rather than as something that is simply just wanted. Men “should” have sex with us when we want and those same men “should” marry us despite our behavior. The truthful statement is: We want men to have sex with us when we want and we want those same men to marry us despite our behavior.
    .
    Women do not make the statement that this what they want. If they did, their want could be denied by, gasp, men! If they did, they could be seen as needy, frustrated, immature. If they did, they could be viewed as sex crazed whores. Remember Jaclyn Friedman. So rather than stick their necks out and state what they want and then ask for what they want, they choose to denigrate men as a way to achieve some sort of submission fantasy. Blame men for creating and maintaining the situation. Label men who refuse to acquiesce as hypocrites, weak, unfair, misogynists, insecure and hope that shames them into giving in.

  • Abbot

    “Many women hate this because it means they cannot exactly have it all in life. It’s really that simple.”
    .
    That seems to be the undercurrent of all that is written about this topic: women who engage in casual sex want it all.

  • Abbot

    They want it all as if it is some sort of right. However, repeatedly, it is stated as something that “should be” rather than as something that is simply just wanted. Men “should” have sex with us when we want and those same men “should” marry us despite our behavior. The truthful statement is: We want men to have sex with us when we want and we want those same men to marry us despite our behavior.

  • Abbot

    Women do not make the statement that this what they want. If they did, their want could be denied by, gasp, men! If they did, they could be seen as needy, frustrated, immature. If they did, they could be viewed as sex crazed whores. Remember the martyr Jaclyn Friedman. So rather than stick their necks out and state what they want and then ask for what they want, they choose to denigrate men as a way to achieve some sort of submission fantasy. Blame men for creating and maintaining the situation. Label men who refuse to acquiesce as hypocrites, weak, unfair, misogynists, insecure and hope that shames them into giving in.

  • Abbot

    Women do not make the statement that this what they want. If they did, their want could be denied by, gasp, men! If they did, they could be seen as needy, frustrated, immature. If they did, they could be viewed as sex crazed. Remember the martyr Jaclyn Friedman. So rather than stick their necks out and state what they want and then ask for what they want, they choose to denigrate men as a way to achieve some sort of submission fantasy. Blame men for creating and maintaining the situation. Label men who refuse to acquiesce as hypocrites, weak, unfair, misogynists, insecure and hope that shames them into giving in.

  • Abbot

    This “want it all” attitude regarding sex was hijacked from feminism. But unlike actual legitimate feminist campaigns, this was not about equality in economics or politics; it was about maximizing unequal easy access to physical pleasure and not being held accountable for reducing the rank of husband to the level of other men a woman decides to have sex with.
    .
    But if a man simply decides to avoid promiscuous women, here is the worn out shaming-attempt stump speech you will always hear from insecure nervous angry bitter women and their feminist supporters:
    .
    A man who prefers to not consider or rescue a promiscuous woman for marriage is at the very best an insecure man who cannot handle comparison, or at the very worst a controlling possessive misogynist who felt the need to control his wife’s body and sexuality even before they met. Marriage is a pact for the future, not for the past. The need for loyalty and commitment within the present relationship does not necessitate the ridiculous assumption that you should have a say in the past choices of your significant other. That is simply a sign of possessiveness, insecurity, and a chauvinistic desire for the territorial ownership of women and their bodies.
    .
    Stated another way:
    “Many women hate this because it means they cannot exactly have it all in life. It’s really that simple.”

  • Mike C

    Label men who refuse to acquiesce as hypocrites, weak, unfair, misogynists, insecure and hope that shames them into giving in.
    .
    Absolutely. Study Jess’s comments and see the recurring theme. The vast majority of the comments attempt to poke at some sort of insecurity. That is the male weak spot. Last one, I was “sexually inadequate”.

    Here is the thing with all the shaming nonsense. The ball is in your court AS A MAN whether you choose to allow it to influence you, your behavior, your communication, how you interact. Most men capitulate, they allow themselves to be played like puppets. It is like the Matrix though, “There is no spoon”. Once you clearly demonstrate that you won’t allow yourself to be verbally manipulated and shamed, the jig is up. It is all about frame control.
    .
    One of the things I think is happening, not sure on what scale, but guys are waking up one by one, being unplugged, and realizing much of what they were taught is complete bullshit, and to realize their innate instincts are not wrong. Follow your instincts, and ignore the societal programming. It is always interesting to me to see some of these male commenters who are 20 or 21, or 26 or whatever. It took me until my early to mid 30s to unplug.

  • Abbot

    A plausible reason as to why men are being shamed: because the sex-on-demand women or SOD’s feel that they are being shamed by men. But the men are NOT shaming them. They are getting laid and then merely detouring around them, if they can. The women are personally offended and act like little children because mature men with conviction do have alternatives and are not ashamed to acquire them. Proud hypocrites can’t lose these days.

  • terre

    “Paternity confirmation……. Somebody tried to sneak this in.. It’s bullshit due to DNA tests. Men can now be sure of paternity.”
    .
    First of all, paternity tests are an extremely recent invention, and they’ve been around for comparatively an insignificant sliver of human history. Our hardwired evolutionary instincts do not change over the course of ten or twenty years. Neither you nor aldonza has provided absolutely any empirical evidence to the contrary, while — as with the odds of marrying a harlot — there’s a great deal of empirical evidence to prove that nothing much has changed. We are still effectively governed by animal instincts. If we weren’t, fathers wouldn’t bother risking their lives for their children.
    .
    “But what if a 30 yo girl has had say, 24 exes over 12 years and been in love say 3 times.”
    .
    As I’ve posted before, these thought experiments are almost insane when it comes to their parameters. 24? In 12 years? She had sex without love with 21 people, and there was an average of two per year? Exactly what does “love” mean to such a creature?

  • terre

    “I am very happy with the freedoms I enjoyed and was lucky enough not to have awful experiences. I am very grateful to be born in this age. I would have been very bitter if I had been locked in an unhappy union for 30 years.
    .
    Readers would do well to pay extremely close attention to Jess’ justifications and compare them with my post on feminism.

  • Höllenhund

    ” It’s bullshit due to DNA tests. Men can now be sure of paternity.”

    That’s completely beside the point, Jess. A married man in the US has no legal protection from his wife whatsoever if she cuckolds him. If he files for divorce, he will lose custody, his wealth and can easily be forced to pay child support for a kid that provably isn’t his. What kind of idiot would sign up for something like that?

  • Höllenhund

    “Wonderful posts. Entertaining to see these guys fail to respond adequately.”

    ROFL! Dream on, Jess.

  • Jess

    Terre,
    I’m sorry but you are mistaken. DNA tests have been around for nearly 20 years.
    We are talking about contemporary society are we not.
    And you can’t argue the ancient biology on this:
    According to many, men have a desire to spread their seed.
    This is a calling from 40,000 years plus
    Ie before child support was invented.

    So the ‘fear of cuckolding’ has to be a modern-ish issue no?

    In any case I spoke to a family lawyer last month on this.
    Whilst there are grey areas in different countries and different states, if a guy defaults on a support payment and it’s then proved he is not the father then it’s nigh on impossible for a court to force him to pay. (although compensation or fraud claims are unlikely to ever work out)
    Instead they have to force the mom to tell the court the identity of the real father or the state pays.
    If a guy is worried about false paternity just do a hair DNA test in the 1st month.
    So issue dealt with chaps.

  • Jess

    To Abbott et al,
    Despite the accusations of anger and vitriol you and others aim at the sex positive fems, I can only see anger from the guys here. ( well at least in this thread anyhow).
    I just don’t see women complaining as such. There are plenty of attractive guys who don’t appear to care about this ( very much).
    It is perhaps true that women want their cake and to eat it to….
    But dont guys want that? …. A bit of fun and then a family?
    .
    Personally I would not like to have an LTR with a virgin guy. They might not know themselves or even their true preferences. But if a man does want to have an LTR with a virgin then fine. Each to thier own.
    .
    But if you call humans ‘creatures’ or ‘ whores’ or ‘ slags’ etc expect others to call you few names back.
    .
    And on such a holier than thou note may I wish everyone a merry christmas and a happy new year. X.

  • terre

    It’s also worth noting that paternity means nothing in a divorce court. As Hollenhund said, you can indeed end up paying child support for a child that isn’t yours. It’s probably not terribly common, but that’s only as things stand, and as with marrying loose women, I’d rather opt out than take the bet, thanks.

  • Jess

    2 consecutive posts have vanished. They were accepted for a while.

  • tom

    @ mike…………..You are correct, but the percentages aren’t even in the same galaxies. My question would be what “drive” is creating that massive differential.

    Not true, women are seen as the new costomer..

    http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/women_&_porn.htm
    .

  • Höllenhund

    Well, post them again then, Jess. I’m sure you remember what you wrote.

  • Jess

    Tbh H I’m not too sure I can recall them. They were both medium sized posts.
    I’d rather not bother till I know they will be saved safely. I’m sure Susan will sort it out after the holiday break.
    J x

  • tom

    Happy New Year to all.

    Here is my take on this subject.

    We all know many men out there look down on an “experienced” woman. They want nothing to do with her as far as a long term relationship goes. Many would still have a one nighter with her, which is sooo hypocritical, in my opinion.
    We also know there are men who do not judge a woman because of her past, as long as she is a good person today. Some people are enlightened enough to understand there are many paths people take and experience to find themselves.
    We also know there are many reasons, both men and women experience and enjoy variety.Like wise there are many reasons why they want to give up being single and settle down.
    My take is the attitude many men have towards promiscuous women is mostly social conditioning. They compare a living, breathing, generally good person to funiture. (It`s been used, therefore it is no longer worthy)
    If these men examined their attitude, they would find it seeded in insecurity. They are insecure as to their ability to hold on to such a woman, they are insecure as to the health of the woman, they are insecure as to her knowledge of other men and how “I” might compare to the others. Self-confidence is lacking in this holier- than- thou attitude, and testing is the answer to the health question.
    Someone earlier posted a comment that went something like this,” why would a woman who has been with 25 men want to project that type of jealously on a new man.” LOL , I rest my case.

  • Abbot

    You are right Jess:
    “But dont guys want that? …. A bit of fun and then a family?”
    .
    But I see, from just reading this site, that is not where the discomfort comes from. Its from the fact that, as shown by many stats in the web, that women have on average more sex mates then men do. So her “bit” is not a bit at all. Plus as proven over and over, a man’s bit of fun is not so much fun as it takes much effort and he therefore places value on what takes effort. If she had her fun with sex, then what is supposed to do with now? The man settles down because it was not so much fun…the woman, well because she cant attract that fun anymore. So if your speaking of equality, well it is not equal and comparing to men is misleading. Comparing to men is a cheap shot and baseless. Men are justified to see woman differently than they see themselves, in the West anyway.

  • tom

    @ abbot.

    Even if a man has to work a little harder at getting laid, they succeed just about as often as women. This “value” you speak of is total BS. There is a lot more to a person than the number of times they get laid or how easy it was to do so…. That is a pretty shallow premise.
    You said,
    ” a man’s bit of fun is not so much fun as it takes much effort and he therefore places value on what takes effort. LOL @ that BS. There are many women who will make it easy for a man to get laid. Men do not hold the only ,”willingness to get you laid card.”
    I just cant get over the hypoctitical attitude of people of my own gender. Honestly, it is ok for a man to go out and get laid over and over, but not ok for a woman? LOL ..Quit being sheeple and start thinking for yourself.
    There are a lot of wonderful women out there who, for one reason or another, has had a lot of sex with different guys. Now, they are to be judged by the holier- than- thou club who do the exact same thing…..
    We live in modern times, in a modern society. Rational thinking men are not out trying to ,”spread their seed” or are too worried about whether or not they are the father of a child. There are tests for that situation. It really boils down to men, not accepting women as sexual beings too and then making excuses to cover their own insecurities.

  • tom

    @ abbot

    you said, “If she had her fun with sex, then what is supposed to do with now? The man settles down because it was not so much fun…the woman, well because she cant attract that fun anymore.”

    Where do you get this garbage?.. A woman has fun with sex, and that means she will not have fun pleasurable sex with her significant other????

    A man settles down because going out and finding a sex partner isnt fun anymore, but a woman stops because she can not attract that fun anymore????

    How about they both tired of the single life, and want something more in their life and are ready to commit to one person.

  • Abbot

    “it is ok for a man to go out and get laid over and over, but not ok for a woman?”
    .
    It is ok for a man or a woman, of course. I do not see on this site anyone stating it is no ok. Thats just silly. People can do what they want.
    .
    And if men or women are not comfortable with someone who did, for whatever reason they are not comfortable, why is it ok to denigrate them or shame them or accuse them of being something they may or may not be?
    .
    If a person is rejected for something they did in the past – well, that harms no one. There is no crime, there is no detriment to society, there is no damage. So again, why is the name calling used over and over? Can it now stop please? Is that ok? Let people make their decisions in peace no matter what reasons you assume they make them for.

  • tom

    @ abbot

    you said,

    “it is ok for a man to go out and get laid over and over, but not ok for a woman?”
    .
    It is ok for a man or a woman, of course. I do not see on this site anyone stating it is no ok. Thats just silly. People can do what they want.
    .
    _________________________

    According to the majority of men here, it is NOT ok for women to sleep around if the women want to settle down with them for a long term relationship.
    All I have done is point out the reasons behind that attitude, and the excuses men make to avoid an experienced woman. I am not saying men do not have that choice, obviously they do, no matter how shallow the decision leading to that choice may be.

  • Abbot

    Correct – it is not ok for them PERSONALLY and only in the case of settling down. The reason behind it are speculative unless of course you have a personal conversation with someone and they tell you about their reasoning and even then it should not be projected on men as a group. Short of that it is generalization and stereotype.
    .
    It seems that women do not like that men have this choice. I do not know why. My read on Jaclyn Friedman is that she does not like it too. There is something more to this than a man making a quiet..harmless…inconsequential…personal choice. There is something bugging theses folks about it and that is why name calling is resorted too.

  • tom

    It is the old double standard that drives women crazy. Men can sleep around and that is somehow ok and they EXPECT women to forgive their past and settle down with them anyway.

    However if a woman does the same thing, they are no longer LTR material.

    There ARE some women who will judge a man because of his past, it is just a small minority. However men are much more quick to judge. I guess women would rather judge a man on his qualities that make him a good person, where some mens egos get in the way of their judgement. They cant get past the sex thing and see the true qualities of that woman.

  • Abbot

    It probably only drives a certain group of women crazy. I suppose its because they have a good reason to feel that way. I wonder what that reason is.

  • terre

    “Men can sleep around and that is somehow ok and they EXPECT women to forgive their past and settle down with them anyway.”
    .
    Who? I’ve never even met a girl who’s cared that I’m promiscuous. If anything, it makes them keener.

  • tom

    @ terre
    Who? I’ve never even met a girl who’s cared that I’m promiscuous. If anything, it makes them keener.

    Their egos do not get in the way, I guess they are better men than most of the men here…lol

    They judge you on you and not something so unimportant as sex.

  • Abbot

    Maybe its so unimportant to them because its so easy to get so in their mind, its no big deal, just like shaking hands. And therefore they assume it should be no big deal in the man’s mind too. But really, how others think should be respected – not denigrated.

  • tom

    Sorry I dont respect people who will judge people based on emotion and not logic. I am not saying if a guy doesnt want to be with an experienced woman for a longterm he can not. I am just bringing to light the reasons many men feel this way.

    This is being discussed on Answerology.com, and trust me, the men there have a completely different attitude than the men here. Most admit it is an ego problem, nothing more in the vast majority of cases.

  • Abbot

    It seems that everything regarding feelings of attachment is not based on logic. At least for humans. And as I said for more than once, none of this is a problem. But if it is a problem, It has not been explained what the problem is.

  • terre

    “Their egos do not get in the way, I guess they are better men than most of the men here…lol
    They judge you on you and not something so unimportant as sex.”
    .
    You’re not really listening to what I’m saying. They are judging me on it; it’s just that they’re judging me favorably.

  • tom

    @ terre

    No I got what you were saying. They like that you are experienced.
    However, they are ignoring the negative aspect of sexual experience, because they know there are more important things to judge a person for. I doubt they like you ONLY because you are sexually experienced, but there are men who still judge a women badly for her experience.

  • Abbot

    …and therefore they expect you to judge them favorably as well, or neutral at best. If not, well that drives them crazy. Based on logic? None of this has a logic basis.
    .
    The woman is respected for her view. The man should be respected for his. This is some logic but not the case.

  • Abbot

    Is there a negative aspect of sexual experience that requires ignoring? Maybe ignoring is the way to go.

  • Mike C

    They like that you are experienced.

    Nope. Fail. Do not pass go.

    It is the preselection effect, not some conscious analysis that the guy brings “experience” to the table. Any guy who has studied Game is well aware of the preselection effect.

    “Tom”, when are you finally going to come out. It is almost getting silly. I’m not the only guy who has noticed.

  • Abbot

    mmmm…. a man does not have an expectation that a woman needs to consider forgiving his past. Women do not know that he has no such expectation. So what man would state that men do have this expectation?

  • tom

    Mike when are you going to get on your knees and ………me

    Just because I am not an insecue macho man like you mike, doesnt make me any less “a man” I understand there is more to a woman than how many people she has slept with. Unlike your immature , insecure rear. Men like you hide their opinions behind biology and million year old actions.

    Forget religious upbringings, personal experience, social conditioning and tramatic happenings.
    Its all about science and people can not help themselves.. All BS sir.

    truth be known the biggest morons are the guys, after charishing their woman for years, finally asks the question about her number, and then feaks out because she is now a slut in his eyes.
    Only the smart guys who have self confidense are aware that a good woman is a good woman, no matter her past.
    It is the insecure that fear these women of experience. period. I can share with you other forums where my opinion is the norm, and the men there are not the judgemental ,insecure, hypoctritical, misinformed, puratanical jerks we have seen here in this forum.
    Mike you are so full of BS it must be oosing from your ears. I would love fo you to “call me out” in person, you`d be chitting a brick, you computer screen tough guy.

  • terre

    “It is the insecure that fear these women of experience. period. I can share with you other forums where my opinion is the norm, and the men there are not the judgemental ,insecure, hypoctritical, misinformed, puratanical jerks we have seen here in this forum.”
    .
    I can share with you forums where adult human beings dress in diapers and act like babies for sexual pleasure. What difference does it make?

  • Abbot

    Since this defined group of so-called “women of experience” are seemingly not disadvantaged or unable to achieve their life goals in any way whatsoever due to the existence of so-called “fearful, judgemental ,insecure, hypoctritical, misinformed, puratanical jerks” then, once again:
    .
    What is the problem????

  • Jess

    I can’t speak for all women but I actually don’t think there is a huge problem with this.
    .
    Obviously this blog indicates some people think there are problems.
    .
    To anyone, of either gender or persuasion, go and use a dating site, brush your teeth, be yourself, don’t be too choosy whilst still being sure you fancy and like someone.
    .
    There is somebody for everyone.

  • Abbot

    I cannot imagine there is any problem. So why is there so much denigration language aimed at men who choose wives outside the small group who are happily promiscuous?

  • Mike C

    truth be known the biggest morons are the guys, after charishing their woman for years, finally asks the question about her number, and then feaks out because she is now a slut in his eyes.
    Only the smart guys who have self confidense are aware that a good woman is a good woman, no matter her past.

    .
    “Tom”, I understand that you are upset about the guy who rejected you and freaked out about your number despite you being a good woman. Don’t worry, I’m sure there is a good guy out there who won’t have an issue with it.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Mike C
    I think you’re right about this, and it actually kind of breaks my heart. I think there are many women in this position, feeling like no one ever told them it would be a problem. The feminists said there was no more double standard, and readily dismiss any man who has a problem with that. A woman with a history of promiscuity can either:
    1. Take refuge in the feminist community, which doesn’t warm the bed at night
    2. Lie about her number
    3. Search for a man who doesn’t mind
    .
    It’s a tough row to hoe.

  • Jess

    I think you have it the wrong way around.
    Women would mind their own business but they feel compelled to respond if called names or criticised.
    .
    So if for example Susan created a thread called ‘Ginger people are evil’ I suppose many people would argue against her. Ginger people included.
    .
    Don’t forget people often have strong convictions about fairness and equality and acceptance.
    Did you know only a fraction of the worlds female population have equal rights to their male peers?
    Now if that was the other way around, as a man, how do you think you would feel?

  • Mike C

    There is option 4 as well which is a guy who “sorta minds” but get deal with and accept it. As I said earlier in this thread, I don’t think it is a dealbreaker issue.
    .
    To use an extreme example, take a 9-10 in looks with a sweet/pleasant demeanor who has a lot of common interests and is a great cook, but just so happens to have banged 50 guys. A guy might have to do some inner mental wrenching, but be able to work through it, especially if he can believe she’ll be sexually faithful.
    .
    So it isn’t the “end of the world” in terms of being able to land a guy for a LTR. It just isn’t binary. All else being equal though, it is value reducing.

  • Abbot

    And only a fraction of the world’s female population is promiscuous. Men are merely acting on their feelings and their awareness of available options when avoiding them and that has nothing to so with equal rights. Acceptance yes, and that perhaps is the crux of all the negative reaction. Most men in the world refuse to accept but there are enough who do so that the the promiscuous fraction can find someone.

  • tom

    Mike it is value reducing in YOUR eyes and other insecure men like you…

    LOL @ you thinking I am a woman….You want my email? I will then send you my facebook. you will see there is nothing lady like about me.

    Susan you are blowing this “problem” way out of proportion. Men are much more accepting of womens sexuallity than they used to be. Even mike admits it may not be a deal breaker.. There is hope for the world.

    I am not saying all promiscous woman are good relationship material, just as not all virgins are good relationship material. And certainly not all men promiscous or not are good relationship material.

    There are players in both genders. I`d like to hear the biological reasons for players. I guess they just have the primal urge to “spread” their seed…lol

  • terre

    “There are players in both genders. I`d like to hear the biological reasons for players. I guess they just have the primal urge to “spread” their seed…lol”
    .
    You do realize that for every extra seed a player spreads, there was a woman who willingly took it, right?

  • tom

    yes good point, and shame on them both…lol

  • Pat

    How many sexual partners in the same night qualify a woman as a slut? I know a woman who boasts of routinely screwing 3 guys, sometimes more in a night, usually in the ladies room of the night club she frequents. She also states, matter of factly, that she’s screwed upwards of 350 guys. She’s 24.

  • torn

    There is some really great stuff on here. Please let me contribute a little about the DOUBLE STANDARD. I had a very rocky relationship which ended last week. One topic we discussed in detail was the “double standard” which my gf used to justify her promiscuity. She was raised in a very conservative home and by all means, should know that her prom would/could have neg impacts for her.

    My interpretation of the double standard is that men and women are wired differently biologically, obvious enough? Men are more likely to sleep with anyone and everyone they can, NOT that this is a good thing or makes it healthy. Women are generally more likely to resist casual sex advances for other reasons i will not get into yet. WHEN a woman really enjoys casual sex or goes after it, she can easily achieve it. This can be easily shown by walking into any bar or singles joint across the country and finding far more men than women present. Look on craigs list. You will likely find 20-25 males adds for every female add. A man probably cannot go out and get laid on a boring monday night. A woman probably can. Take that as you will, but to impose a “single standard” is to stereotype further and deny the truth of what many others have said here.

  • torn

    As to my situation. I have baggage froma relationship about 3 years ago that really tore me up. I was dating a girl who was using the web to hook up all the time. The more i got to know her, the more i realized she had some real emotional issues. She lied about nearly everything to me.

    Enter rjp last summer. On our first date, i let out what i was after: a best friend who was honest. I told her about my baggage and how honesty and integrity were very important for me. rjp went out and had a one night stand the following weekend. She is 36. Well we hit it off and i really fell for her. I asked her the # question, because it was important for me to never repeat my previous mistake. She lied to me about it and i found out about the ONS and that she had been very promiscuous, many 3-soms, lots of cocaine, and things such as walking into a party and having a 3-som with strange guys (says that only happened once). I found out that she had sex with 3 other guys in the month prior to having sex with me (on our 2nd date). Hear the bell going off? Unfortunately, she really liked me and was lying to me until i was in too deep to be more objective and healthy about the realtionship.

    Long of the short, she really did love me and i sure fell for her but i was still getting over her actions. SHe lied to me about many things and tells me she has had sex with only 32 other men. Can i believe that after the other lies? When i know she had sex with 4 guys in a month, can she have only slept with 32 guys? These questions are tough, and i was working through them, trying to see the future and not the past. Unfortunately, the grief of all this was too fresh when yet another lie popped up. I lost my temper and called her a “lying slut”. I shouted it. I lost my head entirely and that really hurt her.

    For you ladies out there: past behavior predicts future behavior. That simple. People can change, but only a few do.

    I really do love her and all of the other goals in life are perfect. I hope she can work past the painful truth i yelled at her and forgive me. Should i keep trying on this woman or is it time to move on in a world that is hard and lonely?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @torn
      Only 32 other guys? Are you being serious right now? Do you understand that that puts her in the most promiscuous 1% of women in America? I say run, don’t walk away from this woman. She has displayed her poor character many times over with her lying. A world in which you are single has got to be better than being with a woman like this. You can surely do better than this.

  • Tom

    I`d rather be lonely than to be worrying all the time about my partners fidelity and honestly…But that is just me.

  • Abbot

    Torn, what you’ve described is a woman who took advantage of easy low hanging fruit pleasure…only because she could and she lives in a culture that does not consider the male opinion about such matters. Although it involves men. And then she wants a man. Its an irony in the extreme. Its an American nightmare, not a dream and paints the view of American women globally, and perhaps deservedly so. Got a passport?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Torn
    I beleive that if the sleeping around didn’t bothered you the lies should. If she was willing to lie to get with you and she got away with it then she will be willing to lie to keep you, if she runs into an ex and decides to have one more roll for old times sake. Unless you are considering an open relationship with her know for sure that you will never be able to fullfill the sexual appetite for someone that is willing to have a threesome, specially with strangers. So think LONG and HARD about sharing your life with her after all this “red flags” I know is hard because you are already emotionally involved (something she allowed un purpose) and that you don’t know how long are you going to connect with someone again. But really consider all you will have to deal and if things progress more and you want to have babies with her, you might as well end too deep to leave her if she goes back to her old ways.
    My prayers for you.

  • jess

    not wishing to be flippant but my partner & i may have had the odd chuckle at your ‘long and hard’ comment.
    .
    but yeah, serial liars of that scale are are surely a high risk for a LTR

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Jess
    Is okay it does looks “odd” if you don’t know the context. Heh.

  • torn

    Of course, I cannot provied all the details here of what happened. When i say ONLY 32, i am indicating that i believe there may be many more than that. She is beautiful, has a very successful career and holds most of her goals in common with mine…..she has everything i would have ever dreamed of….except intimacy.

    I live in a very rural area. I do not have many choices of people to date, and have not been an angel myself. The difference is that I got serious about BEING the kind of person i would like to meet a long time ago. She still has difficulty seeing anything wrong with her promiscuity even after long conversations and the obvious results of our failure. She was still an active player when we met, despite her telling me that she was looking for an LTR. She says I have “anger” issues and I may well have them after all of this.

    Thanks for your comments, keep them coming and ask me anything…i have had lots of time for perspectives and experiences.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @torn
      Thanks for being so open and honest with us. I am pleased to see so many regular commenters pitching in too. It’s clear she is not taking responsibility, but trying to put the blame on your for taking her behavior in stride. She does not sound like she is giving – no wonder you feel angry.

      The difference is that I got serious about BEING the kind of person i would like to meet a long time ago.

      This is mature and shows integrity. Not many people make the effort to live up to their own standards for finding a mate.

  • jess

    I know this type of girl Torn…
    .
    at 32 she should be ready to settle down and if she isnt by now….she probably will never be.
    .
    whether she lives to regret it…only time will tell
    .
    she is likely to end up as the cougar type or the Samantha from SATC.
    im sure the sex is awesome but you are going to get hurt.
    you owe it to yourself to move on, however hard that is.

  • Mutable

    What is too many? That number is in the different for everyone. What is definitive is that if the pesron you are dating or would like to date thinks it’s too many, IT’S TOO MANY.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mutable
      Good point. That’s really the only measurement that matters. That’s why I urge women to be conservative – you won’t get kicked to the curb for having too few partners.

  • Wild Cougar

    I am coming to this conversation late. I study this issue and listen to the two polar views and the thing I see missing in this debate is so glaringly obvious that I can’t believe nobody brings it up. What about the woman who simply enjoys sex? A woman with a high libido who has sex with men she is attracted to and genuinely likes. Because she wants to do it. And for no other reason.

    Is it possible she does not have low self esteem? Is it possible that she doesn’t feel used? Is it possible that she could have a healthy perspective wrt the possibility of a future relationship with the man? She knows it possible but not probable. She also knows that she may not want a relationship with him and she will make that decision in due time. On a case by case basis.

    What about the women who don’t feel empty after? They had orgasms with men they like and it doesn’t have a negative effect on their self worth. Its all a matter of perspective, really.

    I truly don’t get why these debates don’t take into consideration a middle ground promiscuous woman. One who is not having an emotionless feminist sex tantrum to prove how empowered she is. Nor is she being used and fooled. She’s having sex because she likes it and believes there is a man out there who will not equate her value with her number. She’s willing to wait for him.

    This woman is me

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Wild Cougar
      That’s a very honest comment, and it sounds like you know exactly what you want. You recognize that for many men the number is a real concern, but you’re willing to wait for a man who is the exception. I wish you the best of luck!

  • Mike C

    What about the woman who simply enjoys sex? A woman with a high libido who has sex with men she is attracted to and genuinely likes. Because she wants to do it. And for no other reason.

    Wild Cougar,

    See my comment here:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/04/18/whatguyswant/is-feminism-desires-kryptonite/#comment-38597
    .
    No doubt, there is certain percentage of women (not sure what the exact number is) who are simply really horny, like good sex alot, are capable of no strings sex with guys they find attractive, no emotional attachment, etc.
    .
    Ideal woman for a casual fling or playmate. If I were single and not interested in a relationship, the exact type of woman to seek out.
    .
    As I state in my comment, and the evidence seems to back up though, this type of woman is “high risk” for wife material. The discriminating, choosy guy WITH OPTIONS will, and in fact rules out this type of woman for that purpose.
    .
    That is the simple reality and which is why women who play that game inevitably settle for the dupe they do not find attractive (see the article of the woman who didn’t take her husband on her honeymoon to pick up other guys, and the article that 30% of women regret marrying their husband).

  • Abbot

    As I state in my comment, and the evidence seems to back up though, this type of woman is “high risk” for wife material. The discriminating, choosy guy WITH OPTIONS will, and in fact rules out this type of woman for that purpose.

    .
    How many times does this have to be stated? It must be a denial thing. Or just such an intense disbelief that men think this way. But they do and they should not be judged or denigrated for it. Just like women should not be judged or denigrated for prolific sexual adventures. That is equality and women are all for that, right? The “sex positive” feminists know men think this way and it drives them bat shit crazy because in their minds, men have no right to decide what’s right for themselves IF those decisions disrupt a woman’s sexual choices currently and marriage choices in the future.

  • Mike C

    How many times does this have to be stated? It must be a denial thing.
    .
    Well…it isn’t denial. Denial is the wrong word. We know women underreport their sexual histories. We also know women often go to great lengths to hide their histories or flat out lie even to the guy they might be marrying. So on some level I think most women aren’t in denial about this. They know it is the case. That said, I recall previous discussions where some women will relay the sentiment “I wouldn’t want to be with any guy who would judge that”, and I’d bet in many cases that is the same woman lying. I think this subject….their sexual histories and men’s perception of it sends the hamster into a sort of schizophrenic cognitive dissonance.
    .
    The “sex positive” feminists know men think this way and it drives them bat shit crazy because in their minds, men have no right to decide what’s right for themselves
    .
    To their credit, the one thing I think about “sex positive feminists” is that they do seem to “embrace their sluthood” which I think is admirable and respectable. I mean if you are going to engage in certain behavior then be honest and open about it. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen them advocate lying or misrepresenting, so as a guy you know exactly what you are getting and as they say they wouldn’t want you anyways so it is all good.
    .
    What I do find objectionable though is trying to sell yourself as a 3 year old car with zero past car problems when the reality is you’ve been rolled the odometer back 100,000 miles and have been taken for multiple joyrides that banged the car up. The buyer has a right to know exactly what they are buying. And this equally applies to man-whores.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    And this equally applies to man-whores.

    Heh cosigning this :).

    @Wild Cougar
    I often refer to the idea of slut and fake sluts. Most women are fake sluts they have sex with men for a lot of stupid reasons and then get sad when he doesn’t call and he doesn’t remember their name and other signs that show that she really is not having sex for the joy of sex, but because they wanted a relationship. If you are a true slut, congrats! You are at least a genuine person. But if you seek a monogamous relationship at any point of your life, your Romantic Resume would show that you have no experience on the job. Now would you ever approve of hiring a candidate with no experience on a high paying job? Just out of his/her honest desire to do his/her best?
    Call me a bitch, but I wouldn’t and I didn’t.
    I totally support your right to fill your life with whatever gives you pleasure but like with my dick with legs friends I wouldn’t introduce you to anyone seeking for a serious monogamous relationship and that is something you need to know many, many, many other people agree, YMMV.

  • Abbot

    some women will relay the sentiment “I wouldn’t want to be with any guy who would judge that”, and I’d bet in many cases that is the same woman lying. I think this subject….their sexual histories and men’s perception of it sends the hamster into a sort of schizophrenic cognitive dissonance.

    .
    Then it is the natural selection criteria of men that causes some women who engage in certain behaviors to live this tortured existence. The only difference between say 1955 and today is that there are more of these types of women and therefore more of them are running into “any guy who would judge that” which are just about all guys.
    .
    Its easy enough to weed them out early on by merely asking if people should be concerned about a potential life mates past sexual history from a future fidelity perspective. If she says no, or its none of their business or similar response or she gets fidgety or appears nervous then go have fun with her. And then move on. Women reveal what they ordinarily wouldn’t when they don’t know your angle.

  • Wild Cougar

    It would be beneath me to respond to the name calling and cheap shots, so I won’t

    I think the thing that all of you are overlooking is the element of agency and choice. The easy for one=easy for all and the converse hard for one=hard for all belief is myth. Just because I choose more sexual partners than another woman does not make me unfit for a long term relationship. It doesn’t mean I don’t have long term fulfilling relationships. It doesn’t mean I won’t be faithful. It also doesn’t mean that I will never find a husband or boyfriend who knows about my history and doesn’t judge me for that. And I don’t have to “reform” or become “enlightened”.

    Because guess what? I have had several long term monogamous fulfilling relationships with men who knew everything about me. I married one of them. He had total faith in me and never doubted my fidelity. I never cheated on him. Our marriage didn’t last, but the end of the marriage had nothing to do with my history, it had to do with money issues and his reaction to the death of several close family members in a short period of time.

    There is conventional wisdom and there is reality. They are not always the same thing. Women make choices every day about who they have sex with. Promiscuity or lack thereof is a predictor of nothing. In the real world, women who are not normally promiscuous have one-night stands and casual affairs. They also cheat on their spouses and boyfriends. In the real world, promiscuous women find boyfriends and husbands. I would venture to say at the same rate as the non promiscuous women.

    People who don’t acknowledge this reality I think make the mistake of believing men make sexual choices for women and not women themselves. Its like, if that many men can talk you into sex, then you will sleep with every man who tries. The fact of that a promiscuous woman chooses one man and not another doesn’t compute.

    This is precisely the reason why I would never choose to be in a relationship with a man like that. Because he only sees men as agents. And women as objects acted upon. There are PLENTY of men who can mentally process the human being that exists apart from the genitalia. I prefer relationships with them.

  • Wild Cougar

    “The discriminating, choosy guy WITH OPTIONS will, and in fact rules out this type of woman for that purpose.
    .
    That is the simple reality and which is why women who play that game inevitably settle for the dupe they do not find attractive (see the article of the woman who didn’t take her husband on her honeymoon to pick up other guys, and the article that 30% of women regret marrying their husband).”

    I wonder what evidence you have that promiscuous women settle for a dupe they don’t find attractive. Or that men who have options would not choose a promiscuous woman. I understand it is your opinion, but my experience says otherwise. But I could be unique, so I would love to see some evidence to back up that claim.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

  • Mike C

    I think the thing that all of you are overlooking is the element of agency and choice. The easy for one=easy for all and the converse hard for one=hard for all belief is myth.
    .
    No one was making that point that easy for one=easy for all. In fact, I know you are absolutely right. Even the most promiscuous of women are still selective about who they have sex with.

    Just because I choose more sexual partners than another woman does not make me unfit for a long term relationship. It doesn’t mean I don’t have long term fulfilling relationships. It doesn’t mean I won’t be faithful. It also doesn’t mean that I will never find a husband or boyfriend who knows about my history and doesn’t judge me for that. And I don’t have to “reform” or become “enlightened”.
    .
    This may very well all be true. The thing is….and I say this as a trader who brings that perspective to all areas of life…life is about probabilities and risk management. One could run across a busy interstate blindfolded and survive but that wouldn’t make is a smart thing to do. Statistics show something like 50-60% of women now cheat in marriage. Would you bet your life savings that previous sexual history has a ZERO correlation with rates of cheating?
    .
    This is precisely the reason why I would never choose to be in a relationship with a man like that. Because he only sees men as agents. And women as objects acted upon. There are PLENTY of men who can mentally process the human being that exists apart from the genitalia. I prefer relationships with them.
    .
    This was highly predictable as I noted previously. All that said, I agree with Susan. You sound like you know what you want, and if you are happy, best to you and good luck. I’m not trying to “reform” you or “enlighten” you. If you are living life the way you want and getting what you want, who am I to say any different. Like I said, if I were single and just looking for some no-strings fun, I’d hope I meet a woman like you.

  • Mike C

    Its easy enough to weed them out early on by merely asking if people should be concerned about a potential life mates past sexual history from a future fidelity perspective. If she says no, or its none of their business or similar response or she gets fidgety or appears nervous then go have fun with her. And then move on. Women reveal what they ordinarily wouldn’t when they don’t know your angle
    .
    “The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you’ve got it made.”

    The key to getting someone to be very open is to be sympathetic and non-judgemental. They don’t have to know what is really going on inside your head.

  • Abbot

    I have had several long term monogamous fulfilling relationships with men who knew everything about me.
    .
    That is actually refreshing compared to a woman who attempts to reinvent herself out of fear of losing a man. Tell the truth and then let the man decide if its right for him, no different than telling a man you have a child or that you need to yodel once a month from your roof. But most women are not honest about the sex partner criteria because they know the nature of men – not to judge, but to feel uncomfortable about all those years of no-challenge easy access to male genitalia. This will not change as long as promiscuous women are a minority in the world.

  • Mike C

    @ Wild Cougar,

    I don’t want to beat a dead horse here but thought this was worth linking to. This ***woman’s*** experience seems at odds with your experience:
    .
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/last-one-down-the-aisle-wins-part-1/#comment-7136
    .
    “The ex-slut post-30 woman has been exposed to HPV and other STDS, possibly had one or several abortions, and has adjusted to alpha sexual relationships to the extent that the typical beta marrying type will not satisfy their need to be used and abused…has only distorted their persona through indulgence in vice rather than learn to understand themselves.

    I know many for whom late-in-life marriage worked out for and I know many whose late-in-life marriage resulted in great dissatisfaction on the part of the female. Living fast and free is a hard habit to break.
    .
    Not totally at odds as she says she has seen it play out both ways. The operative question though from the guy’s perspective is what is amount of risk you are willing to take on someone?

  • Wild Cougar

    “Tell the truth and then let the man decide if its right for him, no different than telling a man you have a child or that you need to yodel once a month from your roof.”

    Although I believe in honesty, I don’t think the number of sexual partners I have had is the same as having a child or needing to yodel.” My number is not relevent to the relationship. So I don’t announce it, not because I need to hide it, but because its not relevant. It has no bearing on the way I treat the man. Or how we relate to each other.

    “um, like the one on top of you right now? So if he is “good enough” to be so deeply intimate and personal with you, why not just marry him?”

    I don’t marry people just because I feel like having sex with them. They need to have many other qualities other than being sexually attractive and good company. They need to have honesty, integrity. Need to be hard working and ambitious. They need to be able to hold a good conversation and make me laugh. etc. etc. I slept with whoever I wanted and married the man who had the qualities that made him good enough for me.

    Why is that difficult to understand?

    @Mike C, there are many men who think like you, but there are many who do not. I won’t even sleep with men who think like you. And you can pretty much tell by their approach.

  • tom

    @ wild couger
    I truly don’t get why these debates don’t take into consideration a middle ground promiscuous woman. One who is not having an emotionless feminist sex tantrum to prove how empowered she is. Nor is she being used and fooled. She’s having sex because she likes it and believes there is a man out there who will not equate her value with her number. She’s willing to wait for him.

    This woman is me

    ____________________________

    Wild C. Dont waste your breath here. To these people here there is no difference. A number is a number no matter how it was achieved. They seem to think all exprienced women are the same. They even accused me of being a woman in disquise here eecause I can see past the sex a person has had, and I evaluate the woman behind the pussy. You , of course are right. Not all women are the same when it comes to their “number”

  • Wild Cougar

    I just don’t understand how people don’t see that loyalty and commitment come from a totally different place than one’s willingness to have sex.

    They are not mutually exclusive. A promiscuous woman is not less likely to be faithful. Men who think they are often end up with a really good liar.

  • Wild Cougar

    @Abbot. What ‘”character” trait are you referring to, exactly?

    Sex can be very intimate and sacred and it can be purely physical. Even within the confines of a marriage.

    This is another “everybody knows that” reality that I am having a problem understand why people choose to ignore with these slut judgments. Just like the reality that good girls cheat.

  • Wild Cougar

    But I can tell now that Tom is correct. This is not the place to have a rational discussion. I was hoping it was, but, alas, I shall keep looking.

  • Wild Cougar

    No, its not the judgmental approach, its the “I’m not sure my ( ) is good enough” look they have. Because that is where the madonna/whore complex really comes from.

  • Wild Cougar

    Because I am researching the issue for a book. I don’t need validation and certainly not from online strangers. But thanks for your time. I’ve gotten a few good quotes out of it.

  • Abbot

    “She’s willing to wait for him.”
    .
    But that is not what she is doing. The man currently rubbing genitals with her certainly does not care about the number so why not just marry him?
    .
    “there is a man out there who will not equate her value with her number.”
    .
    um, like the one on top of you right now? So if he is “good enough” to be so deeply intimate and personal with you, why not just marry him?
    .
    “value with her number”
    .
    a red herring. If that were true, than a woman would be valued for that in all aspects of life and that is not true. The number should not matter according to folks who can’t mind their own business or do not respect how a man thinks. Ok, that’s just how it is. Accepted. But when a man is considering marriage remember that THIS IS THE U.S. where marriage for a man is already extremely risky and its proven fact the courts are very biased. You’re asking way too much from a man to tack on one more risk whether perceived or real.

  • Wild Cougar

    @Abbot, I put my website on all my comments and used the avatar and name from that blog. But you posted it as if it were a deep dark secret I was trying to hide. That makes it sound so much more exciting. I’m sure a guy like you would enjoy reading about my adventures very much. Thanks for the ad. ;-)

  • Abbot

    “They need to have honesty, integrity.”
    .
    But not for letting someone get that intimate with you brings your character into question by any man considering committing his life to you. As does your website:
    .
    http://wildcougarconfessions.tumblr.com/post/4899094451

  • Mike C

    @Mike C, there are many men who think like you, but there are many who do not.  I won’t even sleep with men who think like you.  And you can pretty much tell by their approach.
    .
    LOL. This response is hilarious in its naivete. I have to admit this sort of response amuses me., especially when it comes from an older woman instead of a 19-22-year old.
    .
    I worked as a bouncer for a year some years back. Worked with and associated with a lot of alpha, bad-boy, sexually attractive guys that got more ass than a toilet seat. You know how many guys would bang some random slut, and come back and talk about it just like that. You think the women had any idea what they really thought of her from his “approach”? Hahahahahahaha. Don’t kid yourself.
    .
    Many guys aren’t as stupid as you seem to think they are. Every guy who knows Game knows one of the cardinal principles is don’t appear judgmental. You’d have no idea what “I think like” if I decided I wanted to approach and pursue you strictly for sex, and believe me a lot of guys know how to play the game. How many times do you hear a woman say “he won’t commit”? Now there are a lot of reasons that is the case, but one often is he just sees you as easy p**** on tap although he’ll never admit it.
    .
    I wish some guys like collegeslacker or Athol would chime on this. I’m sure they would confirm exactly what I am saying.

  • Mike C

    But I can tell now that Tom is correct. This is not the place to have a rational discussion. I was hoping it was, but, alas, I shall keep looking.
    .
    Just curious, why are you “hoping” for a “rational discussion”. If you are “doing your thing” and happy shouldn’t need the validation from anyone else’s rational discussion.

  • Wild Cougar

    Promiscuous does not equal careless. It does not equal reckless or stupid or an addiction to orgasm. Or irresponsible. Or lack of self control. It can be a sign of these things, but not necessarily. And not in my case.

    But I should really stop wasting my time because it will be difficult to explain it to you all in a way that you would understand.

  • Wild Cougar

    Ok, scratch what I just said. I think I am starting to understand what you mean, Abbot. You believe that if a woman has had many lovers, she will find it harder to stick with one man because the experience of many lovers will make her want to continue that path.

    I think that is a logical belief. And I would say that is likely when you are talking about men who are naturally inclined to want to spread their seed around. However, women have a natural inclination to find a mate and make a stable home for children. So you can have a woman who is promiscuous but who doesn’t have a problem being faithful to her boyfriend or husband. The “nest making” part of her nature then comes into play. At least in my life, when I have a committed relationship, I am in love and I no longer feel attracted to other men. I take pride giving myself to my man and only him. So the promiscuous behavior with men I would not choose for the long term and fidelity with the man I do choose are not a contradiction. Its never been a problem. I didn’t even start having sex again until I was separated over a year because I was still committed in my mind and heart.

    I don’t think this is rare or strange. But since men aren’t wired this way, I can understand why they would think promiscuous women would not be able to be faithful.

  • Abbot

    Yes, and here are those good quotes:
    .
    “She’s willing to wait for him.” – yeah, explain to him that you waited.
    .
    “They need to have honesty, integrity.” – just tell one lie bucko and I am jumping right back into the pile of crooks and thugs. Nice.
    .
    Well that should be a doozy of a book. One of hundreds that have been spewed out to counter men who make personal decisions that negatively effect women.
    .
    “the madonna/whore complex”
    .
    In certain US cities, its just a whore/whore complex. But that just makes things easier for men to decide on the extent of the “relationship”
    .
    “A promiscuous woman is not less likely to be faithful.”
    .
    Perhaps. But why should a man chance it in a highly biased legal system? Especially when there are so many non-promiscuous foreign women who have no need to lie about it. You’re asking for way too much. Go change the laws. We would appreciate it.
    .
    I’m not sure my ( ) is good enough look they have”
    .
    Why does it always debase to that level of character among female writers?

  • Abbot

    “you posted it as if it were a deep dark secret I was trying to hide”
    .
    No, not viewed as a secret at all. If fact, it is quite fitting. Puts it all into perspective and makes it clear that this whole discussion with you is a parody that we are having fun with.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I just don’t understand how people don’t see that loyalty and commitment come from a totally different place than one’s willingness to have sex.

    Disagree with that. Character is something that permeates everything you do, having sex with a stranger just because is sexually attractive is a risk, you risk your sexual health because condoms don’t protect from everything and you risk your life because that sexually attractive stranger could be mentally ill and become a stalker or could be a serial killer chopping you into tiny pieces or more likely a player that will dissect your sex life on the Internet like you were a frog on biology class. All those risks just for an orgasm is something that says a lot about your judgment and if an orgasm is more important than getting to know a person before having sex with them, then who is to say that you are not going to do the same on a “committed” relationship breaking your vows and another person’s trust for an orgasm is not so far out.
    Again this is no to mean that there are not exceptions and people can be really careless about sex at one point of their lives and became responsible later on, but is a fat chance, if you got away with it before and the experience is enjoyable chances are you are going to have a harder time restricting yourself (you can do a search in here, there are countless studios that tie promiscuous behavior to more likely of cheating and divorce (and you are divorced already, even if you claim that your sluttiness was no a factor it would had very well been without you noticing it right now), and there is a teaser for a film called loose girl that also has info about how harder is for her to keep herself faithful to the man of her choice after being a slut) and for the record this is the criteria I applied to men when I was dating so its not about gender, at least not for me, but a guy with a high number was a big turn off, for all the reasons above, YMMV.

    And again if you are happy the way you are more power to you, I’m happy the way I am as well but coming here and consider us irrational is uncalled for. We had very valid reasons for our choices, you might disagree with it, and choose to no associate yourself with people like us, but calling it irrational is just another way of seeking validation, just FYI.

  • Abbot

    “fat chance, if you got away with it before and the experience is enjoyable chances are you are going to have a harder time restricting yourself”
    .
    Nothing wrong with that…unless of course you’re married and therefore could ruin a well-intentioned man. Men in the US must be respected for avoiding such women for commitment for that reason and many others
    .
    “its not about gender”
    .
    No it is not, But in the US most women will have more sex mates rung up at time of marriage. So men need to be MORE on guard.

  • Wild Cougar

    I still don’t understand what you mean by bad character. Which character trait are you talking about.

    I can be promiscuous, choosy and careful at the same time. I can get to know my sex partner and use condoms.

    I can be non-promiscuous and have an alcohol fueled careless romp with a stranger I met in a bar in Cabo San Lucas, too.

    So please tell me exactly what you mean by character. I really don’t get it.

  • tom

    One thing most you guys fail to understand. Most people, men and women, are different types of people depending on their relationship status. I know for myself, the relationship Tom is totally different than the single Tom. I know most women feel the same way about themselves. I do not miss, even for a moment, the single life style. I am not about to seek out a willing woman the moment my relationship gets a little difficult, as ALL relationships do. So why do you judgemental peeps here think a women is any different? It is preposterous to think people, including women, constantly long for the variety they once had. The security and frequent sex of a relationship is a lot more appealing for most people.
    To go into a relationship with the train of thought that this person may soak me for all I am worth is total BS. It only means you are not confident in your slection. If you think because a woman has enjoyed sex with men other than you makes her a bad bet for mariage, then it is you who is a bad judge of character. It might be true about some women, but that is where your judgement of other aspects of her character comes in.
    Having sex with multiple people does NOT in itself make a person one of bad character. Now for the neanderthals here, it just might be so.
    To judge a woman solely in her number, is pretty narrow minded, but then again, it is your right to be narrow minded. There are plenty of women who have NEVER discussed their number with their husband because it just never came up, or maybe he didnt want to know, who are happy enough in their marriage, not sleeping around, and raising a family.
    If you are considering an experienced woman for a relationship, there are a lot more important issues than her number. There ARE women who are experienced sexually that I would not touch with a ten foot pole, but iy IS because of their character and not thei number, per say.

  • Wild Cougar

    Its easier to just avoid these women, harsh as that sounds.

    This doesn’t sound harsh, it just sounds like you have more fears and need to feel sure about your partner. You should be more careful than other men who don’t have those fears.

    I really think some of you are damaging the quality of this fine blog with the personal attacks. The information in the blog posts is excellent. I was hoping for the same level of discussion in the comments.

  • tom

    Disagree with that. Character is something that permeates everything you do, having sex with a stranger just because is sexually attractive is a risk, you risk your sexual health because condoms don’t protect from everything and you risk your life because that sexually attractive stranger could be mentally ill and become a stalker or could be a serial killer chopping you into tiny pieces or more likely a player that will dissect your sex life on the Internet like you were a frog on biology class. All those risks just for an orgasm is something that says a lot about your judgment and if an orgasm is more important than getting to know a person before having sex with them, then who is to say that you are not going to do the same on a “committed” relationship breaking your vows and another person’s trust for an orgasm is not so far out.

    _____________________________
    Steph, what planet do you live on? Not all hookups are ONS. However SINGLE people who HAVE a ONS are not necssarliy people of bad character, male OR female. HOW DARE YOU!. IF that is true most every person here on this site is of bad character, according to you! This just demo`s how absurd peoples judgement is of other who liv a different lifestyle then their own.

  • tom

    @ Wild C.
    I don’t think this is rare or strange. But since men aren’t wired this way, I can understand why they would think promiscuous women would not be able to be faithful.
    _____________________

    Bingo!

    I am a man and supposedly I have some inate need to spread my seed around., and I did….lol But within a relationship, my big brain overcomes the little brain. People fail to recognise that committment means something to a lot of people, formerly promiscuous or not. It is a question of character, not libido….

  • Wild Cougar

    @Abbot.

    I don’t get why you think a promiscuous woman necessarily uses poor judgment in choosing her sex partners. And a non-promiscuous woman necessarily uses good judgment.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Steph, what planet do you live on? Not all hookups are ONS. However SINGLE people who HAVE a ONS are not necssarliy people of bad character, male OR female. HOW DARE YOU!. IF that is true most every person here on this site is of bad character, according to you! This just demo`s how absurd peoples judgement is of other who liv a different lifestyle then their own.

    Heh thanks for the laugh, it made my morning. Is so funny that you take this so personally and you are so emotional about it.:)
    Is the data we had provided made up? Why the evidence is a problem for you to accept, had you seen any evidence on the contrary? Please feel free to share I will be waiting…sitting on a chair. I might be judgmental of sexual behavior but I got data and numbers to back me up I didn’t woke up one day and decided it out of thin air. What do you have? Your strong emotions?

  • Abbot

    “To judge a woman solely in her number, is pretty narrow minded”
    .
    Men in general do not do that. It is one trait among many; a spectrum of traits. But women do not even want it as part of the spectrum. Well, only promiscuous women do not want it to be in the mix. Why is that? Why are men called all sorts of names for considering this but women are not? Why the double standard?
    .
    “However SINGLE people who HAVE a ONS are not necssarliy people of bad character”
    .
    Perhaps not. But given dangers associated with being with unknown men in a closed private environment, that alone makes a woman of questionable character, let alone stupid/has poor judgement, for engaging in such behavior. Men do not need more things to vet out when deciding on a woman for life. Its too complicated already. Its easier to just avoid these women, harsh as that sounds.
    .
    “you can have a woman who is promiscuous but who doesn’t have a problem being faithful to her boyfriend or husband.”
    .
    Perhaps. But again, go change the laws that favor women and you might convince a man or more men [the marriage rate is quite low] to take a chance. Or convince more women to be promiscuous so men have less choices. After all, a passport in hand is a mighty temptation.

  • Wild Cougar

    If someone has the link to the study that says promiscuous women are more likely to cheat, I would love to take a look at it. Because if that is the evidence, then I will just consider myself unique.

  • Mike C

    Is so funny that you take this so personally and you are so emotional about it.:)
    .
    Heh, so I’m not the only one who notices that. I wonder why?

  • tom

    Steph, the divorce rates are over 50%. ARE you trying to say ALL those people are former promiscuous people? People who cheat are of bad character, at least at the time they are cheating. You are trying to imply that people who cheat are former promiscuous people therfore all former promiscuous people are of bad character? That just is not so. There is a high percentage of people who have a VERY low number who cheat and divorce. That 50%+ includes all people, not just sexually experienced people. The biggest difference I see is people today, especially women, are not going to stay in a bad marriage, like their moms and grandparants did. I see nothing wrong with that.Life is too short to be locked into a life with a person who disrespects you, makes your life miserable, or mistreats you. That has nothing to do with their sexual exprience. Sexual experience and cheating (because of a bad relationship) is just a sign of the times. More people have more sexual experience, therefore as divorce happens, it is natural that those people will have exprienced more partners. I think people are more aware today. Thay are more educated to the fact one does not have to put up with abuse. Sure, people of yesterday stayed together longer, but how many suffered in silence? WAY more than there should have been. Congrats to the smarter woman of today. I wouldnt want my own daughter to suffer in silence, but if it can not be worked out, then get out. It would not be a factor of how many people she slept with.

  • tom

    @ Abott.

    Men in general do not do that. It is one trait among many; a spectrum of traits.
    _______________
    You are right, men in gereral do not do that, but YOU do..you also said,” Men do not need more things to vet out when deciding on a woman for life. Its too complicated already. Its easier to just avoid these women, harsh as that sounds.
    __________________
    Thanks for making my point about narrow minded thinking.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Heh, so I’m not the only one who notices that. I wonder why?

    So true. I’m getting Melissa vibes from him. Uncomfortable with her choice of being on a open relationship (in his case is dating/marrying sluts or slut himself or both) and reacting very badly to the mountain of evidence that says he couldn’t be more wrong if he tried. Oh well we need one of those every few months don’t we? :).

    @tom, check the data. Past sexual behavior is a very accurate predictor of future sexual behavior (not a perfect predictor but an accurated one). Just check it, there are people who only works is to research this things, just use logic for a change.

  • Wild Cougar

    “I’m not sure where “I admitted I was promiscuous”. My number of actual intercourse is single digits. Now honestly, if I could relive the last 15 years, I would have taken advantage of a lot of opportunities I sort of messed up on.
    .
    I think what sticks in your crawl, and I have to admit the imp in me has fun playing to is you know I am right that many perfectly normal, highly attractive men are selective about this particular characteristic, and that just infuriates you. You go on an on an on and on why it shouldn’t be, yet you know I am right because nobody argues something that intensely if it is irrelevant. I mean if it were ONLY a small minority of losers who judged relationship-worthiness on this characteristic, then who cares?
    .
    There is a comment Susan highlighted once of a woman basically saying they had to advocate “slutty behavior so men would not have a choice”. Anyways, as a student of psychology, I am just enjoying watching the mental gyrations involved in arguing the various contradictory aspects of this position.”

    Wow, I can see that maybe some people spend too much time in the theoretical aspects of this issue and so little time with the real life aspect of it. Some of these arguments are just bizarre.

    I can see that you are trying to bait Tom with the notion that promiscuous women can only get less desirable men to marry them. But I don’t see any evidence to support that.

  • Abbot

    “Thanks for making my point about narrow minded thinking.”
    .
    Read…think…then write.
    .
    I wrote: given dangers associated with being with unknown men in a closed private environment, that alone makes a woman of questionable character, let alone stupid/has poor judgement, for engaging in such behavior
    .
    which is NOT about sex but is about being wise and using good judgement when it comes to interacting with men. A good man will consider that in a life mate as being a serious matter and a non-starter. Other factors may be considered but they pale in comparison. Smart men want smart women, or I should hope.

  • tom

    WILD C.

    The men here, and some of the women too, think poorly of women who choose to do the same thing men have been allowed to do for ever. ONLY people of bad character have multiple sex partners. It automaticaly makes them a bad candidate for a long term relationship. On this site the double standard is alive and well.
    ________________
    Mike, you are damn right I am passionate about it. Just as passionate about it as you are passionate about condeming women who are promiscuous, while you yourself admit YOU were promiscuous. ARE YOU going to cheat on your lovely wife because of YOUR sexual sluttiness? F*cking hypocrites. If YOU cheat it will because of character not because you did a bunch of women in your past. Oh that`s right, men HAVE to spread their seed…LMMFAO…If that were true, wouldnt all men be more likely to cheat?

  • Abbot

    “You should be more careful than other men who don’t have those fears.”
    .
    Foreign and American men living in most other countries typically don’t have those fears. Its a VERY homegrown thing. US gender relations are a global embarrassment. For now.

  • Wild Cougar

    ““if it were ONLY a small minority of losers who judged relationship-worthiness on this characteristic, then who cares?”
    .
    If there were enough men to go around to satisfy the happiness entitlement of all women, then nobody would care. But alas, here we are.”

    I think you guys should ask people who are active in the hook up culture because the number of men who judge that way is going down. It may be to the point of becoming a minority soon. Men marrying women who started off as a hook up is becoming pretty common. But you would have to ask people who are being honest. And to get that you would have to make be in an environment where they would not feel judged. Among other hook up culture people, many freely admit what they would not admit otherwise.

  • Abbot

    “women who choose to do the same thing men have been allowed to do for ever”
    .
    Who is stopping women who choose to do the same thing men do? Avoiding marriage to them certainly isn’t stopping them. So what exactly are men doing to make things difficult for women? If there is no answer, then nothing is being done and all is OK.

  • tom

    @ Abbot
    which is NOT about sex but is about being wise and using good judgement when it comes to interacting with men. A good man will consider that in a life mate as being a serious matter and a non-starter. Other factors may be considered but they pale in comparison. Smart men want smart women, or I should hope.
    __________________
    Yup all women of experience just pick up any ole man, go to his seedy apartment use no common sense, throw caution to the wind, and never use condoms……No Abbot a GOOD man will get to know the woman he is interested in and judge her based on personality, career, wit, family,intellect. He will not hold against her the same things he probably has done. A good man is not a hypocrite. A good man understands sex with one man can be just as dangerous as with multiple men IF that one man has been promiscuous and has not used protection. A good man understands women, as men are also sexual creatures, with desire that are similar. And for you stat buffs out there, what of the new studies that indicate women are MORE prone to be promiscous than men by nature??
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5213956/Men-are-no-more-promiscuous-than-women-survey-finds.html

    Stick THAT in your hypocritical pipe and smoke it.

  • OffTheCuff

    Tom, the straw-man arguments are getting boring. Every time you say “all you men think”, you offer up an argument that nobody is making.

  • Abbot

    “I don’t get why you think a promiscuous woman necessarily uses poor judgment in choosing her sex partners. And a non-promiscuous woman necessarily uses good judgment.”
    .
    Its about probability. That is all a man has to go on. The more a woman exposes herself the more CHANCE for stupidity, drunken escapades, exposure to thugs, developing a bad attitude toward men, and a host of all sorts of “who needs that crap.” That is a fact and the less exposure the probability goes down. A man must not be denigrated for doing his best to reduce risk. He could be wrong of course, but that is his problem and his alone. You may not agree with his way of making decisions but they are his and are not anyone else’s concern but the medial keeps butting in telling him how he should choose women. Enough already. Let women do what they want and let men think what they want. How many times must that be stated on this site? More than a few dozen times but the denial is palpable.

  • Wild Cougar

    Well, being a cougar, my partners are usually under 30. They aren’t enough to do a real study, but it seems like, from what I’ve heard, more of them are educated against the double standard. So they think it would be hypocritical to judge a woman based on numbers. Since they are equally promiscuous and they don’t see themselves as a bad partner. These are men, however that hook up with women for casual sex and have no problem getting women.

    Other men I have spoken to, as potential sex partners did judge women based on numbers. But the interesting thing about them is that they were more often than not the ones who had problems getting women. They were more insecure about their sexual prowess and had fewer partners. They would ask a lot of questions about my past partners. They also seemed to spend more time online and preferred texting and sending pictures to in person contact. I didn’t end up sleeping with those men. Partially because I found their insecurity unattractive and because they found my experience unattractive. Although they wanted to be the sort of guy that hooked up with experienced promiscuous women, they could not. But of course, this is just my limited, however extensive personal experience. It might count for something.

  • tom

    @ offthecuff….

    Ok “almost” all the men here think all promiscuous women are a bad risk for a long term relationship.
    Their reasoning is that men can pump and dump with no damage to their personality because men are predisposed to do so, so that makes everything ok…. But if a woman does that same thing it somehow causes damage to her judgement and personality. I just posted a link above that suggests that mens reasoning is BS. Women are just as predisposed to promiscuous behavior as man are. There are other studies that suggest women are MORE likely to be promiscuous by nature.
    So that discounts all the logis “almost” all the men here are using for the double standard.

  • Mike C

    Mike, you are damn right I am passionate about it. Just as passionate about it as you are passionate about condeming women who are promiscuous, while you yourself admit YOU were promiscuous. ARE YOU going to cheat on your lovely wife because of YOUR sexual sluttiness? F*cking hypocrites. If YOU cheat it will because of character not because you did a bunch of women in your past. Oh that`s right, men HAVE to spread their seed…LMMFAO…If that were true, wouldnt all men be more likely to cheat?
    .
    You go Tom. “Damn right”. Tell me like it is!
    .
    FWIW, I don’t condemn promiscuous women. That is your nonsensical interpretation. They serve a very useful function in the sexual ecosystem. From a purely strategic perspective it is a good thing, because it means that attractive men can get sex easily without having to commit to a relationship.
    .
    I’m not sure where “I admitted I was promiscuous”. My number of actual intercourse is single digits. Now honestly, if I could relive the last 15 years, I would have taken advantage of a lot of opportunities I sort of messed up on.
    .
    I think what sticks in your crawl, and I have to admit the imp in me has fun playing to is you know I am right that many perfectly normal, highly attractive men are selective about this particular characteristic, and that just infuriates you. You go on an on an on and on why it shouldn’t be, yet you know I am right because nobody argues something that intensely if it is irrelevant. I mean if it were ONLY a small minority of losers who judged relationship-worthiness on this characteristic, then who cares?
    .
    There is a comment Susan highlighted once of a woman basically saying they had to advocate “slutty behavior so men would not have a choice”. Anyways, as a student of psychology, I am just enjoying watching the mental gyrations involved in arguing the various contradictory aspects of this position.

  • Abbot

    “Their reasoning is that men can pump and dump with no damage to their personality”
    .
    Where is this reasoning stated on this site? Is it about personality? Or about how you spend years operating your life?
    .
    “if a woman does that same thing it somehow causes damage to her judgement”
    .
    No different than a man. But women don’t do the same as a man because they have the ability to do much more of it, and in the US they typically do.
    .
    “women are MORE likely to be promiscuous”
    .
    Because they CAN be and for no other reason.

  • Abbot

    “if it were ONLY a small minority of losers who judged relationship-worthiness on this characteristic, then who cares?”
    .
    If there were enough men to go around to satisfy the happiness entitlement of all women, then nobody would care. But alas, here we are.

  • Mike C

    I really think some of you are damaging the quality of this fine blog with the personal attacks.  The information in the blog posts is excellent.  I was hoping for the same level of discussion in the comments.
    .
    Wild Cougar,
    .
    The number of commenters is pretty small so I’m assuming you possibly directing that at me. FWIW, I’m not trying to personally attack you. I’m blunt and I say exactly what I mean with no beating around the bush or attempt to “soften” my view. I’m not a politician running for election. That said, I respect your candidness. Really, I’ve got no problem at all with someone living their life however it makes them happy. Not sure what type of book you are writing, a polemic or a dispassionate analysis of all perspectives.

  • tom

    Interesting view from 1998

    ”It seems premature . . . to attribute the relative lack of female interest in sexual variety to women’s biological nature alone in the face of overwhelming evidence that women are consistently beaten for promiscuity and adultery,” the primatologist Barbara Smuts has written. ”If female sexuality is muted compared to that of men, then why must men the world over go to extreme lengths to control and contain it?”

    Why indeed? Consider a brief evolutionary apologia for President Clinton’s adulteries written by Steven Pinker, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ”Most human drives have ancient Darwinian rationales,” he wrote. ”A prehistoric man who slept with 50 women could have sired 50 children, and would have been more likely to have descendants who inherited his tastes. A woman who slept with fifty men would have no more descendants than a woman who slept with one. Thus, men should seek quantity in sexual partners; women, quality.” And isn’t it so, he says, everywhere and always so? ”In our society,” he continues, ”most young men tell researchers that they would like eight sexual partners in the next two years; most women say that they would like one.” Yet would a man find the prospect of a string of partners so appealing if the following rules were applied: that no matter how much he may like a particular woman and be pleased by her performance and want to sleep with her again, he will have no say in the matter and will be dependent on her mood and good graces for all future contact; that each act of casual sex will cheapen his status and make him increasingly less attractive to other women; and that society will not wink at his randiness but rather sneer at him and think him pathetic, sullied, smaller than life? Until men are subjected to the same severe standards and threat of censure as women are, and until they are given the lower hand in a so-called casual encounter from the start, it is hard to insist with such self-satisfaction that, hey, it’s natural, men like a lot of sex with a lot of people and women don’t.

    http://www.evoyage.com/Evolutionary%20Feminism/menwomensex.htm

  • Wild Cougar

    “You are correct….. Many men do not want a woman who is more experienced than they are. Call it their preference, or call it insecurity, it is just a fact. Men will make excuses for their “preference.” It becomes hypocrritical when the woman is good enough to have sex with on a casual basis, but would NEVER qualify for a LTR. It boarders on treating another human being like a piece of meat and not the person they really are. Most men are unaware why they have their preference, or if they know, they will not admit it. Just the thought of a woman they really care for being with other men before them bugs the hell out of them. We all know the real reason for that”

    Precisely. This is why I am selective about my sex partners and potential long term relationships. A man who can see one woman as a piece of meat and then looks at another woman as a human being (or possibly a fresher piece of meat) is not suitable for either sex or marriage. Especially if he is willing to participate in something he considers dirty or demeaning.

    @Abbot. My choices were never that limited to begin with and they are even less so now. In the United States. I’ve found men willing to be in relationship before and I am certain I will again. If I wanted to get married again, I doubt I would have too much trouble. What unrest are you talking about?

  • Mike C

    I think you guys should ask people who are active in the hook up culture because the number of men who judge that way is going down.  It may be to the point of becoming a minority soon.
    .
    Well…you could be right. I’m only aware of guys’ views in my demographic of maybe 30-40. Maybe it has completely changed for guys 20-25? Although in market lingo, “I’ll gladly take the other side of that trade”. I’d be curious to know if guys like collegeslacker or Athol would be like “yeah, I could see myself in a LTR with that girl that got passed around the frat like a Kleenex”. It actually would make for an interesting study to know if guys attitudes have changed across different age groups. I actually would bet the view on promiscuous women hasn’t changed much but the definition of promiscous has changed. I personally don’t view 5-10 for say a 25-30 year old as being promiscous and I know some older guys do.

  • Abbot

    “the number of men who judge that way is going down”
    .
    The number of men who quietly dismiss a woman for life commitment based on any reasons he so chooses [the shaming word "judge" if you like] will never be known because it is a personal matter and not one that has any reason to be broadcast as a statistic. It still has not been explained why women are so concerned about the criteria men use to select women and why they are so desperate to change how men think in this regard. If you don’t like how the local men think, go find others. Try Belarus or Ecuador or other charming place where you can be promiscuous and prosper.

  • tom

    No mike you are wrong, Im not upset at all, just amused.. I have to laugh at men who think this way. Most of the time it has nothing to do with “she is going to take me to the cleaners when she leaves me.” the vast majority of men have no idea anyone has conducted a study suggesting that.
    It all has to do with mens ego and the suppression of the “weaker sex.” Men rule historically mainly because of their physical superiority. They have kept women “in line” because of ego, wanting to know they are the father of their offspring,whatever floats your boat. But it still comes back to ego in most cases.
    The old adage, men are predisposed to spread their seed has been disproven as a reason behind mens promiscuous behavior, yet men still hide behind that BS as reasoning, as if they cant think straight from their desire to fuck everything that moves.
    Take a look at the middle east. Women are kept under wraps by men, beaten for “misbehaving” It wasnt long ago it was similar here in the US. I posted some logic above, if you took some time to read it.Would men have the same promiscuous behaviors “”””if each act of casual sex will cheapen his status and make him increasingly less attractive to other women; and that society will not wink at his randiness but rather sneer at him and think him pathetic, sullied, smaller than life? Until men are subjected to the same severe standards and threat of censure as women are, and until they are given the lower hand in a so-called casual encounter from the start, it is hard to insist with such self-satisfaction that, hey, it’s natural, men like a lot of sex with a lot of people and women don’t. (end quote)

  • tom

    Mike, “passed around like a Kleenex?” Dude grow up.. it is that attitude that is the problem. It reeks of insecurity. Honestly if a woman has been screwed 50 times, does it really matter if it was by one dick 50 times or 25 dicks twice? A dick is a dick is a dick. please leave the “risk” out of it. I never caught a thing, and I got around because I was careful and admittedly a little lucky.Your risk with your 4/5 partners was just as high, especially if no protection was used by you. Women like sex as much as men. Frat guys should be viewed in the same light as the Kleenex gal. Either there is a problem with both, or no problem at all.

  • tom

    Wild C
    You are correct….. Many men do not want a woman who is more experienced than they are. Call it their preference, or call it insecurity, it is just a fact. Men will make excuses for their “preference.” It becomes hypocrritical when the woman is good enough to have sex with on a casual basis, but would NEVER qualify for a LTR. It boarders on treating another human being like a piece of meat and not the person they really are. Most men are unaware why they have their preference, or if they know, they will not admit it. Just the thought of a woman they really care for being with other men before them bugs the hell out of them. We all know the real reason for that.

  • Abbot

    “These are men, however that hook up with women for casual sex and have no problem getting women.”
    .
    and they will have a plethora of women to choose from when seeking a wife. But of the promiscuous women who outnumber them? That is a different story altogether.
    .
    “Frat guys should be viewed in the same light as the Kleenex gal.”
    .
    If a woman so chooses to them that way then they are. Now that’s equality, right?
    .
    “Either there is a problem with both, or no problem at all.”
    .
    Why is there not a problem with both?
    .
    “does it really matter if it was by one dick 50 times or 25 dicks twice?”
    .
    Not as long as I am 26 or 51. Someone may eventually be 27 or 52. That’s the beauty of America. We all get our turn.

  • Abbot

    “These are men, however that hook up with women for casual sex and have no problem getting women.”
    .
    and they will have a plethora of women to choose from when seeking a wife. But of the promiscuous women who outnumber them? That is a different story altogether.
    .
    “Frat guys should be viewed in the same light as the Kleenex gal.”
    .
    If a woman so chooses to see them that way then they are. Now that’s equality, right?
    .
    “Either there is a problem with both, or no problem at all.”
    .
    Why is there not a problem with both?
    .
    “does it really matter if it was by one dick 50 times or 25 dicks twice?”
    .
    Not as long as I am 26 or 51. Someone may eventually be 27 or 52. That’s the beauty of America. We all get our turn.

  • Abbot

    “It becomes hypocrritical when the woman is good enough to have sex with on a casual basis, but would NEVER qualify for a LTR”
    .
    Wild Cougar promotes that and so do I
    .
    What exactly is wrong with being hypocritical if the man and woman are both happy being together as life partners? Is it unpatriotic or causing unrest among rejected women? Does not seem so. What is the problem here? Please define the problem. Is someone being hurt by the man’s actions? If so, be specific.
    .
    Please provide an answer. Take your time.

  • tom

    @ Abott
    “Either there is a problem with both, or no problem at all.”
    .
    Why is there not a problem with both?
    .
    _______________________—
    Because of the double standard, try and keep up ok….lol

    Look if a person has a problem with a person with a higher number, the same thought process should apply to both sexes.. I am quite sure there are women who would disapprove of my number. That is ok. It is their problem, not mine. I am not a cheater, am loyal, loving, prosperous and generous. A good catch, but if they can not deal with my number it is a problem, for them. (by the way it isnt that high, just saying..lol)

  • tom

    What is wrong with being hypocritical?…. Gee nothing I guess. …Nothing inherently wrong with being a dunbass or an asshole either. To each his own.

    Until people understand the male ego and admit is biases, they will never be able to think outside the proverbial box on the newness of female promiscuity. It is similar to people all getting into the same inside line to turn left onto a freeway, when there are two lanes that turn left. Sheeple. Remember when bathing suits for women were covering them like a dress would? Whos idea do you think THAT was? Times, they are a changing. Who knows, 20 years from now maybe most men will desire the exerience and libido of an experienced woman, over the woman who will let him have sex once every two weeks weather he needs it or not…lol

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Well…you could be right. I’m only aware of guys’ views in my demographic of maybe 30-40. Maybe it has completely changed for guys 20-25? Although in market lingo, “I’ll gladly take the other side of that trade”. I’d be curious to know if guys like collegeslacker or Athol would be like “yeah, I could see myself in a LTR with that girl that got passed around the frat like a Kleenex”. It actually would make for an interesting study to know if guys attitudes have changed across different age groups. I actually would bet the view on promiscuous women hasn’t changed much but the definition of promiscous has changed. I personally don’t view 5-10 for say a 25-30 year old as being promiscous and I know some older guys do.

    I think most people mention being more discriminative for women they are thinking for mothers of their kids (the cuckold fear specially when we have all this internet websites devoted to slut wives that don’t even know who the father of their baby is and they pretty much just pray that it looks like their husband), so I would guess that also weights in, a man that is not planning on having a family or formally getting married, might not care as much as a man thinking on LTR on the context of 30 years of solid marriage and 100% assurance of paternity. Of course given the growing trend of not breeding this might also had caused a trend on this aspect, or men that are thinking on marrying into their 30′s could just no think about it till they do start looking for wives.

  • Abbot

    “What unrest are you talking about?”
    .
    There is way too much just on this blog to point to with the likes of Amanda Marcotte, Jaclyn Friedman and others [Americans of course] who are all up in arms over how men select women. Unrest is a kind word. They have gone beserk. Susan Walsh keeps tabs on this better than me.
    .
    “If I wanted to get married again, I doubt I would have too much trouble.”
    .
    You are correct. But for every proactive woman like you, there are hundreds who will be in despair. But so what? No impact on me or you.
    .
    “if a person has a problem with a person with a higher number, the same thought process should apply to both sexes”
    .
    Agreed. But in reality, women have higher numbers on average so women dont have much need to have that thought process. THAT is the double standard.

  • Abbot

    “men that are thinking on marrying into their 30′s could just no think about it till they do start looking for wives.”
    .
    The next wave of disappointed men. Maybe by then a women-only immigration policy will save them

  • tom

    Wild C.

    Maybe some people still see sex as a dirty act. If it isnt dirty with one person, why is it dirty with 20? Social conditioning maybe? A woman who has had 30 sex partners in 15 years is averaging 2 different dicks every 365 days…. A woman who was in a relationship for 15 years who had sex twice a week during that same span had sex with a dick (albeit same dick) 1560 times. LOL… I really can not see their point.
    Im with you Wild C.

  • Abbot

    ” really can not see their point.”
    .
    Who are these people?

  • tom

    Abott, stats show that the sexual number between men and women now days is still pretty even, on average.( maybe a slight advantage on the womens side) But it still seems it is the men who have the bigger problem with the “number”.. That my friend is the double standard. Sex takes his part AND her part to take place.. IF men see her part as now nasty, or used up or damaged, then it is hypocritical if he doesnt see his “partner in crime” in the same light. just ignorant thinking I guess.

  • Abbot

    “stats show that the sexual number between men and women now days is still pretty even, on average.( maybe a slight advantage on the womens side)”
    .
    “Anytime you want” must be the new “slight advantage”
    .
    Equality begets equality. That is not the reality or there would be equality. This the reality:
    .
    http://aleknovy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/filteredgenderpyramid1-e1299234566989.jpg
    .
    http://aleknovy.com/2009/11/04/the-hierarchy-most-men-are-at-the-bottom/
    .
    So again, for the 26th time, what is the problem facing women that they should be so concerned about how the men, at the bottom of that pyramid, feel about them? It absolutely is a concern but why? THIS TIME I REALLY WANT TO KNOW. Hint: the top of the pyramid is teeny tiny…shhhhh
    .
    NO ANSWER MEANS NO PROBLEM

  • tom

    Abott…The double standard people.. For the most part it is illogical. If a guy is convincd an expeienced woman is more likely to cheat, ok it has a little validity (although not all will cheat, that is why you get to know them) but the vast majority of men think of the Eww factor, and that is what the double standard is basd on.

  • Abbot

    “think of the Eww factor”
    .
    That is not substantiated. But lets go with to test the hypothesis:
    .
    PEOPLE, men and women, get a visceral reaction to many acts that involved deep close contact. Aggressive kissing and groping in public in US culture gets that reaction and that is between two people. If one of those two went to another person and started kissing them, then another and another, people witnessing this would start to barf. Never mind the victims. Fact is, the woman can probably get away with going up to one guy after another and kiss him, provided that the next in line did not see what she was up to. The public knows this, its known that women can move among men this way and few if any men can do that. Its easy for her to accomplish, not much or no effort required so its not considered an accomplishment or worthy of praise in addition to the visceral reaction. You cannot fault people for reacting to human nature. Look at someone vomit and try to hold it down. Same thing. Its how we are wired. Can we overcome it. Sure. But why bother? To accommodate a few women who feel entitled to have men any way they want them when they want them?
    .
    So there. I tested your hypothesis and you’re right from a deductive reasoning POV.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    The problem with averages is that it takes the total in one group and then divides that statistic across all the members in that group.

    Another statistic Susan cites regularly is that about 20% of men get 80% of the sex, which sounds like it belongs in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, but anyway. So by that statistic 80% are getting 20%, which indicates a significantly lower access to women. Consequently it is not, as Tom claims, about men getting their jollies while women don’t. It’s that many men aren’t getting access to pussy at all. This does not, of course, mean that 80% of women are putting out for 20% of men, but it does suggest a distinct imbalance between the “gets” and the “not-gets.”

    Another statistic quoted is that about 40% of men historically have passed on their genes, while 80% of women have (again see Susan for the source) which suggests that either that 40% have courted twice their number, or that they cuckold the other 40% who thought their women were being faithful.

    In the present day, the laws surrounding divorce are such that no man in his right mind wants to pledge his health and wealth to any woman if there’s any indication that she’ll be anything less than completely faithful to him. That is why, contrary to Tom’s claims, there is a distinct perception difference between the woman who’s had sex fifty times with one partner, and the one who’s had sex once with fifty partners. The first has demonstrated that she can be faithful in a relationship, the second has not demonstrated that. What the second has demonstrated is an appetite for variety that may be cause for grief further down the track.

    Now someone in the top 20% who would only accept a near virgin would be being hypocritical. However it’s doubtful that they would care, simply because it’s doubtful they have any plans for settling down. When you have the pick of the farmyard, why settle for one cow? The other 80% who aren’t getting so much (or any)? They’re perfectly within their rights to want a woman whose numbers are comparable to their own.

    The problem with sex pos feminism is that it tries to pump up the numbers for women, ignoring the fact that the majority of men will reject them as as result.

  • Aldonza

    @Abbott

    http://aleknovy.com/2009/11/04/the-hierarchy-most-men-are-at-the-bottom/

    So to support your opinion, you provide a link to another blogger’s opinion?

  • Abbot

    “So to support your opinion, you provide a link to another blogger’s opinion?”

    .
    That opinion has been expressed many times here at HUS. That pyramid is a nice little graphic that sums it up.
    .
    Just the post on hypergamy on HUS is enough to drive it home.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    which suggests that either that 40% have courted twice their number, or that they cuckold the other 40% who thought their women were being faithful.

    This suggestions are not complete. Many people forget that historically men were more likely get killed before passing their genes: war and hunt were exclusively men’s activities, and you might add all the young men lost during learning this activities, women had always been part of the spoils of war so of course they would survive more often and longer. The whole cuckholdry/seeders theory never takes in account how violent were the times were our ancestors evolved and giving their potential for breeding women were more often than not protected from this violence.

  • Abbot

    “The problem with sex pos feminism is that it tries to pump up the numbers for women, ignoring the fact that the majority of men will reject them as as result”
    .
    Until all there is to choose from is the alpha trained. That seems to be there ultimate goal. Well, better luck next life you pathetic little sex pozoids.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    That seems true enough Stephenie. So in some ways what we’re looking at today might be unprecedented in human history, outside Sodom that is.

  • Aldonza

    That opinion has been expressed many times here at HUS. That pyramid is a nice little graphic that sums it up.

    Right because if one blogger says it, and a bunch of other bloggers agree and repost it, it makes it true. And unfortunately, a nifty graphic does not improve the veracity rating. If you’re gonna post links and nifty charts, at least pick something good:

    http://www.inquisitr.com/103810/graph-willingness-to-put-out-vs-musical-tastes/

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Aldonza
      I love that link re musical tastes. As I dug into it, I found it endlessly fascinating. Beatles in the mid-range – why? Is it the age of Beatles fans? etc. etc.

  • Abbot

    “Right because if one blogger says it, and a bunch of other bloggers agree and repost it, it makes it true”
    .
    Interesting. That is exactly how feminists “studies” are done. But this is not so complex. I revert to what Jason wrote above as my “source” and that seems to be the consensus on HUS:
    .

    So by that statistic 80% are getting 20%, which indicates a significantly lower access to women. Consequently it is not, as Tom claims, about men getting their jollies while women don’t. It’s that many men aren’t getting access to pussy at all. This does not, of course, mean that 80% of women are putting out for 20% of men, but it does suggest a distinct imbalance between the “gets” and the “not-gets.”

  • Wild Cougar

    “Now, in this day and age, we are pretty used to the fact that most girls average around 3-4 sexual partners, so our baseline for what constitutes a slut has been altered a little. But, there are many, many girls out there who easily exceed that number and we all view them as pure pump and dump material. ”

    3-4? LOL. So if a 26 year old “girl” told you she’d only had 3 sexual partners and acted coy and made you work for it, wore conservative clothes, you would feel pretty sure she wasn’t a slut. I bet you truly believe you can tell the difference.

    Women like me love that there are men like you around. You might view “sluts” as pump and dump material. A lot of women with “3″ sex partners see you as an easy mark.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    If you’re gonna post links and nifty charts, at least pick something good:

    But…but… but everyone knows that muse is the band for the abstinents… :(

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stephenie
      I like Muse! My Spinning teacher plays them a lot :)

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com college slacker

    “I think you guys should ask people who are active in the hook up culture because the number of men who judge that way is going down. It may be to the point of becoming a minority soon”

    Nah. While I can’t speak for all men my age, or even all men at my school, I can speak for my entire network of friends and acquiantances, all of us who have been around the block a few times and are high status. We still judge girls based on how they get around. We have no problem, nay, we enjoy, making fun of the big sluts.

    http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/the-senior-year-settle-down/

    Now, in this day and age, we are pretty used to the fact that most girls average around 3-4 sexual partners, so our baseline for what constitutes a slut has been altered a little. But, there are many, many girls out there who easily exceed that number and we all view them as pure pump and dump material.

    The only dudes who really don’t care about some of these girl’s high numbers are major betas who are just amazed they found this good looking girl who wants them. See my post above ^.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @college slacker
      That senior year settle down post is amazing. Geez, you are strong on the field reports. Funny, I got an email today from a senior girl who is that rarity – very hot but a partner count of 2. Golden Pussy Syndrome as you call it. Both her relationships have been at home rather than college, so she’s known as the biggest hot prude on campus. Three weeks before graduation, three different frat stars have approached (one Facebook message, one face to face, and one texting) confessing they’ve always respected her and wanted to get with her, and it’s late but hopefully not too late? Of course, she is saying WTF don’t think so, where were you when my phone didn’t vibrate for weeks on end?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    That seems true enough Stephenie. So in some ways what we’re looking at today might be unprecedented in human history, outside Sodom that is.

    I believe so, we have an unique, set of combination of factors that even though happened before: sex revolutions are not new or movements to free women, I don’t it was this pushed and tried to be normalized while at the same time trying to make marriage, chastity and children such a obsolete undesirable situation and in a group with the actual power to do so and media that could help them broadcasts this 24/ 7 and enough physical security and money availability to let people assimilate all this info with no other set of controls (I mean the feminist movements is tempered on other cultures do the strong influence of religion, USA was founded with separation of church and state there was no an organized, respected ancient institution that could contest many of their claims and maybe stop some of their legal reforms). I remember on media class on college stating that advertising as a profession (along with marketing) would had been impossible a hundred years ago do to lack of a real need or platform for it, so is true we had a historical situation that is in many ways old, but unique on many others. I’m reading The Fourth Turning now and so far is very good at talking about how generations change, I will share my thoughts when I’m done with it.

  • Mike C

    Quoting your post college slacker:

    “Senior year settle down: When a rampaging slut who has spent the past 3 to 3 1/2 years of school fucking every athlete, cool dude, and somewhat cool dude across campus has now decided that she wants a steady boyfriend.

    Its like the college equivalent of the cougar settling for the beta in her late life. And I am absolutely humored by it. I am not joking when I say that the top ten biggest sluts in my age bracket have all settled down with nice guys after their 3 year journey on the college sized cock carousel (which, I must disclose out of the honesty of my judgments, me and my friends were often members of these girl’s carousels).”

    And what you say here:

    “The only dudes who really don’t care about some of these girl’s high numbers are major betas who are just amazed they found this good looking girl who wants them.”
    .
    Hmmmm. EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT. Nothing has changed from my age group 30-40 to your age group in terms of how sluts are perceived, and as I said a bunch of times high status guys with options take a pass on them and they have to settle for lower status without options.
    .
    Alright, hamsters get back to work now.

  • Mike C

    Just got to quote this:

    “What’s worse for these dudes is that in their ignorance of hypergamy, they have no idea what they are up against- that their gf’s believe that they are settling. Some have already been cheated on. One repeated occurrence happens at any bar I go to that this one particular member of this slut club happens to be at. She has always had the tingles for me but when I first met her I had a gf, and now I wouldn’t let my dick go within 3 yards of her pussy. Anyway, she eye fucks (not glances, I mean Wedding Crashers style eye-fucked-the-shit-out-of-me) the living crap out of me all while her bf dotes on her, buys her beers, etc… Some are met with eye contact from me, others I let slip by in my peripheral vision. One night I decided to tally up the eye fucks. After a half hour, I stopped keeping track after thirty. I may one night summon up all the evil in me and strike up a conversation with her around the bf, but I just don’t know if I have that in me- the poor guy just doesn’t know what he’s up against.
    .
    I really should probably just drop it but I got these dopes arguing over and over and over I’m wrong and I don’t know whats up, and here it is straight from a younger guy on the scene aware exactly of what is going on, and how these chicks act even when they are with boyfriends. Now, WC, I don’t know you from Adam, and maybe you are the type to sample a bunch of different guys and then be faithful, doting, and loyal to the guy you are with in a relationship. But that is clearly the exception, not the rule.

  • Mike C

    Stephenie,

    Off-topic but you might find this interesting:

    I remember on media class on college stating that advertising as a profession (along with marketing) would had been impossible a hundred years ago do to lack of a real need or platform for it, so is true we had a historical situation that is in many ways old, but unique on many others.

    The whole enchilada is about controlling your mind and the way you think

    http://classroom.sdmesa.edu/pjacoby/journal-of-retailing.pdf

    “The Real Meaning of Consumer Demand

    Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfactions, our ego satisfactions, in consumption. The measure of social status, of social acceptance, of prestige, is now to be found in our consumptive patterns. The very meaning and significance of our lives today expressed in consumptive terms. The greater the pressures upon the individual to conform to safe and accepted social standards, the more does he tend to express his aspirations and his individuality in terms of what he wears, drives, eats- his home, his car, his pattern of food serving, his hobbies.
    These commodities and services must be offered to the consumer with a special urgency. We require not only “forced draft” consumption, but “expensive” consumption as well. We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced, and discarded at an ever increasing pace.

    …….

    In a study made by “The Bach Letter,” based upon Federal Reserve Bank figures, we see that in 1946 roughly 20 cents out of the consumer’s dollar was tied up in various contractual types of payment. In 1954 this figure reached a high of 32 cents. Included are repayment and interest charges on mortgages and installment credit, rent, insurance payments, and property taxes.
    Thus a smaller portion of the consumer dollar is now available for those goods and services that are not contracted for in advance. It follows, therefore, that one answer to competition in 1955 must be an extension of consumer credit and installment selling.”

    At the risk of being labeled sexist, I think women are more susceptible to that programming message of marketing and advertising.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The whole enchilada is about controlling your mind and the way you think

    I already knew this even before I studied advertising. Somehow I always have the common sense of look what the herd was doing and decide for myself if they were right or if they were being idiots, even as a teenager. Might be genetic (my mother is the nonsense type and don’t judge people for what they earn, but she always told me that a rich confident asshole is an asshole, and I adored my hard working serious honest father so I could see the difference between the security of my loving home and all my girlfriends and classmates living hell with a horrible careless father that cared more about pussy than family and a very few of their mothers were cock carousel chasers that would trade them for a new one on heartbeat, so it might be a combo) you might be surprised of how little I spent and how little my husband spents now in comparison with how little he did when he was single, is mostly food for me and my cat (I brought her from D.R.) and some coats that mostly were presents from my in laws given that obviously I never needed one before. So trust me I know that my happiness is not a “purchase away”.
    But when were studying advertising they indeed showed that women were more likely to respond to a certain type of campaings than men and given that in Europe (most of the education was European based) they didn’t had this politically correct idea of not telling it like it is, if you paint shit like gold and make a convincing “emotional add” Women will buy it in droves.
    Men need to be more logical, and the product most have more quality than just status but men’s weakness is beauty and sex. if you create a campaign for something that creates the illusion of abundance of sex with beautiful women, men will respond…not on the quantities of women, mind you but they will also buy stupid things if you place pretty enough women on adds.
    My favorite example is the campaign for diamond engagement rings a woman will think is insane to spent 3 months of salary on a ring and the shopping behavior showed that a man that goes with his girlfriend to buy the ring will spent less money, she will pick the cheapest prettier ring, that is why the adds are aimed at men, and there is this new culture of the surprise engagement ring/proposal a man going alone will follow the instructions of the salesperson and buy the most expensive ring, specially using men’s fear of rejection as a sales pitch “no worth it woman will say yes to a cheap ring”. No gender is inherently immune to brainwashing/advertisement, YMMV.

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com college slacker

    @WC

    “I bet you truly believe you can tell the difference”

    Word gets around. By this time in my college career I can point to over half the girls on campus (no small feat at a school the size of mine) and tell you which one is or isn’t a slut, which ones do more…exotic… things, which ones are teases, etc…

    “A lot of women with “3″ sex partners see you as an easy mark.”

    I don’t think you’ve read my blog, so FYI I’m not lookin to get into a relationship. At all. I’m all for being a “mark” if that means me and some cutie go back for the night and then for me to never call her or text her again. Or keep her around, if I feel like it.

  • Wild Cougar

    Discretion is not a difficult skill to master. Men who believe that women come in two distinct categories and that they can tell the difference are easy to fool. Because their male ego depends on them believing that. No evidence to the contrary will be accepted.

    That makes them easy marks.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    3-4? LOL. So if a 26 year old “girl” told you she’d only had 3 sexual partners and acted coy and made you work for it, wore conservative clothes, you would feel pretty sure she wasn’t a slut. I bet you truly believe you can tell the difference.

    Actually this might be easier to spot than you think. And the guys can correct me if I’m wrong.

    Exes are rarely people that are not part of your social circle on some form and men of the same crowd (in collegeslacker case) share this info as soon as they can, if you take a look around at the manosphere a bro will tell immediately another bro, that he is making the ridiculous by associating themselves formally with known sluts, and they usually have evidence of this, like pics of cum shots on their faces and a drunk slut will probably won’t even notice she is being filmed or photographed or will smile at the camera. So that is why sluts pick men outside their crowd after they notice they won’t commit to them, betas will no ask many questions, mostly because they are already in heaven thinking that this hottie is paying attention to them.

    But I’m pretty sure if they suspect something all they need is go to the nearest ar and buy a beer to the most alpha guy they see and let him talk. He will find out soon enough who he is dealing with, one thing missing here is that men hate sluts that try to pass as nice girls, they absolutely despise them is the cuckoldry thing at work, so they love to screw them over if they have the chance, even if they don’t even know the man in question, unless the man is a real omega push over dick in which case they will try to cheat with the slut just out of disgusts with their unmanliness. Most beta men really don’t want to know, only when they find their girlfriends opening their legs to another guy is when they know exactly what their gotten themselves too. Or when they just ditch them for no good reason. So unless the slut moves out of town or do a huge change of social circles she can actually be easily identified by a man curious enough, YMMV.

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com college slacker

    @SW

    Ha I’ll admit I don’t particularly word my posts for female consumption so you’ll have to overlook the many f bombs I have been know to drop, if that’s what you meant by being strong.

    Funny you mention this girl, I know of a couple of girls who are very similar to her. Nobody had the balls to approach… a hot prude is an intimidating target for many, after all. Now, these dudes are thinking two things:

    1) Maybe they can cash in real quick because maybe she’ll put out before she graduates, one last hurrah and all that.

    2) Maybe they do want to be with her, but their window of opportunity is closing fast and only now has that forced them to sack up, which only 1 of them truly did by talking to her face to face anyway. Sort of desperate, sort of holy crap I’m running out of time. I was in that sort of situation with one girl at one point in my life, I know a few people who have been as well, and unfortunately these things just don’t seem to work out anyway. Should have made the move sooner.

    Either way, if your girl wants to stay a good girl or move on from college it is probably wise for her to tell those dudes “too little, too late”, which it looks like she did anyway or you told her to do anyway.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Ha I’ll admit I don’t particularly word my posts for female consumption so you’ll have to overlook the many f bombs I have been know to drop, if that’s what you meant by being strong.

      No, I meant they are money, very useful perspective.

      Either way, if your girl wants to stay a good girl or move on from college it is probably wise for her to tell those dudes “too little, too late”, which it looks like she did anyway or you told her to do anyway.

      Ha, after four years of keeping her knees clamped shut she’s not about to give it up now. She’s got her eyes on the prize – and plans to date men at least five years older once she gets out there.

  • Wild Cougar

    Mmmhmm ;) Like I said, women like me are glad men like you exist. You won’t understand.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Either way, if your girl wants to stay a good girl or move on from college it is probably wise for her to tell those dudes “too little, too late”, which it looks like she did anyway or you told her to do anyway.

    Heh the thing is that although rare a woman that didn’t engaged on promiscuous behavior and was punished with lack of male attention will be too resentful towards this guys or their type to see them as potential partners, specially when she is also probably thinking long term herself it is rare, but it does happen.

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com collegeslacker

    @WC

    If you say so.

    For one, having two distinct categories, slut and not slut, helps a lot when making decisions about a girl. No dude wants to devote lots of energy and time to a girl who has been around and around the around the block.

    Secondly, discretion? As in acting discreet to hide slutty ways? Good luck. Sluts have huge amounts of tells which usually manifest a great deal in the bedroom.

    Thirdly, I don’t think anyone I know has an ego investment in believing there are only two types of girls? I’m not even sure what you’re trying to get at there.

  • Abbot

    “women come in two distinct categories”
    .
    They do. And always have, since the dawn of civilization. The only difference today is that the categories are separated by national borders. Category B provides fun in the West. Category A provides wives in the South and East. And it is quite easy to tell them apart.

  • Mike C

    That makes them easy marks.
    .
    Well…the cougar reveals her true spots so to speak. Too funny, you went on an on to stress how character has nothing to do with promiscuity, yet with your own words basically admit you are a con-artist.

  • Abbot

    “No dude wants to devote lots of energy and time to a girl who has been around and around the around the block.”
    .
    There must be a dude shortage because that sentiment infuriates women.
    .
    “That make them easy marks”
    .
    Why do American women want to screw around and then attempt to dupe men. Are you on some type of sick ego trip? Just leave us be so we can get nice normal girls. Is that ok with you? I found this. It sort of gets to the point. Enjoy.
    .
    http://www.tiredblackman.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=2227&pid=34876

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com collegeslacker

    @WC

    Haha men like me? Men like me could care less whether you are a slut or not, we’re in if for the sex and little else.

    I’ve even considered going cougar hunting at this bar back at home. If I’m really an “easy mark”, should be a cakewalk, right?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Well…the cougar reveals her true spots so to speak. Too funny, you went on an on to stress how character has nothing to do with promiscuity, yet with your own words basically admit you are a con-artist.

    ZING!

    I was wondering the same thing, she actually admits lack of character by fucking men and lying to them about her number just to screw with them (she even call them easy targets?), but them claims being a slut with good character “no lies or cheating” just reinforce the stereotype and reeks of validation seeking. I’m a slut but I had never been played by double standard guys, if you are a slut you wouldn’t care less and you would say well I had fucked more guys that I can count, would you be the next? and be done with it.

    I mean a true slut doesn’t care what the man/woman thinks, whether she will consider you a pump and dump or not, you are in it for the sex only, pure and simple if you care so much to “trick a man” to get sex or to get a relationship then you are not a slut, you are faking sluttyness for whatever reason.

  • GudEnuf

    All right, who here think Wild Cougar’s blog is fake?

  • Abbot

    Wild Cougar represents woman who run amok on birth control pills. No pills and they re-evolve as humans fifty years into the past

  • Wild Cougar

    Ma dears you’ve got it all twisted. I don’t lie about my sexual behavior. But I have friends and associates who do. And are VERY good at lying. I’ve seen quite a few women marry a former “player” who liked to hump and dump. The alpha type. And he never suspected their true number or past activities. I have seen quite a few women be very discreet about their activites and no one is the wiser.

    Women like me love the guys who are sure they can tell the difference, because while they show an inner contempt for women, and have no problem fooling and lying to women, there are other ladies who lay traps for them. And they are never the wiser. Until their bank accounts are empty and they are crying in their beer.

    I don’t condone that behavior, but I think people who do those things deserve to end up with a mate just like them.

  • Wild Cougar

    I do find it interesting how much anger was generated from from the notion that a woman can fool a man.

    Did I hit a nerve?

  • Wild Cougar

    I guess I could have explained what I meant a little more clearly, but I’ve found that men who think there are two types of women and they always can tell the difference are very set in their view. It would be useless to tell them they are wrong. So I didn’t see the point of explaining.

    But I suppose I underestimated the amount of emotion it would produce.

    No worries, though.

  • Wild Cougar

    Ms. Rowling, I am not talking about myself. I am talking about women who are promiscuous and hide it. Well. They are dishonest people. So they will lie to get what they want. These women exist.

    I have never felt the need to be this type of woman. I’ve been able to get what I want being honest. It might take me a bit longer or more work, but I like myself better.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    “And they are never the wiser. Until their bank accounts are empty and they are crying in their beer”

    You are still reinforcing the stereotype of the cheating disloyal, lying slut, I mean a woman with real lo number doesn’t need to set traps for guys, just to empty their bank accounts and that is a low character behavior as well, why don’t you consider yourself unique already?

  • Abbot

    “I do find it interesting how much anger was generated from from the notion that a woman can fool a man. Did I hit a nerve?”
    .
    Women lying, desperate for attention with daddy issues, with no self respect or regard for others well being? Hit a nerve? Are you kidding. We are talking about women, right? American women? The only anger is actually deep disappointment upon realizing that, despite the hope we have, these women have not yet fully evolved into upright members of society. But I dont blame them as its their parents who failed and the vicious cycle continues. Its generational. Like food stamper families. Hey, are they…never mind.
    .
    they show an inner contempt for women”
    .
    Add to the above self-hatred and self deprecating behavior as evidenced by ones desire to associate with people who outwardly or otherwise show an inner contempt for them. Clearly, the ability for women to choose wisely has hit rock bottom. Again, blame is laid with the parents.
    .
    “he never suspected their true number or past activities. I have seen quite a few women be very discreet about their activites and no one is the wiser.”
    .
    Until that frightful day while the blissful couple is at the Walmart checkout line and one dude on the next line looks over at her and says to his friend “hey, I hit dat” with pride and then his friend high fives him and says, “yeah me too, I hit dat reeeal good.” Yep, that whole discreet thing just fizzled away right then and there. A big shot of wiser kicked in. Hopefully, they did not yet have children.

  • tom

    Jason, of course you opinion is that ALL men know of the stats that indicate an expeienced woman is more likely to cheat, once in a loving relationship. My contention is that most men have NEVER seen any such study, and only reject experienced women because of the immature EW factor. Or perhaps their own insecurities. My example was nothing more than showing a dick is a dick is a dick, whether it is one 50 times or 25 two times……Same difference which show the EW factor as childish. Childish is also the references to a cock carrousel . Espcially if they were on of the “rides” that somehow make them better than thewoman? Fugging immature Boys make those types of statements. Hypocritical at least.

  • tom

    To accommodate a few women who feel entitled to have men any way they want them when they want them?
    .
    So there. I tested your hypothesis and you’re right from a deductive reasoning POV.
    _____________________
    Women have been putting up with the “boys will be boys” male promiscuous behavior for a long time. They dont seem to be as affected by the EW factor as men are. Wonder why?

  • tom

    @ collegeslacker

    Haha men like me? Men like me could care less whether you are a slut or not, we’re in if for the sex and little else.

    _______________________
    So you my young friend are no different than the sluts you say you detest? Ultimate hypocrite. Dont worry however, wisdom is not wasted on the young.

  • Wild Cougar

    Ok, so what I’ve got so far is:

    1. There are a bunch of sex positive feminists out there telling women to be promiscuous because men do it. And they are wailing about the double standard. So much so that some men feel they need to hold on to the double standard as self defense.

    2. The “cuckhold” fear is very great and seems to be the foundation of anger at promiscuous women.

    3. People have a strong need to believe that promiscuous women will be punished later in life.

    4. Studies about female sexuality are contradictory, but will be used to support either side. But everybody knows that (most) people lie about their sexuality.

    Did I miss anything? Other than why (x group) people are wrong or naive disgusting or have no morals.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Hey, kids, there’s a relevant debate on the new post you might like! Aldonza has written a guest post about promiscuity and why it doesn’t cause cheating.

  • Abbot

    They dont seem to be as affected by the EW factor as men are. Wonder why?
    .
    The average man does not present with cause for such factor and the average woman prefers not to raise the issue as she will have a lot more to answer for.
    .
    The average man being considered for a LTR will have had far fewer if any one night stands, recreational-vacation sex, sex on a whim, multi-genitalia sex, empowerment sex, time-for-me sex, find-yourself sex, hear-me-roar sex, craigslist sex, bus-bathroom sex, sex-expression sex and whatever the feel-good cover name du jour happens to be. Because he was not able to do so. And she was. With little or no effort. No challenge. No accomplishment. The fact its known and accepted among the public [as in everybody except certain people on this site] that the average woman is capable of this and the average man is not. People, the public, the general population of which men are part of do NOT hold women in hight regard who are viewed as senseless gluttons not worthy of respect from good men. Why are men being called upon to feel differently, to feel more comfortable? Essentially to give women a break. They will get a break all right – when they temper and limit their sexual activity to come in line with the average man.
    .
    So for illustration again, until the denial stops:
    .
    PEOPLE, men and women, get a visceral reaction to many acts that involved deep close contact. Aggressive kissing and groping in public in US culture gets that reaction and that is between two people. If one of those two went to another person and started kissing them, then another and another, people witnessing this would start to barf. Never mind the victims. Fact is, the woman can probably get away with going up to one guy after another and kiss him, provided that the next in line did not see what she was up to. The public knows this, its known that women can move among men this way and few if any men can do that. Its easy for her to accomplish, not much or no effort required so its not considered an accomplishment or worthy of praise in addition to the visceral reaction. You cannot fault people for reacting to human nature. Look at someone vomit and try to hold it down. Same thing. Its how we are wired. Can we overcome it. Sure. But why bother? To accommodate a few women who feel entitled to have men any way they want them when they want them?

  • Wild Cougar

    That is funny, Abbot. Some of the best liars I ever met were women from rural Latin America. They could teach an American woman thing or two about artifice.

  • Abbot

    1. There are a bunch of sex positive feminists out there telling women to be promiscuous because men do it. And they are wailing about the double standard. So much so that some men feel they need to hold on to the double standard as self defense.
    .
    Not because men do it. Assuming that these feminists are somewhat smart, they know that most men are not promiscuous. Its because women attribute their easy access to sex to feminism [and BC pills of course] and that was fine until men started avoiding such women for other women considered to be wife-material [as defined by men only]. These SP feminists will not tell women to back off from the casual sex if they want men for relationships so they went the other direction to ensure that men have no choice but to consider promiscuous women. That is, the SP want to redefine “wife material” but they are failing miserably. Yes, yes, it is quite laughable. What double standard? Women can have as much or more sex than men. Nobody cares. This whole double standard thing is a ruse. If men refuse to marry such women that is a private matter. Leave these men alone. They harm nobody, right?
    .
    2. The “cuckhold” fear is very great and seems to be the foundation of anger at promiscuous women.
    .
    What anger? The goal is to avoid them when the time is right. If a man gets stuck with one, well, who’s fault is that?
    .
    3. People have a strong need to believe that promiscuous women will be punished later in life.
    .
    Now what good is such a belief? Does not marrying such a woman punish her? No. Its a big world with plenty of options. If she believes that she did not get what she wanted later in life because of her easy indulgence, well then she’s got a good lesson to pass on to young women: change your ways.
    .
    4. Studies about female sexuality are contradictory, but will be used to support either side. But everybody knows that (most) people lie about their sexuality.
    .
    Some women in the US do not have a need to lie about it. MOST women in the developing world would laugh at the entire concept of studies or lying. Its so nice to know they are there waiting.

  • Abbot

    “Some of the best liars I ever met were women from rural Latin America.”
    .
    Few there in their home country have a reason to lie about sex and they are strictly for marriage [no picking the flowers]. un regalo de dios. But its not fair to compare them to American women. Like comparing oranges to ball bearings…or 1955 to 2011. A futile exercise, albeit fun.

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com collegeslacker

    @Tom

    I do not detest sluts, but I do enjoy making fun of them. There is a difference, however slight.

    How do you feel about sluts?

  • tom

    You make fun of sluts, why? You do the same thing they do.

    A wiser man than you or me said he never met a man he didnt like. That didnt mean he liked every man he met, but he had to get to know them before he decided whether he liked them or not…
    I feel the same way about sluts…..If they totally have their life together, all their friends like them, they dont seem to be mental, they have a good job they have some past times, they understand responsibility, then I might give them a chance. If their only quirk is they have had sex with a more than average amount of men, it doesnt matter to me. You see I dont lump all sluts into the same group. 30 partners by the age of 21 is different than 30 partners by the age of 40. There are varying degrees of slut. I will not judge a woman based soley on her number, as many men will do. I will dig a lot deeper.. Not all women sleep around for the same reasons.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    Tom, as I said it would be hypocritical for a man with a high number of partners to reject women with a similarly high number, but a man who has never taken part in any of the varieties of sex that Abbot lists shouldn’t be forced into a relationship with someone who has.

    You regularly resort to ad hominem, rather than rational argument. I myself, being somewhat emotionless, prefer rational argument. You label those who have a problem with forming relationships with women who have been on the carousel immature, as if there is something mature about banging everything with a dick. Well not everything. The whole Alpha/Beta division is based on the observation that left to their own devices women will prefer to have sex with the male designated Alpha, than with those designated Beta, the 80/20 rule.

    When the woman finds she can’t get Alphas any more (and some take a while to realise it) they pick one of those attendant Betas, and use him for support and comfort (as WC references above) without having any real attraction to him. If an Alpha were to come by, the strong possibility exists that she would cuckold her Beta without any hesitation or remorse.

    Your “a dick is a dick is a dick” is not correct. A dick is attached to a man. A woman who has formed an attachment to one man, in such a way to have had sex with him many times, is far better choice for a mate than one who has regularly had sex without any such attachment.

    Does that apply to all women? No. But in a society where women hold most of the leverage in the dissolution of relationships, you lay your money on the bet with the lowest risk. The “eww” factor you describe, if it is a factor, may be an intuitive evaluation of the risks.

    You have revealed a bit of your own situation on these pages, and you are engaged to a woman who may have gone a bit wild before she met you, but was also in a marriage relationship for a long time before that. She has proven that she is capable of being a faithful wife. You have acknowledged that your level of experience is somewhat similar to hers, and have described yourself as Alpha which suggests you have the qualities to maintain her attraction in the relationship. Your situation is not like every other covered, and you don’t have to whiteknight for every woman in creation.

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com collegeslacker

    @Tom

    I make fun of them because they are easy. Being a slut takes little more than spreading your legs. Which, for the record, is fine with me; I claim no moral high ground and actively enjoy what they have to offer. But I would never be in a LTR with one, such poor impulse control does not reflect well upon her.

    If you’re fine with giving sluts a chance and making an emotional investment in them, then by all means go ahead and do your thing. It does, however, make you a rare kind of man.

  • Mike C

    It does, however, make you a rare kind of man.
    .
    Probably in more ways then we’ll ever really know. :)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Probably in more ways then we’ll ever really know.

      Haha, you know this drives poor Tom crazy! He is definitely a guy.

  • Abbot

    “A dick is attached to a man.”
    .
    Please, lets never forget that despite being treated like an interactive sex toy, another human has FOREVER left his mark.

  • Doug1

    Tom–

    Abott…The double standard people.. For the most part it is illogical. If a guy is convincd an expeienced woman is more likely to cheat, ok it has a little validity (although not all will cheat, that is why you get to know them) but the vast majority of men think of the Eww factor, and that is what the double standard is basd on.

    The eww factor is a verbal expression of biologically wired in instinct for males to not want to commit to females who are more likely to cuckold him such that the children he is helping provision do not carry his own genes. It does operate beneath forebrain mediated logic. It is definitely functional.

    The double standard re: studs versus sluts makes perfect logical sense when analyzed correctly with the right priors, as well as being wired into our respective female and male brains. It’s not primarily or most influentially men who decide that men who are able to sleep with lots of cute and especially hot girls must be studs. It’s girls, by their attracted behavior more than what they necessarily say who do. It’s guys, by their behavior more reliably than their words, who decide girls with high numbers are sluts when it comes time to fall in love and have a LTR, not to mention considering a girl for marriage. Before that stage it’s much more other girls who do slut shaming, in an effort to make it easier for themselves to get commitment from guys in return for sex, by reducing the amount of low or no commitment casual sex other girls are willing to provide.

    Pretty much all it takes for a cute or hot girl to have large numbers of causal sex with guys 1 to as much as 3 SMV ranks above herself is to be willing to spread her legs. For a guy to get lots of causal low commitment set with cute or hot girls takes a high SMV, alpha or lesser alpha for the merely cute. It takes tight game as good status. Ergo stud.

    @ collegeslacker–Haha men like me? Men like me could care less whether you are a slut or not, we’re in if for the sex and little else.

    _______________________
    So you my young friend are no different than the sluts you say you detest? Ultimate hypocrite. Dont worry however, wisdom is not wasted on the young.

    Few alphas say they hate sluts, and I’ve never heard collegeslack say that. They typically like them and say they do for casual sex, flings, and concurrent relationships (though the later is typically mostly semi good girls). They don’t like them for emotionally committing to in an exclusive LTR, not to mention marrying and also financially committing. No hypocrisy involved whatsoever.

    Hypocrisy is when you profess one thing as a moral belief, and then act in contradiction to that belief. High number count alphas don’t typically say there is nothing good about having a bunch of slutty girls about. They freely admit to enjoying how relatively easy it is for them to have casual sex with them, and how they are often real good sex partners with no training necessary. High number count guys also don’t typically tell low count betas that marrying a slut is no problemo, while avoiding that themselves.

    Nope no hypocrisy going on. You can argue that there’s unfairness to betas going on in that high number alphas are ruining lots of former good girls for betas down the road. Alpha guys have always wanted to do that though. It’s the girls’ behavior that’s changed, in being in large numbers willing to have casual sex without commitment, if it’s with an alpha.

    That’s why Susan Walsh on this blog focuses on changing women’s minds about the desireability of casual sex for their long term LTR with commitment and marriage market success. Secondarily she tries to encourage beta guys to learn some game and get some emotional and sexual attractiveness mojo going, so that guys who might be more commitment minded are available for good looking girls to chose instead of sex with alphas on their, causal sex, terms.

    Am I getting through to you at all?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Doug1
      You have summed up my mission here better than anyone, including myself. I think I will need to change my Mission Statement to reflect your comment.

  • Abbot

    This whole double standard and slut shaming claims and insecurity claims and hypocritical claims nonsense are attempts to discredit a type of thinking and action. But those doing it never seem to admit what they are up to or its kept vague. Not too long ago there was some study done suggesting that hookups can lead to relationships at about the same rate as non hookup meets. Not a story remarkable enough to have a following. Oh, my my but the feminist just jumped all over it. Could not figure out why at first. But its now clear. Although the feminists never admitted it was about the men accepting the women despite it being a hookup, they just stated that both men and women accept it and so there is nothing wrong with starting a relationship with a hookup. But it is really about the man, and that is why support for that study shows that these feminists are VERY concerned that men will accommodate a woman who wants sex just to leave her if she wants more from him because she had sex right away. The feminists seem so desperate to get women to believe that men do not care and perversely are trying to get men to accept that it makes no difference how a woman behaves sexually.
    .
    I will never believe its about slut shaming. Its it is about women becoming
    dis-empowered because of their empowerment activi