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.
{ 1003 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 … 7 »
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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
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
@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?
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,
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
It’s probably the last time she’ll be honest about it.
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.
They’re actually succeeding- 20 is the new 10. It just lowers the bar, it doesn’t do away with it entirely.
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!
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.
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.
” 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.
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
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/
@slumlord – here is the report you mentioned
.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf
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.
@Teflon Expat
What blows my mind is the suggested strategy of getting all women to slut it up! Misery loves company!
Thanks for calling that to my attention! What an interesting comment – of course my being mentioned helps
@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.
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.
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.
It’s very smart tactically because the anti-shaming rhetoric pervading society’s at its zenith. Consequences? Those are soooo pre-millenium.
@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.
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.
“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
TeflonExpat, you’re my best new source of links! Thanks, that’s a good one.
“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.
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
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.
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.
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”
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……….
@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.
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.
You may well be right there Susan. But the article is sourced from anthropology texts. Helens work made the same conclusions re female promiscuity.
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.”
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.
Oh, so slut hood is a natural state of being then? One nil for the feminazi I guess?
” Men were the head but women were the neck and the neck turns the head.”
Quoting MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING now are we?
@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.
“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.”
“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
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?
@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.
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
Here are some choice quotes from a palpably frustrating rant:
.
.
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.
.
.
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.
.
.
Boundaries? what boundaries? You. Are. Fucking!
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
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.
@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
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.
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
When asked about gender, no one brought up the fact that women have much easier access to casual sex.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7iSVvBa2Lk&feature=player_embedded#!
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
Interesting quote from Williams re what feminism is today:
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.
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
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.
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.
Sure, why not?
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.
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?
@jess
.
.
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.
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?
@jess
.
.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
“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?
@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.
@ 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.
@Teflon Expat
I read that piece and thought it was ridiculous. That guy has really drunk the feminist Kool Aid.
@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.
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.
@ 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”
There is some interesting information here
.
http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/09/sex-should-women-be-more-like-men/
@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.
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.
@Abbot
Yes, that makes sense. I wish it were so!
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
@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.
“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).
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
@ 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.
@ Susan
“The ones who benefit most are the dual high income earners who marry.” = so called “power couples” …
@ 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.
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.
@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.
@ 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)
@ 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.
“[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.
@ 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?
@ 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?
@ 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?
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.
“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).
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
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.
@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.
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).
“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
“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?
“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.
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.
“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.
@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.
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.
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).
“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”.
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.
That last post was from me. Dont know why it shows anonymous
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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…
“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.
“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.
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?
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.
@ 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.
“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.
@ 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.
“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.
“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.
@ 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.
“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?
« 1 2 3 4 … 7 »
{ 10 trackbacks }