How much does a girl's past..

[Riddler]

This has zero to do with anything that has been said so far in this thread.

Other than the fact it is yet another example of how women are punished for male perception.

It obviously has to do with something in this thread because you asked the question, I responded with the truth.

[CuckingFunt]

It obviously has to do with something in this thread because you asked the question, I responded with the truth.

I asked a question about why women should be expected to limit their number of sexual partners when men aren't and you responded with something about women's fashion choices.

Not only does it not answer the question of why women should be held to different standards than men, but it appears to assume that women who are sexually promiscuous must, by definition, dress a certain way. Complicating the expectation doesn't answer why it exists.

[blah blah blah]

Nobody should want to get in a serious relationship with someone who's slept around with a lot of people that you come in contact with on a daily basis. How would you like having to deal with all the winks as your wife passes by all the men that plowed her balloon knot before you came into the picture?

[Riddler]

I asked a question about why women should be expected to limit their number of sexual partners when men aren't and you responded with something about women's fashion choices.

Not only does it not answer the question of why women should be held to different standards than men, but it appears to assume that women who are sexually promiscuous must, by definition, dress a certain way. Complicating the expectation doesn't answer why it exists.

Oh my mistake. You said women should be able to express themselves sexually however they feel empowered, and I thought you meant dresswise. But no, there is no excuse for a woman to be a . Just because she can express herself freely, sexually, doesn't mean she should every guy she sees. Guys usually have to have game to get a chick into bed, he is not offered sex, it can be looked at as a challenge. It's easier for women to sleep around because all they need is a pulse and a vagina, so Whenever an accomplishment requires absolutely no challenge, no one respects it. It’s just viewed as a lack of self-discipline.

[Magua]

It's easier for women to sleep around because all they need is a pulse and a vagina

Sometimes they don't even need a pulse, tbh.

[CuckingFunt]

Lmao so it's the man's problem if the chick sleeps around, he is just supposed to accept this by some feminine code and if he disagrees he's "insecure."

It's the man's problem if he has a problem with it. A woman who has slept around has slept around, she hasn't gone out of her way to make you uncomfortable.

That's pretty sexist thinking of you. Also, not wanting to enter a relationship with a means he's "scared" of getting hurt rather than rational. Thats a pretty odd thought process you live by.

Rational about what? The possibility of being hurt?

Again, absolutely hilarious logic you are going by here. So in your world, breaking up = the tell tale sign of a successful relationship? The relationships were going so great huh that you both decided to throw a breakup party

No, in my world it's possible for relationships to end because two people who care for and respect each other realize that they're not in love.

Your goals are to be a serial monogamist and move on to the next once you get tired and yet another relationship of yours fails.

Right, you view things through some odd colored glasses. Successful long term relationships are not on your agenda, 3-5 years and on to the next! Who needs a man made concept such as "marriage" whenever you'd rather like animals. Ignignokt was right when he said you should live in a cave off nuts and berries for the full experience.

Nope. That's not it, either.

You are totally making false assumptions. I never boasted about putting my inside of anyone. I have had quite few sexual partners for my age surprisingly. BUT that said, I totally sympathize with the guys point of view and why one might want to just sleep around with no commitment. Don't blame us, women with loose morality such as yours made it that way.

Uh huh.

"I've never boasted about the tons of sexual partners I've had, but it HAS been tons. Just to be clear."

But, seriously, how have women with loose morality made it necessary for men to loosen their morals?

I also never said anything about lying to get into anyones pants. I said that making the assumption that a man wants to be with you long term unless stated otherwise is just dumb and not his fault at all. it isn't lying at all if you don't stop in the middle of putting the damn condom on your and say "Hey, just so you know, this is totally no strings attached and I don't want a relationship with you!" It isn't "i want to be with you unless stated otherwise," it's more like "don't assume I want to be with you unless i've said as much." Making dumb assumptions just because you ed is what gets women hurt. It's irrational, much like many things women do.

If you're not being clear and forthright about your intentions before you a woman, you're being dishonest with her. And you probably shouldn't be ing someone you can't have such a conversation with (preferably before you're in the middle of putting the condom on).

I'd take my moral compass over yours any day. I've had far less partners than you and I'm a MAN. I also don't follow the ideology of serial monogamy. I actually have the values to make a long term committed relationship work (which you obviously lack, evidenced by your posting history on this board as well as your relationship history) and will someday do so, ALBEIT WITH A WOMAN WHO SHARES THOSE SAME VALUES AND MORALS, NOT SOME . Yes, self respecting men with testicles larger than grapes DO NOT try to make a housewife out of a hoe. You'd look like a clown or rather a CuckingFunt.

Incidentally, you know all about my relationship history other than the fact I've had one.

[CuckingFunt]

According to ing t you're just insecure and its your problem if you don't like the fact that your girl has ed every guy in town

Pretty much.

[Riddler]

It's the man's problem if he has a problem with it. A woman who has slept around has slept around, she hasn't gone out of her way to make you uncomfortable.













But, seriously, how have women with loose morality made it necessary for men to loosen their morals?

Thats why we don't date s because they'll sleep around again. We have more at stake when it comes to dating because a female can sleep around easier than a man can. So therefore we don't date s, we them. A woman has to respect themselves first before they get it.

[CuckingFunt]

Oh my mistake. You said women should be able to express themselves sexually however they feel empowered, and I thought you meant dresswise. But no, there is no excuse for a woman to be a . Just because she can express herself freely, sexually, doesn't mean she should every guy she sees. Guys usually have to have game to get a chick into bed, he is not offered sex, it can be looked at as a challenge. It's easier for women to sleep around because all they need is a pulse and a vagina, so Whenever an accomplishment requires absolutely no challenge, no one respects it. It’s just viewed as a lack of self-discipline.

Again, there is a big assumption being made, the reason for which has yet to be sufficiently explained. Having multiple partners and ing every guy one sees are not the same thing. Because a woman has done the former, does not mean it can be assumed she has done, or will do, the latter.

[Riddler]

Again, there is a big assumption being made, the reason for which has yet to be sufficiently explained. Having multiple partners and ing every guy one sees are not the same thing. Because a woman has done the former, does not mean it can be assumed she has done, or will do, the latter.

Having multiple partners she feels like she needs someone instead of letting a good guy come to her.

[CuckingFunt]

Thats why we don't date s because they'll sleep around again. We have more at stake when it comes to dating because a female can sleep around easier than a man can. So therefore we don't date s, we them. A woman has to respect themselves first before they get it.

Right. You're insecure.

[CuckingFunt]

So re ed. Would you rather have a used car or a new car, if both were offered to you free?

It would depend on the cars.

[Riddler]

Right. You're insecure.

And your stupidity is legendary. I'm done responding to you.

[TheSkeptic]

you should probably have those erectile problems looked into asap.

I'm a woman so I guess I look at sex differently than most of you guys.

Again, why? I'm certainly not advocating that women make their sexual decisions based on some desire to give men a taste of their own medicine, or anything like that. Women should express themselves sexually however they personally feel comfortable and/or empowered. But I still haven't been given a clear reason as to why women should be required to censor themselves in ways that men do not. Or are not expected to.

In a way men do censor themselves. I don't think I'd ever hear the things guys are saying in this thread in real life.

You obviously have your own opinion but I just don't think "men are doing it so it's okay for me to do it" is a practical line of reasoning.

It just comes across to me more like getting morals from external sources which I think goes against what being a woman is all about. I know that's not necessarily fair but I'm a bottom-line kind of gal when it comes to men. Though clearly we have different relationship goals so it might not be a sticking point for you and that's fine too.

Because sex is fun. And because it's possible to meet several people over the course of your lifetime to whom you are physically and sexually attracted, and with whom you share a mutual trust and respect. In those situations, giving in to sexual chemistry just makes sense to me. But not everyone should/must see it the same way.

I hear you. I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around giving in to sexual chemistry just like that.

Not sure I understand your point, here. Seems as though your assumption is that I've had multiple sexual partners because I have in the past been denied a long term relationship by some/all of the people I've dated?

Not at all. My point is basically that it's easier to just find one man that'll take a bullet for you than it is to have multiple partners. So I'm confused about why you'd go for several relationships with different men as your first choice. I'm not judging your or anything even if I might be coming across that way. I seriously just don't get it.

I've had very few encounters in my life that would count as one night stands. They were all in my youth, they were mostly with women, and I didn't much like them. It is entirely possible to have casual sexual relationships that aren't one night stands. Trust and respect are absolutely essential for me in picking a sexual partner, which pretty much rules out people I don't know at least as friends.

And I'm not sure what you mean by going from one guy to the next whenever I wanted to. I have had multiple sexual partners over the course of my life, but I do not typically have multiple sexual partners all at once. If there's someone I'm ing, whether it's for a period of a few weeks, a few months, or a few years, they're the only person I'm ing. I'm not bouncing around from one person to the next on different nights of the week (though, frankly, I don't see anything morally wrong with that, either, so long as everyone involved is careful and honest). So, if that's what you mean by going from one guy to the next whenever I wanted to, I would also feel weird about that, personally.

I mean one guy to the next in general. Like I said, I couldn't have sex with more than 2 or 3 guys over the course of my lifetime and I'd have to be widowed twice for that to happen. My body just wouldn't cooperate otherwise.

I guess I'm just having a hard time relating emotionally to the logistics of being a "serial monogamist" for lack of a better description. That would take a toll on me and while I definitely admire your openness in general I'm just having trouble understanding how you're so okay with how things have turned out even if I grasp what you're saying from a logical perspective. Make sense?

An opinion to which you are of course en led.

As is everyone, frankly. You'll notice that in this thread I haven't ever suggested that everyone should feel comfortable dating someone who's had an active past. Rather, I've merely questioned the idea that an active sex life is synonymous with a lack of morals.

Well yeah. I agree that an active sex life doesn't necessarily signify a lack of morals. But I also understand where the guys are coming from.

I think what they're doing is sort of like how some women will look at a guy's job prospects and financial stability before trying the knot except with sex. Just like how lots of women wouldn't marry a guy with a gambling problem or huge credit card debt, they wouldn't marry a woman who has shown what they perceive as a lack of sexual restraint.

[cantthinkofanything]

i knew that would be the response but i wasn't quick enough to edit. same car, one is used one is new. which would you prefer?

Is the old one dirtier?

[CuckingFunt]

i knew that would be the response but i wasn't quick enough to edit. same car, one is used one is new. which would you prefer?

Pointless analogy. People aren't cars. There is no situation in which you'd be faced with a choice between two women who were the same make and model. Human complexity doesn't allow for it.

[cantthinkofanything]

Pointless analogy. People aren't cars. There is no situation in which you'd be faced with a choice between two women who were the same make and model. Human complexity doesn't allow for it.

Twins!

[cantthinkofanything]

Pointless analogy. People aren't cars. There is no situation in which you'd be faced with a choice between two women who were the same make and model. Human complexity doesn't allow for it.

or strippers

[DeadlyDynasty]

or strippers

Not all strippers are the same...only their job le is.

cue Mom joke

[cantthinkofanything]

Not all strippers are the same...only their job le is.

cue Mom joke

Mom jokes are so last year.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Mom jokes are so last year.

Your mom is so last year.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Real talk though, I understand everybody's views on this, but I don't think there's some concrete way of living your sex life that everybody should abide by. There's just no way in I would get married at my age b/c there's too many things I still want to do in life that having a marriage would infringe upon. Relationships are a lot of work, and i don't think just because a girl sleeps around at one point in her life it means she'll always be a bag. Same with guys...that's what growing older and maturing does. We're all better with relationships than we were at 16--at least I'd hope most of you are.

Also, just b/c your girl was a virgin or didn't have many partners doesn't mean she'll be more faithful to you. Women are curious, and if they've had only one guy they still wonder what other partners would be like--be it co-workers, at the gym, etc. It's primal urges...that's nature, not some Christian ideals

[CuckingFunt]

You obviously have your own opinion but I just don't think "men are doing it so it's okay for me to do it" is a practical line of reasoning.

Neither do I. I firmly believed that sexual agency is based more upon recognizing what you want to do than what you can do.

It just comes across to me more like getting morals from external sources which I think goes against what being a woman is all about. I know that's not necessarily fair but I'm a bottom-line kind of gal when it comes to men. Though clearly we have different relationship goals so it might not be a sticking point for you and that's fine too.

Getting morals from an external source is precisely the sort of thing I would discourage. I don't think that you, as someone who feels comfortable with a limited sexual history, should allow external pressures to convince you to to have sex with more people. But neither do I think that I, or any other woman who wants to experience a more active sex life, should allow external forces to curb my sexual desires.

My ideal would be for everyone, men and women, to have the sex lives with which they personally feel comfortable. And to do so with an emphasis on openness, honesty, respect, and mutual enjoyment. That includes people to whom abstinence is an important moral or religious ideal.

I hear you. I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around giving in to sexual chemistry just like that.

And I have a hard time wrapping my head around not doing so. But to me that just exemplifies the variation/complexity of human sexuality and the fact that we shouldn't all be beholden to the same rules or judged according to such narrow expectations.

Not at all. My point is basically that it's easier to just find one man that'll take a bullet for you than it is to have multiple partners. So I'm confused about why you'd go for several relationships with different men as your first choice. I'm not judging your or anything even if I might be coming across that way. I seriously just don't get it.

It's not about making a conscious choice to have several relationships. It's more about not feeling the pressure for every dating relationship to lead to forever. When that person comes along that I don't want to just see casually, I'll more than happily settle down.

I mean one guy to the next in general. Like I said, I couldn't have sex with more than 2 or 3 guys over the course of my lifetime and I'd have to be widowed twice for that to happen. My body just wouldn't cooperate otherwise.

I guess I'm just having a hard time relating emotionally to the logistics of being a "serial monogamist" for lack of a better description. That would take a toll on me and while I definitely admire your openness in general I'm just having trouble understanding how you're so okay with how things have turned out even if I grasp what you're saying from a logical perspective. Make sense?

Yes, it does. I think it just has to do with different experiences and expectations.

Well yeah. I agree that an active sex life doesn't necessarily signify a lack of morals. But I also understand where the guys are coming from.

I think what they're doing is sort of like how some women will look at a guy's job prospects and financial stability before trying the knot except with sex. Just like how lots of women wouldn't marry a guy with a gambling problem or huge credit card debt, they wouldn't marry a woman who has shown what they perceive as a lack of sexual restraint.

I disagree with the analogy, but don't think it's really worth arguing just because you and I are clearly approaching the topic from different points of view. The main questions I still have, however, are regarding the one-sidedness of this particular line of thought. A number of the guys in this thread have repeatedly suggested that women should be judged according to this perceived lack of restraint, but their own willingness to sleep around indicates that they should not be judged according to the same. I'm mostly looking for someone to explain this position without relying upon throwing out more stereotyped accusations or in such a way that acknowledges the many ways in which it is problematic.

None of which will ever happen, of course, but it beats packing.

[CuckingFunt]

nice, bravo : I now award you biggest, dumbest bimbo on the board. Unzip my pants and accept your prize

Still not interested in your no matter how many screen names you use to offer it.

[CuckingFunt]

you would be if this were real life...nary a one has declined it yet ;-)

I never boasted

And a winky-face? Really??

especially judging by your craving tendencies

Heh, tendencies. You have a very active imagination.