I must have missed where on here it says one is supposed to write a dissertation on every single word that relates to the topic on which one posts. Sometimes there's just one or two things either worth commenting on or on which I'm at liberty to comment; sometimes the entire subject fits one of those descriptions. MsH's original post fit the former.
Look if you didn't want to answer the questions, then you shouldn't have bothered to answer them. You could have kept the derisive attitude and your answers to yourself. I was asking to find out where you were coming from because what I interpreted when I read your posts was something different than what you claim you meant
This question obviously doesn't want an answer as it has two flawed premises.
Then why bother to answer the question if you feel it is flawed and doesn't want an answer?
For one, I never said or implied that women should ostracize men who sleep around, or that it should only be women who do that.
You didn't? It seems like this is just what you're implying in what you posted previously. How can you deny that when it is there plain as day?
Imagine how different things might be if women ostracized men who sleep around the way they do women who sleep around
It's quite simple, really. Women don't judge guys as harshly as they judge other women for the number of partners they have. It would be one thing if they didn't judge other women at all, but they do - so they're just as guilty of this double standard as men are. My original point in mentioning it was that while there might be things that fit MsH's thesis with this thread topic, the sexual double standard doesn't because it's not just men who are guilty of it.
huh? I don't get your point here. If this is so why do you seem to put down women who choose to be with men who have multiple sexual partners? Why does it seem that if a woman wants to be in a sexual relationship with a guy then she is wrong for that? Who made these rules? Men can sleep around and they are sewing their oats, if women do it, they are sluts and not fit for marriage. Where did this mindset come from? Why can’t women still be fit for marriage once she’s come past that stage in her life?
Additionally, many women complain that guys "just want sex", but a guy with dozens of past partners isn't a deal-breaker for a lot of women, and they'll complain even after dating such men and despite having clear signs that those men just wanted sex and nothing to do with a relationship.
What does the number of sexual partners someone has had in their past have to do with who they eventually fall in love with and want to commit to? Heck even Jemma Jameson got married.
(When she met the person she wanted to commit to in that way). I know a lady who married a man who had been married 3 times previously and all of her friends tried to talk her out of marrying him. She got married to him. That was over 14 years ago and they are still going strong. Sure his multiple marriages would have given me pause but she had sense enough to get to know the guy and learn about where he was coming from and not just look at the divorces alone. You seem to outright dismiss people if they have had too many sexual partners. A woman or a man with too many sexual partners to you must disqualify them as being marriageable material.
Something about that doesn't seem to add up; it's like an employer complaining that "all these people we're interviewing just want money, they don't want the responsibility of the job," but then hiring some of those same people and complaining about the quality of people they have working for them.
I don't understand how this analogy relates to women choosing men who have many sexual partners.
I never said women should ostracize men who sleep around, only that nothing is stopping them from doing it
Whether you want to admit to it or not, this is exactly what you said but in different words, you alluded to this, but you don’t have to admit it. People can read between the lines.
Imagine how different things might be if women ostracized men who sleep around the way they do women who sleep around[
just like they do with other women who sleep around and that if they ever did, the dynamics in dating and relationships might be just a little different.
2.What is the reason that guys like you can't take on the responsibility of ostracizing those guys?
I'll answer that with three questions that show the flawed premise in this: (1) Who said guys can't do this? (2) Where was it said? (3) How do you know I don't do/haven't done that?
In your earlier comment that the dating world would be a lot different if women ostracized guys and in your subsequent comments here you've said that women hold the power, therefore the bulk of influence in how guys behave falls to women and if women ostracized guys who sleep around it would make a larger impact. This is why I asked you why can't guys take responsibility for ostracizing too. Your comment implied that women should take the lead in doing this. Have you ostracized guys who show behaviors that you deem unfavorable as relates to dating? Do you go up to guys who you know who behave in a certain way towards women friends of your acquaintance and tell them off?
3.Who benefits if women do the ostracizing?
Realistically, all of us would because relationships could then be in a better state. There are two things behind this. One is that women have enormous power to influence dating, because they choose men. The other is that in life, people do what works.
Who determines what is a ‘better state?” What do you mean by a 'better state'? ” I'm sure the guy who has little to no sexual experience would benefit tremendously if the guys who sleep around were weeded out of the dating pool. I also feel that over time, these guys would eventually adopt the same type of behavior as the guys before them. (we just can't really escape mother nature in the dating and mating game).
Why are you putting so much weight on sleeping around? What is wrong with women wanting to be with a guy for a sexual only situation if it works for them? Why do you negatively judge guys who do sleep around? Everybody has a learning curve and in the dating world, people sometimes get hurt. Your emphasis seems to be on sex. What if the guy doesn’t sleep around but he does other things. He's a workaholic, a gambling addict, an emotionally unavailable man? Are those flaws not as serious (in your mind) as sleeping around? People have to do what works for them and find their way to the people who are on the same page as they are. Personally I’ve never been interested in a sex based situation with a guy, I know emotionally I’m not built that way to handle it.
You also seem to lump ‘men in general’ into this one category to fit the Ray J’s and the Trick Daddy types and all men aren’t like that any more than women are like your Jemma Jamison. But what if they were? Are they considered worthless partners for serious commitment if they grow past that stage? Will their past forever haunt them? Is this what guys think that they are entitled to someone as pure as the driven snow with no past? Are women supposed to just sit on the shelf until someone like you comes along and plucks them off?
If it became uncool or even problematic for guys to seek out women just for sex because lots of women were more discriminating in how they share themselves - whether it was refusing to consummate the relationship for an undetermined amount of time or by not dating/staying with a guy specifically because he had slept around - things would change fast. It's not unlike how quickly things would change if teenage girls gravitated more towards the Valedictorian-type than the proverbial captain of the football team. If that ever happened, how quickly would most high school guys be on top of their books instead of wanting so badly to be jocks?
Believe it or not Phil, women do just what you say. Not all women get involved in a sex based situation, but if that is what a woman wants for herself at that time, who are we to castigate her for that? Everyone has to grow and mature sometimes and they do it in their own time.
The comment about the Valedictorian type harkens right back to what I was saying about what guys think women ‘ought’ to value and desire in terms of what they find attractive. How does that valedictorian appeal to those girls on the basic primal level that captivates them? Heck, Susie Q could be a valedictorian herself and still enjoy a full sex life. Her desire for the jock is in no way going to keep her from advancing herself in the direction of where she wants to go with her career, (unless she get's pregnant). I'm not advocating teenaged sex, but you seem to think that women ought to go for the book worm vs the jock, because that is a better choice for the woman'. Better how? The book worm, valedictorian can knock boots just like the jock can and if given the opportunity, don't think he won't be up in there trying either.
Perhaps the Valedictorian type should figure out how to appeal to the girls instead of begrudging the jocks who do.
The jocks will win hands down because women are drawn to masculinity at a primal level and as said earlier, if a guy can't capture a woman on that level first, the rest of the stuff doesn't matter much. Doesn't matter if he's a valedictorian or a rocket scientist. Even if the woman chooses him, if he can't draw her in on the basic primal level, she'll still go to a guy who can, while she dates the valedictorian as a cover to satisfy 'outward appearances'. That's just the reality of it whether you like it or not. And let’s not stereotype, there are jocks who are academically intelligent too and valedictorians who 'knock boots' and will do so in a heartbeat.
In life, people do what works. Right now, there is no social penalty for men who get with women for sex only and thus sleep with dozens of women; even other women gladly date them and attempt relationships with them, despite all the obvious risks that seem pretty obvious.
Why should there be a social penalty if adults are doing what they want to do? Who is creating this mindset that these guys should be stigmatized? As I said earlier, I could care less about who’s sleeping with someone as long as it doesn’t bother what I do.
In fact, men who are discriminating in how they share themselves and thus don't sleep with even a dozen women are often ridiculed by women.
Women only ridicule men when it comes to sex if they don’t have any skills in the bedroom and they ain't trying to learn any skilz either. They are uptight, scared of sex and just can't lay it down and satisfy their woman. Women don't ridicule men simply based on the 'number' of partners they’ve slept with. You’re basing everything on a 'number'. There are plenty of guys who have had many sexual partners and can’t do a thing in the bedroom to please their woman (Superhead can attest to that, in her book video vixen.
There are plenty of nice guys with an edge who have had very few sexual partners but they know how to please the ones they've had. It's not the number per se, but being a good lover with the lover you're with.
As such, sleeping around works for men.
Of course it does, if they find willing partners who want them, then they’ll get with them and as long as both people are on the same page (which is another story) there is nothing wrong with that.
If there was ever a time where large numbers of women would shy away from or flat-out avoid men who do that and/or socially ostracize them in the way they ostracize other women, a change would be required because seeking out sex and sleeping around with dozens of women wouldn't work anymore. (It's already obvious that the medical risks of doing this - HIV, other STDs, unwanted pregnancies - are not going to be a deterrent.)
Women are not going to put a blanket ban out on sex to ostracize the guys who are out there pursuing the women for sex. That's what guys do and it's up to the woman to decide if she wants to be with him or not. Unwanted pregnancies can be prevented as can sexually transmitted diseases by having safe sex. One doesn’t have to refrain from enjoying a sexual life because of these risk factors.
Should the 'proverbial playas' be better men and go for more than shallow sex based situations with women?' Yes they should (if that's what they want), and eventually most will once they got tired of playing. Should guys be better men in how they relate to women? Of course. In the meantime, people are still going to sleep around.
I'm sure you're going to come back and talk about how we should teach men to be better, yadda yadda yadda. I get that, and none of what I have said here stands in contradiction to that. I simply look at reality
I think you look at ‘your reality’ and what you would like to be a reality. The reality is we can’t put a blanket ban on the sexual activities of adults, all we can do is make the choices that are right for us. Some of us do this through trial and error. We can’t control anybody else’s behavior but our own. We can’t turn into a puritan society where we as a whole society snub those who exhibit sexual behaviors that we would rather they not engage in because it goes against 'our principles'. We can only do what we feel we want to do for ourselves. I've gone out on dates before where the guys wanted sex upfront and I refused because that's not what I wanted. I know people who are in sexual situations because that is what they want for themselves. Everyone has to do what feels right for themselves.
Women and men are sleeping around that is the reality of the 2009 dating world. We can't turn the clock back to the 1950's (and heck women and men were sleeping around then too). But sleeping around in and of itself doesn’t make them a bad person. There are many other character traits to take into consideration rather than focus ONLY on someone’s sexual life and how many people they’ve slept with. As I’ve posted previously, two of my brothers married women with kids by a previous relationship and they have good wives! A lot of these men would turn their noses up at some women because of their past lives, but who says guys are entitled to Ms. Snow white as pure as the driven snow?
4.What's your reason against a guy or a woman having sexual experience?
I have nothing against that, so there's no answer to this.
If this is true why do you focus on men who sleep around and berate the women who sleep with these guys and use the number of sexual partners people have as a yardstick alone to measure whether someone is worthy for love, serious relationship and marriage?
