The war on men

[merithyn]

I think the multiple parents = trashy applies to trashy/poor people only. If a succesful woman has kds from different marriages/relationships, it does not carry a stigma.

It also applies to middle-class folks, too.

[Martinus]

I think the multiple parents = trashy applies to trashy/poor people only. If a succesful woman has kds from different marriages/relationships, it does not carry a stigma.

Heck I think people would regard a single woman raising multiple kids who was also incredibly successful at her career as some sort of super human.

In my part of world they have this crazy new invention called a nanny.

[Valmy]

To answer merri's earlier question, man-sluts are called playas unless they are gay - in which case we call them sluts. I think "slut" should be embraced not rejected. Nothing wrong with it if thats who you are.

We generally call them man-whores out here.  Which I never got since they did not get paid, I guess that was just the worst thing we could think of.

[Valmy]

In my part of world they have this crazy new invention called a nanny.

Which are very expensive.  And we have illegal latinos.

[merithyn]

To answer merri's earlier question, man-sluts are called playas unless they are gay - in which case we call them sluts. I think "slut" should be embraced not rejected. Nothing wrong with it if thats who you are.

I think the term is ridiculously antiquated. It seems to be trotted out by men trying to prove their superiority in choosing a woman who isn't "used goods", which is about as old fashioned as straight ravors and fedoras.

[Martinus]

I think the multiple parents = trashy applies to trashy/poor people only. If a succesful woman has kds from different marriages/relationships, it does not carry a stigma.

It also applies to middle-class folks, too.

I have a worl colleague - she is raising four kids. Two from her previous marriages. One from her current husband's previous marriage. And one they have together. Maybe a couple of right wing troglodytes think she is a slut but most people don't.

[Valmy]

I have a worl colleague - she is raising four kids. Two from her previous marriages. One from her current husband's previous marriage. And one they have together. Maybe a couple of right wing troglodytes think she is a slut but most people don't.

That does not apply to what Meri is saying since she was married to the fathers.

[Martinus]

I have a worl colleague - she is raising four kids. Two from her previous marriages. One from her current husband's previous marriage. And one they have together. Maybe a couple of right wing troglodytes think she is a slut but most people don't.

That does not apply to what Meri is saying since she was married to the fathers.

Doesn't matter. My boss divorced her husband and is now with another guy with whom she has a 8 y.o. son but they decided not to get married. Another of my lawyer colleagues (a partner in an international lawfirm) has two kids with a guy to whom she is not married either because she doesn't want to. Noone would think any of them is a slut or would be, if the dumped their boyfriends (or vice-versa).

[katmai]

To answer merri's earlier question, man-sluts are called playas unless they are gay - in which case we call them sluts. I think "slut" should be embraced not rejected. Nothing wrong with it if thats who you are.

We generally call them man-whores out here.

We called them lucky sob's.

[Martinus]

I think this becomes an issue if there is a visible adverse effect on the economic well being of children raised by a single mother - which brings me back to my original point that multiple children with different parents is shaming mainly for poor people.

[merithyn]

I think this becomes an issue if there is a visible adverse effect on the economic well being of children raised by a single mother - which brings me back to my original point that multiple children with different parents is shaming mainly for poor people.

And middle-class folks.

It's very hard to claim that there wouldn't be a marked adverse affect on the economic well-being of the children should the situations you mentioned above happened to a high school teacher.

[Valmy]

I think this becomes an issue if there is a visible adverse effect on the economic well being of children raised by a single mother - which brings me back to my original point that multiple children with different parents is shaming mainly for poor people.

Well usually when I hear this brought up it is to attack rich men, professional athletes in particular, that they have nine kids with nine different women and are paying X millions in child support and then we all go 'what a piece of human garbage!' and feel superior.

[Valmy]

We called them lucky sob's.

Guys like that always break the Bro Code. 

[Drakken]

I think the term is ridiculously antiquated. It seems to be trotted out by men trying to prove their superiority in choosing a woman who isn't "used goods", which is about as old fashioned as straight ravors and fedoras.

Maybe those men trying to "prove the superiority" in fact don't want to feel they are left with the crumbs, haven't you thought of that? No one wants to feel he or she is the second choice, or the best choice "so far", or "the one he or she's settling for". That need is pansexual, in both men and women. People want to feel special and loved for who they are when they commit. They want to commit with someone who wants him or her for who he or she is, not because he or she's "settling for" as his or her partying time is done and the clock's ticking.

Can people change? Sure. I sure did, I was a man-whore before and I committed. But my girlfriend knew it all, and she chose to go past it. But it was well within her right not to accept my sexual past, and it is my responsability to make sure I am worthy of her trust.

Your insistence that people should never take the other partner's sexual past into account when taking a decision to commit is baffling. It gives a lot of information on the person's character, especially when things don't go his or her way. So yes, if a woman is perceived a "slut" men won't tend to commit with that person, because past is indicative of future behavior.

[Valmy]

Maybe those men trying to "prove the superiority" in fact don't want to feel they are left with the crumbs, haven't you thought of that? No one wants to feel he or she is the second choice, or the best choice "so far", or "the one he or she's settling for". That need is pansexual, in both men and women. People want to feel special and loved for who they are when they commit. They want to commit with someone who wants him or her for who he or she is, not because he or she's "settling for" as his or her partying time is done and the clock's ticking.

I just cannot get this.  It just does not make any sense to me.  Granted if somebody has a history of cheating or something I can see that, but how does it make one feel less special that your partner has been with alot of people and you are the one she chose?