http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/
:lol:
QuoteThe battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.
Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don't.
The so-called dearth of good men (read: marriageable men) has been a hot subject in the media as of late. Much of the coverage has been in response to the fact that for the first time in history, women have become the majority of the U.S. workforce. They're also getting most of the college degrees. The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women.
As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, I've spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles. During this time, I've spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I've accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who've told me, in no uncertain terms, that they're never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.
Women aren't women anymore.
To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven't changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.
In a nutshell, women are angry. They're also defensive, though often unknowingly. That's because they've been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.
Now the men have nowhere to go.
It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.
But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women's fault?
You'll never hear that in the media. All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat. But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there's something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren't happy, it's men's fault.
Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it's in their DNA. But modern women won't let them.
It's all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
It's the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they're forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men's linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.
So if men today are slackers, and if they're retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they've played to bring about this transformation.
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.
I guess if all women were strawme...er...strawwoman feminists this would make sense.
Stop being bitches. :yes:
I've been shouting that from the rooftops.
:lol:
Best part is that a woman wrote that.
also, i have to start saying hello more often :P
So it's not the Latinos or the Blacks that is destroying america? It's those womin folk! Gotcha!
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 12:44:21 PM
Best part is that a woman wrote that.
also, i have to start saying hello more often :P
Thats what the pickup artists say... but... <flashman>most women are randy little sluts who are constantly hoping for a good rogering but are petrified into inaction and fear by societal norms that tells them to be demure little ladies. </flashman>, ultimately this makes women unhappy and turns men into lying scoundrels
Is this news?
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2012, 01:25:50 PM
Is this news?
Considering that it comes from Fox, probably not. Good thing we aren't just a news aggregator. :)
Obviously dead animals are involved. Not newsworthy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2012, 01:38:31 PM
Obviously dead animals are involved. Not newsworthy.
This is the clearest case of necrophiliac sodomy with dead elephants ever.
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 12:44:21 PM
also, i have to start saying hello more often :P
:D
QuoteAnd in doing so, I've accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who've told me, in no uncertain terms, that they're never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.
Women aren't women anymore.
I disagree. More and more men are never getting married
precisely because women are still women.
Nag. Nag. Nag some more.
Is that what you're wearing?
We need a shared checking account.
Who cares if it's the National Championship, football is stupid; we're going to DoilyFest2012.
Why'd you buy that? You don't need it.
Sex AND a blowjob? It's not your birthday.
Fuck all that noise. Never surrender your independence to anybody. Ever.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2012, 02:04:54 PM
Fuck all that noise. Never surrender your independence to anybody. Ever.
I'd go one further. Declare your independence. Fly your own flag.
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 02:17:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2012, 02:04:54 PM
Fuck all that noise. Never surrender your independence to anybody. Ever.
I'd go one further. Declare your independence. Fly your own flag.
I already have. My Fortress of Solitude is invincible. The combined legions of Titus Pussicus can't break this motherfucker.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2012, 02:26:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 02:17:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2012, 02:04:54 PM
Fuck all that noise. Never surrender your independence to anybody. Ever.
I'd go one further. Declare your independence. Fly your own flag.
I already have. My Fortress of Solitude is invincible. The combined legions of Titus Pussicus can't break this motherfucker.
If you talk like that in real life i don't think you have to worry too much about it :P
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 02:33:35 PM
If you talk like that in real life i don't think you have to worry too much about it :P
You know it.
I'm not getting married, ever, because in the end what difference does it make?
My girfriend is literally harassing me to ask her in marriage, and the mere fact that she does and insists pushes me even further from the idea, because for her she wants to parade around her husband. She wants to stake her claim, and it turns me off from the idea.
Other main reasons are:
A) There's no social expectation to marry anymore. I won't get shunned by society because I live in concubinage and commit fornication with my girlfriend. Living as live-in partners is the same as married life, and if it doesn't work there's no silly red-tape about divorce.
B) There is no real, significant economic benefits for men to marry, and most men have a lot to lose financially if (or when) the marriage breaks.
C) It is simply not alluring anymore. Let's not kid ourselves: marriages nowadays seldom not last unto death do us apart unless you marry in your 80s. It lasts until one gets fed up with the partner and leaves or finds better, just like in concubinage. No-fault divorce basically killed the meaning of marriage, and a lot of us saw how ours parents fared during their own marriages when we were kids.
D) Commitment is the same, whether you are married or not. The main problem is not men do not want to commit, but both men and women do not want to commit on the same terms, or the same age.
E) Whether we like it or not, both genders have become incredibly cynical about the dating game and each other's stereotype of playing it. Playas' and hoes' YOLO lifestyle is put on a piedestal, and these people only consider "settling down" when they are done playing the field or their beauty fades and the biological clock starts ticking. People still act like retarded teenagers and work McJobs to be able to afford life, well in their 20s. Adulthood now starts in the early thirties, and usually people look to settle down around this age as well.
That said, that Foxnews woman is all but asking women to turn the clock 100 years back, shut up, go back to the kitchen, and smile so that "the man" be happy. Her text is not about the war on men, but her war on modern women. :rolleyes:
Too many (younger) women are more interested in the wedding than the marriage, anyway.
Much as I'd like to buy into the idea that one can have a no-strings-attached concubinage as Drakken suggests, without the financial pitfalls. I am sure modern lawyers have kept up, and will happily sue for half of the guy's money, even based on unmarried couples simply living together. And our courts will happily make them pay.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2012, 02:45:47 PM
Too many (younger) women are more interested in the wedding than the marriage, anyway.
Younger? Keep thinking that :P They've had it planned since they were 12, the guys just a place holder :D
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 26, 2012, 02:48:49 PM
Much as I'd like to buy into the idea that one can have a no-strings-attached concubinage as Drakken suggests, without the financial pitfalls. I am sure modern lawyers have kept up, and will happily sue for half of the guy's money, even based on unmarried couples simply living together. And our courts will happily make them pay.
See Malthus! all your fault!
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 02:41:40 PM
A) There's no social expectation to marry anymore. I won't get shunned by society because I live in concubinage and commit fornication with my girlfriend. Living as live-in partners is the same as married life, and if it doesn't work there's no silly red-tape about divorce.
B) There is no real, significant economic benefits for men to marry, and most men have a lot to lose financially if (or when) the marriage breaks.
This, to me, is why there's no incentive for men to marry. Short of marrying in order to have more stake in the joint household items once children enter the picture, there really isn't much reason for men to marry like there was 50 years ago. Men get laid without the wedding, and they get fucked if things fall apart after the wedding.
For women, on the other hand, there's still a lot of reason to marry, not the least of which is the negative connotations that are still out there against women who give birth out of wedlock. In addition, women, in general, don't consider a relationship as "committed" unless there is a marriage certificate to prove it. It's nice to say, "Yeah, I'm committed to our relationship," but without some formal committment, not many women are willing to accept that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2012, 02:26:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 02:17:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2012, 02:04:54 PM
Fuck all that noise. Never surrender your independence to anybody. Ever.
I'd go one further. Declare your independence. Fly your own flag.
I already have. My Fortress of Solitude is invincible. The combined legions of Titus Pussicus can't break this motherfucker.
But WaMu can.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 26, 2012, 02:48:49 PM
Much as I'd like to buy into the idea that one can have a no-strings-attached concubinage as Drakken suggests, without the financial pitfalls. I am sure modern lawyers have kept up, and will happily sue for half of the guy's money, even based on unmarried couples simply living together. And our courts will happily make them pay.
I'm in Quebec, so it's civil law. Common law shenanigans about common-law husbandry and alimonies do not apply here - yet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2012, 02:45:47 PM
Too many (younger) women are more interested in the wedding than the marriage, anyway.
I think that's a certain subset of women, not the majority. Unfortunately, they're the more vocal subset. :glare:
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 02:51:30 PM
For women, on the other hand, there's still a lot of reason to marry, not the least of which is the negative connotations that are still out there against women who give birth out of wedlock. In addition, women, in general, don't consider a relationship as "committed" unless there is a marriage certificate to prove it. It's nice to say, "Yeah, I'm committed to our relationship," but without some formal committment, not many women are willing to accept that.
I don't know in what part of backward Bible-belt you are living, but here in Canada - as in the rest of evolution-theory savyy mankind, there are zero negative connotations against women giving birth out of wetlock anymore. The negative connotations is against women who delay having children, or refuse to commit altogether into their thirthies.
Great, we have to admit French superiority on something.
Quote from: viper37 on November 26, 2012, 02:56:45 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 26, 2012, 02:48:49 PM
Much as I'd like to buy into the idea that one can have a no-strings-attached concubinage as Drakken suggests, without the financial pitfalls. I am sure modern lawyers have kept up, and will happily sue for half of the guy's money, even based on unmarried couples simply living together. And our courts will happily make them pay.
What Drakken suggests does not apply to English Canada. Only in Quebec are we free to live the way we want.
So what happens if there's a child or children involved? How does that work?
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 02:58:29 PM
So what happens if there's a child or children involved? How does that work?
Child alimony, and joined custody unless unwarranted.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 02:57:59 PM
I don't know in what part of backward Bible-belt you are living, but here in Canada - as in the rest of evolution-theory savyy mankind, there are zero negative connotations against women giving birth out of wetlock anymore. The negative connotations is against women who delay having children, or refuse to commit altogether into their thirthies.
That may be the case where you are, but around here, there's still a backlash to a certain degree. It's not obvious nor ubiquitous, but it's there, and almost always by women against women. It's kind of an attitude of "Oh, she couldn't get her man to commit!" God forbid that a woman have more than one child by more than one man, having never married any of them. That's indicative of serious trash right there.
:shutup:
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 02:41:40 PM
C) It is simply not alluring anymore. Let's not kid ourselves: marriages nowadays seldom not last unto death do us apart unless you marry in your 80s. It lasts until one gets fed up with the partner and leaves or finds better, just like in concubinage. No-fault divorce basically killed the meaning of marriage, and a lot of us saw how ours parents fared during their own marriages when we were kids.
Seldom?
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 02:58:29 PM
So what happens if there's a child or children involved? How does that work?
Child alimony, and joined custody unless unwarranted.
I guess I do not get the practical difference between being unmarried and married once kids enter the equation unless you are rich or something.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 02:58:29 PM
So what happens if there's a child or children involved? How does that work?
Outside of marriage, the richest member of the couple does not have to pay to maintain the lifestyle of the other as it was during their living together.
As for the kids, the parents who does not have keep must pay the other a certain amount, based on his income. It is perceived by the employer directly on the parent's pay, given to the government and then to the receiving parents.
That means the 5% who never received any money now receive something while the other 95% now receive their money 2-3 months later than before.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:07:36 PM
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 02:58:29 PM
So what happens if there's a child or children involved? How does that work?
Child alimony, and joined custody unless unwarranted.
I guess I do not get the practical difference between being unmarried and married once kids enter the equation unless you are rich or something.
alimony.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 26, 2012, 02:58:20 PM
Great, we have to admit French superiority on something.
Until next year when the Canadian Supreme Court decides on
Eric v. Lola.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 03:01:12 PM
God forbid that a woman have more than one child by more than one man, having never married any of them. That's indicative of serious trash right there.
That one gets used against men as well. At least to point out how trashy they are.
But I guess in superior countries it is considered a positive boon to have six kids with six different people.
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:08:18 PM
alimony.
Hence the 'unless you are rich' part. How many divorces actually end up in alimony being paid?
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:07:36 PM
I guess I do not get the practical difference between being unmarried and married once kids enter the equation unless you are rich or something.
if you're married, everything acquired during marriage must be split 50-50. That means if you make 250k$ a year and your spouse stays at home, you got to split the house in two.
It is problematic for many SMBs. Companies tend to grow over time, even farms. Even if the spouse does not work for the business, has no ties to it, he/she will be entitled to 50% of its net value when they divorce, if the business was acquired/started during marriage.
Many SMB owners have been forced to sell their business to pay for these costs.
As always in Quebec, we use a bazooka to kill a fly.
Well even that can be managed with a pre-nuptial agreement.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:14:57 PM
Well even that can be managed with a pre-nuptial agreement.
Which get knocked down all the time.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:14:57 PM
Well even that can be managed with a pre-nuptial agreement.
Pre-nups are hardly fullproof, if only because they have to be contracted in States that recognize them. Even then they can be voided in court.
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:16:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:14:57 PM
Well even that can be managed with a pre-nuptial agreement.
Which get knocked down all the time.
I guess I just feel so bulletproof being a poor :P
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:07:30 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 03:05:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 03:03:21 PM
:shutup:
See?! SEE?!!
The multiple daddy thing is pushing it :blush:
But the same stigma isn't applied to a woman who's been married twice and has children from both husbands.
So to claim that marriage isn't necessary is just bullshit.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 03:20:17 PM
But the same stigma isn't applied to a woman who's been married twice and has children from both husbands.
So to claim that marriage isn't necessary is just bullshit.
Generally I think it only applies when the number starts getting ridiculous. Like four kids to four different partners or something. YOu might be considered less trashy, I guess, if you married all of them....maybe.
Quote from: viper37 on November 26, 2012, 03:13:55 PM
if you're married, everything acquired during marriage must be split 50-50. That means if you make 250k$ a year and your spouse stays at home, you got to split the house in two.
It is problematic for many SMBs. Companies tend to grow over time, even farms. Even if the spouse does not work for the business, has no ties to it, he/she will be entitled to 50% of its net value when they divorce, if the business was acquired/started during marriage.
Many SMB owners have been forced to sell their business to pay for these costs.
As always in Quebec, we use a bazooka to kill a fly.
:shutup:
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 03:20:17 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:07:30 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 03:05:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 03:03:21 PM
:shutup:
See?! SEE?!!
The multiple daddy thing is pushing it :blush:
But the same stigma isn't applied to a woman who's been married twice and has children from both husbands.
So to claim that marriage isn't necessary is just bullshit.
But on average multiple fathers is "indicative of serious trash right there". Having multiple fathers does not make one "trash", but it is a clue that someone is "trash". If that makes sense.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:22:00 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 03:20:17 PM
But the same stigma isn't applied to a woman who's been married twice and has children from both husbands.
So to claim that marriage isn't necessary is just bullshit.
Generally I think it only applies when the number starts getting ridiculous. Like four kids to four different partners or something. YOu might be considered less trashy, I guess, if you married all of them....maybe.
Nope. Two babies, two baby-daddies, no ring = trash. At least around here that's the general rule of thumb, it seems.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:09:33 PM
Hence the 'unless you are rich' part. How many divorces actually end up in alimony being paid?
Typical single-family house in the greater Montreal area sells in excess of 300 000$. Actually, 200 000$ will get you a side by side duplex.
So, you get a house, 400 000$ in Laval.
10 years later, you divorce.
You owe the bank 300 000 of your 400 000$, you owe your spouse 200 000$ as her share of the house.
You can refinance the mortgage and pay your spouse, assuming you can afford the mortgage alone.
Then you need to pay him or her so the lifestyle remain the same. It doesn't need to be much, but if you make 150k$ a year and she makes 75k$ a year, you need to pay her so she can live as if you were together.
I wouldn't call that very rich.
Yet, you now have to sell the house and find yourself a small apartment or a small condo.
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:22:33 PM
But on average multiple fathers is "indicative of serious trash right there". Having multiple fathers does not make one "trash", but it is a clue that someone is "trash". If that makes sense.
Sure, but people who judge don't usually bother to find out the finer details. ;)
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 03:23:07 PM
Nope. Two babies, two baby-daddies, no ring = trash. At least around here that's the general rule of thumb, it seems.
Well, at two, if you live with the father of the 2nd, no stigma. If you got a 3rd man in your life though...
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 03:01:12 PM
That may be the case where you are, but around here, there's still a backlash to a certain degree. It's not obvious nor ubiquitous, but it's there, and almost always by women against women. It's kind of an attitude of "Oh, she couldn't get her man to commit!" God forbid that a woman have more than one child by more than one man, having never married any of them. That's indicative of serious trash right there.
Well indeed, such a woman would not be considered to be "wife material" by a lot of men, either. So yes, negative connotations do exist, and do matter.
I'm not saying that a woman's reputation doesn't play a role anymore. It does, as no sane man wants to commit with a slut, or a known monkey brancher, or a woman that would pull her chips out and leave for the flimsiest of reasons. What I'm saying is that the negative connotation is not on the children being born out of wedlock, but their mother's lack of emotional maturity and commitment, clued by the fact that she has children with several men who are all out of the picture.
Here in Quebec, a mother having children by more than one father is far from being abnormal, and far from being the object of gossip and social shinning as here reconstituted families are the norm more and more.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:24:44 PM
Well indeed, such a woman would not be considered to be "wife material" by a lot of men, either. So yes, negative connotations do exist, and do matter.
I'm not saying that a woman's reputation doesn't play a role anymore. It does, as no sane man wants to commit with a slut, or a monkey brancher, or a woman that would pull her chips out and leave for the flimsiest of reasons. What I'm saying is that the negative connotation is not on the children being born out of wedlock, but their mother's lack of emotional maturity and commitment. Here in Quebec, a mother having children by more than one father is far from being abnormal, and far from being the object of gossip and social shinning as here reconstituted families are the norm more and more.
This from the man who's refusing to marry his girlfriend because it's important to her. :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 03:26:24 PM
This from the man who's refusing to marry his girlfriend because it's important to her. :rolleyes:
I see what you did there.
Because I see no reason to commit legally, I don't believe in marriage. I don't
have to marry because she wants to, or she pressures me, or she coerces me. Remember, the right to dispose of one's body and sexuality freely and without constraint? As a feminist it should ring a bell, shouldn't it?
QuoteHere in Quebec, a mother having children by more than one father is far from being abnormal, and far from being the object of gossip and social shinning as here reconstituted families are the norm more and more.
Quebec mothers having more than one child at all is a tad abnormal judging by their fertility rate.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:30:30 PM
QuoteHere in Quebec, a mother having children by more than one father is far from being abnormal, and far from being the object of gossip and social shinning as here reconstituted families are the norm more and more.
Quebec mothers having more than one child at all is a tad abnormal judging by their fertility rate.
This is changing, we are witnessing a small baby boom these last two-three years.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:28:05 PM
Remember, the right to dispose of one's body and sexuality freely and without constraint?
Lol. That is ridiculous card to play there.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:28:05 PM
Remember, the right to dispose of one's body and sexuality freely and without constraint?
Lol. That is ridiculous card to play there.
Drakkan has his own personal issues :P
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Lol. That is ridiculous card to play there.
I know. And the most ridiculous is, I have to play it on Meri who as an avowed
feminist should know it is a basic right, even for *gasp* men.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:34:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Lol. That is ridiculous card to play there.
I know. And the most ridiculous is, I have to play it on Meri who as an avowed feminist should know it is a basic right, even for *gasp* men.
I don't think even the most avowed anti-feminist, who eagerly embraces values from the 17th century and before, would advocate laws requiring people get married without their consent.
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
Drakkan has his own personal issues :P
I would have thought having a live-in partner in a committed relationship would have made me less jaded. :cry:
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:28:05 PM
I see what you did there.
Because I see no reason to commit legally, I don't believe in marriage. I don't have to marry because she wants to, or she pressures me, or she coerces me. Remember, the right to dispose of one's body and sexuality freely and without constraint? As a feminist it should ring a bell, shouldn't it?
You can absolutely do whatever you so choose with your man bits. But it's kind of funny that you would use the terminology that you used in this thread, the way that you used it, and then say things like, "It does, as no sane man wants to commit with a slut, or a monkey brancher, or a woman that would pull her chips out and leave for the flimsiest of reasons. What I'm saying is that the negative connotation is not on the children being born out of wedlock, but their mother's lack of emotional maturity and commitment."
I'm just struggling to understand what you would consider a "slut", and whether that same expression is readily used by you for men in a similar situation.
Drakken, does your girlfriend know you don't plan on marrying her? Or do you brush it off by saying you two will talk about it later? If she knows then it's all good.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
Drakkan has his own personal issues :P
I would have thought having a live-in partner in a committed relationship would have made me less jaded. :cry:
You thought wrong :D
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:37:26 PM
Drakken, does your girlfriend know you don't plan on marrying her? Or do you brush it off by saying you two will talk about it later? If she knows then it's all good.
Make sure you mention you would but you owe it to your human rights.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
Drakkan has his own personal issues :P
I would have thought having a live-in partner in a committed relationship would have made me less jaded. :cry:
Yeah the only thing that seems to change dudes are kids and even then not immediately.
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:37:26 PM
Drakken, does your girlfriend know you don't plan on marrying her? Or do you brush it off by saying you two will talk about it later? If she knows then it's all good.
She knows. It would hard for her not to know and go la-la-la. I told her point blank with no mincing words, at several occasions, and I added that her pressuring me and harassing me with it made me very uncomfortable.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:40:33 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:37:26 PM
Drakken, does your girlfriend know you don't plan on marrying her? Or do you brush it off by saying you two will talk about it later? If she knows then it's all good.
She knows it would hard for her not to know and go la-la-la. I told her point blank with no mincing words, at several occasions.
Obviously she's going la-la-la if she keeps asking :D. But that's her own problem.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:40:33 PM
I told her point blank with no mincing words, at several occasions.
Good man.
Make love not war
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:41:21 PM
Obviously she's going la-la-la if she keeps asking :D. But that's her own problem.
Indeed, she often comments that someday I'll be "changing my mind". She's still riding on the idea that I'm bluffing, even when I told that I'm not and would not over this issue.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:40:33 PM
She knows. It would hard for her not to know and go la-la-la. I told her point blank with no mincing words, at several occasions, and I added that her pressuring me and harassing me with it made me very uncomfortable.
Then there's no issue with what you're doing. Your reasoning - at least the one you've given in this thread - says a lot about you as an individual. Basically, it's important to her, she's mentioned that she wants to get married, so you're not going to. But then you say that it's a woman's lack of emotional maturity if she's not with the man who fathered her child. :lol:
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:43:02 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:41:21 PM
Obviously she's going la-la-la if she keeps asking :D. But that's her own problem.
Indeed, she often comments that someday I'll be "changing my mind". She's still riding on the idea that I'm bluffing, even when I told that I'm not and would not over this issue.
A little bit of advise, don't leave the contraceptives measures in her hands.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2012, 03:44:14 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 03:42:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2012, 03:41:41 PM
Make love not war
Why not do both? :unsure:
You go marching off to war with your pants down if you wish.
Hey, if it worked for the gauls it'll work for me... just gotta stay away from the romans.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 03:43:44 PM
Then there's no issue with what you're doing. Your reasoning - at least the one you've given in this thread - says a lot about you as an individual. Basically, it's important to her, she's mentioned that she wants to get married, so you're not going to. But then you say that it's a woman's lack of emotional maturity if she's not with the man who fathered her child. :lol:
Strong logic here. In fact, you are courting being obtuse here.
I'm not getting married, because I don't believe in marriage. Period. End of line.
Point final bâton.
Det är slut. I wouldn't marry her, I wouldn't marry Scarlett Johansson even if she put herself on her two knees begging to marry her.
What's so difficult and obtuse to understand, here?
Heck if you really care for this woman you may want to let her go. The two of you clearly have different goals in this relationship and this doesn't look like it is going to end well.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:46:58 PM
Heck if you really care for this woman you may want to let her go. The two of you clearly have different goals in this relationship and this doesn't look like it is going to end well.
Why, I love her and she's in love with me, we work together on our common goals and we agreed to have children together. The only part we disagree, it's marriage.
In any case, I don't need dating advice or a "Dear Abby" answer.
I have gave my input on why I personnally refuse to marry : there's nothing in it for me, as a man. Even the symbolism around it is an emptied vessel.
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.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:50:55 PM
In any case, I don't need dating advice or a "Dear Abby" answer.
I have gave my input on why I personnally refuse to marry : there's nothing in it for me, as a man. Even the symbolism around it is an emptied vessel.
What does you needing it have anything to do with anything? If you bring up a personal situation we are going to give our opinions just like we do about everything else. Since when did you pipe in with your thoughts only when you clarified first if it was needed?
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:46:33 PM
Strong logic here. In fact, you are courting being obtuse here.
I'm not getting married, because I don't believe in marriage. Period. End of line. Point final bâton. Det är slut. I wouldn't marry her, I wouldn't marry Scarlett Johansson even if she put herself on her two knees begging to marry her.
What's so difficult and obtuse to understand, here?
That's not the line you fed at the beginning, but whatever. I have no horse in this race.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 03:56:50 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 03:56:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 03:59:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 03:56:50 PM
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. :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 04:02:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 04:03:27 PM
In my part of world they have this crazy new invention called a nanny. :P
Which are very expensive. And we have illegal latinos.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 04:02:41 PM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 03:56:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 04:05:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 04:07:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 04:05:21 PM
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).
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 04:04:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 04:02:41 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 04:14:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 04:14:02 PM
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.
Quote from: katmai on November 26, 2012, 04:13:11 PM
We called them lucky sob's.
Guys like that always break the Bro Code.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:05:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 04:02:41 PM
I think "slut" should be embraced not rejected. Nothing wrong with it if thats who you are.
Nah. Deviants should be treated like deviants.
Quote from: viper37 on November 26, 2012, 03:23:16 PM
Typical single-family house in the greater Montreal area sells in excess of 300 000$. Actually, 200 000$ will get you a side by side duplex.
So, you get a house, 400 000$ in Laval.
10 years later, you divorce.
You owe the bank 300 000 of your 400 000$, you owe your spouse 200 000$ as her share of the house.
You can refinance the mortgage and pay your spouse, assuming you can afford the mortgage alone.
Then you need to pay him or her so the lifestyle remain the same. It doesn't need to be much, but if you make 150k$ a year and she makes 75k$ a year, you need to pay her so she can live as if you were together.
I wouldn't call that very rich.
Yet, you now have to sell the house and find yourself a small apartment or a small condo.
Really? The ex gets $200K of the $100K equity? That sounds pretty outlandish. Here in BC, you'd have to sell the house and, assuming you can sell it for $400K, each partner gets $50K.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
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.
Yeah, I don't buy it. Sorry.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2012, 04:29:32 PM
Really? The ex gets $200K of the $100K equity? That sounds pretty outlandish. Here in BC, you'd have to sell the house and, assuming you can sell it for $400K, each partner gets $50K.
Same here. It would have been nice to get the full equity in my house with my ex, but I was happy with half. :)
Yeah, I always considered a slutty past to be a deal-breaker in terms of any serious long-term relationship. Way too much baggage and risk.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
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.
This is the part that doesn't make sense. If this is the case, why wouldn't men be all over women who are considered a "slut"? I mean, doesn't "slut" essentially mean that she enjoys sex? How is that not a selling point?
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Yeah, I always considered a slutty past to be a deal-breaker in terms of any serious long-term relationship. Way too much baggage and risk.
I have no problem with people who feel this way so long as they, too, were careful with who they had sex with. In other words, were you just as pure as you expected of your potential long-term relationships?
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:37:18 PMThis is the part that doesn't make sense. If this is the case, why wouldn't men be all over women who are considered a "slut"? I mean, doesn't "slut" essentially mean that she enjoys sex? How is that not a selling point?
Because that kind of man wants her to enjoy sex with him only, not with anyone else. All the past sexual history indicates that she enjoys sex with not-him. This sets him up for the worst-case scenario: what if she enjoys sex with all these other men, but not him?
Conversely, the best case scenario is already excluded: she turns into a sex-ravenous slut for him, but is uninterested in sex with anyone else.
AKA the virgin-whore complex.
Surely you must have heard of it before?
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:39:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Yeah, I always considered a slutty past to be a deal-breaker in terms of any serious long-term relationship. Way too much baggage and risk.
I have no problem with people who feel this way so long as they, too, were careful with who they had sex with. In other words, were you just as pure as you expected of your potential long-term relationships?
Close enough. I think a 2:1 or 1.5:1 ratio is fair.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 03:26:24 PM
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:24:44 PM
Well indeed, such a woman would not be considered to be "wife material" by a lot of men, either. So yes, negative connotations do exist, and do matter.
I'm not saying that a woman's reputation doesn't play a role anymore. It does, as no sane man wants to commit with a slut, or a monkey brancher, or a woman that would pull her chips out and leave for the flimsiest of reasons. What I'm saying is that the negative connotation is not on the children being born out of wedlock, but their mother's lack of emotional maturity and commitment. Here in Quebec, a mother having children by more than one father is far from being abnormal, and far from being the object of gossip and social shinning as here reconstituted families are the norm more and more.
This from the man who's refusing to marry his girlfriend because it's important to her. :rolleyes:
substitute the words
"man" for "woman"
"marry" for "give blowjob to"
"girlfriend" for "boyfriend"
and
"her" for "him"
and please explain to me how saying the male version of that doesn't make me a male cheauvinist pig?
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2012, 04:40:21 PM
Because that kind of man wants her to enjoy sex with him only, not with anyone else. All the past sexual history indicates that she enjoys sex with not-him. This sets him up for the worst-case scenario: what if she enjoys sex with all these other men, but not him?
Conversely, the best case scenario is already excluded: she turns into a sex-ravenous slut for him, but is uninterested in sex with anyone else.
AKA the virgin-whore complex.
Surely you must have heard of it before?
:blink:
No, I can honestly say that I haven't. What a weird, bizarre world men live in.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:31:15 PM
Yeah, I don't buy it. Sorry.
Funny how when a man tells you how quite a few men feel, suddenly you are "not buying it". Guess I'll use that line when you come over and explain how women feel about how double standards suck.
Telling you how it is, a lot of men are getting more and more jaded about women and commitment, because they are not buying it from women's mouth either.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2012, 04:40:21 PM
Because that kind of man wants her to enjoy sex with him only, not with anyone else. All the past sexual history indicates that she enjoys sex with not-him. This sets him up for the worst-case scenario: what if she enjoys sex with all these other men, but not him?
Conversely, the best case scenario is already excluded: she turns into a sex-ravenous slut for him, but is uninterested in sex with anyone else.
AKA the virgin-whore complex.
Surely you must have heard of it before?
A swing and a miss.
A slutty woman is more likely to cheat. You're more likely to run into some guy she did circus acts with (awkward!), and I wouldn't want a woman of loose morals raising my kids.
But I never insisted on virginity in a potential wife.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Yeah, I always considered a slutty past to be a deal-breaker in terms of any serious long-term relationship. Way too much baggage and risk.
Heh. Tons of previous marriages or remaining a virgin until 30 strike me as also being situations with baggage and risk.
Quote from: Viking on November 26, 2012, 04:41:09 PM
substitute the words
"man" for "woman"
"marry" for "give blowjob to"
"girlfriend" for "boyfriend"
and
"her" for "him"
and please explain to me how saying the male version of that doesn't make me a male cheauvinist pig?
Well, if you were saying that the cause of that was "emotional immaturity", there would be a problem.
And if getting a blow job is that important to you, I strongly encourage you to find a woman who isn't averse to giving them. :)
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:41:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2012, 04:40:21 PM
Because that kind of man wants her to enjoy sex with him only, not with anyone else. All the past sexual history indicates that she enjoys sex with not-him. This sets him up for the worst-case scenario: what if she enjoys sex with all these other men, but not him?
Conversely, the best case scenario is already excluded: she turns into a sex-ravenous slut for him, but is uninterested in sex with anyone else.
AKA the virgin-whore complex.
Surely you must have heard of it before?
:blink:
No, I can honestly say that I haven't. What a weird, bizarre world men live in.
this is best explained in a scene from the first season of The Sopranos when tony is discussing getting a blowjob from his wife after getting one in the previous scene from his goo-mah. He states planely that that would be disgusting because that is the mouth she kisses his kids with.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 04:44:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Yeah, I always considered a slutty past to be a deal-breaker in terms of any serious long-term relationship. Way too much baggage and risk.
Heh. Tons of previous marriages or remaining a virgin until 30 strike me as also being situations with baggage and risk.
:yes:
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 04:44:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Yeah, I always considered a slutty past to be a deal-breaker in terms of any serious long-term relationship. Way too much baggage and risk.
Heh. Tons of previous marriages or remaining a virgin until 30 strike me as also being situations with baggage and risk.
Way to read something I didn't say! :contract:
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:44:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 26, 2012, 04:41:09 PM
substitute the words
"man" for "woman"
"marry" for "give blowjob to"
"girlfriend" for "boyfriend"
and
"her" for "him"
and please explain to me how saying the male version of that doesn't make me a male cheauvinist pig?
Well, if you were saying that the cause of that was "emotional immaturity", there would be a problem.
And if getting a blow job is that important to you, I strongly encourage you to find a woman who isn't averse to giving them. :)
In that case I'd strongly encourage Drakkens gf to find a man who isn't adverse to marrying her ;)
But, you seem to have missed the entire point. Male objectives in the relationship are deemed impure but acceptable in concubinage, while female objectives in the relationship are deemed impure and unacceptable in concubinage.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 04:43:41 PM
A slutty woman is more likely to cheat. You're more likely to run into some guy she did circus acts with (awkward!), and I wouldn't want a woman of loose morals raising my kids.
Well I guess it has to do with our differing sense of honor here. If she was a slut with integrity, never cheated never stole somebody else's man, she just had sex with available people when she was young when anybody would be sewing their oats then I fail to see anything at all immoral about that. A cheater is more likely to cheat, a person with integrity will not.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 04:42:06 PM
Funny how when a man tells you how quite a few men feel, suddenly you are "not buying it". Guess I'll use that line when you come over and explain how women feel about how double standards suck.
Telling you how it is, a lot of men are getting more and more jaded about women and commitment, because they are not buying it from women's mouth either.
Oh, I don't doubt that that's how YOU feel about it, but I don't buy that it's the way all - or even many - men feel. And the whole, "Well, I was a slut, but that's okay, because I changed." Yet you wouldn't dare sully yourself with a woman who was, in essence, like you, because it's indicative of who they'll be forever. That's just... well, silly.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 04:50:03 PM
Well I guess it has to do with our differing sense of honor here.
Yep.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 04:43:41 PM
A swing and a miss.
A slutty woman is more likely to cheat. You're more likely to run into some guy she did circus acts with (awkward!), and I wouldn't want a woman of loose morals raising my kids.
But I never insisted on virginity in a potential wife.
I may be thinking of a different definition of slut than you are. I'm thinking of a woman who's slept with several (or many) men, not a woman who's cheated. They are, in my opinion, two different things. Maybe they aren't to you, which would actually explain quite a bit.
The whole "loose morals" thing is a very personal thing, so it's not really something to argue. So long as there isn't a double standard on it, then that seems very fair as a criteria.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 04:51:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 04:50:03 PM
Well I guess it has to do with our differing sense of honor here.
Yep.
Yeah and I get the feeling you feel the same way about men who have sex with lots of women so that's fair.
Quote from: Viking on November 26, 2012, 04:49:17 PM
In that case I'd strongly encourage Drakkens gf to find a man who isn't adverse to marrying her ;)
Agreed, but that's between them.
QuoteBut, you seem to have missed the entire point. Male objectives in the relationship are deemed impure but acceptable in concubinage, while female objectives in the relationship are deemed impure and unacceptable in concubinage.
I don't understand. My only issue with the whole "slut" thing is that it's often used against women by men who thought nothing of sleeping around. It's the double-standard that's galling, not the moral issues with it.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:50:13 PM
Oh, I don't doubt that that's how YOU feel about it, but I don't buy that it's the way all - or even many - men feel.
Just go on forums where there are a lot of young men around. Let your mind be blown on the number of young boys and young men feel exactly like that - and how pathetic the help is.
Women are not the only one afraid of being used and have their feelings hurt when they commit. But hey, since I'm the one who tells it, it must be untrue, right? :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:41:46 PM:blink:
No, I can honestly say that I haven't. What a weird, bizarre world men live in.
It's also commonly called the Madonna-whore complex, or simply good-girl/bad-girl. It's fairly well established in academia (though a bit dated now I'm sue) and pop culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna%E2%80%93whore_complex
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/Miss-America-Protests/a/The-Unbeatable-Madonna-Whore-Combination.htm
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MadonnaWhoreComplex
http://therawness.com/madonnawhore-complexes-part-3/
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 04:43:41 PMA swing and a miss.
A slutty woman is more likely to cheat. You're more likely to run into some guy she did circus acts with (awkward!), and I wouldn't want a woman of loose morals raising my kids.
But I never insisted on virginity in a potential wife.
I wasn't really aiming at you.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 04:56:05 PM
Just go on forums where there are a lot of young men around. Let your mind be blown on the number of young boys and young men feel exactly like that - and how pathetic the help is.
Women are not the only one afraid of being used and have their feelings hurt when they commit. But hey, since I'm the one who tells it, it must be untrue, right? :rolleyes:
Eh I hang out on alot of sports forums and it is pretty divided whenever the topic comes up. But certainly your opinion is not uncommon.
The primary impact is it encourages women to lie about the number of people they slept with which is pretty harmless I guess.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:52:13 PM
I may be thinking of a different definition of slut than you are. I'm thinking of a woman who's slept with several (or many) men, not a woman who's cheated. They are, in my opinion, two different things. Maybe they aren't to you, which would actually explain quite a bit.
No, I think we have the same definition. I think sluts are generally more pre-disposed to cheat than non-sluts. There are exceptions, of course, but in risk management you look at general tendencies.
QuoteThe whole "loose morals" thing is a very personal thing, so it's not really something to argue. So long as there isn't a double standard on it, then that seems very fair as a criteria.
I sorta believe in the infamous double standard, just maybe not the extreme application of it.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 04:56:05 PM
Just go on forums where there are a lot of young men around. Let your mind be blown on the number of young boys and young men feel exactly like that - and how pathetic the help is.
Women are not the only one afraid of being used and have their feelings hurt when they commit.
That is a very different experience than I've had. Most of the young men that I know don't really care how many men their girls have been with before so long as when she commits to him, that's where her heart stays. Having been with multiple partners does not mean that she's going to walk out faster than a woman who was a virgin when you met her, and most intelligent young men know this, just as most intelligent young women know the same when it comes to men. As Valmy said, it's a different set of standards.
If it's a fear of comparison, well, that, to me, is indicative of an insecurity that has nothing to do with the woman and everything to do with the man insisting on inexperience. This is yet another reason I take issue with the concept of women being used goods. I don't think that's it at all, at least for you. (derspeiss has a different moral code, so he's not included in this.) I think you're afraid of being compared to others and being found wanting. It's a valid fear, and fits with the above post that you think men are worried about committment, etc. But it's not really fair to blame the woman because of your fears.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 05:01:57 PM
The primary impact is it encourages women to lie about the number of people they slept with which is pretty harmless I guess.
But also pretty silly and not the recipe for a relationship that will have open and honest communication.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 05:03:03 PM
I sorta believe in the infamous double standard, just maybe not the extreme application of it.
Damnit, derspeiss. You had me, and then you lost me. :glare:
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 02:41:40 PM
I'm not getting married, ever, because in the end what difference does it make?
My girfriend is literally harassing me to ask her in marriage, and the mere fact that she does and insists pushes me even further from the idea, because for her she wants to parade around her husband. She wants to stake her claim, and it turns me off from the idea.
Other main reasons are:
A) There's no social expectation to marry anymore. I won't get shunned by society because I live in concubinage and commit fornication with my girlfriend. Living as live-in partners is the same as married life, and if it doesn't work there's no silly red-tape about divorce.
B) There is no real, significant economic benefits for men to marry, and most men have a lot to lose financially if (or when) the marriage breaks.
C) It is simply not alluring anymore. Let's not kid ourselves: marriages nowadays seldom not last unto death do us apart unless you marry in your 80s. It lasts until one gets fed up with the partner and leaves or finds better, just like in concubinage. No-fault divorce basically killed the meaning of marriage, and a lot of us saw how ours parents fared during their own marriages when we were kids.
D) Commitment is the same, whether you are married or not. The main problem is not men do not want to commit, but both men and women do not want to commit on the same terms, or the same age.
E) Whether we like it or not, both genders have become incredibly cynical about the dating game and each other's stereotype of playing it. Playas' and hoes' YOLO lifestyle is put on a piedestal, and these people only consider "settling down" when they are done playing the field or their beauty fades and the biological clock starts ticking. People still act like retarded teenagers and work McJobs to be able to afford life, well in their 20s. Adulthood now starts in the early thirties, and usually people look to settle down around this age as well.
That said, that Foxnews woman is all but asking women to turn the clock 100 years back, shut up, go back to the kitchen, and smile so that "the man" be happy. Her text is not about the war on men, but her war on modern women. :rolleyes:
I never really understood why it mattered so much to some men to not get married. My middle brother was the same way - he lived with his last GF for a solid decade, adamantly refusing to get married "on principle" despite her requests ... then they split up: she wanted to move to the US to pursue her carreer, he wanted to stay in the UK.
The next woman he met, he married within a year.
Then I figured it out - no matter what his lips had been *saying* about his "principled reasons" for not wanting to marry woman A, his real motivations were ... he just did not want to actually commit to her. He was willing to drift along, he was comfortable enough, but in the back of his mind there were reservations - maybe he'd meet someone better.
When he did in fact meet someone better (after he broke up with the first one), he was willing enough to forget all about his "principled reasons" why marriage was such a bad idea, and get married.
And this, in fact, is why (for some) marriage is important - it is symbolic of actually making a real commitment. The fact that divorce has negative effects on one's financials simply underlines the significance of the committment made.
Sure, it may not really last. But the adamant refusal to marry "on principle" even if the other person really wants it seems, in some cases, to simply represent mental reservations by one party about the other. This is deeply discouraging to women who are interested in having children in particular, as stability of family life is a desireable factor for having children.
Make no mistake: you may have no reservations whatsoever about your partner. I make no statement about that. But stern refusal to marry
where the other person is requesting it surely is putting doubts in her mind - I know it would in mine.
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 05:04:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 05:01:57 PM
The primary impact is it encourages women to lie about the number of people they slept with which is pretty harmless I guess.
But also pretty silly and not the recipe for a relationship that will have open and honest communication.
It's okay. What's going to end up happening is that men with this double-standard are going to end up single since it's going to be harder and harder to find "pure" women to commit to. Then, more articles like this are going to come out explaining how it's all the women's fault for not keeping their legs crossed like good little girls. :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 05:05:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 05:03:03 PM
I sorta believe in the infamous double standard, just maybe not the extreme application of it.
Damnit, derspeiss. You had me, and then you lost me. :glare:
I know. You kept trying to give me a way out & I didn't take it. Sorry :(
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 04:56:05 PM
Just go on forums where there are a lot of young men around. Let your mind be blown on the number of young boys and young men feel exactly like that - and how pathetic the help is.
Women are not the only one afraid of being used and have their feelings hurt when they commit.
That is a very different experience than I've had. Most of the young men that I know don't really care how many men their girls have been with before so long as when she commits to him, that's where her heart stays. Having been with multiple partners does not mean that she's going to walk out faster than a woman who was a virgin when you met her, and most intelligent young men know this, just as most intelligent young women know the same when it comes to men. As Valmy said, it's a different set of standards.
If it's a fear of comparison, well, that, to me, is indicative of an insecurity that has nothing to do with the woman and everything to do with the man insisting on inexperience. This is yet another reason I take issue with the concept of women being used goods. I don't think that's it at all, at least for you. (derspeiss has a different moral code, so he's not included in this.) I think you're afraid of being compared to others and being found wanting. It's a valid fear, and fits with the above post that you think men are worried about committment, etc. But it's not really fair to blame the woman because of your fears.
Gotta go with Meri on this one.
Maybe it's a class/social/urban thing. Purely in practical terms, by the time I met girls of university age or older, I simply assumed most if not all of them had multiple sexual experiences. If I wanted to meet only virgins, that would have reduced my dating pool to ... well, a small number indeed. :lol:
the definition of slut also varies between people. What might be considered a unacceptable number of partners by one doesn't carry over to another.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 05:10:38 PM
I know. You kept trying to give me a way out & I didn't take it. Sorry :(
The odd thing is that I don't really know if you truly feel that way or are just trolling me. A really big part of me wants to believe that you're trolling, but there's enough left saying, "Nope, he's really that afraid of losing his edge as primus genus."
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2012, 05:10:45 PM
If I wanted to meet only virgins, that would have reduced my dating pool to ... well, a small number indeed. :lol:
My oldest brother did just that. What he ended up with was-- not optimal. And the marriage didn't last.
But simply avoiding sluts doesn't necessarily mean you're limiting yourself to virgins.
Quote from: HVC on November 26, 2012, 05:11:10 PM
the definition of slut also varies between people. What might be considered a unacceptable number of partners by one doesn't carry over to another.
We've had polls on this before. I think the general consensus was something along the lines of 0-5 partners was acceptable, but more than that started to become an issue for some people.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 05:19:01 PM
The odd thing is that I don't really know if you truly feel that way or are just trolling me. A really big part of me wants to believe that you're trolling, but there's enough left saying, "Nope, he's really that afraid of losing his edge as primus genus."
Not trolling. But not afraid of whatever the other thing is, either.
I just think there are naturally some somewhat different standards for men & women. Men may benefit from this, but there are other double standards that benefit women.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 05:03:12 PMThat is a very different experience than I've had. Most of the young men that I know don't really care how many men their girls have been with before so long as when she commits to him, that's where her heart stays. Having been with multiple partners does not mean that she's going to walk out faster than a woman who was a virgin when you met her, and most intelligent young men know this, just as most intelligent young women know the same when it comes to men. As Valmy said, it's a different set of standards.
If it's a fear of comparison, well, that, to me, is indicative of an insecurity that has nothing to do with the woman and everything to do with the man insisting on inexperience. This is yet another reason I take issue with the concept of women being used goods. I don't think that's it at all, at least for you. (derspeiss has a different moral code, so he's not included in this.) I think you're afraid of being compared to others and being found wanting. It's a valid fear, and fits with the above post that you think men are worried about committment, etc. But it's not really fair to blame the woman because of your fears.
I find it funny, on how every time you and I disagree ultimately on something gender-related, in the end you use psycho-babbling as a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack to rob yourself. You systematically refuse to acknowledge the other person's point of view as legit when it doesn't suit you, but on the contrary you turn it personal it, as a problem of personal issue, rather than taking a mere counter-argument to what you perceive
ought-to be right, as if I can't or wouldn't counter anything to that.
I give you, as a man, from experience, fears
some men have spoken or expressed in my presence, an input that doesn't compute with your fairy-tale world. You and I disagree, I can live with that. I don't sugarcoat things for you, I don't white knight you because you are a woman. I had, until this moment, treated with a healthy dose of respect even if I rarely agree with you, and I find some of your positions questionable (as you do with some of mine).
And the argument you present after this is, if I disagree, it must be because there's an insecurity, a fear, something lacking in
me? Not only it is a smack in my face, not only it is insulting and galling that you presume things, and dare to play a pseudo Dr. Phil as a tool of debate. It is quite hypocritical, from someone who chime on how double-standards are evil, to passive-agressively hide under the double-standard to attack a man's ego because you expect it will shut him off, that because a man brings in something coming from an emotional point of view that doesn't chime with your prejudices and your already made conclusions, it must be because of something problematic in himself.
I call you on this, publicly. I call you on this, because it's an habit of yours that I have noted in several threads in which you are invested in, and nobody has called you on this. It makes it extremely unpleasant to debate seriously with you on gender-related issues. From now on, I refuse to argue anymore with you.
On that note, it is my last post on this thread. Enjoy ignoring what is the madonna-whore complex, girl. God knows the rest of the world knows what it is.
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Seriously, he's going to say all that and then throw in the towel? :thumbsdown:
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 04:42:06 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:31:15 PM
Yeah, I don't buy it. Sorry.
Funny how when a man tells you how quite a few men feel, suddenly you are "not buying it". Guess I'll use that line when you come over and explain how women feel about how double standards suck.
Telling you how it is, a lot of men are getting more and more jaded about women and commitment, because they are not buying it from women's mouth either.
You're hardly a representative specimen. Thankfully.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 05:35:51 PM
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 04:42:06 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 04:31:15 PM
Yeah, I don't buy it. Sorry.
Funny how when a man tells you how quite a few men feel, suddenly you are "not buying it". Guess I'll use that line when you come over and explain how women feel about how double standards suck.
Telling you how it is, a lot of men are getting more and more jaded about women and commitment, because they are not buying it from women's mouth either.
You're hardly a representative specimen. Thankfully.
A guy who won't commit? He's hardly a rarity.
:lol: Holy shit.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 05:39:54 PM
:lol: Holy shit.
There is nothing holy about this shit.
An amusing thread, do please continue. :)
THUNDERDOME!
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 05:39:42 PM
A guy who won't commit? He's hardly a rarity.
Except he did commit he just will not get officially married because of his human rights and stuff. That is pretty rare.
Maybe its a Mass. thing, but I know a lot of guys who are afraid of marriage, because if something goes wrong there is a high likelyhood that she'll get everything from the kids to the house.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 04:25:20 PM
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?
Eh, this is called having standards. Women have them. So a huge slut to men is the same commitment-killer that an unemployed hobo is to women. Why wife up a skank who'll just as easily cheat on you as have a latte, if you have options for better?
To be a successful manwhore with the ladies you have to have persistence, display charisma and a deft social touch. To be a slut you just have to...be there. Even gross hambeast fatties can get guys to fuck them. It's a skill issue.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 26, 2012, 06:11:09 PM
Why wife up a skank who'll just as easily cheat on you as have a latte, if you have options for better?
I certainly would never marry somebody who cheated. I thought we were talking about people who had an extensive sexual history not cheaters. So what she had some fun in college or whatever?
And I do have standards, it just blows my mind that having had sex with unattached people while single means they are going to cheat. What kind of stupid shit is that?
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 06:13:30 PM
I certainly would never marry somebody who cheated. I thought we were talking about people who had an extensive sexual history not cheaters. So what she had some fun in college or whatever?
And I do have standards, it just blows my mind that having had sex with unattached people while single was some sort of deal breaker. What kind of stupid shit is that?
You're naive if you think sluts only rack up an impressive notch count via one-night stands because they're just so horny they can't help themselves. That's not the Way Of The Slut. Some of the most prolific ones I knew would hop from "boyfriend" to boyfriend every few months or so while getting the occaisonal ONS (those don't count in chick logic) inbetween. The serial quasi-monogomy while on the cock carousel is the acid on her soul that makes her an unfit wife.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2012, 03:56:50 PM
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.
LOL, no it just makes her a goof.
I was on a blind date years ago with a very successful woman; she told me she had two kids by her ex-husband. By the end of the evening, the numbers had grown to five and three, respectively. :lol:
I love threads where derspiess kicks it into Cotton Mather Mode. :lol:
Quote from: Legbiter on November 26, 2012, 06:27:15 PM
You're naive if you think sluts only rack up an impressive notch count via one-night stands because they're just so horny they can't help themselves. That's not the Way Of The Slut. Some of the most prolific ones I knew would hop from "boyfriend" to boyfriend every few months or so while getting the occaisonal ONS (those don't count in chick logic) inbetween. The serial quasi-monogomy while on the cock carousel is the acid on her soul that makes her an unfit wife.
Slut clearly has a much more specific definition than I thought.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 06:33:38 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on November 26, 2012, 06:27:15 PM
You're naive if you think sluts only rack up an impressive notch count via one-night stands because they're just so horny they can't help themselves. That's not the Way Of The Slut. Some of the most prolific ones I knew would hop from "boyfriend" to boyfriend every few months or so while getting the occaisonal ONS (those don't count in chick logic) inbetween. The serial quasi-monogomy while on the cock carousel is the acid on her soul that makes her an unfit wife.
Slut clearly has a much more specific definition than I thought.
Merriam-Webster will fail you in certain aspects of life.
These threads always go the same way.
Each poster generalizes from their own personal experiences and handpicked anecdotes, with occasional nods to pop-psych constructs along the way to justify their particular generalization. They then accuse their opponent of doing exactly what I just described, apparently unaware that they are doing the exact same thing themselves but from the opposite POV. What is completely missing from all sides is any set of aggregate facts or data. Not surprisingly, the process reveals some things about the life experiences, mental processes and personal concerns of the poster, but little else of value.
Wouldn't that depend on her intent? Perhaps she hops so quickly as she can quickly realize that it isn't right. Hopefully you aren't proposing marriage after only a few months.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2012, 06:57:46 PM
These threads always go the same way.
Each poster generalizes from their own personal experiences and handpicked anecdotes, with occasional nods to pop-psych constructs along the way to justify their particular generalization. They then accuse their opponent of doing exactly what I just described, apparently unaware that they are doing the exact same thing themselves but from the opposite POV. What is completely missing from all sides is any set of aggregate facts or data. Not surprisingly, the process reveals some things about the life experiences, mental processes and personal concerns of the poster, but little else of value.
Fuck, and I haven't even posted yet!
Aw, minsky, you wanna drag science into this? Social science? :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2012, 06:57:46 PM
Not surprisingly, the process reveals some things about the life experiences, mental processes and personal concerns of the poster, but little else of value.
I respond to the post, not the poster.
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 06:33:38 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on November 26, 2012, 06:27:15 PM
You're naive if you think sluts only rack up an impressive notch count via one-night stands because they're just so horny they can't help themselves. That's not the Way Of The Slut. Some of the most prolific ones I knew would hop from "boyfriend" to boyfriend every few months or so while getting the occaisonal ONS (those don't count in chick logic) inbetween. The serial quasi-monogomy while on the cock carousel is the acid on her soul that makes her an unfit wife.
Slut clearly has a much more specific definition than I thought.
It's a cultural thing.
Siegy's definition of a slut is different than derSpiess', which is different again from Drakken's and from yours and from Legbiter's.
Consider a woman who has something like a few one-night stands and 2-4 shortish relationships (date for a few months, some sex) a year, but never cheated on someone or was an accessory to cheating? Is she a slut? Is she still a slut if in her thirties she's in a long term committed relationship, and prior to that was in another long relationship?
To Siegy, based on previous posts, the answer is yes, I'm pretty sure. From what derSpiess has said, I think he'd consider her a slut as well and thus suspect afterwards as well. I don't think she's the kind of person Legbiter, Viking, Valmy or Drakken are talking about when they speak of a slut (correct me if I'm wrong, though).
My point is, "slut" generally means a woman who's more sexually active than the speaker is comfortable with, at least if they consider them as a potentially serious partner. What that is varies individually and, because individuals are shaped by their cultures, culturally.
... at least that's my take.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2012, 06:57:46 PM
These threads always go the same way.
Each poster generalizes from their own personal experiences and handpicked anecdotes, with occasional nods to pop-psych constructs along the way to justify their particular generalization. They then accuse their opponent of doing exactly what I just described, apparently unaware that they are doing the exact same thing themselves but from the opposite POV. What is completely missing from all sides is any set of aggregate facts or data. Not surprisingly, the process reveals some things about the life experiences, mental processes and personal concerns of the poster, but little else of value.
... and that's why I'd love to hear your take.
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 07:01:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2012, 06:57:46 PM
Not surprisingly, the process reveals some things about the life experiences, mental processes and personal concerns of the poster, but little else of value.
I respond to the post, not the poster.
Oh BS.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2012, 07:02:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2012, 06:57:46 PM
These threads always go the same way.
Each poster generalizes from their own personal experiences and handpicked anecdotes, with occasional nods to pop-psych constructs along the way to justify their particular generalization. They then accuse their opponent of doing exactly what I just described, apparently unaware that they are doing the exact same thing themselves but from the opposite POV. What is completely missing from all sides is any set of aggregate facts or data. Not surprisingly, the process reveals some things about the life experiences, mental processes and personal concerns of the poster, but little else of value.
... and that's why I'd love to hear your take.
Mind you, Minsky is the guy who turned the F1 Nazi orgy thread into a stately discussion on the various legal issues surrounding the case. :hmm: :cry:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2012, 06:28:24 PM
I love threads where derspiess kicks it into Cotton Mather Mode. :lol:
HOLLA :goodboy:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2012, 06:57:46 PM
These threads always go the same way.
Each poster generalizes from their own personal experiences and handpicked anecdotes, with occasional nods to pop-psych constructs along the way to justify their particular generalization. They then accuse their opponent of doing exactly what I just described, apparently unaware that they are doing the exact same thing themselves but from the opposite POV. What is completely missing from all sides is any set of aggregate facts or data. Not surprisingly, the process reveals some things about the life experiences, mental processes and personal concerns of the poster, but little else of value.
Well that's a given, also probably applies to what, say 60% of languish threads.
But none the less still nicely put.
And again, that's why I enjoy this sort of thread so much. And why I'm unlikely to post much of an opinion in it, lest I reveal too much. :ph34r:
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2012, 07:01:45 PM
Siegy's definition of a slut is different than derSpiess', which is different again from Drakken's and from yours and from Legbiter's.
Diversity FTW.
QuoteConsider a woman who has something like a few one-night stands and 2-4 shortish relationships (date for a few months, some sex) a year, but never cheated on someone or was an accessory to cheating? Is she a slut? Is she still a slut if in her thirties she's in a long term committed relationship, and prior to that was in another long relationship?
To Siegy, based on previous posts, the answer is yes, I'm pretty sure. From what derSpiess has said, I think he'd consider her a slut as well and thus suspect afterwards as well. I don't think she's the kind of person Legbiter, Viking, Valmy or Drakken are talking about when they speak of a slut (correct me if I'm wrong, though).
Since you mentioned me, I'll weigh in & say that in her 30s she's a woman with a slutty past and not currently a slut. Whether or not that's a distinction without a difference, I dunno. If I were personally involved with her I'd proceed with caution.
This is going to piss off Meri even further, but there is a point at which a woman becomes overly used goods and therefore less desirable for me. But that's just me. I have a whole set of likes/dislikes re: wimmenz that may seem arbitrary to other people.
A slut is someone who won't do me but does my buddy.
OK, I've changed my mind, I'll throw my hat in the ring and say this;
IMHO there are some significant differences, the only one I've detected is a tendency for men to marry/go after based on the 'psychology' of the women, women tend to vote for the mans career/social status. :unsure:
Quote from: PDH on November 26, 2012, 07:35:02 PM
A slut is someone who won't do me but does my buddy.
This is an internally coherent worldview, that fails to help the man pimp himself out. :P
I used to theorize that you were better of settling down with a woman who'd been around the block a few times than with someone inexperienced. The theory was that she'd know what she likes, and thus any compatibility would be longer lasting. Also, you wouldn't run the risk that after a while - after she got into the groove, so to speak - she'd eventually decide that she'd like to try some of all those other flavours out there she'd given a miss; whereas someone more experienced would have sampled all the flavours they were interested in, and settled with the one they liked the most.
That's sort of the opposite derSpiess' theory that women who've had plenty of sex partners (whatever that amount is) are more likely to want to have plenty of sex partners even after committing to a relationship, but I think the logic is equally sound.
At this point, however, I think that the potential for cheating has much more to do with the couple's compatibility than any kind of virgin, slut or other sexual status.
I just put a hundred dollar bill on a sting and drag it front of the Gap. I get all the ladiezz that way.
Baby Gap?
Minsky's browbeating wore me down so I dipped a toe into the scientific literature, such as can be achieved with 10 minutes of browsing.
I present:
Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Womenhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/full)
QuoteThe results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.
Far as I can make out, if a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50% (see table 4). When at 16 or more past lovers the odds that a marriage to her will end in divorce rise to over 80%. Even women with only 5 partners see an increase in odds of divorce to 70%.
In short, if you're looking for the mother of your children, the less cock she's had, the better odds of your marriage surviving.
I hope DGul will appear at some point.
I win!!
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 08:30:41 PM
I hope DGul will appear at some point.
He won't get any with all that statistic blabber.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 05:31:23 PM
I find it funny, on how every time you and I disagree ultimately on something gender-related, in the end you use psycho-babbling as a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack to rob yourself. You systematically refuse to acknowledge the other person's point of view as legit when it doesn't suit you, but on the contrary you turn it personal it, as a problem of personal issue, rather than taking a mere counter-argument to what you perceive ought-to be right, as if I can't or wouldn't counter anything to that.
I give you, as a man, from experience, fears some men have spoken or expressed in my presence, an input that doesn't compute with your fairy-tale world. You and I disagree, I can live with that. I don't sugarcoat things for you, I don't white knight you because you are a woman. I had, until this moment, treated with a healthy dose of respect even if I rarely agree with you, and I find some of your positions questionable (as you do with some of mine).
And the argument you present after this is, if I disagree, it must be because there's an insecurity, a fear, something lacking in me? Not only it is a smack in my face, not only it is insulting and galling that you presume things, and dare to play a pseudo Dr. Phil as a tool of debate. It is quite hypocritical, from someone who chime on how double-standards are evil, to passive-agressively hide under the double-standard to attack a man's ego because you expect it will shut him off, that because a man brings in something coming from an emotional point of view that doesn't chime with your prejudices and your already made conclusions, it must be because of something problematic in himself.
I call you on this, publicly. I call you on this, because it's an habit of yours that I have noted in several threads in which you are invested in, and nobody has called you on this. It makes it extremely unpleasant to debate seriously with you on gender-related issues. From now on, I refuse to argue anymore with you.
On that note, it is my last post on this thread. Enjoy ignoring what is the madonna-whore complex, girl. God knows the rest of the world knows what it is.
:lol:
I merely said that my experience was different, not that yours was wrong. Malthus agreed with me, so obviously, it's not just a "chick" thing or me making things up to try to discredit your experiences. Shockingly, your world view is not the only one out there. As for the second paragraph in my post, I realize that it seemed like an attack on you personally, but I didn't necessarily mean it as such. I was using "you" in the broad sense, not the specific, but hey, if the dart hits too close to home... :whistle:
As I just explained to Max, it's always been my assumption that the reason men dislike the idea of their girl being ridden hard is because they didn't want to have to compete with ghost relationships in the bedroom. Some guys on Languish have pretty much said as much, and it at least makes sense, however silly I find the reasoning. It has been the
only explanation that made sense to me on why there is still this double standard in this day and age. Then, Legbiter and derspeiss come out with this whole thing of equating slut with cheater, which I honestly still don't understand, but okay, I guess. If that's their reasoning, or yours, or whatever. I think it's ridiculous, but as Jacob has said, it's all in how you read it. And I
really don't get the Madonna/Whore thing, because, well, it's just plain fucking stupid to me. Talk about eating your cake and having it, too!
The interesting thing is that you seem to think that because you have a penis, you have the market on what men think about women. Dude, I'm older and been in more relationships with more men than you can imagine, and I'm not talking about sexual relationships. You may know more about the men in your corner of the world, but the truth is that your "knowledge" just isn't that broad or varied, as the responses from a number of the other guys from Languish shows you. You laying it out there like it's some fact is laughable, but what's even more hilarious is you thinking that it should be respected as such. It's your opinion based on what you know, not fact, and that's exactly how I'll treat it. Feel free to do the same about my opinion; god knows you wouldn't be the first nor would you be the last to tell me that you thought my opinion is full of shit. The difference is that I know it's my opinion, and I'm pretty comfortable with people giving it zilch weight.
I'd be lying if I said that I'd miss our tete-a-tetes. You're kind of everything that I find abhorrent in a man, so you declining to talk to me is really not a hardship. It may be that distaste for you that comes through in my posts. I'd be lying again if I said that I'm sorry.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 26, 2012, 08:32:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 08:30:41 PM
I hope DGul will appear at some point.
He won't get any with all that statistic blabber.
For you information, 85% of women find statistics talk on first date very charming. I don't have any data for second dates, but I'm sure the pattern still holds.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 26, 2012, 08:32:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 08:30:41 PM
I hope DGul will appear at some point.
He won't get any with all that statistic blabber.
For you information, 85% of women find statistics talk on first date very charming. I don't have any data for second dates, but I'm sure the pattern still holds.
My vagina just dried up. Try again.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 26, 2012, 08:23:21 PM
Minsky's browbeating wore me down so I dipped a toe into the scientific literature, such as can be achieved with 10 minutes of browsing.
I present: Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/full)
QuoteThe results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.
Far as I can make out, if a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50% (see table 4). When at 16 or more past lovers the odds that a marriage to her will end in divorce rise to over 80%. Even women with only 5 partners see an increase in odds of divorce to 70%.
In short, if you're looking for the mother of your children, the less cock she's had, the better odds of your marriage surviving.
Just out of curiosity, did they factor out religious reasons for not cohabitating?
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 08:35:02 PM
For you information, 85% of women find statistics talk on first date very charming. I don't have any data for second dates, but I'm sure the pattern still holds.
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 08:36:48 PMJust out of curiosity, did they factor out religious reasons for not cohabitating?
Quote
A number of commonly used family background, life course, and socioeconomic variables pertaining to women are available in the NSFG, and I use them to limit the likelihood that any effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex are spurious. Each of these control variables has been identified in prior research as being linked to the risk of marital dissolution (Bumpass et al., 1991; Teachman, 1983, 2002). The control variables that I use are as follows: father's education in years; mother's education in years; number of siblings; whether the respondent is White, Black, or Hispanic (being White serves as the baseline); whether the respondent is Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or some other religion (Protestant serves as the baseline); whether the woman grew up in an intact family or experienced parental death, parental divorce, or any other nonintact family form during childhood (having grown up in an intact family serves as the baseline); the number of different childhood living situations experienced by the woman; the woman's age at marriage; her education in years at the time of marriage; whether she had a birth prior to marriage; whether she was pregnant at the time of marriage; and a series of dummy variables indicating 5-year marriage cohorts. In models estimating the effect of premarital sex, I also include a control for the woman's age at first sex on the assumption that sex at a younger age is likely to indicate either less commitment to the permanency of unions or provide greater opportunity for learning poor relationship skills. Women who begin their sexual careers earlier in life are also less likely to marry their first partner, are more likely to have a larger number of sexual partners, and may evidence less discrimination in their choice of eventual marital partner.
The NSFG also contains data on husbands that can be used to create variables that have been linked to the risk of marital disruption (see Bumpass et al., 1991; Teachman, 1983, 2002). The variables that I include are as follows: husband's age at marriage; husband's education in years; whether the husband was married before; whether the husband is of a different race; whether the husband is 2 or more years younger than the respondent; whether the husband is 5 or more years older than the respondent; whether the husband if of a different religion; and whether, according to the respondent's report, religion is important or very important to the husband.
These are the control variables. Religion (in several hues) is controlled for.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 26, 2012, 08:32:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 08:30:41 PM
I hope DGul will appear at some point.
He won't get any with all that statistic blabber.
For you information, 85% of women find statistics talk on first date very charming. I don't have any data for second dates, but I'm sure the pattern still holds.
:hug:
Quote from: Legbiter on November 26, 2012, 08:45:34 PM
These are the control variables. Religion (in several hues) is controlled for.
That's actually pretty interesting. I wonder why that is.
EDIT: I don't have access to the article, so I'm afraid that I can't read it. I wonder if it's the same for men, though, or if it's just true of women. Also, does the study mention who leaves who, or just that they end up divorced?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2012, 06:57:46 PM
These threads always go the same way.
Each poster generalizes from their own personal experiences and handpicked anecdotes, with occasional nods to pop-psych constructs along the way to justify their particular generalization. They then accuse their opponent of doing exactly what I just described, apparently unaware that they are doing the exact same thing themselves but from the opposite POV. What is completely missing from all sides is any set of aggregate facts or data. Not surprisingly, the process reveals some things about the life experiences, mental processes and personal concerns of the poster, but little else of value.
Now with extra rape!
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 08:54:19 PM
That's actually pretty interesting. I wonder why that is.
Houellebecq is a good start I'd suppose.
QuoteHouellebecq
Gehnsundeit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 26, 2012, 08:35:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 26, 2012, 08:32:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 08:30:41 PM
I hope DGul will appear at some point.
He won't get any with all that statistic blabber.
For you information, 85% of women find statistics talk on first date very charming. I don't have any data for second dates, but I'm sure the pattern still holds.
My vagina just dried up. Try again.
:D
This guy knows the score.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNrN2Dkgpgc
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 08:34:44 PM
As I just explained to Max, it's always been my assumption that the reason men dislike the idea of their girl being ridden hard is because they didn't want to have to compete with ghost relationships in the bedroom. Some guys on Languish have pretty much said as much, and it at least makes sense, however silly I find the reasoning. It has been the only explanation that made sense to me on why there is still this double standard in this day and age.
I can honestly say this is the first I've ever heard of this theory. Not even 100% sure I understand. Is this one of those "guys like/don't like X because they feel inadequate" theories women like so much?
Want some other reasons? Embarrassment (assuming other people know her past, but err on the side of caution), greater likelihood of her having an STD, and a general 'ick' factor. Bear in mind that's criteria I'd use to evaluate women for a relationship, and it doesn't all apply to how I'd view them platonically.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 26, 2012, 09:11:49 PM
QuoteHouellebecq
Gehnsundeit.
Michel Houellebecq. French writer who trolled the hell out of the 68' Boomers with his goring of that generartion's sacred cows. He's been accused of obscenity, racism, misogyny and Islamophobia. Plus he's good in parts.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 09:19:38 PM
Embarrassment (assuming other people know her past, but err on the side of caution)
Do you live in a village?
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 09:19:38 PM
Embarrassment (assuming other people know her past, but err on the side of caution)
Do you live in a village?
I've always lived in small to medium-sized towns, so yeah sorta.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 26, 2012, 09:17:00 PM
This guy knows the score.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNrN2Dkgpgc
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 09:19:38 PM
I can honestly say this is the first I've ever heard of this theory. Not even 100% sure I understand. Is this one of those "guys like/don't like X because they feel inadequate" theories women like so much?
Want some other reasons? Embarrassment (assuming other people know her past, but err on the side of caution), greater likelihood of her having an STD, and a general 'ick' factor. Bear in mind that's criteria I'd use to evaluate women for a relationship, and it doesn't all apply to how I'd view them platonically.
:huh:
Several men have told me point blank that they don't want their women comparing them in the bedroom with past lovers, which is why they prefer women who have had fewer lovers. Granted, the men who have told me this were mostly all geeks, so chances are it's in the demographic, but it at least made more sense then this whole idea that she's had sex so she's going to cheat thing.
The reasons you're giving are... well, silly to me, other than the STD thing. "Ick factor"? Really? What, you think some guy's semen from two years ago is still clinging inside her? Embarrassment? Embarrassed of what? That she dated before she met you?
Now, the STD thing makes perfect sense, especially when you consider that something like half the population in the US supposedly has genital warts/herpes. But that doesn't explain the double standard, unless women are really just that stupid compared to men when it comes to this kind of thing.
The embarrassment would be that rumor around the village that she's easy and fast.
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
The embarrassment would be that rumor around the village is that she's easy and fast.
Operative words from before were "in this day and age."
D agreed that he lives in a village.
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 10:25:03 PM
D agreed that he lives in a village.
Just saw that. Well, that does explain his provincial attitude on a lot of these things. ;)
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 10:20:32 PM
Several men have told me point blank that they don't want their women comparing them in the bedroom with past lovers, which is why they prefer women who have had fewer lovers. Granted, the men who have told me this were mostly all geeks, so chances are it's in the demographic, but it at least made more sense then this whole idea that she's had sex so she's going to cheat thing.
I think it must be the demographic. I just don't get that mindset.
QuoteThe reasons you're giving are... well, silly to me, other than the STD thing. "Ick factor"? Really? What, you think some guy's semen from two years ago is still clinging inside her?
I understand that sounds silly, but the thought of my significant other having been plowed by large numbers of men just grosses me out. Sort of like the stigma attached to an otherwise normal girl who screws some gross or really weird guy. It might not make sense to you, but we all have our own likes/dislikes and pet peeves.
QuoteEmbarrassment? Embarrassed of what? That she dated before she met you?
Eh, no. I never said I insisted upon virginity so you guys need to stop playing that game. Embarrassment of being seriously involved with a girl that has a slutty past. That so many guys know her 'secrets', so to speak. The obvious jokes. Disapproval from friends/family. Also makes dating her less special if so many other guys have had the chance. Less market value, so to speak.
QuoteNow, the STD thing makes perfect sense, especially when you consider that something like half the population in the US supposedly has genital warts/herpes. But that doesn't explain the double standard, unless women are really just that stupid compared to men when it comes to this kind of thing.
Well, we've sorta veered into personal preferences here. I guess that wouldn't necessarily support a double standard.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 10:31:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 10:25:03 PM
D agreed that he lives in a village.
Just saw that. Well, that does explain his provincial attitude on a lot of these things. ;)
Far from provincial, toots. Traditional, yes. You can call me outdated if you like. But I'm not the slightest bit provincial.
One can be exposed to many things and hold onto provincial attitudes/views. See Jos.
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 10:48:54 PM
One can be exposed to many things and hold onto provincial attitudes/views. See Jos.
I guess. But I don't think that's the case with me.
Fair enough.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2012, 07:01:45 PM
To Siegy, based on previous posts, the answer is yes, I'm pretty sure. From what derSpiess has said, I think he'd consider her a slut as well and thus suspect afterwards as well. I don't think she's the kind of person Legbiter, Viking, Valmy or Drakken are talking about when they speak of a slut (correct me if I'm wrong, though).
I don't use the phrase slut pejoratively. I actually a flashman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Paget_Flashman) tag when using it. Women love sex just as much as we do when they allow themselves to do so. It's just that it gets drilled into them that she shouldn't enjoy it and that showing that they enjoy it makes them morally suspect. I don't think that enjoying sex has anything to do with morality, I do, however, think that a woman who enjoys her sex will make me a sandwich and that me enjoying sex will under no circumstances lead me to marry (though it is certainly an advantage is I do).
In an age of safe sex I think the next natural set is to separate sex from family and procreation.
Quote from: Viking on November 26, 2012, 11:01:02 PM
I don't use the phrase slut pejoratively. I actually a flashman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Paget_Flashman) tag when using it. Women love sex just as much as we do when they allow themselves to do so. It's just that it gets drilled into them that she shouldn't enjoy it and that showing that they enjoy it makes them morally suspect. I don't think that enjoying sex has anything to do with morality, I do, however, think that a woman who enjoys her sex will make me a sandwich and that me enjoying sex will under no circumstances lead me to marry (though it is certainly an advantage is I do).
In an age of safe sex I think the next natural set is to separate sex from family and procreation.
I read this 4 times and still have no clue what you're saying :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 10:57:15 PM
Fair enough.
I'm actually a lot more metropolitan than most of you would assume.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 10:42:29 PM
I think it must be the demographic. I just don't get that mindset.
I understand that sounds silly, but the thought of my significant other having been plowed by large numbers of men just grosses me out. Sort of like the stigma attached to an otherwise normal girl who screws some gross or really weird guy. It might not make sense to you, but we all have our own likes/dislikes and pet peeves.
Eh, no. I never said I insisted upon virginity so you guys need to stop playing that game. Embarrassment of being seriously involved with a girl that has a slutty past. That so many guys know her 'secrets', so to speak. The obvious jokes. Disapproval from friends/family. Also makes dating her less special if so many other guys have had the chance. Less market value, so to speak.
Well, we've sorta veered into personal preferences here. I guess that wouldn't necessarily support a double standard.
Since this is primarily stated as personal preference, there isn't much to say. We know that you and I disagree on our views of the male/female dynamic, and this appears to just be a continuation on that theme. :)
For what it's worth, what little this topic has come up in my real life, the guys I know who wouldn't date "sluts" said their views are in line with derspiess in that it's an overall "ick factor" rather than a fear of comparison to other men. Haven't talked about it at length with any of my friends, so I don't know specifically what the ick is, but that's the general theme the few times it was mentioned at all (usually when talking about someone else girlfriend and or someone who hit on one of my friends).
But this thread got my thinking. I'm at the age where I really don't want to get married (maybe not to the degree of Drakken :P), and I've only ever dated one girl where the thought even crossed my mind (before I quickly and mercilessly chased it away) and I honestly can't say if I would marry a "slut". That kind of makes me sad. I mean I've dated girls that could be construed as sluts, even got in fight over a girl, but it was never serious in any way.
:thumbsup: Finally a decent thread.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 08:35:02 PMFor you information, 85% of women find statistics talk on first date very charming. I don't have any data for second dates, but I'm sure the pattern still holds.
:lol:
In all seriousness, can we get a round of applause for DGuller? One of the most consistently funny posters we have. I think his forum rep as a debater leads people to his miss or misinterpret his good one-liners, which are uncommonly frequent.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 27, 2012, 01:06:16 AM
In all seriousness, can we get a round of applause for DGuller? One of the most consistently funny posters we have. I think his forum rep as a debater leads people to his miss or misinterpret his good one-liners, which are uncommonly frequent.
He's definitely one of my favourite posters here :cheers:
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 05:03:12 PM
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 04:56:05 PM
Just go on forums where there are a lot of young men around. Let your mind be blown on the number of young boys and young men feel exactly like that - and how pathetic the help is.
Women are not the only one afraid of being used and have their feelings hurt when they commit.
That is a very different experience than I've had. Most of the young men that I know don't really care how many men their girls have been with before so long as when she commits to him, that's where her heart stays. Having been with multiple partners does not mean that she's going to walk out faster than a woman who was a virgin when you met her, and most intelligent young men know this, just as most intelligent young women know the same when it comes to men.
Well, first of all, the information posted by Legbiter would seem to indicate that what they "know" is incorrect. Beyond that, though, you're not taking into account that there is often a difference between what one know intellectually and how one feels emotionally.
Ok, derspiess and Drakken, I gotta ask this, considering your high standards. I saw your pictures and you are fat and ugly. What do you do? Fuck ugly too? Or just go for the very insecure? Honest question.
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:08:07 AM
Ok, derspiess and Drakken, I gotta ask this, considering your high standards. I saw your pictures and you are fat and ugly. What do you do? Fuck ugly too? Or just go for the very insecure? Honest question.
You fags might not be able to comprehend this bit, but chicks don't seem to value looks as much and men and homosexuals. :rolleyes:
except when they are ovulating of course...
Quote from: Valmy on November 26, 2012, 04:50:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 04:43:41 PM
A slutty woman is more likely to cheat. You're more likely to run into some guy she did circus acts with (awkward!), and I wouldn't want a woman of loose morals raising my kids.
Well I guess it has to do with our differing sense of honor here. If she was a slut with integrity, never cheated never stole somebody else's man, she just had sex with available people when she was young when anybody would be sewing their oats then I fail to see anything at all immoral about that. A cheater is more likely to cheat, a person with integrity will not.
Yeah, I find their theory rather bizarre. Unless someone is a sex addict, I would say that a person who actually went through a "slutty phase" is more likely to settle down into a stable relationship than a prude who could be simply a late bloomer.
I know it can be a confidence issue for the guy, but this speaks more about his own emotional problems than the woman's general desirability.
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 02:12:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:08:07 AM
Ok, derspiess and Drakken, I gotta ask this, considering your high standards. I saw your pictures and you are fat and ugly. What do you do? Fuck ugly too? Or just go for the very insecure? Honest question.
You fags might not be able to comprehend this bit, but chicks don't seem to value looks as much and men and homosexuals. :rolleyes:
Ok but they need to go for something, right? I mean, it's not that they do not pay attention to obesity and ugliness, and instead go for unsuccessful assholes, right? :P
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 05:31:23 PMI find it funny, on how every time you and I disagree ultimately on something gender-related, in the end you use psycho-babbling as a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack to rob yourself.
I may be wrong, but I think it is a generally accepted opinion on Languish that you are a loser asshole with huuuuuuuge issues when it comes to relationships with women. So merri could be subconsciously tapping into that.
Marcinek strikes again! ^_^
Quote from: mongers on November 26, 2012, 07:37:19 PM
OK, I've changed my mind, I'll throw my hat in the ring and say this;
IMHO there are some significant differences, the only one I've detected is a tendency for men to marry/go after based on the 'psychology' of the women, women tend to vote for the mans career/social status. :unsure:
You shouldn't have said anything as this is stupid. Both parties go for psychology. It's just that, since most of us do not conduct a scientific psychological study of our potential partner, we judge desirable psychological traits by external events from their life - whether it is past sexual conduct or past professional/academic conduct.
Quote from: HVC on November 27, 2012, 12:15:09 AM
For what it's worth, what little this topic has come up in my real life, the guys I know who wouldn't date "sluts" said their views are in line with derspiess in that it's an overall "ick factor" rather than a fear of comparison to other men. Haven't talked about it at length with any of my friends, so I don't know specifically what the ick is, but that's the general theme the few times it was mentioned at all (usually when talking about someone else girlfriend and or someone who hit on one of my friends).
Well, in psychology, the "ick factor" is almost never a stand-alone phenomenon but it is usually a smoke screen for other issues, some of them legitimate and some quite dysfunctional.
Not to mention that a self-admission is usually not a reliable source when dealing with someone's psychological issues (except when preceded by lengthy therapy). I'm sure if you asked most mental institution patients, they would also tell you they are sane and they were really visited by aliens or are Napoleons.
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:17:08 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 02:12:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:08:07 AM
Ok, derspiess and Drakken, I gotta ask this, considering your high standards. I saw your pictures and you are fat and ugly. What do you do? Fuck ugly too? Or just go for the very insecure? Honest question.
You fags might not be able to comprehend this bit, but chicks don't seem to value looks as much and men and homosexuals. :rolleyes:
Ok but they need to go for something, right? I mean, it's not that they do not pay attention to obesity and ugliness, and instead go for unsuccessful assholes, right? :P
No, they go for social and economic traits. Basically good provider and good father. All things being equal they will go for the guy looking like brad pitt rather than the guy looking like me.
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 02:35:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:17:08 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 02:12:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:08:07 AM
Ok, derspiess and Drakken, I gotta ask this, considering your high standards. I saw your pictures and you are fat and ugly. What do you do? Fuck ugly too? Or just go for the very insecure? Honest question.
You fags might not be able to comprehend this bit, but chicks don't seem to value looks as much and men and homosexuals. :rolleyes:
Ok but they need to go for something, right? I mean, it's not that they do not pay attention to obesity and ugliness, and instead go for unsuccessful assholes, right? :P
No, they go for social and economic traits. Basically good provider and good father. All things being equal they will go for the guy looking like brad pitt rather than the guy looking like me.
We are still talking about derspiess and Drakken, though. :hmm:
i remember when i saw boris johnson back when he was shadow higher ed secretary he talked at length about this problem.
i dont get it, succesful men have been marrying beautiful idiots since forever. why cant women?
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 02:35:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:17:08 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 02:12:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:08:07 AM
Ok, derspiess and Drakken, I gotta ask this, considering your high standards. I saw your pictures and you are fat and ugly. What do you do? Fuck ugly too? Or just go for the very insecure? Honest question.
You fags might not be able to comprehend this bit, but chicks don't seem to value looks as much and men and homosexuals. :rolleyes:
Ok but they need to go for something, right? I mean, it's not that they do not pay attention to obesity and ugliness, and instead go for unsuccessful assholes, right? :P
No, they go for social and economic traits. Basically good provider and good father. All things being equal they will go for the guy looking like brad pitt rather than the guy looking like me.
Yes, which is what Marty failed to comprehend in my post he rubbished.
Quote from: mongers on November 27, 2012, 08:01:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 02:35:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:17:08 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 02:12:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:08:07 AM
Ok, derspiess and Drakken, I gotta ask this, considering your high standards. I saw your pictures and you are fat and ugly. What do you do? Fuck ugly too? Or just go for the very insecure? Honest question.
You fags might not be able to comprehend this bit, but chicks don't seem to value looks as much and men and homosexuals. :rolleyes:
Ok but they need to go for something, right? I mean, it's not that they do not pay attention to obesity and ugliness, and instead go for unsuccessful assholes, right? :P
No, they go for social and economic traits. Basically good provider and good father. All things being equal they will go for the guy looking like brad pitt rather than the guy looking like me.
Yes, which is what Marty failed to comprehend in my post he rubbished.
Except that it isn't that simple. Lots of people have different preferences as well as an inability to actually garner the attention of someone that looks like Brad Pitt. While it can be fun to create your own simple narrative and hypothesis based on your anecdotal life experience - don't expect it to be particularly instructive for the rest of us.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 08:21:40 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 27, 2012, 08:01:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 02:35:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:17:08 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 02:12:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:08:07 AM
Ok, derspiess and Drakken, I gotta ask this, considering your high standards. I saw your pictures and you are fat and ugly. What do you do? Fuck ugly too? Or just go for the very insecure? Honest question.
You fags might not be able to comprehend this bit, but chicks don't seem to value looks as much and men and homosexuals. :rolleyes:
Ok but they need to go for something, right? I mean, it's not that they do not pay attention to obesity and ugliness, and instead go for unsuccessful assholes, right? :P
No, they go for social and economic traits. Basically good provider and good father. All things being equal they will go for the guy looking like brad pitt rather than the guy looking like me.
Yes, which is what Marty failed to comprehend in my post he rubbished.
Except that it isn't that simple. Lots of people have different preferences as well as an inability to actually garner the attention of someone that looks like Brad Pitt. While it can be fun to create your own simple narrative and hypothesis based on your anecdotal life experience - don't expect it to be particularly instructive for the rest of us.
So you take issue with the notion that a good proportion of women rank as Viking said "No, they go for social and economic traits." ?
Can you clarify what you mean by that?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2012, 06:57:46 PM
These threads always go the same way.
Each poster generalizes from their own personal experiences and handpicked anecdotes, with occasional nods to pop-psych constructs along the way to justify their particular generalization. They then accuse their opponent of doing exactly what I just described, apparently unaware that they are doing the exact same thing themselves but from the opposite POV. What is completely missing from all sides is any set of aggregate facts or data. Not surprisingly, the process reveals some things about the life experiences, mental processes and personal concerns of the poster, but little else of value.
Otherwise known as a "conversation". ;)
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2012, 01:07:53 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 27, 2012, 01:06:16 AM
In all seriousness, can we get a round of applause for DGuller? One of the most consistently funny posters we have. I think his forum rep as a debater leads people to his miss or misinterpret his good one-liners, which are uncommonly frequent.
He's definitely one of my favourite posters here :cheers:
:yes:
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 08:47:53 AM
Can you clarify what you mean by that?
You should leave the Yi gambit to the expert.
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2012, 08:56:14 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 27, 2012, 01:07:53 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 27, 2012, 01:06:16 AM
In all seriousness, can we get a round of applause for DGuller? One of the most consistently funny posters we have. I think his forum rep as a debater leads people to his miss or misinterpret his good one-liners, which are uncommonly frequent.
He's definitely one of my favourite posters here :cheers:
:yes:
Agreed. :)
Quote from: HVC on November 27, 2012, 12:15:09 AM
But this thread got my thinking. I'm at the age where I really don't want to get married (maybe not to the degree of Drakken :P), and I've only ever dated one girl where the thought even crossed my mind (before I quickly and mercilessly chased it away) and I honestly can't say if I would marry a "slut". That kind of makes me sad. I mean I've dated girls that could be construed as sluts, even got in fight over a girl, but it was never serious in any way.
I never imagined getting married again after my first husband. Just wasn't on my radar, and I was pretty much determined to stay that way. When I met Max, the situation required a marriage certificate, so we went that route. I've never been sorry.
Until you're there, you just can't know what you'll do, how, or why. It may be that you settle down with a lovely girl who, like you, is pretty ambivalent to marriage but feels committed to you. It may be that you find a girl that you want more than anything to make a formal, public committment to. Who knows? I find it's best to worry about those kinds of things when it comes up rather than before it's even on the horizon.
:hug:
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:22:50 AM
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 05:31:23 PMI find it funny, on how every time you and I disagree ultimately on something gender-related, in the end you use psycho-babbling as a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack to rob yourself.
I may be wrong, but I think it is a generally accepted opinion on Languish that you are a loser asshole with huuuuuuuge issues when it comes to relationships with women. So merri could be subconsciously tapping into that.
FYP :)
Quote from: mongers on November 27, 2012, 08:56:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 08:47:53 AM
Can you clarify what you mean by that?
You should leave the Yi gambit to the expert.
Well your sentence was rather garbled.
Anyway, I'm guessing you/Viking are saying that most women go for socio-economic traits. I'd say that certainly plays a factor but only because they don't have the luxury of just picking whomever they want. As Meri already pointed out - they tend to make less / have to take time off to raise children, so, of course, for many women socio-economic traits are going to rise up. Then Viking went on to say that all being equal women then go to looks.
So per your combined analysis I'm getting women first look at money and then secondarily consider attractiveness while men look at the "psychological" aspects of a woman. I don't think that narrative is useful or accurate.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:30:36 AM
As Meri already pointed out - they tend to make less / have to take time off to raise children, so, of course, for many women socio-economic traits are going to rise up.
I seriously doubt humans are this rational and calculating when they are picking mates.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 09:35:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:30:36 AM
As Meri already pointed out - they tend to make less / have to take time off to raise children, so, of course, for many women socio-economic traits are going to rise up.
I seriously doubt humans are this rational and calculating when they are picking mates.
Of course they aren't - we'll just binge on our credit cards instead.
But yeah I agree I don't think people are that calculating when choosing partners but if there are some people like that, there's an easy explanation.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 09:35:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:30:36 AM
As Meri already pointed out - they tend to make less / have to take time off to raise children, so, of course, for many women socio-economic traits are going to rise up.
I seriously doubt humans are this rational and calculating when they are picking mates.
I don't know. I know plenty of women who have turned down dates with men they felt weren't "settled" enough in their finances. Not necessarily that they weren't big wage earners, but that their potential didn't seem to be that high. At the same time, I've known women who've gone for the "artist" knowing full well that the guys would not likely ever be the primary wage earners.
I have no idea what the national trends are, though. Legbiter? You got anything on that?
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:30:36 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 27, 2012, 08:56:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 08:47:53 AM
Can you clarify what you mean by that?
You should leave the Yi gambit to the expert.
Well your sentence was rather garbled.
Anyway, I'm guessing you/Viking are saying that most women go for socio-economic traits. I'd say that certainly plays a factor but only because they don't have the luxury of just picking whomever they want. As Meri already pointed out - they tend to make less / have to take time off to raise children, so, of course, for many women socio-economic traits are going to rise up. Then Viking went on to say that all being equal women then go to looks.
So per your combined analysis I'm getting women first look at money and then secondarily consider attractiveness while men look at the "psychological" aspects of a woman. I don't think that narrative is useful or accurate.
I'm bored playing your game, if you re-read my original post you'd notice I specifically included these qualifiers "tendency" and "tends", you do know what role a qualifier plays in a statement ?
So instead, you and Marti come out with bitchy responses ignoring the shades of grey in my post and treat it as some black and white statement. Do you really want to be judged by the company you keep ?
Because I'm about to permanently chuck you in the 'whiny-arsed, bitchy internet troll' category and henceforth ignore your posts directed at me
If however you wished to be treated as an adult poster, then if you refrain from the personal attacks, I'm more than happy to converse with you, as I regard you as an interesting poster who has a lot to contribute here, it's your choice, ie interact with or bitch at.
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:37:25 AM
We are still talking about derspiess and Drakken, though. :hmm:
I'd go easy on the ugly accusations-- I've seen pics of you as well.
Quote from: mongers on November 27, 2012, 09:44:56 AM
I'm bored playing your game, if you re-read my original post you'd notice I specifically included these qualifiers "tendency" and "tends", you do know what role a qualifier plays in a statement ?
So instead, you and Marti come out with bitchy responses ignoring the shades of grey in my post and treat it as some black and white statement. Do you really want to be judged by the company you keep ?
Because I'm about to permanently chuck you in the 'whiny-arsed, bitchy internet troll' category and henceforth ignore your posts directed at me
If however you wished to be treated as an adult poster, then if you refrain from the personal attacks, I'm more than happy to converse with you, as I regard you as an interesting poster who has a lot to contribute here, it's your choice, ie interact with or bitch at.
If you are going to fall back on your qualifiers then what was the point of your or Viking's posts? I suppose you can hedge any narrative enough to make it seem viable but what is the point? My point is that the simplistic narrative that comes from you too isn't illuminating and has little actual value. Do you disagree?
Also, kind of odd that you'd lecture me about personal attacks (that I didn't make) while attacking me. :D
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 09:52:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:37:25 AM
We are still talking about derspiess and Drakken, though. :hmm:
I'd go easy on the ugly accusations-- I've seen pics of you as well.
He's not that bad, just kinda bland.
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:08:07 AM
Ok, derspiess and Drakken, I gotta ask this, considering your high standards. I saw your pictures and you are fat and ugly. What do you do? Fuck ugly too? Or just go for the very insecure? Honest question.
I haven't seen pics of Drakken, but I have seen pics of derspiess and I don't remember him being ugly or that fat. :unsure:
This may be a gay man thing, though. I generally don't have nearly as high a standard as my gay men friends. You all like them rail thin and model pretty. Totally not my taste at all. :yuk:
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:58:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 09:52:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:37:25 AM
We are still talking about derspiess and Drakken, though. :hmm:
I'd go easy on the ugly accusations-- I've seen pics of you as well.
He's not that bad, just kinda bland.
I think you're being generous.
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:58:34 AM
You all like them rail thin and model pretty.
Thanks for adding your own heap of generalizations to this thread. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 09:59:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:58:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 09:52:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 02:37:25 AM
We are still talking about derspiess and Drakken, though. :hmm:
I'd go easy on the ugly accusations-- I've seen pics of you as well.
He's not that bad, just kinda bland.
I think you're being generous.
Nope. He's not really ugly by any relevant yardstick.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:58:34 AM
You all like them rail thin and model pretty.
Thanks for adding your own heap of generalizations to this thread. ;)
It only seems fair that I get to, too. :sleep:
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:57:37 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 27, 2012, 09:44:56 AM
I'm bored playing your game, if you re-read my original post you'd notice I specifically included these qualifiers "tendency" and "tends", you do know what role a qualifier plays in a statement ?
So instead, you and Marti come out with bitchy responses ignoring the shades of grey in my post and treat it as some black and white statement. Do you really want to be judged by the company you keep ?
Because I'm about to permanently chuck you in the 'whiny-arsed, bitchy internet troll' category and henceforth ignore your posts directed at me
If however you wished to be treated as an adult poster, then if you refrain from the personal attacks, I'm more than happy to converse with you, as I regard you as an interesting poster who has a lot to contribute here, it's your choice, ie interact with or bitch at.
If you are going to fall back on your qualifiers then what was the point of your or Viking's posts? I suppose you can hedge any narrative enough to make it seem viable but what is the point? My point is that the simplistic narrative that comes from you too isn't illuminating and has little actual value. Do you disagree?
Also, kind of odd that you'd lecture me about personal attacks (that I didn't make) while attacking me. :D
You're tendency (it's that qualify again, not what role it plays in the sentence) to bitchiness seems to be so ingrained it now goes unnoticed by you.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 08:21:40 AM
Except that it isn't that simple. Lots of people have different preferences as well as an inability to actually garner the attention of someone that looks like Brad Pitt. While it can be fun to create your own simple narrative and hypothesis based on your anecdotal life experience - don't expect it to be particularly instructive for the rest of us.
And I entirely stand by my original post, with all of it's qualifiers. ;)
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:00:17 AM
Nope. He's not really ugly by any relevant yardstick.
Then I suppose I'm not in any better position to evaluate his attractiveness to men as he is mine to women. Which btw I'm not saying I'm attractive by any means, but I think I've done okay for myself over the years.
Quote from: mongers on November 27, 2012, 10:08:36 AM
You're tendency (it's that qualify again, not what role it plays in the sentence) to bitchiness seems to be so ingrained it now goes unnoticed by you.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 08:21:40 AM
Except that it isn't that simple. Lots of people have different preferences as well as an inability to actually garner the attention of someone that looks like Brad Pitt. While it can be fun to create your own simple narrative and hypothesis based on your anecdotal life experience - don't expect it to be particularly instructive for the rest of us.
And I entirely stand by my original post, with all of it's qualifiers. ;)
It was a simple narrative and it is informed by your anecdotal life experience. :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 10:10:41 AM
Then I suppose I'm not in any better position to evaluate his attractiveness to men as he is mine to women. Which btw I'm not saying I'm attractive by any means, but I think I've done okay for myself over the years.
That's the great thing about being a hetero man - we can be unattractive and still get plenty of action. Thankfully. :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2012, 10:14:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 10:10:41 AM
Then I suppose I'm not in any better position to evaluate his attractiveness to men as he is mine to women. Which btw I'm not saying I'm attractive by any means, but I think I've done okay for myself over the years.
That's the great thing about being a hetero man - we can be unattractive and still get plenty of action. Thankfully. :D
I think that applies to everyone. Someone in this thread pointed out in the slut discussion that even ugly women can get laid. Most gays can get laid as well. I suppose I can't speak about lesbians but yeah, doesn't seem like a differential point for hetero men. :P
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2012, 10:14:28 AM
That's the great thing about being a hetero man - we can be unattractive and still get plenty of action. Thankfully. :D
Yeah because hetero women cannot find anybody to have sex with them if they are ugly.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 10:18:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2012, 10:14:28 AM
That's the great thing about being a hetero man - we can be unattractive and still get plenty of action. Thankfully. :D
Yeah because hetero women cannot find anybody to have sex with them if they are ugly.
They have a lot less ability to pick & choose. I think Malthus's point (it was my point at least) was that you can be a below-average looking guy and still get with above-average looking girls.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:17:42 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2012, 10:14:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 10:10:41 AM
Then I suppose I'm not in any better position to evaluate his attractiveness to men as he is mine to women. Which btw I'm not saying I'm attractive by any means, but I think I've done okay for myself over the years.
That's the great thing about being a hetero man - we can be unattractive and still get plenty of action. Thankfully. :D
I think that applies to everyone. Someone in this thread pointed out in the slut discussion that even ugly women can get laid. Most gays can get laid as well. I suppose I can't speak about lesbians but yeah, doesn't seem like a differential point for hetero men. :P
Well sure. My anecdotal impression (sorry no scientific studies :D) is that men, gay or not, tend in general to value physical appearance in a partner more than other qualities, at least moreso than (hetero) women.
Doesn't
prevent unattractive women or gays from getting laid, just means that, in terms of dating, the "commodities" they offer in other areas have to be more substantial to get the same result.
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 10:23:40 AM
They have a lot less ability to pick & choose. I think Malthus's point (it was my point at least) was that you can be a below-average looking guy and still get with above-average looking girls.
Yup.
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 10:23:40 AM
They have a lot less ability to pick & choose. I think Malthus's point (it was my point at least) was that you can be a below-average looking guy and still get with above-average looking girls.
Oh ok. I thought this was about getting 'plenty of action'. Ugly women can get plenty of action. Then you moved the goal posts on me <_<
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 10:34:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 10:23:40 AM
They have a lot less ability to pick & choose. I think Malthus's point (it was my point at least) was that you can be a below-average looking guy and still get with above-average looking girls.
Oh ok. I thought this was about getting 'plenty of action'. Ugly women can get plenty of action. Then you moved the goal posts on me <_<
:yes:
Malthus just did the same to me!
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 10:34:54 AM
Oh ok. I thought this was about getting 'plenty of action'. Ugly women can get plenty of action. Then you moved the goal posts on me <_<
Conversation moved on to the ugliness of various Languish guys. :lol:
Meh, I'm both ugly and poor, and I do OK.
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 10:45:14 AM
Meh, I'm both ugly and poor, and I do OK.
You also had to put up with a helluva lot of drama!
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 10:45:14 AM
Meh, I'm both ugly and poor, and I do OK.
Yeah. You just need to fuck crazy.
Or to put it differently - the ideal is a trifecta: pretty/handsome, rich, sane. Most people are willing to settle for two. If you are poor and ugly and want to date pretty, though, you gotta go for crazy and poor.
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 10:50:00 AM
Or to put it differently - the ideal is a trifecta: pretty/handsome, rich, sane. Most people are willing to settle for two. If you are poor and ugly and want to date pretty, though, you gotta go for crazy and poor.
Heh, I like it. :D Though that trifecta doesn't leave room for "charming/fun/confident personality" - with for hetero guys at least, is a key factor in terms of dating success. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2012, 10:57:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 10:50:00 AM
Or to put it differently - the ideal is a trifecta: pretty/handsome, rich, sane. Most people are willing to settle for two. If you are poor and ugly and want to date pretty, though, you gotta go for crazy and poor.
Heh, I like it. :D Though that trifecta doesn't leave room for "charming/fun/confident personality" - with for hetero guys at least, is a key factor in terms of dating success. ;)
:yes:
Actually, that will often make up for looks/money quicker than just about anything else.
Man, it's been a while since I had to pretend to be charming. I got pretty good at it in my day, though.
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2012, 10:57:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 10:50:00 AM
Or to put it differently - the ideal is a trifecta: pretty/handsome, rich, sane. Most people are willing to settle for two. If you are poor and ugly and want to date pretty, though, you gotta go for crazy and poor.
Heh, I like it. :D Though that trifecta doesn't leave room for "charming/fun/confident personality" - with for hetero guys at least, is a key factor in terms of dating success. ;)
I think this is part of "sane" (being the opposite of "crazy bitch"). :P
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 10:58:34 AM
:yes:
Actually, that will often make up for looks/money quicker than just about anything else.
That's what I banked on when I was dating ;) (decades ago now) - I've never been great looking, and when I was dating I was poor as shit with no prospects for anything different (first as a university student, then as a potter's apprentice). I made money *after* I already was going out with my wife.
Of course, I lost my charm since then, and started to post on Languish. :P
An analysis of my sanity I leave to others. :D
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2012, 11:06:29 AM
I think this is part of "sane" (being the opposite of "crazy bitch"). :P
I've known too many insane-but-charming people ... :D
Indeed, more seriously, a certain type of sociopath is characterised by being (initially) extremely charming and confident.
Quote from: mongers on November 27, 2012, 08:46:29 AM
So you take issue with the notion that a good proportion of women rank as Viking said "No, they go for social and economic traits." ?
Remember my caveat "except during ovulation". I'm not handsome but I do have quite a few of the brute barbaric physical traits, tall, muscular, healthy hair and skin as well as an ability to put on a fake bluff confidence from time to time. So in my case well over half my one night stands have been with women otherwise formally attached to other men.
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 11:13:01 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 27, 2012, 08:46:29 AM
So you take issue with the notion that a good proportion of women rank as Viking said "No, they go for social and economic traits." ?
Remember my caveat "except during ovulation". I'm not handsome but I do have quite a few of the brute barbaric physical traits, tall, muscular, healthy hair and skin as well as an ability to put on a fake bluff confidence from time to time. So in my case well over half my one night stands have been with women otherwise formally attached to other men.
And that, my friends, is a slut. :P
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 11:16:29 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 27, 2012, 11:13:01 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 27, 2012, 08:46:29 AM
So you take issue with the notion that a good proportion of women rank as Viking said "No, they go for social and economic traits." ?
Remember my caveat "except during ovulation". I'm not handsome but I do have quite a few of the brute barbaric physical traits, tall, muscular, healthy hair and skin as well as an ability to put on a fake bluff confidence from time to time. So in my case well over half my one night stands have been with women otherwise formally attached to other men.
And that, my friends, is a slut. :P
A brute barbaric slut, no less. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 10:46:20 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 10:45:14 AM
Meh, I'm both ugly and poor, and I do OK.
You also had to put up with a helluva lot of drama!
Yeah, but I was doing OK before aa and I got together.
OTOH, someone might say that straight guys are going to have to put up with a lot of drama anyway, because, you know, we'll be dating/fucking women, not other guys. But that would be sexist.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 26, 2012, 08:23:21 PM
Minsky's browbeating wore me down so I dipped a toe into the scientific literature, such as can be achieved with 10 minutes of browsing.
I present: Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/full)
QuoteThe results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.
Far as I can make out, if a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50% (see table 4). When at 16 or more past lovers the odds that a marriage to her will end in divorce rise to over 80%. Even women with only 5 partners see an increase in odds of divorce to 70%.
In short, if you're looking for the mother of your children, the less cock she's had, the better odds of your marriage surviving.
How is marital stability defined?
One thing that could be happening here is that a woman who has only had one partner in her entire life may be less likely to divorce, no matter how badly she is treated.
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:24:31 AM
Yeah, but I was doing OK before aa and I got together.
OTOH, someone might say that straight guys are going to have to put up with a lot of drama anyway, because, you know, we'll be dating/fucking women, not other guys. But that would be sexist.
And shows an obvious lack of knowledge of gay men. :lol:
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:24:31 AM
Yeah, but I was doing OK before aa and I got together.
OTOH, someone might say that straight guys are going to have to put up with a lot of drama anyway, because, you know, we'll be dating/fucking women, not other guys. But that would be sexist.
And shows an obvious lack of knowledge of gay men. :lol:
:D
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:24:31 AM
Yeah, but I was doing OK before aa and I got together.
OTOH, someone might say that straight guys are going to have to put up with a lot of drama anyway, because, you know, we'll be dating/fucking women, not other guys. But that would be sexist.
And shows an obvious lack of knowledge of gay men. :lol:
Well, yeah, but if you point out that gay men = drama, that would be homophobic.
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:56:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:24:31 AM
Yeah, but I was doing OK before aa and I got together.
OTOH, someone might say that straight guys are going to have to put up with a lot of drama anyway, because, you know, we'll be dating/fucking women, not other guys. But that would be sexist.
And shows an obvious lack of knowledge of gay men. :lol:
Well, yeah, but if you point out that gay men = drama, that would be homophobic.
I think your safest bet is to say that people = drama, some more so than others. ;)
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 11:24:31 AM
Yeah, but I was doing OK before aa and I got together.
OTOH, someone might say that straight guys are going to have to put up with a lot of drama anyway, because, you know, we'll be dating/fucking women, not other guys. But that would be sexist.
And shows an obvious lack of knowledge of gay men. :lol:
Or men in general. It is sort of hard for me to preach on the lack of drama for people who date men when I have never done so. Heck under the intense chemical reactions of dating I have been a drama king from time to time much to my later embarrasment.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2012, 03:46:33 PM
I wouldn't marry Scarlett Johansson even if she put herself on her two knees begging to marry her.
:hmm:
There is a point at which one needs to relax their principles in order to enjoy life.