DU men, in your opinion, is this statement true or false?

[redqueen]

"A woman who has had several relationships, maybe a fling or two...that's one thing. But a woman who has multiple, serial sexual encounters devoid of romantic or tender feelings....then, well, no man I know could love that woman."

[unblock]

1. everyone has baggage.

:shrug:

[JI7]

6. she may not consider it to be "baggage"

i don't think most men would consider it baggage .

[unblock]

9. agreed

i wouldn't consider it baggage, at least not automatically.

i only used the term because "baggage" presumably would be the reason for someone answering "true".

[GOPisEvil]

2. To whom is that quote attributed?

It's...not good at all...

[sui generis]

3. it could happen to anyone

you didn't say anything about devoid of fun. Some people just have to shop around a bit before they buy.

[Guaranteed]

4. A man could love her, for sure,

at least for an hour. :P

No, really, a man could love her. She might need to adjust how she sees herself a bit, maybe gain some respect for herself, but she's nowhere near a lost cause.

[skygazer]

32. Why does she necessarily have no respect for herself?

Are men who have many sexual flings that are not part of a serious relationship seen as having a lack of respect for themselves? No. Quite often, they are seen as having a lack of respect for women and that might very well be false too.

Women enjoy sex too. Not all women are looking for a committed relationship all the time. Just like men. Some of us "sow our wild oats" too without it being a matter of feeling something missing in ourselves.

[redqueen]

37. Thank you for that.

:hi:

[Guaranteed]

43. If all she wants is sex, why should anyone love her?

Why should anyone love a man who just wants sex?

[redqueen]

47. Why do you assume that's all the person wants?

Why do you not assume that she's not found anyone she connects with on an intellectual and emotional level?

[Guaranteed]

48. Because that's not the premise of your question. nt

[redqueen]

57. The question doesn't say either way. n/t

[Guaranteed]

58. It just seems like people are expecting a man to love this woman,

when all she wants to do is have sex.

Isn't that an unfair expectation?

If she really wants love, then I think she'll find it. Of course, she probably wouldn't be doing things the way she's doing them if she was.

Look back at my first post. I thought it was pretty damned fair. It's really up to her.

[redqueen]

61. There's the assumption again.

Because she's had more than a few flings, all she wants is sex.

I'm ready to give up, now.

[Guaranteed]

64. Like I said, if she wants love, she'll find it.

If she doesn't, she won't.

[redqueen]

71. I disagree. n/t

[Guaranteed]

134. Disagree about what?

Are we still asking men?

[Guaranteed]

38. Well, at the moment it doesn't really seem like she's even looking

for love. Neither do slutty men.

You can draw your own conclusions from that.

[belladonna]

59. Nail, meet head

Thanks for putting that so well :hi:

[donheld]

5. What's love go to do with it

You must understand
That the touch of your hand
Makes my pulse react
That it`s only the thrill
Of boy meeting girl
Opposites attract

It`s physical
Only logical
You must try to ignore
That it means more than that


Oh whats love got to do, got to do with it
What`s love but a second hand emotion
What`s love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart
When a heart can be broken

It may seem to you
That i`m acting confused
When you`re close to me
If i tend to look dazed
I`ve read it someplace
I`ve got cause to be

There`s a name for it
There`s a phrase that fits
But whatever the reason
You do it for me



I`ve been thinking of a new direction
But i have to say
I`ve been thinking about my own protection
It scares me to feel this way

What`s love got to do, got to do with it
What`s love but a sweet old fashioned notion
What`s love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken

[Zerex71]

7. I voted true, and here's why.

It's not that she couldn't be loved, obviously; but at some point, you have to say, What is the point of this person? To be a selfish thrill-seeker at the expense of everyone else's dignity and feelings? If it's all about amoral pleasure-seeking for oneself, yes, I think at some point, you need to be "penalized" for your choices, if the messiness of said liaisons doesn't do you in first.

I'm sure for them it's "wild", "adventurous", "fun", or "Carrie Bradshaw-esque" but at some point, someone is going to call a person on this behavior. It's not right, because it's self-serving and puts that person's needs above all others; hence, there would be great grounds not to trust this person, or to be suspicious that they could even understand what it's like to actually open up, care for another person, and be considerate. In plain English, to me, it's more about the courtesy and consideration shown for others than it is the sex.

I'm open to much more discussion about this. Basically, my stance is one that flies in the face of conventional wisdom for the 20s and 30s sets nowadays, which seems basically to be, "I don't care about anyone but myself, I can do what I want without fear of judgment or repercussions, and I won't have to pay for it any way." I loathe that bratty mentality and don't hesitate to call it when I see it.

[redqueen]

10. It seems to me that you're assuming the woman in question

has lived this life at the expense of the partners. Why would you assume that?

[Lisa0825]

19. I completely disagree, Zerex71

Sex without a relationship is not by definition selfish. If it's what both people want, what's the problem? The only probelm, IMO, is when someone is cheating on someone, being dishonest with the other party about their motives, or is having sex to attempt to fill an empty emotional space in his/her life. Sex can just be about fun sometimes... about primal attraction...about just doing what feels right at the moment. It doesn't always have to have complicated emotional issues attached to it. And casual sex also doesn't necessarily indicate that a woman lacks self-esteem either. It CAN indicate that, because it's not uncommon for people to seek fulfillment that way, however, sometimes sex is just sex. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I've had some very memorable, and actually sweet nights... and they stay perfect in my memory, because no fights or bad habits will every tarnish the picture I have of them.

[Amaya]

30. Agreed

you definitely said it!

[Zerex71]

54. It is selfish, though.

And in this particular instance, I mean that it is about getting what you want, with no regard to the other person. Even if they are "consulted", if you will, it still is about just getting what you want. Whether or not that other person buys into it, it still is a form of using that person for your own goals.

The impertinent question I put to everyone who supports a devil-may-care attitude like this is, Whatever happened to trying to forge a relationship of some sort, or of making something out of it? It's far too easy nowadays, and to me, it's like a challenge -- I don't care how hot someone supposedly is or how much asscrack or thong they can show -- it's not impressive. But how about trying to learn to have an adult, interesting conversation? How about smiling and basic courtesy? How about having historical, cultural, and political interests? How about just having something to offer beside what's between your legs? It's debasing to the self to just go out and pick someone up just because you can nowadays. It just *is*, even if you think no one's being harmed. In some ways, it's kind of like how accepting we are of divorce nowadays. We're not supposed to look down on the divorced, but we're supposed to almost encourage it with a wave of the hand as if to say, "Ah, you don't have to stick anything out or work out any problems or commit for the long term, you can always just get a divorce" -- instead of being forced to recognize that marriage entails understanding what it is that you're getting into, and being absolutely sure that you're making the right decision.

I have never known anyone who was that well-put-together that they could just go out and sleep with anyone and anything, and (a) still feel good about themselves, like it was such a grand thing to do, (b) not have a wicked insecurity problem, (c) lack character to the degree that they could be friends, or get laid, but totally excuse themselves from the obligations of a relationship.

Basically, it's taking the easy way out, and I have a real problem with that, especially now since it's so prevalent nowadays. I don't excuse anyone from it.

My whole point is a point of this moral relativism, this idea that one can make an end run around having relationships, which take work, patience, and commitment, among other things. It's easy to spread your legs, but apparently it's hard nowadays for people to know how to have relationships.

[redqueen]

60. Okay I'll try...

What's wrong with getting what you want? This sounds like some kind of puritanical BS. Pleasure bad!

Who is to say that the person didn't know beforehand that a relationship with the fling person wasn't going to work for whatever reason? Why try to forge a relationship when you both know you're only compatible on a sexual level? Why assume two people can't have good conversation, a common appreciation of art, music, etc., yet still be incompatible as long-term partners? Perhaps they want different things from life, but are still very sexually compatible? Do you think they should avoid sex just because they won't be getting married?

I don't see what this has to do with divorce at all.

[Zerex71]

That's not what I mean at all, of course.

I consider myself to be quite the bon vivant and something of an Epicurean, but at some point, you have to ask yourself, if all you want are pleasures of the flesh (be it drinking, sex, or whatever), one might be inclined to wonder if there isn't "something beyond these borders". That's why most of what drives me in this world is the pleasures of the mind and the emotions. I've graduated beyond the tittering collegiate mindset where one could think, "Ooh goody, I'm going to pick up some hottie at a bar, take them home, and do it all night long."

Yawn.

I should for the sake of argument state that I'm well aware of my uniqueness in this day and age, and that most people neither think like me, or understand where my ideas come from. If I went along with the flow and simply said, "Yeah, let's all get it on!" then I'd be no better than the rest of the masses -- and I refuse to do that.

Also, to get back to the literal interpretation of the poll question, I say yes. In point of fact, out of about six billion people, some guy somewhere is bound to be able to love someone like that.

[skygazer]

112. Why is it

That the only way you seem to think people have casual sex is to "pick up some hottie at a bar, take them home, and do it all night long?"

In reality, most people (women and men) who have casual sexual experiences have them with people they already know. In addition, the poll question did not specify a time frame for this. If a person is single for several years, and indulges in casual sex on a semi regular basis (say, three partners in a year) - in five years, that will equal 15 people. That is not "screwing anything that moves" or "fucking like a bunny" or any of the other colorful statements people seem to be automatically using. Where in the post did it say this woman was necessarily fucking all the time?

You're "aware of your uniqueness". How nice for you. It must be exhausting living on that high moral plane of yours.

[imenja]

73. we are talking about a heterosexual woman aren't we?

It's not exactly difficult to find men who prefer short term sexual encounters.

I think you're correct that it is debasing to herself, and for the man to himself, but I don't think a woman in such a circumstance is necessarily selfish. I think she is wounded. If fact, the most selfish women would stay in longer-term relationships where they can get money from a man.

Question about this statement: "I have never known anyone who was that well-put-together that they could just go out and sleep with anyone and anything, and (a) still feel good about themselves, like it was such a grand thing to do, (b) not have a wicked insecurity problem, (c) lack character to the degree that they could be friends, or get laid, but totally excuse themselves from the obligations of a relationship."

By anyone do you mean women, or men as well?

[Zerex71]

75. I mean both.

I've encountered lots of people, and lots of both stripes, men and women. Understand that I'm certainly not in favor of the double-standard here. Both genders are at fault.

[Lisa0825]

80. while I agree with redqueen, I'm still going to try to

make a couple points.

1) Don't assume it's without regard to the other person. I happened to actually really like the guys I mentioned in my other post. There was just no opportunity for a relationship due to circumstances beyond our control.

2) How dare you assume a woman who has a lot of sex can't have a meaningful conversation? That is the most judgemental, ignorant piece of crap I have read in a long time!

3) I don't think the original post said the woman would go out and pick up just anyone, just that she'd had many affairs without emotional attachment. I have had quite a few myself, but only with people I have had a strong attraction to.

4) Relationships are not easy to find. I have looked for them. Not everybody winds up happily ever after. Some people stay single, if not forever, for a long, long time. That doesn't mean they aren't looking. It just means it hasn't happened for them. If that is my fate, I don't plan to be celibate because of it, and that doesn't make me insecure, debased, or incapable of connecting.

[belladonna]

83. Wow!!

"But how about trying to learn to have an adult, interesting conversation? How about smiling and basic courtesy? How about having historical, cultural, and political interests? How about just having something to offer beside what's between your legs?"

So you're saying that you can't have those things, AND have sex that doesn't lead into a long term relationship or marriage? I've been friends with a few guys who I had great conversation with about a variety of things, including politics, but had no interest in pursuing a long term relationship. We had great sex, and we both went home happy 'til the next time. I don't think that makes me selfish at all.

[Zerex71]

88. Perhaps I should have said self-ish.

[belladonna]

90. That really clears it up

Thanks so much :eyes:

[imenja]

70. I don't see the bratty mentality going with this kind of woman

Have you met women such as you describe? When I think of bratty women, I think of the gold digger type who manipulate men. They usually have longer term relationships rather than a string of short sexual encounters.

[Zerex71]

84. I have a more prosaic meaning for bratty.

Brats are kids who get what they want a lot of the time because they either whine enough about it, or persist until the other party (in that case, parents) gives in. Thus, if someone gets what that they want that often (the serial screwer, for example), that's bratty.

[belladonna]

79. Penalized because you have sex without love?

I truly hope you don't really mean that.

[Zerex71]

87. I do mean it.

I mean it not in the Chillingsworth sense; no need for scarlet letters. But if I find this out about someone, they automatically mentally go into a pile of people that alerts me to their behaviors, and I'm not likely to want to be with them. Or, at the very least, any sweet-talking she may be doing (a) doesn't even have to be honest or (b) could be purely manipulative i.e. what's to say she doesn't do this to all men, in the quest for the notches on her bedpost?

Ultimately here's another question to consider: What is the real function of promiscuity? What's the goal? I realize that I have some high-minded standards here, but someone needs to stand up for them. I fully realize that the world is populated with these people. Even in my small city, every weeknight, especially on the weekends, there the slobbering, slovenly ritual is played out by the freakdom and it's pathetic to watch.

[belladonna]

95. The freakdom?

I'm ten times more honest than any of my close female friends when it comes to men. Know why? Because I don't start out with expectations of a ring, romantic marriage proposal or any of that bullshit. I have a friend who I'd call my exact opposite, though perhaps I should call her ex-friend at this point. The first thing on her mind when she meets a guy is how much money does he make and is he marriage material or not?

That being said, I have a ring on my finger right now and a man who I love very much on his way home to me as we speak. He knows EVERYTHING about me and he loves me without reservation. Thank gawd for guys like him, I guess.

Your use of words like freakdom, mooks and sluts tells me all I want to know about you and I think I'll refrain from any more argument with you on this subject. Have a nice day, now :hi:

[donheld]

8. But if a man does it....

"A man who has had several relationships, maybe a fling or two...that's one thing. But a man who has multiple, serial sexual encounters devoid of romantic or tender feelings....then, well, no man I know could love that man."

most of society would say no big deal

[redqueen]

11. The double standard is as old as humanity.

And equally as tiring.

[Amaya]

12. Bingo!

[johnnie]

17. The thing is

Some people I have known that "fell in love" with someone who has been more sexually active seem surprised when that person cheats on them during a relationship. It has nothing to do with the double standard.

[Lisa0825]

20. You can be very sexually active AND faithful.

I was with my ex-husband for 10 years and never so much of THOUGHT about cheating. Since then, I've had my wild times. But during my 2 year long-distance relationship, I did not go out with anyone else, even though we agreed that we could if we wanted to. I have been single for most of the last 7 years. When I am not single, I am faithful.

[donheld]

21. It DOES have to do with double standard

There's a big difference between cheating and just playing around. Just because a person, man or woman, plays around while single does not mean they will cheat when married.

[Lisa0825]

23. EXACTLY! (nt)

:hi:

[johnnie]

25. Playing around is one thing

I'm not talking the "virgin" here, I mean the ones who were a bit more promiscuous than most.
It is one thing to have a few partners before "falling in love" and it's another thing to bed down everything that moves. Of course it isn't always the case, but more times than not a person won't change. Man or woman.

On edit:
I'm sorry, I thought the OP wasn't talking about being single and married. I thought it was about "love". My bad.

[Lisa0825]

31. Here's the deal...

I have been single most of the last 7-8 years, excpet a 2 year relationship. So, that means no partner for 5-6 years after my divorce. How celibate do I have to be to be acceptable in your eyes? Is having sex with 3 or 4 partners per year too promiscuous for you? That already adds up to 15-20. Now, those are NOT my stats, because I have had a few years where I chose not to date at all. But see how fast the numbers can add up when you don't have many long-term relationships?

In addition, I honestly do not expect to ever get married again. I also don't think I have to be celibate to earn anyone's approval or feel good about myself. So, by the time I'm 50, if I stay single, I won't be ashamed to have tallied up some impressive numbers!LOL!
:evilgrin: :loveya:

[johnnie]

45. It's not about being acceptable to me

I really don't care what people do. The original post wasn't about how many partners someone had, it was if a man could fall in love with a woman who has had a lot of sex with a lot of people just for the fun of having sex.
It's only a double standard to a lot of men, not most of society. I know women who would not want to be with men because they have slept around a lot. I know men who don't want to be with women who slept around a lot. Where is the double standard? That's all I am saying.

[tigereye]

74. it seems to me

that there could be some benefit to that person's level of experience and perhaps even of fun. Just because they were very sexually active, doesn't mean that they would not be faithful or a good partner or spouse.

I don't think it would be fair to cross that person ( male or female) off their list, although I understand why someone might. I would think the safe sex aspect of it might be more of an issue than his or her comfort with their sexuality.

But it does seem to me that more women who like sex and pursue it, are labelled negatively compared to men, and I don't think that is fair. Oddly enough, in the animal kingdom, multiple partners for females can mean better genes for their offspring.

[Guaranteed]

135. No, this thread is about whether or not who a man loves is acceptable to

them.

[johnnie]

136. Right

Well, it is about someone telling someone that because of certain things, no man that they know will ever love them. That's an absurd statement.
My reply up above is explaining that this isn't about me personally. What a person does or doesn't do isn't about me.

[skygazer]

33. Interesting

And I've known people who fell in love with virgins or with people who had been in few relationships and were surprised when the person cheated on them.

What was your point again?

[johnnie]

42. Well, that wasn't my point at all

My point was, I have known a lot of people who were surprised when they got into a relationship, be it marriage or 'committed" with someone who the knew were promiscuous, then they were surprised when the person cheated on them.
People can cheat either way, I wasn't talking about that, i was talking about people who thought someone will change for them.

[redqueen]

44. But there, you've done it again...

you're once again implying that people who are promiscuous when not in a relationship will continue to be promiscuous when they are in a relationship.

[johnnie]

46. No..

I am implying that "I" have known this to be true. It is the rule I go by based on my experience. If people want to fall in love with anyone, I have no say so and I don't care what people do. I just know that in my experience it has been true more often than not.

[MollyStark]

53. It's a pretty good bet

present company excluded.

It's also a pretty good bet that they have a better chance of passing on a STD.
That's not to say anyone can't get an STD.

[MollyStark]

50. I wouldn't love that man

Unless he changed and I was convinced of that, I wouldn't love a man like that. I'd think he was shallow and selfish.

Just my $.02

[Zerex71]

68. It goes both ways in my book.

I hate other guys for being this way nowadays too. In fact, I despise most men who I look around at and say, "You have no class, and weren't brought up right." This, of course, makes me an island in a sea of lunacy these days, but I'm used to it by now. The mooks and the sluts rule anymore.

Ultimately my whole point also includes the notion of the degradation of the social fabric -- in other words, the "So What/Big Deal" factor. You want to go out and get laid by tons of people? So what? Big deal. What does that prove? All it proves is that it can be done, but it doesn't prove that it develops any character. Try writing a book, learning a musical instrument, or learning to fly. That takes character. Sleeping with lots of people just means you tolerate the disposability of things at the expense of your 15 minutes of pleasure.

This whole discussion should also make note that it does separate the well-intentioned attempts at relationships as opposed to that filing-ones-nails notion of "Hmm, I haven't had sex in a while, I think I should go do that." If in the course of developing oneself and having relationships that, oh by the way, do involve sleeping with someone.

Of course we theoretically, especially in the age of sexualization and the bombardment of the stimulating image, want more now that it's in the open -- that fact I do not dispute. We are human creatures first. Of course we'd all like to probably sleep with as many people as possible, but it's a fantasy, not something to be made a reality.

I just can't see how sleeping with 20 people is to be considered normal, you know?

I realize of course what kind of a corner this puts me in, just like when a few weeks back I poked at the notion that the Pope was in control of things and that he was some sort of vigorous individual when he was probably drooling in his oatmeal. I am used to this by now but maintain my unpopular stances with great certainty, and I am certain of this too.

That's all.

[redqueen]

72. "The mooks and the sluts rule anymore."

That says more about you than them, IMO.

So many awful assumptions being made in this thread.

Who are you to assume I have not learned a musical instrument? A foreign language? Studied history? Read MANY books?

Unbelievable...

[Lisa0825]

85. LOL

and don't forget, you must be incapable of having an adult, meaningful conversation as well! :rofl:

el es estupido, o loco, o estupido y loco tambien.

[redqueen]

91. y tan común

tristemente

[Zerex71]

89. Just go re-read that one sentence again, and focus on it.

What do you think I am trying to say?
What is the author getting at?
What do you think the author has observed or experienced to make him think this way?

These are all basic questions that any reader should be able to think about before they judge the writer's intent.

But, I will make this simpler and clearer for most folk on here: I do not tolerate sluts and mooks, because I have pride in myself and willingly make an effort to stand out and above from the rest. That's all.

[belladonna]

86. What does this mean?

"The mooks and the sluts rule anymore."

Define mook and slut for me, if you would...

[Zerex71]

96. Definitions.

The mook -- you've seen him. Any or all of the following: Untucked shirts, ratty hair, no sense of dress, sloppy, that kind of thing. Think your garden variety Fred Durst -- the mook mentality rules the psyche of young men these days at a certain age.

The slut -- Thong tha thong thong thong. Pushing her rack up like there's no tomorrow. Busting out and then wondering why guys only want to sleep with them. That kind of thing.

Now, what I'm saying is superficial, however, I've been around this enough to know that these people don't suddenly start talking about Plato's Republic or the Complete Works of William Shakespeare when I've been around them. They're trashy people, and they are taking over. Time was when people used to care about how they dressed when they went out, what they read, what they learned, how they treated others. You can't deny that somewhere, we took a wrong turn when we as a society openly sponsor this kind of behavior.

And, if any of this offends any of you, you just might be one of them, otherwise why would you back them up?

The things I'm talking about are class, manners, and dignity -- and they are not exclusive of having the fun you want to have.

[redqueen]

98. Your comments on this thread are rude and inexcusable.

I wear thongs. I also read Plato.

You need to adjust your perception of reality.

Change your language... replace your superficial, stereotypical comments about how you perceive sexually open people with comments that other people who enjoy using stereotypes would use about a race or religion that they disagree with, and see how it reads to you.

You're lecturing people like me about class, manners, and dignity?

Interesting.

[Lisa0825]

99. But the question is....

do you wear thongs WHILE you read Plato?
:evilgrin: :rofl:

[Zerex71]

101. How are they rude and inexcusable?

I've said nothing rude nor inexcusable, but what I have said, is all based in reality, on the things I have seen and experienced. I suspect that anyone who blanches at these things is projecting themselves upon my words, and quite likely, they might not be the people that I'm referring to. It's that simple. I stand by my convictions.

[redqueen]

111. Simple.

Did you do the exercise I described? Replace your stereotypical judgments about people who have flings with stereotypical comments about people who have a different religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.?

[4_Legs_Good]

118. Mmmmmm...

wearing a thong reading Plato.

Yowza!!!!

:blush:

david

[redqueen]

124. hehe... well not usually at the same time.

Thong's for the beach or adventures in the bedroom... Plato reading clothing is usually more flannel-y or terri cloth-y.

Coincidentally, I was discussing the cave people with someone on another board earlier today. While that person doesn't seem to think having sexual flings makes a woman un-lovable, he does think women are unable to attain the same heights as men in most fields. Go figure.

[4_Legs_Good]

127. Well, you should try it sometime!

and be sure to take pictures!!!

:)

...unable to attain the same heights in most fields? I don't know how that makes any sense.

Oh well!

david

[redqueen]

131. Something about how women are emotional

or something. I never quite got the logic of it, either.

His take is that men and women are not equal, that most men don't live up to what men are able to accomplish, but that the ultimate potential of men on every level is higher than that of women. That there's some kind of barrier that women cannot cross that certain men can.

:crazy: IMO

[4_Legs_Good]

132. Actually, that's true

Now GET BACK IN YOUR DAMNED PLACE WOMAN AND BRING ME A BEER!!!

:nuke::nuke::nuke:

david

[belladonna]

104. I'm wearing a thong right now

On my way to pick up my future husband at the airport. I better make sure he realizes he's marrying white trash or lose the thong, eh? :eyes:

Btw, my b/f is black.... does that make me even trashier? I'd be willing to bet it will in YOUR eyes. I'm done with this one, for good.

[Lisa0825]

105. get the feeling....

we are being trolled? Sometimes feeding the trolls can be quite entertaining.

[belladonna]

108. Oh, definitely

But me call anyone out? Noooo... ain't gonna happen O8)

Okay, now I HAVE to get to the airport or I might be single before the night's over B-)

[skygazer]

121. Class, manners and dignity have nothing to do with what you wear

They have to do with what is inside you, how you relate to others, what you contribute to society. How incredibly arrogant of you to sweepingly dismiss people because of the way they dress or look.

In addition, class, manners and dignity have nothing to do with education. There are plenty of people I know who have very little education who have more class than what you've shown in these posts. Just because someone is not familiar with the works of Shakespeare does not make them trashy.

<we took a wrong turn when we as a society openly sponsor this kind of behavior.>

Yes, absolutely. We should immediately put in place a national dress code - perhaps robes for the men and burkhas for the women? We should also legislate manners and mores and lock up all these "mooks" (whatever the fuck that is) and "sluts".

You, sir, are way out of line.

[4_Legs_Good]

128. Wrong turn?

sounds like a right (correct) turn to me!

I think people still care about how they look, it's just that what people think looks better is different.

I have known many knock-out people of both genders who are very intelligent, and simply care about how they look and how they want to look as well as about how they think.

david

[Pithlet]

138. I'd rather the mooks and sluts rule

than the judgmental sanctimonious types who view everything in terms of stereotypes.

[Beer Snob-50]

13. there is more to a woman than her sexual history

if they have a sense of humor or just a great mind..that is worth loving.

[trotsky]

14. Utter bullshit. n/t

[GirlinContempt]

122. :)

Mad love to your sentiments and your choice of username

[Speck Tater]

15. COULD love or SHOULD love?

My second wife fit that description. Problem is she just went right having having serial encounters after we were married. Eventually, she left me for one of her boyfriends.

Leopards, spots, no change.

99% of the time people never change. The other 1% of the time they change in a small way, or in a large way for a very short period of time.

[Maddy McCall]

40. BULLSHIT

Sorry, but you shouldn't base your opinion of ALL WOMEN's "LEOPARD SPOTS" on your encounter with your second wife.

I know many women who had wilder younger days, just as I know many men who did, and MANY of them are involved in faithful, loving long term relationships.

[tigereye]

76. yeah

there is a difference between pre-marriage/relationship and post-relationship.

[Speck Tater]

114. Not "ALL WOMEN", but rather "ALL PEOPLE",

This applies equally to men and women. People, in general, once past the age of 12 or so, never change their basic behavior. There are, of course, rare exceptions. But they are exceptions.

[johnnie]

16. I don't think it is if a man could love them

But in my experience,the women I know that had a lot of casual encounters seem to continue that way.
I know it isn't popular here, but I have been with women who "slept around" and it didn't change the way I felt for them, but it sure was easy for them to split and sleep around more.
My lesson learned is not that I wouldn't love a woman like that, but I will never put my heart on the line with a woman like that. But that's just me.

[redqueen]

27. Seems like you're generalizing.

Not all women who are less inhibited sexually will cheat when involved in relationships. And contrariwise, not all women who are less experienced sexually will remain monogamous in a relationship.

[Left Is Write]

41. I agree with you and would like to add -

It may just be that she hasn't met the right person for her, and she's living her life her way in the meantime. That doesn't mean she won't be a faithful partner when she DOES find the right man.

[johnnie]

51. I think I am confused here..lol

I thought this was about being in love with someone who has slept around a lot for the sake of getting laid.
My point is that, yes...someone will love them, but I won't ever put myself in that situation again.
I understand having a few partners and not committing to marriage because it wasn't right. That is only normal. I am talking about "sluts" (men or women) who aren't looking for the right person, but just out there screwing anything. They tend to remain that way. Of course it isn't always 100% of the time.

[johnnie]

55. I don't think I said "all"

Did I?

[MollyStark]

65. What does sleeping around with people you don't love

have to do with being uninhibited? Are you saying that someone who choses to be more discriminating they must be inhibited?

[MazeRat7]

18. Sounds to me like neither woman has found "her guy".....

the only difference being that the latter enjoys "physical" relationships and may or may not have the "emotional stuff" to take it past that. Unfortunately, there are those in this world that are about as deep as a raindrop.

MZr7

[LoZoccolo]

22. I should explain my answer.

There are always guys who "fall in love" with almost any kind of woman because they are suckers and average frustrated chumps, so I wouldn't say that there's a woman out there that no man could love at all, regardless of the serial sexual relationships or anything.

[On the Road]

24. I Had a Girlfriend a Few Years Ago

who was a call girl at the time I was dating her.

It didn't really make a difference to me. We broke up eventually, but it had nothing to do with her work. That was not the obstacle -- we just didn't have a whole lot in common. She was very sweet and I respected her.

That may not be what you had in mind, but it's another variation on the question.

[LoZoccolo]

26. I have a question about your question, though.

Is it that the woman in this situation is just having another serial sexual relationship with the guy, and you're asking if the guy can love her despite the fact that to her he's just another one of the serial sexual relationships? This is what I assumed in answering, that it was unrequited love.

If it was mutual though, I would say that he could.

[redqueen]

28. Looks like you answered your own question there. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

29. How did you intend it, though?

Just curious.

[redqueen]

36. Well the way you eventually worked it out, of course. n/t

[eyepaddle]

34. Well, the question says no man I know.

And is it a double standard--or just a standard?

I am close friends with several women who fit that description--and yes I've been friends with them for a long time (more than a decade) and I plan on reamining their friend.

But romantic love--it just seems incompatible. And yes, that is just how I feel, but in affairs of the heart, that's what's really the final judge.

For the record I have several male friends who also fit that description--a couple of them even tried to settle down. Hell I performed a hippie marriage ceremony for one of them--it just never seemed to take.

[redqueen]

39. You have to ask if it's a double standard?

I'm speechless...

[eyepaddle]

49. Well duh

of course it's a double standard but so what.

Are you telling me I have to be romantically attracted to somebody I don't find appealing--because YOU say I should?

Women judge men on shit too--I don't have to like it--I just have to live with it.

Some peope aren't gonna like others because of decisions they've made. That's life. When you get right down to brass tacks women (as an average population) tend to pick males that are good at picking up women. This is why promiscous men remain promiscous--they can find women who are buying what they are selling.

If it bothers yuo that some women fall in love with "busy" males talk to them--don't expect me to change my feelings just so I can even out some cosmic ledger.

[redqueen]

56. You asked... implying you didn't know.

No need to get all defensive.

I'm not telling you that you need to do anything. I simply asked a question... I simply want to understand.

I understand what you mean about women choosing promiscuous men... however if you've noticed, when there have been threads about women choosing jerks, most women here say that's a stupid thing that some young women and older abused women tend to do, not a 'standard' by any stretch of the imagination.

No need to be so hostile. I'm not bothered by women's choices at all.

[tigereye]

81. why do people see this sexual experimentation

and enjoyment as promiscuous... and assume it will always be the case?
I think there are probably healthy and unhealthy ways to be very sexually active.


Makes you wonder where the line is.

[redqueen]

102. Sexual experimentation... yes...

what other word could use for it besides 'promiscuous'?

When I used 'uninhibited'... that didn't seem to work either?

Are less sexually experiened people necessarily inhibited?

This whole subject is so loaded. So hard to have a meaningful conversation about it... it's frustrating and more than a bit depressing, I'm sorry to say.

[Redstone]

35. She is who she is.

As are we all.

Redstone

[Wapsie B]

52. False.

Just like a guy playing the field she may have not found the one she wants to settle down with. Why deny anyone pleasure if they can find it and are responsible about it? I think a lot of guys would love to have a more experienced partner. If the chemistry was there, if the spark or romance was there I know I could love her.

[redqueen]

62. Deleted

Nevermind.

:hug:

[Wapsie B]

69. Huh?

?? :hug:

[last_texas_dem]

63. I think a man could

love that woman. However, I think it would be understandable for a man to have his doubts about how successful a relationship with the woman might be. I think the same would be true if the situation were reversed; if a woman were considering a relationship with a man with a similar past. The question of loving someone is different; I think you can love someone even if you can't manage to have a successful relationship with them.

[thoughtanarchist]

66. I cannot speak for all men

but I'd shy away from having a relationship with a woman like that.

(when I was single, however, I wouldn't have been against a serial sexual encounter devoid of romantic or tender feelings -- with all the proper hygiene of course)

[Rabrrrrrr]

67. I might love her willingness to have sex; but love her as a life partner

It's really too bad English only has one word for love. We need to go back to the Greek and distinguish between the different types of love.

[ET Awful]

77. I say a man could love such a woman for I am a man and have loved

such a woman. . . . of course she ripped me heart out, shredded it, chewed on it, spat out the pieces and ground them beneath her heel after she convinced me to move 3,000 miles to be with her, so I may not be the best person to ask :).

[BlueIris]

78. Other: Unbelievably false.

When I meet people who would answer 'yes' to this question, I walk away. If possible, I cut them out of my life.

Dear Lord.

It's 2005.

2005.

Anyone who would endorse the archaic, hideous, ignorant, disgusting sexist double-standard necessary to answer yes to that statement does not belong in a civilized society or any relationship--especially with a woman. Those anyones should be ASHAMED of themselves.

[Lisa0825]

92. thank you!!!!:-)

:yourock:

[eyepaddle]

106. No good can from this.

delete

[Fenris]

82. Utterly without any truth

[Worst Username Ever]

93. I voted "true"

Because I'm an ass. :evilgrin:

[sir_captain]

94. It's false, but...

she likely wouldn't do it for me. I don't think there's anything wrong wtih it, but it doesn't jibe particularly with my personality. And it's not a gender thing--I probably dislike it more in men.

I dunno--I guess I'm just an old-fashioned romantic. Plus, it's a lot more fun with someone you actually care about!

:shrug:

Then again, who the hell knows...if she was my dream woman, who am I to hold it against her? Certainly wouldn't be a dealbreaker.

[4_Legs_Good]

97. Pfffffttt!!!

At one point in my life (before turning 16) I *MIGHT* have answered TRUE, but now it's FALSE 100%.

Every day that goes by I'm less and less interested in and convinced of the "sanctity" of sex.

It's just sex, damnit!!!

david

[redqueen]

100. It seems the idea of the sanctity of this completely animal act

is still fairly commonly subscribed to.

[Lisa0825]

103. I believe the sanctity is in the emotional connection, not in the act.

Of course sex can be an expression of love. And THAT is a beautiful thing. But that doesn't mean sex without love is always wrong.

[4_Legs_Good]

109. Expression of love?

Yeah, maybe, but I just don't see it as all that kinda emotional. I mean, maybe I'm just jaded and unromantic, and sure it can be emotional, but I just don't necessarily see it as fundamentally emotional.

Sorry, I'm probably treading on the no-sex-treads ban!

david

[Lisa0825]

119. not always, but....

When you are with someone you love, the emotional reactions together with the physical sensation can make it a different experience, IMO.

[4_Legs_Good]

120. Sure, I can buy that.

I just think that one doesn't necessarily follow the other is the point I'm trying to make. I think.

maybe.

david

[Lisa0825]

123. and I would agree with you on that 100% (nt)

:-)

[4_Legs_Good]

107. Yup!

It's weird. At one point I totally bought into it, but damnit if it's not just an, as you say, animal act. Plus, pffft, why exactly is it more sacred than shaking hands or whatever. As long as there's no transmission of tainted fluids, and both people are happy with it, what difference does it make?

I don't know. It's all so odd. I think a lot of the sanctity bologna musta come out of just being careful about pregnancy when trying to build societies. That's all kinda outta date with the advent of contraception that works.

david

[Goldmund]

110. I rarely make blanket statements.

But this time I will:

whoever answered "True" in this poll cannot possibly call himself (or herself, for that matter) a progressive or a liberal.

[redqueen]

115. Thanks so much for contributing to this convo.

:hi:

[Goldmund]

117. I was reluctant since I'm a surviver of the recent

Virgin Mary/underpass stain clusterfuck.

The thing is that people who would answer "yes" in this poll I'm particularly allergic to. So I don't have the stamina to get into it any deeper right now... I'm going away from my computer...

:hi:

[redqueen]

126. Understandable.

So then I'll offer even more gratitude for your chiming in. :hug:

[Lisa0825]

116. I tend to agree...

I progressives/liberals can have more conservative attitudes about sex, but they would not be as judgemental as that statement is, so even if they lived in a prudish fashion, they wouldn't agree with it as stated.

[johnnie]

125. I doubt that many, if not all who answered "true"

Are liberals.

[AntiCoup2K4]

113. Unfortunately, I DID love that woman

...and found out all too late that she hadn't changed her ways.

BTW, she was a Republican. Party of morality, my ass!

[BlueIris]

129. Once again, it's 2005.

Not 1953, not 1896, nothing like that.

Anyone answering yes to this question is endorsing a reprehensible, sexist idea that civilized, non-sexist people tossed in the garbage can more than thirty years ago.

[leftofthedial]

130. I love women

who love sex

[Mr. McD]

133. Gee someone just like me!

We have been togather for over 20 years.:loveya:

[Dave Reynolds]

137. I'd tap it,

but then I'm a horrible, disgusting human being.