# Do you have negative feelings about "easy" women



## richardsharpe

Good evening
A comment in another post made me think about a question: When you find out a woman has sex with lots of partners, does that cause you to have negative feelings about her. I'm not talking about a potential partner, just someone you know. I'm also not talking about prostitution, pressure, etc, just about women who have lots of sex with lots of partners because that is what they want to do.


----------



## 225985

It's a conditional question. 

If she has sex with me, then she is hot and I have "no problem with it". If she is NOT willing to have sex with me, then she is a slvt and I "have negative feelings about it".


----------



## SunCMars

I realize that you stipulated a "friend". This sort of friend would not share my values. They likely would seem shallow minded to me.

Male or Female...lots of sexual partners signals to me that they are takers, are users and are not to be trusted in personal relations. Many are Narcissists. I can somewhat understand this behavior in a young woman or man. Once they get a little maturity under their belt and they cut way back on this promiscuity then my opinion would change to the plus side.

Do not forget the threat of STD's. Many of these diseases never go away in the body. They are lifetime afflictions.

I am an old man, from a different generation. Being old, I can readily see the problem and harm this lifestyle and [set of values] will germinate. Pun intended.


----------



## MRR

SunCMars said:


> I realize that you stipulated a "friend". This sort of friend would not share my values. They likely would seem shallow minded to me.
> 
> *Male or Female...lots of sexual partners signals to me that they are takers, are users and are not to be trusted in personal relations.* Many are Narcissists. I can somewhat understand this behavior in a young woman or man. Once they get a little maturity under their belt and they cut way back on this promiscuity then my opinion would change to the plus side.
> 
> Do not forget the threat of STD's. Many of these diseases never go away in the body. They are lifetime afflictions.
> 
> I am an old man, from a different generation. Being old, I can readily see the problem and harm this lifestyle and [set of values] will germinate. Pun intended.


Can you explain how you came to the conclusion in the bolded part? 

The idea of takers and givers is starting to really resonate in my mind as my ex wife is very much a taker-- since our divorce she has gone through probably a dozen friends that to an outsider it is clear she is just using them for one thing or another. 

Then, with a FWB I had on and off for the last year, she is really a fabulous woman, but I feel like she is a 'taker' too, on a much smaller scale (or maybe I just don't know her long enough yet)-- now add in the sexuality/promiscuity part-- and while FWB and I do not discuss details about others I now feel like she is definitely promiscuous, which honestly I did not care much about but am starting to relate the taker trait with that as well...and I am not sure why...


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
It bothers some people but has never bothered me which is why I'm asking. To me it just means that she enjoys sex - which seems great.


----------



## EllisRedding

I would break it down into two groups:

1) If this woman was one who wanted to have a relationship with me (not just a friendship), I would view it negatively and most likely not even bother pursuing. This has more to do with my personal views on sex which would obviously not be in alignment with hers.

2) If there was no intention of a sexual relationship with the female, then I would have no negative views on what they decide to do or how they view sex. That is their prerogative and none of my business.

I do have issues with people who would view an "easy" woman negatively yet lead the same type of lifestyle.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I am older fashioned.. more conservative minded.. with 5 sons.. I do not want our sons to date women who take sex lightly... . if she can easily go from man to man to man and think little of it...not requiring love strings & commitment from the man, with this not affecting her emotionally.... that would speak that she is less likely to attach (or CARE TO ATTACH) seeking Romantic love with one man.. and treasure him alone & above all.... she may not even care about marriage...

It's not a popular view, especially in today's society where Sex & "test driving" often come within a few dates, where "hooking up" has replaced "dating" on many college campuses, no strings attached, just give me your body for a night...

It's very different if she is IN LOVE, they are committed.. a couple.. they WANT to spend the rest of their lives together... and it didn't work out... that is not on the same level to me, that is sharing authentic intimacy.. something that can grow & flourish any relationship.. and sometimes it doesn't work out... We all get that...

So it depends.. I do feel one's experiences has a great impact on so many areas of our lives.. how we handle our sex lives is no different.. 

I feel the same about men who easily sleep around and feel no need to commit to the women they have just bedded.. I would be so very disappointed to meet a nice man -then learn he viewed sex like this... I'd be crushed.. but I'd also know he wasn't the type for me....so it's not a woman thing.. it's a "values" thing...

I suspect anyone's feelings here will gravitate to those who are more like them.. if casual sex is all well & good.. they won't have a problem with promiscuity.. but I'd also say they are less likely to care about marriage.. 

I prefer Traditional "courting" type men who still value that a women will wait.. I suppose this shows my age.. it's a dilemma for our children -as this is not the world we grew up in..


----------



## SimplyAmorous

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> It bothers some people but has never bothered me which is why I'm asking. To me it just means that she enjoys sex - which seems great.


But it doesn't mean a women is a prude or not into sex..it's not all that cut & dried.. Some of us have a more Romantic view of sex and what it means to us...

Believe me.. I am a Nympho and even back in the day. I was a masturbater, since age 11....

I LOVED LOVED LOVED the boys.. but I wanted it to mean something ... I didn't want thrown away.. and let's face it.. lots of men F*** & walk away.. that's more common over something "lasting"....

A girl has to be very very careful ....I cared about guarding my heart..and my future... had I got pregnant by some Jerk.. it could have ruined my life.. just saying...


----------



## ConanHub

I will think a little less of her, men too, but as long as she is fully honest with who she is and doesn't lie to anyone else, I'm mostly good.

I would not hire her for certain positions because some discipline over primal drive is required and I wouldn't date her unless she changed.

I would also steer anyone I know away from her and become hostile if she ever set her sights on one of my sons.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kag123

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> It bothers some people but has never bothered me which is why I'm asking. To me it just means that she enjoys sex - which seems great.


I'm pretty open minded. I don't come across people sleeping around any more because all of my friends are married (and faithful). 

In my college days I didn't really care what other people did and didn't consider it any of my business for the most part. 

However, I would not date a guy who was very promiscuous. I was sexually active but if a guy was obviously moving through women quickly, we just weren't going to be a good match. 

I had girlfriends who slept around a lot. What they did on their own time was of no consequence to me. 

The only time it bothered me greatly was when it started happening with a roommate of mine, and despite my repeated requests not to, she would bring strange men back to our apartment on all days of the week. Nothing like walking out of your room to find a random stranger half dressed in your living room. A different one every day at that. It freaked me out that any of these guys knew where we lived as we were two young women living alone. I think you can see why I'd be upset about sleeping around in that circumstance.


----------



## EllisRedding

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> It bothers some people but has never bothered me which is why I'm asking.* To me it just means that she enjoys sex - which seems great.*


Although, there is always the chance that having a lot of casual sex she does more b/c she feels like that is what she is supposed to do to attract men (so maybe it isn't necessarily about the enjoyment).


----------



## 225985

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> It bothers some people but has never bothered me which is why I'm asking. To me it just means that she enjoys sex - which seems great.


My hot friend has sex with lots of guys. She is a sex addict and is working to get that under control. No, she does not have sex with me, but she is a good (just) friend and is an exception to my other post.


----------



## 2ntnuf

blueinbr said:


> It's a conditional question.


I agree.



> If she has sex with me, then she is hot and I have "no problem with it".


At first when I'm very horny and haven't had it in a while I would consider sex with her, maybe, but I've been in this situation personally even while drinking and having lowered inhibitions, and have repeatedly turned women down. This was years ago.

I guess it would bother me to believe I was that much of a hypocrite, though I am hypocritical at times. I do make mistakes.




> If she is NOT willing to have sex with me, then she is a slvt and I "have negative feelings about it".


Not for me. 

I tend to listen more intently to her and try to learn more about her intelligence when she is not sexually compatible, or I get away from her so as not to offend when I am not interested. 

I don't do one night stands, so doing this isn't an issue for me. Women are interesting for more than just sex and I don't have to have sex with every woman that comes along.


----------



## TAMAT

No problem with easy women as human beings to talk with and help.

Big problem with any physical interaction with even indirectly. 

I carefully watch my sister in law when she is preparing food, as I know her husband used to visit houses of prostitution alot. I'm very cautious sharing with others anyhow, but knowing that about a person makes me ever the more vigilant.

Tamat


----------



## always_alone

blueinbr said:


> If she is NOT willing to have sex with me, then she is a slvt and I "have negative feelings about it".


This is a surprisingly common attitude. If I had a nickel for every time I was called a slvt for *not* having sex...

Most ironic way to get rich ever.


----------



## samyeagar

Being friends with a promiscuous woman? No issue at all. As a romantic interest? It would be a non-starter and I wouldn't have any negative feelings there either because the promiscuity would pretty much put her into my friend zone anyway.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *blueinbr said:** If she is NOT willing to have sex with me, then she is a slvt and I "have negative feelings about it"*.





always_alone said:


> This is a surprisingly common attitude. If I had a nickel for every time I was called a slvt for *not* having sex...
> 
> Most ironic way to get rich ever.


Personally I don't even understand the comment, it doesn't make sense, I only see irritation with rejection using a slam word to blow off steam.. 

I've been called a "di** tease" for not.. but never a sl** for not.. don't get it..


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> Personally I don't even understand the comment, it doesn't make sense, I only see irritation with rejection using a slam word to blow off steam..
> 
> *I've been called a "di** tease" for not.. but never a sl** for not.. don't get it*..


I've never been called the "tease" part for not putting out, but the d1ck part, among other things for not putting out? Oh hell yeah I have.


----------



## EllisRedding

samyeagar said:


> I've never been called the "tease" part for not putting out, but the d1ck part, among other things for not putting out? Oh hell yeah I have.


On several occasions I have been called "Hot buns". Probably has nothing to do with what either or you are talking about, but just thought I would throw that out there :grin2:


----------



## CharlieParker

richardsharpe said:


> To me it just means that she enjoys sex - which seems great.


She's likely also going to be really good at it, have good awareness of her body and be able to talk about it easily. My wife had a big "number".


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> I've never been called the "tease" part for not putting out, but the d1ck part, among other things for not putting out? Oh hell yeah I have.


Women don't take kindly to being rejected.. whether emotional or physical.. I've seen posts here where they'd cut down his size or call him a BOY for that...that's just as obnoxious & out of place as the sl** comment, always hitting below the belt.... 

I'd be hurt with rejection too, don't get me wrong...it's one reason I never felt comfortable coming on to a man - in any way. 

Old fashioned here too... just always felt it right for the man to take the lead...make his intentions known... but once a couple... that can all turn on it's head.


----------



## Celes

Nope. Good for her for enjoying herself (provided she's single).


----------



## soccermom2three

I don't have a problem with it. I really don't care.


----------



## SunCMars

MRR said:


> Can you explain how you came to the conclusion in the bolded part?
> 
> The idea of takers and givers is starting to really resonate in my mind as my ex wife is very much a taker-- since our divorce she has gone through probably a dozen friends that to an outsider it is clear she is just using them for one thing or another.
> 
> Then, with a FWB I had on and off for the last year, she is really a fabulous woman, but I feel like she is a 'taker' too, on a much smaller scale (or maybe I just don't know her long enough yet)-- now add in the sexuality/promiscuity part-- and while FWB and I do not discuss details about others I now feel like she is definitely promiscuous, which honestly I did not care much about but am starting to relate the taker trait with that as well...and I am not sure why...


The answer to MRR's question is conditional {many have said this}.

It depends on who is involved. If both the man and women are players then no problem. If both are OK with an occasional ONS, then no problem.

In real life, many people, men and women, have sex with another person when they develop feelings for them. Without these feelings, sex is not desired. 

When one person just wants the sexual release and the other wants the connection, you are going to have hurt feelings. The HD promiscuous partner knows this very well. 

They burn through a lot of partners. And they almost always get the phone calls and texts asking "Where are you- what is wrong"

The promiscuous partner is in it for the sex and does not consider the other persons feelings. All they are interested in is the excitement of a new relationship and another notch on their gun.

This makes them selfish, indifferent to others feelings, often a narcissist. They are users.

They are social butterflies, flitting from one flower to another. They do not have a deep need or desire to get close to anyone. It is all about them and having fun....often at someone else's expense. 

This is a generalization and certainly does not apply to everyone, in every case, but you get my point.

Many promiscuous people get tired of the chase and get married, some successfully.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> This is a surprisingly common attitude. If I had a nickel for every time I was called a slvt for *not* having sex...
> 
> Most ironic way to get rich ever.


I'm pretty sure that was a joke. At least, I liked it because I thought it was a joke.


----------



## optimalprimus

SimplyAmorous said:


> But it doesn't mean a women is a prude or not into sex..it's not all that cut & dried.. Some of us have a more Romantic view of sex and what it means to us...
> 
> Believe me.. I am a Nympho and even back in the day. I was a masturbater, since age 11....
> 
> I LOVED LOVED LOVED the boys.. but I wanted it to mean something ... I didn't want thrown away.. and let's face it.. lots of men F*** & walk away.. that's more common over something "lasting"....
> 
> A girl has to be very very careful ....I cared about guarding my heart..and my future... had I got pregnant by some Jerk.. it could have ruined my life.. just saying...


Hi SA. You're my fave poster but I don't really agree with the implications of your position here. Since you were young women have taken huge strides to be treated as more than precious vessels to avoid being ruined. I'm so thankful for that.

I have a young daughter of my own and I hope that she is free to make her own path without judgement, even well meaning judgement about her sexual activity.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## optimalprimus

To be honest i have more of a problem with people that do care about this, especially men that judge women.

Just to clarify, no problem with people not wanting to date someone previously sexually active, but thinking they're a less good person - ugh i wouldn't want that judger in my life.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## NWCooper

I am female and voted that I didn't have negative feelings about it. I would have negative feelings for that woman though if she knowingly slept with men that were in relationships and she knew it. While she wouldn't have been the one to make promises to other people, I still don't believe that lets her off the hook for disrespecting a serious relationship. i don't think people should be able to just go take what they want, whenever they want with no regard for anyone else, there are lines you don't cross and that is mine.


----------



## Personal

With respect to friends, no I don't have negative feelings about "easy" women or men for that matter.

I also have no negative feelings about being in short term or long term sexual relationships with "easy" women either.


----------



## Holland

ConanHub said:


> I will think a little less of her, men too, but as long as she is fully honest with who she is and doesn't lie to anyone else, I'm mostly good.
> 
> *I would not hire her for certain positions because some discipline over primal drive is required *and I wouldn't date her unless she changed.
> 
> I would also steer anyone I know away from her and become hostile if she ever set her sights on one of my sons.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Would you hire a man that has had lots of sexual partners?


----------



## ConanHub

Holland said:


> Would you hire a man that has had lots of sexual partners?


I would possibly be even more discriminatory about a promiscuous man.

I'm not impressed with promiscuity or lack of control.

I have no problem with strong passions but I do have a problem with folks who don't restrain themselves a bit.

No gender bias here. I actually won't even be friends with womanizers.

I have almost no respect for them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_

This in in response to current behavior, not past.

People often change and someone who has walked away from promiscuous behavior is often better prepared for other challenges.

I am a former man***** after all.


----------



## 225985

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> A comment in another post made me think about a question: When you find out a woman has sex with lots of partners, does that cause you to have negative feelings about her. I'm not talking about a potential partner, just someone you know. I'm also not talking about prostitution, pressure, etc, just about women who have lots of sex with lots of partners because that is what they want to do.


Interesting poll so far. No one picked "I'm female and I have negative feelings about it"

I wonder how this poll would have went if the gender was reversed?


----------



## MRR

optimalprimus said:


> To be honest i have more of a problem with people that do care about this, especially men that judge women.
> 
> Just to clarify, no problem with people not wanting to date someone previously sexually active, but thinking they're a less good person - ugh i wouldn't want that judger in my life.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


I dont think it is judging to reflect on how you have been treated by someone in a casual/physical 'friendship' and realize there may be a connection to the 'promiscuity' and 'user/taker' characteristics.


----------



## ConanHub

blueinbr said:


> Interesting poll so far. No one picked "I'm female and I have negative feelings about it"
> 
> I wonder how this poll would have went if the gender was reversed?


LOL!

Maybe some easy gals on TAM?

Jokes aside, I think it is probably because of some pretty harsh judgment or treatment they have received or witnessed and they probably would want more information about the woman to understand what her situation is.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> LOL!
> 
> Maybe some easy gals on TAM?
> 
> Jokes aside, I think it is probably because of some pretty harsh judgment or treatment they have received or witnessed


I agree that this is part of why so far women have responded that they have no problem with female promiscuity.



ConanHub said:


> and they *probably would want more information about the woman to understand what her situation is*.


And the above also matters.

There are situations that can really mess up a girl/woman. I'm not going to condemn someone who is acting out sexually because of things like sever childhood sexual abuse, being raped and other abuse. A lot of women who act out sexually are caught in a situation in which they do not have the tools to deal with what has happened in to them. So they act out sexually. I know that there are also men who go through this.

Labeling people with words like 'slvt', etc. does no one any good.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

optimalprimus said:


> Hi SA. You're my fave poster but I don't really agree with the implications of your position here. Since you were young women have taken huge strides to be treated as more than precious vessels to avoid being ruined. I'm so thankful for that.
> 
> I have a young daughter of my own and I hope that she is free to make her own path without judgement, even well meaning judgement about her sexual activity.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


 When I say it would have ruined my life.. this is not to say I would have been Ruined or tainted.. obviously not all men feel this way... but I would have forfeited the vision I had dancing in my head.. how I so hoped it would play out...this was very important to me.. 

Any time I post on this.. others come forward to challenge my position and let me know they feel I am judgmental.. had you walked in my shoes and witnessed what I did growing up... you may understand me a little better..

Just because feminism thinks it's great to do "Sl** walk".. well it's not something I agree with.. 

I cared about finding a good man, an honorable man.. a man who believed in & wanted Marriage/ a family.... I do not associate honorable gentleman as those who go from women to women to women to women...those come a dime a dozen.... I personally wanted a male virgin, even prayed for one..... now you won't find too many women on this forum advocating that, I'll tell you! 

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks right.. many say this time & time again on TAM.. what good is posting if we are not authentic in how we feel.. and it is good there is diversity, so there is a match for all of us in what is deeply important.. 

Had I taken the liberty to sleep with all the boys that I thought were Hot & I had a thing for.. it would not have fared well with me...it would have hurt me BADLY ... maybe that doesn't matter to other women.. but I am NOT THEM you see...it mattered TO ME.. and I will care if it matters to my own daughter someday.. 

When we speak of our children.. we want the BEST for them.. I worry about our sons in a way.. as I don't feel most women are like me.. they lust & drop their panties for Playboys.. our sons are NOT Playboys.. they are more like their Father...it's in the genes.. what can you do.. 

Our daughter is a very sensitive girl... I don't want her to feel ashamed for having sexual wants, cravings (of course not, it's all normal , natural , God given !).. but I do care a great deal she does not give in to a man who doesn't deeply care about her, treating her with respect, if she wants commitment... she needs to be very wise with her sexuality. .. that's my position. 

So many YOUNG men pressure & seek variety... they do not even know their own hearts yet.... we go on how they are all so immature , their brains not developed till age 25ish...then we turn around feeling it is fine for all these teens to be sexually active -with whomever they choose.. just cause it feels good.. I'm not in this camp..I feel some restraint is good.. some "boundaries" depending on where the emotional connection is.. this is wisdom to me. 

But true.. she will be her own woman.. just as your daughter will be...the peer pressure today to "get it on" and hook up may be much stronger than our influence, and how we hope it plays out for her.. I have no desire to shield her from ALL the sexual views.. I don't want her to be ignorant from where most young boys are coming from > testosterone has taken over their minds & bodies...it has nothing ever to do with love..

But also to hear the beauty of when 2 grow emotionally bonded first...and then sexually intimacy follows.. 

Thank you for your thoughts optimalprimus.


----------



## Anonymous07

SimplyAmorous said:


> But it doesn't mean a women is a prude or not into sex.*.it's not all that cut & dried.*. Some of us have a more Romantic view of sex and what it means to us...
> 
> Believe me.. I am a Nympho and even back in the day. I was a masturbater, since age 11....


Definitely not so easy to make it a black and white issue. 

I have only had sex with my husband, but it absolutely does not mean I don't like sex. Hell, I was an extremely horny kid and teenager and was masturbating often, starting in elementary school. I have a very high sex drive, but I wanted the sex to mean something. I wanted it to be with someone I loved and I also did not feel comfortable risking my health in regards to STDs/STIs and HIV/AIDS. Casual sex just wasn't for me and none of my friends were into it either. I doubt I would be friends with someone who had such different views.


----------



## SunCMars

optimalprimus said:


> To be honest i have more of a problem with people that do care about this, especially men that judge women.
> 
> Just to clarify, no problem with people not wanting to date someone previously sexually active, but thinking they're a less good person - ugh i wouldn't want that judger in my life.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


I am the "UGH" in your post.

Here is why:

Mankind's ranking in our Solar System has shot straight up, from Lucy walking the Sahara plains to Men on the Moon.

Our material and scientific advances and capabilities are nearing "God like" in their power and effects on our very existence.

We have advanced materially and scientifically, but not spiritually. We cannot even form functioning governments in this day and age. War is always on the horizon. And always will be, save some miracle.

The miracle can only come about by some outside force, compelling us to adhere to some one-minded existence. Education and training would be unilateral and painful. It would be very harsh and would get ugly quickly. North Korea comes to mind. 

*Most people and I suspect you are one of these sees only yourself in the mirror in this reflection we call "existence*".

You are not alone. Your view of the world will not steer it to a better place, I am afraid.

Do not fret, you have plenty of company!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is where I will lose you and 95% of the rest of da-people. 

Remember these popular axioms:

*Actions have consequences. When a culture encourages near total freedom, to do as you please, the family structure collapses.
Sexual promiscuity [male and female] in itself does NOT cause this, but it is a symptom or this.
*

Religion and philosophy have been replaced by Pop Culture and Action figures...sports, fashion, Hollywood, etc. 

Religion brought family values and structure. Religion is now a joke. Philosophy has not stepped up to fill the void. Without any societal structure you have chaos and hedonism which weakens our culture and eventually our country. We could become a third world country in a 100 years. The Western world is held together with man-made laws. They are not very effective, note the crime and collapse you see all around us.

Demographics. This word explains the age and cultural make- up of a country or region. Western cultures are dying off. People are not having as many children, and people are waiting longer to marry.
Sexual freedom and promiscuity add to this problem.

*I am NOT criticizing you or anyone else for having a good time in the short time that we are here. But it does have consequences in a MACRO sense. It destabilizes life on our planet. Children need good role models to become good citizens themselves. Cultures that loosen up too much fail, die off or get conquered by lesser mortals [barbarians] * 

The third world is having the most growth. Most of these places do not have enough food or water or jobs...they are very unstable and are explosions waiting to happen. And in this shrinking world they are bringing their problems to us.

The western culture, as we know it, will collapse under Liberalism. 

The rest of the world will collapse because of Totalitarianism in the third world.

There are ~5.5 billion people in the world. And each man and women has dreams. How many dreams are available?

I feel like I am wasting my breath on this topic !


----------



## bandit.45

I don't have negative feelings about women who have had lots of partners. They like sex and aren't afraid to go after what they want. They are usually very skilled also, and hellfire in the sack. 

Now...would I want to marry one?


----------



## EleGirl

bandit.45 said:


> I don't have negative feelings about women who have had lots of partners. They like sex and aren't afraid to go after what they want. They are usually very skilled also, and hellfire in the sack.
> 
> Now...would I want to marry one?


Maybe so that you married someone who was hellfire in the sack and not a prudish woman who believes that bjs are wrong and gross?

Or if your question means that you don't think that such a woman is marriage material, the two of you are clearly not compatible, so why would such a woman care if you wanted to marry her or not? Clearly? Why would she want to marry a guy who looked down on her?


----------



## bandit.45

EleGirl said:


> Maybe so that you married someone who was hellfire in the sack and not a prudish woman who believes that bjs are wrong and gross?
> 
> Or if your question means that you don't think that such a woman is marriage material, the two of you are clearly not compatible, so why would such a woman care if you wanted to marry her or not? Clearly? Why would she want to marry a guy who looked down on her?


I just don't think I would want to marry a promiscuous woman. Not so much because I "look down on her"...that's a bit harsh. 

More like it would feel weird marrying a gal who's bedded half the guys in the city.... 

I also don't think a lack of experience and having born talent for providing great sex are mutually exclusive. There are women who are naturals at it, even without having had lots of experience with multiple partners. My ex had only been with two guys before she and I hooked up, but ...damn... she was good in bed, and had no hang ups at all.


----------



## EleGirl

bandit.45 said:


> I just don't think I would want to marry a promiscuous woman. Not so much because I "look down on her"...that's a bit harsh.


I'm not sure that it is too harsh. You don't consider women who have high numbers marriage material. That's a negative view point.. meaning that you look down on them. There is nothing wrong with having that point of view. We are all entitled to pick a mate based on our criteria. 

Just as I'm sure if a woman who had been promiscuous in the past knew that you though she was not marriage material, she would also find you (or some guy like you) to not be marriage material.

Like I said, the two of you are not compatible.





bandit.45 said:


> More like it would feel weird marrying a gal who's bedded half the guys in the city....


What? Do you live in a town of a couple of hundred people? Just because she's promiscuous, it does not mean that she has ever had sex with anyone you know. It's a big world out there.




bandit.45 said:


> I also don't think a lack of experience and having born talent for providing great sex are mutually exclusive. There are women who are naturals at it, even without having had lots of experience with multiple partners. My ex had only been with two guys before she and I hooked up, but ...damn... she was good in bed, and had no hang ups at all.


I agree with the above. Having little sexual experience before marriage does not mean that the woman will not be a good in bed.


However, most of the men on TAM who complain about their wives not wanting sex, or not wanting to do bj's etc have wives who were 'good girls'.


----------



## BlueWoman

I didn't answer the poll, because my problem is with the question itself. I have a problem with using social stigma to control woman's sexuality.


----------



## EleGirl

bandit.45 said:


> I just don't think I would want to marry a promiscuous woman. Not so much because I "look down on her"...that's a bit harsh.


By the way... to clarify.

First off, what is promiscuous? Do we mean a person who simply has had more sexual partners than ourself? Or is there a magic number? Maybe 10? or 25? 50? 100? 500? What's the magic number? Or is it someone who has had one one-night stand? A question was asked on this thread but I'll bet each one of us has a different idea of what promiscuous means.

I also think that promiscuous means something different based on a person's age. For example an 17 year old kid with 10 past sexual partners is probably pretty high. But if they are 50, that's very possible and probably not all that high.

What does non-promiscuous mean? At 17 being a virgin really is not much of an accomplishment since teens these days are having less sex then teens were having in the 1980's. There is a gross misperception in our society today that teens girls are having sex with every guy that they find attractive, it's just not the case.

"Between 1988 and 2006–2010, the proportion of never-married teens aged 15–17 who had ever engaged in sexual intercourse declined from 37% to 27% among females, and from 50% to 28% among males. During the same period, among teens aged 18–19, that proportion declined from 73% to 63% among females, and 77% to 64% among males."

If I was thinking of going out with a guy who was very promiscuous (by my definition of promiscuous), I'd want to know a lot about what was going on with him, why, etc. I've known promiscuous men (not as guys I date) and tend to find them emotionally shallow and messed up. I also know men who were promiscuous but who grew out of it and have grown emotionally and turned into great husbands. (I'd say the same thing about promiscuous women... but I don't date or marry women, so it's not my topic)

Now if i was 17/18... and in the early 20's.... i would be ok with a guy who as a virgin. There are a good number of both men and women who are still virgins. No big deal.

But if it was a guy over 30 who was still a virgin... I'd be as caucious of him as I would be of a truly very promiscuous guy. There could be some real emotional problems with a guy who was older and had never had any sort of sexual relationship.


----------



## bandit.45

EleGirl said:


> I'm not sure that it is too harsh. You don't consider women who have high numbers marriage material. That's a negative view point.. meaning that you look down on them. There is nothing wrong with having that point of view. We are all entitled to pick a mate based on our criteria.
> 
> Just as I'm sure if a woman who had been promiscuous in the past knew that you though she was not marriage material, she would also find you (or some guy like you) to not be marriage material.
> 
> Like I said, the two of you are not compatible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Do you live in a town of a couple of hundred people? Just because she's promiscuous, it does not mean that she has ever had sex with anyone you know. It's a big world out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the above. Having little sexual experience before marriage does not mean that the woman will not be a good in bed.
> 
> 
> However, most of the men on TAM who complain about their wives not wanting sex, or not wanting to do bj's etc have wives who were 'good girls'.



I agree with most of what you say. 

And yes...I grew up in a very tiny town, and I did sleep with a couple of girls who quite literally had done the entire football team. Not proud of that now, but my hormones were thinking for me at the time. 

And these were not random girls. These were girls I had known since early childhood. All the kids in my school in my age group were kids I had, quite literally, grown up with...

It's a double standard. It's not fair that an experienced woman is labeled promiscuous...I agree.. But there are a lot of things in life that are not fair. 

Bears do not kill their prey. They casually dine on their prey while it is alive. It's not fair, but it's reality. 

Some guys are born with big d!cks and matching egos, while the majority of guys have to be satisfied with their six inchers. It's not fair, but that's life...

Some women love having lots of sex, love to have sex with lots of different men and love to have a variety of experiences. There is nothing wrong with that. But they also have to accept that they live in a world where that behavior is called promiscuity, and that they will lose out on being considered safe marriage material by a large contingent of the male population. It may not be fair, but it just is the way it is.


----------



## EleGirl

bandit.45 said:


> Some women love having lots of sex, love to have sex with lots of different men and love to have a variety of experiences. There is nothing wrong with that. *But they also have to accept that they live in a world where that behavior is called promiscuity, and that they will lose out on being considered safe marriage material by a large contingent of the male population*. *It may not be fair, but it just is the way it is*.


I think that things are changing. 

In today's world, men need to realize that they too are judged by women in the same way. A man who is promiscuous is as much a liability as a marriage partner as a woman who is promiscuous. (again using the word 'promiscuous' loosely here since it's not really been defined).

When I was 18, the stigma was a lot more than it is today.. I mean a LOT more. One sexual partner before marriage was considered unacceptable. Today that's changed quite a bit.

Another thing that I think is changing is that the double standard is closing. I believe that more and more, people are judging men and women more similarly based on their sexual past.

Basically people are becoming more and more aware that some behaviors mean the same thing about a person regardless of their gender.

I have children who are in their late 20's now. They and their friends are pretty clear that it's the same for a guy to be truly promiscuous as it is for a female. They get it.


----------



## bandit.45

I totally agree.


----------



## 2ntnuf

@EleGirl,

This is the answer for most folks I've talked with. Even some men I think are very promiscuous, believe this. Never talked about this with many women. I didn't want to cause rifts, nor offend. 



> If I was thinking of going out with a guy who was very promiscuous (by my definition of promiscuous), I'd want to know a lot about what was going on with him, why, etc. I've known promiscuous men (not as guys I date) and tend to find them emotionally shallow and messed up. I also know men who were promiscuous but who grew out of it and have grown emotionally and turned into great husbands. (I'd say the same thing about promiscuous women... but I don't date or marry women, so it's not my topic)


Seems it's up to the individuals involved. Where the problem seems to be is when there is incompatibility. It seems to me, it's women who choose the man, though he may make himself available, known to her, and strut around like a turkey or pea**** for her, crowing and dancing, finding nice dinners and places to go and things to do to have fun. In the end, if she doesn't want him, he's done.

Since it's women who choose the man, for the most part that's what I've observed in life, if she wants him and he rejects her, there's a huge problem. I guess all the strutting and dancing the male turkey or gobbler did was premature. 

It takes time to get to know a person. Some things that are important for compatibility in one person, are tough to reveal due to not just shame caused by society, but also sometimes because they aren't thought as important by one and therefore, not known. 

It's not the general population that knows if a person, man or woman has "dated" a lot. It's the circle of friends. We are known by the circle of friends we keep, which seems based on income, social status, types of activities enjoyed, and foods we eat. We tend to find dates in similar circles and many know each other, when we live in the same community, through a similar hobby or activity, friends or relatives of one. 

That's a much smaller segment of the population. 

Compatibility is key, as you stated. So, sometimes there will be rejection. Those rejected can rest assured that they will find compatible partners, it just isn't the person they thought they should have. No on is entitled to anyone. Seems like a red flag right there, when they make a big stink about it. Maybe not.


----------



## frusdil

What if someone is just really unlucky in love?

My sister in law has had a LOT of boyfriends...I've not asked her but I would imagine she's had sex with most, if not all of them.

While I dislike her immensely, she is certainly not a **** or "easy". She's very much a lady, and would have loved her own family...that ship has sailed sadly, she's now in her mid forties and just broke up with her latest partner.


----------



## CharlieParker

EleGirl said:


> What? Do you live in a town of a couple of hundred people? Just because she's promiscuous, it does not mean that she has ever had sex with anyone you know. It's a big world out there.


You'd be surprised. I've probably met more of them than many people's "promiscuous" number (granted it's been many years). But the only time it bothered me was waiting to get off a B744 in Frankfurt. We were in business class, not bad I figured until the flight attendants were holding us back to allow the first class pax to come down the stairs and deplane first. She said he had a tiny unit, ok, but he still had a bigger airline seat.


----------



## 225985

Looks like half the men here have a problem with easy women. They want virgin brides but then eventually complain that their wives are not wild in bed.


----------



## jld

I do not understand this idea of the woman choosing the man, at all.

I thought Dug and I were friends. Then one day he told me he loved me. And he meant it.

I do not see any "woman choosing the man" in there. I do see accepting his love, though.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonmd

FWIW, I think there is a huge difference between those who hope or intend to get married young and those who intend to wait a decade or more. 

If you are looking to get married at 18 or 20, I don't thing that is all that wise in modern society but go ahead and be as judgmental as you want. 

If you intend to hold off till 30 or so, + or -, let's be realistic at least. Every straight guy that has sex before he gets married has it with a women. Doesn't seem all that easy to figure out which is the '****', so be at least a little generous...


----------



## 2ntnuf

jld said:


> I do not understand this idea of the woman choosing the man, at all.
> 
> I thought Dug and I were friends. Then one day he told me he loved me. And he meant it.
> 
> I do not see any "woman choosing the man" in there. I do see accepting his love, though.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So, he offered his friendship and love. You accepted his love, and I assume his friendship.

I think the analogy may have been lost on you. That's okay. I'm not the easiest writer to understand. It's not my profession. 

You did choose him, though, after he made himself and his attraction/love known to you. 

He likely took you out, put his best foot forward and so forth. That would be his male turkey strut and crowing. 

Had you rejected him, he'd have had to move on. You chose him. 

He just presented himself to you for your acceptance or rejection.

What if a woman chooses a man who has been nice to her and friendly, but never told her he loves her, yet when she makes advances toward marriage, sex or a long term relationship, he rejects her? 

The epithets have been posted on TAM in some thread. Some of them are right in this one. That's the point.


----------



## inarut

There are plenty of women who are not "easy" who love sex as much as anyone else, who are adventurous/uninhibited/without sexual hang ups who simply choose to wait before sharing that part of themselves with someone. For people like this sex just for the sake of it is not nearly as satisfying. It's not about manipulation - making a guy jump through hoops to prove himself or waiting for some arbitrary number of dates; it's about feelings, trust and connection. That takes some time. Time to get to know a person.


----------



## 2ntnuf

inarut said:


> There are plenty of women who are not "easy" who love sex as much as anyone else, who are adventurous/uninhibited/without sexual hang ups who simply choose to wait before sharing that part of themselves with someone. For people like this sex just for the sake of it is not nearly as satisfying. It's not about manipulation - making a guy jump through hoops to prove himself or waiting for some arbitrary number of dates; it's about feelings, trust and connection. That takes some time. Time to get to know a person.


I agree with this, for the most part. 

If it's about feelings trust and connection and that takes time to get to know him, how does that happen? Does the couple go out together? Do they shower and dress nicely? Do they speak kindly? Do they try to accommodate each other and put their best foot forward? 

Isn't that strutting and crowing? It isn't jumping through hoops. Why do so many men and women lose weight, get in better shape, and many other things? They want to increase their chances of finding a mate, whether long or short term. 

Jumping through hoops is when someone tells them they will have to do something like the above before they would consider dating them. I'm not talking about manipulation. What I'm talking about commonly occurs. No one is forced to do anything.


----------



## Haiku

I'm a guy...honesty, considerate, non-judgmental, and being a decent citizen is about my only standards, I guess. I never really thought long and hard about it. Other than that the number of partners (if I would even know) or orientation means nothing to me...irrespective of gender.


----------



## staarz21

Female here. I don't care one way or another. If I thought my friend was in danger in any way, then I would feel obligated to step in and try and help her. Other than that, go for it. I had a friend that slept with well over 100 men (5 in the same week). Would I personally do that? Nope. She was having a good time with people she knew....mostly men she worked with (She was Air Force). Didn't bother me one bit. 

I used to not judge men the same way. I think that's how I was brought up. But if I entered the dating world tomorrow, it would certainly be an issue for me going into a relationship, if the man was promiscuous. I think in my head I have a guideline of what would be acceptable given his age. It's not clearly defined, but if he was in his 30s and had slept with 50 women....I wouldn't consider him a partner. I'm not even sure I would accept 20 women. I'm thinking that if I divorced, I would just stay by myself lol.


----------



## inarut

For me it's the feeling that someone is being really genuine and sincere with me. That they are truly interested in me beyond the sexual. He treats me well, is respectful and consistent. "Clicking" on multiple levels. I like what I hear and what I see. Can I be fooled or "played" sure and I have but somewhere somehow along the way that connection was made even if deceptively so.


----------



## Celes

I have very low numbers. I've only been with 2 men, including my husband. I'm not someone who can easily separate sex and emotions. However, I would never be with a man who judged women who choose to enjoy sex with multiple partners. Especially men who don't judge men the same way, or who have high numbers themselves. I couldn't be with a hypocrite.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> *Although, there is always the chance that having a lot of casual sex she does more b/c she feels like that is what she is supposed to do to attract men (so maybe it isn't necessarily about the enjoyment)*.


As stereotypical as it has become that women who wait are probably inhibited prudes, not into sex -men should beware... I want to point out that sometimes -what Ellis said here is also true.. which isn't always brought up in these discussions... Again..nothing is always so black & white...

Some give in to GET..it's hard to really KNOW the motives of why many of us do what we do.. isn't it.... they know what men want, they may want to hang on to him, not lose him.. they may be initial pleasers, they may also FAKE IT to keep pleasing him... 

But after a time...this doesn't fare so well.. they loose interest.. become resentful even - when they aren't getting anything out of it.. it can lead them to a place of really not thinking all that much of sex, feeling it is one sided. 

I shared my "Insane sex drive" experience with a good friend of mine, known her since 10th grade.....she had a # of partners early on... far more experienced over inhibited me..I remember some of the wilder things she had done back then.. 

BUt the other side was...she shared how she doesn't care about sex.. never did much for her.. she's never had an orgasm in her life.. no idea what that experience would be like.. also all the men just did what they needed to do.. it was always "about them" as she put it.. how she could go the rest of her life without it.. 

I found that pretty sad.


----------



## tech-novelist

SunCMars said:


> Here is where I will lose you and 95% of the rest of da-people.
> 
> Remember these popular axioms:
> 
> *Actions have consequences. When a culture encourages near total freedom, to do as you please, the family structure collapses.
> Sexual promiscuity [male and female] in itself does NOT cause this, but it is a symptom or this.
> *


Actually it is female sexual freedom that is the symptom. Read Unwin's book, _Sex and Culture_ (https://archive.org/details/b20442580), on this topic.


----------



## Haiku

staarz21 said:


> if I divorced, I would just stay by myself


That's what I'm doing. Maybe someday I'll change my mind, but for now, two years later, I'm quietly content with it.


----------



## bandit.45

Haiku said:


> That's what I'm doing. Maybe someday I'll change my mind, but for now, two years later, I'm quietly content with it.


Me too.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I do not understand this idea of the woman choosing the man, at all.
> 
> I thought Dug and I were friends. Then one day he told me he loved me. And he meant it.
> 
> I do not see any "woman choosing the man" in there. I do see accepting his love, though.


My experience was similar. My SO was the one who wanted the relationship. I spent some effort trying to drive him away, but then decided to give it a whirl.

I don't see any "woman choosing the man" in my story either.


----------



## SunCMars

SimplyAmorous said:


> As stereotypical as it has become that women who wait are probably inhibited prudes, not into sex -men should beware... I want to point out that sometimes -what Ellis said here is also true.. which isn't always brought up in these discussions... Again..nothing is always so black & white...
> 
> Some give in to GET..it's hard to really KNOW the motives of why many of us do what we do.. isn't it.... they know what men want, they may want to hang on to him, not lose him.. they may be initial pleasers, they may also FAKE IT to keep pleasing him...
> 
> But after a time...this doesn't fare so well.. they loose interest.. become resentful even - when they aren't getting anything out of it.. it can lead them to a place of really not thinking all that much of sex, feeling it is one sided.
> 
> I shared my "Insane sex drive" experience with a good friend of mine, known her since 10th grade.....she had a # of partners early on... far more experienced over inhibited me..I remember some of the wilder things she had done back then..
> 
> BUt the other side was...she shared how she doesn't care about sex.. never did much for her.. she's never had an orgasm in her life.. no idea what that experience would be like.. also all the men just did what they needed to do.. it was always "about them" as she put it.. how she could go the rest of her life without it..
> 
> I found that pretty sad.


An EYE OPENER this, for sure.

No orgasm for women rarely means "no enjoyment". The intimacy, talk, romance prior and after has a higher weighted score. It can compensate for the actual physical act. As a male and thinking dude and in my not so humble opinion.

If it did not she would simply avoid this behavior. 

Any talk to the otherwise is denial. Why denial? Personal, unique for her, though common threads surely weave the cloth of this phenomenon.


----------



## Celes

jld said:


> I do not understand this idea of the woman choosing the man, at all.
> 
> I thought Dug and I were friends. Then one day he told me he loved me. And he meant it.
> 
> I do not see any "woman choosing the man" in there. I do see accepting his love, though.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Around the time my husband started pursuing me, I had 3 other men who were also trying to be with me. All really good guys. I ended up "choosing" my husband because he was the better match for me. I think women are more likely to have multiple men pursuing them than the other way around.


----------



## bandit.45

Celes said:


> Around the time my husband started pursuing me, I had 3 other men who were also trying to be with me. All really good guys. I ended up "choosing" my husband because he was the better match for me. I think women are more likely to have multiple men pursuing them than the other way around.


Yep. 

Which is why men who ask their wives for open marriages always end up regretting it.


----------



## norajane

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> A comment in another post made me think about a question: When you find out a woman has sex with lots of partners, does that cause you to have negative feelings about her. * I'm not talking about a potential partner, just someone you know.* I'm also not talking about prostitution, pressure, etc, just about women who have lots of sex with lots of partners because that is what they want to do.


I don't think less of men with many partners, and I don't think less of women, either, provided they are people who treat other people well and with respect and kindness. Just like people who haven't had many sexual partners.


----------



## always_alone

tech-novelist said:


> Actually it is female sexual freedom that is the symptom. Read Unwin's book, _Sex and Culture_ (https://archive.org/details/b20442580), on this topic.


Oh boy, another outdated sexist tract that decides that control of female sexuality is the solution to all men's problems.

Back in the day, the rationale was that *men* who were too promiscuous would fritter away their energies on the pursuit of sex instead of doing anything productive with themselves.

How this turned into controlling *women* and making them gatekeepers of male sexuality is beyond me.


----------



## SunCMars

always_alone said:


> My experience was similar. My SO was the one who wanted the relationship. I spent some effort trying to drive him away, but then decided to give it a whirl.
> 
> I don't see any "woman choosing the man" in my story either.


I disagree. Maybe not in your cases.

Women very often choose the man. But if she verbalizes it, she may do so at her peril. She may chase the man away. Many women have learned this in their dating experiences.

She can choose him but wins him by subtle maneuvering, not a frontal assault!


----------



## sisters359

I have zero problem with people--male or female--who enjoy sex as a recreational pastime. 

I have a big problem with people who lie/mislead/fail to disclose, etc. Passing on STDs that could be prevented with a little honesty is unforgivable, in my book. 

More sexual freedom leads to better commitments, in my experience. People who see sex as fun can distinguish it from love-from developing deeper feelings based on finding another trustworthy, caring, etc. Too many people attribute positive character traits to someone who gives them orgasms--and this leads to a lot of relationships--especially marriages--based on little more than sexual compatibility. While that compatibility is necessary for a strong marriage, it is not sufficient--hence the higher divorce rates, now that more people (esp. women) have economic independence. 

Just my 2 cents worth!


----------



## EleGirl

frusdil said:


> What if someone is just really unlucky in love?
> 
> My sister in law has had a LOT of boyfriends...I've not asked her but I would imagine she's had sex with most, if not all of them.
> 
> While I dislike her immensely, she is certainly not a **** or "easy". She's very much a lady, and would have loved her own family...that ship has sailed sadly, she's now in her mid forties and just broke up with her latest partner.



I think that this is where the definition of promiscuity becomes important.

I would not consider the situation you talk about as promiscuous. How many men could she have been unlucky with? Surely not hundreds.

What if a 22 year old woman was a virgin when she marries. A few years after they marry, her husband dies. So she dates, is unlucky in her dating. Then after 10 years ends finding a guy, they fall in love and marry. Is this woman "promiscuous' and a 'slvt' because she was not as lucky as the other woman who fell in love and married her high school boyfriend who is still alive after a decade? 

It's so easy be judgmental and forget that life throws different people different challenges.


----------



## Haiku

EleGirl said:


> I think that this is where the definition of promiscuity becomes important.
> 
> ...
> 
> It's so easy be judgmental and forget that life throws different people different challenges.


In the context of sexual relationships, isn't the word promiscuous judgmental by definition?


----------



## EleGirl

Haiku said:


> In the context of sexual relationships, isn't the word promiscuous judgmental by definition?


Absolutely

It's also not really definded, as I've said in other posts. Each person has their own definition of what is promiscuous. And it is usually defined based on their own sexual history. "I'm ok.. anyone who had more sex partners than me is 'promiscous'." Not always, but it often works that way.


----------



## SunCMars

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am older fashioned.. more conservative minded.. with 5 sons.. I do not want our sons to date women who take sex lightly... . if she can easily go from man to man to man and think little of it...not requiring love strings & commitment from the man, with this not affecting her emotionally.... that would speak that she is less likely to attach (or CARE TO ATTACH) seeking Romantic love with one man.. and treasure him alone & above all.... she may not even care about marriage...
> 
> It's not a popular view, especially in today's society where Sex & "test driving" often come within a few dates, where "hooking up" has replaced "dating" on many college campuses, no strings attached, just give me your body for a night...
> 
> It's very different if she is IN LOVE, they are committed.. a couple.. they WANT to spend the rest of their lives together... and it didn't work out... that is not on the same level to me, that is sharing authentic intimacy.. something that can grow & flourish any relationship.. and sometimes it doesn't work out... We all get that...
> 
> So it depends.. I do feel one's experiences has a great impact on so many areas of our lives.. how we handle our sex lives is no different..
> 
> I feel the same about men who easily sleep around and feel no need to commit to the women they have just bedded.. I would be so very disappointed to meet a nice man -then learn he viewed sex like this... I'd be crushed.. but I'd also know he wasn't the type for me....so it's not a woman thing.. it's a "values" thing...
> 
> I suspect anyone's feelings here will gravitate to those who are more like them.. if casual sex is all well & good.. they won't have a problem with promiscuity.. but I'd also say they are less likely to care about marriage..
> 
> I prefer Traditional "courting" type men who still value that a women will wait.. I suppose this shows my age.. it's a dilemma for our children -as this is not the world we grew up in..


I took the quiz at the beginning of the post. The numbers did not surprise me. Disappoint? Yep. You would think that the numbers of people that do no approve of promiscuity would be much higher for TAM members. What are you learning here?

It is obvious that most do not learn from others mistakes. Therefore we ARE destined to repeat them. That is the human condition. We evolve materially and scientifically, oh yeah!.. Not spiritually...not even with respect to having and displaying common sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SA's post is revealing. 

I wonder how many of the women who said that they have no problem with [someone else's] promiscuous behavior would flip their vote if it were THEIR son looking for a mate and finding one that had, lets say, 20 sex partners prior to meeting her son. 

If she would not be anxious, she is either delusional or is not being honest.

Do not put this [dissenting notion] on Religion's Doorstep, this is common sense.

See the forest, not just the trees. Too many people are short-sighted. And that choice does have consequences, Eh?

I believe my post is responsible for flipping a few pro-promiscuous notions on their rumps. And that is part of seeing all sides. 

Oh, FYI, I have been flipped by [other] mortals more than once! I still have the bruises.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Don't have any feelings about how many sexual partners a woman has, don't really think about other women's sex lives.


----------



## optimalprimus

SunCMars said:


> I am the "UGH" in your post.
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> Mankind's ranking in our Solar System has shot straight up, from Lucy walking the Sahara plains to Men on the Moon.
> 
> Our material and scientific advances and capabilities are nearing "God like" in their power and effects on our very existence.
> 
> We have advanced materially and scientifically, but not spiritually. We cannot even form functioning governments in this day and age. War is always on the horizon. And always will be, save some miracle.
> 
> The miracle can only come about by some outside force, compelling us to adhere to some one-minded existence. Education and training would be unilateral and painful. It would be very harsh and would get ugly quickly. North Korea comes to mind.
> 
> *Most people and I suspect you are one of these sees only yourself in the mirror in this reflection we call "existence*".
> 
> You are not alone. Your view of the world will not steer it to a better place, I am afraid.
> 
> Do not fret, you have plenty of company!
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Here is where I will lose you and 95% of the rest of da-people.
> 
> Remember these popular axioms:
> 
> *Actions have consequences. When a culture encourages near total freedom, to do as you please, the family structure collapses.
> Sexual promiscuity [male and female] in itself does NOT cause this, but it is a symptom or this.
> *
> 
> Religion and philosophy have been replaced by Pop Culture and Action figures...sports, fashion, Hollywood, etc.
> 
> Religion brought family values and structure. Religion is now a joke. Philosophy has not stepped up to fill the void. Without any societal structure you have chaos and hedonism which weakens our culture and eventually our country. We could become a third world country in a 100 years. The Western world is held together with man-made laws. They are not very effective, note the crime and collapse you see all around us.
> 
> Demographics. This word explains the age and cultural make- up of a country or region. Western cultures are dying off. People are not having as many children, and people are waiting longer to marry.
> Sexual freedom and promiscuity add to this problem.
> 
> *I am NOT criticizing you or anyone else for having a good time in the short time that we are here. But it does have consequences in a MACRO sense. It destabilizes life on our planet. Children need good role models to become good citizens themselves. Cultures that loosen up too much fail, die off or get conquered by lesser mortals [barbarians] *
> 
> The third world is having the most growth. Most of these places do not have enough food or water or jobs...they are very unstable and are explosions waiting to happen. And in this shrinking world they are bringing their problems to us.
> 
> The western culture, as we know it, will collapse under Liberalism.
> 
> The rest of the world will collapse because of Totalitarianism in the third world.
> 
> There are ~5.5 billion people in the world. And each man and women has dreams. How many dreams are available?
> 
> I feel like I am wasting my breath on this topic !


This sounds like a good beginning to a dystopian novel. I can imagine the voice over complete with panning shots over the ruins of NYC with a condom blowing with the (nuclear) wind.

In all seriousness, it is perfectly possible to have ethics and morals alongside sexual freedom. 

BTW I think you mean libertarianism not liberalism. From what i read on here liberals aren't too big on freedom....

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## optimalprimus

BlueWoman said:


> I didn't answer the poll, because my problem is with the question itself. I have a problem with using social stigma to control woman's sexuality.


Like x 1000000!

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## heartsbeating

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> A comment in another post made me think about a question: When you find out a woman has sex with lots of partners, does that cause you to have negative feelings about her. I'm not talking about a potential partner, just someone you know.


Not at all. I'm more the anomaly among my friends. In part because my husband and I met when we were young. There may be a theme of certain characteristics that my friends share, one way or another, but their sexual number is not a factor. 

The only time I've felt concern is when a friend had a melt-down and said she didn't respect herself for having one night stands. She has since remained celibate. One friend had many years single and had fun sexually with that. She used to ask my opinion on outfits for sex parties. We shared laughs over it.

There's a lot of stigmas and misconceptions either way... particularly when we try to box people into a category. I don't see how that is helpful or constructive to anyone.


----------



## thread the needle

I recall a poll about how many dates before sex. It wasn't very many clustering around 1 to 6 I believe. If that's the norm then we are all easy no?


----------



## Springtree

When we were teenagers in a dysfunctional family, my sister and I coped in very different ways. I was afraid of men, afraid of boys and shut myself away with books. My sister slept with every single man of our town and the neighbouring towns. I remember when she was twenty she told me she couldn't count the number of sexual partners she'd had.

We each married and our marriages failed. She divorced, found a new husband and they have just celebrated their 14th wedding anniversary and are still devoted to each other. She insists that she learned a lot about herself through her sexual experiences and it helped her to find a truly compatible husband second time around. Now that I'm finally cutting the ties of a marriage which has been celibate for 15 years, I wish I knew even half as much about myself. 

I have a lot of admiration for women who are comfortable with their sexuality and can explore it through many sexual partners, as long as no one is getting hurt.


----------



## BlueWoman

SunCMars said:


> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by BlueWoman View Post
> 
> I didn't answer the poll, because my problem is with the question itself. I have a problem with using social stigma to control woman's sexuality.
> Like x 1000000!
> 
> Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I give you kudos on your tap-dancing. You are very good at it.
> 
> You are a cherry picker. You discount all the fruit of my post and snatch only that bit that you can whip in my direction. To make your point.
> 
> The diversion and the plug for women's sexuality is weak. I did not say twitter about social stigma.
> 
> The danger of promiscuity is not limited to females, males or the other genders.
> 
> My point is/was very clear. Actions have consequences.
> 
> Do you not see the state of our world? Breaking down the family structure is catamount to collective suicide. The ME, ME, ME culture is hollow. Do you see this feature in the mirror?
> 
> Your verbal retorts and slippery diversion reinforce the stupidity of mankind.
> 
> You think like a two-bit lawyer, not a philosopher.
> 
> Pitiful
> 
> 
> |


I really have no idea who this is directed to, since you quoted two different people. 

But assuming it's me (my name is the only one listed) . What are you on about? My post has nothing to do with your post. I responded 100% to the OP. (And I doubled check, you are not the OP.) 

And name calling is not going to get me to change my opinion.


----------



## SunCMars

BlueWoman said:


> I really have no idea who this is directed to, since you quoted two different people.
> 
> But assuming it's me (my name is the only one listed) . What are you on about? My post has nothing to do with your post. I responded 100% to the OP. (And I doubled check, you are not the OP.)
> 
> And name calling is not going to get me to change my opinion.


I do not care how good a marksman you are...... you cannot hit a target that is not there, is not present.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

jld said:


> I do not understand this idea of the woman choosing the man, at all.
> 
> I thought Dug and I were friends. Then one day he told me he loved me. And he meant it.
> 
> I do not see any "woman choosing the man" in there. I do see accepting his love, though.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So basically you would have got together with anyone who professed love to you?


----------



## jld

Julius Beastcavern said:


> So basically you would have got together with anyone who professed love to you?


No. But it is not like five were lined up in front of me at the same time and I made a selection. That is what "choosing" sounds like to me. 

Or maybe it could be picking out a guy and trying to capture his interest. I really wonder how often that works out, though. 

And I would not trust my own judgment enough to do that, anyway. Plus, I have no seduction skill. Relationships of any kind have generally worked out better for me when the other person sought me out. 

Basically, I got an unanticipated offer from Dug and I accepted it. And it has been a good deal for both of us.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Miss Independent

jld said:


> And I would not trust my own judgment enough to do that, anyway.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_




That's so sad.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> Basically, I got an unanticipated offer from Dug and I accepted it. And it has been a good deal for both of us.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sounds like you guys were car shopping lol


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
my intent with the poll was to get an idea of how widespread the social stigma is. 




BlueWoman said:


> I didn't answer the poll, because my problem is with the question itself. I have a problem with using social stigma to control woman's sexuality.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I view personal and professional life completely separately. I would hope and expect that my employees sex lives had nothing to do with work. The only time someones sex life would be an issue is if it translated to harassment or similar work problems. 

I think where I am it would be illegal for me to ask about, or act on any information I had about an employee's or applicant's sex life. 

That aside, I don't have negative feelings about sexually active women (or men) in any case.




ConanHub said:


> I will think a little less of her, men too, but as long as she is fully honest with who she is and doesn't lie to anyone else, I'm mostly good.
> 
> I would not hire her for certain positions because some discipline over primal drive is required and I wouldn't date her unless she changed.
> 
> I would also steer anyone I know away from her and become hostile if she ever set her sights on one of my sons.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## larry.gray

ConanHub said:


> I would not hire her for certain positions because some discipline over primal drive is required and I wouldn't date her unless she changed.


At a previous employer, they instituted a program where engineers would go out with sales folks for a day once a year. It was a huge corporation, so it was easy for there to be a huge gap and this was an effort to close the gap.

The process was random; you'd just be paired up with someone.

The second year I did this, it became apparent that the woman I was spending the day with was having sex with many of the clients we were calling on. She was very brazen about it. If the dude showed any interest, she seemed to be game.

I guess there is more than one way to earn a commission.


----------



## Bitteratwomen

If I was not interested in a relationship with her, then no, I dont care how many people she has slept with. I wouldnt be interested in a woman who has had a lot of partners.


----------



## Wolf1974

I wouldn't look down on her as a person. But I know it would be a no go for us to be in a relationship. We wouldn't be compatible. I have female friends with high numbers, stress the friends part. She had no issue finding a husband who didn't care. Someone out there for all of us


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Sounds like you guys were car shopping lol


 Family car shopping.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I view personal and professional life completely separately. I would hope and expect that my employees sex lives had nothing to do with work. The only time someones sex life would be an issue is if it translated to harassment or similar work problems.
> 
> I think where I am it would be illegal for me to ask about, or act on any information I had about an employee's or applicant's sex life.
> 
> That aside, I don't have negative feelings about sexually active women (or men) in any case.


I said "some" positions. I am in ministry. Make sense?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
The interaction of employment laws and religious organizations brings up all sorts of interesting questions. I hadn't given much thought to that. 




ConanHub said:


> I said "some" positions. I am in ministry. Make sense?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

