# Defining a Sl!t...



## bkaydezz

Just curious what everyone here thinks a sl*t is...

What makes you a sl!t in the relationship?

What makes you a sl!t out of the relationship?

(im asking in the way someone may dress, talk, act, things they do...yadda yadda)...


Alright guys...HIT IT!


----------



## Gaia

This is one of those trick questions isn't it?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bkaydezz

Gaia said:


> This is one of those trick questions isn't it?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No mam!!!
im really wanting to know others definitions of it.


----------



## Mavash.

The word slvt and relationship don't go together.

A slvt is simply someone who is promiscuous. That doesn't bode well for relationships.


----------



## that_girl

For me a slxt is someone who is in a committed relationship but sleeping around with multiple other people.

You can't be a slxt with your partner. You're just awesome 

You can't be a slxt if you're single. You're just having fun. Hopefully safe fun.

That's just how I see it.

Doesn't matter how you dress. lol. I could wear conservative clothes and still spread mah legs.


----------



## joe kidd

Me at age 20= sl*t


----------



## Gaia

I agree with mavash and that girl... that would be my definition as well. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Gaia

Lmao joe!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jh52

Mavash and that girl -- 100% agree with their POSTS.:smthumbup:

Next question ?? !!!


----------



## pidge70

Wouldn't the PC term be "overly friendly"?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bkaydezz

i guess it doesnt really go together, i was trying to ask a ? but coulndt figure how to use the words to get there


----------



## that_girl

Overly friendly?

I'm not makin' brownies if Ima slxt. I'm makin' bacon!


----------



## anonim

i dont like that word because its demeaning, and dismissive to women that like to have sex a lot or with different people, which is classically (and classlessly) referred to as a ****.

There is nothing wrong with having all the sex you want, as long as you're honest about it, to yourself for your own sake and to others for their sakes.


----------



## geek down

Oh thats easy...

A Slvt is someone that sleeps with everyone..
a Wh*re is someone that sleeps with everyone BUT you..


----------



## anony2

A **** is a man-made label to control the sexuality of women.


----------



## OhGeesh

I'm not sure if there is such a thing. If guys can sleep around why should women not be allowed too?

Sex is sex who should say when is too much or too soon?


----------



## Michelle C

If you are in a relationship I think being a **** from time to time is a good thing. Doesn't every girl havE a **** outfit to wear for her bf or husband?. my bf had a thing for fish net stockings. When we were going out I'd give hima treat every now and then and wear my short denim skirt bra top fishnets hold ups high heels and no knickers. I'd then tease him for a couple of hours before letting him get what he wanted. I suppose a **** outside of a relationship is somebody who acts like that with strangers on a regular basis lol


----------



## costa200

Do you want an honest answer or do you want politically correct drivel?


----------



## jane1213

what is the equivalent word for men?


----------



## Dollystanford

men can be slvts too - it's an equal opportunity word over here!


----------



## Caribbean Man

costa200 said:


> *Do you want an honest answer or do you want politically correct drivel?*


:iagree:

That would depend on who's asking!

Ask a betrayed wife and you WILL get an honest answer.
Ask any random guy and you WILL get an honest answer.
I'm not so sure about anybody else..........


----------



## CanadianGuy

jane1213 said:


> what is the equivalent word for men?


Stud.


----------



## Gaia

Lmao naw.. men can be ****s too.  of course, as stated earlier, I consider a **** to be anyone who goes around screwing others when they are supposedly in a committed relationship. Now if they are single and behaving this way... they are just a player... and this is just generalizing the term so mental issues, ect are not included lol
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CH

If I was a woman and with my nympho like sex drive, I would have to say that I would have been one of the biggest ****s in the world.

Sl*t = Player - has sex with anything that breathes and is human enough

Hooker = Gigolo - has sex for money

Wh*re = a-hole - like someone else said, has sex with everyone else but you

Prude = gay - doesn't want to have sex but seems like a tease

fugly = nerd/geek/dweeb - probably gets laid but no one will ever admit to having sex with them.

There are probably more.


----------



## tacoma

Why can't anyone spell "****" correctly?


Damn, you can't even type "****" here?
Nevermind

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Gaia

Lmao tacoma!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CanadianGuy

Gaia said:


> Lmao naw.. men can be ****s too.  of course, as stated earlier, I consider a **** to be anyone who goes around screwing others when they are supposedly in a committed relationship. Now if they are single and behaving this way... they are just a player... and this is just generalizing the term so mental issues, ect are not included lol
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Certainly men can be s8ts to but it's a double standard. Stud = s*ut. I'm with you on this one by the way.


----------



## Sbrown

anony2 said:


> A **** is a man-made label to control the sexuality of women.


If that is right, then why is it women label other women slvts way more than men do?


----------



## jennz

A slvt is someone who sleeps around just to sleep around. You can be very sexual without being a slvt. I have a friend who is incredibly sexual, she just gives off this vibe of being incredibly sexual, but people would be very surprised to find out how important sex is to her. She only has had sex with one man this year, but I am sure that many people would think that she is a slvt just because she exudes sexuality.


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> i dont like that word because its demeaning, and dismissive to women that like to have sex a lot or with different people, which is classically (and classlessly) referred to as a ****.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with having all the sex you want, as long as you're honest about it, to yourself for your own sake and to others for their sakes.


Hmm I want to comment without sounding like a jerk. Not possible maybe. 

For whatever reason, it comes across that sleeping around with multiple people is a demeaning thing to do. Maybe we project what we see someone doing to our own partner and think about how they are giving their selves away to people who could care less about them? That could explain why the stigma is attached to women since men have a hard time thinking about their wife or partner with someone else ever.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sbrown said:


> If that is right, then why is it women label other women slvts way more than men do?


That's why I said it depends on who's asking the question.
Therin lies the double standard.

Men are not allowed to define a woman's behaviour as sl*tty, because she's only " exploring her sexuality." That is the politically correct answer

But another woman who feels offended or threatened by her 
" exploring her sexuality " will call her a sl*t in her face and much worse invectives, and receive maximum support from her female peers.....


----------



## anony2

Caribbean Man said:


> That's why I said it depends on who's asking the question.
> Therin lies the double standard.
> 
> Men are not allowed to define a woman's behaviour as sl*tty, because she's only " exploring her sexuality." That is the politically correct answer
> 
> But another woman who feels offended or threatened by her
> " exploring her sexuality " will call her a sl*t in her face and much worse invectives, and receive maximum support from her female peers.....


That is because women were brainwashed by the same people that men were...TPTB-whomever that is.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anony2 said:


> *That is because women were brainwashed by the same people that men were...TPTB-whomever that is.*


"........Men [ *and women * ] at some time are masters of their fates;
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings......"

Julius Ceasar.Act 1, Scene II 135 - 141.
William Shakespeare


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> That is because women were brainwashed by the same people that men were...TPTB-whomever that is.


Evolution and human nature brainwashed us lol. Biology of women and men are the first culprit for the double standard.


----------



## warlock07

OhGeesh said:


> I'm not sure if there is such a thing. If guys can sleep around why should women not be allowed too?
> 
> Sex is sex who should say when is too much or too soon?


guys can be ****s too


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

For me, it's a female who uses her sexuality for economic purposes (borderline wh*re) or for manipulation/control and/or attention. A female can be sl*tty without having a lot of sex, and also can have a lot of sex (with different partners, even) without being a sl*t (or a wh*re).

It's more in the intent/purpose than in the actual behavior.


----------



## anonim

i'd be happy if that word was removed from language


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> i'd be happy if that word was removed from language


Maybe they could replace it with a term like:
" Indiscriminately sexually active?"

Or maybe they should ban these words....

debauched, reprobate, immoral, libertine, licentious, oversexed, profligate, unchaste, undiscriminating degenerate, wanton,promiscuous .

If these words were removed from the vocabulary, would it result in the behavioural pattern it justly or unjustly describes disappearing ?

Society is very biased against women in regard to this matter.
But what is stopping a woman from deciding to not to partner with a man she considers to be a sl*t?
On the contrary , a lot of women seem to love men who are sl*ts.Their sexual attraction to him is high , and most times they view having him as quite an accomplishment, because other women have already prevalidated him.

The converse however is not true.
Paradoxical thinking IMO.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Maybe they could replace it with a term like:
> " Indiscriminately sexually active?"
> 
> Or maybe they should ban these words....
> 
> debauched, reprobate, immoral, libertine, licentious, oversexed, profligate, unchaste, undiscriminating degenerate, wanton,promiscuous .
> 
> If these words were removed from the vocabulary, would it result in the behavioural pattern it justly or unjustly describes disappearing ?
> 
> Society is very biased against women in regard to this matter.
> But what is stopping a woman from deciding to not to partner with a man she considers to be a sl*t?
> On the contrary , women seem to love men who are sl*ts.
> 
> The converse however is not true.
> Paradoxical thinking IMO.


i get the impression you have a problem with women that like to have sex a lot or with different people.


----------



## that_girl

I know man-wh0res. lol. 

I don't call many women slvts. Actually, it takes a lot for me to call someone a slvt nd it usually involved infidelity.

My single friends who have a good time are just...having a good time. No judgment here  I just go all "mom" on them and remind them to be safe.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> i get the impression you have a problem with women that like to have sex a lot or with different people.


I love a woman who loves to have sex, and when I was single I always took advantage of women who were " easy."

I have a problem with anybody who does not accept responsibility for their actions, or " cake eaters."

Notice a lot of the women who have no problems " exploring their sexuality " with as many partners as possible , also have serious problems with men viewing porn. They claim that porn " objectifies and degrades " women. The reality is porn glorifies women who want to live that type " explore their sexuality " , lifestyle by paying them handsomely to do so.
Many of these women are made into stars.
So why should these women judge them and men who worship them,whilst at the same time defending their own right to behave the same way as them?


----------



## that_girl

How is it YOU taking advantage of THEM, CB?  That's very backwards thinking, imo. 

Women can like to have sex and it has nothing with being easy or being 'taken advantage of'. Good grief. So, only men can go troll around and be the stud? Women are easy and able to be taken advantage of?

If a woman is offering sex, there is NO taking advantage. There's just an exchange of enjoyment and bodily fluids  Maybe they used you  you make it sound like women were victims or weak and just easy. lolol. Some women just want sex without the drama of a relationships. Oooh kinda like a TON of men. Are the men easy or taken advantage of? Probably not in your eyes...and therein lies the problem.

There's also a big difference of enjoying sex with partners in private and being filmed having sex for other poeple to watch and jack off to.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> I love a woman who loves to have sex, and when I was single I always took advantage of women who were " easy." *who is to say they werent taking advantage of you!*
> 
> I have a problem with anybody who does not accept responsibility for their actions, or " cake eaters." *what do you mean? cheaters? if so i understand, but if you mean something else you'll have to explain further.*
> 
> Notice a lot of the women who have no problems " exploring their sexuality " with as many partners as possible , also have serious problems with men viewing porn. They claim that porn " objectifies and degrades " women. The reality is porn glorifies women who want to live that type " explore their sexuality " , lifestyle by paying them handsomely to do so.
> Many of these women are made into stars.
> So why should these women judge them and men who worship them,whilst at the same time defending their own right to behave the same way as them?


----------



## canttrustu

A 'woman' who gets involved with a married man-in ANY inappropriate way.

OR

A married woman seeking the sexual/emotional attention of men other than her husband.


----------



## Caribbean Man

that_girl said:


> How is it YOU taking advantage of THEM, CB?  That's very backwards thinking, imo.
> 
> Women can like to have sex and it has nothing with being easy or being 'taken advantage of'. Good grief. So, only men can go troll around and be the stud? Women are easy and able to be taken advantage of?
> 
> If a woman is offering sex, there is NO taking advantage. There's just an exchange of enjoyment and bodily fluids  Maybe they used you  you make it sound like women were victims or weak and just easy. lolol. Some women just want sex without the drama of a relationships. Oooh kinda like a TON of men. Are the men easy or taken advantage of? Probably not in your eyes...and therein lies the problem.
> 
> There's also a big difference of enjoying sex with partners in private and being filmed having sex for other poeple to watch and jack off to.


I didn't make the rules dear!
And I never said men were saints either!

They offered me sex,I took advantage of their offer , and went my way sometimes even without a phone call the next day....
I never pretended to love, feel guilt,remorse or had respect.

If they were looking for love ,then I never promised them that in return for sex.
Back then I was of the impression that a woman who gave away one of her most precious assets in exchange for nothing was " easy."

My opinion hasn't changed much.
I only respect women who know their value , and refuse to
" cast their pearls before swine." 

Giving any man her body for sex,whom she is sexually attracted to is a woman's prerogative. I have no problem with that. 
Choosing not to respect or waste his time,money and affection on such a woman is a man's prerogative.


----------



## jfv

Slvt: One of the many terms of endearment I have for my partner when she's being a BAD GIRL.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I love a woman who loves to have sex, and when I was single I always took advantage of women who were " easy." 

*who is to say they werent taking advantage of you!*

Well I gave them absolutely nothing in return. I got something the said was valuable, sex. 

*what do you mean? cheaters? if so i understand, but if you mean something else you'll have to explain further.*

People who have casual sex with multiple partners cannot be called " cheaters."
" Cake eater " refers to those who give away their most
" precious assets " to as many guys as possible ,and expect men to still place high value on them.
The same principle can be applied to men who sleep with as much women as possible. But sadly enough women don't apply it.


----------



## jfv

Caribbean Man said:


> I love a woman who loves to have sex, and when I was single I always took advantage of women who were " easy."
> 
> *who is to say they werent taking advantage of you!*
> 
> Well I gave them absolutely nothing in return. I got something the said was valuable, sex.
> 
> *what do you mean? cheaters? if so i understand, but if you mean something else you'll have to explain further.*
> 
> People who have casual sex with multiple partners cannot be called " cheaters."
> " Cake eater " refers to those who give away their most
> " precious assets " to as many guys as possible ,and expect men to still place high value on them.
> The same principle can be applied to men who sleep with as much women as possible. But sadly enough women don't apply it.


They give away their intelligence and sense of self????


----------



## Caribbean Man

jfv said:


> They give away their intelligence and sense of self????



A woman's intelligence and value of self dictates to her who she should share her body with. It helps her set personal boundaries and limits.

If she has no such limits,and has sex with anybody who she is sexually attracted to on a primal level,
Then what does that say about her intelligence and sense of self?


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> A woman's intelligence and value of self dictates to her who she should share her body with. It helps her set personal boundaries and limits.
> 
> If she has no such limits,and has sex with anybody who she is sexually attracted to on a primal level,
> Then what does that say about her intelligence and sense of self?


it says you are jealous she isnt having it with you.


----------



## jfv

anonim said:


> it says you are jealous she isnt having it with you.


If i could like this twice i would


----------



## Caribbean Man

Ok,
Now we are outside the region of logic and reason.
Things seem to be getting personal.

I don't wish to get into any mudslinging and personal , illogical attacks.
So I hope you two do enjoy the rest of your evening.
Bye!


----------



## jfv

Thanks!


----------



## anonim

*waves*


----------



## that_girl

Caribbean Man said:


> A woman's intelligence and value of self dictates to her who she should share her body with. It helps her set personal boundaries and limits.
> 
> If she has no such limits,and has sex with anybody who she is sexually attracted to on a primal level,
> Then what does that say about her intelligence and sense of self?


But a man who does this doesn't compromise his personal boundaries and limits? :scratchhead: To me, this is so 1950s. Yes, it's good to have self respect but just because a woman sleeps with many men doesn't mean she doesn't respect herself. Does it mean the same for a man? No, because that makes him a stud, no?

I hope my daughters wait until adulthood for sex. In fact, that's what we stress...and we stress protection. Protection shows self respect as well.

It's your choice to want to date/marry someone with a low sex count, but to throw this blanket over all woman as having low boundaries, etc, is...kinda rude.

I've only had 9 partners. 5 of those were in one year. In that year, I wasn't a slvt, nor did I have low boundaries or hate myself. I had simply lived in a horrible relationship long enough...so once I was free, I was FREE.

Not for anyone to say what my mental state was at that time. I was free and happy and simply amazing. Then I found someone I really liked and we dated for 3 years. Fine.

But this double standard for men and women regarding sex makes me sick. These men have to sleep with someone! So while he's "the man", the woman he's having sex with is the "weak boundaried, low self-esteemed, victim". If that's true, what does that say about the man? Ew. Does he get stupid too? You say it compromises a woman's intelligence...so what does it do for a man?

My intelligence and my vagina are in no way linked  I have an education, I always practiced safe sex, I finished college while liking sex. Big deal. I was smart even when I didn't have sex. lol.


----------



## bkaydezz

that_girl said:


> But a man who does this doesn't compromise his personal boundaries and limits? :scratchhead: To me, this is so 1950s. Yes, it's good to have self respect but just because a woman sleeps with many men doesn't mean she doesn't respect herself. Does it mean the same for a man? No, because that makes him a stud, no?
> 
> I hope my daughters wait until adulthood for sex. In fact, that's what we stress...and we stress protection. Protection shows self respect as well.
> 
> It's your choice to want to date/marry someone with a low sex count, but to throw this blanket over all woman as having low boundaries, etc, is...kinda rude.
> 
> I've only had 9 partners. 5 of those were in one year. In that year, I wasn't a slvt, nor did I have low boundaries or hate myself. I had simply lived in a horrible relationship long enough...so once I was free, I was FREE.
> 
> Not for anyone to say what my mental state was at that time. I was free and happy and simply amazing. Then I found someone I really liked and we dated for 3 years. Fine.
> 
> But this double standard for men and women regarding sex makes me sick. These men have to sleep with someone! So while he's "the man", the woman he's having sex with is the "weak boundaried, low self-esteemed, victim". If that's true, what does that say about the man? Ew. Does he get stupid too? You say it compromises a woman's intelligence...so what does it do for a man?
> 
> My intelligence and my vagina are in no way linked  I have an education, I always practiced safe sex, I finished college while liking sex. Big deal. I was smart even when I didn't have sex. lol.


and a smart answer. YAY!


----------



## Dr. Rockstar

Something as volatile as the word "****" is going to have as many meanings as there are people, as witnessed in this thread. It's easy to dismiss or mock somebody whose opinion is different from someone else's.


For me personally, a **** is a woman who will have sex with any man (or women, or both) without discrimination. The kind of woman who will roll over for the first person who buys her a drink. I had a friend in college who defined a **** as "anyone with two legs and a whole."


There is no equitable term for men who behave the same way, and that is unfortunate. But I disagree with anyone who believes that men who behave this way are glorified as "studs." That is the behavior of high school boys who've just lost their virginity and don't want to admit that they were terrified the entire time and refuse to admit it. It's also the term used by boys to justify their jealousy of other boys who have more conquests than them.

Men do not behave this way. Any man who does, either those who take emotional advantage of a woman or who is jealous of the man who does, is living in the past by behaving like a high-school boy.


----------



## that_girl

I hope so! I knew my male friends slept with a LOT of women. I stopped learning names. lol. But yet, they had the nerve to call women slvts.


----------



## Vegemite

canttrustu said:


> A 'woman' who gets involved with a married man-in ANY inappropriate way.
> 
> OR
> 
> A married woman seeking the sexual/emotional attention of men other than her husband.


I agree. I think cheating is the main ingredient. 

If a women ( or man) sleeps around a lot, is respectful, then who cares.

The word "slvt" is a derogatory term, and I think applies to anyone who is doing the wrong thing with regard to sex.

I also think it can be applied to both sexes equally. Being an A'hole has nothing to do with your sex.


----------



## Dr. Rockstar

Vegemite said:


> I also think it can be applied to both sexes equally. Being an A'hole has nothing to do with your sex.


That depends on where you're having it. 

:rofl:

_(I apologize profusely. I just couldn't help myself. If it's any consolation, I feel embarrassed for even posting this response.)_


----------



## Vegemite

Dr. Rockstar said:


> That depends on where you're having it.
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> _(I apologize profusely. I just couldn't help myself. If it's any consolation, I feel embarrassed for even posting this response.)_


So long as you're a real Proctologist, Doc.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Let me repost an excerpt from of an earlier post I MADE.

*"........Society is very biased against women in regard to this matter.*
*But what is stopping a woman from deciding to not to partner with a man she considers to be a sl*t?*
On the contrary , a lot of women seem to love men who are sl*ts.Their sexual attraction to him is high , and most times they view having him as quite an accomplishment, because other women have already prevalidated him.

The converse however is not true.........."



This is and has been my argument;

1] Men are not going to relinquish power over a value system that gives them dominance over a woman's sexuality.

2] Every woman needs to know that respect is earned. In a biased system , it is even more difficult for them to earn and maintain it.
So, no matter how much you rant ,scream , protest ,
Men, and even women ,would not respect you if you don't respect yourself. 
Let me repeat;
*SOCIETY WILL NEVER RESPECT YOU IF YOU DON'T RESPECT YOURSELF*
"..Cliché to a fool,but truth to a man who seeks wisdom...."


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean is explaining this well. Sure there is a double standard but women create it every day by being attracted to experienced men. I don't think it's men or womens fault. 

It's an evolutionary predisposition where women (unconsciously) want good genetics passed to their children. They want a proven successful man and him being a ***** is an indicator that other women have validated his worthiness. It usually requires him to have looks or intelligence or both for a man to have (conquered... yes I said it) accomplish this.

A man looks for a woman who is not promiscuous when looking for a long term relationship. This is because making sure he is providing for his biological children is hardwired into him. The fact that women always know that they are the mother and that men only know based on character and trust is the real reason for this double standard.


So there you go . It's not my fault as a man or your faults to the women on here. It's purely an evolutionary predisposition of our biology.


----------



## Runs like Dog

My sister. She stop developing in what you'd call the 5th grade. By 14 she was going out with grown men.


----------



## alphaomega

Slvt

1. A woman with the morals of a man.

2. A lady that provides a very needed service to the community, especially for guys that have absolutely no chance in hell of getting laid by more traditional methods at the frat party.


----------



## CLucas976

I really loathe the argument of "if a guy can do it"

seriously. 

a sl*t is a person with no self respect who gains all their self esteem from filling the hole between their legs. They cannot have relationships, they cannot respect other people's relationships, and their only ego boost is how many bodies they can bring into contact with their genitals.

this applies to men and women, I just find it more disgusting out of women.


----------



## Thundarr

alphaomega said:


> Slvt
> 
> 1. A woman with the morals of a man.
> 
> 2. A lady that provides a very needed service to the community, especially for guys that have absolutely no chance in hell of getting laid by more traditional methods at the frat party.


This is funny but kind or true.


----------



## jelichmann

Here's a nice definition for you...

SLVT:

1. An immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute.
2. A dirty, slovenly woman. 

Lol, pretty much sums it up I think!


----------



## Thundarr

FrenchFry said:


> Using evolutionary psychology when talking about "what is a ****" is a huge cop-out


Oh contraire. It would be a cop out for me to think less of someone and then say I have no choice because it's my nature. No I'm not doing that at all. I try to apply logic to my belief. My goal in general is to understand. if we understand the underlying mechanics of our dispositions then we can use logic to change our prejudice. 



FrenchFry said:


> ... for the reason that we are talking about calling a woman a derogatory name for the simple purpose of creating a double standard that automatically divides women (again) into completely arbitrary categories that can be used for social control.


I don't think it for the "simple purpose of making a double standard". My view is that social control on any large scale is a symptom and has nothing to do this this on a personal level.




FrenchFry said:


> I try really hard in my personal life not to call anyone a **** period because it's so obvious the term is used for control and denigration of women's sexuality which seems to be so powerful and scary that it needs to be kept in check all the time.


I go one step further and try really hard not to think derogatory of someone sleeping around. I think they could make better decisions and I think there could be terrible consequences but understanding the psychology of the why helps me not judge and I do not like it when I judge.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> Using evolutionary psychology when talking about "what is a ****" is a huge cop-out for the reason that we are talking about calling a woman a derogatory name for the simple purpose of creating a double standard that automatically divides women (again) into completely arbitrary categories that can be used for social control.
> 
> 
> 
> *shrugs*
> 
> I try really hard in my personal life not to call anyone a **** period *because it's so obvious the term is used for control and denigration of women's sexuality which seems to be so powerful and scary that it needs to be kept in check all the time*.


This statement is fundamentally flawed.
Real power lies in the ability to PREVENT someone from accessing something they desire .
A woman with loose morals is ABSOLUTELY NOT a
" powerful woman." 
A powerful woman is one who understands the power of her sexuality , and the power of saying NO.

Every man wants sex , but how does saying yes to every man make you powerful?

BTW,
Between male and females,
Who would you say uses the word sl*t more to describe woman?
How would you describe a woman who open flirts, and flaunts her sexuality with your SO in your face , whilst denigrating you?


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> BTW,
> Between male and females,
> Who would you say uses the word sl*t more to describe woman?
> How would you describe a woman who open flirts, and flaunts her sexuality with your SO in your face , whilst denigrating you?


In case anyone does not know the answer to this rhetorical question which is quite obvious. The answer is women use the word more. And women use the word when another woman is flirting with their man. 

What men do on the other hand is prefer to avoid a long term relationship with a women who they know has slept around a lot. Women on the other hand are almost more attracted to men who do the same. So I'm with Caribbean on this that women as much or more responsible for this double standard than men are.


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> Let me repost an excerpt from of an earlier post I MADE.
> 
> *"........Society is very biased against women in regard to this matter.*
> *But what is stopping a woman from deciding to not to partner with a man she considers to be a sl*t?*
> On the contrary , a lot of women seem to love men who are sl*ts.Their sexual attraction to him is high , and most times they view having him as quite an accomplishment, because other women have already prevalidated him.


The term "sloot" can't really be attached to a man, and the above is the reason. Very few men (5%?) have the required raw masculine animal magnetism that makes women have the irresistible urge to pull him on top of her right now. They just have to have him. And the 2000 women who were under Elvis first, just validates her decision. 95% of men will never have an opportunity to be a master c0cksman for the simple reason that the women will not cooperate. But they will cooperate with Mr. Alpha, even if doesn't want to.

On the other hand, 95% of women can turn themselves into a slvt before nightfall, if they wish to do so.


----------



## Thundarr

FrenchFry said:


> You do not consider a man who says yes more often weaker, even though he is submitting to the power of women's sexuality, but you consider a woman weaker for saying yes more often to men's sexuality.


It's really not us who matters here since we do our part. Women are not dong their part by holding men accountable the way men hold women. That is unless we think having sex with lots of people is good. I personally think restraint is preferred.



FrenchFry said:


> The word *Yes* from a woman can dissolve logic, willpower and rationality in men favor of pleasure. That's pretty damn powerful.


No the reason many nail it when they have a chance is that they are not held accountable by women.




FrenchFry said:


> *Every woman wants sex too.*


A lot do sure. Some want to want sex. But the statement is misleading because it seems like you are saying women want it as often or as much as men. If you do then that's great but it's not the average. There is a simple reason by the way. Men have more testosterone. Well other reasons too. Women have long term biologic consequences where historically men did not so women are more choosy.




FrenchFry said:


> In my experience, way more men use nasty terms to describe women who wouldn't have sex with them or women who found the sex with that man unsatisfactory so they moved on to better pastures. YMMV.


Interesting how you know what guys think so well. I'm a guy who used to have plenty of single friends when I was single and all I can say is I don't remember that word coming up almost ever. Actually I don't remember even once but I'm sure it was said and I just did not pay attention or care one bit. I don't understand what the first point has to do with this topic anyway. And the second point refers to someone who feels betrayed so there again.


----------



## Thundarr

FrenchFry said:


> I too prefer restraint in my life, which I why when I was dating I generally skipped over the more promiscuious in my path. But that was my *preference,* I didn't think less of promiscuous, nor do I call more promiscuous men names for not sharing my preference. Women who have a different preference in life get called names and then have a whole bunch of other *people* try and justify why they are calling them names instead of letting a preference be a preference.


I don't call them names either. My wife was kind of a bad girl before we met and I was kind of bad myself. We changed for each other and going on 17 years. 



FrenchFry said:


> I happen to think men and women both have the ability to hold themselves accountable. Men who choose to have lots of sex are only accountable to themselves for the numbers that they rack up. I'd love to see the same standard applied to women.


That wasn't my point. I agree with you but my point is that there are not consequences and to the contrary there are benefits for a guy to have a rep.




FrenchFry said:


> Six Myths About Sex And Gender, Busted
> 
> My biggest issue with using evopsych as a tool to explain why men can't help sleeping with lots of women but women "don't" want to do the same is that it takes a biological fact like "men have more testosterone," builds on that to a more general statement "men have more testosterone, therefore they want more sex" and then uses that statement to imply the inverse "women have less testosterone, therefore they want less sex" while ignoring all of the other complicated social structures that may be in play to make women appear to want sex less. I think as a society we have complicated women's sexuality to such a degree that it to make such a blanket statement is extremely difficult and the website with research I linked above seems to agree. Point blank: As long as **** is a gendered term, how much women like sex will be a harder question to answer.


evopsych: Is that a slam or insult? I would hate to feel like I could not apply logic to a topic. I NEVER said they could not help it. Let me say it again. Men do not have consequences for having a rep and that's mostly because women do not reject them. How much women like sex is hard to answer. If they want it as often as men on average is not so hard to answer. Oh, thanks for the link. I'll read in a bit.




FrenchFry said:


> I said in my experience as well as YMMV (your mileage may vary). I don't know what guys think so well and my experiences with men as a woman are of course different. The only point I have was toward the question which asked "who calls women names more often, men or women?" and in my experience it has been men. I'm glad your group of single guys is better in that regard or that you can tune it out better, whichever.


YMMV: I like that term. Anyway we are coming at this from different angles but I appreciate the way you present your argument. I hate debate when someone "thinks what they think because they think it" but I like to hear arguments with thought behind it.


----------



## that_girl

A major consequence of a woman sleeping around is pregnancy. At some point, it could happen...which could never happen to a man. And even though women have choices about said pregnancy, it's still emotional and difficult. Something a man will never go through. I knew a couple of women who got pregnant from failed BC, and the men just skipped town. Nice.

Men who sleep around can hide it. Women can too, until they get pregnant. I was pregnant at 23...it was only 2nd sexual partner...but WHOA! I was 'such a ****!' Why? Because my sex life was showing. Oops.


----------



## foreverheartbroken

Oh sure a man's reputation, as well as a woman's, is on the line if he, or she sleeps around! At least I can say this using my view, in that I was never interested in dating men who slept around. Yuck.

Also, I do understand what is meant by women's sexual power over men. Women for years have often used sex to overpower men in certain circumstances, or get something they want. They know they can use sex as a tool. So not only are women getting some action, they also could be achieving some other goal. Men can't often use sex to get something more out of women, than just the sex itself (that is, whenever the woman agrees to having sex with that particular man). It's easy for women to get sex from men, not so easy for men to get a woman in the sack, men have to work for it more than women do. Maybe men are just known to be in such hot pursuit of sex that the issue of "reputation" is just lost? Maybe the reputation of women is "valued" more?


----------



## Mr Blunt

*A sl*t is a person that will do just about anything to feed their selfish desires and not care about any other person*


----------



## Runs like Dog

A ho bag is someone who just turned you down.


----------



## EleGirl

I think that a single person can be a slvts. It's someone who sleeps around quite a bit.

Both men and women can be slvts.


----------



## anonim

I would like to say that being a (wo)man who likes sex (frequently or with different partners) does not mean (s)he has loose morals. This is ignorance.

No one is being harmed by your actions if you have sex with say, 3 different people in a week, as long as;
Its your willful choice.
you use birth control/protection from STIs.
you are up front about what you want.
You arent in a committed relationship.
You dont get involved with people in committed relationships.

anyone setting more stipulations on your conduct is trying to control you. screw them. (Not literally)

Some people are scared by the thought of women wanting sex as much as they do or more, do you know why? 
Because if the faucet was turned wide open on a womans desire for sex, no one man would be able to handle her. No man would tame her. And no man could control her.
Her body is designed for sex far more than a mans is. 

There's a reason why women can have multiple orgasms and at least 5 types of genital orgasms (Vaginal ,G-Spot ,Clitoral ,A–Spot and Posterior Fornix Orgasm a.k.a. deep spot)

How could someone be equipped with all this ability and not want to have sex?

Also there are some hypocrites in here trying to tell women that women only think they want to have sex. If you want to learn something, you should listen when a woman tells you 'women want to have sex too'

If you don't like promiscuous women, then don't have sex with them. Theres nothing wrong with them for being promiscuous if they aren't hurting anyone (apart from your ego, when they aren't having sex with you.)

Edit; saying that a womans intelligence and worth/value is linked to what she does with her vagina is just plain stupid.


----------



## Goldmember357

a man who sleeps around outside of relationships

a woman who sleeps around outside of relationships

a man who does sexual favors outside of relationships

a woman who does sexual favors outside of a relationship

a man who cheats

a woman who cheats

a man with a high high number of sexual partners

a woman with a high high number of sexual partners

a man who has sex with more than 1 person at a time

a woman who has sex with more than 1 person at a time



flame on

just my opinion


----------



## Caribbean Man

Compartmentalizing sex, and fooling oneself into thinking that a dichotomy exist between one's cognitive functions, and one's sexual behaviours,
Usually leads to sl*ttish behaviour.


----------



## Goldmember357

FrenchFry said:


> I too prefer restraint in my life, which I why when I was dating I generally skipped over the more promiscuious in my path. But that was my *preference,* I didn't think less of promiscuous, nor do I call more promiscuous men names for not sharing my preference. Women who have a different preference in life get called names and then have a whole bunch of other *people* try and justify why they are calling them names instead of letting a preference be a preference.
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to think men and women both have the ability to hold themselves accountable. Men who choose to have lots of sex are only accountable to themselves for the numbers that they rack up. I'd love to see the same standard applied to women.
> 
> 
> 
> Six Myths About Sex And Gender, Busted
> 
> My biggest issue with using evopsych as a tool to explain why men can't help sleeping with lots of women but women "don't" want to do the same is that it takes a biological fact like "men have more testosterone," builds on that to a more general statement "men have more testosterone, therefore they want more sex" and then uses that statement to imply the inverse "women have less testosterone, therefore they want less sex" while ignoring all of the other complicated social structures that may be in play to make women appear to want sex less. I think as a society we have complicated women's sexuality to such a degree that it to make such a blanket statement is extremely difficult and the website with research I linked above seems to agree. Point blank: As long as **** is a gendered term, how much women like sex will be a harder question to answer.


lol all a lie. Half the people who write about human sexuality have no idea what they are talking about and do nothing but put out often fraudulent information that gets passed around and viewed as the "truth" by naive minds. 

I have studied the human mind for years and i am big fan of science. There is to some degree a biological approach and its laughable that you deny this in addition i might like to add that humans are far to complex for you to imply what it is that you are implying. In addition its foolish to think that women have the views towards sex as men have and that they share similar patters in development when there is no evidence of this! To imply that women have a similar sexuality as men is absurd its pseudoscience at its finest and feminist propaganda. 

Id like to hear your thoughts on structuralist vs that of fundamentalist views and your opinions on psycho-dynamic approaches and humanistic approaches.


----------



## anonim

Man this thread really brought the misogynists out of the woodwork didnt it?


----------



## Goldmember357

anonim said:


> Man this thread really brought the misogynists out of the woodwork didnt it?


who?

a **** can be a man or a woman.


----------



## Entropy3000

anonim said:


> i'd be happy if that word was removed from language


Burn the books.


----------



## Entropy3000

canttrustu said:


> A 'woman' who gets involved with a married man-in ANY inappropriate way.
> 
> OR
> 
> A married woman seeking the sexual/emotional attention of men other than her husband.


This works for me just fine.


----------



## Entropy3000

A woman can bang as many men as she so desires. She has that right. But she has no complaints if many men consider her of lesser value as a partner for doing so. There are plenty of men who have no problem with this so there should not be any big deal here.

In fact an average woman could have a new guy everyday just walkng into the right place and looking available.

Live your life how you want it. But do not be ashamed of your choices. Do not blame your decisions on others.


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

anony2 said:


> A **** is a man-made label to control the sexuality of women.


Thank you.

Because men (at least MANLY men, if I'm not mistaken,) cannot be ****s, right? They are players or bad boys, both of which are sort of positives.

But slot slit sl!t all mean the same, don't they. She likes it, and so she gets it, regardless of what people wanna say about her. She is in control of herself, rather than society and it's male rules. She dares to do what she wants with her body, with who she wants, and FOCK the world. 

As freeing as I sometimes think it would be to just be able to grow some horns and sow some oats of my own, for me it always comes back to how I feel afterward. I don't get drunk because I don't like hangovers. Sex as a snack can leave you the same way. But I often envy the Madonna-esque (think 1985 like a virgin era) and all that powerful sexuality she was so in control of. I want to mow the grass with no shirt on . (I bet I can make it look better than my beer gutted neighbor.) 

I want to say scroo yoo guys. This is my bod, and you're just mad that you don't have these to play with all day, and damn that refractory period too.

Slot is word (like gash) that comes of sour grapes. But my grapes are sweet. 

so there.


----------



## larry.gray

Runs like Dog said:


> My sister. She stop developing in what you'd call the 5th grade. By 14 she was going out with grown men.


Oh, crap, are you my brother?


----------



## anonim

Entropy3000 said:


> Not at all. It just may mean he has standards. *Maybe. but if you indulge in those who have low or no standards, doesn't that by definition mean you also have none?* A woman can bang as many men as she so desires. She has that right. *Yes she does. But that right wasnt granted by any man.* But she has no complaints if many men consider her of lesser value as a partner for doing so. *well that depends on her, and not you, doesnt it?* There are plenty of men who have no problem with this so there should not be any big deal here.
> 
> In fact an average woman could have a new guy everyday just walkng into the right place and looking available. *Just the same as men. so why is it that women are stuck with this moniker?*


define what it is exactly that makes her 'of lesser value'


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

Mr Blunt said:


> *A sl*t is a person that will do just about anything to feed their selfish desires and not care about any other person*


Oh, you mean, like a WOMANIZER?


----------



## CanadianGuy

Is having less sexual partners more virtuous than having more ?


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

Caribbean Man said:


> That's why I said it depends on who's asking the question.
> Therin lies the double standard.
> 
> Men are not allowed to define a woman's behaviour as sl*tty, because she's only " exploring her sexuality." That is the politically correct answer
> 
> But another woman who feels offended or threatened by her
> " exploring her sexuality " will call her a sl*t in her face and much worse invectives, and receive maximum support from her female peers.....


MANY women who have felt controlled their whole lives by the male constraints not to do things that they really would like to, strongly resent women who refuse to be controlled this way. So they are the most judgmental of all. Plus, women's nature is to tear each other down, while men seem to support each other-even strangers-in a bro code kind of way. One reason why women seem to stay less powerful--we sabotage our own.


----------



## larry.gray

uhaul4mybaggage said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Because men (at least MANLY men, if I'm not mistaken,) cannot be ****s, right? They are players or bad boys, both of which are sort of positives.


You've got it backwards. Calling a man a slvt is redundant because most men are slvts.


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

anonim said:


> I would like to say that being a (wo)man who likes sex (frequently or with different partners) does not mean (s)he has loose morals. This is ignorance.
> 
> No one is being harmed by your actions if you have sex with say, 3 different people in a week, as long as;
> Its your willful choice.
> you use birth control/protection from STIs.
> you are up front about what you want.
> You arent in a committed relationship.
> You dont get involved with people in committed relationships.
> 
> anyone setting more stipulations on your conduct is trying to control you. screw them. (Not literally)
> 
> Some people are scared by the thought of women wanting sex as much as they do or more, do you know why?
> Because if the faucet was turned wide open on a womans desire for sex, no one man would be able to handle her. No man would tame her. And no man could control her.
> Her body is designed for sex far more than a mans is.
> 
> There's a reason why women can have multiple orgasms and at least 5 types of genital orgasms (Vaginal ,G-Spot ,Clitoral ,A–Spot and Posterior Fornix Orgasm a.k.a. deep spot)
> 
> How could someone be equipped with all this ability and not want to have sex?
> 
> Also there are some hypocrites in here trying to tell women that women only think they want to have sex. If you want to learn something, you should listen when a woman tells you 'women want to have sex too'
> 
> If you don't like promiscuous women, then don't have sex with them. Theres nothing wrong with them for being promiscuous if they aren't hurting anyone (apart from your ego, when they aren't having sex with you.)
> 
> Edit; saying that a womans intelligence and worth/value is linked to what she does with her vagina is just plain stupid.


I want you. take me now.:smthumbup:


----------



## Entropy3000

CanadianGuy said:


> Is having less sexual partners more virtuous than having more ?


Higher value? All else equal for me yes. But for me it would be a bell curve. One has to factor in age and maturation. To me the types of relationships are more important than just a number.

I would not want a wife who has been with a 1000 men for any reason. Being 1001 even if I was the last is not appealing to me. I would not want a woman who cheated or had an affair with a married man. I would look for someone who could be faithful in a LTR. Not someone who mostly just screwed around. Evidence of better choices in her life would be a good thing. 

No I would not want a party girl period.


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

CanadianGuy said:


> Is having less sexual partners more virtuous than having more ?


I think men definitely feel that way about women. I wonder if it's because her parts are likely looser, or he's more self-conscious knowing that she has others to compare him, his package,and his skill to. But I don't think women think as much about guys like that. They aren't going, dang, he sleeps with everybody. His thang is probably worn out. He's probably seen bigger sweater puppies than mine. 

They are too busy worrying about whether someone is going to think she's a slot. 

I mean, think about the language women get: count, b!tch, ho, etc etc. Sexy lady good. Lady want sex is no lady.

I am a HIGHLY sexual being, and oh, yeah, I want to maul the bagboy. But I know better than to say that in public with my face bared. 

How bout you?


----------



## Entropy3000

anonim said:


> define what it is exactly that makes her 'of lesser value'


You have it wrong. Many of us look for a woman of value in our lives. There is nothing of great value with someone like this. Too self indulgent. Sex is just sex is not a way to live as far as I am concerned. I have a right to feel this way. We all do.

I outgrew these women when I was about 22. I wanted more. Sex is just sex was fine when I was that young. Of even lesser interest is a woman who is full of hate for men so much that she just has to prove she can screw around like men have done for the last 1000 years. Like doing so is somehow going to prove her worth. Emulating low value men is not something to aspire to.

I value a woman who can have a finite number of emotional relationships that involve healthy sexual activity. Not hundreds of ONS. If she does not know the number or the names of these folks how great is that?

What's to like? It is not the absence of a negative here. It is the presence of an aggregate of positives.

But the real answer you will have to accept is that such a woman would not have compatible values as I do.

I am agnostic so this is not religious. It is pragmatic.


----------



## Machiavelli

uhaul4mybaggage said:


> Oh, you mean, like a WOMANIZER?


Wrong word. Technically, a "womanizer" is a seducer of virgins. Get it? Like Casanova.


----------



## Machiavelli

anonim said:


> Man this thread really brought the misogynists out of the woodwork didnt it?


A "misogynist" is a hater of women. Can't say that I see any of that here. While it is certainly true that past performance is no guarantee of future re****s, you have to consider past performance carefully in all financial decisions, of which marriage is one.


----------



## Entropy3000

uhaul4mybaggage said:


> I think men definitely feel that way about women. I wonder if it's because her parts are likely looser, or he's more self-conscious knowing that she has others to compare him, his package,and his skill to. But I don't think women think as much about guys like that. They aren't going, dang, he sleeps with everybody. His thang is probably worn out. He's probably seen bigger sweater puppies than mine.
> 
> They are too busy worrying about whether someone is going to think she's a slot.
> 
> I mean, think about the language women get: count, b!tch, ho, etc etc. Sexy lady good. Lady want sex is no lady.
> 
> I am a HIGHLY sexual being, and oh, yeah, I want to maul the bagboy. But I know better than to say that in public with my face bared.
> 
> How bout you?


Preselction gives men higher value for some women.

Men do not operate on pre selection. They are looking for a mate that is theirs and theirs alone.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

No a womaniser can have different meanings, most people understand a womaniser to be a man who persues and has sex with many different women.

I don't use the word Sl_t. It has historically been used and is still often used as a derogatory word towards women, which is unfair and unjust.


----------



## dixieangel

There is a double standard in our society. Proof: there are no really derogatory words for promiscuous men. And men like to say how they are more sexual and wired to "spread their seed" as many places as they can. So, I guess that makes it OK.

Seems a lot of men like to marry prudish women. They want the woman at home who doesn't really like sex...she won't cheat on him. Then, he can go out and find a "****" to play around with on the side. This forum is full of men that complain about having a LD wife and they are miserable. But the women they catagorize as "****s"...women that love sex and would keep them satisfied sexually..well, they don't want a woman like that.

Many men set themselves up for failure...


----------



## CanadianGuy

uhaul4mybaggage said:


> I think men definitely feel that way about women. I wonder if it's because her parts are likely looser, or he's more self-conscious knowing that she has others to compare him, his package,and his skill to. But I don't think women think as much about guys like that. They aren't going, dang, he sleeps with everybody. His thang is probably worn out. He's probably seen bigger sweater puppies than mine.
> 
> They are too busy worrying about whether someone is going to think she's a slot.
> 
> I mean, think about the language women get: count, b!tch, ho, etc etc. Sexy lady good. Lady want sex is no lady.
> 
> I am a HIGHLY sexual being, and oh, yeah, I want to maul the bagboy. But I know better than to say that in public with my face bared.
> 
> How bout you?


How about me. Less or more compared to what? Cultural norms? If we had all had 300 partners before marriage or lengthy monogamous relationship is a slvt someone who had 400? What we have measured in our culture as the norm defines the extremes. Good or bad.


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

Entropy3000 said:


> You have it wrong. Many of us look for women of value in our lives. There is nothing of great value with someone like this. Too self indulgent. Sex is just sex is not a way to live as far as I am concerned. I have a right to feel this way. We all do.
> 
> I outgrew these women when I was about 22. I wanted more. Sex is just sex was fine when I was that young.


Okay, and I get that. And of course, you absolutely do have a right to feel any way you want. 

Thank you for proving my point. I have a right to feel any way I want, too. And not be called a derogotory name or be considered less a person for it. Remember when you were 20, and, to quote Eddie Murphy: your d got hard when the wind blows? Did that make you a bad person? Unworthy of love? F no. It made you normal. A natural, red blooded man. 

So what the f am I? If I get turned on by a thought, at 45? A horny old broad? a cougar? Kissa my. I'm a goddess. But I keep it in my pants, pretty durn well. Because my brain is shaped by my dad, my brother, my husband, my son, my male savior, my Holy Father, the president, King James of England, and the rest of the good old boys network. Voting. Driving. Owning land. Wearing pants. In some parts of the world, showing my hair or my EYES is punishable. Burning my bra didn't get me very far. It isn't even about what others say or think about me. It's about how I feel about my own natural urges within this stupid construct. 

Nature's cruel trick (can you hear the laughter? Sometimes nature just laughs and laughs..) is that men feel that way (over the top sexual) from about 14 to about 40 (at least, before the invention of Viagra,) and women get passed the baton at about 35, and I can't even conject how long it goes from there. 

Bottom line, we aren't made to be hot at the same time. Has anyone else noticed how p-o'd older men get at "cougars" who want to bed men with some energy (pill might give you something, but not energy.) How dare we. That's your schtick. 

Well, maybe not. One of these days, Alice. To the MOON. I'm gonna break out a can of holy good God sexy on some poor man. Just for the halibut. He won't know what hit him.

and you "outgrew it?" Well, nice for you. SO, it's fine at a certain age--the age of YOUR choosing-- but once it isn't convenient for your whims anymore, suddenly it is immature. I guess if you can't call me ****ty (yes, I know you can, and do, just not right now maybe..), at least you can call me immature. You MUST shame me out of this SOMEHOW. 

You should see my body. I look like 25. A smokin' 25. Do I scare you?


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

Machiavelli said:


> Wrong word. Technically, a "womanizer" is a seducer of virgins. Get it? Like Casanova.


Might want to look that up.


----------



## Machiavelli

CanadianGuy said:


> Is having less sexual partners more virtuous than having more ?


Since virtue is a word often used as a synonym for virginity...


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

Entropy3000 said:


> Preselction gives men higher value for some women.
> 
> Men do not operate on pre selection. They are looking for a mate that is theirs and theirs alone.


 u lost me.


----------



## Machiavelli

uhaul4mybaggage said:


> Might want to look that up.


The original idea behind the word is that the womanizer is a man who specializes in making a virgin into a woman by deflowerment. I know all about the present usage, but the original meaning of the word is self-evident.


----------



## CanadianGuy

Machiavelli said:


> Since virtue is a word often used as a synonym for virginity...


Thanks for pointing that out. 

As I intended it in the question. 

Virtuous = Having or showing high moral standards

WIKI - Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness.


----------



## CanadianGuy

Machiavelli said:


> The original idea behind the word is that the womanizer is a man who specializes in making a virgin into a woman by deflowerment. I know all about the present usage, but the original meaning of the word is self-evident.


Casanova the sl*t .


----------



## Entropy3000

uhaul4mybaggage said:


> Okay, and I get that. And of course, you absolutely do have a right to feel any way you want.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point. I have a right to feel any way I want, too. And not be called a derogotory name or be considered less a person for it. Remember when you were 20, and, to quote Eddie Murphy: your d got hard when the wind blows? Did that make you a bad person? Unworthy of love? F no. It made you normal. A natural, red blooded man.
> 
> So what the f am I? If I get turned on by a thought, at 45? A horny old broad? a cougar? Kissa my. I'm a goddess. But I keep it in my pants, pretty durn well. Because my brain is shaped by my dad, my brother, my husband, my son, my male savior, my Holy Father, the president, King James of England, and the rest of the good old boys network. Voting. Driving. Owning land. Wearing pants. In some parts of the world, showing my hair or my EYES is punishable. Burning my bra didn't get me very far. It isn't even about what others say or think about me. It's about how I feel about my own natural urges within this stupid construct.
> 
> Nature's cruel trick (can you hear the laughter? Sometimes nature just laughs and laughs..) is that men feel that way (over the top sexual) from about 14 to about 40 (at least, before the invention of Viagra,) and women get passed the baton at about 35, and I can't even conject how long it goes from there.
> 
> Bottom line, we aren't made to be hot at the same time. Has anyone else noticed how p-o'd older men get at "cougars" who want to bed men with some energy (pill might give you something, but not energy.) How dare we. That's your schtick.
> 
> Well, maybe not. One of these days, Alice. To the MOON. I'm gonna break out a can of holy good God sexy on some poor man. Just for the halibut. He won't know what hit him.
> 
> and you "outgrew it?" Well, nice for you. SO, it's fine at a certain age--the age of YOUR choosing-- but once it isn't convenient for your whims anymore, suddenly it is immature. I guess if you can't call me ****ty (yes, I know you can, and do, just not right now maybe..), at least you can call me immature. You MUST shame me out of this SOMEHOW.
> 
> You should see my body. I look like 25. A smokin' 25. Do I scare you?


I am scared for you. I fear no man nor woman on this planet. I hate to see people in pain. I am compassionate that way. I honeslty could care less what you do with your own body. That is your choice. But you cannot help everyone. They have their own daemons to conquer.

I will not however apologize for maturing. I will not aplogize for having the values that I do. We are supposed to do this. Mature. Not everyone does though. I realized what I really valued. I eventually found her.


----------



## Entropy3000

uhaul4mybaggage said:


> u lost me.


Look it up.

It is pertinent to what you wrote. 

Man does not equal Woman. Gender shades of gray aside. People can have equality but men and women are not identical. Which is good because that would really svck.


----------



## CanadianGuy

uhaul4mybaggage said:


> Okay, and I get that. And of course, you absolutely do have a right to feel any way you want.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point. I have a right to feel any way I want, too. And not be called a derogotory name or be considered less a person for it. Remember when you were 20, and, to quote Eddie Murphy: your d got hard when the wind blows? Did that make you a bad person? Unworthy of love? F no. It made you normal. A natural, red blooded man.
> 
> So what the f am I? If I get turned on by a thought, at 45? A horny old broad? a cougar? Kissa my. I'm a goddess. But I keep it in my pants, pretty durn well. Because my brain is shaped by my dad, my brother, my husband, my son, my male savior, my Holy Father, the president, King James of England, and the rest of the good old boys network. Voting. Driving. Owning land. Wearing pants. In some parts of the world, showing my hair or my EYES is punishable. Burning my bra didn't get me very far. It isn't even about what others say or think about me. It's about how I feel about my own natural urges within this stupid construct.
> 
> Nature's cruel trick (can you hear the laughter? Sometimes nature just laughs and laughs..) is that men feel that way (over the top sexual) from about 14 to about 40 (at least, before the invention of Viagra,) and women get passed the baton at about 35, and I can't even conject how long it goes from there.
> 
> Bottom line, we aren't made to be hot at the same time. Has anyone else noticed how p-o'd older men get at "cougars" who want to bed men with some energy (pill might give you something, but not energy.) How dare we. That's your schtick.
> 
> Well, maybe not. One of these days, Alice. To the MOON. I'm gonna break out a can of holy good God sexy on some poor man. Just for the halibut. He won't know what hit him.
> 
> and you "outgrew it?" Well, nice for you. SO, it's fine at a certain age--the age of YOUR choosing-- but once it isn't convenient for your whims anymore, suddenly it is immature. I guess if you can't call me ****ty (yes, I know you can, and do, just not right now maybe..), at least you can call me immature. You MUST shame me out of this SOMEHOW.
> 
> You should see my body. I look like 25. A smokin' 25. Do I scare you?


It's pretty hard to scare anyone on this forum.  Good try though.


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

Machiavelli said:


> Since virtue is a word often used as a synonym for virginity...


And God knows women are supposed to be virgins when they marry. 

God himself wouldn't put his seed in a used woman.

But a man is not a man without a little mileage. 

I don't think the original question was about marriage. I think she asked about the word Slot. But I can see how marriage got into it, because one of the wiser women here did make the point that a man doesn't want to marry a slot. 

He just wants to use one like a tissue and throw it away. A couple of times a week. Until he gets old enough that he has no energy for that, and gets jealous because his wife is suddenly ravenous, and then it's a disgusting way to be. (To be fair, just like maybe you were sometimes called or treated like a pig for being high drive back when she wasn't. Women do that.)


----------



## Entropy3000

CanadianGuy said:


> Casanova the sl*t .


Was he from Vancouver?


----------



## CanadianGuy

uhaul4mybaggage said:


> And God knows women are supposed to be virgins when they marry.
> 
> God himself wouldn't put his seed in a used woman.
> 
> But a man is not a man without a little mileage.
> 
> I don't think the original question was about marriage. I think she asked about the word Slot. But I can see how marriage got into it, because one of the wiser women here did make the point that a man doesn't want to marry a slot.
> 
> He just wants to use one like a tissue and throw it away. A couple of times a week. Until he gets old enough that he has no energy for that, and gets jealous because his wife is suddenly ravenous, and then it's a disgusting way to be. (To be fair, just like maybe you were sometimes called or treated like a pig for being high drive back when she wasn't. Women do that.)


Gods a man? Really?


----------



## CanadianGuy

Entropy3000 said:


> Was he from Vancouver?


All the slvts are..:rofl:


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

Caribbean Man said:


> A woman's intelligence and value of self dictates to her who she should share her body with. It helps her set personal boundaries and limits.
> 
> If she has no such limits,and has sex with anybody who she is sexually attracted to on a primal level,
> Then what does that say about her intelligence and sense of self?


So, would it then be okay if she were doing it for money, an becoming a STAR (give me a fing break) because YOU value money and YOU get to watch? Is it not enough that she is just enjoying a great lay for the sheer pleasure of it? 

I eat chocolate because, damn, that's good. You maybe drink beer because, damn, that's good. Never got in a woman's pants for that same reason? Why shouldn't she do the same?


----------



## Machiavelli

dixieangel said:


> There is a double standard in our society.


There is a double standard in nature.




dixieangel said:


> Proof: there are no really derogatory words for promiscuous men.


Alpha will do.




dixieangel said:


> And men like to say how they are more sexual and wired to "spread their seed" as many places as they can. So, I guess that makes it OK.


Men probably aren't more "sexual" whatever that means, but they do have a different mating strategy, typically, from women. Why is spreading your seed not okay, so long as you pay the child support?



dixieangel said:


> Seems a lot of men like to marry prudish women. They want the woman at home who doesn't really like sex...she won't cheat on him. Then, he can go out and find a "****" to play around with on the side.


This has been the typical set up in Western culture, pretty much the only monogamous culture inherited from the Greeks via Rome via the Roman Catholic Church, since the ancient Greeks invented legal monogamy: i.e. one official wife who bear the legitimate children who carry the lineage and the inheritance, and many outside playmates who produce the bastards.



dixieangel said:


> This forum is full of men that complain about having a LD wife and they are miserable.


This forum is full of men that complain about having a LD wife and they are miserable and get more miserable when they find out their "LD" wife is out pulling trains when she's gone on a so-called GNO or a business trip.



dixieangel said:


> But the women they catagorize as "****s"...women that love sex and would keep them satisfied sexually..well, they don't want a woman like that.


Guys don't want to be raising some other dude's kids unknowingly, so they have taken steps to minimize that since the beginning of time. Hence the traditional high marriage market value of young women with 0 sex partners.



dixieangel said:


> Many men set themselves up for failure...


Yes, they certainly do.


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

Entropy3000 said:


> Was he from Vancouver?


Jersey.


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

CanadianGuy said:


> Gods a man? Really?


Yeah, somebody told me that once. Forgot where i heard it. :scratchhead:


----------



## uhaul4mybaggage

Night, ****s.
Going to bed. Alone. Like a good girl.


----------



## Machiavelli

uhaul4mybaggage said:


> And God knows women are supposed to be virgins when they marry.
> 
> God himself wouldn't put his seed in a used woman.


Which God? If you mean the one in the Bible, there is actually no such command, contrary to popular misconception. The whole point is that a man needs to know he's the father and not some traveling salesman.



uhaul4mybaggage said:


> But a man is not a man without a little mileage.


Again, there is no such requirement. Unless you're associating with the enlisted ranks on the ship again.



uhaul4mybaggage said:


> I don't think the original question was about marriage. I think she asked about the word Slot. But I can see how marriage got into it, because one of the wiser women here did make the point that a man doesn't want to marry a slot.


And that's the only reason a man cares about that: who is he marrying? Does she have one in the oven? Once the guy is married, he couldn't care less who's a sloot. It's his wife who starts worrying about it after that. This is the way of the monogamous portion of the world for the last 3000 years.



uhaul4mybaggage said:


> He just wants to use one like a tissue and throw it away. A couple of times a week.


Are you referring to this wife or his outside women?




uhaul4mybaggage said:


> Until he gets old enough that he has no energy for that, and gets jealous because his wife is suddenly ravenous, and then it's a disgusting way to be.


I doubt this happens much, absent a testosterone deficiency. There is little drop in libido in the normal male until around 50, which is also when the female typically nose dives. 



uhaul4mybaggage said:


> (To be fair, just like maybe you were sometimes called or treated like a pig for being high drive back when she wasn't. Women do that.)


My wife knew better than to do that. I used to get plenty of unsolicited female validation right in front of her. Since I've been on here, I'm finding out that's pretty rare, though.


----------



## lalsr1988

I would not have married my wife if she had not been a virgin. That's just me though.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## cloudwithleggs

anony2 said:


> A **** is a man-made label to control the sexuality of women.


Some men do use these terms to degrade and control, i have first hand experience of this as my estranged husband would called me that and much more. And no i never called him anything, but i did near the end of the relationship.

No other man had ever called me such names in anger.

And no i have never slept around or been unfaithful.

The funny thing is he expected me to go with out sex all the time, so i never withheld sex from him what ever he'd done or said to me. I know one thing i will never do that again. 

I don't believe there should be any such words, there should be freedom with the constraints of not hurting others as who are we to judge.


----------



## cloudwithleggs

2ntnuf said:


> Anyone else perspiring? Wow.


yeah but she forgot the g string knickers, it is more naughty to have to move them to the side


----------



## Thundarr

foreverheartbroken said:


> Oh sure a man's reputation, as well as a woman's, is on the line if he, or she sleeps around! At least I can say this using my view, in that I was never interested in dating men who slept around. Yuck.


I think for every ONE of you who hold men to a standard, there are MORE women who find experienced men more attractive. 

I was somewhere between bad boy and nice guy. But why do you think nice guys finish last?


----------



## anonim

anonim said:


> define what it is exactly that makes her 'of lesser value'
> 
> 
> Entropy3000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it wrong. Many of us look for a woman of value in our lives. There is nothing of great value with someone like this. This means your measure of value of a woman is sex. this is just a wrong as money being the measure of value of a man. Too self indulgent. As opposed to being overly concerned with what other people will think of you if you dont conduct yourself in a manner of their choosing, even though what you do doesnt affect them? Sex is just sex is not a way to live as far as I am concerned. I have a right to feel this way. We all do. I do not refute this. But we should take responsibility for what we do that affects others, in this case with regards to judgments.
> 
> I outgrew these women when I was about 22. Do you mean you outgrew sex for the sake of sex/party life? Because that would be a different thing than saying you outgrew someone else. No one knows what path is for other people and what they will learn from their experiences. I wanted more. Sex is just sex was fine when I was that young. Of even lesser interest is a woman who is full of hate for men so much that she just has to prove she can screw around like men have done for the last 1000 years. Like doing so is somehow going to prove her worth. Emulating low value men is not something to aspire to. *Slow clap*
> 
> I value a woman who can have a finite number of emotional relationships that involve healthy sexual activity. Not hundreds of ONS. can you expand on why? If she does not know the number or the names of these folks how great is that? You would have to let her tell you that, to know that though. Its not something you can decide, by yourself, for someone else. As far as any of us know, it may have been awesome. Or not.
> 
> What's to like? It is not the absence of a negative here. It is the presence of an aggregate of positives.
> 
> But the real answer you will have to accept is that such a woman would not have compatible values as I do.
> :iagree:
> I am agnostic so this is not religious. It is pragmatic.
Click to expand...


----------



## Caribbean Man

On the contrary,
I would have married my wife even if she was not a virgin. I admired what was between her ears more than what was between her legs.

Her value system is what caused me to be celibate for a year.

The connection between her mind and her body / vagina made me realize that if I married her, she was less likely to cheat, and have sex with multiple partners.

Seventeen years later she is still having as much sex as she wants ,and the chance of a decent living ,
*WITH ME ALONE.....*

As far as I know, marriage and family life is the ONLY system where children can be nurtured and a proper value system taught that ensures the survival of the human race.

After all is said and done, those female posters here advocating and defending freestyle,casual sex for women with as many partners as possible , would not have even been here if their mothers had not practised the same " moral values " they now so vehemently condemn.

And even if they had managed to be born, they too would have condemned their mother's behaviour, and called her even worse invectives than a slvt , if she always had sex with ton loads of men , or was constantly on the prowl for fresh c0ck......

After all the ranting , shrieking, screaming and pseudo philosophical posturings,
Its not about control or misogyny,
Its about the fundamentals like self respect , morals and a value system that ensures our offspring and the human race, has a fighting chance of a better tomorrow.


----------



## anonim

Machiavelli said:


> A "misogynist" is a hater of women. Can't say that I see any of that here. I'd say that ones intelligence being linked to the use of your genitals, as opposed to being linked to your interpersonal conduct, is a statement borne of subversive disrespect at least. While it is certainly true that past performance is no guarantee of future re****s, you have to consider past performance carefully in all financial decisions, of which marriage is one. fair enough.


----------



## Runs like Dog

larry.gray said:


> Oh, crap, are you my brother?


Dunno is your sister openly bisexual too? And did she get caught at age 15 in a threesome with 2 soldiers? Did she bang her friends dads?

And I'm the black sheep of the family.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> The connection between her mind and her body / vagina made me realize that if I married her, she was less likely to cheat, and have sex with multiple partners.


Marrying someone does not make them less likely to cheat.


----------



## anonim

Runs like Dog said:


> Dunno is your sister openly bisexual too? And did she get caught at age 15 in a threesome with 2 soldiers? Did she bang her friends dads?
> 
> And I'm the black sheep of the family.


Whats wrong with being bisexual?

And I dont know about you, but since the soldiers and friends dad were adults, and your sis was 15 at the time, why do you assign no blame to them?


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> Marrying someone does not make them less likely to cheat.


Obviously you forgot to read THIS PART:

*Seventeen years later she is still having as much sex as she wants ,and the chance of a decent living ,
WITH ME ALONE.....*

"...The proof of the pudding is in the eating ....."

Yes?

Or maybe they should ban that saying too?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Runs like Dog said:


> Dunno is your sister openly bisexual too? And did she get caught at age 15 in a threesome with 2 soldiers? Did she bang her friends dads?
> 
> And I'm the black sheep of the family.


Seems like both you ,Larry Grey and myself have something in common with our younger sisters........

I have had to bear the financial burden of her promiscuity, stupid choices of sexual partners, and " freestyle " attitude towards sex.......

I maintain her children. Their fathers are missing.

Funny how I couldn't have told her how she should carry about herself sexually,
She thought I was trying to " control " her.
But now I have to help her financially, or run the risk of her children making the EXACT SAME MISTAKES as her.

Talk about cake eating....


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

I could talk till I was blue in the face on this subject.

I really get tired of the caveman logic on how its not ok for women to have sex with multiple partners before marriage and it's ok for men.

I believe like someone mentioned somewhere in another thread. Hold yourself to the same standard as you would your potential partner. You want a virgin then remain one yourself and give her that same gift of "being the only one ever". There is nothing wrong with fairness and equality when it comes to this subject.


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> On the contrary,
> I would have married my wife even if she was not a virgin. I admired what was between her ears more than what was between her legs.
> 
> Her value system is what caused me to be celibate for a year.
> 
> The connection between her mind and her body / vagina made me realize that if I married her, she was less likely to cheat, and have sex with multiple partners.
> 
> Seventeen years later she is still having as much sex as she wants ,and the chance of a decent living ,
> *WITH ME ALONE.....*
> 
> As far as I know, marriage and family life is the ONLY system where children can be nurtured and a proper value system taught that ensures the survival of the human race.
> 
> After all is said and done, those female posters here advocating and defending freestyle,casual sex for women with as many partners as possible , would not have even been here if their mothers had not practised the same " moral values " they now so vehemently condemn.
> 
> And even if they had managed to be born, they too would have condemned their mother's behaviour, and called her even worse invectives than a slvt , if she always had sex with ton loads of men , or was constantly on the prowl for fresh c0ck......
> 
> After all the ranting , shrieking, screaming and pseudo philosophical posturings,
> Its not about control or misogyny,
> Its about the fundamentals like self respect , morals and a value system that ensures our offspring and the human race, has a fighting chance of a better tomorrow.


:iagree:


----------



## Runs like Dog

anonim said:


> Whats wrong with being bisexual?
> 
> And I dont know about you, but since the soldiers and friends dad were adults, and your sis was 15 at the time, why do you assign no blame to them?


Oh they're all beyond the pale. Laws were rather hard to enforce and our worthless parents couldn't be bothered. But in no way was ho-sis not fully complicit.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Caribbean Man said:


> Seems like both you ,Larry Grey and myself have something in common with our younger sisters........
> 
> I have had to bear the financial burden of her promiscuity, stupid choices of sexual partners, and " freestyle " attitude towards sex.......
> 
> I maintain her children. Their fathers are missing.
> 
> Funny how I couldn't have told her how she should carry about herself sexually,
> She thought I was trying to " control " her.
> But now I have to help her financially, or run the risk of her children making the EXACT SAME MISTAKES as her.
> 
> Talk about cake eating....


My sister, who I call an only child, is 3 years older than I am.


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> Seems like both you ,Larry Grey and myself have something in common with our younger sisters........
> 
> I have had to bear the financial burden of her promiscuity, stupid choices of sexual partners, and " freestyle " attitude towards sex.......
> 
> I maintain her children. Their fathers are missing.
> 
> Funny how I couldn't have told her how she should carry about herself sexually,
> She thought I was trying to " control " her.
> But now I have to help her financially, or run the risk of her children making the EXACT SAME MISTAKES as her.
> 
> Talk about cake eating....


So common. Usually with younger siblings. I don't know why parents completely forget how to raise youngest ones to be responsible and to have respect for them selves and consequences. 

Maybe I'm unfairly pointing a finger at your parents but my parents had more kids later in life and screwed them up (and still do). Me and my older siblings all do pretty well so I don't know why the change in parenting but it didn't turn out to well for my bro and sis one on mother side or for my sis on dad side. This could be a subject of it's own although not related to marriage forum maybe. 

Anyway you guys are not the lone rangers on this subject. There are many more.


----------



## foreverheartbroken

Thundarr said:


> I think for every ONE of you who hold men to a standard, there are MORE women who find experienced men more attractive.
> 
> I was somewhere between bad boy and nice guy. But why do you think nice guys finish last?


They don't. Not for many women (just speaking for me and many of my female friends). The nicer the guy is, the hotter he is! A bad boy, for me is a turn-off.


----------



## larry.gray

dixieangel said:


> There is a double standard in our society. Proof: there are no really derogatory words for promiscuous men. And men like to say how they are more sexual and wired to "spread their seed" as many places as they can. So, I guess that makes it OK.


I bet you'd have a hard time listing society's double standards that aren't fair to men? Do you even think of them? 

Men and women aren't equal. Both because of society and biology.


----------



## larry.gray

Runs like Dog said:


> Dunno is your sister openly bisexual too? And did she get caught at age 15 in a threesome with 2 soldiers? Did she bang her friends dads?
> 
> And I'm the black sheep of the family.


Not openly bi, but who knows what she's done in private. 

She's settled down now and has been married for 8 years. I'm just glad she's found a man that's OK with her history.


----------



## Thundarr

foreverheartbroken said:


> They don't. Not for many women (just speaking for me and many of my female friends). The nicer the guy is, the hotter he is! A bad boy, for me is a turn-off.


 Yea nice guy versus bad boy is really too broad. A nice guy who stands up for him self, you, and what he believes in. That's not who I envisioned with the comment. That would be more of my definition of a man. I suspect that's who you are referring to (not trying to be presumptuous).

But jerks get more women than (the other) nice guys. Jerks lose them pretty quickly though because... well their jerks... but nice guys never got them to begin with.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> Yea nice guy versus bad boy is really too broad. A nice guy who stands up for him self, you, and what he believes in. That's not who I envisioned with the comment. That would be more of my definition of a man. I suspect that's who you are referring to (not trying to be presumptuous).
> 
> But jerks get more women than (the other) nice guys. *Jerks lose them pretty quickly though because... well their jerks... but nice guys never got them to begin with*.


The " nice guys " usually get them either when they get pregnant and not sure who the father is or later on in life when their " biological clock" begins ticking and they wake up and 
" suddenly" realize they want to have babies and a stable family.

They find a " nice guy " with a stable job etc, marry him and start offloading their emotional baggage on him.
After a few years,he realizes he cannot please her in bed , suddenly everything is wrong with him , in panic he " puts on an apron " and starts doing the dishes , buying her expensive gifts, puts her on a pedestal, and kisses her feet.
In spite of that , the sex stops or become infrequent. Poor guy now starts begging her and asking he what's the problem. He feels as if HE is the problem because he was a " workaholic ' and " neglected her needs .." blah , blah , blah.
Little does he know that she is on facebook reminiscing with one of her former " jerks " lovers of how " good " it used to be, whilst he is at work thinking of how he could make her happy.

Then the " sexting " starts.............


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> The " nice guys " usually get them either when they they get pregnant and not sure who the father is or later on in life when their " biological clock" begins ticking and they wake up and
> " suddenly" realize they want to have babies and a stable family.


Unfortunate. to think otherwise would be my head in the sand. I think it sucks and I'm not the jaded nice guy. I feel bad for them. Have had some amazing friends who hammered by this.

And hey, I don't blame women for being hardwired to search for a provider.


----------



## dixieangel

Yes there are double standards that work against men too. Child support enforcement is the first that comes to my mind..

Women wind up being promiscuous a lot of times because of being molested and treated sexually by men from a very young age and having parents that don't protect them..and/or absentee dads that don't care to be a part of their lives... The poor girls previous male posters have talked about, I'd be willing to bet this is the case...

Seems men are biologically wired to be promiscuous and females enviroments are the main cause. 

Females need to grow up with a strong father or father figure that is willing to protect them. To be an example of what a good man is. Too many children live without having good fathers...and the problem is getting worse. Kids see their parents cheating on each other and divorcing. 

Comedians love to talk about women with "daddy issues"...those are the women they get lucky with..

So men that want to talk so badly about promiscuous women, your genders actions are to blame for it so much of the time.

And let's not forget the media and how much womens body parts flash before our eyes on a daily basis...how can young girls not believe their worth to men is physical?

Men should really stop and think before they judge, talk, and act so harshly because they are a large part of the problem. Just ask Seth McFarlan...lol


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> As far as I know, marriage and family life is the ONLY system where children can be nurtured and a proper value system taught that ensures the survival of the human race. That's not really credible when society actively disparages and destroys all other relationship models is it? Your interpretation of 'survival of the human race' is tarnished because it damages the psyche of half of those members. You only advocate this model because you're on the winning team.
> 
> After all is said and done, those female posters here advocating and defending freestyle,casual sex for women with as many partners as possible , would not have even been here if their mothers had not practised the same " moral values " they now so vehemently condemn. You've said yourself that you enjoyed 'freestyle casual sex' and defended it. You only have a problem when women want to do it too. Your 'morals' aren't morals because they are designed to be applied to other people and not to yourself. The term for this is oppression. As for the female posters not being here if their mothers had not of practiced your 'moral values' I'd really like to know how you know the personal history of all the females who have posted here.
> 
> And even if they had managed to be born, they too would have condemned their mother's behaviour, and called her even worse invectives than a slvt, if she always had sex with ton loads of men , or was constantly on the prowl for fresh c0ck...... And you know this how?
> 
> After all the ranting , shrieking, screaming and pseudo philosophical posturings,
> Its not about control or misogyny,Oh yes it is. notice how none of the ways you think women should act applies to you or your past. And you aren't even a woman.
> Its about the fundamentals like self respect (Your self respect is worth nothing if you have no respect for others), morals (Morality systems are designed to apply to ones self, not to others to the exclusion of your self. Once again that's called control/oppression) and a value system that ensures our offspring (Marriage doesnt even ensure your offspring are your own.) and the human race, has a fighting chance of a better tomorrow.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Obviously you forgot to read THIS PART:
> 
> *Seventeen years later she is still having as much sex as she wants ,and the chance of a decent living ,
> WITH ME ALONE.....*
> 
> "...The proof of the pudding is in the eating ....."
> 
> Yes?
> 
> Or maybe they should ban that saying too?


Marrying someone still doesnt make them less likely to cheat.
If you or your wife doesnt/hasnt cheated then kudos to you both. 

Still, your logic is fallacy - just because your wife doesnt cheat is doesnt mean that she was made less likely to cheat by marrying you, she might not be inclined to cheat in the first place.

Not all puddings of the same name, taste the same.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> Unfortunate. to think otherwise would be my head in the sand. I think it sucks and I'm not the jaded nice guy. I feel bad for them. Have had some amazing friends who hammered by this.
> 
> *And hey, I don't blame women for being hardwired to search for a provider.*


:iagree:...........and this is what boggles my mind.

Why would a sensible , educated woman offer her body as an aperture / socket for the appendages of various men who obviously CANNOT support her or any offspring that might come from their sexual union?


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> Marrying someone still doesnt make them less likely to cheat.
> If you or your wife doesnt/hasnt cheated then kudos to you both.
> 
> Still, your logic is fallacy - just because your wife doesnt cheat is doesnt mean that she was made less likely to cheat by marrying you, *she might not be inclined to cheat in the first place.*
> 
> Not all puddings of the same name, taste the same.


Ok,then lets test your " logic."

You said quote:
"......she might not be inclined to cheat in the first place...."

What determines . in your " logic " , whether a woman is more or less likely to cheat?

Let me make it even a little easier for you.
What determines if a child when he / she becomes an adult is less likely to become a robber / thief?


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Seems like both you ,Larry Grey and myself have something in common with our younger sisters........
> 
> I have had to bear the financial burden of her promiscuity, stupid choices of sexual partners, and " freestyle " attitude towards sex.......
> 
> I maintain her children. Their fathers are missing.
> 
> Funny how I couldn't have told her how she should carry about herself sexually,
> She thought I was trying to " control " her.
> But now I have to help her financially, or run the risk of her children making the EXACT SAME MISTAKES as her.
> 
> Talk about cake eating....


Ok, _now _you have something I can work with.

your sister was being immoral and irresponsible, not because they were having free sex, but were not responsible with it by;

Not choosing responsible sex partners,
Not choosing to take responsibility for birth control (maybe sti protection too?) when its her that pays the ultimate price,
Not taking responsibility for her children, when she did pay the price,

I see where your attitude on women's morality come from now and I dont blame you, although I still think you are wrong about it.

There is a difference between sexuality and responsibility.


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> Still, your logic is fallacy - just because your wife doesnt cheat is doesnt mean that she was made less likely to cheat by marrying you, she might not be inclined to cheat in the first place.


First of all anonim thanks for bringing good points. I almost always like what Caribbean's says so I'm also interested in retorts of what he says.

This piece however I disagree with. I do believe my wife for example is less likely to cheat because she has been with me. I believe she thought all men were dogs because of her past and how she was treated and when I proved over time to be something she had not experienced then she became less jaded and less likely to cheat and gained much self respect. Even if I were not in the picture I think she is a changed person.

EDIT: That sounds like I was trying to get approval now that I read it. What I mean is when she was in a relationship with healthy boundaries and someone who loved her, it opened her eyes to how it should be or at least to how I think it should be.


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:...........and this is what boggles my mind.
> 
> Why would a sensible , educated woman offer her body as an aperture / socket for the appendages of various men who obviously CANNOT support her or any offspring that might come from their sexual union?


I have a hypothesis about that. It's conflicting needs.
1. Have strong genetics.
2. To have herself and her offspring provided for.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> The " nice guys " usually get them either when they get pregnant and not sure who the father is or later on in life when their " biological clock" begins ticking and they wake up and
> " suddenly" realize they want to have babies and a stable family.
> 
> They find a " nice guy " with a stable job etc, marry him and start offloading their emotional baggage on him.
> After a few years,he realizes he cannot please her in bed , suddenly everything is wrong with him , in panic he " puts on an apron " and starts doing the dishes , buying her expensive gifts, puts her on a pedestal, and kisses her feet.
> In spite of that , the sex stops or become infrequent. Poor guy now starts begging her and asking he what's the problem. He feels as if HE is the problem because he was a " workaholic ' and " neglected her needs .." blah , blah , blah.
> Little does he know that she is on facebook reminiscing with one of her former " jerks " lovers of how " good " it used to be, whilst he is at work thinking of how he could make her happy.
> 
> Then the " sexting " starts.............


_'Pssst...Your Projecting is showing...'_


----------



## dixieangel

There are an increasing number of women having kids without needing a provider because they can provide. I was a single mother of three for years. This is not ideal, but it's possible.

Why is there a market for sperm donors?


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:...........and this is what boggles my mind.
> 
> Why would a sensible , educated woman offer her body as an aperture / socket for the appendages of various men who obviously CANNOT support her or any offspring that might come from their sexual union?


because she feels physical pleasure from it, the same as you do.

"Why would any moral man place his appendage into a woman when he isnt able to provide a good standard of living for any offspring that may result?" - is the question you didnt ask.


----------



## Thundarr

dixieangel said:


> There are an increasing number of women having kids without needing a provider because they can provide. I was a single mother of three for years. This is not ideal, but it's possible.
> 
> Why is there a market for sperm donors?


No doubt but these instincts were put in us by survival of the fittest. Our lineage is full of women who were provided for because the ones not provided for did not make it. I guess there are exceptions but it would not have been the norm. Any rate nature favored women who were able to be provided for so the ones best at making that happen should be more prevalent.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok,then lets test your " logic."
> 
> You said quote:
> "......she might not be inclined to cheat in the first place...."
> 
> What determines . in your " logic " , whether a woman is more or less likely to cheat?
> 
> Let me make it even a little easier for you.
> What determines if a child when he / she becomes an adult is less likely to become a robber / thief?


0. Contentment
1. Desire
2. Opportunity


----------



## foreverheartbroken

Caribbean Man said:


> The " nice guys " usually get them either when they get pregnant and not sure who the father is or later on in life when their " biological clock" begins ticking and they wake up and
> " suddenly" realize they want to have babies and a stable family.
> 
> They find a " nice guy " with a stable job etc, marry him and start offloading their emotional baggage on him.
> After a few years,he realizes he cannot please her in bed , suddenly everything is wrong with him , in panic he " puts on an apron " and starts doing the dishes , buying her expensive gifts, puts her on a pedestal, and kisses her feet.
> In spite of that , the sex stops or become infrequent. Poor guy now starts begging her and asking he what's the problem. He feels as if HE is the problem because he was a " workaholic ' and " neglected her needs .." blah , blah , blah.
> Little does he know that she is on facebook reminiscing with one of her former " jerks " lovers of how " good " it used to be, whilst he is at work thinking of how he could make her happy.
> 
> Then the " sexting " starts.............


Wow. This has nothing to do with a "nice guy" (aka a decent human being). It has to do with the woman. The kind of woman you describe here is terribly insecure or has some major issues going on and in need of some bigtime IC.


----------



## Thundarr

At the start and end of this conversation I always come to the same conclusion that:

The double standard as to how men view women about being sexual and about how women view men about being sexual is because 
- women always know they are the mother
- men can never know with 100% certainty that they are the father. 

For a woman, a very important thing is that a man will provide for the family. For a man, a very important thing is that he is providing for his own offspring.

I don't think discussion will ever put a dent in these fundamental reasons. There are other discussions about paternity test which would very likely change this stigma. If men were confident in there ability to know their child is theirs then sexual past is not so important as it's underlying fear is accounted for.


----------



## anonim

foreverheartbroken said:


> Wow. This has nothing to do with a "nice guy" (aka a decent human being). It has to do with the woman. The kind of woman you describe here is terribly insecure or has some major issues going on and in need of some bigtime IC.


its also to do with a nice guy settling for a woman instead of being proactive in his choice.


----------



## anonim

Thundarr said:


> At the start and end of this conversation I always come to the same conclusion that:
> 
> The double standard as to how men view women about being sexual and about how women view men about being sexual is because
> - women always know they are the mother
> - men can never know with 100% certainty that they are the father.
> 
> For a woman, a very important thing is that a man will provide for the family. For a man, a very important thing is that he is providing for his own offspring.
> 
> I don't think discussion will ever put a dent in these fundamental reasons. There are other discussions about paternity test which would very likely change this stigma. If men were confident in there ability to know their child is theirs then sexual past is not so important as it's underlying fear is accounted for.


wrong thread bud.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> because she feels physical pleasure from it, the same as you do.
> 
> *"Why would any moral man place his appendage into a woman when he isnt able to provide a good standard of living for any offspring that may result?" - is the question you didnt ask.*


Perhaps you should try and understand the post first.

*A MORAL MAN WOULD NEVER IMPREGNATE A WOMAN AND NOT LOOK AFTER HIS OFFSPRING.*

So you logic is circular.

The original question which Thundarr answered was, why would an EDUCATED woman make such horrible choices in men , when her biology is hard wired to look for someone who can provide.
Your simple answer ; because she wants to have sex.:scratchhead:

Well , I have no problem with women wanting plenty sex.
But my problem is that there are GOOD MEN who can provide for her and her offspring , whom she almost NEVER mate with , until she has run out of options, or the " Alphas aka man slvts " are tired of her.

Maybe you can psychoanalyze and explain that..........


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> wrong thread bud.


Nope. I see the other thread too. 

My point is there is a double standard and I said what I think the underlying causes are. So what if there is another thread on one of those causes. Apparently I'm playing chess and your playing checkers  (just humor. Don't pounce).


----------



## Caribbean Man

foreverheartbroken said:


> Wow. This has nothing to do with a "nice guy" (aka a decent human being). It has to do with the woman. The kind of woman you describe here is terribly insecure or has some major issues going on and in need of some bigtime IC.


:iagree:...............and any woman who chases constantly after men who use her body for sex, and thinks that she is
" normal or sexually liberated " has serious mental issues and needs IC .........


----------



## the guy

I like s**t's and I personally think you are all being way to hard on them.

From the word of a great doctor "the world needs ditch diggers too"

I mean with out s**t's my highschool years would have been so boring......just saying!


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> 0. Contentment
> 1. Desire
> 2. Opportunity


0.Contentment.................WRONG
1]Desire............................WRONG
2]Opportunity...................WRONG

0]Contentment . When a moral woman is discontented , she tries to work it out. If she cannot do so,she is free to LEAVE.

1]Desire . When a moral woman gets married,she VOWS to shut out all others and give her body to her husband.

2]Opportunity . A moral woman respect her BOUNDARIES. There are always opportunities, but she knows the power of saying NO. Her brains are between her ears, not between her legs.


The ONLY thing that makes a woman / man less likely to cheat is their perception of MORALITY.

That is why I say your arguments are circular.
Their assumptions are fundamentally flawed.


----------



## dixieangel

Caribbean Man,

You have admitted to frequenting brothels in your past. Are you a moral man? Isn't it a good thing your wife doesn't hold that against you? She was willing to be with you even though you had a history of casual sex. But you are not willing to do the same had it been reversed?


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Perhaps you should try and understand the post first. *You should first adhere to the standards you impose upon others.*
> 
> *A MORAL MAN WOULD NEVER IMPREGNATE A WOMAN AND NOT LOOK AFTER HIS OFFSPRING.*
> 
> *A MORAL PERSON WOULD TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT THAT EVENTUALITY.*
> 
> So you logic is circular. *Meh. you can take a horse to water...*
> 
> The original question which Thundarr answered was, why would an EDUCATED woman make such horrible choices in men , when her biology is hard wired to look for someone who can provide.
> Your simple answer because she wants to have sex.
> *Yes. its that simple. women have told you as such. You know this from your sisters example. But there are good ways of getting it and bad ways. You dont seem to be able to distinguish between the two*
> 
> Well , I have no problem with that.
> But my problem is that there are GOOD MEN who can provide for her and her offspring , whom she would NEVER mate with...
> 
> Maybe you can psychoanalyze and explain that..........


sure. thats easy. sometimes people make bad choices. sometimes they make good ones. you dont have to have a masters degree for that. not all women go for bad men. not all men go for good women. a person might be good for a portion of their lives, then go 'bad' (according to you) and vice versa.


----------



## anonim

Thundarr said:


> Nope. I see the other thread too.
> 
> My point is there is a double standard and I said what I think the underlying causes are. So what if there is another thread on one of those causes. Apparently I'm playing chess and your playing checkers  (just humor. Don't pounce).


im playing chess and checkers, i just looked at wrong board


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:...............and any woman who chases constantly after men who use her body for sex, and thinks that she is
> " normal or sexually liberated " has serious mental issues and needs IC .........


you have admitted to doing this in your past therefore you have serious mental issues. I recommend you get IC. :rofl:


----------



## Thundarr

the guy said:


> I like s**t's and I personally think you are all being way to hard on them.
> 
> From the word of a great doctor "the world needs ditch diggers too"
> 
> I mean with out s**t's my highschool years would have been so boring......just saying!


:smthumbup: I like them too or I used to anyway. No one likes others to like their wives in that way though. Might lead to you raising a kid who looks like someone who REALLY liked your wife. Does that make the "wrong post" more clear anonim?


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> 0.Contentment.................WRONG
> 1]Desire............................WRONG
> 2]Opportunity...................WRONG
> 
> 0]Contentment . When a moral woman is discontented , she tries to work it out. If she cannot do so,she is free to LEAVE.
> 
> 1]Desire . When a moral woman gets married,she VOWS to shut out all others and give her body to her husband.
> 
> 2]Opportunity . A moral woman respect her BOUNDARIES. There are always opportunities, but she knows the power of saying NO. Her brains are between her ears, not between her legs.
> 
> 
> The ONLY thing that makes a woman / man less likely to cheat is their perception of MORALITY.
> 
> That is why I say your arguments are circular.
> Their assumptions are fundamentally flawed.


in which case why dont you ask a woman here in this forum and see what she thinks?

Also you're off course. A moral person will usually not cheat.
The point you were making was that if women have 'free sex' they are immoral.

Which is not true as an absolute.


----------



## Thundarr

dixieangel said:


> Caribbean Man,
> 
> You have admitted to frequenting brothels in your past. Are you a moral man? Isn't it a good thing your wife doesn't hold that against you? She was willing to be with you even though you had a history of casual sex. But you are not willing to do the same had it been reversed?


I think he's saying his wife was wild too and that he does not hold that against her either.


----------



## anonim

Thundarr said:


> I think he's saying his wife was wild too and that he does not hold that against her either.


he said his wife was a virgin.


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> he said his wife was a virgin.


Oh. Now I'm playing checkers.. Or my memory sucks... Or both....


----------



## foreverheartbroken

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:...............and any woman who chases constantly after men who use her body for sex, and thinks that she is
> " normal or sexually liberated " has serious mental issues and needs IC .........


If this woman is expecting a relationship with these types of ho-bag men she tends to be with, she needs to step back and figure out what it is about this type of man that attracts her. Childhood issues? 

On the other hand, if a woman has a ONS with a man, uses HIM for sex, leading him to believe it will amount to something more, well then that's wrong too. 

But if they're *both *jumping into bed together with the SAME intention, just to have sex, well then that's okay. They're either both sl*ts or just simply a man and woman getting together for a good time. Nothing wrong with that. 

As far as the "nice guy" you described in the marriage scenario, well he needs to step back and think about why he's choosing to marry a "jerk"; a woman who's using him for his money, expecting someone to support her, complaining about all the "problems" and is talking online with one of her (jerk) ex's now. If he's marrying someone with issues like that, then what are HIS issues, and insecurity problems? And why is HE getting with someone who isn't respecting him as a person, and is cheating on him now?


----------



## anonim

This is for you CM



foreverheartbroken said:


> If this woman is expecting a relationship with these types of ho-bag men she tends to be with, she needs to step back and figure out what it is about this type of man that attracts her. Childhood issues? IRRESPONSIBLE.
> 
> On the other hand, if a woman has a ONS with a man, uses HIM for sex, leading him to believe it will amount to something more, well then that's wrong too. IMMORAL.
> 
> But if they're *both *jumping into bed together with the SAME intention, just to have sex, well then that's okay. They're either both sl*ts or just simply a man and woman getting together for a good time. Nothing wrong with that.  MORAL.
> 
> As far as the "nice guy" you described in the marriage scenario, well he needs to step back and think about why he's choosing to marry a "jerk"; a woman who's using him for his money, expecting someone to support her, complaining about all the "problems" and is talking online with one of her (jerk) ex's now. If he's marrying someone with issues like that, then what are HIS issues, and insecurity problems? And why is HE getting with someone who isn't respecting him as a person, and is cheating on him now?IRRESPONSIBLE.


----------



## chillymorn

if you hear an echo.........hello in there there there there.


----------



## anonim

so this is the sound of beating a dead horse...


----------



## Thundarr

chillymorn said:


> if you hear an echo.........hello in there there there there.


Yea I've heard that one.... Not the echo but the joke... Okay maybe the echo too. But not for many years. I am a recovered slitaholic.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> Ok, _now _you have something I can work with.
> 
> your sister was being immoral and irresponsible, not because they were having free sex, but were not responsible with it by;
> 
> Not choosing responsible sex partners,
> Not choosing to take responsibility for birth control (maybe sti protection too?) when its her that pays the ultimate price,
> Not taking responsibility for her children, when she did pay the price,
> 
> *I see where your attitude on women's morality come from now and I dont blame you, although I still think you are wrong about it.
> 
> There is a difference between sexuality and responsibility.*


Stop fooling yourself dear.......

And I too see where you are coming from.
Straight out text book, theory.

Well it doesn't work like that in real life, when a wife / husband with loose morals is drunk and he /she has a ONS in a parking lot behind a filthy dumpster or in the back seat of their car.........

Amoral people cannot be responsible. Simply because they have no morals.
Sexual responsibility presupposes a certain level of morals.


----------



## dixieangel

Men that have or have had casual meaningless sex just for the pleasure of it when they are single should not be harsh on women that do the same thing. Forget all the "hardwired" stuff. It's just plain wrong to call a woman degrading names when you are guilty of the same behavior.

That is the bottom line of this thread.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Stop fooling yourself dear.......
> 
> And I too see where you are coming from.
> Straight out text book, theory.
> 
> Well it doesn't work like that in real life, when a wife / husband with loose morals is drunk and he /she has a ONS in a parking lot behind a filthy dumpster or in the back seat of their car.........
> 
> Amoral people cannot be responsible. Simply because they have no morals.
> Sexual responsibility presupposes a certain level of morals.


I consider it amoral to compose standards for other people and not adhere to them.

It still doesn't change that being immoral and having sex are not the same thing. 

you have have sex and be moral.

you can not have sex and be immoral.

Morality is not about sex.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Stop fooling yourself dear.......


Who are you calling 'Dear?' are you trying to hit on me? I AM A MAN.

Seriously, dont try to put me 'in line'


----------



## Caribbean Man

foreverheartbroken said:


> If this woman is expecting a relationship with these types of ho-bag men she tends to be with, she needs to step back and figure out what it is about this type of man that attracts her. Childhood issues?
> 
> On the other hand, if a woman has a ONS with a man, uses HIM for sex, leading him to believe it will amount to something more, well then that's wrong too.
> 
> But if they're *both *jumping into bed together with the SAME intention, just to have sex, well then that's okay. They're either both sl*ts or just simply a man and woman getting together for a good time. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> *As far as the "nice guy" you described in the marriage scenario, well he needs to step back and think about why he's choosing to marry a "jerk"; a woman who's using him for his money, expecting someone to support her, complaining about all the "problems" and is talking online with one of her (jerk) ex's now. If he's marrying someone with issues like that, then what are HIS issues, and insecurity problems? And why is HE getting with someone who isn't respecting him as a person, and is cheating on him now*?


Sounds like blame shifting to me.......
If he made a vow and he has kept his part of that vow then how come HE needs counselling?

ETA.....
Can you explain exactly what you mean when you call a woman a " jerk?"


----------



## Thundarr

dixieangel said:


> Men that have or have had casual meaningless sex just for the pleasure of it when they are single should not be harsh on women that do the same thing.


I agree completely with that. I think it should be that way. I do not judge my wife for her past and she does not judge me for mine.




dixieangel said:


> Forget all the "hardwired" stuff. It's just plain wrong to call a woman degrading names when you are guilty of the same behavior.


Agreed it's wrong to by hypocritical. I can't forget all the hard wired stuff though as I actually would like to know the "why it is" and not just "how it should be". 




dixieangel said:


> That is the bottom line of this thread.


I guess. Really I have no idea of what the bottom line of this thread is. I'm just inputting beliefs and opinions according to my capacity 

No arguments about the fact it should be that way.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> Who are you calling 'Dear?' are you trying to hit on me? I AM A MAN.
> 
> Seriously, dont try to put me 'in line'


Or well.
That explains everything.............:rofl:


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Or well.
> That explains everything.............:rofl:


I can explain it to you, but I cant understand it for you.
You're gonna have to do the heavy lifting yourself, but you _are _a man right?

your position is that women who have sex a lot or with different people are immoral. And that you are moral, although you have had sex with different women.

This marks you as chauvinistic. That you believe in inequality/inequity of genders in your favor.

That you do not apply that standard to men (and therefore yourself) makes you a hypocrite since you have done this same things as what you say makes women that have 'free sex' immoral.

You even say that you took (perceived) advantage of women to have 'free sex' with them. That marks you as immoral because you knew you were taking 'advantage' of them and did it anyway. 

A moral person does not take advantage of someone else.

A moral person does not willfully engage in hypocrisy.

You are not a moral person.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> I can explain for you, but I cant understand for you.
> You're gonna have to do the heavy lifting.


I don't need to do any of your type of " heavy lifting....."

Been married for over 17 years and it has worked and is still working for me........

Maybe you can share some of your experience with marriage here, and I might consider understanding your POV, or
" heavy lifting."
Yes?

This is a marriage support forum.....


----------



## foreverheartbroken

Caribbean Man said:


> Sounds like blame shifting to me.......
> If he made a vow and he has kept his part of that vow then how come HE needs counselling?
> 
> ETA.....
> Can you explain exactly what you mean when you call a woman a " jerk?"


Well, what I was trying to get at was that he got married to a woman who is treating him poorly. He didn't see this coming when he was first dating her? Look at the awful example you described, that type of woman sounds pretty bad. She's using him, sounds terrible in the marriage, now cheating, in your example. How did he not pick up these obvious hints of her personality and her priorities when they were first dating? Is this the kind of woman he tends to go after, women who use him and treat him poorly ("bad girls"?)? If so, he might want to take a look at himself and figure out why he goes after these types of users, and IC helps with sorting this out. Same exact thing for a woman. A woman might get with a man who treats her poorly. Why is she always getting with men who just use her, men who just want a ONS for example, when she has hopes of something more, a meaningful relationship with him ("bad boys"?)? Again, this calls for self reflection on her part, and perhaps IC to sort this out for her.

As far as a person who is a "jerk," I'm just simply using this term from my own definition, someone (man OR woman) who is not being nice or fair to another person, that's all.


----------



## larry.gray

foreverheartbroken said:


> Wow. This has nothing to do with a "nice guy" (aka a decent human being). It has to do with the woman. The kind of woman you describe here is terribly insecure or has some major issues going on and in need of some bigtime IC.


Stop categorizing most women as having major issues and needing IC.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> I don't need to do any of your type of " heavy lifting....."


trying to say something??

Have some balls and spit it out.

Heavy lifting = working and learning. Not that you would know anything about that.


----------



## Thundarr

foreverheartbroken said:


> Well, what I was trying to get at was that he got married to a woman who is treating him poorly. He didn't see this coming when he was first dating her? Look at the awful example you described, that type of woman sounds pretty bad. She's using him, sounds terrible in the marriage, now cheating, in your example. How did he not pick up these obvious hints of her personality and her priorities when they were first dating? Is this the kind of woman he tends to go after, women who use him and treat him poorly ("bad girls"?)? If so, he might want to take a look at himself and figure out why he goes after these types of users, and IC helps with sorting this out. Same exact thing for a woman. A woman might get with a man who treats her poorly. Why is she always getting with men who just use her, men who just want a ONS for example, when she has hopes of something more, a meaningful relationship with him ("bad boys"?)? Again, this calls for self reflection on her part, and perhaps IC to sort this out for her.
> 
> As far as a person who is a "jerk," I'm just simply using this term from my own definition, someone (man OR woman) who is not being nice or fair to another person, that's all.


Nice explanation forever. I agree that "nice guys" have to take personal responsibility for themselves otherwise deal with nasty consequences. I can see it happening but not repeatedly. Bad girl screws you over once then it's a learning opportunity. If repeatedly then don't cry on my shoulder.


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> trying to say something??
> 
> Have some balls and spit it out.
> 
> Heavy lifting = working and learning. Not that you would know anything about that.


ah. can't wait for the response and retort and so on.


----------



## foreverheartbroken

Thundarr said:


> Nice explanation forever. I agree that "nice guys" have to take personal responsibility for themselves otherwise deal with nasty consequences. I can see it happening but not repeatedly. Bad girl screws you over once then it's a learning opportunity. If repeatedly then don't cry on my shoulder.


Right, fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.


----------



## chillymorn

there,there.there. still echoing!


yep lots of double standards in life which are unfair ....but they still exist.

and one of them is if your a woman and you slept around a bunch then in most Mens eyes and alot of womens also then your considered a ****.

ain't going to change any time soon.


personaly I think an experianced women would be a much better lover than a disney movie vergin who bought all that white knight going to save you bull! and who also refuses to give oral or what not. because good girls don't do that!


----------



## Caribbean Man

foreverheartbroken said:


> Well, what I was trying to get at was that he got married to a woman who is treating him poorly. He didn't see this coming when he was first dating her? *Look at the awful example you described, that type of woman sounds pretty bad. She's using him, sounds terrible in the marriage, now cheating, in your example. How did he not pick up these obvious hints of her personality and her priorities when they were first dating? Is this the kind of woman he tends to go after, women who use him and treat him poorly ("bad girls"?)? *If so, he might want to take a look at himself and figure out why he goes after these types of users, and IC helps with sorting this out. Same exact thing for a woman. A woman might get with a man who treats her poorly. Why is she always getting with men who just use her, men who just want a ONS for example, when she has hopes of something more, a meaningful relationship with him ("bad boys"?)? Again, this calls for self reflection on her part, and perhaps IC to sort this out for her.
> 
> As far as a person who is a "jerk," I'm just simply using this term from my own definition, someone (man OR woman) who is not being nice or fair to another person, that's all.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:

.But as the old saying goes,
"...Love is blind..."

Good analysis though!


----------



## dixieangel

CMs attitude towards women/sex/morality is not going to change...it's a "hardwired" thing.....doesn't matter that it's unjust. He is in the majority with this attitude also.


----------



## anonim

dixieangel said:


> CMs attitude towards women/sex/morality is not going to change...it's a "hardwired" thing.....doesn't matter that it's unjust. He is in the majority with this attitude also.


sex with minors was in the majority in some societies too, doesnt mean it was right and should go unchallenged though.


----------



## dixieangel

Anonim,

Of course it should be! That is another topic that I love to argue.


----------



## Caribbean Man

dixieangel said:


> CMs attitude towards women/sex/morality is not going to change...it's a "hardwired" thing.....doesn't matter that it's unjust. He is in the majority with this attitude also.


On the contrary,
I am quite will to change my attitude_ if_ it's unjust.
But the question is what are you suggesting I change it to?

I am hard wired to accept stuff that work and dump bulls#it.
I always ask for proof.
Where's the proof?

What do we teach our young girls , that its ok to sleep with any man just as long as you use protection?

What do we teach our young men , that its ok to cheat on their wives if they found their true " sole mate " in the office who is willing to listen, and be sympathetic to them b!tching about their wives not willing to give them a BJ?

Come on somebody , ANYBODY! 
Give me something better to hold and I most certainly will change my views on sex and morality.

*My views on women are constant , and I will NEVER change them. That is,
Women are the BEST thing almighty God ever gave to man...*


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I am likely to get my a$$ chewed out by some of the women on this thread... but we are all speaking our minds... I have some comments .....

First I want to say... I do NOT use this term "Sl**" it is not spoken in our house or Wh***" or slamming derogatory terms. My own Mother would have been considered one if we go by some of these definitions (after her divorce from my father)...sometimes we learn from our parents mistakes in life. 

It is each of our own business how we choose to handle our sexuality but ... I DO BELIEVE it comes with some consequences...and sometimes the GOOD men will be more choosey because of how we have chosen to express our sexuality -or how freely. To say there is never a cost or to argue there shouldn't be..... some can try-as hard as you might... but we can't change others deep feelings on such a powerful issue as this. 

I am one who feels our Past helps shape us, and nothing should be hidden from a future spouse, so if you are proud to have many partners...casual sex is your cup of tea outside of commitment, then don't be ashamed of it - by all means. Many today feel this way - so best to be matched with another who shares that view. 



> *Caribbean Man said*: But what is stopping a woman from deciding to not to partner with a man she considers to be a sl*t?
> On the contrary , a lot of women seem to love men who are sl*ts.Their sexual attraction to him is high , and most times they view having him as quite an accomplishment, because other women have already prevalidated him.


 I see this as very very true...women LUST after the ALPHA DOGS.... Men know it.....all they have to do is act hard to get, women are all over them....why wouldn't they take advantage of this...... many falling at their feet, the Jocks in High school, the popular hunks. They don't care how many chicks they laid, many are lining up for their shot thinking they can "tame" that bad boy...a great allure in this belief, though it is fleeting. 

I never had this affliction. 



> Caribbean Man said: " Cake eater " refers to those who give away their most
> " precious assets " to as many guys as possible ,and expect men to still place high value on them.
> The same principle can be applied to men who sleep with as much women as possible. But sadly enough women don't apply it.


 The majority today do not consider "waiting" (for love, for marraige) of any high value or asset at all, such views are trampled, even made fun of by peers in any given age group....our sons deal with this in high school....they are not like the others, kinda stand on thier own ground. Stubborn in this way- but as parents, we are pleased. 

We raise our children "against the wind" of societies norms. We WANT higher standards for them, for their future...I believe such things ARE Assets to the Best of men our world has to offer. But Oh how hard they are to find even. Even the 3 men on here that I find I agree with every post... CaribbeanMan, Thundarr and Enthrophy3000, all had their "Player days" so it seems. 

My sons would say that IS a double standard. Our oldest is 21...he is not ugly, fat, geekish, stupid or unpopular as all virgins are painted ....he is a man of great integrity and restraint... he is waiting for the love of his life...and yes, he is HORNY like ALL MEN.....but he will not USE a woman because she is available, everything within him screams that is WRONG. He is waiting for a woman that holds the act as highly as himself, with love, commitment, faithfulness so they can learn together. I find that







. I know this MOM won't be able to hold back the tears at his wedding if he can hold to his values and find a woman worthy of him. 

Most will call him a FOOL, he wouldn't care. But I do worry there is not many women to choose from these days with this view! God help him! 

Does anyone look upon sex as *SACRED* anymore? 




> *Thundarr said*: It's an evolutionary predisposition where women (unconsciously) want good genetics passed to their children. They want a proven successful man and him being a ***** is an indicator that other women have validated his worthiness.
> 
> It usually requires him to have looks or intelligence or both for a man to have (conquered... yes I said it) accomplish thisIt's an evolutionary predisposition where women (unconsciously) want good genetics passed to their children. They want a proven successful man and him being a ***** is an indicator that other women have validated his worthiness. It usually requires him to have looks or intelligence or both for a man to have (conquered... yes I said it) accomplish this


 I never was the norm by any means, I walked to the beat of my own drum... and honestly, I never allowed THIS to do much for me...sure those studs make for a HOT fantasy (I wouldn't deny that).......but I looked at the whole picture... I was that Mother Bird carefully building her nest.....preparing for my future children -that they would have a reliable & Loving faithful Father that wasn't going to Bolt or go impregnant the willing babe at the bar some night when he is alone & feeling frisky....

I personally looked for the cute looking shy guys with integrity - I never wanted the Male Sl**s /players who bang 'em & leave 'em. I had my share of their manuvers on me -that it turned me off to flirting even at a young age. I knew they were all "smoke blowers". 



> *Thundarr said*: A man looks for a woman who is not promiscuous when looking for a long term relationship. This is because making sure he is providing for his biological children is hardwired into him.


 IF women were smart, they would demand the same....but I see no statistics or the tide changing in another direction....showing women have changed what they are falling for. The Studly Players with the lines will always have the chicks lined up, in this way....women are very gullable. Nothing new under the sun. Whether this is *unconscious* behavior or not, that is an interesting question...My daughter will be taught very well about the Male Sl**s/ Players/ Studs... I put ALOT of







into how I personally feel our young women should be taught -to protect themselves from being used by such men. Would love to hear some of you men's views -if you would take a moment ... 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/family...-sex-relation-love-her-emotions-her-life.html



> *Caribbean Man said*: A woman with loose morals is ABSOLUTELY NOT a
> " powerful woman."
> A powerful woman is one who understands the power of her sexuality , and the power of saying NO.
> 
> Every man wants sex , but how does saying yes to every man make you powerful?


:iagree:

I like this article >> The Power of a Woman 



> *Thundarr said*: What men do on the other hand is prefer to avoid a long term relationship with a women who they know has slept around a lot. Women on the other hand are almost more attracted to men who do the same. So I'm with Caribbean on this that women as much or more responsible for this double standard than men are.


 Speaking as a woman myself... I feel the majority of women have CREATED THIS by their own hand, their own ACTIONS in choosing these type of Hunky Players, where they are, the women follow and get sucked in - almost like under a spell. I guess this is all sexual attraction in the highest degree. But still.. women need to count the cost, Test these men & their true motives. I've read plenty of threads on this forum about what women WANT in a MAN....

...What I see is Confidence #1 , he makes me :rofl:, good job, he's good in BED (oftn this means lots of experience!!)......you will never find one that says - few Sex partners, it is not something women chime about... it only comes up when MEN SPEAK ON HOW THEY prefer women with less partners. Then they are insulted and scream "foul". 



> *Thundarr said*: Men do not have consequences for having a rep and that's mostly because women do not reject them.


 Agreed.



> *Dixieangle said*: There is a double standard in our society. Proof: there are no really derogatory words for promiscuous men. And men like to say how they are more sexual and wired to "spread their seed" as many places as they can. So, I guess that makes it OK.
> 
> Seems a lot of men like to marry prudish women. They want the woman at home who doesn't really like sex...she won't cheat on him. Then, he can go out and find a "****" to play around with on the side. This forum is full of men that complain about having a LD wife and they are miserable. But the women they catagorize as "****s"...women that love sex and would keep them satisfied sexually..well, they don't want a woman like that.
> 
> Many men set themselves up for failure...


I can't disagree with this either, it happens! There IS a risk there. I worry this may happen to one of my sons! I feel there is balance in all things.... anyone who happily engages in ONS's and can easily separate sex from the emotional ....that "compartmentalization"....do this enough... and you may need therapy to open yourself back up when you find yourself in a REAL relationship slowered with love & faithfulness. But NO Man deserves a PRUDE either.... I think we all need some experimentation, but none of us need to DO everyone we date. Be selective- when I hear people rant against an ex boyfriend how his Weiner was 4 inches, you know there was no love in that relationship -even if gone, you just don't demoralize someone like that -- unless they were nothing to you. These things cheapen SEX. This is the one act that can Create LIFE itself, it holds the greatest of responsibilities with it. I can not cheapen it, I will not. 

Though I LOVE to talk about it !!  



> *Thundarr said*: I think for every ONE of you who hold men to a standard, there are MORE women who find experienced men more attractive.
> 
> I was somewhere between bad boy and nice guy. But why do you think nice guys finish last?


 Yes, it IS the woman who allow the nice guys to Finish last. Are we really going to blame the men here ?? Oh please... I near stand alone...... I was not among the chicks who spit in their faces. I gave mine a chance...shy, with those big glasses, not a jock...but a hell of a good man... couldn't ask for a better husband. 




> *Hopelessly Jaded said*: I believe like someone mentioned somewhere in another thread. Hold yourself to the same standard as you would your potential partner. You want a virgin then remain one yourself and give her that same gift of "being the only one ever". There is nothing wrong with fairness and equality when it comes to this subject.


Absolutely I AGREE 100%


----------



## Thundarr

Wow Simply. I'm glad to look back at my quotes and not be completely embarrassed or misread.

If it's any value to you. I was certainly the type of person who would have avoided casual sex with just a little encouragement. Never a SINGLE WORD about sex or how to treat a woman or really about relationships in general. I think your son is wise to know these things now and that's probably partly due to you and your husband.

Sure he'll be a little naive or judgmental but he'll grow out of that.


----------



## anony2

Wow, yeah, GOD gave woman to man as if she was a THING to give?


----------



## Thundarr

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am likely to get my a$$ chewed out by some of the women on this thread...


Agreed 



SimplyAmorous said:


> First I want to say... I do NOT use this term "Sl**" it is not spoken in our house or Wh***" or slamming derogatory terms. My own Mother would have been considered one if we go by some of these definitions (after her divorce from my father)...sometimes we learn from our parents mistakes in life.


Agree, sorry, and agree. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> It is each of our own business how we choose to handle our sexuality but ... I DO BELIEVE it comes with some consequences...and sometimes the GOOD men will be more choosey because of how we have chosen to express our sexuality -or how freely. To say there is never a cost or to argue there shouldn't be..... some can try-as hard as you might... but we can't change others deep feelings on such a powerful issue as this.


Agree.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I am one who feels our Past helps shape us, and nothing should be hidden from a future spouse, so if you are proud to have many partners...casual sex is your cup of tea outside of commitment, then don't be ashamed of it - by all means. Many today feel this way - so best to be matched with another who shares that view.
> 
> I see this as very very true...women LUST after the ALPHA DOGS.... Men know it.....all they have to do is act hard to get, women are all over them....why wouldn't they take advantage of this...... many falling at their feet, the Jocks in High school, the popular hunks. They don't care how many chicks they laid, many are lining up for their shot thinking they can "tame" that bad boy...a great allure in this belief, though it is fleeting.


Agreed, Strongly agree, agree, agree, agree, agree, agree, agree, and agree.




SimplyAmorous said:


> I never had this affliction.
> 
> The majority today do not consider "waiting" (for love, for marraige) of any high value or asset at all, such views are trampled, even made fun of by peers in any given age group....our sons deal with this in high school....they are not like the others, kinda stand on thier own ground. Stubborn in this way- but as parents, we are pleased.


And you don't seem judgemental either which is really good. I would be pleased too. My sons were a little better than I was hopefully I had a part in that?

And I'm tired of just saying agree so pretty much for the rest of your post, I am a fan so lot's more "Agrees".


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> Wow, yeah, GOD gave woman to man as if she was a THING to give?


 I was waiting for that.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

If you are going to brand a woman a term because her values don't align with yours, at least keep it interesting. 

Strumpet
Tart
Brazen Hussy
Trollop
Jezebel
Floozy


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:...........and this is what boggles my mind.
> 
> Why would a sensible , educated woman offer her body as an aperture / socket for the appendages of various men who obviously CANNOT support her or any offspring that might come from their sexual union?


Because they enjoy sex.
Kinda simple really, pretty much the same reason men do it with no guarantee of the benefits of a relationship.

Sometimes some people just want to get laid.


----------



## lalsr1988

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am likely to get my a$$ chewed out by some of the women on this thread... but we are all speaking our minds... I have some comments .....
> 
> First I want to say... I do NOT use this term "Sl**" it is not spoken in our house or Wh***" or slamming derogatory terms. My own Mother would have been considered one if we go by some of these definitions (after her divorce from my father)...sometimes we learn from our parents mistakes in life.
> 
> It is each of our own business how we choose to handle our sexuality but ... I DO BELIEVE it comes with some consequences...and sometimes the GOOD men will be more choosey because of how we have chosen to express our sexuality -or how freely. To say there is never a cost or to argue there shouldn't be..... some can try-as hard as you might... but we can't change others deep feelings on such a powerful issue as this.
> 
> I am one who feels our Past helps shape us, and nothing should be hidden from a future spouse, so if you are proud to have many partners...casual sex is your cup of tea outside of commitment, then don't be ashamed of it - by all means. Many today feel this way - so best to be matched with another who shares that view.
> 
> I see this as very very true...women LUST after the ALPHA DOGS.... Men know it.....all they have to do is act hard to get, women are all over them....why wouldn't they take advantage of this...... many falling at their feet, the Jocks in High school, the popular hunks. They don't care how many chicks they laid, many are lining up for their shot thinking they can "tame" that bad boy...a great allure in this belief, though it is fleeting.
> 
> I never had this affliction.
> 
> The majority today do not consider "waiting" (for love, for marraige) of any high value or asset at all, such views are trampled, even made fun of by peers in any given age group....our sons deal with this in high school....they are not like the others, kinda stand on thier own ground. Stubborn in this way- but as parents, we are pleased.
> 
> We raise our children "against the wind" of societies norms. We WANT higher standards for them, for their future...I believe such things ARE Assets to the Best of men our world has to offer. But Oh how hard they are to find even. Even the 3 men on here that I find I agree with every post... CaribbeanMan, Thundarr and Enthrophy3000, all had their "Player days" so it seems.
> 
> My sons would say that IS a double standard. Our oldest is 21...he is not ugly, fat, geekish, stupid or unpopular as all virgins are painted ....he is a man of great integrity and restraint... he is waiting for the love of his life...and yes, he is HORNY like ALL MEN.....but he will not USE a woman because she is available, everything within him screams that is WRONG. He is waiting for a woman that holds the act as highly as himself, with love, commitment, faithfulness so they can learn together. I find that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I know this MOM won't be able to hold back the tears at his wedding if he can hold to his values and find a woman worthy of him.
> 
> Most will call him a FOOL, he wouldn't care. But I do worry there is not many women to choose from these days with this view! God help him!
> 
> Does anyone look upon sex as *SACRED* anymore?
> 
> 
> I never was the norm by any means, I walked to the beat of my own drum... and honestly, I never allowed THIS to do much for me...sure those studs make for a HOT fantasy (I wouldn't deny that).......but I looked at the whole picture... I was that Mother Bird carefully building her nest.....preparing for my future children -that they would have a reliable & Loving faithful Father that wasn't going to Bolt or go impregnant the willing babe at the bar some night when he is alone & feeling frisky....
> 
> I personally looked for the cute looking shy guys with integrity - I never wanted the Male Sl**s /players who bang 'em & leave 'em. I had my share of their manuvers on me -that it turned me off to flirting even at a young age. I knew they were all "smoke blowers".
> 
> IF women were smart, they would demand the same....but I see no statistics or the tide changing in another direction....showing women have changed what they are falling for. The Studly Players with the lines will always have the chicks lined up, in this way....women are very gullable. Nothing new under the sun. Whether this is *unconscious* behavior or not, that is an interesting question...My daughter will be taught very well about the Male Sl**s/ Players/ Studs... I put ALOT of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> into how I personally feel our young women should be taught -to protect themselves from being used by such men. Would love to hear some of you men's views -if you would take a moment ...
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/family...-sex-relation-love-her-emotions-her-life.html
> 
> :iagree:
> 
> I like this article >> The Power of a Woman
> 
> Speaking as a woman myself... I feel the majority of women have CREATED THIS by their own hand, their own ACTIONS in choosing these type of Hunky Players, where they are, the women follow and get sucked in - almost like under a spell. I guess this is all sexual attraction in the highest degree. But still.. women need to count the cost, Test these men & their true motives. I've read plenty of threads on this forum about what women WANT in a MAN....
> 
> ...What I see is Confidence #1 , he makes me :rofl:, good job, he's good in BED (oftn this means lots of experience!!)......you will never find one that says - few Sex partners, it is not something women chime about... it only comes up when MEN SPEAK ON HOW THEY prefer women with less partners. Then they are insulted and scream "foul".
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't disagree with this either, it happens! There IS a risk there. I worry this may happen to one of my sons! I feel there is balance in all things.... anyone who happily engages in ONS's and can easily separate sex from the emotional ....that "compartmentalization"....do this enough... and you may need therapy to open yourself back up when you find yourself in a REAL relationship slowered with love & faithfulness. But NO Man deserves a PRUDE either.... I think we all need some experimentation, but none of us need to DO everyone we date. Be selective- when I hear people rant against an ex boyfriend how his Weiner was 4 inches, you know there was no love in that relationship -even if gone, you just don't demoralize someone like that -- unless they were nothing to you. These things cheapen SEX. This is the one act that can Create LIFE itself, it holds the greatest of responsibilities with it. I can not cheapen it, I will not.
> 
> Though I LOVE to talk about it !!
> 
> Yes, it IS the woman who allow the nice guys to Finish last. Are we really going to blame the men here ?? Oh please... I near stand alone...... I was not among the chicks who spit in their faces. I gave mine a chance...shy, with those big glasses, not a jock...but a hell of a good man... couldn't ask for a better husband.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely I AGREE 100%


I love this post. I also agree with a lot of Carribean Guy said. Call me a misogynist, a chauvinistic pig, w/e I really don't care. Keep in mind I am a Pagan and believe in the Divine Feminine.

So my views on this....sl*tty behavior can be applied to both men and women. And it is wrong for both sexes. Multiple partners to me is wrong. Sex is not a casual thing and should not be treated as such. In an earlier post, I said I would not have married my wife if she were not a virgin, and I stand by that. Let me explain my reasoning.

I believe that sex is a sacred act. An act of giving and receiving. The man gives his seed, the woman receives it. A man enters into a woman, and a woman allows a man to enter her. to become one with her. They are joined in union as 1. So according to my beliefs, every time a woman has had sex with a man, she gives him a piece of herself. I want all of my spouse. Every bit of her. Not bits and pieces left over.

Physically it is disgusting to me. Why would I put my manhood somewhere where many other men have been? Where many men have possibly ejaculated? Where other men have pleasured themselves in her body. Why would I want to kiss lips that may have given oral pleasure to other men? Call it ego or whatever. But I want something pure, untainted and undefiled. That's my right to want that, and that's what I got. One poster said, a woman who was a virgin at marriage wouldn't know much about sex,ect. This is true, but overtime you learn and explore together. My wife came to me a virgin, but is hardly a prude, she is very passionate and sexy with me, and has only ever been those things with me, and that is a great gift in this day and age.


Everything I said I believe applies to men also, just reverse the genders.


----------



## tacoma

Thundarr said:


> I have a hypothesis about that. It's conflicting needs.
> 1. Have strong genetics.
> 2. To have herself and her offspring provided for.


Or maybe because sex feels really really good.

Even to women, there....I said it!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

lalsr1988 said:


> I love this post. I also agree with a lot of Carribean Guy said. Call me a misogynist, a chauvinistic pig, w/e I really don't care. Keep in mind I am a Pagan and believe in the Divine Feminine.
> 
> So my views on this....sl*tty behavior can be applied to both men and women. And it is wrong for both sexes. Multiple partners to me is wrong. Sex is not a casual thing and should not be treated as such. In an earlier post, I said I would not have married my wife if she were not a virgin, and I stand by that. Let me explain my reasoning.
> 
> I believe that sex is a sacred act. An act of giving and receiving. The man gives his seed, the woman receives it. A man enters into a woman, and a woman allows a man to enter her. to become one with her. They are joined in union as 1. So according to my beliefs, every time a woman has had sex with a man, she gives him a piece of herself. I want all of my spouse. Every bit of her. Not bits and pieces left over.
> 
> Physically it is disgusting to me. Why would I put my manhood somewhere where many other men have been? Where many men have possibly ejaculated? Where other men have pleasured themselves in her body. Why would I want to kiss lips that may have given oral pleasure to other men? Call it ego or whatever. But I want something pure, untainted and undefiled. That's my right to want that, and that's what I got. One poster said, a woman who was a virgin at marriage wouldn't know much about sex,ect. This is true, but overtime you learn and explore together. My wife came to me a virgin, but is hardly a prude, she is very passionate and sexy with me, and has only ever been those things with me, and that is a great gift in this day and age.
> 
> 
> Everything I said I believe applies to men also, just reverse the genders.


Were you a virgin when you married?


----------



## lalsr1988

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Were you a virgin when you married?


Other than heavy petting, yes.


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> Well , I have no problem with women wanting plenty sex.
> But my problem is that there are GOOD MEN who can provide for her and her offspring , whom she almost NEVER mate with , until she has run out of options, or the " Alphas aka man slvts " are tired of her.
> 
> Maybe you can psychoanalyze and explain that..........


I can answer it since we seem to be dealing with infidelity/attraction from an almost purely evolutionary POV.

It`s their very biology, this survival of the fittest drive hardwired into their genes that drives them to the Alphas.

This is because when those genetics originated it was the alpha who could provide best while the beta got his ass kicked and ate scraps if he wanted to survive.

Alpha traits speaking on an evolutionary scale are better fitted for providing.
He can hunt, fight, build stuff.

These traits are actually not so good helping one survive in a world where physical intimidation and physical strength usually have no bearing on ultimate success.

It`s the nerdy beta guy who can make 100k a year typing away in a cubicle who can provide best now in this modern world.

Our genetics simply haven`t caught up yet and by the time they do it may be too late.


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:...............and any woman who chases constantly after men who use her body for sex, and thinks that she is
> " normal or sexually liberated " has serious mental issues and needs IC .........


Does she still need IC if she`s using them for sex?


----------



## Thundarr

tacoma said:


> I can answer it since we seem to be dealing with infidelity/attraction from an almost purely evolutionary POV.
> 
> It`s their very biology, this survival of the fittest drive hardwired into their genes that drives them to the Alphas.
> 
> This is because when those genetics originated it as the alpha who could provide best while the beta got his ass kicked and ate scraps if he wanted to survive.
> 
> Alpha traits speaking on an evolutionary scale are better fitted for providing.
> He can hunt, fight, build stuff.
> 
> These traits are actually not so good helping one survive in a world where physical intimidation and physical strength usually have no bearing on ultimate success.
> 
> It`s the nerdy beta guy who can make 100k a year typing away in a cubicle who can provide best now in this modern world.
> 
> Our genetics simply haven`t caught up yet and by the time they do it may be too late.


Oh. An angle I had not thought about. Very nice. That makes a lot of sense to me. Of course I don't think we have no control over our own actions. But I do think our nature is largely determined by things like this.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

lalsr1988 said:


> Other than heavy petting, yes.


Cool. I am happy that you aren't hypocritical about it.


----------



## tacoma

Thundarr said:


> Oh. An angle I had not thought about. Very nice. That makes a lot of sense to me. Of course I don't think we have no control over our own actions. But I do think our nature is largely determined by things like this.


Agreed.

It`s my biological predisposition to bang as many hot young women I can get hold of.

It`s my ethical foundation that keeps me from doing so.

Humans do not need to be ruled by these evolutionary predispositions, the problem is that when young none of us has had opportunity to actually build an ethical system of belief and those that are handed to us without any personal introspection are shallow and ..wrong.

People either learn to be an ethical person or they never become one.



> Caribbean Man said: " Cake eater " refers to those who give away their most
> " precious assets " to as many guys as possible ,and expect men to still place high value on them.
> The same principle can be applied to men who sleep with as much women as possible. But sadly enough women don't apply it.


This is a bit misogynistic CM.
If you truly believe a woman's "most precious assets" are her sexual abilities you`ve spent too much time gold plating P*ssy and not enough finding the real value in a woman.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> Does she still need IC if she`s using them for sex?


You need to put a warning up before you write something like that. Damnit Tacoma! I was sipping lemonade. 

Yeah, she needs mental help for liking sex but men who behave the same way are just (insert any excuse here).


----------



## Goldmember357

Entropy3000 said:


> Higher value? All else equal for me yes. But for me it would be a bell curve. One has to factor in age and maturation. To me the types of relationships are more important than just a number.
> 
> I would not want a wife who has been with a 1000 men for any reason. Being 1001 even if I was the last is not appealing to me. I would not want a woman who cheated or had an affair with a married man. I would look for someone who could be faithful in a LTR. Not someone who mostly just screwed around. Evidence of better choices in her life would be a good thing.
> 
> No I would not want a party girl period.


same party girls always lead to divorce 9/10 times. 

i feel bad for men who marry those women only for them to realize down the line they made huge mistakes. 

i like people who use their mind and are planners who make good choices.


----------



## Mr Blunt

> Originally Posted by Mr Blunt
> A sl*t is a person that will do just about anything to feed their selfish desires and not care about any other person


Oh, you mean, like a WOMANIZER?[/QUOTE]


1.	Urban Dictionary: womanizer
Urban Dictionary: womanizer
A selfish, narcissistic, nefarious character who needs to manipulate and use woman to feed his own childish, self serving ego. Has definite “ Mommy...


YEP, a womanizer is a sl*t
Another one would be a manizer

There are many ways to be a SL*T and harmful sex is just one of them.

I would also include a man that gives women children then does not support them. Another person that would be a sl*t is a woman that has many children by different fathers and has failed to secure a nourishing home life for her children

*Both of the above are child abusers.*


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> Does she still need IC if she`s using them for sex?


Or well Tacoma,
That puts a new perspective on it!

I can now fully comprehend those previously , mind boggling stories of infidelity I have been reading on a daily basis in the CWI section of TAM.
It is now quite obvious that your value systems ARE different.

Thanks, but no thanks, 
I have already done a lot of " heavy lifting " in my marriage for the past 17 years....
And we are still reaping the benefits.

But hey,
If that value system works for you guys, then by all means go ahead embrace it , embellish it , and continue reaping the " benefits " of it !
Clearly mine has worked,and still IS working. 
And like my grandmother used to say,
If it ain't broke , then don't fix it!


----------



## tacoma

SimplyAmorous said:


> I like this article >> The Power of a Woman


That is an exceptional truth and the world would be a much better place if more men understood it.

Thank you SA.


Edit:
SA Would you agree with me that the definition of the word "****" is a woman/girl who abuses the power mentioned in that article either through selfish intent or ignorance of the power herself?


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> Or well Tacoma,
> That puts a new perspective on it!
> 
> I can now fully comprehend those previously , mind boggling stories of infidelity I have been reading on a daily basis in the CWI section of TAM.
> It is now quite obvious that your value systems ARE different.


Yes they are different but not that much really.

I`m getting on you in this thread CM because I disagree with your stance, your belief.

I`m getting on you because I don`t usually disagree with you, 95% of your posts/threads I don`t even post in because you`ve already said what I would have anyway and I`m curious this time.

I just see you being a bit hypocritical here and honestly want you to think about the question.

"Why does a woman who has sex for pleasure need counseling but a man who has sex for pleasure does not?"

You must see the contradiction in this belief IF you value women in the same manner that you value men.

Edit:
Or I am misunderstanding your belief and if so I apologize.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> Yes they are different but not that much really.
> 
> I`m getting on you in this thread CM because I disagree with your stance, your belief.
> 
> I`m getting on you because I don`t usually disagree with you, 95% of your posts/threads I don`t even post in because you`ve already said what I would have anyway and I`m curious this time.
> 
> I just see you being a bit hypocritical here and honestly want you to think about the question.
> 
> *"Why does a woman who has sex for pleasure need counseling but a man who has sex for pleasure does not?"*
> 
> You must see the contradiction in this belief IF you value women in the same manner that you value men.
> 
> Edit:
> Or I am misunderstanding your belief and if so I apologize.


I NEVER said that Tacoma!
I think Simply Amorous basically wrapped up this entire thread perfectly.

If you were able to read all of my posts on the topic, [ this was a lengthy thread ] you would see where I basically said that all Alphas are slvts, and that women who value themselves should NOT partner with them.

Which father in his right mind would advise their daughter to go sex with as many Alpha slvts as possible, and when your'e tired, find a " nice guy " and marry him?
Which mother in her right mind would tell her som ,
" hey ,go fcuk as many girls as possible your'e the man!"

Do we really expect people cultured in an environment like that to suddenly become monagamous because they 
" got married ? " 
Really?
So a signature on a wedding certificate, during a wedding ceremony ,can completely eradicate one's personal value system and bring in another?

I am not saying a single person cannot have as much sex as they like , but what about self disclipine and restraint?

I ask again in all honesty,

Which mother will advise her son to marry a woman who has been sexually involved with a string of rappers , bikers and everybody on the entire football team including the coach?

Which father would advise his daughter to marry a man whom he knows by his paternal instinct , would be a serial cheater?

There must be a better value system.


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

tacoma said:


> Yes they are different but not that much really.
> 
> I`m getting on you in this thread CM because I disagree with your stance, your belief.
> 
> I`m getting on you because I don`t usually disagree with you, 95% of your posts/threads I don`t even post in because you`ve already said what I would have anyway and I`m curious this time.
> 
> I just see you being a bit hypocritical here and honestly want you to think about the question.
> 
> "Why does a woman who has sex for pleasure need counseling but a man who has sex for pleasure does not?"
> 
> You must see the contradiction in this belief IF you value women in the same manner that you value men.
> 
> Edit:
> Or I am misunderstanding your belief and if so I apologize.


Thats a good question considering someone said he mentioned visiting brothels when he was single. I didn't see that post is that true? Did I also see you required your life partner to be a virgin? 

Of course you have every right to think and do things your own way but these are things that leave me


----------



## Caribbean Man

HopelesslyJaded said:


> Thats a good question considering someone said he mentioned visiting brothels when he was single. I didn't see that post is that true? Did I also see you required your life partner to be a virgin?
> 
> Of course you have every right to think and do things your own way but these are things that leave me


Guess whoever " informed " you didn't tell you this part:

Today @ 7:11 AM on page 10 , of this thread.

"......On the contrary,
I would have married my wife even if she was not a virgin. I admired what was between her ears more than what was between her legs.

*Her value system is what caused me to be celibate for a year.*

The connection between her mind and her body / vagina made me realize that if I married her, she was less likely to cheat, and have sex with multiple partners.

Seventeen years later she is still having as much sex as she wants ,and the chance of a decent living ,
WITH ME ALONE....."

Just in case you missed it,
She said to me *NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE.......*
And I simply agreed , because I saw something in her that inspired me to want to change my VALUE SYSTEM.

I could have walked off and continue having " casual sex " with FWB's and all that shyt.......
But today, 17 years later, if I had to do it all over again, I most certainly will WITH HER!

What about you?


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> If you were able to read all of my posts on the topic, [ this was a lengthy thread ] you would see where I basically said that all Alphas are slvts, and that women who value themselves should NOT partner with them.


I will admit I have not read this entire thread, just the first few pages and the last 7 or so which is where I thought this line of discussion began.



> Which father in his right mind would advise their daughter to go sex with as many Alpha slvts as possible, and when your'e tired, find a " nice guy " and marry him?


Well while I wouldn`t word it quite that way I might be that father in your mind to some extent.
I most definitely will advise my daughter to have a few relationships in her youth before deciding who she wants to spend the rest of her life promised to.

If my daughter comes to me at the age of 19-25 and wants me to walk her down the aisle she may have a very hard time of it.
I cannot see into the future but I cannot foresee her getting my "Blessing" for marriage while she`s still young and stupid.

I do want her "experienced".
90% of the problems I see in this very forum stem from the fact that people didn`t know what they wanted or how to care for it when they did know.



> Do we really expect people cultured in an environment like that to suddenly become monagamous because they
> " got married ? "
> Really?
> So a signature on a wedding certificate, during a wedding ceremony ,can completely eradicate one's personal value system and bring in another?


What changed yours?
While I cannot testify to the existence of a few of the statements in this thread regarding your "Promiscuous Youth" as I don`t recall the threads if true it would seem that you`re holding women to a standard you don`t hold yourself/men to.

Understand I`m not judging you as I was a **** in my youth and really have no problem with it.
I am what I am because of what I was and honestly I really really like who I am today.




> There must be a better value system.


I agree with this but I`d like that value system to be equitable across genders.


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> Just in case you missed it,
> She said to me *NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE.......*
> And I simply agreed , because I saw something in her that inspired me to want to change my VALUE SYSTEM.


CM you just said this didn`t happen.

You just said we couldn`t rely on a wedding license to alter our beliefs and yet that`s how it happened for you.

That`s how it happened for me and I bet it`s how it happens to many many people.

They grow up, they want something better, they abandon the insanity of youth and settle down.

Granted the majority don`t but the one`s who make it do.


----------



## HopelesslyJaded

Thanks for clarifying CM thats why I asked.

So you proved to yourself that one can change their views when they meet someone they fall in love with and deem worthy of change (or their feeling make them want to).

Knowing this, it shouldn't be too hard to believe a woman could do the same when she found "the one". Regardless of her sexual history.


----------



## Entropy3000

dixieangel said:


> There is a double standard in our society. Proof: there are no really derogatory words for promiscuous men. And men like to say how they are more sexual and wired to "spread their seed" as many places as they can. So, I guess that makes it OK.
> 
> Seems a lot of men like to marry prudish women. They want the woman at home who doesn't really like sex...she won't cheat on him. Then, he can go out and find a "****" to play around with on the side. This forum is full of men that complain about having a LD wife and they are miserable. But the women they catagorize as "****s"...women that love sex and would keep them satisfied sexually..well, they don't want a woman like that.
> 
> Many men set themselves up for failure...


This is a fallacy. You can have a faithful wife who enjoys sex without marrying a party girl who has slept with the sixth fleet. You do not have to choose between the extremes. It helps to be a person of the same ilk.

This forum is also full of guys whose wives are out partying without them while they sit home. They do not seem to be getting any either.

So these two "choices" I would consider low value.


----------



## Entropy3000

CanadianGuy said:


> All the slvts are..:rofl:


Now that is funny. :lol:


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> CM you just said this didn`t happen.
> 
> You just said we couldn`t rely on a wedding license to alter our beliefs and yet that`s how it happened for you.
> 
> That`s how it happened for me and I bet it`s how it happens to many many people.
> 
> *They grow up, they want something better, they abandon the insanity of youth and settle down.
> 
> Granted the majority don`t but the one`s who make it do.
> *


:iagree:

Tacoma it is the ONLY WAY A MARRIAGE CAN WORK.

The wedding certificate only came one year after courting sir, and I gladly signed it because I had already accepted that I had to change long before.

I had to work on me.

I have no children, but I work with a lot of youths. My sister's daughter,beautiful ,educated 17 yr old is presently living with a man who is unemployed and a total waste of time.
She is making the exact , same mistake her mom did before she was married. No matter how much I try to explain to her , she will not listen.She knows i will do anything for her, pay her rent , whatever. But she loves this POS.
How did she end up inthis mess?

The values of her mom was passed on to her. Her mom was also beautiful , but promiscuous. Maybe I should be " politically correct " and say her mom was 
" sexually liberated ?"

Will I advise any child to get married young?
NO , I will advise them to go experience life and the rigours of a real relationship first. Have sex if they want , but first understand the VALUE of your body, mind and sexuality. 
When they understand it, let it guide them in choosing their partners.


----------



## Entropy3000

anonim said:


> its also to do with a nice guy settling for a woman instead of being proactive in his choice.


:smthumbup: Amazing!

Exactly what I have been saying.


----------



## Caribbean Man

HopelesslyJaded said:


> Thanks for clarifying CM thats why I asked.
> 
> So you proved to yourself that one can change their views when they meet someone they fall in love with and deem worthy of change (or their feeling make them want to).
> 
> Knowing this,* it shouldn't be too hard to believe a woman could do the same when she found "the one". Regardless of her sexual history.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> I never said a woman can't change.
> Change is constant,
> But there is something called linear progression.


----------



## dixieangel

Tacoma,

I agree with everything you said. I love CMs posts, but think he was being hypocritical in this thread. 

I find it hard to believe that people would get married now without having sex. How do you know if you will be sexually compatible?

I encouraged my daughter to date before she married...not sleep with everyone mind you, but if you don't date, how will you know what qualities to look for? I was a young virgin when I married and knew nothing about people and what I wanted in a husband. I married someone that was wrong for me and stayed for 16 years. I didn't want my daughter to make the same mistake.


----------



## Entropy3000

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am likely to get my a$$ chewed out by some of the women on this thread... but we are all speaking our minds... I have some comments .....
> 
> First I want to say... I do NOT use this term "Sl**" it is not spoken in our house or Wh***" or slamming derogatory terms. My own Mother would have been considered one if we go by some of these definitions (after her divorce from my father)...sometimes we learn from our parents mistakes in life.
> 
> It is each of our own business how we choose to handle our sexuality but ... I DO BELIEVE it comes with some consequences...and sometimes the GOOD men will be more choosey because of how we have chosen to express our sexuality -or how freely. To say there is never a cost or to argue there shouldn't be..... some can try-as hard as you might... but we can't change others deep feelings on such a powerful issue as this.
> 
> I am one who feels our Past helps shape us, and nothing should be hidden from a future spouse, so if you are proud to have many partners...casual sex is your cup of tea outside of commitment, then don't be ashamed of it - by all means. Many today feel this way - so best to be matched with another who shares that view.
> 
> I see this as very very true...women LUST after the ALPHA DOGS.... Men know it.....all they have to do is act hard to get, women are all over them....why wouldn't they take advantage of this...... many falling at their feet, the Jocks in High school, the popular hunks. They don't care how many chicks they laid, many are lining up for their shot thinking they can "tame" that bad boy...a great allure in this belief, though it is fleeting.
> 
> I never had this affliction.
> 
> The majority today do not consider "waiting" (for love, for marraige) of any high value or asset at all, such views are trampled, even made fun of by peers in any given age group....our sons deal with this in high school....they are not like the others, kinda stand on thier own ground. Stubborn in this way- but as parents, we are pleased.
> 
> We raise our children "against the wind" of societies norms. We WANT higher standards for them, for their future...I believe such things ARE Assets to the Best of men our world has to offer. But Oh how hard they are to find even. Even the 3 men on here that I find I agree with every post... CaribbeanMan, Thundarr and Enthrophy3000, all had their "Player days" so it seems.
> 
> My sons would say that IS a double standard. Our oldest is 21...he is not ugly, fat, geekish, stupid or unpopular as all virgins are painted ....he is a man of great integrity and restraint... he is waiting for the love of his life...and yes, he is HORNY like ALL MEN.....but he will not USE a woman because she is available, everything within him screams that is WRONG. He is waiting for a woman that holds the act as highly as himself, with love, commitment, faithfulness so they can learn together. I find that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I know this MOM won't be able to hold back the tears at his wedding if he can hold to his values and find a woman worthy of him.
> 
> Most will call him a FOOL, he wouldn't care. But I do worry there is not many women to choose from these days with this view! God help him!
> 
> Does anyone look upon sex as *SACRED* anymore?
> 
> 
> I never was the norm by any means, I walked to the beat of my own drum... and honestly, I never allowed THIS to do much for me...sure those studs make for a HOT fantasy (I wouldn't deny that).......but I looked at the whole picture... I was that Mother Bird carefully building her nest.....preparing for my future children -that they would have a reliable & Loving faithful Father that wasn't going to Bolt or go impregnant the willing babe at the bar some night when he is alone & feeling frisky....
> 
> I personally looked for the cute looking shy guys with integrity - I never wanted the Male Sl**s /players who bang 'em & leave 'em. I had my share of their manuvers on me -that it turned me off to flirting even at a young age. I knew they were all "smoke blowers".
> 
> IF women were smart, they would demand the same....but I see no statistics or the tide changing in another direction....showing women have changed what they are falling for. The Studly Players with the lines will always have the chicks lined up, in this way....women are very gullable. Nothing new under the sun. Whether this is *unconscious* behavior or not, that is an interesting question...My daughter will be taught very well about the Male Sl**s/ Players/ Studs... I put ALOT of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> into how I personally feel our young women should be taught -to protect themselves from being used by such men. Would love to hear some of you men's views -if you would take a moment ...
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/family...-sex-relation-love-her-emotions-her-life.html
> 
> :iagree:
> 
> I like this article >> The Power of a Woman
> 
> Speaking as a woman myself... I feel the majority of women have CREATED THIS by their own hand, their own ACTIONS in choosing these type of Hunky Players, where they are, the women follow and get sucked in - almost like under a spell. I guess this is all sexual attraction in the highest degree. But still.. women need to count the cost, Test these men & their true motives. I've read plenty of threads on this forum about what women WANT in a MAN....
> 
> ...What I see is Confidence #1 , he makes me :rofl:, good job, he's good in BED (oftn this means lots of experience!!)......you will never find one that says - few Sex partners, it is not something women chime about... it only comes up when MEN SPEAK ON HOW THEY prefer women with less partners. Then they are insulted and scream "foul".
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't disagree with this either, it happens! There IS a risk there. I worry this may happen to one of my sons! I feel there is balance in all things.... anyone who happily engages in ONS's and can easily separate sex from the emotional ....that "compartmentalization"....do this enough... and you may need therapy to open yourself back up when you find yourself in a REAL relationship slowered with love & faithfulness. But NO Man deserves a PRUDE either.... I think we all need some experimentation, but none of us need to DO everyone we date. Be selective- when I hear people rant against an ex boyfriend how his Weiner was 4 inches, you know there was no love in that relationship -even if gone, you just don't demoralize someone like that -- unless they were nothing to you. These things cheapen SEX. This is the one act that can Create LIFE itself, it holds the greatest of responsibilities with it. I can not cheapen it, I will not.
> 
> Though I LOVE to talk about it !!
> 
> Yes, it IS the woman who allow the nice guys to Finish last. Are we really going to blame the men here ?? Oh please... I near stand alone...... I was not among the chicks who spit in their faces. I gave mine a chance...shy, with those big glasses, not a jock...but a hell of a good man... couldn't ask for a better husband.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely I AGREE 100%


SA, forgive me for this but .... 

This is what I am talking about. High value. This woman leads her life as an example of a high value person.


----------



## Entropy3000

anony2 said:


> Wow, yeah, GOD gave woman to man as if she was a THING to give?


That whole Lilith thing had to be reconsiled ... LOL.

My wife and I gave ourselves to each other and we are partners.

You know I have never called a woman a slvt. Why would I bother? Life is too short to be around slvts. Male or female. YMMV.


YEAH

I want a lady in the street but a freak in the bed. I would never settle for anything less.


----------



## Caribbean Man

dixieangel said:


> Tacoma,
> 
> I agree with everything you said. * I love CMs posts, but think he was being hypocritical in this thread. *
> 
> I find it hard to believe that people would get married now without having sex. How do you know if you will be sexually compatible?
> 
> I encouraged my daughter to date before she married...not sleep with everyone mind you, but if you don't date, how will you know what qualities to look for? I was a young virgin when I married and knew nothing about people and what I wanted in a husband. I married someone that was wrong for me and stayed for 16 years. I didn't want my daughter to make the same mistake.


For what it is worth,
I posted this on another thread last night , before I posted here today.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/54095-why-do-people-marry.html

My wife was a church going Christian. She was a virgin at the time we started.
I used to hang out with her sisters who were not religious.
She knew me for years before we got together. We were just friends.
She knew of my ' slvtty " reputation but she was still attracted to me. 
She cared for me like no woman ever did even though we weren't even together. Whenever I was in trouble she always had my back,and we were " just friends."

To cut a long story short,
Common sense told me that if I let her slip,I would have deep regrets.
She couldn't believe that would like her for her,so in her 
" feminine wisdom," she decided to put me to the ultimate test....
NO SEX.
And I stayed.
Yes sexual compatibility was a huge problem in the beginning.
But we worked it out , just like the many other problems.


I have NEVER preached abstinence to anyone on this site. 
This is just my experience. She laid down her conditions and I accepted.
That is the power of a woman.

ETA
Whenever such a thread is started,
I will post some of the temptations I have faced from other women during the early years of our marriage and what I have learned about myself from them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

tacoma said:


> That is an exceptional truth and the world would be a much better place if more men understood it.
> 
> Thank you SA.
> 
> 
> Edit:
> SA Would you agree with me that the definition of the word "****" is a woman/girl who abuses the power mentioned in that article either through selfish intent or ignorance of the power herself?


Hmmmmm that term would not come to my mind...seems too harsh to me. But there is sure an underlying *truth* in that article... I found that about a year ago..... never forgot it...went looking for it again today. Women need to read it ... and understand. And funny, from your perspective, you are saying the MEN need to understand it ! 

I believe OUR behavior influences men more than anything else under the sun... Forgive me for saying this...but I tend to see Men as "weak" - when he is smitten... Oh the power this gives. It is like a dance. IF we can hold his attraction, create that illusion, make him feel like a man, We can own him. CaribbeanMan's wife KNOWS !

.... But if we do this because we are using him - well this is just deceitful and wrong, but if we do this because we place high value on ourselves /our future... Testing to see what is in his







... this is just "wisdom" . 








The Power of a Woman









But we give it up too quickly... like the article says ...


> More recently, a best-selling book by radio personality Steve Harvey, “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man”, advises women to enforce the “90 Day Rule”: no sex until you’ve been seeing each other exclusively for at least ninety days. His premise is that a woman’s power over a man is dissipated if she gives herself to him sexually before there is an emotional bonding on his part, but enhanced immeasurably once that bonding does occur.


If I shared how long my husband waited for me ....that'd likely be a TAM poster record! I wasn't trying to manipulate, I just had my line firmly drawn in the sand (at intercourse), he knew from early on... never wavered a day. 



> *CaribbeanMan said*: Just in case you missed it,
> She said to me *NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE*.......
> And I simply agreed , because I saw something in her that inspired me to want to change my VALUE SYSTEM.


......and 


> My wife was a church going Christian. She was a virgin at the time we started.
> I used to hang out with her sisters who were not religious.
> She knew me for years before we got together. We were just friends.
> She knew of my ' slvtty " reputation but she was still attracted to me.
> She cared for me like no woman ever did even though we weren't even together. Whenever I was in trouble she always had my back,and we were " just friends."
> 
> To cut a long story short,
> Common sense told me that if I let her slip,I would have deep regrets.
> She couldn't believe that would like her for her,so in her
> " feminine wisdom," she decided to put me to the ultimate test....
> NO SEX.
> And I stayed.
> Yes sexual compatibility was a huge problem in the beginning.
> But we worked it out , just like the many other problems.
> 
> 
> I have NEVER preached abstinence to anyone on this site.
> This is just my experience. She laid down her conditions and I accepted.
> That is the power of a woman.


 I LOVE your story! It is a shining example of how a GOOD woman can change....well.... even a Bad Boy!! The most gripping of Love stories have this plot! 

If I was her... I would have handled that the exact same way...as I also believe...we can all change, grow & forsake our old ways.....when we find something lasting, it can Do amazing things to us, climb mountains we never thought we'd climb - it gives us passion & drive for a better purpose. 

Your wife... a brilliant woman. I'd shake her hand. Damn, she hooked a Player, cut him off for a year , kept the attraction ....and reformed him !


----------



## ladybird

Easy!!

Someone who sleeps around doesn't matter if you are male or female..

Sleeps with everyone doesn't care who.

Being a slt for your spouse is another can of worms for latter discussion!!


----------



## Ms.Prym

power of a woman lies not in her sexuality and sensuality as commonly exercised, but in totality , it is her dignity in traits and feminine grace that bring about the true value in her.

one of my truest male friends in life said a remarkable statement on women, which I cherish as a pearl of wisdom.

according to him ,there are women who are "disposable pleasures" and some who are "invaluable treasures.."and some merely a waste of life, of themselves and of others, corrupting the world( inciting immorality, self-centered lives, strife, trouble making,profanity and waywardness) ..his analysis has given me an insight to all these women genre.


@ "invaluable treasures" :

the value of their presence in the world is appreciated with a divine ,pure, exquisite sense of their existence and, let me say, among a majority of infidels, alpha suckers,wayward women, these women with their minority status, stand supreme in their elegance ,emanating rightly,the "POWER OF WOMEN".

I believe it is a magnificent observation on the reality and the minority of real good women .
( quoted from his view points). proud to be such a woman .


----------



## working_together

anonim said:


> i dont like that word because its demeaning, and dismissive to women that like to have sex a lot or with different people, which is classically (and classlessly) referred to as a ****.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with having all the sex you want, as long as you're honest about it, to yourself for your own sake and to others for their sakes.


I totally agree with this, and I agree as long as the person is being honest with the people they are involved in, and there is no committed relationship. I would call it "in charge of your sexuality"...But, society seems to have this habit of dictating what constitutes slvtty, and hence women feel dirty for enjoying sex, or a lot of sex with several partners over a period of time. It all then boils down to "good" girl vs "bad girl", and I'm so damn tired of hearing it really. There are books that talk about good girls being more assertive in the bedroom. So, what, women who enjoy sex, and ask for what they want are somehow "bad"...etc. then sterotypes carry on.

I feel like I'm going on a rant here....lol. Maybe because I've been single for 6 months, and I'm kinda lost in terms of what is appropriate and not, and by whose standards.

I guess it's all about what a person is comfortable with, and at the end of the day if they have no regrets or feel they've been used in some manner, then it's not slvtty.


----------



## lovelygirl

To me, a Sl*t is someone who CHEATS by sleeping around or one who sleeps around for MONEY.

Everyone views sex differently so I can't judge a girl who likes to sleep around[unless she's cheating]. That's her choice but if I were a man, I wouldn't marry her. Same goes with men. I wouldn't marry a man, who's been sleeping with half of the neighborhood, who has a reputation of being a cheater, who's used to having ONS, who used to having regular threesomes and so on. I am picky and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. 

I think sex is important and intimate and having it with whoever comes my way is not my cup of tea. 
I'm almost 25, a virgin and I got my first BF- and only one so far (now ex) when I was 22. I was in a sexless relationship for several reasons [not anything to do with religion]. 
That was my choice. I don't want to be judged about this choice just as I don't judge those who make different choices from mine. Just as there are guys who would never sleep with a virgin like me and I'm perfectly fine with that. 

Additionally, I've had many occasions for ONS or FWB[friends with benefits]but I have rejected them.
I don't feel the need to explore and get "wild" with a lot of men in a short period of time. I just feel the need to explore with/for my only man/one man at a time. [whoever he will be].
I don't think there's any point in having meaningless sexual encounters. I just want to please a man (who is important to me) in every possible way/shape/form. But that is just me. 

Those who are my opposite, are NOT necessarily sl#ts.


----------



## SadSamIAm

that_girl said:


> For me a slxt is someone who is in a committed relationship but sleeping around with multiple other people.
> 
> You can't be a slxt with your partner. You're just awesome
> 
> You can't be a slxt if you're single. You're just having fun. Hopefully safe fun.


I think the word slxt applies to single people as well. 

Men and women can be slxts. 

My definition is someone who will have sex with someone without any relationship at all. Go to a bar, dance with someone once, then go to a car or out the back door and fxck. Then the later that night or the next night do it again with someone else.


----------



## Thundarr

If you're doing sexually immoral or dangerous things then "you might be a slot". If you stop doing these things then you're no longer a slot. Just someone with baggage.

- Cheating on your partner: YES.
- Sex with a cheater (cheating with you). YES.
- Sex with someone to get back at someone else: YES.
- Sex with multiple partners at once. I THINK SO.
- Sex for money, drugs, etc. YES.
- Sex with many partners over period of time. NO. Unless extreme.
- Sex with someone you do not love. NO.

Really it's like so much else on here and in life. MODERATION. Some people with many partners in the past I would not think of poorly at all. I hate to see women or men for that matter having sex every chance they get because of self esteem issues.


----------



## bkaydezz

Entropy3000 said:


> That whole Lilith thing had to be reconsiled ... LOL.
> 
> My wife and I gave ourselves to each other and we are partners.
> 
> You know I have never called a woman a slvt. Why would I bother? Life is too short to be around slvts. Male or female. YMMV.
> 
> 
> YEAH
> 
> _*I want a lady in the street but a freak in the bed.*_ I would never settle for anything less.


this is what my bf always says! i asked him one day what look he would love to see on me. and he told me he would loveme to dress really slvtty for him. hahhaha why i dont know. maybe you can tell me? i dont ever dress provacative in public, i always take great care of my femininity and appearance.


----------



## bkaydezz

Thundarr said:


> If you're doing sexually immoral or dangerous things then "you might be a slot". If you stop doing these things then you're no longer a slot. Just someone with baggage.
> 
> - Cheating on your partner: YES.
> - Sex with a cheater (cheating with you). YES.
> - Sex with someone to get back at someone else: YES.
> - Sex with multiple partners at once. I THINK SO.
> - Sex for money, drugs, etc. YES.
> - Sex with many partners over period of time. NO. Unless extreme.
> - Sex with someone you do not love. NO.
> 
> Really it's like so much else on here and in life. MODERATION. Some people with many partners in the past I would not think of poorly at all. I hate to see women or men for that matter having sex every chance they get because of self esteem issues.


then i would be considered a hooker haha!!

ive had several partners. but always held myself wella nd never acted inappropriate unless in bed.

im glad you wouldnt think poorly of me then! that makes me feel good.

i would also like to add that ive read some things about how you wouldnt hold the person sexual past against them in the previous relationship. I CHANGED! i wasnt always bad and slvtty.

i am no longer in that category. but not many people knew i was either because it wasnt something that i expressed publicly to everyone. 

but yes i much mroe enjoy giving myself all to one man that takes complete control of it and lovessssssssssss it.


----------



## Thundarr

bkaydezz said:


> ... and he told me he would loveme to dress really slvtty for him. hahhaha why i dont know. maybe you can tell me? i dont ever dress provacative in public, i always take great care of my femininity and appearance.


And you girls say men are so simple. I would explain it but it would be unfair for women to have that information considering that we know NOTHING about women.


----------



## bkaydezz

Thundarr said:


> And you girls say men are so simple. I would explain it but it would be unfair for women to have that information considering that we know NOTHING about women.


uhm no!!

I didnt say that

go ahead im all ears here!


----------



## Thundarr

What a loaded question. 

Okay he wants you to look sexy and provocative because it's a little bit wired into our (men) nature to pursue. It's in our nature to pursue because a great many of our ancestors are the ones who did pursue the most and who were most successful. So he may not know why he finds it hot but I think it's a little fantasy play in a safe place.

Now is regards to why he wants you to be conservative. Well it's not quite so safe when lots of men are really eye balling and flirting. After all we (men) know that other men are pursuing as well. This is just the normal fear of you being in a vulnerable to some slick womanizer. 

Just like many women are worried that another woman will take their man (provider), many men are worried that some other man will conceive with his woman (mother of his children). Not that he actually thinks you'll cheat. It's just a disposition driven by our past.

Anyway. Our minds have not really caught up to modern times where women don't need providers.


----------



## dixieangel

Lady on the street...dress conservatively in public
Freak in the sheets...dress slvtty in your bedroom.....

Discount Stripper - Stripper Clothes, Stripper Shoes, Stripper Boots, Sexy Shoes and Clothes
go to lingerie section then dresses
pick out a tight fitting sheer or fishnet dress
guranteed to make you feel sexy and make him VERY happy!


----------



## bkaydezz

Thundarr said:


> What a loaded question.
> 
> Okay he wants you to look sexy and provocative because it's a little bit wired into our (men) nature to pursue. It's in our nature to pursue because a great many of our ancestors are the ones who did pursue the most and who were most successful. So he may not know why he finds it hot but I think it's a little fantasy play in a safe place.
> 
> Now is regards to why he wants you to be conservative. Well it's not quite so safe when lots of men are really eye balling and flirting. After all we (men) know that other men are pursuing as well. This is just the normal fear of you being in a vulnerable to some slick womanizer.
> 
> Just like many women are worried that another woman will take their man (provider), many men are worried that some other man will conceive with his woman (mother of his children). Not that he actually thinks you'll cheat. It's just a disposition driven by our past.
> 
> Anyway. Our minds have not really caught up to modern times where women don't need providers.


yea i can see that.

he always tells me he doesnt want anyone to know how great i am and how good i am in bed.
which i feel the same about him.
so there comes the jeaoulsy. we have spent so much time on that in our relationship that it has caused alot of problems.
its horrible.


----------



## CandieGirl

A woman (sorry, sl*t is a term I use for women only) who has sexual intercourse with just about anyone...if not every man she can!

I knew a few growing up who make me look like the frigging Virgin Mary! :rofl:

JMHO.


----------



## hotdogs

You're a slvt if you're in a committed relationship and you can't stop flirting, teasing or even screwing other people.

You're also a slvt if you do these things to married or committed people and you're a single person.

Otherwise it isn't fair to call anyone a slvt...even if they've slept with tons of people. That's just having a good time eh!


----------



## Caribbean Man

lovelygirl said:


> To me, a Sl*t is someone who CHEATS by sleeping around or one who sleeps around for MONEY.
> 
> *Everyone views sex differently so I can't judge a girl who likes to sleep around[unless she's cheating]. That's her choice but if I were a man, I wouldn't marry her. Same goes with men. I wouldn't marry a man, who's been sleeping with half of the neighborhood, who has a reputation of being a cheater, who's used to having ONS, who used to having regular threesomes and so on. I am picky and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. *
> 
> I think sex is important and intimate and having it with whoever comes my way is not my cup of tea.
> I'm almost 25, a virgin and I got my first BF- and only one so far (now ex) when I was 22. I was in a sexless relationship for several reasons [not anything to do with religion].
> That was my choice. I don't want to be judged about this choice just as I don't judge those who make different choices from mine. Just as there are guys who would never sleep with a virgin like me and I'm perfectly fine with that.
> 
> Additionally, I've had many occasions for ONS or FWB[friends with benefits]but I have rejected them.
> I don't feel the need to explore and get "wild" with a lot of men in a short period of time. I just feel the need to explore with/for my only man/one man at a time. [whoever he will be].
> I don't think there's any point in having meaningless sexual encounters. I just want to please a man (who is important to me) in every possible way/shape/form. But that is just me.
> 
> Those who are my opposite, are NOT necessarily sl#ts.


:iagree:

This is what I call basic logic.
If a person ,whether male or female wants to exercise their right to participate in any form of sexual behaviours, to satisfy their primal sexual urges with any amount of partners , that is their fundamental right.
Conversely,
Another person who chooses the path of sobriety and discretionary sex retains the right to reject any preposition for a relationship / marriage from such a person based on their past behaviour, or at least an explanation for their past lifestyle.

My wife, even though she was attracted to me ,[ before we were married or courting] rejected me twice. I was so blind that every time she rejected me I simply hooked up with another fast chick " party girl.". I saw nothing wrong with my sexual behaviour.
What she was telling me was that even though she had liked me , she wasn't prepared to accept my behaviour.


----------



## lovelygirl

To play devil's advocate, the term slvt is VERY relative and subjective. 
If I were someone who has slept around with tons of people, even for money and while I was in a relationship with someone else or with several men at a time.... I'm sure I'd say: 
"Who are you to call me a slvt? Why am I a slvt? 
According to your standards? 
Why do I have to be measured by your standards? 
Who says it's wrong to sleep with several people at a time? "

Because to be fair, morality is very, very subjective.


----------



## Caribbean Man

lovelygirl said:


> To play devil's advocate, the term slvt is VERY relative and subjective.
> If I were someone who has slept around with tons of people, even for money and while I was in a relationship with someone else or with several men at a time.... I'm sure I'd say:
> "Who are you to call me a slvt? Why am I a slvt?
> According to your standards?
> Why do I have to be measured by your standards?
> Who says it's wrong to sleep with several people at a time? "
> 
> *Because to be fair, morality is very, very subjective.*


*
*
:iagree:

Everything in the universe is relative.
That's why its necessary to seek those whose views are compatible with yours, [ when contemplating marriage] or someone who is open minded enough to strike the correct balance without you having to sacrifice your core values / principles.


----------



## bkaydezz

That is why Dr. Martin luther King Jr once said...

Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated!!!

One of my favorite sayings!


----------



## lovelygirl

Caribbean Man said:


> [/B]
> :iagree:
> 
> Everything in the universe is relative.
> That's why its necessary to seek those whose views are compatible with yours, [ when contemplating marriage] or someone who is open minded enough to strike the correct balance without you having to sacrifice your core values / principles.


Exactly! That's why people who have the same views about morality, values, relationship, lifestyle ,...and so on .. 
should be together. If two people don't have the same compatibility about what I mentioned above then they will hardly be friends, let alone survive in a relationship.


----------



## Thundarr

To women: A girl who has or will try to sleep with your man is a ****.
To men: A girl who has or will try to sleep with all your friends is a ****.

So if you think they will do that based on their actions then you think they are a ****.

Oh. I did not define it for men. Normally men are called wh0res or horn-dogs or something else.


----------



## southern wife

bkaydezz said:


> That is why Dr. Martin luther King Jr once said...
> 
> Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated!!!
> 
> One of my favorite sayings!


You should make that you signature!


----------

