# Women — but not men — seek to actively punish sexualized women, study finds



## BruceBanner (May 6, 2018)

New research has found evidence that both men and women are prejudiced towards sexualized women. But only women are willing to endure a cost to themselves to punish a woman who appears to be promiscuous. The findings appear in Evolution and Human Behavior.

Across cultures, women and girls have been subjected to various attempts to control their sexuality. This has included **** shaming, female genital cutting, and honor killings.

The researchers from the University of Warwick wanted to better understand what motivates individuals to suppress female — but not male — sexuality. “If society is to understand and overcome the sexual double standard, interventionists should seek to uncover how men and women vary in their attitudes towards sexualized women,” they explained.

In the study, participants played one of three kinds of economic decision-making games. The participants were led to believe they were playing against a female opponent in real-time, but were actually only interacting with computerized responses.

The opponents varied in whether they appeared to be sexually accessible or sexually restricted. For some participants, the opponent was depicted as a woman wearing a tight, red outfit and an abundance of makeup. For others, the opponent was depicted as a woman wearing loose-fitting clothing with less makeup.

The researchers found that both male and female participants were less willing to share money with a woman wearing the tight outfit. The participants also trusted sexually-accessible opponents with a financial investment less than sexually-restrictive opponents.

Women, but not men, were also willing to inflict punishments on a sexually-accessible female opponent who made an unfair offer, even though it left them empty-handed as well.

Given the choice between receiving a small sum of money while their opponent took a large sum or having neither player receive any money at all, women tended to pick the latter option.

The study — like all research — includes some limitations. The researchers recruited nearly 1,000 participants, but the vast majority were from the United Kingdom — a country with a relatively high level of gender equality.

Nevertheless, the findings suggest that both sexes perpetuate prejudiced behaviors towards sexually-accessible women but for different reasons. The researchers believe that men seek to avoid being duped into investing in a child that isn’t their own, while women seek to keep the cost of sex high or wish to sabotage potential sexual rivals.

“More broadly, our results find that sexual suppression cannot be described as being either male- or female-driven, and that more nuanced models are needed to understand society’s propensity to suppress female sexuality,” the researchers said.

The study, “Who punishes promiscuous women? Both women and women, but only women inflict costly punishment“, was authored by Naomi K. Muggleton, Sarah R. Tarran, and Corey L. Fincher.

https://www.psypost.org/2018/12/wom...ely-punish-sexualized-women-study-finds-52838
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513818303064


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Men don't hate ****s, they just don't marry them. 

Women don't like them because the drive the price of sex down and they get less for their own sexuality. 

It's the old, "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?" thing. If you are the cow, no one is going to give you much if there are lots of others out there handing out free or cheap milk.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

It was once explained to me as a lock and key scenario.
If you have a key that can open lots of locks then that’s a great key.
If you have a lock that lots of keys can open,well that’s not much of a lock.
Inherently unfair to women.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> Men don't hate ****s, they just don't marry them.
> 
> Women don't like them because the drive the price of sex down and they get less for their own sexuality.
> 
> It's the old, "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?" thing. If you are the cow, no one is going to give you much if there are lots of others out there handing out free or cheap milk.


Women are supposed to be virgins when they get married and then actively and enthusiastically embrace monogamous sex so that their husbands feel loved and virile.

Men are often somehow surprised/hurt/saddened/confused/frustrated that this dynamic is any way problematic.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

What the hell is a ‘sexualised woman’?

Is a woman who has daily sex with her husband, in the most imaginative ways possible, a ‘sexualised woman’?

Is a woman who feels ‘pressured’ into sex from many different guys because she feels that they will otherwise not like her, a ‘sexualised woman’?

What kind of ‘qualification’ do you need to be ‘sexualised’?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

happiness27 said:


> Women are supposed to be virgins when they get married and then actively and enthusiastically embrace monogamous sex so that their husbands feel loved and virile.
> 
> Men are often somehow surprised/hurt/saddened/confused/frustrated that this dynamic is any way problematic.


That doesn't have anything to do with what I said though. 

My point is women do not like other women engaging in promiscuous behavior because then their own sexuality has less market value and less bucks for the bang. 

It is simple sexual economics, if there are people handing it out for free and doing lots of dudes, then they aren't going to get as much for their sexuality. 

They aren't going to be able to get as much out of men if the guys can just go down the street and get it from Sexy Suzie. 

Promiscuous women threaten their market value. 

Promiscuous women do not threaten men. In many ways men dig having several around because it gives them options. 

Men may want to have a virtuous woman and have a legit relationship and be willing to marry and provide for a home and family etc , but he may also just want some tail and not have to mess with that other stuff so it's nice to have some bar flies and party girls that he can just hook up with and drain the tank now and then. 

Having easy promiscuous women around makes men less likely to commit and marry and provide for a home and family. 

Men may look down on promiscuous women and they may be untrusting of them and would likely not marry or commit to them - but they do not dislike them or have an ax to grind with them. 

Where as other women will have an actual ax to grind with them.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> What the hell is a ‘sexualised woman’?
> 
> Is a woman who has daily sex with her husband, in the most imaginative ways possible, a ‘sexualised woman’?
> 
> ...


I think they were just using the word sexualized because you can't use the word ****y anymore.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> I think they were just using the word sexualized because you can't use the word $lu++y anymore.



Ah ok. Then it’s more about the second one...?
It was confusing because they also mention the bit about people trying to ‘control women’s sexuality’ and changing it to ‘control women’s ****tiness’ wouldn’t mean the same thing at all!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> That doesn't have anything to do with what I said though.
> 
> My point is women do not like other women engaging in promiscuous behavior because then their own sexuality has less market value and less bucks for the bang.
> 
> ...


Is there even such a thing as "promiscuous men" or are they more labeled as "studs"?


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Not really surprised, but it is always nice to see someone do the experiment and not just rely on the assertion.

I've read elsewhere that in polls on whether there should be laws against women being topless in places where men can be, women are more likely to vote "No" even though they would gain a freedom and men wouldn't.

Too many women are catty, but thankfully not all are.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> I think they were just using the word sexualized because you can't use the word $lu++y anymore.


Is a sexualized woman a woman who likes sex and plays that out?

Why would a woman care if another woman is sexy? Hoo-ray for women liking sex as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

If they are young, they are studs and its generally OK. If they are old, they are "old goats" or other derogatory terms. (unless they are really hot grey-haired actors in which case its OK again.

(not how I feel about it BTW, just what I see as societal references). 




happiness27 said:


> Is there even such a thing as "promiscuous men" or are they more labeled as "studs"?


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

happiness27 said:


> Why would a woman care if another woman is sexy? Hoo-ray for women liking sex as far as I'm concerned.


Often it's simple jealousy.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> I think they were just using the word sexualized because you can't use the word $lu++y anymore.


Maybe, but the word "****" is no less ambiguous. To some people, it means a woman who isn't conflicted, uptight and ashamed about anything sexual.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

uhtred said:


> If they are young, they are studs and its generally OK. If they are old, they are "old goats" or other derogatory terms. (unless they are really hot grey-haired actors in which case its OK again.
> 
> (not how I feel about it BTW, just what I see as societal references).


So, is a stud admired but a sl*t is looked down upon?

I mean, they are both doing the same things but are just different genders.


----------



## rv10flyer (Apr 26, 2018)

....and some men seek to actively punish womanizers or cheating husbands. It goes both ways.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> _*Smart*_ Men don't hate $lut$, they just don't marry them.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

BruceBanner said:


> The researchers *believe* that men seek to avoid being duped into investing in a child that isn’t their own, while women seek to keep the cost of sex high or wish to sabotage potential sexual rivals.


Key word there in bold, they can "believe" whatever they want ... the trick is to prove it ... which they haven't.


Unless I am a sex-worker and my income is affected, why would I care about "keeping the cost of sex high" and sabotaging potential sexual rivals. :slap:

This has to be one of the most sophomoric concepts I have seen on TAM since @Machiavelli was banned years ago.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Red Sonja said:


> Key word there in bold, they can "believe" whatever they want ... the trick is to prove it ... which they haven't.
> 
> 
> Unless I am a sex-worker and my income is affected, why would I care about "keeping the cost of sex high" and sabotaging potential sexual rivals. :slap:
> ...


I actually got a kick out of him but this thread seems pretty stray...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Hmmm. I might have to keep the cost of sex high.

Mrs. C has to start paying more!

LOL!😉


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

uhtred said:


> If they are young, they are studs and its generally OK. If they are old, they are "old goats" or other derogatory terms. (unless they are really hot grey-haired actors in which case its OK again.



Not if they are ugly old actors; then they hold a ‘position of power’ and are rapists ( I read).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> Hmmm. I might have to keep the cost of sex high.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don’t forget to account for inflation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

oldshirt said:


> That doesn't have anything to do with what I said though.
> 
> *My point is women do not like other women engaging in promiscuous behavior because then their own sexuality has less market value and less bucks for the bang. *
> 
> ...


I'm confused. Which woman has less market value - the virtuous wife or the party girl who you wouldn't marry? Wouldn't all of the party girls make the virtuous woman have more market value? And, wouldn't you think that the women who are aware of their society's double standard would be aware of their own 'market value' and not give a rat's patoot how other women are frittering away their 'market value'?


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Blondilocks said:


> I'm confused. Which woman has less market value - the virtuous wife or the party girl who you wouldn't marry? Wouldn't all of the party girls make the virtuous woman have more market value? And, wouldn't you think that the women who are aware of their society's double standard would be aware of their own 'market value' and not give a rat's patoot how other women are frittering away their 'market value'?


Are there different levels of ****tiness?
You know the old complaint from men about women who are comfortable in their sexuality.She’s only a **** if she sleeps with everyone except you lol.
I can never get my head around this idea of men who want their girlfriend/fiancée to be paragons of virtue but then can’t understand why they end up in virtually sexless marriages.If a woman is brought up believing sex is something you do in the dark,on the last Saturday of the month then don’t expect fireworks in the bedroom on a daily basis.And these guys may have had lots of ons themselves before deciding to become born again virgins.
Also what exactly is the checklist for a party girl.
Is it because she wears sexy clothing on a night out? Because she drinks on a night out? 
Because she likes dancing when she’s at a nightclub?
Because she’s fun to be around?
I’ve known women who have great personalities and dress provocatively if they are on a night out.Then they meet a guy and start dating.Then he tells her he’s uncomfortable with the way she dresses or behaves.In other words what he found attractive about her,he’s now trying to stifle,just in case someone else finds it attractive.
And because she thought him confident and secure and started dating him,she now sees he’s not.
Do these men want their wives/girlfriends wearing burkas?
Edit: I meant to quote @inmyprime.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> Are there different levels of ****tiness?
> You know the old complaint from men about women who are comfortable in their sexuality.She’s only a **** if she sleeps with everyone except you lol.
> I can never get my head around this idea of men who want their girlfriend/fiancée to be paragons of virtue but then can’t understand why they end up in virtually sexless marriages.If a woman is brought up believing sex is something you do in the dark,on the last Saturday of the month then don’t expect fireworks in the bedroom on a daily basis.And these guys may have had lots of ons themselves before deciding to become born again virgins.
> Also what exactly is the checklist for a party girl.
> ...


My wife sometimes makes me wear a burka on my ass. She thinks it's too 'sexually charged' and studdy wimmins can't keep their hands off it!


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

rv10flyer said:


> ....and some men seek to actively punish womanizers or cheating husbands. It goes both ways.


Is there a study showing how many men do this? If not, we don't really have reciprocality.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Red Sonja said:


> Key word there in bold, they can "believe" whatever they want ... the trick is to prove it ... which they haven't.
> 
> 
> Unless I am a sex-worker and my income is affected, why would I care about "keeping the cost of sex high" and sabotaging potential sexual rivals. :slap:
> ...


It is a lot easier to prove in a study what people's behavior is, than it is to prove why they behaved that way. The human mind isn't always straightforward.

As for why an "amateur" woman would care what the other amateurs are doing, her hard-to-get act won't hold many guys' attention if there are lots of other women getting it on. I'm not in favor of this attitude and realize lots of women don't play this way, but I also don't discount that it exists.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

@Andy1001

My definition of a party girl was a wild and promiscuous lady that some guy would be sampling during or after the festivities.

By that definition, I was a party guy as well.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

It's people acting outside of the 'norms' of society. 

For example:- Don't pour gravy on your desert, don't spit on the floor, don't pick your nose in public and so on.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Andy1001 said:


> Are there different levels of ****tiness?
> You know the old complaint from men about women who are comfortable in their sexuality.She’s only a **** if she sleeps with everyone except you lol.
> I can never get my head around this idea of men who want their girlfriend/fiancée to be paragons of virtue but then can’t understand why they end up in virtually sexless marriages.If a woman is brought up believing sex is something you do in the dark,on the last Saturday of the month then don’t expect fireworks in the bedroom on a daily basis.And these guys may have had lots of ons themselves before deciding to become born again virgins.
> Also what exactly is the checklist for a party girl.
> ...


Andy, thank you. 

Some of the Puritan values around here are just weird to me.

Meanwhile, there is a whole world of people out there getting it on. All while not judging each other just for getting it on. All while not having double standards about who is more and less ****ty.

It seems to me that many men are just green with envy about anyone who has a lot of sexual options. If it’s a man like you they are jealous of, they either say they don’t respect men like this, or they say who cares, all he has sex with are ****s anyway and I wouldn’t go there. Ha ha! Men saying this are just jealous because they will never be allowed to go there.

The same men hate us women because as they keep telling us but which isn’t true “any woman can get sex any time”. So whether we hand it away like free samples or whether we keep it locked up for Mr. Puritan, they are still green with envy that we can (supposedly) get laid on demand. It really annoys so many men that women have sexual agency AND that she can get sex on demand.

Of course, they will be nice to you and pretend to admire you, Andy. But many actually have so much envy that they will be secretly assuring themselves that all the ****s you’ve been with have STI’s and that they are morally bankrupt floozies.

And again....meanwhile....the men and women they are so envious of don’t actually behave or follow the weird Puritan rules they think we do. We actually just live our lives and have our dates and we don’t wonder what they are doing in their boring bedrooms as we are having too much fun to notice or care.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Blondilocks said:


> I'm confused. Which woman has less market value - the virtuous wife or the party girl who you wouldn't marry? Wouldn't all of the party girls make the virtuous woman have more market value? And, wouldn't you think that the women who are aware of their society's double standard would be aware of their own 'market value' and not give a rat's patoot how other women are frittering away their 'market value'?


I was not talking about the market value of the women themselves.

I was talking about the purchasing power of sex.

Like any other service or product, if someone is out there giving away something for free, then that will drive down the price for anyone else offering that service or product.

So it is not about the market value of any particular woman. It is about the purchasing power of sex for any woman.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> I was not talking about the market value of the women themselves.
> 
> I was talking about the purchasing power of sex.
> 
> ...


This is what men have decided for themselves. Because men think like men. And because men are the ones who make sex transactional.

Meanwhile...since you/men don’t actually care what women think or say about our own actions, I’ll just say “oh yeah sure, you tell us what we are doing, it all makes sense now, blink blink, Mr. Man, you sure know smart stuff!” 

Then we talk about reality behind your backs, since you aren’t interested in reality.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

happiness27 said:


> Is there even such a thing as "promiscuous men" or are they more labeled as "studs"?


Right or wrong, men (good hearted and non crazy, not RPing, and healthy/financial good, discreet) that get a lot of sex, and women's attention in rooms, are typically called studs, or similar, or yes promiscuous. 

But he knows it, and is low key about it.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> This is what men have decided for themselves. Because men think like men. And because men are the ones who make sex transactional.
> 
> Meanwhile...since you/men don’t actually care what women think or say about our own actions, I’ll just say “oh yeah sure, you tell us what we are doing, it all makes sense now, blink blink, Mr. Man, you sure know smart stuff!”
> 
> Then we talk about reality behind your backs, since you aren’t interested in reality.


Yes! Women talk about men, just not for the most part "to men" on girl talk.

Yes, I would agree certain women would be/are spiteful and over competitive to other women who they'd classify as "prettier, hotter than them, gets any man to look at her and desire her" and sexily dressing.

Well known. Seen it many times.

Can I have my study funding now? 😎😎😎


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

That seems a common attitude. NOT my attitude btw. (which I hope my post made clear).




happiness27 said:


> So, is a stud admired but a sl*t is looked down upon?
> 
> I mean, they are both doing the same things but are just different genders.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> This is what men have decided for themselves. Because men think like men. And because men are the ones who make sex transactional.
> 
> Meanwhile...since you/men don’t actually care what women think or say about our own actions, I’ll just say “oh yeah sure, you tell us what we are doing, it all makes sense now, blink blink, Mr. Man, you sure know smart stuff!”
> 
> Then we talk about reality behind your backs, since you aren’t interested in reality.


I think this explanation does not require men to view sex as transactional for it to be valid, although I can see how framing it in terms of economic theory might give that impression. 

Let's take it a step back from actual physical sexual context to porn, or even just a random woman wearing a low cut blouse. Now I'm not going to make any statements about why the woman in question does that... it's not relevant to this line of discussion. But I know how my wife, and most of the women I know well enough to know how they think, respond to this. They don't like it. They may think it ****ty, low class, or even a blatant betrayal of the sisterhood. And since this is a primal, visceral reaction, self awarenss as to the underlying cause of that reaction may be lacking (and no, this is not a sexist statement as men are also prone to having primal reactions about things and just responding without thinking at all, let alone any kind of real introspection). I think it's plausible that anything that creates an inducement for a guy to look elsewhere, even if for a second, or to think/fantasize elsewhere, is viewed as a threat. Men may be physically warlike, but women are no less vicious when it comes to dealing with perceived rivals. 

Now this isn't all bad news and the good news is we should, and can, all just chill. I used to find it disconcerting that women would get taken in by players. But then I realized, any woman who willingly goes with a jackass isn't a woman I'd want anyway, so no problem there. It actually helps weed out the pool. The same in reverse here... any guy who's eye so easily wanders, or is so easily seduced by a **** just for a quickie fling or affair, is probably not worth the time and effort of a more selective/exclusive woman. 

It's just another way we sort ourselves out to help us end up where we end up.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think *some* men and women have made sex transactional - not sure of the relative numbers. There are men who value women based on sex, and women who exchange sex to get what they want. 

Sometimes this works out well for everyone involved - I'm sure there are trophy-wife situations where both are quite happy with their arrangement. Other times it can lead to people being treated poorly. 


I'm usually not a fan of simplistic "natural" explanations for human behavior, but its possible that the "marked" explanation here is right. There is a sort of market for attractive women to provide sex. (as evidenced by the large number of call-girls, relative to gigolos). Its not crazy to think that on average women are more likely to see sex as something that they *provide* and to resent women who seem to provide it more cheaply. 

In my very limited set of data points, I have seen a lot more complaints about promiscuous women from other women than I have from men. 

I expect this is extremely variable with the person. Women who enjoy sex and want more than they typically have might be less likely to object to other sexualized women, than do those who find themselves providing sex in return for other things. OTOH, one woman I know who is actually the HD in her relationship still makes negative comments about other sexualized women. 








Faithful Wife said:


> This is what men have decided for themselves. Because men think like men. And because men are the ones who make sex transactional.
> 
> Meanwhile...since you/men don’t actually care what women think or say about our own actions, I’ll just say “oh yeah sure, you tell us what we are doing, it all makes sense now, blink blink, Mr. Man, you sure know smart stuff!”
> 
> Then we talk about reality behind your backs, since you aren’t interested in reality.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Yes! Women talk about men, just not for the most part "to men" on girl talk.
> 
> Yes, I would agree certain women would be/are spiteful and over competitive to other women who they'd classify as "prettier, hotter than them, gets any man to look at her and desire her" and sexily dressing.
> 
> ...


And have you read any of the incel forums to see what men who have no sexual activity say about women? They say we should be raped and killed. They say it isn’t fair that we get to choose to have sex with all the Chads and Tyrones, that we should be forced into marriages with whatever man society says we should be with and we should have sex with only him.

Should I take what these men say and assume it applies to what other men think? Or should I recognize that these men have no grasp on reality.

Now should I listen to a woman like in your example who is being catty about another particular woman she is jealous of for her own reasons, and then extrapolate that this means all women are terrified that ****ty women are messing up the sexual market place for us? 

Do you realize that men here at TAM also say that women who don’t want to have sex with them are just playing coy? That the women are just stunted children who don’t know that they actually want sex with them (whatever man is making the claim is the one she is supposed to have sex with)? 

So which is it, according to men?

We want sex but we don’t want you to know this so when we say “no” we actually mean “try harder”.

We don’t want sex because we are stunted children and we don’t know ourselves.

We are afraid to have sex with you because if we “give it up too soon” then we can’t “get things” from you.

We do have sex with you so that you won’t go find a **** down the street (like we are being controlled by what the **** down the street does and like we assume all of you will just **** anything that is willing, we know you don’t really care about us as individuals you just want to put your **** in something, that’s apparently why we are so afraid of the **** down the street).

We don’t want sex but we will fake it so that you will think we like you.

We do want sex but only with Chads, however if the guy isn’t a Chad we still might have sex with him if he is a “good provider”.

We sit around thinking about how other ****s are messing up our game and we have to come up with specific rules and obscure dodge and weave moves because it’s just soooooo common for us women to have group think and all act like one mind in our constant efforts to make sure men do NOT get sex so they won’t go round expecting it from us in the future (meanwhile, she’s still ****ing Chad and Tyrone).

Pick one! These are the options we have been given by men about what we are doing and thinking. They have made it quite clear that they definitely know why we do the things we do.

Notice that none of the “reasons” above have anything to do with the woman wanting to have sex because sex is awesome. It’s always (to men) about some kind of transaction.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

uhtred said:


> That seems a common attitude. NOT my attitude btw. (which I hope my post made clear).


And not mine. Just observations. 😊


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I think this explanation does not require men to view sex as transactional for it to be valid, although I can see how framing it in terms of economic theory might give that impression.
> 
> Let's take it a step back from actual physical sexual context to porn, or even just a random woman wearing a low cut blouse. Now I'm not going to make any statements about why the woman in question does that... it's not relevant to this line of discussion. But I know how my wife, and most of the women I know well enough to know how they think, respond to this. They don't like it. They may think it ****ty, low class, or even a blatant betrayal of the sisterhood. And since this is a primal, visceral reaction, self awarenss as to the underlying cause of that reaction may be lacking (and no, this is not a sexist statement as men are also prone to having primal reactions about things and just responding without thinking at all, let alone any kind of real introspection). I think it's plausible that anything that creates an inducement for a guy to look elsewhere, even if for a second, or to think/fantasize elsewhere, is viewed as a threat. Men may be physically warlike, but women are no less vicious when it comes to dealing with perceived rivals.
> 
> ...


So it doesn’t just seem normal that a wife would feel jealous if her husband is looking in another woman’s direction, and that she may make some snippy remark about the woman because she knows if she accuses her husband of looking he will just deny it?

And also, although your example is valid, do you not realize that men put other men down all the time in the same way? Especially if any women are noticing him? Especially if his wife is noticing him?

So since men and women both do this all the time, how is it that women are all doing it because we fear ****s will steal our man, but men are doing it because it’s normal and right to talk down other men?


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> And have you read any of the incel forums to see what men who have no sexual activity say about women? They say we should be raped and killed. They say it isn’t fair that we get to choose to have sex with all the Chads and Tyrones, that we should be forced into marriages with whatever man society says we should be with and we should have sex with only him.
> 
> Should I take what these men say and assume it applies to what other men think? Or should I recognize that these men have no grasp on reality.
> 
> ...


But I did use the term "certain" women.

I could have summed it up as some women are "catty". You've said that better

Definitely not intended to be inferred as "all" women. 😊

And I tried to qualify the "promiscuous man" as not a RPer or a$$h0le, but a solid man, emotionally and financially. But good heart, good spirits, just happens to like and can get sex. And discreet.


And it's a double standard, that's very true, I agree.

I don't think it's right, no. I don't agree there should be a double standard. 

I also don't agree, this is just me, that all women are expected to be virgins when getting married. That's up to each couple, each person. 

I myself never held that belief or expectation. It never came up for dear W and me. She knew I was promiscuous, I knew she wasn't a virgin. Oh these many years ago!


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Actually I have never read any incel forums, so I can't say anything there. Not really sure what they're about.

😊😊


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

ConanHub said:


> @Andy1001
> 
> My definition of a party girl was a wild and promiscuous lady that some guy would be sampling during or after the festivities.
> 
> By that definition, I was a party girl as well.


So some guy was sampling you during or after festivities :surprise:


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Yes! Women talk about men, just not for the most part "to men" on girl talk.
> 
> Yes, I would agree certain women would be/are spiteful and over competitive to other women who they'd classify as "prettier, hotter than them, gets any man to look at her and desire her" and sexily dressing.
> 
> ...


Maybe shallow women waste their time being spiteful and competitive but the women in my circle don't because they have a lot more going for them beyond having genitals. If the only thing a woman has to offer is her genitals and youth, she's going to have a shock coming to her when she hits 45.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> But I did use the term "certain" women.
> 
> I could have summed it up as some women are "catty". You've said that better
> 
> ...


It's really confusing for women who like sex and seek it out to be considered a low life while a guy who does the same exact thing is considered "a solid man, emotionally and financially."

It would be great if guys looked at this and not only said that it's b.s. but stopped embracing that thinking at all. Women who love sex make great partners just like men who love sex make great partners. Same-same.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> But I did use the term "certain" women.
> 
> I could have summed it up as some women are "catty". You've said that better
> 
> ...


Double standard is there, it exists, can’t do anything about that.

But the notion that “women” are against ****s because we are all afraid this “lowers the market value of sex”...sorry, that is what a man decided that women think. (Not saying you think that).


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

happiness27 said:


> It's really confusing for women who like sex and seek it out to be considered a low life while a guy who does the same exact thing is considered "a solid man, emotionally and financially."
> 
> It would be great if guys looked at this and not only said that it's b.s. but stopped embracing that thinking at all. Women who love sex make great partners just like men who love sex make great partners. Same-same.


The men who are great sexual partners don’t think things like this. We can see who here thinks this and who doesn’t by what they write. But the attitudes of the men at TAM don’t match what I see in the real world, thankfully. It’s a select group here, and of the men there is a very high % of which have never had a fulfilling sex life (and these are the ones who tend to think all women are like their wives). I’m guessing it is easier for them to just think there is a whole conspiracy against them by women, instead of facing that he just picked badly when it came to sex.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

uhtred said:


> I think *some* men and women have made sex transactional - not sure of the relative numbers. There are men who value women based on sex, and women who exchange sex to get what they want.
> 
> Sometimes this works out well for everyone involved - I'm sure there are trophy-wife situations where both are quite happy with their arrangement. Other times it can lead to people being treated poorly.
> 
> ...


One thing that I've always enjoyed is the fact that I'm not one of those super attractive women. I know I'm not so attractive women don't bother me at all because I'm not competing with them for the same man-set...the beautiful people, if you will.

Yet, somehow through my life, kinda like Amy Schumer says "I can catch a d*ck anytime I want." Why? Because there's models and physical beauty and then there are women who have a whole other thing going on that's hot as hell on a different level. I'm not UNATTRACTIVE but as my first husband said once to me: "It's just how you carry yourself that's hot as hell." I know that so I'm not threatened by other women. I do, in fact, find other women also attractive even though I'm not bi or homosexual. I dig interesting confident women. I think most of us just dig interesting confident people who don't have to throw their ego around to get attention. 

I'm chuckling at the idea that women "provide" sex as a commodity to men. I thought it was the other way around.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> So it doesn’t just seem normal that a wife would feel jealous if her husband is looking in another woman’s direction, and that she may make some snippy remark about the woman because she knows if she accuses her husband of looking he will just deny it?
> 
> And also, although your example is valid, do you not realize that men put other men down all the time in the same way? Especially if any women are noticing him? Especially if his wife is noticing him?
> 
> So since men and women both do this all the time, how is it that women are all doing it because we fear ****s will steal our man, but men are doing it because it’s normal and right to talk down other men?


1. Yes it does seem natural. That was the point I was trying to make. It is natural and has nothing to do with whether or not the man views sex as transactional. 

2. Agree again. Men can be quite quick to point out flaws in other men, especially if they view them as any kind of a threat. 

3. I never linked to that conclusion. It seems pretty much same-same to me. 

Going back to the OP and the linked article, I think what was supposed to be different between men and women, and the potential point of interest here, is that women were more willing to go on the attack in such a way that it might also be to their own detriment as well, just so long as the object of the attack is perceived to suffer more. That's what I got out of the published conclusion of the research. It's something I had never considered, and I don't really know 1. just how valid the research is and 2. what, if any, are the ramifications of this if it is true. It was just presented as a potential topic of discussion which seems okay to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> 1. Yes it does seem natural. That was the point I was trying to make. It is natural and has nothing to do with whether or not the man views sex as transactional.
> 
> 2. Agree again. Men can be quite quick to point out flaws in other men, especially if they view them as any kind of a threat.
> 
> ...


I’d like to see the same study done with men who are “chaste” and men who are “****s”, have men and women interact with both the chaste guys and the ****s. Then evaluate what the men and women think of the **** men. Do they trust him? Would other men go out of their way to punish him? 

This is one of those studies that was really just another attempt to **** shame women. Basically they began with the premise, why do we love **** shaming women so much anyway? and worked from there. 

If the study was more honest with itself, it would be called “here another piece of crap disguised as an attempt to understand women, but the reality is we just wanted to talk again about how ****s are ****s and they should be ashamed, see, even women think so!”


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

This is an interesting thread. From only my POV, I view a woman who sleeps around no different than a man who sleeps around. The only difference is I have no interest in getting with a dude, whereas if it was a female I was possibly interested in, it would have a much larger effect.

I think there is this general idea that a woman being highly sexualized somehow correlates to them being promiscuous. I don't really think one has to do with the other TBH. 

However, I doubt we will ever fully get away from the double standard where a guy with a high number count is a stud and the similar female is a slot. I know part of this is based the idea that on average it is much easier for women to get laid vs guys (which has been debated quite a bit here on TAM in the past lol).


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> I’d like to see the same study done with men who are “chaste” and men who are “****s”, have men and women interact with both the chaste guys and the ****s. Then evaluate what the men and women think of the **** men. Do they trust him? Would other men go out of their way to punish him?
> 
> This is one of those studies that was really just another attempt to **** shame women. Basically they began with the premise, why do we love **** shaming women so much anyway? and worked from there.
> 
> If the study was more honest with itself, it would be called “here another piece of crap disguised as an attempt to understand women, but the reality is we just wanted to talk again about how ****s are ****s and they should be ashamed, see, even women think so!”


I don't see how this was an attempt to **** shame women.  As far as I can tell, it makes no conclusions about women based on their level of sexual activity. The focus in exclusively on how people, including women of any level of "sexualization" react to other women. 

I can see interpreting the results as accusing women being more "catty" or some such thing, but it definitely doesn't attack the women for being sexual in the first place.

*Bottom line here:
"the findings suggest that both sexes perpetuate prejudiced behaviors towards sexually-accessible women but for different reasons. "

What that means is that people (both men and women) are prone to ****-shaming. The report does not do this, but rather acknowledges that people do this. If anything, it helps point out the prejudices people of both sexes carry into their perceptions and responses... and in doing so should be a positive force in mitigating rather than promoting **** shaming. *


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

happiness27 said:


> Maybe shallow women waste their time being spiteful and competitive but the women in my circle don't because they have a lot more going for them beyond having genitals. If the only thing a woman has to offer is her genitals and youth, she's going to have a shock coming to her when she hits 45.


Just one comment. 

These women aren't all shallow when doing the catty thing.

I've observed established, successful, smart women doing the same. Now they might have a shallow component to them. But not all of them were/are uneducated etc. All still South of 40 for the most part.

I really agree with the 45 comment. We all, man and woman, have to realize we must, must be well rounded as we move through the life stages, or we are in danger of not being able to have and enjoy being in love, or any ltr.

😊😊😊


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I don't see how this was an attempt to **** shame women. As far as I can tell, it makes no conclusions about women based on their level of sexual activity. The focus in exclusively on how people, including women of any level of "sexualization" react to other women.
> 
> I can see interpreting the results as accusing women being more "catty" or some such thing, but it definitely doesn't attack the women for being sexual in the first place.
> 
> ...


Rocky, here's the part I'm talking about:

*The researchers believe that men seek to avoid being duped into investing in a child that isn’t their own, while women seek to keep the cost of sex high or wish to sabotage potential sexual rivals.*

It is ridiculous on both sides.

A man who has a casual interaction with a female stranger who he is not going to have sex with is worried about being duped into investing in a child who isn't his?

While women seek to keep the cost of sex high. In group think, women are all the same and have the same motivations? 

Really?

I personally don't think so little of men, or women, nor do I constantly judge what kind of sex they are having, with who, and whether or not the "cost of sex" is going up or down.

(I'm not saying you agree or disagree with anything in the article, just bantering).


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Just one comment.
> 
> These women aren't all shallow when doing the catty thing.
> 
> I've observed established, successful, smart women doing the same. Now they might have a shallow component to them. But not all of them were/are uneducated etc. All still South of 40 for the most part.


I guess most men just don't realize how catty they are being or that we notice. They are constantly jealous of each other, competitive, trying to show off for women if another man walks by, constantly seeking reassurance that we don't like Chad and Tyrone, constantly reading anything they can to see what they can do to attract women (ie: trying to be like Chad and Tyrone, who they hate).

Not saying you!


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> Rocky, here's the part I'm talking about:
> 
> *The researchers believe that men seek to avoid being duped into investing in a child that isn’t their own, while women seek to keep the cost of sex high or wish to sabotage potential sexual rivals.*
> 
> ...


The first part of that being silly I agree with. The second makes some sense to me. I certainly don't think that all women think the same. But that's not being asserted. Any such general statement need just apply to enough of a group to influence the group's outcomes in the aggregate. It doesn't seem silly or a stretch to think that's happening here. It make sense to me that there are a large enough percentage of women who choose to not be promiscuous, but in doing so still feel some threat from women who are. (not unlike guys who choose to not be players, but are definitely threatened by the loss of potential partners to players). This just seems to be how it is for a significant number of folks. 

That feeling of threat is what causes the urge to cast negative judgment on anyone more sexually active (both sexes). How many Christians condemn "sexual immorality" while quoting the bible and hide behind that even from themselves, when in reality in their gut it's the threat of loss that is really driving their judgment? I'm convinced that in cultures where female genital mutilation is practiced that the underlying drive for men to force this on women is not their honest belief in divine guidance, but rather their horribly immature, insecure need to ensure their woman have no desire to ever get off with someone else. 

Genital mutilation is a truly horrific act, and a horrible extreme I share just to illustrate. Judging others' sexual behavior is just a much milder manifestation of the same primitive drive, present in both sexes.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Men may be physically warlike, but women are no less vicious when it comes to dealing with perceived rivals.



Ha! That’s a diplomatic way of putting it. I have seen women cut each other’s throats when they were fighting about a guy...(usually I have to step in and assure everyone ‘ladies, ladies, there is enough prime to go around for everyone to enjoy’ ).

There are also women who don’t engage in this rivalry BS. This is mostly a discussion of character IMO rather than gender. 

I was actually curious how they define the term ‘sexualised woman’: because it seems like such a loose term. A woman who is perfectly comfortable with herself and her sexuality, knows what she wants or how to get it, but doesn’t need to show cleavage or leg to achieve that or act like all she thinks about is sex 24/7 to get attention from the **** erectus of the erectile club: how is that woman (which sounds a lot like my wife) NOT ‘sexualised’? It seems this article seems to imply (or maybe it’s the definition the people here are giving it) that in order to be ‘sexualised’, you need to dress and act like a **** (whatever that dress code might be: I don’t usually notice it).

I also don’t get the whole ‘sexual market value’ stuff: you make your own market (YOU - the woman - are the market maker, for your own...errr...market). A certain type of woman will attract a certain type of man: it doesn’t mean that if there’s ONE woman who dresses the ‘****tiest’ or is the easiest to get into bed with, that she will somehow ‘rig’ the market and that suddenly all the men will be too busy having sex with her and not be interested in anyone else....No, lots of men are not even going to notice her. How on earth would this have any effect on who they will want to be interest in? There is no ONE market. There is basically this assumption that the man’s ultimate goal is to get a woman into bed (and for some, it might be). And it’s funny, because if they think this is really the case, then the women who keep going on about how easy it is for them to have sex with anyone, just make it way too easy for those guys for whom this is the ultimate goal...
I think I’m just going to munch on my popcorn and watch the ‘market’  (while wife can do some ’insider trading’ and ride her....market on my.... till the cows cum home) 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> The same in reverse here... any guy who's eye so easily wanders, or is so easily seduced by a **** just for a quickie fling or affair, is probably not worth the time and effort of a more selective/exclusive woman.



Yep! 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> The first part of that being silly I agree with. The second makes some sense to me. I certainly don't think that all women think the same. But that's not being asserted. Any such general statement need just apply to enough of a group to influence the group's outcomes in the aggregate. It doesn't seem silly or a stretch to think that's happening here. It make sense to me that there are a large enough percentage of women who choose to not be promiscuous, but in doing so still feel some threat from women who are. (*not unlike guys who choose to not be players, but are definitely threatened by the loss of potential partners to players*). This just seems to be how it is for a significant number of folks.


I think the bolded is all this is really about. Men (not saying you) love to talk about what women do, who we want to have sex with, what our motivations are, and then also fully acknowledge that they have no clue what we want, and neither do we apparently. YET, men "know" that women have group think on THIS issue.

Which just happens to be the issue which THEY are so concerned about. Namely, who is she ****ing now, since I know it isn't me?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> It seems to me that many men are just green with envy about anyone who has a lot of sexual options.


Sure, men with fewer options ore jealous of men with more.

Just like plain women are jealous of pretty women, overweight people vs slim people, poor people vs rich people.

I'd like to have a Ferrari, I wish I had some prospect of getting one, but I never will

So, men with less options would like to have more options (not that this would actually make them any happier than I would be if I had a Ferrari), and want to know if there's anything they can do to have more options.
@failthful Wife, your PM inbox was full


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Sure, men with fewer options ore jealous of men with more.
> 
> Just like plain women are jealous of pretty women, overweight people vs slim people, poor people vs rich people.
> 
> ...


Thank you! This is completely fair and has nothing to do with how women are group thinking cats.

People are jealous and envious and they get catty. Period.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m guessing it is easier for them to just think there is a whole conspiracy against them by women, instead of facing that he just picked badly when it came to sex.


I don't think we "picked badly". The facts that we don't want to face are: 
we aren't all that attractive 
we are definitely not good in bed
we are too afraid or too lazy to take action to change either of the first 2 characteristics.

Much easier to blame women as a class than to take responsibility for our own personal shortcomings (pun intended).


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Red Sonja said:


> Unless I am a sex-worker and my income is affected, why would I care about "keeping the cost of sex high" and sabotaging potential sexual rivals. :slap:





Blondilocks said:


> I'm confused. Which woman has less market value - the virtuous wife or the party girl who you wouldn't marry? Wouldn't all of the party girls make the virtuous woman have more market value? And, wouldn't you think that the women who are aware of their society's double standard would be aware of their own 'market value' and not give a rat's patoot how other women are frittering away their 'market value'?


Remember that this theory isn't necessarily the optimal behavior anyone wants to see today and. if it did apply once upon a time (prior to 1970?), it wouldn't now.

However, the DNA we inherit has a lot to do with our values and behavior and DNA that encouraged behavior that was once optimal and no longer is will take a while to disappear from our systems.

Sex used to (pre-birth control and safe abortions) entitle a huge risk for women while costing men very little.

In order to successfully raise children, a man's help was vitally important. So, it was prudent not to have sex with a man who wasn't going to stick around. So, men wanted sex and women wanted commitment. Women traded sex for commitment. 

Trading sex for commitment meant that creating a cultural norm that sex without commitment was very difficult to obtain. So, women acted as a cartel, trying to keep "sex without commitment" fairly rare. That's why women have the most interest in other women not being promiscuous; if men can find commitment free sex easily, they wouldn't have an interest in trading commitment for it. It was essentially a "sex cartel" and the main enforcers were women (other suppliers) not men (consumers). 

Now, society is completely different. Men risk a great deal when having sex (at a minimum, 18 years of child support) while women risk little (they have access to more effective birth control and the option to end the pregnancy. Also, men's financial support is less important and, in a Rule of Law environment, men needed less to physically protect their woman. A woman in today's society who's a virgin has little value outside of certain religious subcultures. 

The double-standard seems like it must have always have been unfair and wrong, But, for a very long time, it existed because it suited people's needs and it worked. That does NOT mean that it suits peoples needs now or works now.

But, human culture doesn't turn on a dime and a lot of people still think that the "old rules" apply.

It's left a lot of men *and* women confused.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Notice that none of the “reasons” above have anything to do with the woman wanting to have sex because sex is awesome. It’s always (to men) about some kind of transaction.


When you are lousy in bed, you can be pretty darn sure that your wife's tepid consent has nothing to do with her wanting to have sex because the sex is awesome. That might be why she enthusiastically wanted sex with some other guy before we got married. But it has absolutely nothing to do with why she is willing to have sex with me now. And that mechanism (I am a dud so my partner wouldn't want sex with me because the sex is awesome) DOES generalize to most women.

Of course, the healthy response to that problem is to learn to become better at sex. Not all of us are willing to do the work to get there. So we sit throwing our pity parties. Which is really sad.

But it doesn't invalidate the truth that within the bubble of our (self-imposed) tiny corner of reality, almost all sex IS transactional.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Actually I have never read any incel forums, so I can't say anything there. Not really sure what they're about.



Oh I think it’s one 12-year old boy plagiarising Mein Kampf on the Internet. Somehow this grew into a ‘group’ or ‘what men think’. 
I haven’t even seen a single comment myself so I just take it at face value that someone actually read a comment they think they read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> @Andy1001
> 
> 
> 
> ...






EllisRedding said:


> So some guy was sampling you during or after festivities :surprise:



From how I understood it is that he dressed up as a girl at parties and was sampling the popular guys...
Please...don’t discriminate against transgenderisms 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

happiness27 said:


> Maybe shallow women waste their time being spiteful and competitive but the women in my circle don't because they have a lot more going for them beyond having genitals. If the only thing a woman has to offer is her genitals and youth, she's going to have a shock coming to her when she hits 45.




dont tell me the genitals turn into a pumpkin  at 45 sharp!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> When you are lousy in bed, you can be pretty darn sure that your wife's tepid consent has nothing to do with her wanting to have sex because the sex is awesome. That might be why she enthusiastically wanted sex with some other guy before we got married. But it has absolutely nothing to do with why she is willing to have sex with me now. And that mechanism (I am a dud so my partner wouldn't want sex with me because the sex is awesome) DOES generalize to most women.
> 
> Of course, the healthy response to that problem is to learn to become better at sex. Not all of us are willing to do the work to get there. So we sit throwing our pity parties. Which is really sad.
> 
> But it doesn't invalidate the truth that within the bubble of our (self-imposed) tiny corner of reality, almost all sex IS transactional.


Of course, if the only sex you ever experience is transactional, then you'll probably conclude that's true for a whole lot of other people.

But to conclude it means "all women" are out here just looking sideways at every **** who walks by because "OMG she's gonna drive the price of sex down which means I might actually have to have sex wit ha man!" is ridiculous (not saying you concluded this). Especially when concluding this based on one study that did not even have anything to do with the participants' sex lives, it only had to do with "what do we all think of ****ty women now, huh? Let's study it".

No one who is out in the world dating and having sex is worried about what ****s are doing. Male and female ****s are out there having sex, doing their thang. 

So are prissy women who claim "you're the ONLY guy I have EVER done this with on a first date!" out there doing their thang. 

And so are normal, healthy sexual men and women who don't pay any attention to what other men or women are doing because they are actually focused on the person they are dating instead of trying to figure out what anyone else is doing.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Sure, men with fewer options ore jealous of men with more.
> 
> Just like plain women are jealous of pretty women, overweight people vs slim people, poor people vs rich people.
> 
> ...


Envy is one of the seven deadly sins and there are more than a few people who have evolved past being envious of petty things. What a waste of time, energy and mental wellness to be jealous of something and someone else.


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> Sure, men with fewer options ore jealous of men with more.
> 
> Just like plain women are jealous of pretty women, overweight people vs slim people, poor people vs rich people.
> 
> ...


I do agree that some men with less options do gripe. But I'm not sure it manifests itself in the same way. I was dumbfounded by it in my youth. I am usually pretty oblivious to criticism, but I thought it was funny that I was type cast as a player, or a bad boy. You're talking about a guy that loves Star Trek and played PC games like Doom until the wee hours of the morning. Who sits in the front row at church with his elderly grandmother. There isn't a bad bone in my body, but if your rep is that of a ladies man for whatever reason I guess it makes you a "bad boy" by default? With that said though I can't pretend that I have ever endured the **** shaming that women go through from other women. You really only catch flak from guys that already had their eye on whomever it is you are spending time with.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Just one comment.
> 
> These women aren't all shallow when doing the catty thing.
> 
> ...


To clarify what "shallow" means to me: it means a person of weak nature, lack of confidence, insecure. It doesn't mean intelligent or unintelligent.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> dont tell me the genitals turn into a pumpkin  at 45 sharp!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Interestingly, Cameron Diaz quit Hollywood at age 45. She knew what was coming in that shallow town for an actress like her who had built her career on being a sexy leading lady.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

Holdingontoit said:


> I don't think we "picked badly". The facts that we don't want to face are:
> we aren't all that attractive
> we are definitely not good in bed
> we are too afraid or too lazy to take action to change either of the first 2 characteristics.
> ...


Might be the most honest post I've read on TAM.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> *What the hell is a ‘sexualized woman’?*
> 
> *How about my RSXW!*


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ReformedHubby said:


> You really only catch flak from guys that already had their eye on whomever it is you are spending time with.


But what you don’t see is how men talk to women about other men. So I’m sure random men who did not have their eye on any woman in your vicinity still bad mouth you to any woman who will listen. 

Men love going off about other men, to us. They tell us all about how this guy is bad because of this or that, but hey I’m good because I’m not that way! Then they go on to detail how much of a horrible guy that other guy is, how he is this, that, the other...they have many lists of what they don’t like about other men. They go into great, meticulous detail in trying to tear other guy down. Many of them say things that are obvious tells about the level of their angst and insecurity regarding other men.

I’m aware women get catty like this about other women to men, too.

But some men here seem to think only women do this. And of course the article concluded women are catty to ****s and it is because we are worried they will steal all of our men. (Of course it also concluded that a man who had an encounter with a female in a push up bra for a survey is afraid she is going to seduce him, then **** someone else the next day, then force him to raise the other mans baby. Because men who are doing a survey are definitely thinking that the women with the push up bra in the survey have so much power that he has no option other than to **** her if she seduces him, and then of course he is also concerned about all of his unborn children or the children from other men he may have to raise. Totally logical conclusion by the authors).

But of course the didn’t survey how men feel about ****ty men, just women. 

A survey that revealed men’s real feelings about ****ty men would show they are all shaking in their shoes. And by ****ty, in the case of the survey, I mean just a tall, attractive guy (because some men apparently assume that guy is banging 80% of all women so they already hate and distrust him, just on his looks alone). It’s astounding what men do when they are squirming about a hot guy in the vicinity.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> It's left a lot of men *and* women confused.



For sure. I’m very confused because I’m being sexualised by Tyrone who’s is jealous because Chad keeps flirting with me.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> Remember that this theory isn't necessarily the optimal behavior anyone wants to see today and. if it did apply once upon a time (prior to 1970?), it wouldn't now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That all makes sense. However I’m still not sure that women NOW are not still more disadvantaged than men, with casual sex. If there was a guy my daughter really liked and he ‘used her’ for sex and never called back, I would be pretty pissed off as I’m sure she would be hurting a lot. 

I can see how this may be different for women over a certain age (that sex is ‘just fun’ and that they already know all the rules of this game) but I’m not sure the same applies for younger, more vulnerable women/girls who are not yet sure and exploring their sexuality. Maybe I’m looking at it too much from the father’s perspective but I see a lot more scope for younger women getting hurt from feeling ‘used for sex’ while I see more scope for men getting hurt ways other than sex (emotionally, mainly). I cannot see the point of insisting on equivalency or equality here, when it’s plainly not the case. The scales do adjust and even out eventually though.

However I don’t see how noticing or discussing it, one needs to jump to the conclusion that it’s ‘**** shaming’. I still feel guilty for some of the pain I caused to some of the girls that I dated but didn’t especially find very attractive and didn’t want to pursue it further (at least, I didn’t sleep with them which would have made their hurt probably 100 times worse).

Casual sex when you are an older woman: it probably is quite a different story. There is scope to still get hurt, a lot, but probably not from sex itself. I imagine it’s just a nuisance having to wade through a ton of guys before finding someone you are able to trust, being close or being yourself again. (Same for guys though). 
It’s just that once you experienced some serious hurt, most people (again, I imagine) will not want to make themselves vulnerable to anyone ever again. Or at least they will think long and hard about letting it happen again. 

That means that there must be a lot of frustration or dissonance between wanting to seek that closeness on the one hand, yet not letting yourself being open to it on the other. So lots of sex would seem like a good way to mask or ‘manufacture’ closeness, without being ACTUALLY close. I dunno. This is all totally hypothetical and out loud thinking about what sex might mean to different people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Holdingontoit said:


> When you are lousy in bed, you can be pretty darn sure that your wife's tepid consent has nothing to do with her wanting to have sex because the sex is awesome. That might be why she enthusiastically wanted sex with some other guy before we got married. But it has absolutely nothing to do with why she is willing to have sex with me now. And that mechanism (I am a dud so my partner wouldn't want sex with me because the sex is awesome) DOES generalize to most women.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Man, she really trashed your confidence, didn’t she...You know it has nothing to do with your ‘ability’ in sex. She wouldn’t have sex with George Clooney either, otherwise all husbands would use a George Clooney as the cure for all rape & child sexual abuse instances but it ain’t that simple. You can’t take it personally. Her body said ‘no’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

ReformedHubby said:


> I do agree that some men with less options do gripe. But I'm not sure it manifests itself in the same way. I was dumbfounded by it in my youth. I am usually pretty oblivious to criticism, but I thought it was funny that I was type cast as a player, or a bad boy. You're talking about a guy that loves Star Trek and played PC games like Doom until the wee hours of the morning. Who sits in the front row at church with his elderly grandmother. There isn't a bad bone in my body, but if your rep is that of a ladies man for whatever reason I guess it makes you a "bad boy" by default? With that said though I can't pretend that I have ever endured the **** shaming that women go through from other women. You really only catch flak from guys that already had their eye on whomever it is you are spending time with.




Do men even care? I mean I always thought it’s women who indulge in this whole ‘**** shaming’ business (I never heard the term until I heard several women use it on this forum, never a guy) and this ‘study’ seems to echo it. 
Moreover, I thought it was (some) women who fall over themselves and pursue the ‘studs’ (it’s like a trophy thing, to them, I believe they say).

Why would men care? A ‘sexualised woman’ is surely good news to most men who love sex (and a lot of us do): so no need to shame anyone. A Chad or Tyron? They make pretty good squash buddies: so good news also. 

I have only heard women make a big deal out of it so far. But no, let’s blame it on some mythical red pill/incel/acne/mom’s basement organisation that nobody ever heard of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

happiness27 said:


> Might be the most honest post I've read on TAM.



That’s not honesty. It’s what 200 years (or however long) of sexual rejection looks like. (Sorry holding).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rubix Cubed (Feb 21, 2016)

For someone that doesn't want women generalized (and makes that very clear) you sure generalize the **** out of men. 





Faithful Wife said:


> But what you don’t see is how men talk to women about other men.
> 
> Men love going off about other men, to us.
> 
> ...


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

Holdingontoit said:


> When you are lousy in bed, ....
> 
> 
> Of course, the healthy response to that problem is to learn to become better at sex. Not all of us are willing to do the work to get there. So we sit throwing our pity parties. Which is really sad.


Okay, but getting better at sex (I can only speak as a man) is generally not about effort or lack of effort. Most men want to learn. The sticking point often is their partner's willingness to tell them what she wants. Many women seem to want men to "just know", they don't want to have to say. I know, I'll get backlash from those women on here who are not like that, but many women will just "move on" and date someone else, if they think a man is "not good at sex", rather than be clear about what they want.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Laurentium said:


> Okay, but getting better at sex (I can only speak as a man) is generally not about effort or lack of effort. Most men want to learn. The sticking point often is their partner's willingness to tell them what she wants. Many women seem to want men to "just know", they don't want to have to say. I know, I'll get backlash from those women on here who are not like that, *but many women will just "move on" and date someone else*, if they think a man is "not good at sex", rather than be clear about what they want.


I am not speaking about holdingit right now....but sometimes it is just not worth it because you know it will be too much of a learning curve. Why train someone and possibly not even succeed when there's another guy who can do it great right now. I don't even have to have sex with them, I can tell usually what I need to know just by a good make out or two.

Same happens for men too, I assume. He dates her a few times, likes her, then the sex sucks so he's suddenly less available, less interested, he moves on and dates others.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Rubix Cubed said:


> For someone that doesn't want women generalized (and makes that very clear) you sure generalize the **** out of men.


Yes, every one of those quotes of mine relates to men at TAM. There certainly is a similar mind set by many of the men here at TAM, and I am not the first to say so. 

So if you need me to, I can go back and make that more specific so that people won't think I am talking about "all men".

I have stated several times and recently that the men I encounter in the real world don't say the things that TAM men say.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Holdingontoit said:


> I don't think we "picked badly". The facts that we don't want to face are:
> we aren't all that attractive
> we are definitely not good in bed
> we are too afraid or too lazy to take action to change either of the first 2 characteristics.
> ...


True.

The incel crowd seems to think that there's something wrong with women that results in them (the incels) not being chosen.

Women, of course, want to have sex with men to whom they are sexually attracted. There's really not much of an option as to what a particular woman is sexually attracted to.

There is no reason that women are any more "wrong" in deciding what is attractive to them than there is with men deciding who they are sexually attracted to.

Incels seem to think that women are special creatures that are somehow supposed to work differently then men. They aren't. 

Attraction is attraction.

Now, *IF* it's true that women find a smaller percentage of men sexually attractive than men do women, that would be interesting to know. But it certainly doesn't mean that there's something wrong with women being attracted to whomever they are attracted to; for whatever reasons they are.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

inmyprime said:


> However I’m still not sure that women NOW are not still more disadvantaged than men, with casual sex.


That may or may not be true.

I'll leave that to a different discussion (hopefully, only involving women).


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

inmyprime said:


> Do men even care?
> 
> ,,,,,,
> 
> I have only heard women make a big deal out of it so far. But no, let’s blame it on some mythical red pill/incel/acne/mom’s basement organisation that nobody ever heard of.


I've always suspected that many women are holding the wrong gender at fault for ****-shaming. 

It's just easier to blame guys.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I've always suspected that many women are holding the wrong gender at fault for ****-shaming.
> 
> It's just easier to blame guys.


There is **** shaming by men right here on this thread. You guys just use a different language for it.


"Men don't hate ****s, they just don't marry them. 

Women don't like them because the drive the price of sex down and they get less for their own sexuality. 

It's the old, "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?" thing. If you are the cow, no one is going to give you much if there are lots of others out there handing out free or cheap milk."


When men claim that "men don't marry ****s", there is the implication "now listen here women, you need to know this, don't be a **** or no man will want to MARRY YOU!" Which is all part of the original **** shaming message. The "reason" women shouldn't be ****s is because "no man will want her". And in this case we are not talking about any specific woman or what she has done in her life, so men apparently all think the same way? They all think a woman with 3 partners is a ****? No wait, that's pretty tame, it has to be over 5 partners, then she is a **** and I won't marry her. No wait, 5 is nothing, only if she has over 10 partners, then she is a **** and I won't marry her. All the while, still talking about a hypothetical woman.

Now guys can pretend like they don't "mean it like that", that they aren't saying it for the benefit of women reading or hearing. But we know better. Any guy who actually SAYS those words, he's just waiting for an excuse to shame us. Granted, he may be the type to shame ****ty men, too. But usually, he's not, he just makes sure women everywhere know WE WON'T MARRY YOU!

That's just one example. There are many others on this thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/cultu...librand-tweet-cat-person-calling-women-*****/


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

BruceBanner said:


> New research has found evidence that both men and women are prejudiced towards sexualized women. But only women are willing to endure a cost to themselves to punish a woman who appears to be promiscuous. The findings appear in Evolution and Human Behavior.
> 
> The opponents varied in whether they appeared to be sexually accessible or sexually restricted. For some participants, the opponent was *depicted as a woman wearing a tight, red outfit and an abundance of makeup*. For others, the opponent was depicted as a woman wearing loose-fitting clothing with less makeup.
> 
> *The researchers found that both male and female participants were less willing to share money with a woman wearing the tight outfit.* The participants also trusted sexually-accessible opponents with a financial investment less than sexually-restrictive opponents.


Thank you for sharing the study. I find it very interesting and some parts sound very reasonable. 

However, at the few times I have visited a strip club, I have never found any men who were not willing to "...share money with a woman wearing the tight outfit..." So at least based on scientific observational data, I have to questions the conclusions and if they might have over-extrapolated the results a little too broadly.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> I’d like to see the same study done with men who are “chaste” and men who are “****s”, have men and women interact with both the chaste guys and the ****s. Then evaluate what the men and women think of the **** men. Do they trust him? Would other men go out of their way to punish him?
> 
> This is one of those studies that was really just another attempt to **** shame women. Basically they began with the premise, why do we love **** shaming women so much anyway? and worked from there.
> 
> If the study was more honest with itself, it would be called “here another piece of crap disguised as an attempt to understand women, but the reality is we just wanted to talk again about how ****s are ****s and they should be ashamed, see, even women think so!”



In summary:
1) The study is evil
2) We need more of them.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

SpinyNorman said:


> In summary:
> 1) The study is evil
> 2) We need more of them.


If the study was done to see how people react to both male and female ****s, and reported how men react to male ****s, then the study would just be stupid but not one-sidedly focused on **** shaming only women.

Can I ask you if it makes any sense to you, as a guy, that the study authors concluded that men don’t trust sexily dressed women (who they interact with in a study) because they are afraid she will hijack his sperm, then hijack another mans sperm and get pregnant with him, then force you to raise the baby?

I understand the premise behind that idea, and of course in reality I don’t see why men wouldn’t always have to kind of wonder about pregnancy and the chance that if a woman he’s in a relationship with had cheated it could be another mans baby (and this tragedy does happen). I absolutely think that’s horrible and men are right to be outraged that this would occur.

But I don’t think the man taking a survey has this on his mind. I think he may distrust the sexy woman for valid reasons, they may be or may not be subconscious ones. I don’t have a problem with the fact that he doesn’t trust her. People use their instincts for things like that.

I can’t get behind any of it though due to their stupid one sidedness, and their stupid conclusions. And by stupid I am talking about the idea that men and women taking a survey and their reactions to it should be extrapolated to such a ridiculous level (sexual mating strategies). We react to people who we might have sex with differently than we react to the average sexy person who we interact in business like settings with. The study wasn’t about any of that anyway, it was a study to find more ways and reasons to shame women and make men look like clueless ****s that will stick it into anything and that they have no mental capacity beyond that. 

But that’s my rant/opinion. I know, I know, I’m always on the same rant. :laugh:


----------



## Rubix Cubed (Feb 21, 2016)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, every one of those quotes of mine relates to men at TAM. There certainly is a similar mind set by many of the men here at TAM, and I am not the first to say so.
> 
> So if you need me to, I can go back and make that more specific so that people won't think I am talking about "all men".
> 
> I have stated several times and recently that *the men I encounter in the real world don't say the things that TAM men say.*


Do you possibly think that might be because they are not anonymous and maybe not shooting exactly straight with you? That may be to be PC, garner favor, or just to not make waves.
I would never be so presumptuous as to make a statement prefaced with "the women of TAM *ALL* do ____." It would be a completely asinine generalization just as the opposite is.


----------



## Rubix Cubed (Feb 21, 2016)

The only thing I know about "incels" is what I have seen posted here by Faithful Wife and Person of Interest, that being said it would be interesting to know the age range of said incels. Seems highly likely they wouldn't be allowed in a liquor store.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> I've always suspected that many women are holding the wrong gender at fault for ****-shaming.
> 
> 
> 
> It's just easier to blame guys.




Yes it’s weird isn’t it..When someone goes on and on how they don’t care what anyone thinks yet can’t let go and spend all this time rebuffing one person’s turn of phrase, because clearly, they not only care but also project one expression on what ‘majority of TAM men’ if not all TAM men apparently think...
It’s like one desperately needs to be offended about something: without it, there is no purpose or cause, whatever cause it is they keep pursuing...

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-feminists-offended-by-everything



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> If the study was done to see how people react to both male and female ****s, and reported how men react to male ****s, then the study would just be stupid but not one-sidedly focused on **** shaming only women.
> 
> Can I ask you if it makes any sense to you, as a guy, that the study authors concluded that men don’t trust sexily dressed women (who they interact with in a study) because they are afraid she will hijack his sperm, then hijack another mans sperm and get pregnant with him, then force you to raise the baby?
> 
> ...


You have some very different opinions of the researchers than I do. Their premise is that women suffer many atrocities both to inhibit and as punishment for their own sexuality, so I have trouble concluding that ".it was a study to find more ways and reasons to shame women". They claim that a historical explanation is that men were concerned about paternity, another that women were concerned about competition. I only read the synopsis, I think you have to pay for the full study, but I took the upshot to be that since both genders were less trustful of the sexualized woman you couldn't attribute all of the opposition to either theory. I don't think the authors were claiming either theory as their own, most of us have heard both long before this study was hatched. I would agree based on results that neither theory explains all of it, but it is also possible there are other explanations. 

I like science, and I like when people think of some actual research. I would like it if they could do an equivalent study for "sexualized men". I'm not sure it would be easy to do as makeup was one of the factors they used, which few men wear.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

SpinyNorman said:


> You have some very different opinions of the researchers than I do. Their premise is that women suffer many atrocities both to inhibit and as punishment for their own sexuality, so I have trouble concluding that ".it was a study to find more ways and reasons to shame women". They claim that a historical explanation is that men were concerned about paternity, another that women were concerned about competition. I only read the synopsis, I think you have to pay for the full study, but I took the upshot to be that since both genders were less trustful of the sexualized woman you couldn't attribute all of the opposition to either theory. I don't think the authors were claiming either theory as their own, most of us have heard both long before this study was hatched. I would agree based on results that neither theory explains all of it, but it is also possible there are other explanations.
> 
> I like science, and I like when people think of some actual research. I would like it if they could do an equivalent study for "sexualized men". I'm not sure it would be easy to do as makeup was one of the factors they used, which few men wear.


I volunteer to be the sexy man picker for the study, and to get to decide what he wears. >


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Rubix Cubed said:


> Do you possibly think that might be because they are not anonymous and maybe not shooting exactly straight with you? That may be to be PC, garner favor, or just to not make waves.
> I would never be so presumptuous as to make a statement prefaced with "the women of TAM *ALL* do ____." It would be a completely asinine generalization just as the opposite is.


When I say that men I know in real life don’t talk the way men at TAM do, I’m talking about men I’ve known quite well over time. Men in my family, friends I’ve had for decades, men I’ve been intimate with, men who are married to my friends, men I’ve been in social circles with for many years. I’ve discussed with these men general attitudes about men and women, equality issues, political issues, dating issues, me too issues, ballot issues, marital issues, sex issues, on and on. 

I’m surrounded (by choice) by men who openly have liberal attitudes about these things and generally have attitudes (demonstrated over time by both words and actions) that men and women are not at war over sex. They understand that people are individuals and have individual problems, but they generally don’t say things like “men don’t marry ****s”. They don’t talk about women’s choices in such terms.

The area I live in is extremely liberal generally, and most people I talk to about any kind of issue that pings left or right, are very, very left. Many are far more left than I am.

We also have more strip clubs per capital than any other US city. Which is a reflection of our liberal attitudes. People respect sex workers (such as strippers) here. It is not some weird outrageous anomaly for a normal guy to date a stripper. 

We have a huge kink community here, and a huge poly/swinger/open community. These people are accepted and they are on the dating apps like everyone else, looking for a unicorn girl to join a married couple, or for another couple to join them, or for a dude who wants to watch them have sex, or for a third party to join them in a committed triad. These people have dating profiles right next to all the straight people. 

We have monthly huge public kink events that are attended by average community members, because it’s so normal here that it is not threatening to the average person. People who are just curious what goes on at such events show up, broad daylight, not worrying that someone will see them walk in. It’s Portland, who cares? If someone sees you going into such an event they will most likely just think you’re cool and intellectually able to handle the scene. They won’t assume you’re some dungeon master. 

Resources | PDX Kink Events

There are so many LGBT people here that if you have some kind of problem with that, you will get laughed out of town. By the LGBT people AND everyone else. Because we are all related to one, even if we aren’t one ourselves, and we loves our people no matter who they want to have sex with.

Of naked bike rides, ours is the biggest and best. Literally 20,000 people were in ours last summer. I watched it. All of it. It was so amazing. So many naked people. Who just want to be naked because like, we are all naked under our clothes, man.

Porn/sex toy stores are main stream mall types of things. Women have no problem strolling into one at lunch to check out new items, porn, books, etc. This one is on the busiest most expensive, most hip retail street in town, people walk in and out all day long, even though right next door is a popular restaurant where your boss may be having lunch:

https://www.sheboptheshop.com/service/about/

And then there’s the pot. Oh man, do we have pot. We have a pot store next to every strip club, convenience store, book store, nail salon, and Starbucks in town. Let me see....my weed maps right this moment says there are 40 dispensaries within 5 mile of me.

We have doctors and lawyers who are openly stoners. It’s legal here. If you are self employed, who gives AF? It’s not a source of shame or worry for anyone I ever encounter.

I am in charge of HR at my company. If we had a no pot drug policy, we would have no employees. Which is a sentiment that all of the hundreds of employers discuss every year in our BOLI seminars. In fact, right now almost every type of employment punishment practices that involve marijuana are on hold, as the law is mostly on the employee’s side right now. 

Where I live, if you don’t agree with and enjoy our liberal atmosphere full of self identified and unashamed ****s (both male and female), naked people, sex worker, stoners, hippies, raging liberals and LGBT folks, then you quickly relocate to the suburbs.

So no...I don’t think I’m being duped by men who think the opposite of what all I’ve described here. I think the men who are in my circles actually are on the same page I am on most political and equality issues.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> There is **** shaming by men right here on this thread. You guys just use a different language for it.
> 
> 
> "Men don't hate ****s, they just don't marry them.
> ...


I don't think having a preference is **** shaming. Some men dont care, some men do. If I was younger and single and knew some girl that ganged the entire football team, I wouldn't look at her as wife and mother of my kids material even if she is otherwise a great match for me. If you think that is **** shaming, fine. Guess I'm a **** shamer. If you are a woman who really puts out for her man but has had like 3 before me, that is a different story than 25, 30, 50 different men before me. I just don't see a woman who bounces from guy to guy to guy banging anyone who will buy her a drink as good wife/mother of my children material. I think the same thing would hold true for most women who see the "player" type men out there. Is that the husband and father of your children you are looking for as women? If no, does that make you a player hater? 

Yes, lots of men look down in the players. Where do you think the term "player hater" came from?


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Also FW, you mention all that stuff about where you live, then make a statement about "TAM men" and "real life men" being different. I would offer up that you are surrounded by people who think, act, share beliefs, and see the world just as you see it. Which is fine. Our envirenments often shape our beliefs. Almost everyone is susceptible to adopting the culture of the city they live in. That is normal and expected really. 

I don't think that means TAM attracts a certain type of man so much as highlights that you're pretty ensconced in your liberal bubble and don't talk to really much of anyone who thinks, acts, believes, and sees the world differently than you outside of the internet.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I don't think having a preference is **** shaming. Some men dont care, some men do. If I was younger and single and knew some girl that ganged the entire football team, I wouldn't look at her as wife and mother of my kids material even if she is otherwise a great match for me. If you think that is **** shaming, fine. Guess I'm a **** shamer. If you are a woman who really puts out for her man but has had like 3 before me, that is a different story than 25, 30, 50 different men before me. I just don't see a woman who bounces from guy to guy to guy banging anyone who will buy her a drink as good wife/mother of my children material. I think the same thing would hold true for most women who see the "player" type men out there. Is that the husband and father of your children you are looking for as women? If no, does that make you a player hater?
> 
> Yes, lots of men look down in the players. Where do you think the term "player hater" came from?


Where I’m from, there’s no reason to use certain types of language about someone else’s choices in order to state our own choice. 

For instance, using an example like “a woman who banged the entire football team”, is just unnecessarily derogatory and is clearly **** shaming. There’s no reason to describe a woman who did such a thing in a way that clearly shows you don’t approve.

So for example, around here, someone may say it like “yeah I don’t move in the same circles with some of these people who are more free with sex, I prefer to keep my number count lower and date others who feel that way, too”. You are just stating your own preference without disparaging someone who doesn’t fit in your preferences.

And around here you can easily and openly discuss things like this on a date. Women who have literally been gang banged are not shamed around here. Who cares? She made a choice and had fun. If you don’t want to date her, that’s cool and you don’t have to justify it by trying to shame her with “well she slept with the football team, you know”. Here we just say “yeah, that’s not my lifestyle but rock on and good luck!”

There are all kinds of strange, nasty, questionable things men get up to sexually, right? Like everywhere, all the time? Well, that’s not some big weird deal either. I don’t judge them. I’ve had all kinds of incredibly creative offers from men in Portland. One guy begged me to let him clean my house and then be my table (ie: furniture fetish). I just laughed and said “oh you...”

Once we can just talk about someone else’s sexual choices without using words and phrases intended to sting them, then we are achieving a lot of self awareness. There’s really no healthy reason to take jabs at people with phrases and words. Instead we can say, your thing is yours and it doesn’t have to make any sense to me because you are not me.

This is also how we gain mutual acceptance for our own kinky, freaky sexual choices. I don’t care if anyone judges my choices, but if they do I don’t want to hang out with them so don’t be shy, just let me know and leave mylife or whatever you have to do. Even if you just ghost. That’s fine. I don’t need an explanation.

But there’s no reason to be a weird judgey shamey person either. You be you, I’ll be me, if that’s not on the same page, rock on in peace, brother!

Maybe you guys just don’t know what hippies are actually like? :laugh: We really are ok with peoples sexual choices, even if that’s means we don’t want to date them. We still wouldn’t use derogatory language to describe them.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Also FW, you mention all that stuff about where you live, then make a statement about "TAM men" and "real life men" being different. I would offer up that you are surrounded by people who think, act, share beliefs, and see the world just as you see it. Which is fine. Our envirenments often shape our beliefs. Almost everyone is susceptible to adopting the culture of the city they live in. That is normal and expected really.
> 
> I don't think that means TAM attracts a certain type of man so much as highlights that you're pretty ensconced in your liberal bubble and don't talk to really much of anyone who thinks, acts, believes, and sees the world differently than you outside of the internet.


Yes I love my liberal utopia bubble and am never leaving.

However, the fact that TAM is a specific, self selected group is not my idea. We old timers have noted this for a long time.

One of the offshoots from that idea grouping was that all TAM men have a 7 inch penis, and all TAM women are magically HD.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> Where I’m from, there’s no reason to use certain types of language about someone else’s choices in order to state our own choice.
> 
> For instance, using an example like “a woman who banged the entire football team”, is just unnecessarily derogatory and is clearly **** shaming. There’s no reason to describe a woman who did such a thing in a way that clearly shows you don’t approve.
> 
> ...


If I knew a girl that banged the entire football team, and stated I wouldn't date her because she banged the entire football team, I'm stating a fact. If you take a factual statement as a derogatory statement, then I say you are the one with the problem. I don't need to dance around my words when I'm stating a fact because that fact might hurt someone's feelings. Further, if that fact does hurt someone's feelings, then I imagine it is only because they themselves feel a little shameful for their own actions. A person who doesn't care owns they banged the whole team and aren't offended that I pointed out this fact in the slightest. 

Is this like a case where a **** can call another girl a **** and they laugh about it and joke about being ****s. Then someone who isn't a **** calls a girl a **** and she gets offened? I mean, if you are a **** and know it, why are you offended by someone pointing it out unless you are a little bit ashamed of being one?


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes I love my liberal utopia bubble and am never leaving.
> 
> However, the fact that TAM is a specific, self selected group is not my idea. We old timers have noted this for a long time.
> 
> One of the offshoots from that idea grouping was that all TAM men have a 7 inch penis, and all TAM women are magically HD.


I don't know, I mean I'm 6" on the nose, so I guess you aren't talking about me. I don't really care what any of the women's drive is on here. I only know yours because you talk about it every chance you get. Have no idea what the other women here are.

Most TAM men are the same type of men I talk to IRL. From the liberal progressives to the hardcore conservatives and all in between. But my city is very diverse. Portland is practically racially homogenous as well as completely left wing. I find it amusing when places and cities with almost no diversity preach it to others.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> If I knew a girl that banged the entire football team, and stated I wouldn't date her because she banged the entire football team, I'm stating a fact. If you take a factual statement as a derogatory statement, then I say you are the one with the problem. I don't need to dance around my words when I'm stating a fact because that fact might hurt someone's feelings. Further, if that fact does hurt someone's feelings, then I imagine it is only because they themselves feel a little shameful for their own actions. A person who doesn't care owns they banged the whole team and aren't offended that I pointed out this fact in the slightest.
> 
> Is this like a case where a **** can call another girl a **** and they laugh about it and joke about being ****s. Then someone who isn't a **** calls a girl a **** and she gets offened? I mean, if you are a **** and know it, why are you offended by someone pointing it out unless you are a little bit ashamed of being one?


It’s cool, you don’t get it.

But there are entire communities of people who do get what I’m saying. I’ll just stay right here where people understand why it’s unnecessary to use shaming language. You don’t understand it, no problem. No shame there either. Around here we just say “he must not be from around here”. Implies “not woke”. 

There are reasons for not taking someone’s choices as an excuse for trying to feel superior to them. Having a preference doesn’t mean your choices or preferences make you better in any way. And your choice of words does reveal your superior attitude whether you think it does or not. When people are free to make choices without shame, then the entire market can adjust to what people REALLY want. Don’t we want that to happen? In less shaming language, the point here is “hey! Rock on Suzy if you want to bang whoever you want, and rock on me for whatever freaky I want, and rock on people who don’t want to date any of us, and rock on all you other orientations and so forth! We want to find out who we all are so we can date the ones we match with!

You know, like actual hippie ideals.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I don't know, I mean I'm 6" on the nose, so I guess you aren't talking about me. I don't really care what any of the women's drive is on here. I only know yours because you talk about it every chance you get. Have no idea what the other women here are.
> 
> Most TAM men are the same type of men I talk to IRL. From the liberal progressives to the hardcore conservatives and all in between. But my city is very diverse. Portland is practically racially homogenous as well as completely left wing. I find it amusing when places and cities with almost no diversity preach it to others.


I love it here and so does every one who visits me. It’s fun, it’s weird, it’s the Wild West, it’s the best restaurants on the west coast (and possibly the east at this point), it’s full of naked people, it’s full of gay people, you can wear your pajamas to the grocery store, people are hip and friendly.

People don’t drive through Portland in big trucks with giant American flags waving off the back. Anyone who has a truck and a big flag lives in the suburbs. If they have to drive through Portland, they pull over and take their flag down and shove it in the cab first. You don’t do that around here. You just don’t.

The rest of our state is nearly 100% conservative. I grew up “out there”, but thankfully was raised by someone “from here”, so I didn’t end up “like them”. I ended up like Portland folks, even though I did not move here until after I graduated high school.

Am I preaching that everywhere should be like us? Come visit before you decide what I’m saying. :laugh:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> If I knew a girl that banged the entire football team, and stated I wouldn't date her because she banged the entire football team, I'm stating a fact. If you take a factual statement as a derogatory statement, then I say you are the one with the problem. I don't need to dance around my words when I'm stating a fact because that fact might hurt someone's feelings. Further, if that fact does hurt someone's feelings, then I imagine it is only because they themselves feel a little shameful for their own actions. A person who doesn't care owns they banged the whole team and aren't offended that I pointed out this fact in the slightest.
> 
> Is this like a case where a **** can call another girl a **** and they laugh about it and joke about being ****s. Then someone who isn't a **** calls a girl a **** and she gets offened? I mean, if you are a **** and know it, why are you offended by someone pointing it out unless you are a little bit ashamed of being one?


Let’s look at gang bangs specifically a little closer for a moment...from the Portland point of view.

Ever checked out Fetlife? There is a huge number of Portland Fetlife users. There is a personals section. There are literally ads about gang bangs. 

Who do you think are the group of people advertising that they want a gang bang the most? ****ty women? Nope. Men. Young horny men.

There are some women who reply and actually want those things. I’d say maybe one out of every twenty ads by men wanting to organize a gang bang are successful.

Point being, there are far more gang bang male ****s around here (or anywhere, because duh, ten of them and one of her) than female ones.

So in my experience, I’m the one who is far more likely to encounter a male gang bang **** than any guy is likely to meet a female gang bang ****. And yes, I’ve encountered many of them, and many other freaky sexual people.

Do I judge the guy who is making conversation with me for the fact that he has gang bang please message me ads on PDX personals on his profile, and belongs to groups called things like “please some horny **** come **** me right now”? Of course! I judge him as not worthy to date me.

As a person? Who cares. He’s a horny young dude that is trying to experience nasty things. Pretty normal. No judgment.

What do I say to him? As a promoter of the acceptance in this community, I say “no thanks, man! I don’t think we are into the same things”. Inside my head, as a human being who reacts genuinely to things in my environment, I shudder and think “ew, gross, no, you make my skin crawl”.

That’s my authentic reaction to his choices, IF I’m evaluating him as a partner for myself. There is no reason to be disparaging about the guy. He made my skin crawl, but that’s not disparaging it’s just a reaction my body had (and I trust my body). From there, there’s no reason to be like “ewwwww!” outloud. Because I really don’t want to be a shamey, judgey person. So my thoughts on how gross someone might be are not really cool to share as if in a proclamation.

People make my skin crawl for all sorts of reasons. I don’t say those reasons out loud or go on about them or their choices. If I did so, it would show that I’m trying to place them above or below me in some way, and I’m really not. Just because someone makes my skin crawl doesn’t mean I’m better or worse than they are. I want them to feel free to make their choices (and feel free to discuss them openly, so I know who is or isn’t a match for me, if they are in my market).


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> ...it’s unnecessary to use shaming language. ...
> 
> There are reasons for not taking someone’s choices as an excuse for trying to feel superior to them. Having a preference doesn’t mean your choices or preferences make you better in any way.


I agree with the above quote. And you make a very good distinction between "_that makes my skin crawl_" and "_that is ethically unacceptable_". *My own revulsion doesn't make something wrong*. And this I think has been one of the big ideas of the last few decades, although it still seems fragile and precarious. However, I do still think there are things that ARE "wrong". I don't want to extrapolate it to some kind of "hey, everyone must do everything they want". 

Your "driving through town with a big flag on your pickup" example is a good one. The key question for me is, what would people do if someone did that? Roll their eyes and say tut? Pass a law? Or get up in their face and scream abuse at them? The former, I hope. 

It's complicated, but in my mind, if someone is doing something I wouldn't do, there are actually three possible responses, depending on what it is.

(a) That's just their choice. They like something that I would dislike. Nothing wrong there. 

(b) That's wrong. (E.g burglary? Or violence?) I judge them for that. It's their fault. 

(c) That's a manifestation of trauma in their past. It's bad, but it's not really their fault. They need help. (But unfortunately they will probably insist this is case a, and society will probably insist it's case b). This applies to a lot of addictive and self-destructive behaviour.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I don't know, I mean I'm 6" on the nose, so I guess you aren't talking about me. I don't really care what any of the women's drive is on here. I only know yours because you talk about it every chance you get. Have no idea what the other women here are.
> 
> 
> 
> Most TAM men are the same type of men I talk to IRL. From the liberal progressives to the hardcore conservatives and all in between. But my city is very diverse. Portland is practically racially homogenous as well as completely left wing. I find it amusing when places and cities with almost no diversity preach it to others.




You are progressive or ‘woke’ as long as your ideals, values and preferences correspond exactly to theirs, otherwise you are an intolerant ****shamer. I always found these oxymorons hilariously ironic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

Maybe I don't read in the right forums; but, I don't notice TAM women ****-shaming unless the **** has slept with the member's partner. Then, I don't care what the **** is called. It's just an anger thing.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Blondilocks said:


> Maybe I don't read in the right forums; but, I don't notice TAM women ****-shaming unless the **** has slept with the member's partner. Then, I don't care what the **** is called. It's just an anger thing.



I have only ever seen this particular phrase used by women. It was also invented by women and they seem to be using it more on each other (which is also what the ‘research’ of this thread shows):

https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/opinion/enough-now-thing-****/

(Im not saying you do, just some women).

Why would men condemn ‘****ty’ behaviour? (Whatever that means). That would make no sense.

Plus if a guys says that his preference is not to marry a woman who tends to sleep around much, then that group throws a hissy fit and accuses everyone of ****-shaming. 
Mildly irritating to be honest, but again, I’m not sure most people care.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> I love it here and so does every one who visits me. It’s fun, it’s weird, it’s the Wild West, it’s the best restaurants on the west coast (and possibly the east at this point), it’s full of naked people, it’s full of gay people, you can wear your pajamas to the grocery store, people are hip and friendly.
> 
> People don’t drive through Portland in big trucks with giant American flags waving off the back. Anyone who has a truck and a big flag lives in the suburbs. If they have to drive through Portland, they pull over and take their flag down and shove it in the cab first. You don’t do that around here. You just don’t.
> 
> ...


I know what Portland is all about. Its exactly like Boulder and Austin. The only thing I'll say about Austin is they have self awareness at least. Their motto is "keep Austin weird." 

I would also like to point out that in your attempts to place your own hurtful meaning to my own words, you come across as someone with a bit of a superiority complex. I get it FW, you are are just a better, more enlightened person than me. You are more "woke" and all that. At least I know I'm beneath you. Maybe we can discuss this in your empathy thread? Or perhaps You aren't actually looking for empathy. You love your bubble as you stated.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

An American... in America... flying an American flag?
Oh, the horror!

What unenlightened, unintelligent, nationalist, racist neanderthals!

Unlike those glorious, beloved illegals with their little Mexican and Jamaican flags hanging from the rearview mirrors in their uninsured ****mobiles.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, every one of those quotes of mine relates to men at TAM. There certainly is a similar mind set by many of the men here at TAM, and I am not the first to say so.
> 
> So if you need me to, I can go back and make that more specific so that people won't think I am talking about "all men".
> 
> I have stated several times and recently that the men I encounter in the real world don't say the things that TAM men say.


See, I will take a different approach. I don't necessarily agree that this mindset you note is representative of many of the men here on TAM, at least from what I see. I think it may be representative of a much smaller (*but more vocal*) group.

In general (from what I have seen), women are more critical of other women than men are (whether it be physical looks, clothes, "promiscuity", etc...). Not saying there aren't guys who won't go on the attack, just my observation that more of the heat I have seen has come from other ladies.

Really, when it comes to slot shaming, I have always viewed it more as whether or not you are being hypocritical. If you shame someone for leading a particular sex lifestyle yet you lead a similar, then you are the problem. I have no problem stating that in the context of a relationship I would have very little interest in a female who had a high partner count or took part in a casual sex lifestyle. I would like to think that doesn't make me a slot shamer, yet I bet some may argue otherwise. I would not call these people names and would have zero issues being friends with. However, when it comes to a relationship, a person who lead this type of lifestyle just wouldn't fit in with how I have lead it and my views. Doesn't make me the better person, and no person is in the wrong here, just more a question of compatibility.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> I would like to think that doesn't make me a slot shamer,



Yes let’s stick with our own slots to shame.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

inmyprime said:


> Yes let’s stick with our own slots to shame.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I have been known to talk **** to those darn old folks who hog up the slot machines at the casinos


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> There is **** shaming by men right here on this thread. You guys just use a different language for it.
> 
> 
> "Men don't hate ****s, they just don't marry them.
> ...


I don't see why not wanting to marry a sexually promiscuous woman can be seen as ****-shaming. Is not wanting to marry a 400 lb woman fat-shaming?

Certainly men are allowed to marry whoever they want, applying any deal-breakers they want, right? Men aren't telling women it's bad to be sexually promiscuous, some are just saying that they'd rather not marry those who are. Women can behave any way they want and men can like or dislike whatever they want. If it's true that most men don't want to marry promiscuous women (and I'm not sure that's true these days), at least it would be good for woman to know that. Then they can make informed choices: not be promiscuous, be promiscuous discreetly, or bring up their history on the first date so that they can avoid getting involved with a guy like that. 

Personally, I married a women who was previously sexually promiscuous, so I obviously didn't have a problem with it.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> I don't see why not wanting to marry a sexually promiscuous woman can be seen as ****-shaming. Is not wanting to marry a 400 lb woman fat-shaming?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good for you. I married a woman who is very promiscuous with me. She complains I treat her with too much respect. Such a slot. Loves it.  I cant help it. I’m too much of a feminist. Very deep inside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I know what Portland is all about. Its exactly like Boulder and Austin. The only thing I'll say about Austin is they have self awareness at least. Their motto is "keep Austin weird."
> 
> I would also like to point out that in your attempts to place your own hurtful meaning to my own words, you come across as someone with a bit of a superiority complex. I get it FW, you are are just a better, more enlightened person than me. You are more "woke" and all that. At least I know I'm beneath you. Maybe we can discuss this in your empathy thread? Or perhaps You aren't actually looking for empathy. You love your bubble as you stated.


You must not know what Portland is all about if you think Austin came up with that first.

Yep, my points still stand. I loves my liberal Mecca, land of the free freaks!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> I don't see why not wanting to marry a sexually promiscuous woman can be seen as ****-shaming. Is not wanting to marry a 400 lb woman fat-shaming?
> 
> Certainly men are allowed to marry whoever they want, applying any deal-breakers they want, right? Men aren't telling women it's bad to be sexually promiscuous, some are just saying that they'd rather not marry those who are. Women can behave any way they want and men can like or dislike whatever they want. If it's true that most men don't want to marry promiscuous women (and I'm not sure that's true these days), at least it would be good for woman to know that. Then they can make informed choices: not be promiscuous, be promiscuous discreetly, or bring up their history on the first date so that they can avoid getting involved with a guy like that.
> 
> Personally, I married a women who was previously sexually promiscuous, so I obviously didn't have a problem with it.


As I made the point, one can have their skin crawl by either a **** or a 400 pound woman, and in either case, there’s no reason to disparage her just because she makes your skin crawl. Saying you don’t want to marry her is just honesty. Saying “because she’s a *****!” or “because she’s a ****ing whale!” is just being an ass.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Young at Heart said:


> Thank you for sharing the study. I find it very interesting and some parts sound very reasonable.
> 
> However, at the few times I have visited a strip club, I have never found any men who were not willing to "...share money with a woman wearing the tight outfit..." So at least based on scientific observational data, I have to questions the conclusions and if they might have over-extrapolated the results a little too broadly.


2/3 of Behavioral Economics is based on variations of this experiment.

So, it's a pretty common, accepted experimental method.


----------



## Rubix Cubed (Feb 21, 2016)

Since that diatribe strays so far off task, I'll only respond to the intent. You seem to think that because you are some progressive, kinky, liberal that you are automatically *not* narrow-minded. That is a misconception. You are just narrowminded and intolerant to the people you don't agree with. Generalizing them all to fit your view and discredit anyone who doesn't agree with you ( and in the process some who do).



Faithful Wife said:


> When I say that men I know in real life don’t talk the way men at TAM do, I’m talking about men I’ve known quite well over time. Men in my family, friends I’ve had for decades, men I’ve been intimate with, men who are married to my friends, men I’ve been in social circles with for many years. I’ve discussed with these men general attitudes about men and women, equality issues, political issues, dating issues, me too issues, ballot issues, marital issues, sex issues, on and on.
> 
> I’m surrounded (by choice) by men who openly have liberal attitudes about these things and generally have attitudes (demonstrated over time by both words and actions) that men and women are not at war over sex. They understand that people are individuals and have individual problems, but they generally don’t say things like “men don’t marry ****s”. They don’t talk about women’s choices in such terms.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> See, I will take a different approach. I don't necessarily agree that this mindset you note is representative of many of the men here on TAM, at least from what I see. I think it may be representative of a much smaller (*but more vocal*) group.
> 
> In general (from what I have seen), women are more critical of other women than men are (whether it be physical looks, clothes, "promiscuity", etc...). Not saying there aren't guys who won't go on the attack, just my observation that more of the heat I have seen has come from other ladies.
> 
> Really, when it comes to slot shaming, I have always viewed it more as whether or not you are being hypocritical. If you shame someone for leading a particular sex lifestyle yet you lead a similar, then you are the problem. I have no problem stating that in the context of a relationship I would have very little interest in a female who had a high partner count or took part in a casual sex lifestyle. I would like to think that doesn't make me a slot shamer, yet I bet some may argue otherwise. I would not call these people names and would have zero issues being friends with. However, when it comes to a relationship, a person who lead this type of lifestyle just wouldn't fit in with how I have lead it and my views. Doesn't make me the better person, and no person is in the wrong here, just more a question of compatibility.


Ellis, when you’re saying you have seen women are more critical of other women than men are, do you mean in the real world around you, or at TAM?


----------



## Rubix Cubed (Feb 21, 2016)

Faithful Wife said:


> Just as the other people here who are so clear on their values and beliefs, I’m stating mine. And just as others feel inside that they are “right” (at least as far as how their values apply to their own lives), so do I.


 Off task again.
So your values and beliefs state that you should lumpsum everyone who doesn't think as you do into the same bin? Paint them all with the broad brush?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Laurentium said:


> Your "driving through town with a big flag on your pickup" example is a good one. The key question for me is, what would people do if someone did that? Roll their eyes and say tut? Pass a law? Or get up in their face and scream abuse at them? The former, I hope.


Me too.

But I'm starting to suspect the third option may be the norm in the future.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Ellis, when you’re saying you have seen women are more critical of other women than men are, do you mean in the real world around you, or at TAM?


Real world, TAM aint real world :grin2:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Rubix Cubed said:


> Off task again.
> So your values and beliefs state that you should lumpsum everyone who doesn't think as you do into the same bin? Paint them all with the broad brush?


No, but I can see how you would think that. The same way I think I’m seeing some men here doing some **** shaming but they don’t agree that they are.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Ellis, when you’re saying you have seen women are more critical of other women than men are, do you mean in the real world around you, or at TAM?


Well, go to google and enter "women ****shaming women"

Plenty of results to support the idea that **** shaming isn't done only by (or even predominantly by) men.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> Real world, TAM aint real world :grin2:


Honestly curious, do you see women at TAM being catty about other women? Generally is there a sense of that around here? I admit I probably would not know or notice it if there is.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> Well, go to google and enter "women ****shaming women"
> 
> Plenty of results to support the idea that **** shaming isn't done only by (or even predominantly by) men.


Buddy, my point has never been that women don’t **** shame women (they **** shame men too). I had pointed out what constitutes **** shaming on this thread by some men, it came up so many posts back. 

I get it that the men who typed those words don’t agree that they are **** shaming.

I tried to provide reference to less shaming language to point out that we can have preferences without shaming or dispariging someone. I’ve been very clear. 

If you want to actually understand me, we could take it off line. But it’s not going to be something you understand easily (I’m guessing) and I have no agenda to make you understand it. I had linked an article a few pages back (it may have gotten lost) and it explains very well how I and millions of women feel about **** shaming words. And yes, it’s about how men use words and then try to pretend that’s not what they meant.

Again, I am not invested in you understanding me. I’m just responding to your post. I’m clear on what I think.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> Honestly curious, do you see women at TAM being catty about other women? Generally is there a sense of that around here? I admit I probably would not know or notice it if there is.


On TAM itself I would say no (I could think of a few members who may fit the bill, but overall no). I also get the sense that TAM is more heavily dominated by Men. I actually find many of the ladies here quite pleasant.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> You must not know what Portland is all about if you think Austin came up with that first.
> 
> Yep, my points still stand. I loves my liberal Mecca, land of the free freaks!


So this is one of those situations where the person saying the words makes the difference rather than the actual words.

If I were to say "I don't like Portland, it's full of freaks and weirdos" I'm being derogatory and someone gets offended at being called a freak and weirdo. Where as when you say "I like Portland, it's full of freaks and weirdos" nobody is offended by being called a freak and a weirdo because you enjoy that lifestyle. 

At the end of the day it's two different people stating a preference using the exact same words. One is frowned upon by the so called "woke" while the other is praised by those same people. Basically, as long as you agree with me, I'm very tolerant. The second you don't, my tolerance for you is gone. Thats pretty much what the "woke tolerant" left is all about really. Same with the Christian fundamentalist right. The interesting thing is that both sides act exactly like those they claim to be fighting against. There's plenty of examples of Portlanders "tolerance" in regards to anyone even slightly right of Nancy Pelosi. Some of them even made the national news cycle. Same from the Alt-right in their own stomping grounds.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> So this is one of those situations where the person saying the words makes the difference rather than the actual words.
> 
> If I were to say "I don't like Portland, it's full of freaks and weirdos" I'm being derogatory and someone gets offended at being called a freak and weirdo. Where as when you say "I like Portland, it's full of freaks and weirdos" nobody is offended by being called a freak and a weirdo because you enjoy that lifestyle.
> 
> At the end of the day it's two different people stating a preference using the exact same words. One is frowned upon by the so called "woke" while the other is praised by those same people. Basically, as long as you agree with me, I'm very tolerant. The second you don't, my tolerance for you is gone. Thats pretty much what the "woke tolerant" left is all about really. Same with the Christian fundamentalist right. The interesting thing is that both sides act exactly like those they claim to be fighting against. There's plenty of examples of Portlanders "tolerance" in regards to anyone even slightly right of Nancy Pelosi. Some of them even made the national news cycle. Same from the Alt-right in their own stomping grounds.


Someone who has never been to Portland can't tell me what Portland is like, sorry. (Neither can anyone who has just visited, but at least they have a bit of a clue).

The rest of what you wrote....yes, rant on. Feel free. We are what we are.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

I have been to Portland a few times. I actually really liked it. (Food, jazz clubs, people: all good). But I haven’t encountered any crazy, nude, stoned, hippies or ‘radical leftists’ who have to get me to agree with them or have me in fear of being called intolerant, ****-shaming ignoranus (or worse).
Just regular nice folks.
There are other nice cities on the West Coast too. In some ways I prefer west to the east coast but wouldn’t call anything ‘superior’ about one or the other. I prefer Canada overall  They don’t give me crap at the customs border and are generally more polite when it comes to ‘aliens’ (from my personal experience, I could have been unlucky and maybe looked ‘entitled’ and ‘argumentative’ ). Whenever I enter the US, the officers make me feel that unless I bow down in eternal gratitude for entering, they will send me back (funnily enough, this only happened with officers who seemed foreign themselves).
Sorry, t/j.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> So this is one of those situations where the person saying the words makes the difference rather than the actual words.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes it’s exactly right. Which (to me) proves that it’s usually mostly not a certain political stance, or a movement or a religion at fault when crazy things happen, but it’s the people who use a certain ideology to justify their actions or feelings or whatever. (Just saying it in general; I don’t actually think anyone here is using those things maliciously, I think it comes more from general ignorance or a predisposition towards cognitive dissonance, which all of us sometimes suffer from). 
But for someone who all of my life identified as being ‘progressive’ and always leaning more towards the left of the political spectrum, that side is beginning to scare me lately. There is no way of predicting how far the ‘intolerance of the /self-proclaimed tolerant’ will go.
By definition, a ‘woke’ person should really be agreeing and embracing what everyone else is saying on all different sides. But the opposite seems to be happening most of the time and people just using the ‘I’m so offended’ tactic, to make everyone else submit to their viewpoint and their own definition of what words are supposed to mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m not sure, either. But you do realize I was talking about giant trucks with giant flags driving around, right? I’m not talking about the flag being hung or flown on businesses, in schools, etc. We have flags flying on poles and in buildings all over. I have never heard any person make any negative statement about the flag itself.
> 
> But if someone is driving a big truck with a flag, around here anyway, they are making a statement. Is that not true where you are? I mean, libs are doing the same with their pride flags flying on their Subaru’s and electric cars. It’s fine, people make these statements all the time.
> 
> ...


My post wasn't directed at you in any way. I quoted Blondi, I just did a quick search on "American Flag and Hate" and came across that video, which like I said, couldn't tell if it was serious or sarcasm lol.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Buddy, my point has never been that women don’t **** shame women (they **** shame men too). I had pointed out what constitutes **** shaming on this thread by some men, it came up so many posts back.


That clarifies things for be. I had thought that you believed that women didn't **** shame women and that only men did it.

I did read the article you linked to. However, I have major issues with the "dog-whistle" concept.

People stop saying offensive things and, instead of being happy with the progress, the easily offended start assuming they've just changed to a code.

Maybe, they actually changed (or realized that what they were saying was offensive and hadn't realized that before).

Even if, worst case scenario, society made them change from obvious offensive language and use code words in their place, I think that's still progress.

Maybe things really are getting better.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

*Moderator notice:-*

I just had to tidy up a major threadjack.

Please take any political discussions to the appropriate section of TAM.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> That clarifies things for be. I had thought that you believed that women didn't **** shame women and that only men did it.
> 
> I did read the article you linked to. However, I have major issues with the "dog-whistle" concept.
> 
> ...


I think things are better when people who say offensive things realize why they are offensive and stop saying them, because you can express your opposing opinion without resorting to nasty name calling (ie: **** shaming).

The problem with this is that the people who use **** shaming language rarely actually believe they are being offensive. So instead of changing or getting better, they just deflect and project and call the offended person a snow flake and then use different wording for their **** shaming. That's not really progress, to me.

I don't really know why some men have dug their heels in so deep in order to not stop doing it (well, I do know why actually) but it is clear they aren't going to stop or ever see why what they are saying is offensive and just plain mean spirited.

Again, I realize you disagree. And that you don't read or hear those words that way. That's why there can't really be any understanding between us on this topic.

Matt - - hopefully **** shaming, which is what the thread is about, is not a thread jack.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

The thread jack has been about much more than **** shamming. It's become ridiculous.


----------

