The First Date Shag Consequences..

fergalr

Maguined wrote: »

I would definitely agree with those points about this being an instinctive thing in men for ensuring any potential children are more likely to be your own. These instincts would have been crept their way into the brain well before the invention of paternity tests. Just because paternity tests exist now does not wipe away generations of instinct however, you also see this is womens attitude to dating.

The search for the "provider" male is pretty redundant these days as we are supposed to have an equal society with women earning almost as much as men however I would say the vast majority (just my personal experience) of women would still expect the man to pay for the first date. This was even on a recent thread with some women saying they could be having a fantastic date with a man and everything is going well but if when the bill comes the man wanted to split it then she would no longer have any interest in him.

I do not think these are double standards, merely as one poster said just plain standards,

Whether they are 'double standards' or 'plain standards', in this case, has been reduced to a semantic issue of what 'double standards' means.

Whatever you want to call it, what is objectionable is that the same behaviour (having a lot of sexual partners) is judged positive if males do it, and negative if females do it.

I think 'double standards' is a good name for this, as clearly a different set of standards are being applied for male than for female behaviour. But what matters is the concept, not the name.

Maguined wrote: »

sure they might not make much sense a lot of the time but when you are talking about someones personal preferences they don't really need to. You do not owe another human being anything regarding your own personal dating life apart from honesty.

In some ways, I'd agree with that, in that I definitely don't think anyone should be forced or compelled to date someone that has attributes they don't like - whatever the crazy reasons behind their judgement.


But, I disagree with the tone that suggests that preferences are neither good nor bad. Personal preferences don't 'need' to make sense, in any objective manner - but thats not to say that all personal preferences are equal...


I mean, if someone said to me, after a couple of dates:
"Oh, I didn't realise you were Irish. I don't date Irish people, they are a low race - that's just my personal preferences,sure they might not make much sense a lot of the time but when you are talking about someones personal preferences they don't really need to.", well I'd have a pretty low opinion of that person.

Just because these things are personal preferences, and subjective, doesn't mean that all personal preferences and rationales are equally good.


We can reason about whether personal preferences are good or bad.
It might be someones personal preference, as a white supremacist, to dump a girlfriend once he found out she had a tiny bit of mixed heritage. I'd say this 'personal preference' is bad.
It might be someone elses personal preference, as a gold digger, to dump a boyfriend when she found out he wasn't quite as rich as she had thought. I'd also say this 'personal preference' is bad.


In this thread, I reason that dumping - or refusing to date - a woman who you are otherwise getting on very well with, because you found out she's had sex more than X times in the past, and because you have some sort of irrational hangup hangup (eg, you wouldn't think about a guy the same way, so its not because of STDs or pregnancy chance or whatever) , is bad.

Maguined

I would not really see it as double standards as it is completely coming from an individuals personal circumstances and not necessarily being applied to a whole group or gender.

I seriously doubt that of the men that prefer it if the woman does not sleep with them on the first date expect this personal preference of theirs to be a social standard. I can say for myself as an individual I only ever want a monogamous relationship, swinging or open relationships do not appeal to me so they are not right for me, that does not mean I oppose other people pursuing such a relationship as two consenting adults can do whatever they want.

Just because someone does not want their date to sleep with them on their first date does not mean they are trying to enforce some gender based double standard that its okay for any man to sleep on the first date but it is not okay for any woman, they are simply saying they would not longer be interested in those specific women in their own private life.

I think it would be a double standard if you had a bisexual person who would be okay with dating one gender they slept with on the first date but they would not be okay with the other gender.

fergalr

Maguined wrote: »

I would not really see it as double standards as it is completely coming from an individuals personal circumstances and not necessarily being applied to a whole group or gender.

I seriously doubt that of the men that prefer it if the woman does not sleep with them on the first date expect this personal preference of theirs to be a social standard. I can say for myself as an individual I only ever want a monogamous relationship, swinging or open relationships do not appeal to me so they are not right for me, that does not mean I oppose other people pursuing such a relationship as two consenting adults can do whatever they want.

Just because someone does not want their date to sleep with them on their first date does not mean they are trying to enforce some gender based double standard that its okay for any man to sleep on the first date but it is not okay for any woman, they are simply saying they would not longer be interested in those specific women in their own private life.

I think it would be a double standard if you had a bisexual person who would be okay with dating one gender they slept with on the first date but they would not be okay with the other gender.

IF you think that it's 'bad' of a woman, if the woman sleeps with the man on the first date BUT you don't think its 'bad' of a man, if a man sleeps with a woman on the first date, THEN there are 'double standards', because you are making a generalisation that applies to one sex, but not the other.

IF you think that anyone who has sex on a first date is 'bad', regardless of gender, THEN its not 'double standards'.


Someone might argue whether your sexual conservatism is merited, but I don't think they could reasonably accuse you of 'double standards'.

(I'm using 'bad' in a vague way in this post on purpose.)

Maguined

Yes but I do not think these people think in those terms as in if women do it its bad but if men do it then its okay. I think it is more likely they are thinking if any "potential partners for a relationship" sleep with them on the first date, most men are heterosexual so only women would fall into this category but they are not applying it to all women just ones they would have a potential relationship with.

If a man was not attracted to smokers, if that is something that would put him off dating a woman he is not saying it is wrong or bad for women to smoke, just that he would not want a relationship with a woman that does smoke. Yes it would be a double standard if the man smoked himself however I do not think this is the case for men that would sleep with a woman on the first date and then not continue a relationship with her. They are clearly separating sex into two different groups, the purely physical just for sex type and the potential intimate relationship sex. If the man sleeps with the women on the first date then he has considered it the first type, if they want long enough then it will end up being the second so I really do not see it as a double standard.

honru

metrovelvet wrote:

I think women would have the same concern tbh. If a man has a long history of sleeping around then she might wonder about his ability to be faithful. I dont know how much girls like to share, whether it be time, loyalty, or resources.

True, though it begs the question: why is it that in society men who regularly have casual sex are seen as champions while promiscuous women are labelled sluts and whores? I don’t want to speak for all women here, because I know some may disagree with me, but I think women are generally more accepting of men having a lot of past sexual partners.

The sexy-son hypothesis holds weight here. If a man has had many past sexual partners, then there is high likelihood that this particular man is sexually attractive to women. If a woman receives this man's genes, then the chances are high that any male offspring conceived will also be sexually attractive, thus the genes are more likely to pass down to the next generation and so on.

Though this must cause a dilemma for women: do you seek genes with a high chance of reproductive success, with a potentially uncommitted mate, or seek a committed mate but with average to poor heritable traits, thus encountering the potential of damaging evolutionary consequences?

I read about an interesting research experiment conducted before: a sample of women were shown three different images of a man in a bar setting. The first picture showed the man alone, the second showed the man in a group with two males, and the third displayed the man in a group with two females. The women in the study were asked to choose which image they felt the man was at his most attractive. The majority of women in the study went with the third picture: the picture of the man present with two women.

It almost seems like there is some kind of “pre-selection” in society, where if a multitude of women accompany a particular man it means that he is “pre-approved”, and thus the hard work is done. Which would somewhat explain the discrepancies in the differing standards between sexes on the subject of promiscuity.

Interestingly, they did the same experiment with men, with three different images of a woman in a similar setting: the first picture showing the woman alone, the second image displaying the woman in a group with two males, and the third showing the women present with two females. The majority of men in the study felt that the particular woman was at her most attractive in the latter picture: the picture of the woman in a group with two other women.

For men it seems things get tarnished when another dude is brought in to the fray.

Snowie

Its all a bit of a farse really...... what's to say she would consider going any further or sleeping with him, because he could be ****e in bed? :pac:

I love this false sense of oh I can get what ever I want... In reality hes the one that's single to...

Its not the worst thing to happen only if your immature enough to see it that way i think it can really show what the girls like or guys depending on your sex..

If shes got passion if shes able to have a laugh half way threw sex.. It really does show the person... and so what she had sex its not the end of the world.. Tho i know if you can have something you may not want it again which is something that is very silly but a fact so i wouldn't never think bad off it but its not always the best idea...

but hey lifes for living...

metrovelvet

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

True, though it begs the question: why is it that in society men who regularly have casual sex are seen as champions while promiscuous women are labelled sluts and whores? I don’t want to speak for all women here, because I know some may disagree with me, but I think women are generally more accepting of men having a lot of past sexual partners.

The sexy-son hypothesis holds weight here. If a man has had many past sexual partners, then there is high likelihood that this particular man is sexually attractive to women. If a woman receives this man's genes, then the chances are high that any male offspring conceived will also be sexually attractive, thus the genes are more likely to pass down to the next generation and so on.

Though this must cause a dilemma for women: do you seek genes with a high chance of reproductive success, with a potentially uncommitted mate, or seek a committed mate but with average to poor heritable traits, thus encountering the potential of damaging evolutionary consequences?

Talk about being stuck between a rock and hard place!

I dont know how much control we have over all this. I'm still a believer in Nature's sinister plot.

Faith

I posted this in tLL too, but I'm interested in male views: Do you think the type of sex makes a difference? Would guys be less inclined to see a girl as having relationship potential based on what type of sex they had? Say romantic, intimate sex versus dirty, wild sex. I would hypothesise that "dirty" sex could lead to the girl being seen as little more than a sexual object, much like a porn star. But then again, the guy could just be delighted that he's met someone who's very uninhibited. Whereas the "romantic" sex girl could be seen as a better long-term bet, but could also perhaps be perceived as being boring and inhibited. I don't know if it's even a factor, but it's something I'd be interested in hearing responses to.

homerun_homer

It wouldn't make a difference to me. If it progressed to a relationship & it was always the same 'romantic' kind then I think it would get a little boring. It does need to be mixed up a bit to keep things interesting but then again it's all about who you are with.

Maguined

Faith wrote: »

I posted this in tLL too, but I'm interested in male views: Do you think the type of sex makes a difference? Would guys be less inclined to see a girl as having relationship potential based on what type of sex they had? Say romantic, intimate sex versus dirty, wild sex. I would hypothesise that "dirty" sex could lead to the girl being seen as little more than a sexual object, much like a porn star. But then again, the guy could just be delighted that he's met someone who's very uninhibited. Whereas the "romantic" sex girl could be seen as a better long-term bet, but could also perhaps be perceived as being boring and inhibited. I don't know if it's even a factor, but it's something I'd be interested in hearing responses to.

I would not like the idea of sleeping with a woman that is only capable of one or the other. I like the idea of being able to enjoy both in my life so will never have to make such a limiting choice and that there are women that are capable of both types of sex so I would not be put off by either type as long as I feel they are capable of both in the long run.

honru

Faith wrote: »

I posted this in tLL too, but I'm interested in male views: Do you think the type of sex makes a difference? Would guys be less inclined to see a girl as having relationship potential based on what type of sex they had? Say romantic, intimate sex versus dirty, wild sex. I would hypothesise that "dirty" sex could lead to the girl being seen as little more than a sexual object, much like a porn star. But then again, the guy could just be delighted that he's met someone who's very uninhibited. Whereas the "romantic" sex girl could be seen as a better long-term bet, but could also perhaps be perceived as being boring and inhibited. I don't know if it's even a factor, but it's something I'd be interested in hearing responses to.

I would say that it is something men consider absolutely. But as you implicate, it's impossible to generalise as all men have different perspectives on sex. At the end of the day, the potential for a relationship from a ONS situation depends on how the man views sex and his own sexuality, how he views women, and how he views women with regards to their own sexuality. The "type" of relationship can vary too... perhaps the man is not interested in monogamy or in a more serious kind of relationship, etc. which also may conflict with what the women desires.

This brings us back again to the madonna/whore complex, and why you hear of married men going to prostitutes: they want an outlet to to act out more uninhibited "dirty" sex with the prostitute while keeping the sex nice and vanilla-like with the wife at home. They would never dream of engaging in "porn-like" sex in the household bedroom.

But returning to the thread topic, I sometimes think though that women take on a lot of guilt from engaging in sex too quickly, as opposed to a "que sera sera" approach, if it doesn't turn out to be pleasurable or result in something specific that they desired. You hear all the time that they feel "used" as a result, even though they may have "used" the sex, for example, as a gateway to a further relationship. Or, god forbid, "used" sex for her own pleasure.

It's a shame that sex is widely thought of as currency, rather than a consensual, enjoyable activity between two adults, but the price of purity is just too high. The majority of men seek the same pure affection that they received from their mothers in potential wives and most women know this is something they must keep in check if they eventually want to settle down and have kids.

minidazzler

Faith wrote: »

I posted this in tLL too, but I'm interested in male views: Do you think the type of sex makes a difference? Would guys be less inclined to see a girl as having relationship potential based on what type of sex they had? Say romantic, intimate sex versus dirty, wild sex. I would hypothesise that "dirty" sex could lead to the girl being seen as little more than a sexual object, much like a porn star. But then again, the guy could just be delighted that he's met someone who's very uninhibited. Whereas the "romantic" sex girl could be seen as a better long-term bet, but could also perhaps be perceived as being boring and inhibited. I don't know if it's even a factor, but it's something I'd be interested in hearing responses to.

I'll expand a little on what I said in the other thread.

Basically, the romantic sex for me would have me a little freaked.

First time having sex with a new partner tends to be VERY highly charged for me, It's nervewracking, it's a bit scary not knowing how you live up, but it's pure unabated lust for me.

If I was in a feeling of deep heat, lustful, and then it's candles and slow romantic sex on the first time, that would be a bit weird for me, it would make me think that this is a serious relationship too quickly. And Yes, I would likely see it as boring.

I want it to be fun, exciting, sweaty and uninhibited the first time, if it progresses to a stage where it's romantic and intimate, cool, but the first time that would freak me a little.

For me, sexual compatibility is a huge deal, I have stopped seeing girls because the sex was too boring for me after a while of hooking up. (not necessarily intimate romantic, just boring in general though)

So, while romantic/intimate sex on a first date would not under any circumstances be a deal breaker, having it like that all the time would be a deal breaker....sometimes you just wanna fcuk someone like.

Wibbs

minidazzler wrote: »

If I was in a feeling of deep heat, lustful, and then it's candles and slow romantic sex on the first time, that would be a bit weird for me, it would make me think that this is a serious relationship too quickly.

This. TBH I'd be thinking "aye aye, next step looking in jewelers windows". It would (in isolation) put me off, because if we were complete strangers and within hours it was intimate sex, I'd probably think them a bit addled. Now I could see a situation where for whatever reason you just click on a very deep level with someone, so I'm sure it has worked really well for people in the past, but I'm probably too cynical about that stuff at this stage

senordingdong

Wibbs wrote: »

but I'm probably too cynical about that stuff at this stage

And with threads like this, what reason could you possibly be cynical for?

sbsquarepants

I can't for the life of me see what the problem would be with sleeping with a girl on the first night, after all if she sleeps with you, you sleep with her. Takes 2 to tango and all that. If i like somebody and want to have sex with them, i want to have it now, not in a month, i absolutely wouldn't think anymore of her for making me wait, in fact i just wouldn't wait for any more than a couple of dates maybe, any longer i'd be gone on to someone a bit more fun!
Give me a girl who likes sex over one who doesn't any day!!

LegacyUser

Interesting thread, for my own cents worth. I had a ons once in my whole life. I wasn't a virgin either, so it wasnt like I was throwing it away on a random whim. I was fairly tipsy to be honest, just out of a relationship and for the first time felt a spark with a guy I had met out. first time I ever did this and it was the last. However, I did start seeing the guy afterwards, not for sex by the way. Actually dating, going out for the night, meeting during the day.
I also laid down groundwork subtly, that I wasn't going to be a fb and if thats what he wanted he could leave with no bad feeling either way. I said this kindly by the way, not as abrupt as Ive explained here.

I guess what the point Im making here is, its unfair to say that someone who has a ONS cant be relationship material because most likely they have done it before and are liable to cheating. That most certainly isn't the case. I would never do it again either. Not because I feel regret, he was a great guy and personality wise lovely. But I've always been a more relationship first, then intimacy type of girl. But you really cant class all ONS into the same category. If true that the majority of guys have all had ONS, there would be no marriages therefore, because no girl likes hearing how many no strings attatched notches are on his bedpost, yet these guys could still be great possible relationships if they wanted them. It really has to work both ways therefore.

greengiant09

watisgoingon wrote: »

I don't think there's any double standard at all.

Yes, we're all supposed to be sexually liberated etc. these days, but I completely reject the idea that everyone should have a carefree attitude to sex and should consider a potential partner's sexual history irrelevant.

Personally, I have had few sexual partners, and a potential sexual partner having had more previous partners than me would bother me. All the logic and rationality in the world tells me that it shouldn't, but it does. Perhaps this will change if/when I get more sexually experienced, but for now, I'm sorry, but it is an issue for me, and you can go fúck yourself if you think this is dated or chauvinist or whatever.

Now, of course, it is wrong to infer from a woman sleeping with you on a first date that she is promiscuous, but I guess it's an indication, and people often go with their instincts.

Also, is there any evidence to suggest that a lot of women do not think the exact same way about promiscuous guys?

completely agree with the above. i'm sick of hearing about people trying to 'change' peoples opinions concerning this issue!

fergalr

greengiant09 wrote: »

watisgoingon wrote:

I don't think there's any double standard at all.

Yes, we're all supposed to be sexually liberated etc. these days, but I completely reject the idea that everyone should have a carefree attitude to sex and should consider a potential partner's sexual history irrelevant.

Personally, I have had few sexual partners, and a potential sexual partner having had more previous partners than me would bother me. All the logic and rationality in the world tells me that it shouldn't, but it does. Perhaps this will change if/when I get more sexually experienced, but for now, I'm sorry, but it is an issue for me, and you can go fúck yourself if you think this is dated or chauvinist or whatever.

Now, of course, it is wrong to infer from a woman sleeping with you on a first date that she is promiscuous, but I guess it's an indication, and people often go with their instincts.

Also, is there any evidence to suggest that a lot of women do not think the exact same way about promiscuous guys?

completely agree with the above. i'm sick of hearing about people trying to 'change' peoples opinions concerning this issue!

The poster is saying that they know that "all the logic and rationality tells them it shouldn't matter", but it does, and anyone that disagrees can go
"go fúck yourself".
And you are chiming in to agree.
Ok, well, fair enough, entitled to your opinion and all that, but whats the point of posting something like that to a discussion board?
How can a constructive discussion come out of that?

I dunno, I think it's important to be willing to think about our positions on these issues critically. There's a lot of social baggage we inherit on these issues; if we don't think about our views critically, and be prepared to change them, how do we know we're not making huge mistakes?

greengiant09

sorry, i should have been more clearer by what i meant. i agree with him in his sentiments about being entitled to have his own opinion without people trying to force some other beliefs down his neck. i actually have no problem with a woman having sex on the first date. it wouldn't put me off seeing them again.....BUT i find it very annoying how there seems to be a campaign to change other peoples opinions like the poster i quoted. even though i don't share the same opinion as him regarding the matter, i respect it and i have no motivation to make him change it.

fergalr

greengiant09 wrote: »

sorry, i should have been more clearer by what i meant. i agree with him in his sentiments about being entitled to have his own opinion without people trying to force some other beliefs down his neck. i actually have no problem with a woman having sex on the first date. it wouldn't put me off seeing them again.....BUT i find it very annoying how there seems to be a campaign to change other peoples opinions like the poster i quoted. even though i don't share the same opinion as him regarding the matter, i respect it and i have no motivation to make him change it.

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying here.

This isn't really a debate I've come across much, I'm not involved in it in any way; from my experience though, I didn't know it was a particularly hot issue.

One point - discussions forums like Boards generally revolve around conflicting points; if everyone just says 'I agree', the site doesn't have a purpose.
We all know this of course; what I'm trying to say is that sometimes opinions may appear more forceful, or more polarised, than they actually are; Posters might be arguing on the internet against a particular attitude to first date sex, but even if they seem to be really vehemently shouting the other side down, I would generally assume there's a more 'live and let live' attitude, as applied in real life.

I think its in everyone's interests that they think critically about their beliefs, and ideally, everyone should be willing to have their beliefs challenged, by others, and by themselves... ...but there's a line between that, and trying to force someone else to your way of thinking - particularly on such personal matters as sex ; its important to respect diverse opinion, even if we think its wrong; and to that extent, I personally agree with what you're saying here.

Snowie

Faith wrote: »

"dirty" sex could lead to the girl being seen as little more than a sexual object, much like a porn star. But then again, the guy could just be delighted that he's met someone who's very uninhibited.

Generally I would base this purely on my own experience that dirty sex girls arnt looking for anything too "serious" their useually into having kinky crazy sex expermenting and having a good time and i would consider them to be very headonistic... But can be a hole lot of fun!

Whereas the "romantic" sex girl could be seen as a better long-term bet, but could also perhaps be perceived as being boring and inhibited. I don't know if it's even a factor, but it's something I'd be interested in hearing responses to.

Romantic sex? never had it.

passionate sex, That's times better then dirty sex you know that feeling of lieing there your limbs feel like lead... as wibbs said that "connection" best kinda sex and doesnt nesscirily mean its going any were its just something your lucky enough to experence...

senordingdong

fergalr wrote: »

I dunno, I think it's important to be willing to think about our positions on these issues critically. There's a lot of social baggage we inherit on these issues; if we don't think about our views critically, and be prepared to change them, how do we know we're not making huge mistakes?

Because like so many other things in life, you won't know you've made a mistake untill you have made it.

So it comes down to taking a chance on something that could end well or end bad.

--Kaiser--

Faith wrote: »

but I'm interested in male views: Do you think the type of sex makes a difference? Would guys be less inclined to see a girl as having relationship potential based on what type of sex they had? Say romantic, intimate sex versus dirty, wild sex. I would hypothesise that "dirty" sex could lead to the girl being seen as little more than a sexual object

Hmmmm, some girl once asked me if I thought sex was 'dirty'.
"Only if it's done right" was my reply.

As other posters said, how are you going to have intimate sex with someone you have just met?

Up de Barrs

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I can't for the life of me see what the problem would be with sleeping with a girl on the first night, after all if she sleeps with you, you sleep with her. Takes 2 to tango and all that. If i like somebody and want to have sex with them, i want to have it now, not in a month, i absolutely wouldn't think anymore of her for making me wait, in fact i just wouldn't wait for any more than a couple of dates maybe, any longer i'd be gone on to someone a bit more fun!
Give me a girl who likes sex over one who doesn't any day!!

I agree with that 100%. A girl who loves sex and is confident about it is a huge turn on. I wouldnt think any less of a girl after a ONS, I'd be making sure to see her again as soon as possible. If it turns in to a relationship great, if not it will still be fun finding out.

midlandsmissus

Men be crazy! With their double standards, calling you a slut if you do what they pressure you to do, respecting you if you manage to resist their pressure to sleep with them, (passing their crazy test), then making it hard for themselves to have sex because they call a woman a slut when they do have sex, therefore making women as a population afraid of having sex!

And using ancient biological reasons to justify things such as sleeping around, "Ah so that's why you're sticking it into so many women - because you want lots of offspring! Oh no you don't? Ok then."

I especially hate the one night stand thing. Men wonder why women say they feel used. Becsause it more often than not works like this:

"Man - "I'm going to really, really pressure you into doing this, but if you DO do it, you're wrong and a slut". And I'm never a slut for doing the exact same thing.YOU should have been the one able to resist"

:mad:

It boils down to: women CANNOT have sex when they want to due to huge societal pressure from men. And then men complain that is is hard to get sex.

It would boggle the brain, I'm going to talk to my sensible women.

Sometimes I feel like we are opposing tribes, we both feel the other is utterly crazy.

shadowcomplex

Stink on the inside wrote: »

Sadly I know quite a few guys that think like this, I myself slept with my current girlfriend on the first night and am still with her 9 months later.

9 months ?Is it still just the 2 of ye?:rolleyes:

Maguined

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Men be crazy! With their double standards, calling you a slut if you do what they pressure you to do, respecting you if you manage to resist their pressure to sleep with them, (passing their crazy test), then making it hard for themselves to have sex because they call a woman a slut when they do have sex, therefore making women as a population afraid of having sex!

And using ancient biological reasons to justify things such as sleeping around, "Ah so that's why you're sticking it into so many women - because you want lots of offspring! Oh no you don't? Ok then."

I especially hate the one night stand thing. Men wonder why women say they feel used. Becsause it more often than not works like this:

"Man - "I'm going to really, really pressure you into doing this, but if you DO do it, you're wrong and a slut". And I'm never a slut for doing the exact same thing.YOU should have been the one able to resist"

:mad:

It boils down to: women CANNOT have sex when they want to due to huge societal pressure from men. And then men complain that is is hard to get sex.

It would boggle the brain, I'm going to talk to my sensible women.

Sometimes I feel like we are opposing tribes, we both feel the other is utterly crazy.

It't not a double standard, its just a standard for some. This crazy test is exactly the same as what some women do to men, if they like the guy refuse to have sex with him the first/few dates to gauge if he is really interested and sticks around and waits or if he walks away he was just in it for the nookie.

Biological reasons are just impulses and instinctive emotional drives however we can still consciously control them, hunger is a biological drive to eat yet humans do not just eat whatever is nutritionally good for them but we indulge in all sorts of different food and flavours which goes beyond the call of biological sustenance. Biologically we have a desire for sex but that does not mean people want children when they can consciously lessen this risk while indulging in their desires.

Women can have sex when they want however yes some people may pass judgement and criticise but that is true of every action people choose. This is the same as the nice guy/asshole issue that many men complain about, they feel if they act as a nice guy girls don't want anything more than friendship and a shoulder to cry on while assholes get loads of girls but everyone hates them for being assholes. Just like the slut/sex repressed issue it really is just an exaggerated scale of polar opposites completely ignoring the happy middle ground.

honru

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Men be crazy! With their double standards, calling you a slut if you do what they pressure you to do, respecting you if you manage to resist their pressure to sleep with them, (passing their crazy test), then making it hard for themselves to have sex because they call a woman a slut when they do have sex, therefore making women as a population afraid of having sex!

It's actually more of a societal standard than something that is strictly enforced by men. A man may think what he thinks but personally I think women are more likely than men to call other women sluts verbally, whether it be to their face or behind their backs. Women are just as guilty for reinforcing the standard; women know how highly men value purity and can and do use the "slut" tag to tarnish the reputation of other women.

Goduznt Xzst

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

I think women are more likely than men to call other women sluts verbally, whether it be to their face or behind their backs.

Naturelle Riviera: What are you boys up to?
Jakob Elinsky: Frank's just flirting with the bartender.
Naturelle Riviera: Oh, yeah? What's the verdict?
Frank Slaughtery: Guilty of lookin' good.
Naturelle Riviera: She's just tits, Francis.
Frank Slaughtery: Oh, yeah? Did you see her ass? That girl's got a fine ass... I mean, she's oozing sex-appeal.
Naturelle Riviera: Yeah, she's oozing somethin'.
Frank Slaughtery: See that right there, that is so typical... that's what I'm talking about, Jake.
Frank Slaughtery: Why is it that a woman walks in a room with great tits, every other woman in the joint says that she's a slut? Why is that?
Naturelle Riviera: I have great tits, I'm not a slut.
Frank Slaughtery: Says you.

greengiant09

Maguined wrote: »

It't not a double standard, its just a standard for some. This crazy test is exactly the same as what some women do to men, if they like the guy refuse to have sex with him the first/few dates to gauge if he is really interested and sticks around and waits or if he walks away he was just in it for the nookie.

this is an interesting point. i think some women may interpret a guy's lack of interest after having sex on the first date as a signal that the guy has lost respect for them. when in fact the guy hasn't at all........he just wanted to have sex and nothing else. i will admit that some guys will insinuate that they are interested in a relationship to get their 'bit' and then leave as soon as they do....but that's got nothing to do with losing respect for the girl.....that's just guys wanting to have sex and telling a girl what she may want to hear. i think thats why the some girls use the 'test' as described above.