Playing Hard to Get

dizzywizlw

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

And the bit I've put in bold is this exactly what she's arguing and not those who want to wait a while in order to get to know someone a bit better. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing Siuin would have no problems with the latter if that what someone genuinely wants to do.

But distinguishing Arbitrary Social Practice from Personal Preference isn't as cut and dry as that, the one date rule as a bone of contention is the perfect example.

Siuin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

And the bit I've put in bold is this exactly what she's arguing and not those who want to wait a while in order to get to know someone a bit better. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing Siuin would have no problems with the latter if that what someone genuinely wants to do.

Exactly! I fail to see why becoming comfortable with someone should have a specified time frame. If I was uncomfortable with a man or had any niggling doubts about him, I wouldn't sleep with him- simple as. However, I don't think that it is the role of society to evaluate my worth as a female simply on how long it takes to get me into bed.

Eve_Dublin

dizzywizlw wrote: »

But distinguishing Arbitrary Social Practice from Personal Preference isn't as cut and dry as that, the one date rule as a bone of contention is the perfect example.

You mean the man would find it hard to distinguish between a woman wanting to wait 'till she felt comfortable over someone waiting for a specified time to not give the impression she's a slut? You'll have to explain what you mean. Monday morning n all da!

dizzywizlw

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

You mean the man would find it hard to distinguish between a woman wanting to wait 'till she felt comfortable over someone waiting for a specified time to not give the impression she's a slut? You'll have to explain what you mean. Monday morning n all da!

More along the lines of nature vs nurture with regard to deciding what is arbitrary or not, I think it's difficult to separate sometimes what we've been conditioned to do and what feels right.

Eve_Dublin

What it essentially comes down to for me is doing what you truly want to do and not being judged for it. I've met guys who I've wanted to sleep with immediately and I've met guys, for whatever reason, that I've decided to wait to sleep with, perhaps because I'm unsure if I fancy them or not or just wasn't in the mood etc.


I'd also hate for a young woman (because unfortunately, it's young men that judge the harshest in my own personal experience...most people grow up and form a "live and let live" attitude about these kinds of things....I hope!) to feel she has to sleep with a guy because she might be viewed as "frigid" or not cool (damned if you do, damned if you don't). If someone meets some and they get along/have instant chemistry and they take precautions and sleep together that night, I can't see how that is a problem and why she should be judged for it. You can know enough about someone in one night to realise you like them enough to sleep with them. For others, that might take a bit longer. Jaysus I went out and lived with someone for 2 and a half years and still didn't really know the guy. It all depends on the circumstances and the individuals in question.


The problem I have is society judging these women so harshly and labelling them "whores", "sluts" or on the other hand, "Frigid" for a decision that doesn't affect anyone else but themselves and the person they're sleeping with. It's deeply unfair and an attitude that's stuck in the dark ages. Why is it only applied to women and not men, generally speaking?

Sex can mean everything or it can mean very little and just be fun. You don't fall in love with someone and have a meaningful relationship by your 3rd or 4th date. It takes weeks to get to know a person, so does it really make any difference to wait 'till your second or 3rd date?

Slut and whore and easy etc. are such horrible labels to put on a person who consented to sex and wanted it and didn't hurt anyone in the process. Why can't people see that?

Eve_Dublin

dizzywizlw wrote: »

More along the lines of nature vs nurture with regard to deciding what is arbitrary or not, I think it's difficult to separate sometimes what we've been conditioned to do and what feels right.

Well, the self-imposed "no sex on the first date" is fairly cut and dry if you want to ride the man senseless. I've never had problems knowing what I want in that area personally. It's a fairly base, natural urge.

segaBOY

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

What it essentially comes down to for me is doing what you truly want to do and not being judged for it. I've met guys who I've wanted to sleep with immediately and I've met guys, for whatever reason, that I've decided to wait to sleep with, perhaps because I'm unsure if I fancy them or not or just wasn't in the mood etc.

Or perhaps waiting is your instinct telling you that you need more time to evaluate if this man is good for you and potential offspring. A lot of sexual attraction comes down to what is best for potential offspring and woman arguably look for men who have characteristics for same, mostly subconsciously and without realising (because it is instinct), and I guess offspring is one of the main outcomes of sexual intercourse.

daisybelle2008

dizzywizlw wrote: »

I just think what they are doing is bad for them and bad for society.

Really the only time I'd judge on that is when looking for a partner, which I have

Can you see the contradiction above?

dizzywizlw wrote: »

That I judge their entire person with regard to their sexual habit, I do not.

Whore, prostitutes, bad for society, lack of respect for themselves, cheapens themselves……..You have a load of very personal judgments going on.

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Quite a significant proportion of my female acquaintances often engage in intercourse with men and women they have only just met

I believe it is evident that such behavior cheapens themselves and makes a moniker of prostitution apt to the situation at hand.

Advocating waiting until you truly know and are comfortable with the person in question is something I feel strongly about and should be self evident.

You are judging a person with regard to their sexual habits. Why do you keep insisting you are not?

dizzywizlw

I think I should clarify that to my mind to judge somebody is to conclude fully about that person, I do not seen it (even the moniker of 'whore') as fully definitive and hence don't see it as judging, however, if judging is taken to mean merely assuming someone to be less X or more Y because they engage in a certain behavior then yes I am judging.

I suppose it must appear a bit skewed to say I can see people as whores but not as bad people?

coffee_cake

eth0 wrote: »

I dunno what sort old fashioned values you are trying to have a go at but I think the world has moved on from the battle you still seem to be fighting. Beours are almost encouraged to be slutbags now, just like men were back in the day. In those days beours were given a hard time but now they are "just having fun" and what have you.

Try reading the post she was replying to first

Eve_Dublin

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

You are judging a person with regard to their sexual habits. Why do you keep insisting you are not?

dizzywizlw wrote: »

I think I should clarify that to my mind to judge somebody is to conclude fully about that person, I do not seen it (even the moniker of 'whore') as fully definitive and hence don't see it as judging, however, if judging is taken to mean merely assuming someone to be less X or more Y because they engage in a certain behavior then yes I am judging.

I suppose it must appear a bit skewed to say I can see people as whores but not as bad people?

You can judge a person by judging one aspect of their behaviour. It's still judging.

daisybelle2008

dizzywizlw wrote: »

I think I should clarify that to my mind to judge somebody is to conclude fully about that person, I do not seen it (even the moniker of 'whore') as fully definitive and hence don't see it as judging, however, if judging is taken to mean merely assuming someone to be less X or more Y because they engage in a certain behavior then yes I am judging.

I suppose it must appear a bit skewed to say I can see people as whores but not as bad people?

'bad for themselves and bad for society' is about as conclusive as a person can get. Do you not think that is not a quality one friend would like another friend to think about them. I wouldn't want a friend who judged my sexual behaviour bad for myself and society. Can you understand that would appear sanctimonious for you to judge your friends that way?.

pickarooney

The art of seduction really is a thing of the past. Shame.

To be honest i love the bit of flirtation in advance. In this case a bird in the bush is better then two in the hand

K-9

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

So you're advocating playing games? Most men I know hate games.

I don't see how that necessarily means a women is indulging in games. Having sex on a first date doesn't mean waiting a few dates is game playing, if both parties are happy to wait, its all good.

ViveLaVie

Eve_Dublin, daisybelle and Siuin, what do you think of women who sleep with every man that shows them interest?

This argument, it has been made clear, is about sleeping with a man on the first date if there is a 'connection' (lust imo) and not about being promiscuous in general.

But what of being promiscuous in general? If you are sexually liberated as a woman and thoroughly enjoy sex is there anything wrong then in sleeping around if that is what you want to do? Wherein lies the difference?

If the woman insists she 'connects' with every man she finds attractive and thus sleeps with, can she be judged on a different scale to a woman who isn't promiscuous but equally isn't bound by social pressures - she can sleep with a man instantly but does not always choose to do so?

dizzywizlw

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

'bad for themselves and bad for society' is about as conclusive as a person can get. Do you not think that is not a quality one friend would like another friend to think about them. I wouldn't want a friend who judged my sexual behaviour bad for myself and society. Can you understand that would appear sanctimonious for you to judge your friends that way?.

Absolutely


But then again, contextually speaking my friends are aware of this and I'm aware of what they think of me and how parts of my personality are bad for anybody to have and take away from society.

coffee_cake

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Eve_Dublin, daisybelle and Siuin, what do you think of women who sleep with every man that shows them interest?

This argument, it has been made clear, is about sleeping with a man on the first date if there is a 'connection' (lust imo) and not about being promiscuous in general.

But what of being promiscuous in general? If you are sexually liberated as a woman and thoroughly enjoy sex is there anything wrong then in sleeping around if that is what you want to do? Wherein lies the difference?

If the woman insists she 'connects' with every man she finds attractive and thus sleeps with, can she be judged on a different scale to a woman who isn't promiscuous but equally isn't bound by social pressures - she can sleep with a man instantly but does not always choose to do so?

As long as they're being safe about it I couldn't care less

daisybelle2008

ViveLaVie wrote: »

If the woman insists she 'connects' with every man she finds attractive and thus sleeps with, can she be judged on a different scale to a woman who isn't promiscuous but equally isn't bound by social pressures - she can sleep with a man instantly but does not always choose to do so?

Why does she need to be judged? Can you let me know so I can better understand your question?

ViveLaVie

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Why does she need to be judged? Can you let me know so I can better understand your question?

Sorry, perhaps perceived to be different is a better way to say it. It seems to me that some of the posts insisting that this debate is about those women who will sleep with a man on a first date and not women who sleep around in general have a slightly judgemental tone towards the latter. What is the difference and why should there be one if we are advocating that women shouldn't be owned by societal pressures?

Sorcha16

Siuin wrote: »

This thread isn't about sleeping around (I don't know how many times I'm going to have to drill this into posters' heads before it finally gets through) - it's about women being entitled to sleep with a man without being forced to abide by arbitrary social protocol in order to establish herself as a person of value

Look you can dress it up with all the Carrie Bradshaw psychobabble baloney that you want but jumping into bed with someone immediately is sleeping around, no matter how much you want to delude yourself otherwise.

Any prostitute in the world could argue that she is entitled to sleep with a man without being forced to abide by arbitrary social protocol in order to establish herself as a person of value (to use your own needlessly long-winded words) so presumably that's ok too, if those women are equally connected and happy as you are to sleep with people relatively quickly?

daisybelle2008

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Sorry, perhaps perceived to be different is a better way to say it. It seems to me that some of the posts insisting that this debate is about those women who will sleep with a man on a first date and not women who sleep around in general have a slightly judgemental tone towards the latter. What is the difference and why should there be one if we are advocating that women shouldn't be owned by societal pressures?

I didn't notice a judgemental tone at all maybe you can give an example of where you saw this as it prompted your question?
To clarify I don't see WHY it is necessary to judge, so I don't believe it is my business to judge two consenting adults practicing safe sex happily enjoying themselves. What value has my judgement to the situation?

billybudd

People judge, get over it and do what you want and what makes you happy.

ViveLaVie

Siuin wrote: »

This thread isn't about sleeping around (I don't know how many times I'm going to have to drill this into posters' heads before it finally gets through) - it's about women being entitled to sleep with a man without being forced to abide by arbitrary social protocol in order to establish herself as a person of value.

So the thread isn't about a woman's right to sleep with whoever she wants whenever she wants... But at the same time it's about a woman's right to do so... I don't get the difference.

Siuin wrote: »

If you had actually bothered to read my posts you would have realised by now that I am not advocating sleeping around. I am, however, stating that a double standard exists when it comes to judging the sexual practices of men and women. I do not feel that a woman should be constrained by arbitrary social conventions if she wants to sleep with someone, simply by virtue of the fact that she is a woman.

What are you advocating? That if a woman wants to sleep with a man then she should be able to? Isn't that exactly what sleeping around is? A double standard exists when a woman has sex rather freely and I am against this double standard. However, to me it seems like you are differentiating between women who sleep with men a lot and women who sleep with men rather quickly but do not do so often. I think this is a double standard.

Siuin wrote: »

Where exactly in my posts did I ever promulgate women throwing themselves at every man who darkens her door step. Many people on this thread have completely twisted what I originally said as some kind of sexual free for all. My point was that women should be allowed to sleep with a man if she wishes to without fear of being lambasted by 'traditionalist' do-gooders for her actions.

You didn't promulgate that. You seem to be promulgating that a woman should be allowed to sleep with whoever she wants whenever she wants except when this is a common occurence for her. In that case she is throwing herself at every man that darkens her doorstep and not owning her own sexuality. What is the difference?

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Firstly, there was no mention by the poster of giving in to your every sexual whim. She's specifically talking about one area of sexual relations. Pure hyperbolic nonsense from some posters here...

Thirdly, this thread is not about sleeping around (that's a discussion for another thread), it's about sleeping with someone on the first date. For some reason, posters on here have confused the two. Some women hold out in order to give the impression they're not "sluts" but the very fact that WOMEN are judged (not men) as sluts for deciding to have consensual, safe sex with someone because she wants to instead of waiting 'till the second or third date are judged so harshly (in turn, perpetuating the sexist judgement) is the topic of discussion here. Siuin simply believes it's unfair and I agree. I've never burnt a bra in my life.

A might woman not sleep around but she might decide to sleep with a man she really fancies and likes on the first date. People seem to be purposely confusing the two as an excuse to get their knickers in a twist and mount their high horses.

Yet you seem to be passing judgement on those who give in to 'their every sexual whim'. What exactly is wrong with that? Or are the women who sleep with the man on a first date restrained in terms of their other sexual whims? Do they only give in to the odd sexual whim? I thought we were advocating women having the freedom to behave sexually on any terms? Why is there such a distinction then between the OP's scenario and any other scenario where a woman has sex rather freely?

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Wait there, again, have you accidently posted on the wrong thread? This thread is about sleeping with a guy on the first date, not sleeping with multiple men. If people can't be bothered to actually read and respond to what was written in the OP, then what's the point? We'll just chat about any old topic that springs to mind, shall we?

Again, if a woman should have the freedom to sleep with a man on a first date without judgement then equally she should have the freedom to sleep with multiple men. This is on topic.

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

I didn't notice a judgemental tone at all maybe you can give an example of where you saw this as it prompted your question?
To clarify I don't see WHY it is necessary to judge, so I don't believe it is my business to judge two consenting adults practicing safe sex happily enjoying themselves. What value has my judgement to the situation?

I mean judge in terms of perceiving, not in terms of perceiving negatively. I don't believe in judging negatively either. I do want to know why there seems to be some distinction drawn between a woman who sleeps with multiple men and a woman who sleeps with a man on the first date. To me, it seems that the above quotes have a slightly judgemental undertone. I am interested in your opinion because you have posted on this thread and it's a debate. If you think your opinion isn't of value then why are you posting?

Eve_Dublin

K-9 wrote: »

I don't see how that necessarily means a women is indulging in games. Having sex on a first date doesn't mean waiting a few dates is game playing, if both parties are happy to wait, its all good.

I've made that very point already several times, K-9. If both are happy to wait, fantastic! If the woman feels she has to wait for fear of being seen as easy/slut/whore by giving the impression she's hard-to-get, then something's amiss. That's my point.

Eve_Dublin

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Eve_Dublin, daisybelle and Siuin, what do you think of women who sleep with every man that shows them interest?

This argument, it has been made clear, is about sleeping with a man on the first date if there is a 'connection' (lust imo) and not about being promiscuous in general.

But what of being promiscuous in general? If you are sexually liberated as a woman and thoroughly enjoy sex is there anything wrong then in sleeping around if that is what you want to do? Wherein lies the difference?

If the woman insists she 'connects' with every man she finds attractive and thus sleeps with, can she be judged on a different scale to a woman who isn't promiscuous but equally isn't bound by social pressures - she can sleep with a man instantly but does not always choose to do so?

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Sorry, perhaps perceived to be different is a better way to say it. It seems to me that some of the posts insisting that this debate is about those women who will sleep with a man on a first date and not women who sleep around in general have a slightly judgemental tone towards the latter. What is the difference and why should there be one if we are advocating that women shouldn't be owned by societal pressures?

I think you're referring to me here but you've definitely picked up on a tone of my posts that didn't exist. I wanted to make it clear to some posters on here who were ONLY spouting off about women who sleep around and not responding to the topic in question. I don't necessarily believe they go hand-in-hand. When I read the original post, I got the sense that Siuin was talking about someone dating men as in perhaps looking for something more than a one night stand, so I responded to that. I think the promiscuous debate deserves a thread of it's own and I find it interesting that some posters on here presume because a woman sleeps with a man on the first date, that she automatically sleeps with many partners.


And just for the record, no judgements here. I've been what society deems promiscuous in my past (or a whore, a slapper, a slag, a slut, easy...whatever). I've had periods between relatioships where I've slept with a man if I fancied him be it a ONS or an ongoing fook buddy. That's not a boast, that's just clearing up any misuderstanding that might have arisen from the perceived tone of my previous posts. I haven't slept with a huge amount of men as I'm not attracted to a huge amount of men...and not all the men I've been attracted to have fancied me, but yes, if I've been single and if I felt like sleeping with that man and had the opportunity, I've done so.

I've always been careful and have never hurt anyone in the process. If I believed the guy wanted more and I didn't, I didn't sleep with them. I enjoyed myself most of the time and it was always consensual and respectful. I don't see why anyone should be judged for consensual sex. It seems bizarre in my mind that society would, tbh. Keep your nose out of business that doesn't concern you and keep your judgements to yourself regarding someone who's hurting nobody, would be something I'd try to live by and I'd love if others could do the same. No one's perfect and "he who casts the first stone" and all that.

Eve_Dublin

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Yet you seem to be passing judgement on those who give in to 'their every sexual whim'. What exactly is wrong with that? Or are the women who sleep with the man on a first date restrained in terms of their other sexual whims? Do they only give in to the odd sexual whim? I thought we were advocating women having the freedom to behave sexually on any terms? Why is there such a distinction then between the OP's scenario and any other scenario where a woman has sex rather freely?

Casn you find those posts where I judged please? I would never judge a woman like that having been one myself!

Zirconia

People really do put too much value on what other people think of them, I thought all the "what will the neighbours think" mentality went out with all that disgusting old catholic Ireland crap.

If you like someone, and your attracted to them, and you feel safe in being intimate with them and take all the usual precautions, you should go ahead and enjoy each other. You may run the risk of them coming out with some crap like you were "too easy", but really - what have you to loose; If they turned out to have this kind of backwards mentality the worst you could really say is you dodged the bullet.

Would you really want to end up in a long term relationship with someone who thinks like that.

Don't be so concerned with what others think and things will take care of themselves - its a natural arsehole filter - undesirables end up removing themselves from the scene; the ones left over are the worthwhile ones!

ViveLaVie

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Casn you find those posts where I judged please? I would never judge a woman like that having been one myself!

Sorry, it was the phrase 'giving into every sexual whim' that I inferred that from. I obviously have misread your posts and I appreciate you clearing it up. I too feel strongly about women having the freedom to make sexual choices without being pressured by societal protocol. It seems we're on the same page! :-)

Eve_Dublin

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Sorry, it was the phrase 'giving into every sexual whim' that I inferred that from. I obviously have misread your posts and I appreciate you clearing it up. I too feel strongly about women having the freedom to make sexual choices without being pressured by societal protocol. It seems we're on the same page! :-)

That wasn't my phrase though, I was quoting Sorcha16 who, ironically, thanked your post (which made me smirk)!

Here's the post in question with the phrase highlighted:

Au contraire 'my dear', I appreciate equality as much as the next person. As a traditionalist, what I don't appreciate is feminism and the increasingly complex and hypocritical assertions made by those who pledge their bra-burning allegiance to it.

I'm whole-heartedly sick of this nonsense being peddled that you're somehow liberated and equal for giving in to your every sexual whim. I think physical relationships are absolutely fantastic but it is not, nor will it ever be attractive to be riding around like Shergar.

Sleep with Santa Claus for all I care but keep it discreet because there is nothing less sexy than sharing your intimate details with the world

Anyway, glad we're on the same page. Night!