Womens attitudes to previous sexual encounters see mod note post #1

h.bolla

username123 wrote: »

I'm sorry you were unable to understand that post. I absolutely did not say that you were sexist, misogynistic and insecure sexually because you were annoyed about her past and it is very unfair of you to misrepresent what I said.

What I actually said was that you came across as sexist, misogynistic and insecure sexuality because of how you were talking about your ex and the relevant context there referred to the derogatory and sexist terms you were using. You referred to her as a "right bitch" in your original OP. When I questioned if she was a "right bitch" for enjoying sex you were quick to correct me that it was in fact because she misled you. Indicating that you were not in fact annoyed about her past but annoyed about her concealment of her past.

Nor did I ever say that her past was none of your business, but that if someone's past was so important to you then you should be clear about that upfront. But don't let the facts get in the way of playing the victim.

The exact thing you said was:

username123 wrote: »

Oh Im sorry, so she isnt a right bitch because she had sex with 500 men, but just because she didnt tell you about it. Its still not ok to call her a right bitch for that. Her past sexual history is her own business.

You just come across as sexist, misogynistic and insecure sexually with how you are speaking about your ex.

I interpret that as you think Im misogynistic and blah blah because I couldnt accept her history.

If you meant it differently then Im sorry for the misinterpretation. But thats how it read to me.

Daveysil15

Pug160 wrote: »

I think the concept that someone can sleep with a relatively high number of men or women and still be selective, escapes some people. Even a fairly promiscuous woman will turn down many more admirers than she will ever entertain.

A very good point actually. And not only that, while a guy may get called a "stud" for sleeping around, people don't take into consideration the amount of times he may have gotten turned down. So say a guy approaches 10 women in one night; 1 woman may have sex with him, but to the other 9 women he may just be creep looking for a shag. So yeah the guy is a stud but only if the woman says yes.

diveout

username123 wrote: »

I'm sorry you were unable to understand that post. I absolutely did not say that you were sexist, misogynistic and insecure sexually because you were annoyed about her past and it is very unfair of you to misrepresent what I said.

What I actually said was that you came across as sexist, misogynistic and insecure sexuality because of how you were talking about your ex and the relevant context there referred to the derogatory and sexist terms you were using. You referred to her as a "right bitch" in your original OP. When I questioned if she was a "right bitch" for enjoying sex you were quick to correct me that it was in fact because she misled you. Indicating that you were not in fact annoyed about her past but annoyed about her concealment of her past.

Nor did I ever say that her past was none of your business, but that if someone's past was so important to you then you should be clear about that upfront. But don't let the facts get in the way of playing the victim.

A misogynist because he can't accept her past? So he hates all women. I'm not picking up on that frankly.

I'd find it hard to accept a partner who visited prostitutes or perhaps committed a rape when he was young. Does that make me a man hater? Oh wait.... that would be none of my business right... ah yeah got it.

Your taking a stance of moral superiority by judging someone who isn't comfortable with that kind of history, and it's not really about morality, it's about the natural and logical consequences of that level of promiscuity and whether a partner can handle it or not handle it or even the truth of it.

And then your apology which is a non apology. "Im sorry you didn't understand my post..." More finger pointing. Surely you could say "Ok... let me try to explain a little better."

h.bolla

username123 wrote: »

The ugly language you were using was the sexist, misogynistic bit. You could have told the tale just as well without calling her a right bitch. That's an ugly term. It's not respectful to women to use terms like that.

Yeh I called her a right bitch because of all the crap she did on me. And now your pulling me up on it?

You know Id be willing to bet, as a matter of fact Id actually put money on it, I bet theres a lot of lads out there that would do a hell of a lot worse to a girl than call her "a right bitch" if she did on them what she did to me.

GalwayGuy2

I liked your post because I found Usernames post kind of funny. No offence to username.

I'd find it hard to accept a partner who visited prostitutes or perhaps committed a rape when he was young. Does that make me a man hater? Oh wait.... that would be none of my business right... ah yeah got it.

But there is a common argument against that point. Rape is hurting someone. And, in some people's opinions, so is visiting a prostitute. I don't agree with the latter, but, because of the contention over prostitution, it's a flawed metaphor.

Bluethaw

username123 wrote: »

No, I respect your inability to accept her history just as much as I accept her right to have that history. It's ok for her to have 500 ex partners. It's ok for you not to like that. Neither of you is wrong, you just have different value systems. But in future you should be upfront that a deal breaker for you is a woman who had a lot of sex or sexual partners before you, then you won't be disappointed later.

The ugly language you were using was the sexist, misogynistic bit. You could have told the tale just as well without calling her a right bitch. That's an ugly term. It's not respectful to women to use terms like that.

Why is it disrespectful to women? He called his girlfriend a bitch, not women.

Wibbs

FullblownRose wrote: »

What about a person's psychological state, though. I don't agree that it is a normal amount of encounters no matter how much a woman might enjoy sex. It's roo excessive to be healthy for anyone in a clear state of mind.

True, though there is another element to this, namely the interwebs and social media. The woman in Magaluf a good example, Slane woman(rather young girl) and KPMG woman others. This could well have been a one off bt of drunken teenage madness, yet now her card is marked as "drunken slapper" for as long as the video remains. There are a number of examples of this. Back in the day you could have a one off moment of madness and the echoes would tend to die pretty quickly and be forgotten and little evidence would remain. Today that shít's permanent. That's very unfair. Few of us, myself included didn't go at least a little crazy at least once in adolescence(and beyond), but the older among us had the frailty of memory as our friend. No longer.

The difference between that kinda thing and someone with 500 encounters spread over a few years is pretty big. To "go mad" once or twice is normal, to "go mad" consistently and over time is a another boiling vessel of finned creatures.

username123 wrote: »

The ugly language you were using was the sexist, misogynistic bit. You could have told the tale just as well without calling her a right bitch. That's an ugly term. It's not respectful to women to use terms like that.

Yet you come back with "sexist, misogynistic* and insecure sexually" to describe him. Basically a bitter woman hating man probably sporting a small dick who can't handle a "real" woman. Do you not see how you're doing the exact same thing as him? Man the irony keeps on giving in this thread. On both sides of the argument. Physician heal thyself perhaps?





*BTW sexist and misogynistic would be pretty much conflated here so there's some redundancy.

Bluethaw

username123 wrote: »

The term bitch is gender specific and therefore, sexist.

Yes it is a gender specific term just like a bastard is for a man, just like waiter is for a man, just like a waitress is for a woman. Is it sexist or misogynistic to refer to a waitress?

Also, I don't quite see how one is misogynistic because they are sexist. You can easily be a sexist and not be a misogynist

Wibbs

username123 wrote: »

The term bitch is gender specific and therefore, sexist.

so calling her something like an irresponsible attention seeking fcukwit would be OK in your book, so long as it wasn't "gender specific"? It's all about the gender for both of you. At least he sees it. I am so loving the logic on display here.

Saipanne

username123 wrote: »

Actually I'd have called him out on using an offensive term like your example above anyway, it just so happened he used a sexist one.

It would be wrong to call her any bad name simply because she has had a lot of past sexual partners.... And wilfully gave him an std

fixed

Wibbs

username123 wrote: »

No, I did not use an accepted gender slur to describe him. I called him out on being sexist because of how he spoke about his ex.

You're really tying yourself in ever decreasing knots here. You are directly calling him(a male) as insecure sexually. A common "shaming" tactic in such cases. Christ now I'm using shaming as a description. Kill me now. Ok and be honest here(faint hope I grant you), if the "gender" was reversed and the OP was a woman who just found out that her boyfriend had screwed 500 women, partaken in gangbangs and public masturbation as part of a drinking game, would you be so quick to pull out the "you're anti man and clearly sexually insecure". I'll bet a suitcase of money you wouldn't. Your silence would be deafening I suspect. Well it wouldn't plug in so neatly to your particular worldview, now would it?

I think we should be allowed to call out sexism the same as we would racism or is boards policy that sexism is not allowed be called out?

Ahhh the appeal to a higher power that you hope agrees with your point of view, hoping that said power may deflate any naysayers to your argument. *double thumbs up*

Pointing out sexism is not a personal attack.

So calling out someone as sexually insecure is not an attack? Mmmkay.

The insecure sexually was due to the fact that he was upset that his ex had a lot of sex before him, just stating a fact.

Genius. It's a "fact" because it happens to be your opinion. You really shouldn't confuse the two, though that's all too common. Again you're doing precisely what you accuse the OP of doing and not seeing it and you're proving my point for me with every post you make.

h.bolla

username123 wrote: »

Yes. I was pulling you up on your use of a sexist term just like I would if you used a racist term. You don't seem to realise that the term you used is offensive to ALL women.

I dont know any women, aside from you, who gets offended when they hear the word bitch.

Look me and you dont seem to agree on much. You're politically correct and Im not and thats the way it is.

Im not going to stop using words like bitch, $hit, fcuk, b astard etc in my daily life just because someone out there could be offeneded. Me and you could argue about this all night and still not get anywhere so lets just drop it.

Shakespeare's Sister

Can't believe someone alluded to it being "prudish" to see issues with about 500 sex partners by the age of 27, some of these encounters under seedy circumstances. It's like a parody.
And of course the auld "Irish people are prudish" thing. Will people ever get over that. Ireland has come along phenomenally since the sexually repressed days. If anything, anything goes among a lot of Irish people.

And the way people keep saying "enjoys lots of sex" or even just "enjoys sex" in relation to the 500, because yeh, those are the lengths you need to go to if you enjoy a lot of sex/enjoy sex full stop. :pac:

I think people know full well what's off-putting about it but won't acknowledge it, because then they'd look less sophisticated and libertine and might seem "prudish" :eek: (even though being prudish is miles off seeing the issues with 500 ex sex partners by age 27).
I used to think like that myself, but didn't really believe it.
It would not make me call a woman a slut or whore ever though, and it does not make me opposed to casual sex, but as with anything, there is a line. And it certainly does not make me prudish. :rolleyes:

The stuff about "It's stuff she did in the past, doesn't mean she'll do it again" - yes, maybe so. But it's hardly outside the realms of possibility, given how extreme what she's apparently gotten up to has been. And as said before, the traits it indicates: lack of self control, being highly impressionable and needy and compulsive - these aren't attractive traits and who's to say they only stop at her sexual habits?

diveout

username123 wrote: »

Yes. I was pulling you up on your use of a sexist term just like I would if you used a racist term. You don't seem to realise that the term you used is offensive to ALL women.

It's not offensive to me. I think you might consider not speaking on behalf of ALL women.

Thanks.

Shakespeare's Sister

Calling a woman a bitch for behaving dreadfully is no different to calling a man a bastard for behaving dreadfully.

When women are referred to as bitches just as an alternative word for women (like in Blurred Lines and some rap) that's when I take issue with it, but when it's about behaviour rather than gender, I don't see an issue with it. Sometimes men are referred to as bitches too.

diveout

Magaggie wrote: »

And the way people keep saying "enjoys lots of sex" or even just "enjoys sex" in relation to the 500, because yeh, those are the lengths you need to go to if you enjoy a lot of sex/enjoy sex full stop. :pac:

Right. The might "enjoy sex" the way they might enjoy a game of golf, and if the STILL view it that way, then well you might have some incompatibilities because chances are they will be unfaithful, after all it's no different to a game of golf right? What's the biggie? Some people can deal with that and some can't.

Magaggie wrote: »

I think people know full well what's off-putting about it but won't acknowledge it, because then they'd look less sophisticated and libertine and might seem "prudish" :eek: (even though being prudish is miles off seeing the issues with 500 ex sex partners by age 27).
I used to think like that myself, but didn't really believe it.
It would not make me call a woman a slut or whore ever though, and it does not make me opposed to casual sex, but as with anything, there is a line. And it certainly does not make me prudish. :rolleyes:

The irony is prickly and icky here. It's like cringe comedy really. It's an entire over compensation for appearing as anything less than entirely liberal and progressive and yet are seeping sanctimony so much I feel like pulling out a pulpit.

Magaggie wrote: »

The stuff about "It's stuff she did in the past, doesn't mean she'll do it again" - yes, maybe so. But it's hardly outside the realms of possibility, given how extreme what she's apparently gotten up to has been. And as said before, the traits it indicates: lack of self control, being highly impressionable and needy and compulsive - these aren't attractive traits and who's to say they only stop at her sexual habits?

It entirely depends on how they VIEW the past, if they view it as a phase, if they are still in that mindset, if it was part of a phase, or if it is a compulsivity or attention seeking or symptomatic of a deeper pain like a repetition compulsion, borderline personality disorder, or purely recreational, maybe they were drinking or using drugs ath the time, maybe they were in mourning. Who knows, but it's ok to be uncomfortable with it and wonder if you as a partner can handle it.

But if you want people to be honest with you, they need to feel safe to do that. It's not always easy telling the truth especially one like that and the risk is losing someone you care about.

diveout

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I liked your post because I found Usernames post kind of funny. No offence to username.



But there is a common argument against that point. Rape is hurting someone. And, in some people's opinions, so is visiting a prostitute. I don't agree with the latter, but, because of the contention over prostitution, it's a flawed metaphor.

And in others' opinions so is promiscuity and giving someone an std. If you are going to practise moral relativism with one face and then preach with the other about history being no one's business and who are you to judge and yadda yadda... good god it aint even Sunday... then at least be credible enough to imagine a past you on the other side might struggle with accepting.

h.bolla

What happened all of Username123's posts? Did she go back and delete them..???

Pawwed Rig

h.bolla wrote: »

What happened all of Username123's posts? Did she go back and delete them..???

Yes

fergus1001

If you have 500+ sexual partners you are going to be labelled as a s'''t player cougar whether your male or female end of story

goz83

h.bolla wrote: »

What happened all of Username123's posts? Did she go back and delete them..???

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Yes

LOL

h.bolla

And looks like she went and closed her account too.

py2006

I hope your ex hasn't read this thread?!? :eek:

py2006

With regards to the concept of the few that if you call a particular woman a b1tch you are calling them all b1tches I recall an occasion on a course (when I was about 20) where a girl referred to me as 'too ugly' when I was considering asking out a girl. I called her an f'ing b1tch for insulting me like that. Later that day I was approached by another girl in the class who said, 'women are not b1tches' and I was ignored for the rest of the day by the predominately female class.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - ok guys, just to clarify Username123 deleted her own posts, it wasn't a mod action. As she has since closed her account she cannot respond to your comments so, please, to be fair to her, leave her out of the comments from here on. Thanks

LordNorbury

h.bolla wrote: »

As has been said many times, the actual number is a tad irrelevant. We dont say 20 is fine but over 21 is no go.

The issue is, and what I believe to be one of the main issues behind this whole problem, is people dont believe that other people change.

If a girl is at a house party and lying across a table letting all the lads have a go because "she lost the game" or lying on a table masturbating for everyone.

It might be in her past, but now you know what shes capable of and what she finds acceptable.

And then you start wondering, 'will she do it again'... 'is that really the kinda girl I want to marry'..... 'what about our kids will they turn out like that'.

I just hope those kind of suppositions aren't generally attached to men. While I hear the point you are making, there can often be a phase or a context to wild behaviour. Being single and not taking things too seriously and engaging in what would be a fairly casual lifestyle, in my view, would usually in no way diminish a persons ability to be able to properly behave themselves, if they met someone they really liked, who they clicked with big time and who they ended up in a relationship with.

goz83

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Mod note - ok guys, just to clarify Username123 deleted her own posts, it wasn't a mod action. As she has since closed her account she cannot respond to your comments so, please, to be fair to her, leave her out of the comments from here on. Thanks

That was an account with many posts and years attached. A shame she felt the need to delete it after being challenged on a thread. But, maybe it was something else. Maybe username1234 will be along shortly

Jim Rockford

fergus1001 wrote: »

If you have 500+ sexual partners you are going to be labelled as a s'''t player cougar whether your male or female end of story

Male or female, if a person doesn't seem to display much self respect for themselves, they are not really sending out the message to prospective long term partners that they will have much respect for them either.

BazPM

I know of a very similar situation. A girl who lied about her past to some poor sod of a boyfriend who had no idea. She was a massive bike and was so bad that even one of the lads found out his cousin from England had rode her while travelling Australia! Anyway like your ex the boyfriend found out and dumped her recently and she's going around like she's been treated so unfairly. On the last game of the season for my rugby club (I wasn't there but there's a video so it's fact) she came into the changing rooms and was shagged or jizzed on by about 18 lads. Funny thing was the lads who did shag her all ended up with the clap!!!! Consider yourself very lucky u don't have an STD.

Saipanne

BazPM wrote: »

I know of a very similar situation. A girl who lied about her past to some poor sod of a boyfriend who had no idea. She was a massive bike and was so bad that even one of the lads found out his cousin from England had rode her while travelling Australia! Anyway like your ex the boyfriend found out and dumped her recently and she's going around like she's been treated so unfairly. On the last game of the season for my rugby club (I wasn't there but there's a video so it's fact) she came into the changing rooms and was shagged or jizzed on by about 18 lads. Funny thing was the lads who did shag her all ended up with the clap!!!! Consider yourself very lucky u don't have an STD.

I think he got one...