nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The First Date Shag Consequences..

Darlughda

Ok. Question for all you gentlemen in this forum.

Spotted a thread in PI just the now, and a fella stated honestly that if he sleeps with a girl on the first date, he would consider sleeping with her again, but not dating.

I was beyond shocked to say the least, after all, he slept with her!
What I am saying in do any of you, honestly, still have this kind of idea in your head - if she sleeps with you on first date-then no to dating just a potential ons or fb in the future?

Can you explain this double standard to me? Or give your honest reasoning if you agree with this? It just leaves me flabbergasted that these kind of old fashioned standards are still going strong today.....

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Stink on the inside

Darlughda wrote: »

I suspect the reason why men fear a woman's promiscuity is more to do with their own ego problems, eg., will they be good enough in bed for her as she is more experienced and therefore has compartive examples to decide what she does and doesn't want, along with an insecurity that they would be unable to satisfy her sexually. Especially if she is more open to kinkier sex than they have any notion of

Ill be blunt Darlughda, for me it simply comes down to the amount of guys that have been there, simple as that (speaking from the perspective of potential girlfriend material not a one night stand).

I reckon this would be a predominant reason for most other guys too that are put off by a girls promiscuity.

I reckon a lot of guys would jump at the chance of an encounter with a girl with way more experience that would maybe teach them a thing or two.

But you make a fair point.

southsiderosie

Pembily wrote: »

So men can and women can't!!!! If on a third date with a girl she said to you that she found out you had a lot of sexual partners and lots of ONS and she didn't see a future how p!ssed would you be?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Seriously... Sex is sex, it not the end of the freaking world, doesn't mean you will be unfaithful, mean you won't make a good mother or mean you will make a crap girlfriend!!! Just means you like sex - which from reading this thread is a bad thing for some people :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Stink on the inside wrote: »

Ill be blunt Darlughda, for me it simply comes down to the amount of guys that have been there, simple as that (speaking from the perspective of potential girlfriend material not a one night stand).

I reckon this would be a predominant reason for most other guys too that are put off by a girls promiscuity.

Well, I'm a woman, and I would have a problem dating a man with a lot of past sexual partners. I met a really cool guy recently and we hit it off, but I generally take things slowly, and when we had a conversation about past sexual partners, he had a shockingly high number. That was a big red flag for me, and turned out he had some other issues as well. Needless to say, that didn't go anywhere.

Having a lot of partners may mean that you like sex, but to me personally it is also a signal that you like sex in a far more indiscriminate way than I do. Whereas I see sex as something that can be enjoyed - frequently! - within the confines of an established, long-term relationship. I wouldn't be comfortable with someone who has such a dramatically different sexual history than I do.

I do think there is a Madonna/whore double standard in play a lot of the time, but I also think it's perfectly rational when someone you have just met in a pub asks you to go home with them to think "How many other people have they done this with?"

fergalr

Blah blah biology blah evolution blah blah chase blah blah stds sexual history blah blah

Look, for anyone that can't see through all this, heres what's going on:
A lot of people have a lot of hangups about sex.

There's all sorts of animal and psychological and social reasons why these hangups might exist.
Reasons which we really should be able to rise above, but which which, as humans, we aren't able to.

So, to answer the questions of the initial post:

Darlughda wrote: »

if she sleeps with you on first date-then no to dating just a potential ons or fb in the future?

Personally, hypothetically, I wouldn't think like that. If I found myself thinking irrationally, I'd try and rise above it, like other irrational thoughts. But from talking with many guys, many guys do, so its definitely out there.

Darlughda wrote: »

Can you explain this double standard to me?

Sure! Its because people are irrational. Loadsa people of both sexes apply double standards. Thats the explanation.

Darlughda wrote: »

Or give your honest reasoning if you agree with this?

There's lots of 'justifications', but it all boils down to hangups. Don't believe a more complex explanation than that.

The implicit question here, is whether people (women?) should alter their behaviour to cater to the irrationalities of people they are interested in.
This tradeoff depends on the individuals, but for women who believe they should cater to this: If your potential partner wanted you to take their name, would you do it? If they insisted you give up your career? If they insisted you cover your face?

Its a personal decision, but I know I'd think they could go fsck themselves.

Edit: I'm not trying to advocate completely rational decision making here. Irrationality is a lot of fun sometimes; but when our irrationalities are stopping us having fun, or making us act badly, then we should think them out.

Wibbs

Darlughda wrote: »

I suspect the reason why men fear a woman's promiscuity is more to do with their own ego problems, eg., will they be good enough in bed for her as she is more experienced and therefore has compartive examples to decide what she does and doesn't want, along with an insecurity that they would be unable to satisfy her sexually. Especially if she is more open to kinkier sex than they have any notion of.

Oh there is defo a large chunk of that going on. That said I know of confident sexually experienced men who also feel uneasy about women being too "free and easy" with their charms, so it's not just that I would say.

I don't really buy the biological reproduction argument. Plenty of men and women do not want children, nor it is not a concern or factor for many others facing the sex on first date clincher.

On the surface no, but the biological imperative is in there to some degree or other and has been in damn near every human culture throughout history. There are cultures that are referenced where an experienced woman* is valued more than a virgin, but when one explores further it turns out it's more a case of a woman with proven fertility is valued more. Until very recently the fact is a man* couldn't prove any of his children were his. A woman always knows if a child is hers. In some rarer cases where she's having sex with a couple of men at the same time, she may not know who the father is, but she defo knows who the mother is. Ever hear of a maternity test? Nope. For good reason. Now as males of most apes(for we are that) don't want to expend resources on others progeny at the expense of our own men have sought to limit the chances of this happening. This went double when the notion of familial ownership of land came into being. So yes men can "fearful", more suspicious about women's sexuality/fertility/loyalty to some degree. Before the advent of reliable contraception and paternity tests he had to be.

Did men have reason to be? Well hard to tell. If we look at our closest relatives the great apes, a couple of interesting mating strategies come up. Chimp females are very promiscuous so the males have very large testicles to increase the chances of pregnancy in this competition. Gorillas have harems and while the females can be reproductively sneaky, the males are more sure of who the daddy is, so huge gorillas have tiny testes. Humans? Men are smack dab in the middle(though have the biggest willies:D). Plus unlike all other great apes women hide their fertility and are also fertile year round which further confuses the issue for men. It seems at some point in our evolution men were not as sure of their mates as gorillas, but more sure than chimps. Any evidence they were right? Well DNA studies have shown that a noticeable percentage of children are not related to what they assume are their fathers. It's not as high as some paranoid blokes are concerned but it is like I say noticeable. So objectively speaking and looking from the other side if women were the ones who couldnt be sure, which male would they pick? The promiscuous low impulse control male with many many partners or the more considered male? This will evolve in our culture over time as contraception and all the rest are brought fully into the mix. It's still a bit in flux at the moment.

However, I am beginning to suspect the crux of this matter is the madonna/whore complex.

I dunno. Since it came from Freud I would have issue with most of his opinions on human psychology, but...

Is this archetype still predominant for men nowadays? As in good girls dont...'put it out'... mothers are asexual beings not sexual women in their own right?

There may be some element to this alright. I've seen some indications of this detachment maybe in other ways. Like I have noticed that men very attached to their mothers and who consider them above reproach and don't see them as human beings tend to be less good with women in adulthood. I've defo noticed extreme manwhore types to almost exclusively see their mothers with feet of clay. Maybe an inversion of madonna whore?

Getting what? Again its like viewing sex as a currency or a prize, not a consensual act between 2 adults.

I agree on this score. I think this comes about because of some in both genders. I've known women who treat sex as something to be doled out as a reward and men who saw it as a prize. I've little respect for either. I've scraped off a couple of the former myself the second I got the sniff of "If you buy me nice things I'll go down on you" types and yes they do exist.

Oh Hallelujah, a bit of sense at last.

Yep and I agree as I pointed out a few posts back. For me its not the number it's the why and how.

Fair enough that you would value someone who excercises impulse control.
Personally, I like a man to follow his instincts and passions.

I prefer striving for a balance. In both myself and others. Instinct and passion without mind in tow is unbalanced, just like mind without passion. Passion unfettered is fine for romance novels but after the "happy ever after" when real life starts it's less trustworthy IME and IMHO. Passion is far too easily swayed. Then again that's just my opinion like I said.

*using these terms as generalisations of course.

Wibbs

fergalr wrote: »

Blah blah biology blah evolution blah blah chase blah blah stds sexual history blah blah

Look, for anyone that can't see through all this, heres what's going on:
A lot of people have a lot of hangups about sex.

There's all sorts of animal and psychological and social reasons why these hangups might exist.
Reasons which we really should be able to rise above, but which which, as humans, we aren't able to.

You've just answered your own question right there. In any case, define "hangup". It's a very subjective term. I'm sure there are things that would be hangups for you and that's grand, but it's best to extend that consideration to others. Id also try to objectively define "fun" and "rational" and "irrational". All I see here are culturally bounded definitions of same. In a way you're just approaching from the other side of the same coin. One I would largely agree with BTW, but still I recognise that's subjective in me.

Sure! Its because people are irrational. Loadsa people of both sexes apply double standards. Thats the explanation.

OK "rational". As a man imagine you want to rationally factor the odds of starting and continuing a relationship that may include children and with as little risk of infidelity as possible. Which woman would you pick as far as sexual history goes? Woman A: Has had 4 long term sexual relationships that broke up without infidelity being involved. Doesn't do ONS and is considered about who she chooses to have sex with. OR Woman B: Has had only one long term relationship and she went straight form one to the next, has had 50 ONS a few of whom she regrets but was caught up in the moment. Rationally you would plump for woman A. Its all BS of course and woman A could turn out to be Queen cheat, but it appears rational. Rationality only comes into play if one takes an objective view. If one doesn't then you're being just as irrational thse who also don't from the other side.

The implicit question here, is whether people (women?) should alter their behaviour to cater to the irrationalities of people they are interested in.
This tradeoff depends on the individuals, but for women who believe they should cater to this: If your potential partner wanted you to take their name, would you do it?

Many women willingly do and are happy to do so.

If they insisted you give up your career?

Again many women willingly do and again are happy to do so.

If they insisted you cover your face?

There are far far more willing converts to Islam(and usually the more devout forms) among women than men.

Should they say "go fcuk themselves" to whomever? Me I say that's what freedom actually means. To actually do what thou wilt. If it agrees with you internally.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh there is defo a large chunk of that going on. That said I know of confident sexually experienced men who also feel uneasy about women being too "free and easy" with their charms, so it's not just that I would say.

On the surface no, but the biological imperative is in there to some degree or other and has been in damn near every human culture throughout history. There are cultures that are referenced where an experienced woman* is valued more than a virgin, but when one explores further it turns out it's more a case of a woman with proven fertility is valued more. Until very recently the fact is a man* couldn't prove any of his children were his. A woman always knows if a child is hers. In some rarer cases where she's having sex with a couple of men at the same time, she may not know who the father is, but she defo knows who the mother is. Ever hear of a maternity test? Nope. For good reason. Now as males of most apes(for we are that) don't want to expend resources on others progeny at the expense of our own men have sought to limit the chances of this happening. This went double when the notion of familial ownership of land came into being. So yes men can "fearful", more suspicious about women's sexuality/fertility/loyalty to some degree. Before the advent of reliable contraception and paternity tests he had to be.

Did men have reason to be? Well hard to tell. If we look at our closest relatives the great apes, a couple of interesting mating strategies come up. Chimp females are very promiscuous so the males have very large testicles to increase the chances of pregnancy in this competition. Gorillas have harems and while the females can be reproductively sneaky, the males are more sure of who the daddy is, so huge gorillas have tiny testes. Humans? Men are smack dab in the middle(though have the biggest willies:D). Plus unlike all other great apes women hide their fertility and are also fertile year round which further confuses the issue for men. It seems at some point in our evolution men were not as sure of their mates as gorillas, but more sure than chimps. Any evidence they were right? Well DNA studies have shown that a noticeable percentage of children are not related to what they assume are their fathers. It's not as high as some paranoid blokes are concerned but it is like I say noticeable. So objectively speaking and looking from the other side if women were the ones who couldnt be sure, which male would they pick? The promiscuous low impulse control male with many many partners or the more considered male? This will evolve in our culture over time as contraception and all the rest are brought fully into the mix. It's still a bit in flux at the moment.

I dunno. Since it came from Freud I would have issue with most of his opinions on human psychology, but...

There may be some element to this alright. I've seen some indications of this detachment maybe in other ways. Like I have noticed that men very attached to their mothers and who consider them above reproach and don't see them as human beings tend to be less good with women in adulthood. I've defo noticed extreme manwhore types to almost exclusively see their mothers with feet of clay. Maybe an inversion of madonna whore?

I agree on this score. I think this comes about because of some in both genders. I've known women who treat sex as something to be doled out as a reward and men who saw it as a prize. I've little respect for either. I've scraped off a couple of the former myself the second I got the sniff of "If you buy me nice things I'll go down on you" types and yes they do exist.

Yep and I agree as I pointed out a few posts back. For me its not the number it's the why and how.

I prefer striving for a balance. In both myself and others. Instinct and passion without mind in tow is unbalanced, just like mind without passion. Passion unfettered is fine for romance novels but after the "happy ever after" when real life starts it's less trustworthy IME and IMHO. Passion is far too easily swayed. Then again that's just my opinion like I said.

*using these terms as generalisations of course.

Does lack of impulse control set of bi polar, borderline, APD alarm bells for you or something?

I wouldnt automatically think a first date stint is a sign of that. I know women often use it as a litmus test to see if the guy is just after sex or not. Better to find out sooner than later.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Some surprising to me and crazy notions in this thread. I really dont and could never see a problem with sex on a first date or whatever, and woman who 'make him wait' for the sake of making him wait just frustrate me and make me less attracted to them as I then realise they seem to think theyre in the 1950's or something.

Is this something an irish thing? Its bizarre in 2010 (or at least i thought it was)

southsiderosie

nm wrote: »

Some surprising to me and crazy notions in this thread. I really dont and could never see a problem with sex on a first date or whatever, and woman who 'make him wait' for the sake of making him wait just frustrate me and make me less attracted to them as I then realise they seem to think theyre in the 1950's or something.

Is this something an irish thing? Its bizarre in 2010 (or at least i thought it was)

I don't believe in the "three dates" rules or anything like that, but I don't see a problem with wanting to wait until you know a person better and have a certain level of trust. A friend once said to me that she wouldn't sleep with someone unless she trusted them enough to give them a set of keys to her house. As she put it: "My home is my castle and my body is a temple. If I don't trust you with the keys to one, why would I let you unlock the other?"

nxbyveromdwjpg

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't believe in the "three dates" rules or anything like that, but I don't see a problem with wanting to wait until you know a person better and have a certain level of trust.

I dont disagree. It is precisely the whole "three dates" rubbish I was talking about.

midlandsmissus

O Shea wrote: »

I was aware that guy liked me as he continually chatted to me for 4 months every sat night - eventually because he was persistant and respectful I met him for coffee the one day. We hit it off in a way that wasn't possible in a pub or club and I realised that I really liked him. On our third date I slept with him as I knew he really liked me and I felt secure. Afterwards he complained that I had slept with him too quickly and I should have waited ! I had not been with someone in 12 months I explained I had waited long enough and finally met someone I felt I was comfortable with and went for it - am human after all. he said he didn't believe me re the 12 months and scolded me for it. We were togather happily enough for 6 years but the frickin' double standard is enough to drive a woman insane.

This is SOOOO true!

I hadn't slept with anyone since my last boyfriend 8 months ago. I met a guy I was absolutely crazy about and slept with him on the second date.
Then he turned cold on me. Ww're still talking but I know he put me into a little box after I slept with him so early. So annoying!

When you really really like some-one, all you want to do is sleep with them straight away, men and women are the exct same in that regard, can men not understand that?

Stupid madonna whore complex. I laugh when they say women are crazy/complicated!

Keptic

There is maybe one thing I would like to add to my previous post: if I am looking only for a quick shag, I am very honest about it. Sort of "I like you a lot, but you won't see me tomorrow nor in a week or month, we can go with the flow or not, but there is nothing that will follow tonight". Usually works well and I either get what I want or at least have no enemy, who's gonna think of me as if I was a complete and utter disaster.

I find it fair and I can't understand what's the point in exposing a girl to negative emotions AS WELL AS MAKING A FOOL, COWARD AND LIAR of myself. No girl would appreciate it, that's for sure.

The above however happens very rarely as I prefer also some deeper emotions over the pure animal instict on it's own, which emotions are hard to be found in one night stands.

Howgh!

midlandsmissus

The most pronounced example of male contrariness/wierdnesss about sex that I've ever encountered is the following:

I had been talking to a guy on a few differnet nights out in a nightclub. we really hit it off, and one night we decided to go on to a late bar in a hotel to keep talking.(he was a guard so could get in anywhere) he ws very drunk at this stage. He started saying to me that we should get a hotel room. I wasn't going to.
Him "I can't believe it. WE'll just sleep. Do you not trust me? How could you not trust me?"Me "Im not going to stay" Him "I wont think any less of you in the morning, cant believe you wouldnt trust me"
I literally walked up to the hotel room with him, put him to bed, and left. Was in the rm 5 mins.

The next time I saw him this is what he said to me:

"Imagine going to a hotel room on your first night out with a guy, what a slut".

Felt like banging my head of a wall!

southsiderosie

nm wrote: »

I dont disagree. It is precisely the whole "three dates" rubbish I was talking about.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

This is SOOOO true!

I hadn't slept with anyone since my last boyfriend 8 months ago. I met a guy I was absolutely crazy about and slept with him on the second date.
Then he turned cold on me. Ww're still talking but I know he put me into a little box after I slept with him so early. So annoying!

NM, there is a reason why some girls follow the "three dates" rule, and it is usually because they don't want to be treated this way. It's easy to call it rubbish when you are not the one being judged.

fergalr

Wibbs wrote: »

You've just answered your own question right there. In any case, define "hangup". It's a very subjective term. I'm sure there are things that would be hangups for you and that's grand, but it's best to extend that consideration to others. Id also try to objectively define "fun" and "rational" and "irrational". All I see here are culturally bounded definitions of same. In a way you're just approaching from the other side of the same coin. One I would largely agree with BTW, but still I recognise that's subjective in me.

Well, I was trying to use the terms without defining them, colloquially.

What I was getting at in my post, is that while most people may be able to provide plausible justifications for why - in the general case, all other things being equal, and with no other information - it might make sense to discriminate in favour of a woman that you know has had less casual sex (eg, you are concerned if she has a child, whether the child would be yours), these reasons are fundamentally specious; they aren't really what is actually driving the decisions and behaviour. The decisions and behaviour are typically driven by socially or biologically inherited subconscious, or semi-conscious tendencies, which, while they might make sense in the general case, in the absence of any more fine grained information, really shouldn't be applied to a specific interaction with a specific individual. Even if people say their behaviour is rational, they are not doing it for reasons they have mentally thought out; but instead for mores they have picked up.

And even then, I'd argue that to discriminate against specific individuals in a class because of general behaviour, isn't really rational.
Its a bit like hiring for a manual labour job, where you have a lot of candidates, and only a small amount of information available to differentiate between them. If one of these pieces of information is sex, you might reason that women are likely to have less muscle, and therefore bin all the CVs with female names.

While this would be rational, in the strict, local, economic sense of the word, in that it would be advantageous in a self serving sense; it would not be right in that its not fair to discriminate against all members of the group on the basis of general traits of the group. I would argue that in a less local, more philosophical, sense, its irrational.

So, I'm making two points here.
1) Even if there are plausible explanations, for the general behaviour, those explanations aren't really what drives peoples behaviour. People might claim that they are behaving because of the specious explanation, but really its because they have inherited tendencies that they are only partly aware of, and that control them, rather than are under their control.

2) Even if we accept people are following these rules because of the explanations they give, even if these rules are 'rational' in a narrow sense, they aren't really rational, as they are unfairly generalising from all the members of the group, to a specific individual of the group.

Wibbs wrote: »

OK "rational". As a man imagine you want to rationally factor the odds of starting and continuing a relationship that may include children and with as little risk of infidelity as possible. Which woman would you pick as far as sexual history goes? Woman A: Has had 4 long term sexual relationships that broke up without infidelity being involved. Doesn't do ONS and is considered about who she chooses to have sex with. OR Woman B: Has had only one long term relationship and she went straight form one to the next, has had 50 ONS a few of whom she regrets but was caught up in the moment. Rationally you would plump for woman A. Its all BS of course and woman A could turn out to be Queen cheat, but it appears rational. Rationality only comes into play if one takes an objective view. If one doesn't then you're being just as irrational thse who also don't from the other side.

While these heuristics may be rational in a contrived situation where no other information is available, in real situations its possible to talk with the other person and make judgements based on richer information.

And, simply, the individuals making these judgements, even if they afterwards intellectualise them by such a rationale, are really making them because of issues they have...

Wibbs wrote: »

Many women willingly do and are happy to do so.
Again many women willingly do and again are happy to do so.
There are far far more willing converts to Islam(and usually the more devout forms) among women than men.

I was trying to provide examples of conforming to someone elses template, that you dont agree with, by increasing degree.
The examples aren't important; the act of conforming to someone elses template, that you ideally wouldn't, if you didn't have to, is what is important.

The logic holds if you want to add other examples:
'What if they insisted you didn't leave the house; use contraception; go to the doctor; have any friends; eat any food' etc.

The point is that, in general, we shouldn't change our behaviour to cater to someone elses irrational negative hangups, if we don't want to - even if this means we get a bigger potential dating pool. Its selling out principals in a way we wouldn't for other irrational hangups that are less socially acceptable.
If someone wants to, or is happy to do these things, then its a different story.

In other words, if a woman wants to be sexually conservative for herself, that's absolutely fine, but if she really wants to have sex with a guy, but decides not to; because the guy might have a negative view of having sex, (for no good reason other than that he has culturally inherited it), then there is something going wrong.

Wibbs wrote: »

Should they say "go fcuk themselves" to whomever? Me I say that's what freedom actually means. To actually do what thou wilt. If it agrees with you internally.

The bit about saying 'go fcuk themselves' was clearly for situations where it doesn't agree with the sayer internally; I am saying that people should not conform to socially learned hangups, that they do not agree with themselves, just in case someone else has them, in general.

fergalr

southsiderosie wrote: »

NM, there is a reason why some girls follow the "three dates" rule, and it is usually because they don't want to be treated this way. It's easy to call it rubbish when you are not the one being judged.

But, surely, catering to it perpetuates it?

Otis Driftwood

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The most pronounced example of male contrariness/wierdnesss about sex that I've ever encountered is the following:
I had been talking to a guy on a few differnet nights out in a nightclub. we really hit it off, and one night we decided to go on to a late bar in a hotel to keep talking.(he was a guard so could get in anywhere) he ws very drunk at this stage. He started saying to me that we should get a hotel room. I wasn't going to.
Him "I can't believe it. WE'll just sleep. Do you not trust me? How could you not trust me?"Me "Im not going to stay" Him "I wont think any less of you in the morning, cant believe you wouldnt trust me"
I literally walked up to the hotel room with him, put him to bed, and left. Was in the rm 5 mins.
The next time I saw him this is what he said to me:
"Imagine going to a hotel room on your first night out with a guy, what a slut".

Felt like banging my head of a wall!

Im sorry but thats hilarious.

What a dick.

midlandsmissus

I was reading the game by neil strauss the other day - you know pick up artist stuff. I was just thinking how stupid, may I say it, male behaviour is.

1. Men really enforce the idea that if you sleep with them too early you are a slut.
2. Women then don't sleep with men easily for fear of being seen as a slut.
3. Men then call women prickteases and spend loads of time perfecting their 'game' to get through women's anti-slut defenses (a real pick up artist term)
4. Then Either Sleep with the woman or complain they're not getting enough sex (they are not getting enough sex because they call women sluts when they do get it)
5. Call them a slut if they give in too early in the game.

Not all men,but alot.

And so the feckin social stigma game of men starts again.

BTW ladies I would really recommend you google pick up artist sites, and especially google the term "anti-slut defense",

When you read it Its so true! I think if enough ladies start to realise the game techniques men use, the whole game might come to a stop once and for feckin all.

southsiderosie

fergalr wrote: »

But, surely, catering to it perpetuates it?

Well, personally, if I were to sleep with someone after the second date, and they had the nerve to get huffy or miffed about it I would write them off immediately. It takes two to tango and I don't have time for hypocrites. I think not telling men with this kind of attitude to cop the **** on perpetuates it, in part.

midlandsmissus

nedtheshed wrote: »

Im sorry but thats hilarious. What a dick.

I had to laugh at him. What an ejit.

Darlughda

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I was reading the game by neil strauss the other day

When you read it Its so true! I think if enough ladies start to realise the game techniques men use, the whole game might come to a stop once and for feckin all.

Well, my advice would be

Don't read absolute low intelligence level shyte
Don't date men who are into low intelligenge level game techniques shyte

southsiderosie

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I was reading the game by neil strauss the other day - you know pick up artist stuff. I was just thinking how stupid, may I say it, male behaviour is.

1. Men really enforce the idea that if you sleep with them too early you are a slut.
2. Women then don't sleep with men easily for fear of being seen as a slut.
3. Men then call women prickteases and spend loads of time perfecting their 'game' to get through women's anti-slut defenses (a real pick up artist term)
4. Either Sleep with the woman or complain they're not getting enough sex (they are not getting enough sex because they call women sluts when they do get it)
5. Call them a slut if they give in too early in the game.

And so the feckin social stigma game of men starts again.

BTW ladies I would really recommend you google pick up artist sites, and especially google the term "anti-slut defense",

When you read it Its so true! I think if enough ladies start to realise the game techniques men use, the whole game might come to a stop once and for feckin all.

That POA stuff is insane. Talk about perpetuating dysfunctional behavior.

midlandsmissus

southsiderosie wrote: »

That POA stuff is insane. Talk about perpetuating dysfunctional behavior.

To be honest I think it describes alot of men's behaviour to a tee. And there are thousands upon thousands of men on their forums, and yes there is a very actve Irish forum.

Do men on here read stuff like that/ use game techniques on women? Would they admit to it

I'd be interested to know.

midlandsmissus

Darlughda wrote: »

Well, my advice would be
Don't read absolute low intelligence level shyte

Don't date men who are into low intelligenge level game techniques shyte

Are you male or female? /asking politely.

Darlughda

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Are you male or female? /asking politely.

midlandsmissus, you have something like 1558 posts on your profile, so I fail to see how you are unable to have a quick scan through my post/thread history to answer your question?

But hey, I'm game. Female.
Now your turn. Why the hell do you suddenly want to know my gender?

Darlughda

Right, its late at night, cocoa time, and not in the mood to get in to the finer points of why exactly men have a problem with women having a large number of previous sexual partners.

Instead, I'll let slip my silly romantic side.

Like Wibbs said, the person who exhibits good impulse control is probably a good bet in a long term partner (apologies W if I am paraphrasing incorrectly). But, I have little time for either men or women acting coy or indulging their silly hang ups when both want sex.

However, there is something really hot about the idea of a man who normally has good impulse control but after meeting me on first date- Well, he just can't help himself. Passion rules. For once he just can't stop himself due to my incredible female charms.

Anyway, we all like our fantasy notions.:o

I'm off to bed with my cocoa and hot water bottle now.
Much less judgemental than some fella.

magneticimpulse

i understand there are stereotypes of women...but i miss just being able to sleep with a guy on the 1st date and rip off all his clothes.

my number is not high by any means, and i dont sleep around...but boy if i met a guy who made me want to jump on him on the 1st date id be really really happy. i dont know how many dates ive been on and just thought, ah he is really nice and will make a great friend and felt completely not sexual towards the guy....if he was hot and sexy i think id definitely be bringing him home.

i cant be playing with this mind game crap and i cant believe guys have that opinion of women, especially when you get to your late 20's or 30's. its just really sad in this day and age. fair enough you might meet 1 virgin in your life, but majority of people you go on a date with are not virgins and not saints...but it doesnt mean anybody should have to tell you their number of sexual partners (just that they are clean and no std's). who wants to know a number? what matters is whether you like each other, and sex is a way to show you like each other. why have sex with someone you dont like?

magneticimpulse

Greyfox wrote: »

No it's not. I'm just stating a fact that I, like a lot of men I find that when a women makes me wait the antisipation of what sex will be like builds up and makes my attraction for the person stronger. Theirs certainly never any intentional gamesplaying as men cant really control what they do and don't find attractive.

seriously theres nothing worse then going on a 1st date and there is no sexual chemistry at all....im not thinking "oh i let him wait and be a prick tease"....

im thinking, god another one on the list who doesnt make me want to have sex with him and im arranging a date with someone else. hey im not going to stick around to 2nd, 3rd or 4th date to let a guy wait...im thinking from a womans point of view, there just aint no sexual chemistry here, onto the next guy.

honru

The biological argument of the male ensuring the parenthood of his children is not something that is conscious, more likely an adaptation which proved to be an issue for our ancestors (especially in past centuries when such information was more difficult to obtain, and contraceptive methods were either primitive or nonexistent). The female equivalent is the choosing of a "provider" type male, a man who will provide resources and security for her during childbrith and the subsequent raising of family. I don't think people would be so quick to snub this explanation; a disadvantage females have in mating strategies is giving birth to children without a committed father providing valuable resources.

Of course past promiscuity does not equate to infidelity, but nonetheless the perception of this would be enough to set alarm bells off in the unconscious male brain, "Will this woman be faithful to me?", etc.

The question is, is this thinking (and the value of purity) due to hard-wired programming that a woman perceived as promiscuous could mean us raising kids that aren't biologically our own? Or, is it that men desire "pure" affection from women in relationship scenarios? (Mama/ho complex)

Goduznt Xzst

Darlughda wrote: »

And that is game playing. And using sex as some kind of currency.

Personally, I would find it repellent that a man would view a consensual act as some kind of game they had to work for.

It's all about what a man finds attractive. Simple as. Some men like a woman to dress up in stillettos and step on their balls, who am I to judge what turns a man on.

You have outlined in the above quote what you find repellent. How are you any more justified in judging a man that is attracted to being teased by a women and who enjoys waiting to have sex, than a man is in judging you for sleeping with him mere hours after you met him?

Answer:

You're not.

The fact of the matter is that this is an ideal that has persisted through differing eons, cultures, religions... etc. Seemingly isolated societies have been found to of adopted similar ideals about sex, women and purity. There are always exceptions throughout history, but never the less, even in our modern era of homogeneous sexes, it still remains.

The fact that it has persisted so strongly would lead me to believe that there is more to it than merely consciously choosing to think this way.

senordingdong

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The next time I saw him this is what he said to me:

"Imagine going to a hotel room on your first night out with a guy, what a slut".

Are you sure he wasn't being sarcastic?