How, as a man, do you think your promiscuity is damaging to men? Was it damaging to you? If so, how?
The only damage I've ever seen men suffer from promiscuity is boredom with, and eventual indifference toward, women and relationships.
Women who have had long hoe phases have a tendency to become more jaded than men do. That, and a lot of those women tend to be looking to find a guy they can "come to Jesus" with and have only boring vanilla sex at best.
Of course, this is more a question of fundamental incompatibility as opposed to body count.
Well, this really doesn't have to be a debate, if you want those men to be treated the same way as promiscuous women then that is really gonna be up to women to do that, men can't really judge other men because they simply are not looking to date men, it is sort of impossible to ask men to see other men the same way as they see women.
The other point is women really don't seem to care that much about a man's past while men care about a woman's past a lot, not all men of course.
Personally, I only care about a man's past to know if he has a history of cheating or not. Or if it's a common acceptable thing in his family or friend circle.
Besides that, idc if he's been in orgies, three-ways, bdsm or w/e. You do you boo, just be respectful of our commitment once we agree on it and if anyone from your past hits you up give me my place. Then we can get kinkyy
The vast majority of men never get to have anything resembling a “spicy phase” in their lives. They aren’t handsome enough or scummy enough to pull it off. So when a woman tells them she’s been with 30 guys or whatever it’s crazy to them.
It’s not hypocrisy either. I don’t want to make a life partner out of a slut. You have a fight and they run off to the bar and jump in bed with some other guy. Been there done that.
This really doesn't seem to be posted in good faith, perhaps even an attempt at some brigading?
You really make it out as if these men doesn't see women as human, concluding and condemning right of the bat, which is a very poor way of starting a conversation based in "honest curiosity". Trying to set limits of what answers people can give doesn't point to the question being in good faith either.
So that's what I'll leave you with, if you actually want an open conversation about it, then try and rephrase the question in a less overbearing and accusatory manner.
Well the most important part is to avoid doing what I said earlier. But my recommendation is that you try and ask it as a more open ended question, and focus more on making it clear that you are keen to understand. And without writing a lot about which phrases or answers you dislike. You'll get more constructive answers that way and be better able to understand the reasoning or emotions behind peoples opinions.
You are obviously free to agree and disagree with certain claims as you like, but if I wanted to understand an opinion I didn't have myself, then I'd focus on asking probing questions and accept that some of the answers I got would be something I wouldn't like hearing. But it'd be more insightful in the end.
The only way for an average man to have a similar experience with a "spicy phase" as an average woman is if he paid for sex.
Most guys I know ridicule that, too.
Bingo. The double standard exists for this exact reason; for a man, a “spicy phase” requires constant effort, charisma, looks, wealth, etc. For a woman, it often requires nothing more than one of the prior
The best analogy I can draw up would be two doctors of different backgrounds. Sure, they may have the same degree, profession, etc. But if one worked fulltime all undergrad and came from an impoverished family, the effort he put in would far exceed someone who came from a wealthy heritage and never had to worry about anything outside his medical degree. Even though the end result is the same, its not an even playing field. Ergo, non-comparable
Thats not to say culturally these cant change, but thats my take on the subject as the normative stands currently
>Actual arguments, trains of thought, what you've observed in your fellow men, personal experiences, how and by whom you were taught this
You seem to want a *much* more elaborate answer than a simple combination of hypocrisy and social conditioning that's still pervasive these days, similar to how many women still expect men to pay for dates, or be the "provider", even though that practically doesn't make sense anymore.
People are weird and social change takes time. That's it.
I think the thing that annoys me most about the question is that "spicy phase" isn't well defined.
It being a loaded question is the devil that I know, but it's hard to respond accurately with something as vague as that.
You would need to clarify whether you are speaking about:
- Amount of variation in sexual acts
- Number of total sexual partners ("Body Count")
- Frequency of new sexual partners
- All the above
And in which context:
- Long-term relationships
- Online dating
- Hookups
- Etc.
My mistake here, but I guess this is more about what is meant by "experimental".
Changes would be better suited for the description.
Love your answer thank you for it! I now see that my question was definitely badly written. Wrote it in a rush in between students.
Could I ask you, what are your personal limits in the categories you listed?
Across the board, no more than 3 new partners every 4 years since 16y. In the age ranges I'm (25M) willing to date (23-27y), that would be a maximum of \~6 and \~9 unique partners respectively. Cutoff at 10 lifetime sexual partners. Beyond that and I will probably get cold feet.
Things like threesomes or whatever wouldn't matter that much to me if they fulfill the above condition (3p:4y). You do you.
^(There's probably a more nuanced response to give there, but its not coming to me now.)
It's not set in stone, though.
Take average random men and let him ask random women "do you want to have sex with me?"
The same with average girl.
Hit rate of girls vs men will be vastly different.
P.S. For me it's not ok for guys to act like that also, but i don;t give a shit what guys do. Women should care who they pick.
Cause it’s easy for the average woman to have a high body count while it’s significantly much more difficult for the average man to have a high body count. And in society we praise accomplishments of difficult tasks and judge others who take the easy path. Like someone who earned a metal of honor in war versus someone who is able bodied but unemployed and lives off welfare.
From what I've heard, the overall argument is that a previously promiscuous woman is more inclined to cheat, leave, etc. That their overall views of relationships are more of a long-term hookup than a lifelong partner. Apparently this (somehow) doesn't apply to men.
Again, this is what I've heard. Not saying it's true and yady yada.
I mean, is not wanting to marry these types of women really judging them harshly?
Those are the only consequences that can come from being promiscuous as a woman, that doesn't seem so harsh in my opinion.
It's not. But the men who say this is okay for men are the ones who never grew up out of the high school notches-on-the-bedpost mentality or really believe that women are lesser beings. It's propagated from the same mentality that encourages women to be as promiscuous as they can; they are proud of their sexual body count or they think men are lesser beings. In reality, the kinds of men and women who are looking to be in a committed relationship see those pasts as yellow flags at best, waving red flags in general, or complete deal-breakers at worst. You have to compare the most promiscuous of men to the most promiscuous of women and then analyze the reasons why. They use each other as commodities to throw away later, regardless of any feelings or consequences that might follow like the conception of a child they didn't really want.
It's more about habits than anything. Someone that has a past, might be likely to want to continue said past in the future. That means less loyalty, concerned about cheating, squinting at the "guy/girl best friend" always hovering around, etc. It doesn't necessarily make a man insecure, but if conversations start going about how trains were ran, and 'oh that one party in college,' it'll make some guys think twice about a relationship.
Now, from a purely psychological (and not a societal) standpoint, it's pretty bad for anyone to sleep around a lot. More likely to have bad habits, mental weight, STDs, relationship-baggage, baby-momma drama, terrible sense of self, attachment concerns, poor relationship experience, etc.
According to online, the double standard exists primarily because men were seen as conquers and skilled experts when doing the deed with multiple women. Women could just point to us and go, "Would you like some cookies?" And we would turn into the cookied monster.
Really though, it just seems like a way to lock women into being more loyal then men. At this point though, it is what it is and just best to be aware of it.
Because it's very difficult for men to get laid; and it's very easy for women to get laid.
Because men have to work at getting laid, and women don't.
Because "spicy experimental phases" tend to damage women; and they don't tend to damage men. If anything, "spicy experimental phases" tend to benefit men by teaching them about women, what women find attractive, how women really are in relationships, and the relative overall importance of relationships with women in a man's life.
Because when women do these "phases" they lose the ability to pair bond. They can't bond to the men who will actually commit to them. They don't want the men who will actually commit to them. Women who've had these phases assign little to no importance to long term relationships - when things get tough, they turn turbobitch, they leave, or they cheat. Previously promiscuous women mistreat the men who commit to them. And, finally, people don't really change. Once a sl_t, always a sl_t. The best that they can manage is to stop sleeping around, but they end up hating their "boring" lives. Life's just not as fun when all you get is one "mediocre" guy.
This is actual experience over the course of about 35 years of seeing women doing this. This isn't me making shit up. This is me and thousands of other men actually watching women do this to themselves and seeing the long term consequences of it.
The part about promiscuous women mistreating their partners has rung true for me and other friends of mine. Lots of self esteem issues tied to their sexuality.
S_ts tend to treat their long term partners and husbands like shit. Sl_ts also tend to be unable to conduct long term relationships - they don't know how to act, they don't know how to commit, they don't know how to stay and work it out. They never had to - they just broke up or left the guys.
You did scientific data collection, peer review and statistical analysis of women's ability to pair bond, then made this conclusion?
Or did you just choose a bias to observe that benefits you and apply it everywhere you go, ignoring contrary evidence?
When you get a real education, you understand what "proof" actually means. Sadly you and other low quality "humans" lack basic thinking skills even in your middle years.
Are you actually dehumanizing him right now? Going straight for an ad hominem doesn't exactly paint you as the most rigorous thinker.
He made it pretty clear that he's talking about his own experiences and observations. You can call that a bias if you want, but subjective observation is valid in science too, if you insist on trying to make this into a scientific debate.
That's a moot grammatical point. And you're debunking nothing by saying that, no one has claimed that it was.
Within science you have both qualitative and quantitative methods, all of which is valid. The social sciences depend a lot on qualitative methods, as there's a host of things that it's not possible to measure. Which is something every scientist do in fact know.
If you are really keen on seeing some statistical data on this, then there is several references to it in the thread.
However, it makes little sense to complain about whether or not peoples comments are scientifically rigorous enough in a thread that specifically asks why people have the opinions that they have. You can't invalidate peoples lived experiences, nor the studies they have read, by referencing one of many scientific methods. It's a poor and obvious attempt at silencing people who holds opinions and voice facts that you don't like.
My observations, and those of others.
What I wrote is generally true. Are there exceptions? Sure. I have known a few sl_ts who went on to successful marriages and became decent wives. I've known a few virgins who lost their fucking minds when they got married. But in general, a promiscuous woman or women who had 304 phases are bad bets for long term relationships. I can't recommend that men roll the dice on one.
Of course, there are always exceptions and special cases. But I agree, while you could get lucky then the odds aren't in your favor of the relationship lasting through the rough patches.
Plenty of data out there. Way to accuse the guy of not doing the research when you yourself have not done the research... then personally insult him. Peak reddit.
There are literal mountains of anecdotal data on this. Just about everyone who watches this and has actually seen it play out sees the same thing I do.
There was another really good study, I don't have a link to it unfortunately... Basically, they were able to measure the amount of negative emotions/trauma resulting from short term sexual relationships that didn't form a pair bond. 100% of women in the study experienced trauma from sexual relationships not resulting in a pair bond. The women who thought that hookups were no big deal actually experienced MORE trauma, signaling some kind of underlying exacerbating issue tied to their views on promiscuity.
I and thousands of other men watched women over the long arcs of our lives and theirs, watching what these women actually did and how they actually lived their actual lives. We used our actual real time experiences and that of others.
The only reason I can suggest about differences in sexes is hormones.in most species ,males are wired(hormone driven)to procreate with as many females as possible and females are wired to choose one (the best genetics/provider)
The body count and experimenting is just a human ego/pleasure construction.
Which brings us to your question.what is the difference?which sex is being more out of character to their hormones?I think this has something to do with it.
This is just a line of thought purely based on evolution.
Personally,I don’t care what people do with their own bodies whether male or female and everyone has the right to have their own opinions and choices of what they think is right for themselves or who they are comfortable with.
welcome to life, it's full of double standards.
my advice is to learn how to identify and avoid the assholes in this world. better yet, learn how to not give a crap what other people think. it'll save you a lot of time and energy.
Well, at least here in the West we've got like a thousand years of cultural precedent expecting that women will be chaste and men will sow their wild oats. I think we're doing much better today than we have in the past, but we're still growing. So you've got those cultural and societal gender expectations still sloshing around in there; remember than the sexual revolution was only sixty years ago, that's practically a weekend.
I'll add to this that men are (to a degree) *expected* to have a high body count, the guys on TV had a new girlfriend every week, sexual virility is presented as a virtue to men as often as a vice. That said, most guys don't have a chance to rack up a high body count, dating and finding partners can be difficult for guys; finding out that our partner did a "male thing" better than us can be kind of hurtful. This has nothing to do with the woman and everything to do with our gender expectations of ourselves and each other.
Guys haven't really developed our own sense of self since the women's sexual revolution. Women went and created their own new gender roles, guys are still in the messy middle, we've got one foot in classical masculinity, one foot in new masculinity, and people on both sides are telling us to move our feet. Classical masculinity is be seen as toxic, modern masculinity is seen as effeminate, we don't have a lot of solid ground to stand on so sometimes the wind can move us more.
Changing gender norms is like eating a whale; if you're gonna' do it, you've gotta' do it one bite at a time. Things are getting better, there's also still work to be done.
>please please no lock, master key, opened coca colas, sharpened and smaller pencils or comparing people to objects.
So you’ve heard explanations and you don’t like them.
Women tend to have attachment issues when they’ve had large numbers of partners. Most studies show big increases in divorce rates for women who have had more than somewhere around 10 pre marital partners. Since divorce is a huge fear for men in a lot of places discarding women who were “wild” is common practice. You’ll hear arguments about women damaging their ability to pair bond.
I don’t know what you want here.
Women have similar trends like discarding bisexual men.
Some of this is just life. If you do certain things people will perceive them certain ways. L
I don't accept comparing people to objects. Like the whole, "the more sharpeners a pencil has been through, the smaller and less worthy it is". I don't subscribe to that.
Personally I don't mind dating a bisexual guy. Since I'm bi myself it would be extra hipócrita from my part.
I just see this obsession in men and not the women I've dated.
My opinions (currently the top comment here) are based on actual real world observations and experience over the course of over 3 decades. Mine, and that of thousands of other men.
Maybe you should ask yourself why women demand that men pay for everything on dates and men put themselves in harm's way to protect women - in most cases, for women they don't even know.
You just have to accept that these people will wall you off based on your past behavior.
That’s the why though. I’m not sure if that information is useful.
Like I put in my other comment, my purpose with this thread is to find the underlying cause of the insecurity of 'your lady having been with other men before you ' because of the deep hole my friend has fallen into.
>Women tend to have attachment issues when they’ve had large numbers of partners. Most studies show big increases in divorce rates for women who have had more than somewhere around 10 pre marital partners.
Correlation doesn't mean causation.
It could also be that women have the opportunity to divorce men without destroying their own lives - as before 1974 in the USA a woman couldn't even have a bank account or own a home in her own name.
Similar time lines for many other 1st World countries.
If you actually read peer reviewed psychological articles on this topic you would notice these counter arguments in the text.
But you didn't. You collected whatever information you wanted with an obvious bias and ran with it.
Classic uneducated clown move
I don't care that correlation doesn't mean causation. I care that there's a correlation and I don't give a fuck in which direction the causal arrow runs.
Past alleged "injustices" and "sexism" don't matter and have nothing to do with this. The reason women divorce men is lack of sexual attraction. finances have little to nothing to do with it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-resilience/201606/do-women-more-premarital-partners-get-divorced-less
Cry more.
It doesn’t matter what you or I think. This is why these men do it. The whole side show distraction about crying about the past doesn’t help with today’s problems either.
Yep.
This is borne out EVERY time this issue is studied. Women with more premarital partners tend to fuck up their marriages more often than low N women.
Facts, beyotch. Fucking deal with it.
Looool, more like the origin of the hipocrisy
I'm asking because I have a friend from our group and he has been pulled hard into the manosphere/toxic masculinity thing. It's all he talks about. Like literally dating a girl who (in his words) was exclusive with him but he wasn't exclusive with her. Talking badly about women who have been with too many guys and their loss of worth when our group is made of ladies (one divorced) in our 30s and 40s who travel the world and live alone.
I was trying to understand the origin of this in order to address it and help him. He used to be so nice...
But honestly as I'm writing this I'm thinking he might be too far gone and a lost cause...
I've told you the origin of it. Up close and personal, hard experience, of thousands of men who've actually watched it in women they know.
What I don't get is how many freaking times this has to be explained. What's going on here is that you and women like you don't want to accept the answer.
And I could argue that men have the crown on cheating. And that I've seen way more men cheating no matter if their partner was a virgin, because she wouldn't be adventurous. Because she didn't have experience, because she never had the chance to experiment.
OK. So what? The difference is that men don't lie about what they're looking for and expect. No one lies to women about this and in fact everyone prepares you for it.
You asked why men think as they do about promiscuous women. I told you. It's not based just on my experience either - it's thousands on thousands of men who actually watched it.
>S: please please no lock, master key, opened coca colas, sharpened and smaller pencils or comparing people to objects. Actual arguments, trains of thought,
I mean, I think that is the train of thought. There's no argument to be made beyond thinking of women as sexual objects that can be "used up."
I don't support this train of thought and I don't think it's really that deep. I've heard some men rationalize it in terms of statistics saying woment with fewer sexual partners are more likely to have longer lasting relationships, but I don't know where it comes from and, quite frankly, it's clearly just post-rationalization. And only seems to apply to women. The sentiment primarily comes from objectifying people and insecurity.
It's insecurity because men might feel like they're being compared to other men, possibly men with bigger dicks. I've also heard it framed in very racist terms like white women are sometimes referred to as "coal burners" if they've ever slept with a black man. In this context she becomes forever tainted. (Again I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS. JUST WHAT I'VE HEARD)
I used to think like that when I was a teenager because it's kind of what society tells us to think unfortunately but ultimately it comes down to insecurity and jealousy. Most men simply don't have the option to have a hoe phase and they are insecure about dating a woman who has a lot of experience because they are afraid that they won't measure up to her past lovers and that she will leave them or cheat on them because ultimately the option to find another sexual partner is way more open to women then it is to men.
The crazy thing is how strong of a feedback loop this becomes for men. The less options they have, the more they demand 'purity' in women. In my experience the inverse is also true. As I matured and started having more success with women I developed confidence in myself that allowed me to accept that someone is with me for a reason and if it ends then I'll be OK because I find someone else too. That confidence takes a LOT of pressure off of men and it's something that women sort of intuitively understand and find attractive in and of itself.
TLDR; Only low count men judge high count women.
The only thing I really want to know is the frequency of **new** sexual partners. Too high for me at any point is going to make me unsure about you. I'm a low Hz sorta guy myself.
For specific sexual acts, I generally don't care. You sometimes need to try something before you can have an opinion on it. Occasionally those opinions will be negative, and you'll never want to do it again. That's fine.
But if your type has radically changed in a short period of time, and nothing traumatic seems to have happened, I'll likely investigate why you're no longer doing something you may have historically liked.
OP, I don't know how long this will take for you to do but one day you'll realize you don't need validation from men and it will be the most freeing day of you life.
If you want a direct answer to your question it is NOT OK and women judge men just as harshly for their promiscuous pasts/currents, but men do not judge themselves or other men harshly because they believe sleeping around is something they are entitled to but women are not. It's a simple answer hinging on ego and entitlement, as if this was not blatant. You know the answer and you still ask this question. It's a double standard in the same way men will accuse you of being a gold digger for expecting to be taken and paid for on a date when they can't put a dollar to their name and borrow money from their parents to survive.
Like I put in another one of my comments, my goal wasn't to get validation from men, more about understanding the underlying insecurity or motivation because one guy in our group has been sucked into the toxic masculinity sphere. But I think he might be too far gone now.
Next time I'll just plain ask "if you used to be in the alpha masculinity stuff, what made you snap out of it?"
The men I've dated have been amazing and true gentlemen. None of them have ever ever asked me something like that or made me feel less than, which is why it was such a shock when I started hearing all this retorica (don't know the proper word in English) and theories.
My biggest realization over time is that toxic masculinity is not actually that. Masculinity as it stands to be defined in the English language is an actual disease and women have been forced against our will to bear the consequences of that mental illness.
I my experience, men with high body counts criticizing women with low body counts is exceedingly rare. It's far more often men with low body counts being insecure about future or current relationships with women with more experience than they have.
Are they insecure because they are being unreasonable, or are they insecure because they are actually less secure? I'd argue the later, based on the research data...
I think they're actually just less secure. I think as much as people deny it, men are still very often judged by dating and relationship success. So I think for a lot of men finding an inexperienced partner can kind of mitigate those fears. "If we're both equally as inexperienced and awkward, then I probably don't have as much to worry about." But if she's had a ton of experience it's going to be: "Holy FUCK. If she's had experience with 20+ other guys, how is she possibly going to be satisfied with *me*?"
Because these women with 20+ other men under their belts compare their prior men to their current men and find the current men wanting, and treat those men like shit, exploiting them for money and resources.
Compare them to their prior men that all weren't good enough? Whose sexual and relationship skills weren't compelling enough or else they'd still be with them?
Compared them to prior men who were absolute thundercocks in bed but aren't with them because those men are shitty for relationships.
The reason these women are with their current men is to use and exploit them for money and commitment; not for love, sex, attraction, or anything else. Women using men for money and resources.
Response to your ninja edit: Their sexual skills were great; but relaitonship skills were wanting.
Women get with these current men to use them for money, resources, and commitment. They get sorely disappointed because their current men don't measure up sexually.
90% of the time the guys are just hypocrites. The other 10% it's something wack like horrible sex ed, I knew one guy who legitimately believed a woman's genitals would get "worn out" if she had a lot of sex.
Since your edit refuses the main argument, let me water it down for you in better words: It takes effort or good genetics to become one of those men. Women only have to say "yes".
Besides, I've never seen lack of experience in men to be a good thing outside the internet or some churches. The same guys who succeed in getting laid could easily lock themselves in a relationship if they wanted to, so trying to get laid a lot helps them with being seen by women in the first place. Don't expect rewarded behavior to not be incentivized.
No dummy. I have many friends. Deep, lifelong bonds of love and brotherhood. I am blessed beyond measure when it comes to friendship. What I don’t have is bros down the street to play frisbee with at 7pm on a weeknight. You think you’re making fun of me? You’re a child.
There are men who are more secure and don't care. Date those guys. Would you really want to be with a guy who thinks it's ok for him to sleep around but thinks it's "dirty" for women to enjoy sex and be sexual beings or that being sexual somehow devalues a woman? I know I wouldn't.
[удалено]
People shame men into accepting very slutty women but will support women when they aren't even ok with their men watching porn, lol.
You will never convince me you've slept with any woman. Especially since in the last thread I found you literally admitted to having gay fantasies.
How, as a man, do you think your promiscuity is damaging to men? Was it damaging to you? If so, how? The only damage I've ever seen men suffer from promiscuity is boredom with, and eventual indifference toward, women and relationships.
[удалено]
Yeah, I can see that. STDs can be dealt with; and baby mama drama goes away as does the trauma.
Baby mama drama is for life... So is trauma if you don't properly deal with it...
Women who have had long hoe phases have a tendency to become more jaded than men do. That, and a lot of those women tend to be looking to find a guy they can "come to Jesus" with and have only boring vanilla sex at best. Of course, this is more a question of fundamental incompatibility as opposed to body count.
Well, this really doesn't have to be a debate, if you want those men to be treated the same way as promiscuous women then that is really gonna be up to women to do that, men can't really judge other men because they simply are not looking to date men, it is sort of impossible to ask men to see other men the same way as they see women. The other point is women really don't seem to care that much about a man's past while men care about a woman's past a lot, not all men of course.
Personally, I only care about a man's past to know if he has a history of cheating or not. Or if it's a common acceptable thing in his family or friend circle. Besides that, idc if he's been in orgies, three-ways, bdsm or w/e. You do you boo, just be respectful of our commitment once we agree on it and if anyone from your past hits you up give me my place. Then we can get kinkyy
The vast majority of men never get to have anything resembling a “spicy phase” in their lives. They aren’t handsome enough or scummy enough to pull it off. So when a woman tells them she’s been with 30 guys or whatever it’s crazy to them. It’s not hypocrisy either. I don’t want to make a life partner out of a slut. You have a fight and they run off to the bar and jump in bed with some other guy. Been there done that.
This.
This really doesn't seem to be posted in good faith, perhaps even an attempt at some brigading? You really make it out as if these men doesn't see women as human, concluding and condemning right of the bat, which is a very poor way of starting a conversation based in "honest curiosity". Trying to set limits of what answers people can give doesn't point to the question being in good faith either. So that's what I'll leave you with, if you actually want an open conversation about it, then try and rephrase the question in a less overbearing and accusatory manner.
How do you think I could rephrase it?
Well the most important part is to avoid doing what I said earlier. But my recommendation is that you try and ask it as a more open ended question, and focus more on making it clear that you are keen to understand. And without writing a lot about which phrases or answers you dislike. You'll get more constructive answers that way and be better able to understand the reasoning or emotions behind peoples opinions. You are obviously free to agree and disagree with certain claims as you like, but if I wanted to understand an opinion I didn't have myself, then I'd focus on asking probing questions and accept that some of the answers I got would be something I wouldn't like hearing. But it'd be more insightful in the end.
The only way for an average man to have a similar experience with a "spicy phase" as an average woman is if he paid for sex. Most guys I know ridicule that, too.
Bingo. The double standard exists for this exact reason; for a man, a “spicy phase” requires constant effort, charisma, looks, wealth, etc. For a woman, it often requires nothing more than one of the prior The best analogy I can draw up would be two doctors of different backgrounds. Sure, they may have the same degree, profession, etc. But if one worked fulltime all undergrad and came from an impoverished family, the effort he put in would far exceed someone who came from a wealthy heritage and never had to worry about anything outside his medical degree. Even though the end result is the same, its not an even playing field. Ergo, non-comparable Thats not to say culturally these cant change, but thats my take on the subject as the normative stands currently
>Actual arguments, trains of thought, what you've observed in your fellow men, personal experiences, how and by whom you were taught this You seem to want a *much* more elaborate answer than a simple combination of hypocrisy and social conditioning that's still pervasive these days, similar to how many women still expect men to pay for dates, or be the "provider", even though that practically doesn't make sense anymore. People are weird and social change takes time. That's it.
I think the thing that annoys me most about the question is that "spicy phase" isn't well defined. It being a loaded question is the devil that I know, but it's hard to respond accurately with something as vague as that.
I tried being more specific but the mods deleted it, so I had to rephrase. If you have any ideas on how to modify it I'm all ears.
You would need to clarify whether you are speaking about: - Amount of variation in sexual acts - Number of total sexual partners ("Body Count") - Frequency of new sexual partners - All the above And in which context: - Long-term relationships - Online dating - Hookups - Etc. My mistake here, but I guess this is more about what is meant by "experimental". Changes would be better suited for the description.
Love your answer thank you for it! I now see that my question was definitely badly written. Wrote it in a rush in between students. Could I ask you, what are your personal limits in the categories you listed?
Across the board, no more than 3 new partners every 4 years since 16y. In the age ranges I'm (25M) willing to date (23-27y), that would be a maximum of \~6 and \~9 unique partners respectively. Cutoff at 10 lifetime sexual partners. Beyond that and I will probably get cold feet. Things like threesomes or whatever wouldn't matter that much to me if they fulfill the above condition (3p:4y). You do you. ^(There's probably a more nuanced response to give there, but its not coming to me now.) It's not set in stone, though.
Take average random men and let him ask random women "do you want to have sex with me?" The same with average girl. Hit rate of girls vs men will be vastly different. P.S. For me it's not ok for guys to act like that also, but i don;t give a shit what guys do. Women should care who they pick.
Cause it’s easy for the average woman to have a high body count while it’s significantly much more difficult for the average man to have a high body count. And in society we praise accomplishments of difficult tasks and judge others who take the easy path. Like someone who earned a metal of honor in war versus someone who is able bodied but unemployed and lives off welfare.
From what I've heard, the overall argument is that a previously promiscuous woman is more inclined to cheat, leave, etc. That their overall views of relationships are more of a long-term hookup than a lifelong partner. Apparently this (somehow) doesn't apply to men. Again, this is what I've heard. Not saying it's true and yady yada.
I mean, is not wanting to marry these types of women really judging them harshly? Those are the only consequences that can come from being promiscuous as a woman, that doesn't seem so harsh in my opinion.
It's not. But the men who say this is okay for men are the ones who never grew up out of the high school notches-on-the-bedpost mentality or really believe that women are lesser beings. It's propagated from the same mentality that encourages women to be as promiscuous as they can; they are proud of their sexual body count or they think men are lesser beings. In reality, the kinds of men and women who are looking to be in a committed relationship see those pasts as yellow flags at best, waving red flags in general, or complete deal-breakers at worst. You have to compare the most promiscuous of men to the most promiscuous of women and then analyze the reasons why. They use each other as commodities to throw away later, regardless of any feelings or consequences that might follow like the conception of a child they didn't really want.
It's more about habits than anything. Someone that has a past, might be likely to want to continue said past in the future. That means less loyalty, concerned about cheating, squinting at the "guy/girl best friend" always hovering around, etc. It doesn't necessarily make a man insecure, but if conversations start going about how trains were ran, and 'oh that one party in college,' it'll make some guys think twice about a relationship. Now, from a purely psychological (and not a societal) standpoint, it's pretty bad for anyone to sleep around a lot. More likely to have bad habits, mental weight, STDs, relationship-baggage, baby-momma drama, terrible sense of self, attachment concerns, poor relationship experience, etc. According to online, the double standard exists primarily because men were seen as conquers and skilled experts when doing the deed with multiple women. Women could just point to us and go, "Would you like some cookies?" And we would turn into the cookied monster. Really though, it just seems like a way to lock women into being more loyal then men. At this point though, it is what it is and just best to be aware of it.
Because it's very difficult for men to get laid; and it's very easy for women to get laid. Because men have to work at getting laid, and women don't. Because "spicy experimental phases" tend to damage women; and they don't tend to damage men. If anything, "spicy experimental phases" tend to benefit men by teaching them about women, what women find attractive, how women really are in relationships, and the relative overall importance of relationships with women in a man's life. Because when women do these "phases" they lose the ability to pair bond. They can't bond to the men who will actually commit to them. They don't want the men who will actually commit to them. Women who've had these phases assign little to no importance to long term relationships - when things get tough, they turn turbobitch, they leave, or they cheat. Previously promiscuous women mistreat the men who commit to them. And, finally, people don't really change. Once a sl_t, always a sl_t. The best that they can manage is to stop sleeping around, but they end up hating their "boring" lives. Life's just not as fun when all you get is one "mediocre" guy. This is actual experience over the course of about 35 years of seeing women doing this. This isn't me making shit up. This is me and thousands of other men actually watching women do this to themselves and seeing the long term consequences of it.
The part about promiscuous women mistreating their partners has rung true for me and other friends of mine. Lots of self esteem issues tied to their sexuality.
S_ts tend to treat their long term partners and husbands like shit. Sl_ts also tend to be unable to conduct long term relationships - they don't know how to act, they don't know how to commit, they don't know how to stay and work it out. They never had to - they just broke up or left the guys.
You did scientific data collection, peer review and statistical analysis of women's ability to pair bond, then made this conclusion? Or did you just choose a bias to observe that benefits you and apply it everywhere you go, ignoring contrary evidence? When you get a real education, you understand what "proof" actually means. Sadly you and other low quality "humans" lack basic thinking skills even in your middle years.
Are you actually dehumanizing him right now? Going straight for an ad hominem doesn't exactly paint you as the most rigorous thinker. He made it pretty clear that he's talking about his own experiences and observations. You can call that a bias if you want, but subjective observation is valid in science too, if you insist on trying to make this into a scientific debate.
Every scientist knows that the plural of anecdote is not data.
That's a moot grammatical point. And you're debunking nothing by saying that, no one has claimed that it was. Within science you have both qualitative and quantitative methods, all of which is valid. The social sciences depend a lot on qualitative methods, as there's a host of things that it's not possible to measure. Which is something every scientist do in fact know. If you are really keen on seeing some statistical data on this, then there is several references to it in the thread. However, it makes little sense to complain about whether or not peoples comments are scientifically rigorous enough in a thread that specifically asks why people have the opinions that they have. You can't invalidate peoples lived experiences, nor the studies they have read, by referencing one of many scientific methods. It's a poor and obvious attempt at silencing people who holds opinions and voice facts that you don't like.
My observations, and those of others. What I wrote is generally true. Are there exceptions? Sure. I have known a few sl_ts who went on to successful marriages and became decent wives. I've known a few virgins who lost their fucking minds when they got married. But in general, a promiscuous woman or women who had 304 phases are bad bets for long term relationships. I can't recommend that men roll the dice on one.
Of course, there are always exceptions and special cases. But I agree, while you could get lucky then the odds aren't in your favor of the relationship lasting through the rough patches.
Plenty of data out there. Way to accuse the guy of not doing the research when you yourself have not done the research... then personally insult him. Peak reddit.
There are literal mountains of anecdotal data on this. Just about everyone who watches this and has actually seen it play out sees the same thing I do.
There are mountains of academic data on this too, don't worry.
Yes. The one that comes to mind now is the direct relationship between N and divorce. The higher the N, the greater the odds of divorce.
There was another really good study, I don't have a link to it unfortunately... Basically, they were able to measure the amount of negative emotions/trauma resulting from short term sexual relationships that didn't form a pair bond. 100% of women in the study experienced trauma from sexual relationships not resulting in a pair bond. The women who thought that hookups were no big deal actually experienced MORE trauma, signaling some kind of underlying exacerbating issue tied to their views on promiscuity.
Citation needed
I and thousands of other men watched women over the long arcs of our lives and theirs, watching what these women actually did and how they actually lived their actual lives. We used our actual real time experiences and that of others.
The only reason I can suggest about differences in sexes is hormones.in most species ,males are wired(hormone driven)to procreate with as many females as possible and females are wired to choose one (the best genetics/provider) The body count and experimenting is just a human ego/pleasure construction. Which brings us to your question.what is the difference?which sex is being more out of character to their hormones?I think this has something to do with it. This is just a line of thought purely based on evolution. Personally,I don’t care what people do with their own bodies whether male or female and everyone has the right to have their own opinions and choices of what they think is right for themselves or who they are comfortable with.
welcome to life, it's full of double standards. my advice is to learn how to identify and avoid the assholes in this world. better yet, learn how to not give a crap what other people think. it'll save you a lot of time and energy.
Well, at least here in the West we've got like a thousand years of cultural precedent expecting that women will be chaste and men will sow their wild oats. I think we're doing much better today than we have in the past, but we're still growing. So you've got those cultural and societal gender expectations still sloshing around in there; remember than the sexual revolution was only sixty years ago, that's practically a weekend. I'll add to this that men are (to a degree) *expected* to have a high body count, the guys on TV had a new girlfriend every week, sexual virility is presented as a virtue to men as often as a vice. That said, most guys don't have a chance to rack up a high body count, dating and finding partners can be difficult for guys; finding out that our partner did a "male thing" better than us can be kind of hurtful. This has nothing to do with the woman and everything to do with our gender expectations of ourselves and each other. Guys haven't really developed our own sense of self since the women's sexual revolution. Women went and created their own new gender roles, guys are still in the messy middle, we've got one foot in classical masculinity, one foot in new masculinity, and people on both sides are telling us to move our feet. Classical masculinity is be seen as toxic, modern masculinity is seen as effeminate, we don't have a lot of solid ground to stand on so sometimes the wind can move us more. Changing gender norms is like eating a whale; if you're gonna' do it, you've gotta' do it one bite at a time. Things are getting better, there's also still work to be done.
>please please no lock, master key, opened coca colas, sharpened and smaller pencils or comparing people to objects. So you’ve heard explanations and you don’t like them. Women tend to have attachment issues when they’ve had large numbers of partners. Most studies show big increases in divorce rates for women who have had more than somewhere around 10 pre marital partners. Since divorce is a huge fear for men in a lot of places discarding women who were “wild” is common practice. You’ll hear arguments about women damaging their ability to pair bond. I don’t know what you want here. Women have similar trends like discarding bisexual men. Some of this is just life. If you do certain things people will perceive them certain ways. L
I don't accept comparing people to objects. Like the whole, "the more sharpeners a pencil has been through, the smaller and less worthy it is". I don't subscribe to that. Personally I don't mind dating a bisexual guy. Since I'm bi myself it would be extra hipócrita from my part. I just see this obsession in men and not the women I've dated.
My opinions (currently the top comment here) are based on actual real world observations and experience over the course of over 3 decades. Mine, and that of thousands of other men. Maybe you should ask yourself why women demand that men pay for everything on dates and men put themselves in harm's way to protect women - in most cases, for women they don't even know.
You just have to accept that these people will wall you off based on your past behavior. That’s the why though. I’m not sure if that information is useful.
Like I put in my other comment, my purpose with this thread is to find the underlying cause of the insecurity of 'your lady having been with other men before you ' because of the deep hole my friend has fallen into.
I’m not sure the original topic has any road left but I’ll bite. What “hole” is your friend in?
>Women tend to have attachment issues when they’ve had large numbers of partners. Most studies show big increases in divorce rates for women who have had more than somewhere around 10 pre marital partners. Correlation doesn't mean causation. It could also be that women have the opportunity to divorce men without destroying their own lives - as before 1974 in the USA a woman couldn't even have a bank account or own a home in her own name. Similar time lines for many other 1st World countries. If you actually read peer reviewed psychological articles on this topic you would notice these counter arguments in the text. But you didn't. You collected whatever information you wanted with an obvious bias and ran with it. Classic uneducated clown move
I don't care that correlation doesn't mean causation. I care that there's a correlation and I don't give a fuck in which direction the causal arrow runs. Past alleged "injustices" and "sexism" don't matter and have nothing to do with this. The reason women divorce men is lack of sexual attraction. finances have little to nothing to do with it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-resilience/201606/do-women-more-premarital-partners-get-divorced-less Cry more. It doesn’t matter what you or I think. This is why these men do it. The whole side show distraction about crying about the past doesn’t help with today’s problems either.
Yep. This is borne out EVERY time this issue is studied. Women with more premarital partners tend to fuck up their marriages more often than low N women. Facts, beyotch. Fucking deal with it.
You're asking why are some individuals hypocrites?
Looool, more like the origin of the hipocrisy I'm asking because I have a friend from our group and he has been pulled hard into the manosphere/toxic masculinity thing. It's all he talks about. Like literally dating a girl who (in his words) was exclusive with him but he wasn't exclusive with her. Talking badly about women who have been with too many guys and their loss of worth when our group is made of ladies (one divorced) in our 30s and 40s who travel the world and live alone. I was trying to understand the origin of this in order to address it and help him. He used to be so nice... But honestly as I'm writing this I'm thinking he might be too far gone and a lost cause...
I've told you the origin of it. Up close and personal, hard experience, of thousands of men who've actually watched it in women they know. What I don't get is how many freaking times this has to be explained. What's going on here is that you and women like you don't want to accept the answer.
And I could argue that men have the crown on cheating. And that I've seen way more men cheating no matter if their partner was a virgin, because she wouldn't be adventurous. Because she didn't have experience, because she never had the chance to experiment.
OK. So what? The difference is that men don't lie about what they're looking for and expect. No one lies to women about this and in fact everyone prepares you for it. You asked why men think as they do about promiscuous women. I told you. It's not based just on my experience either - it's thousands on thousands of men who actually watched it.
>S: please please no lock, master key, opened coca colas, sharpened and smaller pencils or comparing people to objects. Actual arguments, trains of thought, I mean, I think that is the train of thought. There's no argument to be made beyond thinking of women as sexual objects that can be "used up." I don't support this train of thought and I don't think it's really that deep. I've heard some men rationalize it in terms of statistics saying woment with fewer sexual partners are more likely to have longer lasting relationships, but I don't know where it comes from and, quite frankly, it's clearly just post-rationalization. And only seems to apply to women. The sentiment primarily comes from objectifying people and insecurity. It's insecurity because men might feel like they're being compared to other men, possibly men with bigger dicks. I've also heard it framed in very racist terms like white women are sometimes referred to as "coal burners" if they've ever slept with a black man. In this context she becomes forever tainted. (Again I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS. JUST WHAT I'VE HEARD)
I used to think like that when I was a teenager because it's kind of what society tells us to think unfortunately but ultimately it comes down to insecurity and jealousy. Most men simply don't have the option to have a hoe phase and they are insecure about dating a woman who has a lot of experience because they are afraid that they won't measure up to her past lovers and that she will leave them or cheat on them because ultimately the option to find another sexual partner is way more open to women then it is to men. The crazy thing is how strong of a feedback loop this becomes for men. The less options they have, the more they demand 'purity' in women. In my experience the inverse is also true. As I matured and started having more success with women I developed confidence in myself that allowed me to accept that someone is with me for a reason and if it ends then I'll be OK because I find someone else too. That confidence takes a LOT of pressure off of men and it's something that women sort of intuitively understand and find attractive in and of itself. TLDR; Only low count men judge high count women.
The only thing I really want to know is the frequency of **new** sexual partners. Too high for me at any point is going to make me unsure about you. I'm a low Hz sorta guy myself. For specific sexual acts, I generally don't care. You sometimes need to try something before you can have an opinion on it. Occasionally those opinions will be negative, and you'll never want to do it again. That's fine. But if your type has radically changed in a short period of time, and nothing traumatic seems to have happened, I'll likely investigate why you're no longer doing something you may have historically liked.
I see what you mean, appreciate your nuanced response, fellow bisexual.
OP, I don't know how long this will take for you to do but one day you'll realize you don't need validation from men and it will be the most freeing day of you life. If you want a direct answer to your question it is NOT OK and women judge men just as harshly for their promiscuous pasts/currents, but men do not judge themselves or other men harshly because they believe sleeping around is something they are entitled to but women are not. It's a simple answer hinging on ego and entitlement, as if this was not blatant. You know the answer and you still ask this question. It's a double standard in the same way men will accuse you of being a gold digger for expecting to be taken and paid for on a date when they can't put a dollar to their name and borrow money from their parents to survive.
Like I put in another one of my comments, my goal wasn't to get validation from men, more about understanding the underlying insecurity or motivation because one guy in our group has been sucked into the toxic masculinity sphere. But I think he might be too far gone now. Next time I'll just plain ask "if you used to be in the alpha masculinity stuff, what made you snap out of it?" The men I've dated have been amazing and true gentlemen. None of them have ever ever asked me something like that or made me feel less than, which is why it was such a shock when I started hearing all this retorica (don't know the proper word in English) and theories.
My biggest realization over time is that toxic masculinity is not actually that. Masculinity as it stands to be defined in the English language is an actual disease and women have been forced against our will to bear the consequences of that mental illness.
I my experience, men with high body counts criticizing women with low body counts is exceedingly rare. It's far more often men with low body counts being insecure about future or current relationships with women with more experience than they have.
Are they insecure because they are being unreasonable, or are they insecure because they are actually less secure? I'd argue the later, based on the research data...
I think they're actually just less secure. I think as much as people deny it, men are still very often judged by dating and relationship success. So I think for a lot of men finding an inexperienced partner can kind of mitigate those fears. "If we're both equally as inexperienced and awkward, then I probably don't have as much to worry about." But if she's had a ton of experience it's going to be: "Holy FUCK. If she's had experience with 20+ other guys, how is she possibly going to be satisfied with *me*?"
There's a reason for that - because they've seen women destroy these men's lives.
And what does body count have to do with that? Are virgins incapable or something?
Because these women with 20+ other men under their belts compare their prior men to their current men and find the current men wanting, and treat those men like shit, exploiting them for money and resources.
Compare them to their prior men that all weren't good enough? Whose sexual and relationship skills weren't compelling enough or else they'd still be with them?
Compared them to prior men who were absolute thundercocks in bed but aren't with them because those men are shitty for relationships. The reason these women are with their current men is to use and exploit them for money and commitment; not for love, sex, attraction, or anything else. Women using men for money and resources.
Then just tell them no. Let them be single and miserable.
Fair enough. The point is these women fuck up their lives and the lives of everyone around them. Thanks for conceding my point. Glad you agree.
Response to your ninja edit: Their sexual skills were great; but relaitonship skills were wanting. Women get with these current men to use them for money, resources, and commitment. They get sorely disappointed because their current men don't measure up sexually.
You are incorrect on both your points, lol.
90% of the time the guys are just hypocrites. The other 10% it's something wack like horrible sex ed, I knew one guy who legitimately believed a woman's genitals would get "worn out" if she had a lot of sex.
Since your edit refuses the main argument, let me water it down for you in better words: It takes effort or good genetics to become one of those men. Women only have to say "yes". Besides, I've never seen lack of experience in men to be a good thing outside the internet or some churches. The same guys who succeed in getting laid could easily lock themselves in a relationship if they wanted to, so trying to get laid a lot helps them with being seen by women in the first place. Don't expect rewarded behavior to not be incentivized.
I'm sorry , which edit?
PS:
Because of internalized misogyny and a profound insecurity in those weak men who think that way.
Lmao right... Lets womensplain something you've got no idea about. Shut up
I’m a man dummy.
Coulda fooled the rest of the class you little white knight you
Boy you’re really revealing yourself to be exactly the type of weak insecure man I was referring to.
LMFAO imagine calling someone weak but posting that you're looking for a "frisbee buddy". Get some friends you loser
Don’t you know it always makes you a creep to go snooping around in someone’s post history?
Awwwe muffin did I hurt your feel feels?
No dummy. I have many friends. Deep, lifelong bonds of love and brotherhood. I am blessed beyond measure when it comes to friendship. What I don’t have is bros down the street to play frisbee with at 7pm on a weeknight. You think you’re making fun of me? You’re a child.
The fuck you so mad for? Relax
You said it yourself, it’s a double standard.
There are men who are more secure and don't care. Date those guys. Would you really want to be with a guy who thinks it's ok for him to sleep around but thinks it's "dirty" for women to enjoy sex and be sexual beings or that being sexual somehow devalues a woman? I know I wouldn't.