There is nothing a woman depises more in another woman than sluttiness. There is no more scorned creature in the world than a girl who has "lost her reputation." Why is that?

Confining sexuality to marriage made sense once upon a time -- but, in the absence of religious scruples, the basis for that is gone. Women can earn a living just fine, in, say, molecular biology, without having to sell their sexuality for support through marriage. No unwanted child need ever be born, and if it is born, its parents need not rear it. Our modern mobile society approaches a meritocracy more closely than any other in history so kinship bonds, even so-called legitimacy, need not affect the life of any child that is born.

So why, then, is the exercise of female sexuality stigmatized? Why the double standard, even among the post-feminist youth? Why the crossed legs? I can't really think of any negative consequences to society if all the women just ran amok and rutted like dogs in heat. I think it might actually be quite a good thing. But whenever an individual woman does run amok, the other women tear her to pieces.

So why is that? Pick your favorite:

1. Women like to maintain a favorable supply/demand climate. If supply is limited, demand is great -- anyone flooding the market reduces the value of the commodity held by the other suppliers, thus earning their enmity.
2. Leftover ideas from a bygone age held by those to whom independent thought has not yet trickled down.
3. As society overall becomes less religious, those believers who remain become more religious -- as seen in the rise of fundamentalism, whose adherents, though a minority, are extremely vocal. And for paternalistic religions, for obvious reasons, a sexually free woman is anathema.

Or what?

I don't think it is any one factor. I believe that religious biases are one of the biggest factors, followed by society's continued suppression/obsession of female sexuality. An attractive woman is not respected, she is leered at. A woman who speaks frankly about sex is "odd" or "dirty". Also, many women feel that a girl who flaunts her sexuality will damage their chances at earning respect, and so are correspondingly harder on such a female.

Well I must bring this up. Not only is sluttyness frowned upon in women, but with men it is a GOOD thing. Its great when a man can get lotsa chicks, he's the man right, but if a woman does it she is shunned.

For one if i waited for sex till i was married i would probably have ended up with a poor lover, one of the things that holds a marriage together is an open and fun sex life.

Another point. Alot of times a woman is called a slut by the way she dresses, not how many sexual partners she has had.

I don't know all that much about 3; there's a lot of Baptists around my state/Belt.

But *everywhere* else in the world, it's either 1 or 2; usually a mix.

What's the deal with the current breed of terrorists? They get 72 virgins in the afterlife/heaven? Why do they have to be virgins?

Because a virgin is 'innocent'. She has not experienced pleasure from a 'man' yet. So, when she finally does experience pleasure, that little dopamine high (read:Drug addict) is associated with that person. Hence, no competition from other males. Or at least, much less competition perceived. It boils down to insecure males; past and present. Religion is just a bystander in the whole affair. A voyeur.

Now, don't misunderstand me; intercourse has always spread diseases across history. There's a *tiny* amount of good in those old regs; but they are heavily influenced by male idealism.

Testosterone. It's derived from Estrogen.

I believe the myth of virginity is based on conquest and winning. The one who "takes" a virgin wins the race, is the first to climb that mountain etc. The virgin also gains by association with the winner - at least in theory. The winner has an emotional bond with his conquest. He loves that mountain or he fondly remembers the time he won that race.

What kind of reward would it be if you were given 72 cakes and someone else had already had a piece of every one of them? Sure, the cake is still very tasty, but the reward is a fantasy made up in a mans mind, so why not make the cakes untouched? :D

Well I must bring this up. Not only is sluttyness frowned upon in women, but with men it is a GOOD thing. Its great when a man can get lotsa chicks, he's the man right, but if a woman does it she is shunned.

Another point. Alot of times a woman is called a slut by the way she dresses, not how many sexual partners she has had.

I must admit, as a male, I have to agree with Kitaria on this ... i don't like this whole girl being a whore thing while a guy is just the number one girl puller! :mad: That really ****s me off. Okay so its in favour of males and all and maybe I should be goin "yeah! Us males are badass!" but i see it as a sexist statement which is aimed at empowering malism over femalism ... that is not my kinda thing.

Those men who seek virgins want them for the same reason fly researchers want virgin flies -- foolproof paternity. I am charmed by ejsmith's idea -- because I think it is sweet and gives such men way more credit than they deserve. They, I believe, are not really about female pleasure. Or, as Earl Grey suggests, emotional bonding. No, when women are possesions, men simply prefer "new" to "used."

But I didn't want to male-bash. Just as every incoming government blames everything wrong with the world on the previous government, I think women have a tendency to blame men for not only everything wrong with the world (which men have been running for the past 3000 years) but for everything wrong with *themselves* -- and that I don't buy.

Stefanina raises some interesting points:

"An attractive woman is not respected, she is leered at."
Whose fault is that? Isn't it interesting that we think it is *hers*?

"Also, many women feel that a girl who flaunts her sexuality will damage their chances at earning respect, and so are correspondingly harder on such a female."
Yes, yes -- I have seen this before. There is the one woman in the office who dresses to show her body (unprofessionally) and another woman gets angry at her because she thinks it will somehow reflect on her, the second, woman. Why? What does she have to do with me? Are we not individuals?

Women aren't, I think, in the same way men are. We feel responsible for one another in a way men don't. And we enforce social norms on each other in a way men don't.

"And we enforce social norms on each other in a way men don't."

This really depends on who you are, and where you are (i.e. subjective and geographical).

I've seen chicks (notice the derogatory terms I use =) compete for position. Sisters, cousins, and just plain enemies. I've also seen women, under some fairly extreme/dire cirumstances, take care of each other quite gently; physically and emotionally.
It really sounds like you have been subjected to some of the less favorable conditions, and have made the (gasp!) mistake of wondering why people/women act as such. Or, at least, trying to come up with a *good* reason why such behavior is condoned.

I say this because I made the same mistake several years back...

No, ejsmith. The aptness of my observations and the truth of my conclusions does not depend on who or where I am. I may simply be wrong. It's OK with me if you think so, and it need not be personal.

It isn't -- right, guys? We're talking in abstractions and generalizations that don't condemn any individual -- or pretend to predict her behavior. I hope I am not attacking my entire gender, so no one need defend it.

I think we women do have more of a group identity than men do -- we are of course expected to conform as children more than men are (there is no female Huck Finn or Holden Caulfield) and innately, it is said, we are more cooperative than competitive. From this, I think, comes our role as "social norm enforcers" -- as the sluts experience it. But is that not just another side of our role as "consensus builders"?

I think men have this preference for virgins because of the old patriarchal days. their hormons force them to beget as much children as they can. And they want to be secure it's their own child.
Another reason to sleep with virgins is that they are mostly young and don't know about the powers of sexual addiction.
A woman can make a man addicted to her without being beautiful or wearing sluttish clothes.
Poor men their hormones force them to watch every naked female breast that comes around as if they were hypnotized.
I don't want my sexuality to be an instrument of archaic battles for might.
But that wasn't the topic. When i was alone in former days, and i did want some sex, because i'm a woman and we like sex too, i sometimes asked a man i thought it was good to have just some sex with. It never was good. Most of the times they made such a great fuss about it. Having an ideal in mind that they put over me.
And even the sex is better if one knows the partner well.
So i'm happy, i have a handsome partner since some years. And i'm old and ugly, looking like a witch.
I don't hate beautiful women who show their bodies. Why should i. As i told above that's not a guarantee to get the right man or be happy in life. And it's quite nice to watch.

I don't mind women showing their bodies. It's actually the way they show it. I do frown upon women who show off their breast implants, their lyposuction and their face lift. It's not natural. Or maybe women frown upon "sluttiness" because some women are more aware of the chance they might be raped by the clothes and image they show. Or in other words, women might feel that being "easy" is bad. But I think some women who show off their bodies put sex in front of other matters. Others don't care to be judged, and even to judge. They just do what they like, either being gold-diggers, workaholics or tomboys.

There are not much women with breast implants at my home town.
I think it's kind of american way of life.
Well i don't like Britney Spears at all. But i think i don't have to hate women who have such a small self-confidence that they need a surgeon to feel better.

Methylviolet - this is against your first argument...

"There is nothing a woman depises more in another woman than sluttiness."

Perhaps. I'm not a woman. But I can already tell you that 'sluttiness', as you put it, is not scorned in the world, or at least in America. It is welcomed, simply by different voices than the ones you hear. Because of America's devout phantoms of greed, sex has become not only a mass-marketing scandal to weak-willed men and women, but a requirement instead of an allowance. Greed amongst careening teen marketers has fueled a whole new race of generalized creatures, thus permitting, as the voice of the market over-rules the hum of pristine truth (much due to the stupidity of the public), the question of age-old morals and public standards.

Why keep the 'legs crossed' when there's so much fun to have at such little expense? Who gives a damn what our parents and granparents think - why sustain these morals, like marriage? They don't make sense - they're just the carry-me-downs of dead religions. Durrr!

Let me inform you that the more brainless, loveless, purposeless female sexuality there is, the more sickening adoption, abortion, and rape there's going to be in America. Overpopulation and a ticking time-bomb to the death of Earth are bulging with enough problems without every American girl waving her legs in the air and chanting "Hit me baby one more time!"

And Hell, if they do, let's all have sex and sell our babies to the Pope. Society supplies means for us to avoid all the dangers that come with brainless, anonymous sex so let's take advantage of them and rut like dogs in heat! The only thing holding us back is our consistant itch - that little pendelum in our minds - VANITY, the fear of the opinion of others... the keeper of the gate to individualism, and, ironically, ridiculous heathen generalities like sluttiness.

"I can't really think of any negative consequences to society if all the women just ran amok and rutted like dogs in heat. I think it might actually be quite a good thing. But whenever an individual woman does run amok, the other women tear her to pieces."

How, oh how, would it be good for the world if every girl gave away to lust and let herself be ravaged by all men and women and dogs and bats in the world and sprouted out ten thousand children, half aborted (murdered in their natural sleep), half adopted by Mormon pedophiles (a gift-wrapped abduction), and the girl just as satisfied as a senseless little balloon of steam, finally blown out its hole? How in God's name could this ever help the world, Methylviolet? Marriage is as ridiculous, greedy, and hypocritical as Catholicism and Mormonism put together, but if you replace that with a constant ****aduck day...it'd be like replacing the order and respect in the Army with a bunch of slobbering fools hungry to kill something with nuclear missile launchers.

Trying to justify this is fantastically expected, however, seems how the benefits to a girl who wants a good ****ing are myriad whence allowed all her desires and unconfined from the god Vanity, and the other god Sense and Intelligence (the capability of individual thought).

I say this: Everyone, keep your legs crossed, for God's sake, keep your legs crossed. Don't justify your lust with abortion, rape, adoption, and chaos - you're just greedily benefiting yourself toward senseless ruination.

I didnt even bother to read your entire post Xaelifer. You are a fool and a big one (Yes I know that personal things should be kept private but I wanted to let everyone know how much I despise Xaelifers point of view). Basicly what you are saying is that its the womans fault that she gets raped. If she is a slut she deserves, that is what you are saying. All I can say without violating more is that I...disagree very much. :mad:

We're wading into deep waters here. Unless everyone keeps away from the profanity and expletives regarding sex (yes, you Xaelifer), this topic will be closed.

I'm not getting into a disussion on this, just letting you know that marriage rituals are common in practically every society in this world, and totally independent from religion in most instances. So don't make generalizations as if marriage hailed only from the most widespread religions like Catholicism. It just shows your lack of knowledge on the matter and breaks the foundations you base your arguments on.

Anyone who claims that men don't enforce norms on each other has never spent much time in a high school locker room.

What you're missing here is that sex is not merely physics. It's not just two bodies rubbing together, no matter how hard people try to pretend. In sexual relations of convenience, someone always gets hurt.

What sex should be is the complete giving of one's self to another. And if you're going around giving yourself to people to whom you have no or little commitment to, that's when you earn the appellation "slut." You've shown disrespect for yourself, for your partner, and for act of sex by using it casually. I expect to hear a lot of rationalizing and preaching against "old-fashioned patriarchy" or some such nonsense, but I think most honest people with some experience in the matter will recognize the fact that sex is not just bodies slapping together like on the Playboy Channel -- and treating it as such is just asking for trouble.

Note that the word "slut" is never appropriate to use to insult someone, as usually that person is someone uncomfortable with herself and seeking attention sexually -- you'd just harm her further.

Huh. When I read this post last night, it contained a number of varied views, presented for the most part in a civilised and open manner. Where did it go wrong, I wonder? Well, anyway...

A couple of things. First, and foremost I think, promiscuity among either women or men does *not*, and I can't emphasize this enough, *not* have to lead to thousands of unwanted pregnancies. It's called birth control. Yes, yes the technology exists to prevent a pregnancy prior to conception, thus avoiding abortion and adoption. It's called taking responsibility for your actions. Therefore, if you're going to act promiscuously, take precautions. There is no debate, and no excuse. On an interesting side note, among my friends, it is the most promiscuous ones (both male and female) that are also the safest practicers of sex by using birth control and preventatives for disease.

Secondly, I really have to disagree with you Xaelifer about sex being such a wide-spread phenomenon in the US. The US population, as a whole, demonstrates some of the most bizarre attitudes towards sex. While it is largely accepted as a tool for marketing, and to a certain extent for entertainment (movies and TV), actual sex is often viewed in a totally different light. Yes, there are exceptions such as some segments of the younger generations. However, among society as a whole, sex is still something that is supposed to be kept under wraps. If you disagree, consider this. Most so-called 'scandals' that occur in the US by-and-large involve sex. Just sex among consenting adults, albeit often extra-marital. During the Clinton-Lewinsky 'scandal', more people were shocked and disturbed by the fact that he had sex (yes, even in the Oval Office, for shame) than by any accusations that he might have lied under oath. It was the sex that 'sold' the scandal, and at the same time 'made' it a scandal. Furthermore, so-called 'wholesome family values' (one man, one wife, two kids, and a white-picket fence) are always prominent features of any political campaign in the US, and are often one of the deciding factors. It has been postulated by politcal analysts that G.W. Bush won the election against Gore because he was a 'straight-up family man', unlike Gore, whose values might have been influenced by that Clinton fellow ;)

To continue on, how many openly gay politicians are there in the US? How many representatives in Congress? Among the Senate? If sex is so open in the US, then why are prostitutes rouded up vigilantly? It is illegal to have sex with someone for money. In most other developed countries, while prostitution (or soliciting a prostitute's services, as in Canada) is illegal, the law generally turns a blind eye to it.

If you think the US population has an 'open' view of sex, I really think you need to travel to other places that actually do. Take a trip through southern France, or Amsterdam, or Italy, and you'll quickly find that the US is still very closed-minded when it comes to sex. Even Canada is more relaxed about it (aside from our beer, we're also known for our high-quality prostitutes).

As to your comments about 'Mormon pedophiles', well, I won't even dignify them with a response.

I think some more women need to chime in here. Your original post points out that women seem to be the ones giving "sluts" a hard time (no pun intended). Yet many of the guys are responding from a guys perspective. The value of virginity, patriarchal, etc.
As a guy, I don't care what a woman's sexual history is so long as:
she doesn't have a disease
she doesn't have kids from her adventures
she isn't a hooker
I don't know too many guys who are hung up on the number of partners a woman has had. They are out there, but most guys I know don't care. Perhaps this has to do with my age (36).
I am curious about the original question, why do other women have such a problem with it? Is it because they are inhibited? Conservative? Jealous? I would like to understand this better.

Joacqin: Until you present a little more evidence that I'm a fool, blabber on... And thank you for telling me 'what I'm saying' without reading the entire post. Thanks a whole bunch. It's very captious and abstruse.

Taluntain: Sorry about the swearing. I didn't mean to say marriage was a religious effort, simply that it is as ridiculous as organized religion. That is my view on these two matters, but that's a different topic.

Gnolyn Lochbreaker: Take a trip to an American High School or Mall and you'll find youthful peoples rutting like dogs in heat. Sure, genderless oldly-intelligent people who RUN America and benefit from the wealth of the taxpayer treat sex like you've demonstrated, but I suppose this is another topic baned by generalization. Mormon pedophiles? Just a little exaggeration and delineation, there. A private laugh at such a religious community (a convergence, that is).

Heh.

This thread is so generalized, it's impossible for anyone to make an argument.

So anyway, the original post/idea was the question "Why is a slut, a slut?".

My answer was: Society. With testosterone as the excess reagent.

We're :yot:

I think the reason why *some* men prefer virgins is simply insecurity. Not being quite sure if they cut it in bed, and by being with a woman who has no previous experience, they pretty much eliminate the risk of her understanding that they're bad, if they really are.

As for women, as well as men, I think 2 applies. Our values have in some ways not aged well, and in a medieval society with no birth control or way to control diseases, it was just a very bad thing to have anyone sleeping around. However, men were in absolute power, so of course what happened was that the entire responsibility was put upon women.

Unfortunately our values and ideas of right and wrong haven't evolved quite as fast as our society, and I guess this is a good example of that.

Edit: Actually, xaelifer, I think the one unacceptable thing in your post is this:

Let me inform you that the more brainless, loveless, purposeless female sexuality there is

Apart from that, it's all your opinions, I agree with some, I disagree with most of them. But this is wrong, because of that one word, "female". To think that our society is overly obsessed with sexuality is no mistake, but when you actually blame women for this, you're way out of bounds.

[This message has been edited by idoru (edited July 09, 2002).]

Well, to answer the question of why women snub those who are known to be promiscuous I'll refer to many disscussion I have had with varied groups of fellow gals. The general consensus is that overall women fear that when a man loses respect for one woman, he loses respect for all. Too many times I have seen this proven to be true. And, as often as men jibe about liking loose girls(granted, these are generalizations, not every individual is represented here), the guy will treat her as an object, not a person, and certainly not with respect. Now why? A combination of society, religion, and the general insecurity of people in general is what I believe. These things are hard to prove one way or the other, since the human factor is involved here.
But, to put a bit of my personal life out for view as proof. When my now ex husband took a mistress, everyone whispered that I must have been doing something wrong to *make* him do so. but, after the divorce papers were filed (by him), I did get involved with someone else as well, and slut was the nicest thing I was called. So the double standard is there, and in full force in my case. I was blamed for infidelity, he was not, even though he strayed first. And he wonders why I'm bitter.

First of all as usual Shralp you crack me up. But that doesn't mean I don't agree with you.

Second. A slut---really is someone who not only takes sex litely, meaning they will have it with anyone, anywhere, anytime, but is also someone who usually holds little regard for herself or her partners. Mostly a repeat of what Shralp had said.

Most women I know don't mind if a woman flaunts her sexuality, and of course neither do men. But it is usually the WAY the woman goes about flaunting her sexuality and the reason behind her doing so. It is either simply for attention---to get people to notice her or be attracted to her where they would otherwise not be. Or it is because she wasn't taught any better or had been sexually mistreated in the past.

Sexuality is wonderful, when demonstrated and used with respect and understanding.

For instance---when women go around letting their boobs and butt hang out of their outfits where not only children and other people do not want to see---usually accompanied by an absured amount of make-up---all in the name of getting noticed. The first person who notices is the first person into her bed and so on. No matter whether she is attracted to him or not and whether she cares about him or not. And whom usually thinks that her body is the way to get herself thru society---every aspect of society even. These type of women are slutty.

On the other hand---when a women wears an outfit that accentuates her boobs, her butt, her thights, her neck, ect... A peak of cleavage even. :) Enough make-up to highlight her looks that she already has. Is at least somewhat picky about whom she takes to bed (i.e. is attracted to them, enjoys having them around as a friend, a lover or both, and treats them with a certain amount of respect) As well as treats herself with a certain amount of respect--who understand that brains are sexy too and important and that their bodies are not a weapon or a tool---is known as a WOMAN!

You see it is not about the sexuality---it is how it is used. And mark my words----even most men are wise enough to stay away from a slut---they usually come with emotional and sometimes sexual bagage.

Well put. I agree.

Well, now that that's settled.

SOMEONE BRING ME A SLUT!

You could ask Shadow to give you Mellissas number. She's probably too young for you though.

Hah... Correction: Melissa is a wannabe-slut. And I don't want to talk about her.

Go Satiana :D

No, no, no, idoru - I'm not blaming anyone - or, at least, I haven't yet...

Your capsized quote of mine:
"Let me inform you that the more brainless, loveless, purposeless female sexuality there is..."

means this: "The more women (men also, but aren't we mostly speaking of women here?) who find themselves given to lust through means of unsure, and sometimes harmful, prevention of natural birth and afterwards abortion or adoption, the more there's going to be hitting the fan. I wasn't 'blaming' women in general - I feel that it's a girl's fault if she goes prancing 'round the maypole rutting like a dog in heat and gets a few lives ruined for her own ridiculous lusty satisfaction. 'Female' I used as an adjective because we're talking about women, which are the opposite of men. Most of the time. I had a gym teacher once...oh, nevermind...

If I were to blame anyone for the obsession of sex in our wondrous America, it would have to be the ingenious marketers, who, although they're genderless, manage to satisfy their greed by satisfying young lust. Or striking the flame of young lust, tantalizing it, and taking the money for nothing - leaving the lust to wreak havoc upon the land (like the Undead in Warcraft 3 woooohoooo!).

Sex Appeal marketing is targetted at young, gullible, randy teenage males - which transforms young, gullible, randy teenage females into practical sex appeal advertisements, because the market, or at least the method of economy, defines how most people live their lives here in America, believe it or not.

Upon seeing some voluptuous young model drinking Pepsi or Britney Spears half naked a-singin' "Hit me baby one more time!", young gullible people think, what should I do? Wow - look how fun it is to wave my butt when I walk! Oohooo I'd really like to wear that with lots of guys watching! I better be anorexic. No, bulemic. Yeah. Look I'm Britney. Aren't I cool. Look at the midriff of society. So sexy and cool and unaware of everything else.

Fortunately for the responses to this reply, I'm NOT blaming this on the gullible teens. The best time to teach an intelligent dog to roll over is when it's young, and mentally undeveloped. Or unexperienced, I should say. I'm blaming this on those so greedy and careless that they would tamper with the health of a world by getting all the girls hyped up about sensual appeal and NOTHING else, like stuff that would possibly help the condition of the world instead of...corrupt teen minds for money. There's my blame. (inhaaaaaaaaaaale) So who's against me?

List of indecipherable phrases:

the ingenious marketers, who, although they're genderless, manage to satisfy their greed by satisfying young lust.

Satisfying young lust would mean having sex with them. Only the most able of genderless marketers is able to sleep with a majority of a given demographic.

Or striking the flame of young lust, tantalizing it, and taking the money for nothing - leaving the lust to wreak havoc upon the land

Lust wreaks havoc on the land? Is someone growing blow-up dolls on a farm here? And I think you mean "stoking the flame."

Look at the midriff of society. So sexy and cool and unaware of everything else.

As opposed to all of those totally aware midriffs?

Sometimes you're dead on with your poetic license. But mostly you need an editor.

"Sexuality is wonderful, when demonstrated and used with respect and understanding."

Very true. Unfortunately, even when a promiscuous woman acts in that manner, she is often not treated in kind by others. For example, I have two female friends from a few years back. Both are very intelligent, respectful and decent, hard working people. Both were also quite promiscuous. They were young, attractive women (in different ways). And they often dressed in a manner that both accentuated and displayed their attractiveness.

The first, lets call her 'Mary', was open and honest about her sexual behaviour. While she did not flaunt it, it was generally known, and she did not hide it. Though of course, Mary did not like to be cast as a 'slut' in any derogatory sense. The second, 'Jane', was not so open and honest about it. She didn't necessarily deny her relationships, but denied being referred to as 'promiscuous', let along anyone inferring that she might be 'lose' or 'easy'.

While Jane and Mary were casual friends, Jane was often quick to consider Mary a slut, while defending her own behaviours. A large number of other women among this group of friends also (quietly) considered Mary a slut. But not so much Jane. However, the guys in the group had a slightly different take on it. Most had absolutely no problem whatsoever with Mary's sexual behaviour, and it did not hinder their respect for her at all. Jane's behviour, however, was not held in such high regard by the guys. No, this was not a result of 'unequal' favours handed out :p

From our (the guy's) perspective, the difference was in how Mary and Jane displayed their sexuality. While Mary was honest about it, Jane was much less so. If you became involved with Mary, you knew what to expect, and she made sure of it. Jane was not so forth coming. Many guys had to 'discover' her promiscuous behaviour. The difference was that if you became involved with Mary, you knew it was casual, with no strings attached. Many people had become involved with Jane, thinking it was not casual (and Jane initially treating it as not casual) only to have Jane suddenly reverse her position (ie, this once 'serious' relationship is now 'casual'). As a result, more guys were 'hurt' or at least insulted by Jane's behaviour than by Mary's. Now this was all well-known, and yet, most of the girl's in the group held Jane in higher regard than Mary, whom they considered a 'slut'. I'm still perplexed as to why. It would seem that, while Mary was open, honest and respectful, Jane was the opposite. And yet it was Jane the women respected above Mary.




[This message has been edited by Gnolyn Lochbreaker (edited July 10, 2002).]

Uh, among my circle of guy friends, we would certainly not have held Mary in higher regard. Jane, at least, had enough shame to try to keep quiet how many trips she'd taken on the bone pony.

Shralp, I didn't say that Mary 'flaunted' her sexual behaviour. She was just honest about it. If someone outside of this group of friends got involved with Mary, she would be forthright about her past, and her intentions, with that person. Jane was not forthright, and often misled people she was involved with, resulting in people getting hurt.

"the ingenious marketers, who, although they're genderless, manage to satisfy their greed by satisfying young lust."

I didn't mean sleeping with them, I meant satisfying young lust through advertisements and products which careen through lust's benefits. I said 'genderless' because it takes a soul to have a gender, I think.

"Or striking the flame of young lust, tantalizing it, and taking the money for nothing - leaving the lust to wreak havoc upon the land"

What I'm saying is that the marketers tantalize with sex appeal, and that gets all the girls in the mood and so they go out and rut like dogs in heat, thus the Four Horsemen take over the world and run it like...mmm...like...how horsemen run things...

"Look at the midriff of society. So sexy and cool and unaware of everything else."

Oh, certainly you'd agree that any statement like that, however obvious, is necessary against assumptions?

I dont see what all the fuss is about in general... i couldnt care less if someone was a slut, easy, tight, boring, frosty (or any other word that you might use)... its not exactly important, they might be nice people when you get to know them...

The same goes for sexual partner... I couldn't care less if my partner was a virgin or not, although saying all of this, I don't really care about much.
.
..
...
..
.
pr0n

Just when I thought this topic was getting boring with all the begging of the question -- and just when, from this and other topics, I was beginning to think shralp's pedantic other brother had commandeered his computer...

Shralp cracks me up, and Gnolyn raises an interesting point. I bet Xaelifer has never felt so understood.

But shame on *you*, shralp: "Jane, at least, had enough shame to try to keep quiet how many trips she'd taken on the bone pony." For what, exactly, should Jane be ashamed? You at least have the wit to pity rather than blame people who use sex as a drug -- not that we have enough information to know that such was the case. *Shame*, shralp? Shame from which the bone ponies themselves are exempted?

Tell me, whom do you despise more -- the drug addict or the drug dealer? When sex is the drug that people use to assuage their insecurity, they need a partner -- so is *he* a dupe? Or an opportunist? Or just irrelevant to our campaign against female sexuality.

Gnolyn laid it out beautifully, I thought. I bet that most of this pious cant about self-respect and transcendental sex is nothing more than fear of uppity women. After all, who is anyone to say that our Mary isn't having this marvelous and sacred sharing experience founded on mutual respect... every night of her life? Why shouldn't she? She's happy, Jane isn't.

I believe Satiana has the point of female perspective here, but I shall give you a few opinions.

Womewn are, to an extent, being pressurized to have sex earlier than guys. How many times you see a 20-year old girl dating a 16-year old guy? But if the ages are reversed it isn't that odd. I can honestly say that I have been pitied in the past for being a 14-year old virgin. If girls learn while growing up from the media that girls are only then attractive to guys when they wear miniskirts and bare their middrift from age twelve, but also at the same time to be ashamed of the fact that yes, they too get horny to be crude (Sorry, Tal!)their self-image becomes, well, twisted.
I believe that flaunting one's sexuality in the dressing-like-a-hooker type of way is a sign of low self-esteem. If one has to reassure themselves of their worth with the amount of males staring at their butt while they walk past, there has to be someething wrong with them.

Also, among the teenage´population, if a girl doesn't look like Britney Spears clone, most guys see them as unworthy of their attentions. (I know I am being extreme here...) I have seen this happen again and again...

I know I don't make that muxh sense but I am not exactly at my best, seeing as my head is killing me.

Ara
(I hate my brain)

2000
posted July 06, 2002 15:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay so its in favour of males and all and maybe I should be goin "yeah! Us males are badass!" but i see it as a sexist statement which is aimed at empowering malism over femalism ... that is not my kinda thing.



Well said Sniper, fully agree with that. Both should be equal. Also, as a male, I dislike the girls that are "easy". It is far better IMO to give yourself fully to one person. The thought that she has loved someone else intimately first is not easy on emotions. Of course, this does work both ways. Dislike the men that run around with a lot of women too.

well i am new to these forums but i am not a newbie and now that that is out of the way here goes. i was reading some of these posts and i am somewhat apalled and shocked. first of all to one arguement made about male insecurity. yo know what your right we are pretty damn insecure ( and i don't speak for all of us but... ) the biggest fear a guy can have is losing a girl he's really begining to care about. to those bombing marriage practices it has nothing to do with female submision or the dominance of the male role in societies around the world (that is a throw back to pre recorded history by the way) it does have to do with providing a stable loving and carring home for children. thats what marriage has always been about to protect the children. and yes it also protects against other things like disease and things morrally wrong. (although morals and religion differ) the practice of marriage is not an integral part of religion but it is often tied because they go hand and hand. to those who would say that religion is a bad thing you only say that either because you are not part of the religion or because it has somehow been forced on you in a harmful way which is a consequence of human imperfection not an inherent flaw in religion as a whole the ideal is still pure. as to "sluts" a man will if he is young and foolish often use these unfortunate females for pleasure but no man would ever want a trully promiscuous girl (noting the difference between this and the wearing of sexually enticing or explicit clothing). the reason is that believe it or not men want faithfulness and manogomy just as much as most women claim to and some one who is not sexually trustworthy would make him feel insecure. sex is a good thing i enjoy it imensly. its even ok for men and women to be open and frank about their sexuality but being unfaithful is the worst thing possible one because if there are children involved its not fair to them and two the emotional bond created in physical love is a very powerful thing it feels great untill broken and then it hurts worse than god knows... so someone who is either corrupt or emotionally distraught (which are the two things that tend to cause "sluttiness" either a morrally lacking person or someone who is basing their self worth off of sex) (ussually the second ) fors these one way bonds and then brakes them hurting the person that they have been "easy" with. (also let me clarify that i refer not only to girls but to men as well). finally there is a bit of a double standard and i don't condone that but we are getting better the circle in which the big "cool" (aka idiotic uneducated jerk) guy runs around banging people is growing smaller and if a man bound by marriage or even by a love relationship is caught being unfaithful they are persecuted no end. i for one am a relatively young male who claims no wisdom through age but i have a beautiful loving fiance who is perfect in my eyes and the thought of another woman in any capasity other than a fellow human being is sickening to me and the only thing that has ever trully scared me in my life to this point is losing her and the easiest method of losing some one is to unfaithfulness in a relationship but because i love her and trust her implicitly i do not worry and marriage reduces those fears further.one last thing other than the britney spears statement i agree with arabwel completely! i am done my ramblings.

a good day to you worthy reader and cheers!

[Welcome but, aaargh, make paragraphs! Such huge chunks of text are a pain to look on, let alone read.] -Tal

[This message has been edited by Lord Brett (edited July 11, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Taluntain (edited July 11, 2002).]

Well then,

I can't help but wonder if Mary is truely happy, and what it is that Jane is thinking by continuing her sexual tyraids. :)

It has been my experience that those who have random sex with "no strings" attached end up feeling lonely and self loathing in the end. Unless of course everyman she is with not only fills some kind of void, but makes her feel good about herself as well.

What eventually happens is that those who are exeptionally experienced do to their many sexual exploits are unwanted by those who chose to be less so. And those who have chosen to be less so end up with someone who like them were picky about their partners.

The funny thing is, is that for those guys who are exeptionally experienced get a break most of the time and end up eventually with a female who chose to only have sex with those they cared about and were in a relationship with.

So now, both the exeptionally experienced men and the not so exeptionally expereienced men, end up with a woman who is the opposite then as I said and was more picky. And the women who chose to be exeptionally experienced are looked on as soiled and unwanted, espeacially once their attractiveness starts to faid.

It's really quite the vicous circle. But, like I said this is in my experience and may not be seen the same in others eyes.

I have to say it again and you can believe me: the boys don't really care about the looks of a woman. She doesn't has to wear make-up she doesn't has to look like Britney Spears. You can believe me because i'm old and really ugly, never wearing make-up. My friend is 11 years younger than i am and he is handsome as hell.
The men don't really SEE us they just see want they want to see. :love:
Maybe they want to have sex with Britney, but who wants to marry her??? Think about her cooking for you or think about her without her make-up.
Maybe men in other countries aren't the same. Try german men. ;)
Sorry Britney, your my favorite example.

LOL

How I love to read your posts, Oblate. Your candor is charming and your point of view refreshing -- as much as you say that you are, "old and ugly, looking like a witch," I can see that you are very attractive withal.

Keep on rocking.

From a male point of view, Oblate is correct. Men view that sort of thing for possibly making a nice one-night stand, but not for a serious relationship. As for the amount of makeup issue, also correct. As a man, I personally prefer women to be somewhat more "natural" than what the makeup, surgery, whatever imparts.

Well said Lord Brett. I'd say you summed up the opinion of most men with that post.

LOL well ok that was a gramatical abomination! Thanks for agreeing Rastor. It looks like I'm going to have a lot of fun here.

Cheers,
Lord Brett

I will have to say, it is hard to believe the "it's better to be natural" line sometimes. Mainly the times when the fellow that said it is currently drooling over Pamela Anderson or Victoria Secret models. Talk about unnatural women!
Until society grows up as a whole, there are many things that will be acceptable for men to do, but not women. The most any one person can to is to change their own patterns of thinking.

Hmm. What gives you the right to say that "Vicoria's Secret models" are "unnatural"? Do you have *any* idea how many of them exist?

Oh, and joaqin, it's really innapropriate for you to say that a)Xaelifer is a fool and b)you didn't read his entire post...in the same paragraph.

[This message has been edited by SlimShogun (edited July 22, 2002).]

I will have to say, it is hard to believe the "it's better to be natural" line sometimes. Mainly the times when the fellow that said it is currently drooling over Pamela Anderson or Victoria Secret models. Talk about unnatural women!

Are they unnatural? Yes. Do I drool over them? No. Truthfully, I find Pamela Lee distasteful (and I'll probably be stoned for this). I prefer women who aren't so vain that they have to augment or expose themselves to get men to pay attention. Most women my age are cute, but the ones I'm most attracted to are the ones who don't try to look attractive.

Hmmm. Do you know why Victoria's Secret models "expose" themselves...ITS BECAUSE THEY'RE FREAKIN' MODELS! It's their darn *job*!

I'm not going to bother getting into an arguemant, but perhaps I should have clarified that I was thinking mainly of the magazines, which is where most people see these models. It's well known that the pictures themselves are airbrushed and doctored to make them look better. And add to that the fact that about once a week, model X,Y or Z is coming out about her body altering surgeries and eating disorders she subkected herself to to stay "sexy" and keep her job. How can that be natural? It's not.

Stefanina, I think you may be misinformed. While it is common knowledge that many pictures featured on magazines have been altered in some way, Victoria's Secret models *MODEL* the lingerie, etc. It is illegal to doctor (via aurbrush) these pictures in a way which alters the appearance of the product being sold. I cannot comment on the nature of the women's body parts, however...but to generalize that these models are unnatural is simply wrong.

As I said earlier, I figured that somebody would attack me for that, but it is the truth. I don't spend my free time staring at lingerie ads. It would be a lot better to go actually meet a woman, instead of wasting time looking at women that are never going to want anything to do with you.

When I made the comment about disliking women exposing themselves, I was not referring to those women who do it as their job, I was more referring to the average woman who walks around in revealing clothing. That's about the fastest way to turn off this man.

Enough about the debate about airbrushing portraits. That is not what I was referring to with my preference to natural women. Stefania hit it right on. I meant, I dislike women who are so into their own appearance that they actually go out and waste the money on surgery to alter the appearance of their bodies.

[This message has been edited by Rastor (edited July 23, 2002).]

I'm sorry if you felt attacked because of my comments, Rastor, but I felt that a generalization was being put into effect.

Anyway, I *totally* agree with you. Women who feel they must alter (enhance) their bodies surgically are not the types of women I prefer...and yes, real women are the women I prefer.