Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
afflicted

Monogamy

Love, sex, and all of those things  

57 members have voted

  1. 1. What best describes you?

    • Monogamous
      48
    • Polyamorous
      6
    • Open relationship, but strictly for casual
      0
    • Not interested
      3


Recommended Posts

Chaku, I mentioned your inexperience, not as a negative, but to try and see where some of your difficulties are coming from. You are projecting your pain, as I wasn't patrolling sexually inexperienced men. You mentioned something and only then did I wonder how that something might play a part in how you navigate relationships. Also, I never asked if you two were sexually intimate. You are the one who said there was a tiny chance of things changing. I was questioning your particular long distance situation, not Long Distance Relationships. I was reading the words you chose to type. I said in " any healthy manner ". Again, your words lead me, a person who is able to read and able to do a bit with that reading, see you mention someone's great distress and how certain things would " **** her ". Believe it or not, that will cause some to react. Lots of talk about your potential sexual needs and how you might go about them if it was meant to be. No one can possibly know all about a person, but dots can be connected, or at least laid on a table. All this feels like little traps laid. Now I must go be sad that we will never be intimate.

Yup, someone laying traps would totally tell you intimately about their plans and have their partner read your responses. You sure do connect dots like a pro.

Virgin Man = HUGE FLASHING RED LIGHTS!!! ITS LIKE A GIANT SPIDER!!!!! SOUND THE ALARMS!!!

Virgin Woman = HUGE FLASHING GREEN LIGHTS. ITS LIKE AN ANGEL!!!!!! PROTECT PROTECT PROTECT!!!!!!!

I get it. Most people do rely on flashing lights programmed in a bygone era. They don't use logic, they use emotion. It 'feels like red lights' is exactly what you said so you chose to make uniformly negative assumptions about me. Just like if a black person makes someone feel bad (red lights), they get racism. Disabled people? Yup. LYNCH THEM.

If it feels like green lights, you'll make uniformly positive assumptions about them or give them the benefit of the doubt like you have my friend who is equally responsible for our relationship.

It's funny you mention, 'it might **** her if a certain situation might happen," as something you specifically care about. But I've already described situations that have already put me in more danger. I'm the one with repeated stays in mental hospitals. They've already been mentioned. Your eyes just gloss over the facts that I've been more in danger of death by suicide than her, and she has been relatively stable over the past 8 years. You only care about the emotional distress she experienced one time, survived, and has consciously made her peace with. I can be in a mental hospital. I could be dead, and you singularly care about the 'one time the girl has had emotional distress, survived, reflected on the experience, and made a decision what it meant to her.'

Why? Because she's a woman. You only care own kind, it's like racism. Lynch the others!

I've had more than enough bigotry from people who only care about their kind and what benefits them. In my every day life I will remain cold, calculated, and resourceful in the face of bigots. In the chance I meet the tiny percent of the population that cares more about facts than primitive 'ape brained flashing lights' when deciding to make negative assumptions about others, I will give them my utmost honesty. Just like I did with this girl.

And think about this for a moment, I never even had to tell her about other women at all. She's online and has no way to measure what I do with other women in my life. The woman I met who was thinking of cheating specifically advised me to not tell her about it. "Why does she have to know? Most people just don't tell!" As long those primitive flashing red lights don't get triggered in my friend, all is good in relationship world, right?

Facts are irrelevant. Let's all rely on ignorant assumptions based on faulty perceptions of reality! I get it. But yeah, now my honesty with this girl gets twisted into an 'evil male power trip.' I'm such a bad man for being continually honest with this girl through thick and thin for 8 years when I could have lied and cheated and she'd be none the wiser.

When honesty is so profoundly evil and creates so many flashing red lights in women, it's no wonder things are the way they are. It's great that at least one person in my life has always preferred the truth from me no matter what it was. That's why she is so special.

______________________________________________________

From the horses mouth:

Her: I think she just believes that our long distance relationship is not healthy, and is blaming only you for it, while trying to protect the woman.

Her. Yeah, even if she believes our relationship is unhealthy, she has the right to believe that, but why would she blame only you?

She said it more succinctly than I. I get the patriarchal responsibility of 'blame' for being in an honest relationship involving a man and a woman. I get full 'responsibility' as man when our relationship isn't perfect, and she remains forever a powerless victim with no responsibility to fix this relationship because she's a woman? Sounds like stereotypical gender roles.

Edited by chaku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested in science, there have been a lot of studies conducted on in group bias between the genders:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

Women have tested remarkably stronger for in group bias than men on average, repeatedly. In group bias is a phenonomon where all else being equal, if there is a conflict between groups, someone will choose their own group as 'right'.' Women have much stronger preferences to choose women, while men have weaker preferences and are willing to consider other groups positions more objectively, even if it isn't the same group they belong to.

So when large groups of women gather, like on this website, which is predominately female, in group bias would be reinforced both by numbers and the biological preference of the average woman vs men. When women demonize men and angelize women given the same situation (like a consensual relationship), they are showing in group bias by 'choosing their own group as superior.' It's often why I don't hang out with large groups of women, as the studies and my experiences match. That they will simply choose 'their' side, no matter the facts.

If you notice in the studies, there is a smaller percentage of women who are more like men, and don't automatically favor their own group in any given situation. There is a lot of diversity in gender, it's not black and white. My friend is an example of this. She doesn't automatically pick sides based on her gender, race, social status, and so forth. That's why I love her. She's one of the few women I've met who didn't automatically result to in group bias and sought more objective information.

If you really break down in group bias, it's the 'green light sensation' someone feels when someone is 'part of their approved group.' The outgroup bias is the 'red light sensation when someone is an outsider to their approved group.' So it is extremely emotional.

As a low status outsider man, women on average have been relentlessly vicious andI have been blamed for almost anything under the sun. If a man and a woman have an accidental collision, it can be accused as a patriarchal act of domination on the part of the man and a saintly act of victimhood by the woman. When in reality they accidentally bumped.

But if you're a man, especially an outgroup man reading this, it's probably not wise to let women bully you. If you read the studies, it's not that hard to connect the dots. It may be that women simply can't control their actions and it isn't their fault. Even though women do this habitually to me, I've tried to forgive them. We don't have to fight back, but we can just remove ourselves from vicious female societies.

If you look at the statistics, there aren't enough women like my friend to go around who would be more interested in out group life experiences, like people with disabilities, or whatever. So it's a sad future as a man for a lot of us. But they do exist, so if you find a woman who is not 'biased' towards her own kind, treat her very well. Reward her with kindness.

I'll likely have to leave this society. Black guy walks into a KKK meeting, everything he does is wrong, right? I can't exist in societies where in group bias is strong. This site helps people who are part of the in group with their depression, so I have a lot of respect for the positive goals it achieves. But for an out goup participant, it's probably more damaging than helpful.

Edited by chaku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaku, I am not trying to get in the middle of your communications with whatchagonnado or any other user here. But as somewhat of a side point, it seems like you are distrustful of many females. I am sure I could dig up studies that paint males in a less favorable light based on one criteria or another, but I don't have the desire to, because I have nothing against men. It is absolutely NOT right for women to bully you, belittle your experiences, or ever try to make you feel like less than a person. But at the same time, please do not ignore that women are also regularly bullied and victimized by men. I am not referring to you, or your relationship, just saying very generally that it happens. It goes both ways. Also there are irrational women I will not side with, just like there are irrational men I will not side with. It sounds like you've had some crappy experiences in the past and I'm really sorry you had to go through that.

I think it's great that you found someone you can be close/intimate with and really get to know. I hope that you don't take my post as an attack on you, because that's really not my intention. Women can be quite awful, but men can be quite awful too. It's too bad everyone can't just treat each other with some respect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

I do forgive your negative assumptions about me. I'm tired of experiencing them relentlessly, and it has been an upsetting life to live as a man with disabilities in this world, but it's very possible your judgmental attitudes are biological and if not, deeply ingrained subconsciously or socially enough they are not a conscious choice, so I can't 'blame' you for your attitudes.

I do hope you find help with your depression. I do not wish you harm, but I am healthier as a man with disabilities if I surround myself with people with open minded attitudes around me who would attempt ot learn objective truth about me prior to making long lists of negative assumptions.

Outgroups exist for a reason, and at best we can build our mini societies of tolerance and open mindedness in little bubbles. A man in my position simply catches too much flak. We're not part of any wanted group, we're low status men who were genetically disposed of historically, we violate gender roles, we're poor, we're sick/ill/disabled. So it's just.... What happens in my experience. I don't have the endurance anymore when there is no benefit. It doesn't work. The same patterns repeat endlessly. Everyone gets shot when they grow tired of patterns in human civilizations and call them out. If my health allowed it, I'd likely be screaming something similar on a daily basis:

WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

Coined by some more famous musicians than I. It's a great message. No matter how much it was screamed, it doesn't work though. The patterns just repeat. The socially elite are beloved and outsiders are blamed and spat upon. Hatred, war, conformity, assimilation, violence, cheating, lying, manipulation, callousness, it all persists. Everywhere. I'm glad healthy people without disabilities scream it for me though. They do make me happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow chaku, you got all that from this: Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.

© 2004 APA, all rights reserved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chaku,

I'm so grateful now that I didn't comment earlier about how it seemed like you were logical and thoughtful for the most part other than your erroneous ideas about the power of women and the idea that since women make more in prostitution the world is in our favor---it wasn't that long ago just in this country that women were viewed as property and you doubt patriarchy? Now I'm seeing that though you accuse another of projecting you appear to be quite guilty of it yourself: "You seem to have have HUGE control issues. I won't say that unless I have evidence. It's likely you also have a really negatively attitude towards sexually inexperienced men." (There was no evidence, btw, only your assumption hidden with the word "likely.")

I missed somewhere in here where apparently you mentioned your lack of experience. The idea that women would run from you because of lack of experience is erroneous as well, at least where I live. Sexually inexperience doesn't make a man low status here in this day and age.

The idea that you can have sexual intimacy every day when in a separate country, not that anyone asked you about that only about whether she would want a relationship with real sexual intimacy, is not valid. You may have some kind of sexual interaction together online or skype or whatever, but that's not sexual intimacy where someone can hold and be held which is part of the definition of sexual intimacy.

You said "Ok. I stand up for men, when they need help, So here we go." So you were doing exactly what you accused another of except for as a male. You: "Why? Because she's a woman. You only care own kind, just like a racist. Lynch the others!"

A male therapist could easily have brought up the same points that were brought up, would you then accuse him of bigotry?

I'm sorry you've been suicidal and at risk but it doesn't negate the validity of the idea that a naive or lovelorn woman would take whatever kind of relationship you offered just to be with you and then become suicidal if you were to find someone else---if that were the case she would be lying to you to keep you. You are in the position of power in the relationship bordering on abusing that power---most parents wouldn't check out all the people that might come into an adult woman's life or lecture her on all the things you've mentioned. We all have to make our own mistakes.

What you said here doesn't allow for that: "In a stretch, I could try to research foreign atheist men for her, socialize with them and filter out as many jerks as I could using clever intellectual tactics to expose their deviant plans. If I thought I'd found a decent guy, I could introduce the two. But it's a pretty weird idea for a girl you love and it's not a common social interaction for a man to seek other men for a woman. If I do find someone more accessible, it might be the last option I have left to help her.

Regardless, she's like family to me, and if a suitor screws her over by lying and misleading I'm gonna get really angry. In the meantime, I've tried to make sure she has enough objective information to be weary of those who would mislead her for sex."

Whoopee that you haven't lied to her about other women. If other things in the relationship were different that would be something to be proud of. Not cheating alone doesn't make for a healthy relationship---there is a lot more to it. You continue to lump all women except this one into a category when you are in fact you were only addressing one---who's the bigot or more accurately sexist? There's a saying here " When you point your finger at someone there's four pointing back at you." I can handle examining myself from another's thoughtful perspective, but from your defensive offense you appear to not have developed that skill.

I'm sorry that something has caused these chips on your shoulders so that you can't hear honest input without attacking the person sharing it because she's not the same sex as you. (Now after your last post I see where the chips came from and I'm sorry you have to deal with that but it doesn't give you a right to lump all women in on a thread when we aren't even talking about disabilities.)

Just because you edited to add your conversation with "Her" doesn't negate our comments to you. Since you feel you need to protect her from strange men then you too believe that she is naive or something. She's not talking on this thread so we can't address anything other than what you present. You are the one using "patriarchal" in a twisted sexist way and the idea that you are "responsible" and she is a "victim" as if women are responsible for patriarchy. And you are the one who continually makes sexist remarks: "Guys, if a woman makes horrifically uniform negative assumptions about you whenever you talk about your sexual inexperience, please, just keep walking. I know women do this frequently, but you're worth so much more than this. I'm calling this out so you can keep your heads up." It hadn't been about your experience or lack thereof. Other than you who cares how much experience you've had?

Go ahead and attack me too so you can get the last word. I'm done with this part of the thread since it's off topic. By the way, not that it matters, but I've been disabled since birth so I'm no insider either and this topic had nothing to do with disabilities---maybe make a topic for discussing how disabled people deal with love and romance issues.

For those that actually want to learn more go to tumblr and look at hashtag notallmen it could be enlightening. Some of it helps explain why monogamy is still the major societal standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaku, I am not trying to get in the middle of your communications with whatchagonnado or any other user here. But as somewhat of a side point, it seems like you are distrustful of many females. I am sure I could dig up studies that paint males in a less favorable light based on one criteria or another, but I don't have the desire to, because I have nothing against men. It is absolutely NOT right for women to bully you, belittle your experiences, or ever try to make you feel like less than a person. But at the same time, please do not ignore that women are also regularly bullied and victimized by men. I am not referring to you, or your relationship, just saying very generally that it happens. It goes both ways. Also there are irrational women I will not side with, just like there are irrational men I will not side with. It sounds like you've had some crappy experiences in the past and I'm really sorry you had to go through that.

I think it's great that you found someone you can be close/intimate with and really get to know. I hope that you don't take my post as an attack on you, because that's really not my intention. Women can be quite awful, but men can be quite awful too. It's too bad everyone can't just treat each other with some respect!

I am equally distrustful of men, believe me. Different reasons. We both evolved from apes and are both jerks naturally in trying to get what we want.

Men are more prone to physical viiolence for one, but are also prone to performing violence when a woman requests it, I've had women sic men on me with violence. Given my health problems she could easily take me down herself, but women have a naturally acquired posse of male body guards, that I will never have access to. A lot of men are more likely to beat me for access to sex than help me one way or another.

The reason why the article is relevant is not to paint women as inferior to men, which is not my belief. It's because there have always been a lot more women on this website from my earliest memories. It's very relevant for my situation as a minority male in a female dominated culture that I'm not only outnumbered, but also likely will have biological or strong social bias against anything I say.

All I can do is reduce awfulness in my own world. Which traditionally means a lot of isolation. I believe our species is fundamentally hurtful and are brutish ape descendants when not held in check by higher conscience. If others share my belief in our brutishness, most seem to be satisfied with flashing lights of emotions.

I'm a red light to like 90 percent of the population when I speak with honesty and my best intentions. If I 'tow the line' by telling people what they want to hear, obscure objective facts that that could trigger an emotional red light, I can pass for a green light. I know the technique, and exactly why people do it probably more than most of the population. It's because if they don't, they'll be treated like me.

Edited by chaku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to change the subject back to the original topic. I feel like the fighting is going to escalate this way.

This is fair. It goes nowhere. I'll be leaving this site which is for the better. Women here can remain happy with whatever pleasurable outside intepretations they have of what my life entails, I can live my actual reality with the objective data that exists in it and make my own judgments.

I am in no need of expertise of women who don't even know my name, interspersing it with insults, accusations, judgments of 'what makes a true healthy relationship' and so forth.

I have offered indeed offered the perspectives here to my friend, for her consideration. She can post if she wants to. I don't think she wants to, as anonymity is pretty valuable and people here do not seem to have a very high opinion of either of us and may wish one or both of us harm.

Edited by chaku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never lumped any group of men, no matter their issues, together. I cannot say the same for the man who boiled all this down to the shopworn tactic of saying that it could be that women just cannot control our actions and so it's not really our fault. Gaslighting. And, no, that's not because someone is a man. Gah.

*eta - Afflicted, pardon the interruption of your thread.

Edited by whatchagonnado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaku, I mentioned your inexperience, not as a negative, but to try and see where some of your difficulties are coming from. You are projecting your pain, as I wasn't patrolling sexually inexperienced men. You mentioned something and only then did I wonder how that something might play a part in how you navigate relationships. Also, I never asked if you two were sexually intimate. You are the one who said there was a tiny chance of things changing. I was questioning your particular long distance situation, not Long Distance Relationships. I was reading the words you chose to type. I said in " any healthy manner ". Again, your words lead me, a person who is able to read and able to do a bit with that reading, see you mention someone's great distress and how certain things would " **** her ". Believe it or not, that will cause some to react. Lots of talk about your potential sexual needs and how you might go about them if it was meant to be. No one can possibly know all about a person, but dots can be connected, or at least laid on a table. All this feels like little traps laid. Now I must go be sad that we will never be intimate.

Yup, someone laying traps would totally tell you intimately about their plans and have their partner read your responses. You sure do connect dots like a pro.

Virgin Man = HUGE FLASHING RED LIGHTS!!! ITS LIKE A GIANT SPIDER!!!!! SOUND THE ALARMS!!!

Virgin Woman = HUGE FLASHING GREEN LIGHTS. ITS LIKE AN ANGEL!!!!!! PROTECT PROTECT PROTECT!!!!!!!

I get it. Most people do rely on flashing lights programmed in a bygone era. They don't use logic, they use emotion. It 'feels like red lights' is exactly what you said so you chose to make uniformly negative assumptions about me. Just like if a black person makes someone feel bad (red lights), they get racism. Disabled people? Yup. LYNCH THEM.

If it feels like green lights, you'll make uniformly positive assumptions about them or give them the benefit of the doubt like you have my friend who is equally responsible for our relationship.

It's funny you mention, 'it might **** her if a certain situation might happen," as something you specifically care about. But I've already described situations that have already put me in more danger. I'm the one with repeated stays in mental hospitals. They've already been mentioned. Your eyes just gloss over the facts that I've been more in danger of death by suicide than her, and she has been relatively stable over the past 8 years. You only care about the emotional distress she experienced one time, survived, and has consciously made her peace with. I can be in a mental hospital. I could be dead, and you singularly care about the 'one time the girl has had emotional distress, survived, reflected on the experience, and made a decision what it meant to her.'

Why? Because she's a woman. You only care own kind, it's like racism. Lynch the others!

I've had more than enough bigotry from people who only care about their kind and what benefits them. In my every day life I will remain cold, calculated, and resourceful in the face of bigots. In the chance I meet the tiny percent of the population that cares more about facts than primitive 'ape brained flashing lights' when deciding to make negative assumptions about others, I will give them my utmost honesty. Just like I did with this girl.

And think about this for a moment, I never even had to tell her about other women at all. She's online and has no way to measure what I do with other women in my life. The woman I met who was thinking of cheating specifically advised me to not tell her about it. "Why does she have to know? Most people just don't tell!" As long those primitive flashing red lights don't get triggered in my friend, all is good in relationship world, right?

Facts are irrelevant. Let's all rely on ignorant assumptions based on faulty perceptions of reality! I get it. But yeah, now my honesty with this girl gets twisted into an 'evil male power trip.' I'm such a bad man for being continually honest with this girl through thick and thin for 8 years when I could have lied and cheated and she'd be none the wiser.

When honesty is so profoundly evil and creates so many flashing red lights in women, it's no wonder things are the way they are. It's great that at least one person in my life has always preferred the truth from me no matter what it was. That's why she is so special.

______________________________________________________

From the horses mouth:

Her: I think she just believes that our long distance relationship is not healthy, and is blaming only you for it, while trying to protect the woman.

Her. Yeah, even if she believes our relationship is unhealthy, she has the right to believe that, but why would she blame only you?

She said it more succinctly than I. I get the patriarchal responsibility of 'blame' for being in an honest relationship involving a man and a woman. I get full 'responsibility' as man when our relationship isn't perfect, and she remains forever a powerless victim with no responsibility to fix this relationship because she's a woman? Sounds like stereotypical gender roles.

There's definitely truth to what you mention about virgin men & women. If a guy is a virgin at a certain age, than he's pretty much undesirable to the vast majority of women. They either think there's something really wrong with him, or just automatically get turned off right away. While if a woman is a virgin, than it's okay. Since most guys want a woman with as little sex partners as possible in terms of a relationship with them. I know first hand of this so it's not like I'm talking out of my ass here. It happened to me last month. The woman I was chatting with just stopped talking to me after she found out I was a virgin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never lumped any group of men, no matter their issues, together. I cannot say the same for the man who boiled all this down to the shopworn tactic of saying that it could be that women just cannot control our actions and so it's not really our fault. Gaslighting. And, no, that's not because someone is a man. Gah.

Most people can't control their actions or emotions completely, men or women. How is considernig the possibility that someone isn't choosing a result an insult on a depression forum? If you could just 'snap out of your natural states' you'd just quit being depressed and go on with your life.

It is supportive to acknowledge potential limitations rather than immediately blame others when potential harm arises. I only learned this by being depressed and not being able to 'snap out' of various states through will power.

Men and women aren't the same. Depressed and not depressed people aren't the same. So not everyone is always fully in control of how they feel and their actions are often dependent on this. If this was not true, then just letting depressed people die would be more logical as they'd simply be 'making choices to emotionally 'struggle.' If women are biologically predisposed to something that is hurtful to me, I forgive it, much like someone would forgive someone with depression for not always being perfect.

Such attitudes make people really resilient from hatred, and often reduce hostility. I did want you to know was authentic. It was not an intention to manipulate you. I genuinely forgive whatever harm you may cause here to my person. I don't think it's on purpose.

Edited by chaku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's definitely truth to what you mention about virgin men & women. If a guy is a virgin at a certain age, than he's pretty much undesirable to the vast majority of women. They either think there's something really wrong with him, or just automatically get turned off right away. While if a woman is a virgin, than it's okay. Since most guys want a woman with as little sex partners as possible in terms of a relationship with them. I know first hand of this so it's not like I'm talking out of my ass here. It happened to me last month. The woman I was chatting with just stopped talking to me after she found out I was a virgin.

It happens and is not uncommon, but women aren't clones either. It's ok to accept truth, but don't extend this to all women. You can keep yourself grounded this way and if the right woman is there, you can be more receptive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's definitely truth to what you mention about virgin men & women. If a guy is a virgin at a certain age, than he's pretty much undesirable to the vast majority of women. They either think there's something really wrong with him, or just automatically get turned off right away. While if a woman is a virgin, than it's okay. Since most guys want a woman with as little sex partners as possible in terms of a relationship with them. I know first hand of this so it's not like I'm talking out of my ass here. It happened to me last month. The woman I was chatting with just stopped talking to me after she found out I was a virgin.

It happens and is not uncommon, but women aren't clones either. It's ok to accept truth, but don't extend this to all women. You can keep yourself grounded this way and if the right woman is there, you can be more receptive.

True. But it just seems from all the stories I hear, that most women are turned off by guys in their 20s & 30s that are virgins. I'm in my late 20s now, & am still a virgin due to a number of things. I could have lost it a year & a half ago to some woman, but the circumstances weren't right at the time. Think I mentioned this in another thread on here, but my car at the time was in bad shape, she lived a little bit far, and she admitted to me she was still sleeping with her ex husband & some other guy whom I forget who he was exactly. She was upfront about it at least, and wasn't hiding anything from me. Think she was looking for a FWB type of thing because for some reason she was really into me without ever even meeting me. I regret it to this day & wish I just found a way to meet up with her, since I would have at least gotten some sexual experience & wouldn't have that virgin label that women get turned off by.

Edited by GAJ123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to change the subject back to the original topic. I feel like the fighting is going to escalate this way.

Yes.

I suppose anything is possible and try to keep an open mind. I know another topic that came up here was the fluidity of relationships and how not all relationships are meant to last a lifetime. I definitely agree with this and while there is something comforting about the idea of "forever", know that most relationships in my life will probably run their course before forever is up. (Emphasis on probably. I have no idea.) Most of the time, for me, when something is severely lacking and is beyond help, another lover wouldn't necessarily help... I am just no longer meant to be with that person. Another lover might add good sex or mental stimulation, but my underlying problems with the original lover still exist, so why keep them around if things aren't working? I can see that being the case maybe for lesser problems where the relationship still has a chance.

It's all very individual, IMO. I am not saying humans are inherently monogamous, only that we know best what problems in our relationships mean and signal to us. It's a very interesting topic.

If a situation is serious and beyond help, yes, it would make more sense to part ways no matter what kind of relationship one is in. I think this is an interesting topic and I'm glad that quite a few people have contributed to it so far. I really like how people are thinking about these kinds of things.

Well, these are all just opinions, after all..YMMV

I would venture to guess that monogamy is the dominant relationship paradigm in society today. I strongly suspect that it wasn't 80,000 years ago. So in that respect, I do think it (monogamy) has supplanted (for the most part) polyamory/polygamy as the preferred relationship model. Just my opinion.

As far as depression is concerned and whether one's choice of relationship type has any impact, I would guess that it probably doesn't make any difference, as far as lessening depression's adverse effects on an individual. I would even suggest that having multiple partners simultaneously could potentially exacerbate one's depression because of the jealousy/inequity factor lurking in the background. Speaking for myself, being in a relationship never made depression any less of a problem. Maybe being with someone helps others, and maybe having multiple partners helps still others, in terms of coping with mental illness. Again, this is all just speculation and opinion.

Monogamy is definitely the norm. What I mean is that there is little choice in the matter to begin with so who is to say it would be preferred if polyamory wasn't such a taboo? Polyamory is such an unknown to the majority of people. I don't think that the shift from "primitive" man to "modern" man fully explains what has happened. Instead, polyamory has become wrong, which suggests - at least to me - that there are other forces at play.

I think that depression can, depending on the context, have an impact on any and all relationships, not just romantic ones. I think where we differ is the jealousy factor. It sounds like you would believe jealousy to be a given. I think if we apply the same rules/assumptions about monogamous relationships to polyamorous ones, jealousy could indeed be a huge problem. I'm suggesting a different way to think about what it means to be involved with others so that jealousy is minimized. In any case, personally, I don't like the idea that people can be claimed, as if they were items or property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAJ, I think if more men stopped with the attitude about wanting women with as little experience as possible, much grief would disappear. Women who are virgins or have little experience, are called prudes. Oh, and the first man I had sex with was a virgin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAJ, I think if more men stopped with the attitude about wanting women with as little experience as possible, much grief would disappear. Women who are virgins or have little experience, are called prudes. Oh, and the first man I had sex with was a virgin.

Women that are virgins or with little sex appearance are really desirable to men. Men don't want to get with the woman that's been around the block. Why do you think women tend to lie about their sexual past if they've had a lot of sex partners. Than sometimes the guy finds out, and becomes instantly turned off & doesn't view her the same. Some men just wouldn't be compatible with a woman that's had a lot of sex. I assume it does go both ways though, where some women with low sex partners wouldn't want to be with a guy that's had a huge amount of sexual partners neither.

And how old was this man that was a virgin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAJ, I think if more men stopped with the attitude about wanting women with as little experience as possible, much grief would disappear. Women who are virgins or have little experience, are called prudes. Oh, and the first man I had sex with was a virgin.

I can't think of reasons to prefer inexperienced women to their counterparts. Actually I think I would prefer women with some experience and for good reasons! :tounge:

Either way, it can be a good time. I certainly wouldn't complain.

Edited by afflicted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAJ, I think if more men stopped with the attitude about wanting women with as little experience as possible, much grief would disappear. Women who are virgins or have little experience, are called prudes. Oh, and the first man I had sex with was a virgin.

Do you want men to stop having this attitude? What if they can't control their attitudes either, and it's just like depression?

I think it's probably a bit of both, but if men want to invest long term in a woman, they usually subconsciously, or consciously want to be fairly sure the woman finds them attractive. Since on average men lower standards for causal sex, on average women raise standards for casual sex. If a woman is super casual with everyone but you, it's often a sign she's just 'not that into you.'

http://www.livescience.com/5625-men-choosy-night-stands.html

Men have had really bad experiences for milllions of years investing into women that 'weren't that into them' and raising other men's children as a result, since they couldn't measure their own paternity. If a woman is not casual with anyone and seeks a long term relationship with only them, there isn't a comparison of other men she was more 'interested' in so they typically feel more comfortable.

Male and female instincts are often statistically opposite when measured scientifically, and often men and women will have to find some way to meet in the midddle for longer term relationships to function. It's usually not about one person 'changing' their atittude to please another. It's usually both sides adapting as best as they can given the cards they were dealt.

So there is precedent in our ancestry for there being a reason why men prefer what they prefer and women prefer what they prefer on a statistical average. One gender telling the other gender what to do, is not always a successful strategy.

Edited by chaku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAJ, I think if more men stopped with the attitude about wanting women with as little experience as possible, much grief would disappear. Women who are virgins or have little experience, are called prudes. Oh, and the first man I had sex with was a virgin.

Do you want men to stop having this attitude? What if they can't control their attitudes either, and it's just like depression?

I think it's probably a bit of both, but if men want to invest long term in a woman, they usually subconsciously, or consciously want to be fairly sure the woman finds them attractive. Since on average men lower standards for causal sex, on average women raise standards for casual sex. If a woman is super casual with everyone but you, it's often a sign she's just 'not that into you.'

http://www.livescience.com/5625-men-choosy-night-stands.html

Men have had really bad experiences for milllions of years investing into women that 'weren't that into them' and raising other men's children, since they couldn't measure their own paternity. If a woman is not casual with anyone and seeks a long term relationship with only you, there isn't a comparison of other men she was more 'interested' in.

Male and female instincts are often statistically opposite when measured scientifically, and often men and women will have to find some way to meet in the midddle for longer term relationships to function. It's usually not about one person 'changing' their atittude to please another. It's usually both sides adapting as best as they can given the cards they were dealt. It's a lot like depression, really.

So there is precedent in our ancestry for there being a reason why men prefer what they prefer and women prefer what they prefer on a statistical average. One gender telling the other gender what to do, is not always a successful strategy.

This exactly. A lot of women tend to **** the guys they view as alpha males or so called "bad boys" in their younger years for casual sex & sometimes even relationships that don't go well at all obviously, leaving all the good guys to the side at the time. Only when their ready to settle down when there older do they try to look for their "beta" male provider. That's why many men are turned off by women that have slept around a lot. If their willing to give it up really easy to those guys in the past, but now all of a sudden she wants to take it slow with you, it makes the man feel way less desirable. It's like why did you have sex with those guys in the past so quick, now you want to make me wait? It makes the man feel like , and like he's not good enough compared to the other men from her past. And they think she was probably willing to do things in the bedroom with them that she wouldn't with you either. It's just the way men think about it, and there's nothing that's going to change about that.

Edited by GAJ123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAJ, I think if more men stopped with the attitude about wanting women with as little experience as possible, much grief would disappear. Women who are virgins or have little experience, are called prudes. Oh, and the first man I had sex with was a virgin.

Do you want men to stop having this attitude? What if they can't control their attitudes either, and it's just like depression?

I think it's probably a bit of both, but if men want to invest long term in a woman, they usually subconsciously, or consciously want to be fairly sure the woman finds them attractive. Since on average men lower standards for causal sex, on average women raise standards for casual sex. If a woman is super casual with everyone but you, it's often a sign she's just 'not that into you.'

http://www.livescience.com/5625-men-choosy-night-stands.html

Men have had really bad experiences for milllions of years investing into women that 'weren't that into them' and raising other men's children, since they couldn't measure their own paternity. If a woman is not casual with anyone and seeks a long term relationship with only you, there isn't a comparison of other men she was more 'interested' in.

Male and female instincts are often statistically opposite when measured scientifically, and often men and women will have to find some way to meet in the midddle for longer term relationships to function. It's usually not about one person 'changing' their atittude to please another. It's usually both sides adapting as best as they can given the cards they were dealt. It's a lot like depression, really.

So there is precedent in our ancestry for there being a reason why men prefer what they prefer and women prefer what they prefer on a statistical average. One gender telling the other gender what to do, is not always a successful strategy.

This exactly. A lot of women tend to **** the guys they view as alpha males or so called "bad boys" in their younger years for casual sex & sometimes even relationships that don't go well at all obviously, leaving all the good guys to the side at the time. Only when their ready to settle down when there older do they try to look for their "beta" male provider. That's why many men are turned off by women that have slept around a lot. If their willing to give it up really easy to those guys in the past, but now all of a sudden she wants to take it slow with you, it makes the man feel way less desirable. It's like why did you have sex with those guys in the past so quick, now you want to make me wait? It makes the man feel like s***, and like he's not good enough compared to the other men from her past. And they think she was probably willing to do things in the bedroom with them that she wouldn't with you either. It's just the way men think about it, and there's nothing that's going to change about that.

I've only had casual sex a few time but it's assumed I've had a lot of casual sex because of the number of boyfriends I've had. A lot of the problem is that men break up with me right away.

We'll since we're on this topic. What type of men do you look for to have casual sex with? Do your standards go up in terms of who you sleep with for casual sex? That's definitely a problem men have with women that have casual sex. The man wants to be seen as the most desirable she's ever been with. He doesn't want to be seen as the "beta" guy so to speak.

Edited by GAJ123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAJ, like I said, that attitude that many men ( oh, lord, please note that I said many ) have is wrong. Keeping score like that comes from very bad places, which have mostly affected the lives of women. While there are men who are teased for not being ' man enough ', history has shown and continues to show us that a man, if able, can ' fix ' things, whereas women are marked for life, and around the world, that mark has deadly outcomes. Nobody wants to be shamed for numbers, no matter which way that goes, but there is a mountain of harm that women encounter because of sexual status.

* the age of the virgin ?...26 ( if memory serves me )

Edited by whatchagonnado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have had casual sex when I was drunk, I don't know what I was thinking. I had a friend with benefits, I picked him because he was nice. That's a good question! ha ha

Well, that's interesting. Since like chaku said, that men don't really have standards for casual sex. They just get with who they can. While women tend to do it with the guys they find really attractive. Most women aren't going to sleep with a guy they don't find that attractive for casual sex since their options are almost unlimited. Most women could literally go to a bar every night of the week, and go home with a new guy every time if they wanted. While a man has to put in the work to make it happen & has limited options besides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAJ, like I said, that attitude that many men ( oh, lord, please note that I said many ) have is wrong. Keeping score like that comes from very bad places, which have mostly affected the lives of women. While there are men who are teased for not being ' man enough ', history has shown and continues to show us that a man, if able, can ' fix ' things, whereas women are marked for life, and around the world, that mark has deadly outcomes. Nobody wants to be shamed for numbers, no matter which way that goes, but there is a mountain of harm that women encounter because of sexual status.

* the age of the virgin ?...26 ( if memory serves me )

But it's the way men are wired to think. A lot of men don't want to be married or in a relationship with a woman that's had a lot of sex or been in abusive relationships in the past. They see it as a red flag. In terms of marriage/relationships they want the woman that has only had very few boyfriends or very few sexual partners. Some men don't care, but usually those are the men that have slept around a lot themselves so their more compatible with the women that are promiscuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all a woman wants is to use a penis, mouth, fingers for a short time, then, yes, there would be more availability. That doesn't at all mean her options are unlimited. I seriously want to know where this place is where women only have to snap fingers, and dream men fall from the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...