100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: One man's prude is another man's principled person | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I see an awful lot of stereotyping here and I find it sad...Sometimes I just want to scream....GROW UP PEOPLE!...And for the record, very few men ask me out for the "sole" purpose of getting laid so I tend question those women who are quick to label "sex talk early on" as men wanting to get in their pants and women who participate in such conversations as being loose...Perhaps they would fare better by being less inhibited and more introspective ....Just thinking out loud 
Amen, Leigh! Praise the lord and pass the biscuits!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women who bring up Sex too soon in a "friendship" is usually looked on as a loose morals woman. Even Men who like Sex often will just use her up for as much Sex as he can get and nothing developes further. Get the milk free. why buy the Cow. If it's just a friendship, I'm not going to bring up sex anyway. That's quite different than being with someone I'm interested in, though. As for having sex too soon, that "too soon" is going to be different for everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll be honest: I'm noticing (not just here) so many who look at men as somehow wanting only sex and nothing more, who'll take it "for free" when they can get it and give nothing in return. Seems like a stereotype to me, because while I've known my share of guys like that, I've also known guys who actually wanted both sex AND a relationship, and some who preferred to be in love before having sex. I think there's probably as much variation in male attitudes toward sex and relationships as in the female counterpart of those attitudes. The difference is that society has glorified the idea of a guy going out and "getting some" while it has (until recently) still put forth the idea that women are to "give it up" only for a price of some sort. Note the differences there: Men "get some" while women "give it up". Personally, I think that's bullshyte of the finest Victorian vintage (in other words, WAY past its sell-by date). This is the 21st century. It isn't shameful for a woman to have a strong libido, and it isn't some requirement of manhood that a guy HAS to act like a horndog, especially if he isn't that way. Free milk? Buy the cow? What is this, Green Acres? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a woman I am free to have sex outside of marriage today...I have the freedom to do a lot of things...I can take five hundred dollars out of the bank and go gambling at the casino...I can decide to eat snack foods all day long and never cook any decent meals for myself... What do either of those things have to do with what we're talking about? We might have the freedom to do many different things. But the truth is that all of our choices come with consequences of one kind or another...
Of course they do. That's why it's so important to be clear about them and take steps to avoid the negative consequences. That's exactly what I'm talking about here. So even though I am "free" I try to question my attitudes and choices in life...I am surprised that I never hear any talk about the possibility of contracting AIDS from sexual activity...
I came right out and mentioned STDs. HIV infection falls into that category. That's why I mentioned wanting to know that any potential sexual partner I might have is STD-free. That includes HIV. AIDS/HIV doesn't come from sexual activity itself; but it can come from sexual activity with an HIV-infected partner. Be smart, make sure your partner is disease-free and take all available precautions if you're going to engage in sexual activity. That's just plain old sense. I've been married and out of circulation for decades so I didn't have to worry about AIDS or all the other problems associated with having multiple sex partners...
Well, HIV has been around since the late Seventies, and other STDs have been around *forever*. I was married and out of circulation for over a decade, until a couple of years ago, and it isn't like I've ever been the type to just sleep around with random people. One-night stands and purely casual sex aren't really my cup of tea. But even if you're going into an exclusive relationship with someone who isn't a virgin, precautions do need to be taken, and that's why you talk about those things with a person before the fact. I worry about kids growing up today in a "free-for-all" kind of society. (Watching adults "bed-hop.")
So do I. Then again, I'm neither a kid nor a free-for-all person. But I'm not a celibate person, either. As I close in on the half-century mark, I see myself as someone who is in a position to decide for herself what she wants, and to be honest about it. My choice is to seek a good relationship that's exclusive and includes sex, and to take the initiative in being safe and smart about it. Anyway I don't embrace everything "modern" without questioning things...And I don't "write-off" the past as automatically "stupid" or "invalid."
Neither do I, in either case. But my talking about "Victorian" attitudes isn't an 'automatic' thing... Victorian thinking actually dictated that there was something wrong with women who enjoyed sex, even with their husbands. The whole "lie back and think of England" mentality. And if a woman actually enjoyed sex, she was labeled as insane. Women were actually committed to mental institutions over that, believe it or not. Horrible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I am just different...If I do decide to date again I wouldn't want to have sex with multiple partners...I met and married a wonderful man and we were together for decades. And neither one of us pushed for sex early-on. (We enjoyed being friends and taking our time to get to know each other.)....Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I don't want to change!..I'm prepared to "go it alone" and never get married again. I know I'll do okay...When I met my husband I had been "going it alone" (with my kids) for 12 years and rarely dated. (And didn't have sex on dates.)...I think this is why my husband was attracted to me. (Because I wasn't like other women.)...He was definitely not a "sleep-around" kind of man and this is why I was attracted to him...We had both gone a long time without having sex out of "choice." (And not because we wouldn't have had "offers" or willing partners etc.)...Maybe it sounds old-fashioned but we wanted to keep sex "sacred" and special...And this is the way I feel today too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 pages of people too uptight to cut loose and just have some fun.
Good for you guys. I have spent face time with plenty of Mingletards....when you ask yourself why no one is interested....remember that the common denominator is you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want to have sex with multiple partners either. That's what I mean when I use the word "exclusive". In a perfect world, the next person I meet and date would turn out to be just perfect for me and I for him, and we'd fall madly in love and spend the rest of our lives together, get married, etc.
But I don't live in a perfect world, and for all I know I'm not going to get that storybook future. So it's entirely possible that I could wind up with exactly what I had before my marriage: A succession of exclusive monogamous relationships, each one being something I'd hoped would lead to a lifelong commitment but which for whatever reason wound up not working out after several months or years. And in the context of most of those relationships, there was indeed sexual activity. *shrug* It's a fact of life for most of us. Which is why I learned to be very clear, both with myself and with the guys I went out with back then and the ones I go out with now, regarding what I do and do not want. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 pages of people too uptight to cut loose and just have some fun. Good for you guys. I have spent face time with plenty of Mingletards....when you ask yourself why no one is interested....remember that the common denominator is you. Hallelujah, brother Krupa!... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 pages of people too uptight to cut loose and just have some fun. Good for you guys. I have spent face time with plenty of Mingletards....when you ask yourself why no one is interested....remember that the common denominator is you. Hallelujah, brother Krupa!... C'este le vie. Est o si que est |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oui, c'est ca. (Can't be arsed to figure out the proper character keystroke I need there.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Word!
:) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 pages of people too uptight to cut loose and just have some fun. Good for you guys. I have spent face time with plenty of Mingletards....when you ask yourself why no one is interested....remember that the common denominator is you. Hallelujah, brother Krupa!... C'este le vie. Est o si que est Si vous dites ainsi 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watch your language sailor.....there are children here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watch your language sailor.....there are children here. That's why I whispered...Shhhhhh!... I think they're napping, thank gud!!....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! It's starting to feel like a sports event or a boxing-ring or ?? (With "opposing sides.")...I think it's good to have a full-blown discussion about all of it. (From all "sides.") TheFreeDictionary.com says, ". . . prude has become a term of reproach." All that I have done (thus far) is object to the use of a term of reproach to describe a woman who has done nothing wrong. I have not objected to people talking about sex while they are dating. I have not objected to people having sex while they are dating. Sure, two people need to know if they are compatible, but it is rude for a man to call a woman a "prude" because she isn't compatible. A man who does so is passing judgment on the woman instead of respecting her right to do with her body as she wishes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
krupa
on
Sat 03/16/13 01:06 PM
|
|
Wow! It's starting to feel like a sports event or a boxing-ring or ?? (With "opposing sides.")...I think it's good to have a full-blown discussion about all of it. (From all "sides.") TheFreeDictionary.com says, ". . . prude has become a term of reproach." All that I have done (thus far) is object to the use of a term of reproach to describe a woman who has done nothing wrong. I have not objected to people talking about sex while they are dating. I have not objected to people having sex while they are dating. Sure, two people need to know if they are compatible, but it is rude for a man to call a woman a "prude" because she isn't compatible. A man who does so is passing judgment on the woman instead of respecting her right to do with her body as she wishes. 1....I wasn't talking about a woman. 2....if you are seriously quoting a friggen dictionary...we are gonna have to come up with a black belt in prude for us. (Ya gotta admit....quoting a dictionary for the term prude....is ...well...straight up 100 percent prude) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheFreeDictionary.com says, ". . . prude has become a term of reproach." All that I have done (thus far) is object to the use of a term of reproach to describe a woman who has done nothing wrong. I have not objected to people talking about sex while they are dating. I have not objected to people having sex while they are dating. Sure, two people need to know if they are compatible, but it is rude for a man to call a woman a "prude" because she isn't compatible. A man who does so is passing judgment on the woman instead of respecting her right to do with her body as she wishes. And what about calling a man a prude? We're right back to the idea of this being exclusive to one sex, and it isn't. And I also don't see it as passing judgment on her. It's just being of the opinion that SHE isn't what HE'S looking for. That isn't disrespecting her right to do what she wants with her body. If he insisted that she HAD to have sex with him, THAT would be disrespecting her rights. (It would also be rape, if he tried to have sex with her against her will.) But if he decides, "she's too prudish for me", well that says nothing about her rights one way or another. It's just acknowledging that she's not his type. Sort of like my being unwilling to date someone who has umpteen tattoos and piercings because I personally find them unattractive. It doesn't mean I disrespect another person's right to do what they want with their body; it just means that person isn't right for ME. Get all the tats and piercings you want, just don't expect me to date you if you do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheFreeDictionary.com says, ". . . prude has become a term of reproach." All that I have done (thus far) is object to the use of a term of reproach to describe a woman who has done nothing wrong. I have not objected to people talking about sex while they are dating. I have not objected to people having sex while they are dating. Sure, two people need to know if they are compatible, but it is rude for a man to call a woman a "prude" because she isn't compatible. A man who does so is passing judgment on the woman instead of respecting her right to do with her body as she wishes. And what about calling a man a prude? We're right back to the idea of this being exclusive to one sex, and it isn't. And I also don't see it as passing judgment on her. It's just being of the opinion that SHE isn't what HE'S looking for. That isn't disrespecting her right to do what she wants with her body. If he insisted that she HAD to have sex with him, THAT would be disrespecting her rights. (It would also be rape, if he tried to have sex with her against her will.) But if he decides, "she's too prudish for me", well that says nothing about her rights one way or another. It's just acknowledging that she's not his type. Sort of like my being unwilling to date someone who has umpteen tattoos and piercings because I personally find them unattractive. It doesn't mean I disrespect another person's right to do what they want with their body; it just means that person isn't right for ME. Get all the tats and piercings you want, just don't expect me to date you if you do. If a person just isn't right for you, then that is all you have to say. It isn't necessary to use a term of reproach to describe the person. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's the lovely thing about free speech. I can say what I like. And again, just because something CAN be a term of reproach, it doesn't follow that it is ALWAYS a term of reproach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Also, I notice you're still sidestepping the question of why this should be considered exclusive to women, when it clearly is not.)
|
|
|
|
|
