100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: One man's prude is another man's principled person | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
(Also, I notice you're still sidestepping the question of why this should be considered exclusive to women, when it clearly is not.) How about checking the origin of the word prude. [French, short for prude femme, virtuous woman : Old French prude, feminine of prud, virtuous; see proud + French femme, woman (from Latin fmina; see feminine).]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. . . just because something CAN be a term of reproach, it doesn't follow that it is ALWAYS a term of reproach. If a word CAN be a term of reproach, and if you use the word when it isn't necessary to do so, then you have yourself to blame if a member of your audience interprets the word as a term of reproach. When a person is sending a message to an audience, it is up to the person to make sure that the message received is the message that was intended. Plenty of people have gotten themselves into trouble because they have unnecessarily used words that can have a negative meaning. Again, there is no need to use the word prude when discussing sexual compatibility. Doing so can easily send the wrong message. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Also, I notice you're still sidestepping the question of why this should be considered exclusive to women, when it clearly is not.) How about checking the origin of the word prude. [French, short for prude femme, virtuous woman : Old French prude, feminine of prud, virtuous; see proud + French femme, woman (from Latin fmina; see feminine).]
If you're only going to go by that origin, then it isn't a term of reproach at all. I mean, "virtuous and proud"? What's reproachful in that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Also, I notice you're still sidestepping the question of why this should be considered exclusive to women, when it clearly is not.) How about checking the origin of the word prude. [French, short for prude femme, virtuous woman : Old French prude, feminine of prud, virtuous; see proud + French femme, woman (from Latin fmina; see feminine).]
If you're only going to go by that origin, then it isn't a term of reproach at all. I mean, "virtuous and proud"? What's reproachful in that? Is that the message that the author of the OP intended when he used the word prude. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DaySinner
on
Sat 03/16/13 02:11 PM
|
|
In another thread I put forward the proposition that in a dating situation you can raise the subject of sex to find out how much of a prude you are dealing with. I do this in order to find out how much fun someone is. It is a compatibility issue. I don't really get on with women that are no fun and uptight. If a person has hangups about sex it might be argued that this is because they have principles and that they do not consider it to be an appropriate topic of conversation but this is why it is important to only bring the topic up when you think that it is appropriate to do so. I am making the claim that it is appropriate to bring up the topic in a dating situation to find out how much fun somebody is. Am I being too picky? In what form do you bring the topic up? There is innocent sexual banter, there is serious talk about sex as an intellectual pursuit, and there is talk about sex with a motive toward having sex. If you innocently joke about sex and offence is easily taken, I would say that your date gives too much important to sex. I think it's healthy to be able to joke about sex. But I don't think this is what you are referring to. That leaves sex talk as an intellectual topic, and sex talk meant to inspire sexual interest. The danger with sex talk on an intellectual level is that, on a first or second date, she might get the wrong idea. You might end up disqualifying someone based on miscommunication. If your sex talk is meant to arouse sexual excitement, then you can't really know the reason why she is receptive or not. It may have nothing to do with being prudish or easy. What is or isn't appropriate depends entirely on how the date is going 
Overall it sounds to me like you are being too picky. Your greatest experience might come from a long time relationship with someone you thought prudish. Keep an open mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ViaMusica
on
Sat 03/16/13 02:15 PM
|
|
(Also, I notice you're still sidestepping the question of why this should be considered exclusive to women, when it clearly is not.) How about checking the origin of the word prude. [French, short for prude femme, virtuous woman : Old French prude, feminine of prud, virtuous; see proud + French femme, woman (from Latin fmina; see feminine).]
If you're only going to go by that origin, then it isn't a term of reproach at all. I mean, "virtuous and proud"? What's reproachful in that? Is that the message that the author of the OP intended when he used the word prude. Why are you asking me? In any case, you're trying to have it both ways, Dodo. On the one hand you're saying we have to talk about what TawtStrat meant, yet on the other hand you're saying we can only use the definition you just posted. Well, if TS was using that definition, then there's nothing to get offended about. If that isn't what TS meant, and you maintain we have to talk about whatever he meant, then we have to throw out the definition you just posted. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Also, I notice you're still sidestepping the question of why this should be considered exclusive to women, when it clearly is not.) How about checking the origin of the word prude. [French, short for prude femme, virtuous woman : Old French prude, feminine of prud, virtuous; see proud + French femme, woman (from Latin fmina; see feminine).]
If you're only going to go by that origin, then it isn't a term of reproach at all. I mean, "virtuous and proud"? What's reproachful in that? Is that the message that the author of the OP intended when he used the word prude. Why are you asking me? In any case, you're trying to have it both ways, Dodo. On the one hand you're saying we have to talk about what TawtStrat meant, yet on the other hand you're saying we can only use the definition you just posted. Well, if TS were using that definition, then there's nothing to get offended about. If that isn't what TS meant, and you maintain we have to talk about whatever he meant, then we have to throw out the definition you just posted. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I didn't say that everyone MUST use the definition that I posted. I am showing people why the word prude shouldn't be used, because it is commonly used as a term of reproach. Again, there is no need for the word to be used in a discussion about sexual compatibility. In order to maintain decorum, it is sometimes necessary to avoid using words that can have negative meanings if those negative meanings are not intended for the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dodo, you're still trying to have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I suppose that I just jump to the conclusion that if someone acts like a prude they are a bit of a prig and not my idea of a fun sort of person. Really sorry if you think I'm being rather judgmental and yeah, it's easy to jump in and try to make this out to be about sexism and then try to whip out a dictionary and grammar nazi and mini mod me at the same time.
I can still think that someone is a prude if I like though and if you find the term offensive I am not really sure why unless you are a prude yourself. I mean, you would have to be a massive prude to make a big fuss about a fairly innocuous term like that that really is gender neutral. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I suppose that I just jump to the conclusion that if someone acts like a prude they are a bit of a prig and not my idea of a fun sort of person. Really sorry if you think I'm being rather judgmental and yeah, it's easy to jump in and try to make this out to be about sexism and then try to whip out a dictionary and grammar nazi and mini mod me at the same time. I can still think that someone is a prude if I like though and if you find the term offensive I am not really sure why unless you are a prude yourself. I mean, you would have to be a massive prude to make a big fuss about a fairly innocuous term like that that really is gender neutral. *applause* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think most women are not so shy about sex talk as they are uncertain how it might be taken. On a first or second date, they don’t know the man well enough to determine if they want to go there yet and don’t want it to seem as if they are sending a stamped invitation. If she talks about sex and it’s taken as an invitation, that she had no intention of issuing, then she will be considered a tease for talking about sex and then not putting out. So, I think it’s something of a double edge sword really, because either way the man could walk away with the wrong impression. It certainly can be that way, yes. I've learned over the years to just be very clear from the beginning about my position, as in "I will discuss this openly, including telling you what my personal preferences are, but understand that if I am going to sleep with you it will happen under 'X' circumstances and when *I* decide to do so." I've found that the majority of men actually appreciate that kind of honesty and forthrightness, because it removes the whole game-playing aspect of things. It would not be out of character for me to say, "I have every intention of sleeping with you when I decide the circumstances are right. Understand that those circumstances include but are not limited to..." and then lay out my needs/requirements. If nothing else, it serves to weed out the riff-raff who can't handle having a woman implement her standards. The ones who are left are more likely to be worth taking to bed. 
I don’t run into it often enough to know how I would approach it. I suppose if the guy were making enough hints I might ask him to tell me what was REALLY on his mind, and let the conversation flow to wherever he took it. If he seemed like he was fishing for answers, I would certainly give him real answers. I would not want to be  now and  later, when I could have spoken up and avoided an awkward situation. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I went on a date with a man and he brought-up the possibility of having sex this would be one thing...But if he used terms like "prude" or "uptight" to define me this would be something else. (At least to me anyway.)...I can say: "I'm not interested." Or: "No thank you" to having sex or going on further dates with a man...But I don't want to deal with any of this right now so I don't date...I was a big advocate of the Women's Movement back in the 60's. (Equal pay and equal opportunities for women and "fair treatment" under the law etc.)...So I'm not trying to hold women "back." But I just don't want to enter into a series of relationships that include sex. If this is what dating "means" today then I will probably just stay on the sidelines and concentrate on my writing and projects and creative endeavors. And "join" my husband and sons when it's my time to "go."...But this is just me. I can be a rebel and "stubborn cuss" when it comes to making decisions about my body and my time and my life. (In general.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think most women are not so shy about sex talk as they are uncertain how it might be taken. On a first or second date, they don’t know the man well enough to determine if they want to go there yet and don’t want it to seem as if they are sending a stamped invitation. If she talks about sex and it’s taken as an invitation, that she had no intention of issuing, then she will be considered a tease for talking about sex and then not putting out. So, I think it’s something of a double edge sword really, because either way the man could walk away with the wrong impression. Excellent point Cynda and it goes back to the idea of "adult" conversation...I have actually found myself in the predicament you describe...That is when the need for precise communication comes in...It is possible to discuss sex early on without being provocative...It is a delicate area for sure, but one that does not have to be avoided due to feeling intimidated or being misunderstood...I would not initiate intimate conversation early on, but if my date did I would not back away from it and, at that point, would not let it offend me or eliminate him as someone of interest...I might even "guide" the conversation in an attempt to discover personality traits and preferences earlier rather than later... I don’t tend to bring up the conversation either. I tend to assume that the person with specific sexual tastes that...well, let’s say, may differ a bit from the traditional methods, would take the initiative to find out if I was into it or willing to try it before we got to that point in our association. I've not been wrong yet, so that is probably the case for the most part. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy to assume that we're all on the same "page." But our "reality" is based on many different factors. (Our circumstances in life.. Our circle of friends..How often we venture outside of our "realm" etc.)...I spoke to several of my longtime married friends over the past few days and told them what I've learned and experienced from being on this thread. (And from being on a dating site in general.)...My friends had no idea that sex was brought-up so soon (these days) on dates. It was shocking to them too...Guess you could say we've all been living "sheltered lives" since we've been married so long and really didn't have any single friends. (Or single friends who talked about all the changes in the dating scene today.)...My friends said that they would find the term "prude" offensive and rude. (If someone used this term "against" them because they didn't want to rush right into having sex.)...What's "normal" for some people may or may not be "normal" for others...Maybe this needs to be taken into consideration. It doesn't have to be about "judgements." (Just an awareness that there are different "realities.")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy to assume that we're all on the same "page." But our "reality" is based on many different factors. (Our circumstances in life.. Our circle of friends..How often we venture outside of our "realm" etc.)...I spoke to several of my longtime married friends over the past few days and told them what I've learned and experienced from being on this thread. (And from being on a dating site in general.)...My friends had no idea that sex was brought-up so soon (these days) on dates. It was shocking to them too...Guess you could say we've all been living "sheltered lives" since we've been married so long and really didn't have any single friends. (Or single friends who talked about all the changes in the dating scene today.)...My friends said that they would find the term "prude" offensive and rude. (If someone used this term "against" them because they didn't want to rush right into having sex.)...What's "normal" for some people may or may not be "normal" for others...Maybe this needs to be taken into consideration. It doesn't have to be about "judgements." (Just an awareness that there are different "realities.") I think that you and that guy are getting the wrong end of the stick a bit. Let's assume that I've met someone and it has got to the dating stage or we are having a chat on the phone and the topic of sex comes up in conversation. I make a judgment about her depending on what she says about it. I don't try to send her naked pictures of myself or ask her what colour underwear she's wearing or anything like that and then say to her that we are both adults and that she shouldn't be a prude about that stuff. I just form an opinion about a woman when she talks about sex or I make a judgement about her based on how she reacts when I bring it up. I don't do it in a sleazy way and even if I do think that she is a bit of a prude I am not going to tell her off or "reproach" her for it. Why would I do that? All I want to know is if she is compatible with me and how she feels about sex. I want to know what a relationship with her is likely to be like because I am looking for someone that doesn't have a load of hangups about sex or some set of moral standards about it that will mean that she isn't going to be much fun to have as a girlfriend. I just don't click with women like that and sorry but I'm not really going to want to wait until the wedding night because I'm looking for a girlfriend and wouldn't even think about marriage without seeing how we worked together as a couple first. I don't just want to know how we get on as friends. If someone says to me that she doesn't believe in sex before marriage then who's putting the pressure on and being judgmental? I'm not demanding anything or insisting on certain conditions when I have these conversations with women. I'm not telling them that they have to do anything that they don't want to do and all I want to know is what it is that they do want. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy to assume that we're all on the same "page." But our "reality" is based on many different factors. (Our circumstances in life.. Our circle of friends..How often we venture outside of our "realm" etc.)...I spoke to several of my longtime married friends over the past few days and told them what I've learned and experienced from being on this thread. (And from being on a dating site in general.)...My friends had no idea that sex was brought-up so soon (these days) on dates. It was shocking to them too...Guess you could say we've all been living "sheltered lives" since we've been married so long and really didn't have any single friends. (Or single friends who talked about all the changes in the dating scene today.)...My friends said that they would find the term "prude" offensive and rude. (If someone used this term "against" them because they didn't want to rush right into having sex.)...What's "normal" for some people may or may not be "normal" for others...Maybe this needs to be taken into consideration. It doesn't have to be about "judgements." (Just an awareness that there are different "realities.") I think that you and that guy are getting the wrong end of the stick a bit. Let's assume that I've met someone and it has got to the dating stage or we are having a chat on the phone and the topic of sex comes up in conversation. I make a judgment about her depending on what she says about it. I don't try to send her naked pictures of myself or ask her what colour underwear she's wearing or anything like that and then say to her that we are both adults and that she shouldn't be a prude about that stuff. I just form an opinion about a woman when she talks about sex or I make a judgement about her based on how she reacts when I bring it up. I don't do it in a sleazy way and even if I do think that she is a bit of a prude I am not going to tell her off or "reproach" her for it. Why would I do that? All I want to know is if she is compatible with me and how she feels about sex. I want to know what a relationship with her is likely to be like because I am looking for someone that doesn't have a load of hangups about sex or some set of moral standards about it that will mean that she isn't going to be much fun to have as a girlfriend. I just don't click with women like that and sorry but I'm not really going to want to wait until the wedding night because I'm looking for a girlfriend and wouldn't even think about marriage without seeing how we worked together as a couple first. I don't just want to know how we get on as friends. If someone says to me that she doesn't believe in sex before marriage then who's putting the pressure on and being judgmental? I'm not demanding anything or insisting on certain conditions when I have these conversations with women. I'm not telling them that they have to do anything that they don't want to do and all I want to know is what it is that they do want. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing. Your "way" and your views probably "mesh" with women who have been single for awhile. (And may be the "norm" for them too.) From what I've been reading it sounds like it is...But if you date a woman who was happily married and out of the dating scene for a long time she may not be used to the way things "operate" today. (And uncomfortable with early talk about sex.)...And women can lose their husbands early in life too. All widows aren't "old" like I am!....It can be a case of "too much, too fast" and the woman may not be a so-called "prudes.".. It just takes time to adjust to changing scenarios in the dating world. And some women don't want to jump right into sex due to religious reasons but they may not be "true prudes" in all respects either...Some women may be "wilder" than they appear on the surface when the time "feels right" to them and they feel that they are with the "right man."...All books can't be judged by their covers. But it sounds like you will probably do best with a woman who has been single for a long time and knows the "ropes." (And speaks your language etc.)
I'm not sure that it really has to do with women being single for a while. You may not be ready to talk about sex, or to date, but that doesn't mean someone else who has been married before, or in a long term relationship is going to feel exactly the same way. You seem to be judging women by the length of time they've been single and then you turn around and say not to judge a book by the cover. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
GreenEyes48
on
Sun 03/17/13 11:19 AM
|
|
Thanks for sharing. Your "way" and your views probably "mesh" with women who have been single for awhile. (And may be the "norm" for them too.) From what I've been reading it sounds like it is...But if you date a woman who was happily married and out of the dating scene for a long time she may not be used to the way things "operate" today. (And uncomfortable with early talk about sex.)...And women can lose their husbands early in life too. All widows aren't "old" like I am!....It can be a case of "too much, too fast" and the woman may not be a so-called "prudes.".. It just takes time to adjust to changing scenarios in the dating world. And some women don't want to jump right into sex due to religious reasons but they may not be "true prudes" in all respects either...Some women may be "wilder" than they appear on the surface when the time "feels right" to them and they feel that they are with the "right man."...All books can't be judged by their covers. But it sounds like you will probably do best with a woman who has been single for a long time and knows the "ropes." (And speaks your language etc.)
I'm not sure that it really has to do with women being single for a while. You may not be ready to talk about sex, or to date, but that doesn't mean someone else who has been married before, or in a long term relationship is going to feel exactly the same way. You seem to be judging women by the length of time they've been single and then you turn around and say not to judge a book by the cover. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I'm saying is I don't think someone necessarily has to be single for a long time to be into talking about sex. Just realize that people are different. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I'm saying is I don't think someone necessarily has to be single for a long time to be into talking about sex. Just realize that people are different. That's all. |
|
|
|
|
