PROMIScuity, double standard??
Find a Conversation
PROMIScuity, double standard??
| Sun, 07-08-2007 - 3:36pm |
Why is it wrong if a female has been with at least more than their puppy love, first love, and third partner in life and ok if a guy on the other hand, is been with at least 5 physical intimite partners??? Isn't this the twenty-seventh century??? Isn't it wrong to say a female is a "slut" or "has been around town" when society ignores the fact that guys are just as bad? So what do U think? What are your personal beliefs on DIS isshoe?

Pages
Hmmm, I don't really see that happening on that board. What I see is more along the lines of women posting and saying "I slept with him on the 2nd date and now he's disappeared and I'm really upset". It makes sense to advise that person that if they aren't willing to take the risk of that happening, then they should wait to have sex next time, and that's the type of advice that seems prevalent.
Sheri
Edited 7/10/2007 9:38 am ET by elwood1960
Well, you know my position on how sex affects men and women differently so with that caveat, I agree--if you're going to have sex early, you have to be willing to take the risk that the guy's going to disappear or that he's lied to you about what he wants, or whatever.
Unrelated topic but I have to ask--are you trying to say divorce with a NJ/Brooklyn accent as a joke or something when you write "devoice"? Or is just a simple misspelling? Not trying to embarrass you if it's the latter, just curious as I keep envisioning a wise guy Joe Pesce type saying it that way with the strong accent when I read it ;-)!!
Sheri
Edited 7/10/2007 9:37 am ET by elwood1960
Ok, thanks for clarifying that about the spelling ;-).
As for the other, do I really have to repeat my entire post about the bonding effects of oxytocin, which had plenty of references to "many/most" as well as the fact that not all women have high levels of the hormone and so it doesn't have the exact same effect on all women? I was just making a passing reference to that previous post and for brevity's sake didn't repeat the whole thing.
Sheri
Edited 7/10/2007 9:37 am ET by elwood1960
Absolutely, fair enough, LOL!
Thanks and same to you.
Sheri
Edited 7/10/2007 9:36 am ET by elwood1960
Yes I do see plenty of that as well, and generally I agree with those posts. However, I have definitely been involved in more than one discussion posted by women where the posters assumed that things of women that would never be assumed of men. While many women are desirous of relationships and unable to have sex without attributing love to it, I think many women are able to do this. The trick is knowing when and if you've crossed that boundary. The part that upsets me is the assumption that all women are this way or all women are another, etc. Same for men. Perhaps this is a different topic, but a def. pet peeve of mine.
-J
Edited 7/10/2007 1:53 pm ET by japdiv
Oh, I agree. I can't stand the "all" statements about men or women. Yes, there are generalities that are true for many or even most, but few if any apply to "all".
But, that being said, in my experience the number of women who can have sex without it causing some sort of emotional attachment to form is very small, and that has a biological cause, not sociological. The same is not true of men since oxytocin doesn't have the same effect in men.
Sheri
Pages