https://bit.ly/3ewqz0c
https://bit.ly/3CTapHl
https://bit.ly/3rPWxYb
https://bit.ly/3rRIi5b
https://bit.ly/3ewqw4w
https://bit.ly/3CUY1qq
https://bit.ly/3rSuWFK
https://bit.ly/3CWqfBm
December 14, 2010 at 8:19 pm
“Precisely why it’s frowned upon by men. It devalues the nature of their relationship if a girlfriend has had dozens of partners. For a man, whose sexual value is by no means guaranteed by virtue of his birth, more partners generally is a boon.”
.
Ah. So if it were as easy for men as women, then men may be less inclined to attach value to sex and cut women more slack. Its difficulty, rarity, etc, places a sort of value on it for men and if a women just did it so many times its assumed effort was not required by her and therefore she is taking advantage of what she has and not what she can accomplish. If women today are seeking equal relationships as they say they are, well, that’s not a good way to start. An example is people who had to work from nothing to be established on their own, well, they typically are not close friends with those who were trust fund kids. There is this sort of knowing that there is a disconnect so deep that can be overcome perhaps with free will to do so, but why bother. The value chasm is assumed to be too vast.
terre says:
December 15, 2010 at 3:39 am
“Ah. So if it were as easy for men as women, then men may be less inclined to attach value to sex and cut women more slack. Its difficulty, rarity, etc, places a sort of value on it for men and if a women just did it so many times its assumed effort was not required by her and therefore she is taking advantage of what she has and not what she can accomplish. If women today are seeking equal relationships as they say they are, well, that’s not a good way to start. An example is people who had to work from nothing to be established on their own, well, they typically are not close friends with those who were trust fund kids. There is this sort of knowing that there is a disconnect so deep that can be overcome perhaps with free will to do so, but why bother. The value chasm is assumed to be too vast.”
As I’ve said, women are absolutely free to feel one way or the other about a promiscuous partner. The issue does not appear to be one of double standards, however, but one of getting more than a handful of enlightened men to understand that there’s no such thing as a slut. This is spite of the fact that all research shows a higher rate of sexual encounters drastically reduces the probability of future fidelity.
Abbot says:
December 15, 2010 at 10:42 am
“getting more than a handful of enlightened men to understand that there’s no such thing as a slut.”
.
Does that imply they should explain to men what they seek and then ask nicely for it? It does not seem that is the case as much of what I read is an attempt to shame men and call them names and make statements that women can do whatever they want and even boast about it. Was it this Jaclyn Friedman who was saying too bad and accept me? Better to use sugar and not vinegar, yes? Because it will drive men even more distant, and why alienate the objects of your desire?
