View Full Version : Morals and Sex
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-28-2007, 03:18
This idea came to me while I was browsing through the forums, and I came upon a topic where it was mentioned that the boyfriend of a women allowed another man to keep having sex with her, on the basis that he was her boyfriend before.
I would, therefore, like to ask each individual on what he values. Do you mind sharing a partner, or do you have multiple partners, or just date/have sex with one at a time? Do you think multiple partners is OK until engagement, and then it has to stop?
Personally, I prefer to wait with sex until after marriage, or at least until you have been with your partner in a romantic relationship (leading up to marriage) for a long time, say around seven years or so. After marriage, I believe one partner for life is the best solution. This halts the spread of STDs, lowers the chances of jealousy and divorce, and provides a good environment to raise your children. My girlfriend agrees with me (which is one of many reasons I have been with her for a long time and will stay with her for a long time).
Other opinions? Anybody agree or disagree?
seireikhaan
09-28-2007, 03:23
I'm a one woman kinda guy, myself. I think to each his own, but personally, I'm rather selfish, and the idea of sharing my partner(especially with an ex!) just doesn't fly with me. I probably won't wait until marriage, but I will wait until I'm pretty sure about the girl before hopping into bed with her. Granted, I could still be wrong, but I seriously doubt I'll have the patience to wait until full marriage.
Strike For The South
09-28-2007, 03:29
If you are single. sleep around what do I care. If you are in a relationship with someone you are with them. Those are my morals.
Crazed Rabbit
09-28-2007, 03:33
Monogamy. Somehow the idea of drunken sex with a stranger at some frat party doesn't appeal to me. :shrug:
CR
Not surprisingly, I like the way I did it. Be an absolute sex monkey until you're married, and then get serious about monogamy.
Strike For The South
09-28-2007, 03:36
Monogamy. Somehow the idea of drunken sex with a stranger at some frat party doesn't appeal to me. :shrug:
CR
In our defense sometimes you actually end up with the girl
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-28-2007, 03:45
Not surprisingly, I like the way I did it. Be an absolute sex monkey until you're married, and then get serious about monogamy.
What do you think about being engaged, or if you have a serious partner before marriage?
Personally, I prefer to wait with sex until after marriage, or at least until you have been with your partner in a romantic relationship (leading up to marriage) for a long time, say around seven years or so. After marriage, I believe one partner for life is the best solution. This halts the spread of STDs, lowers the chances of jealousy and divorce, and provides a good environment to raise your children. My girlfriend agrees with me (which is one of many reasons I have been with her for a long time and will stay with her for a long time).
Other opinions? Anybody agree or disagree?I agree with you. Sex isn't something that should be taken lightly or casually.
What do you think about being engaged, or if you have a serious partner before marriage?
If you're serious, then you're serious. That would extend to not having sex behind your partner's back. And engagements ought to be short, frankly. There's something distasteful about people who drag it out for twelve months or more. It's as though they're saying, "I'm gonna ... I'm gonna ... just you wait, I'm gonna ..." Fer pete's sake, just do it.
Strange fact: Most of the really good decisions I have made came from very short deliberation. Most of the real messes have come from long, considered planning. There's something to be said for jumping in with both feet.
I am good friends with a couple that maintain an open relationship. They've been married for over a decade. It works for them. I can't say I understand it, and I know it wouldn't work for me, but they seem to have it smoothed out. I guess it helps that they both date women on the side. I consider their arrangement unusual and unlikely to work for 99% of humanity, but I don't think they're particularly immoral.
CountArach
09-28-2007, 04:01
I have no problem with other people sleeping around, but I would never do it - and I would in all honesty be pissed off if my Girlfriend (Well, when I get one) slept around.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-28-2007, 04:08
If you're serious, then you're serious. That would extend to not having sex behind your partner's back. And engagements ought to be short, frankly. There's something distasteful about people who drag it out for twelve months or more. It's as though they're saying, "I'm gonna ... I'm gonna ... just you wait, I'm gonna ..." Fer pete's sake, just do it.
I agree. I always thought about three months would be a fair time, maybe a little bit longer.
Meh.
If it happens, it happens. I mean, I don't go looking for it (unless I'm in a relationship), but I would take the opportunity if it arose.
HoreTore
09-28-2007, 07:03
In our defense sometimes you actually end up with the girl
I have been with such a girl for the last 2 years now, and lived with her for 1 year...
As for the OP, I say lose that virginity as soon as it is possible. No reason whatsoever to wait IMO. And while you're single, you're single, do as many as you'd like. While you're with someone, you limit yourself to that one. But hey, if a couple likes to share each other, I won't judge...
Del Arroyo
09-28-2007, 07:29
As for the example cited by the OP, that man is not allowing her to sleep with her ex, she is simply doing whatever the hell she wants and he is just along for the ride. If he were strong, his first urge would be to kill the other guy. The best solution, of course, is never to be that big of a chump to begin with.
As far as sexual morals, I am a big believer in the double standard. Women, all other factors being equal, are undeniably more attractive when they have less sexual experience. Men must have some sexual experience to even get their foot in the door. If a man plans on meeting a woman and spending the rest of his life with her, he should first be capable of taking charge and leading the relationship. This confidence tends to come with some experience.
HoreTore
09-28-2007, 07:41
Women, all other factors being equal, are undeniably more attractive when they have less sexual experience.
I completely and utterly deny that. I'll take a girl with a new guy every other day who knows how to do things over a clumsy virgin ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.
In fact, when faced with a virgin, whether I should bother doing her at all becomes a tough question.
I want quality time for my trooper.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-28-2007, 07:42
As for the example cited by the OP, that man is not allowing her to sleep with her ex, she is simply doing whatever the hell she wants and he is just along for the ride. If he were strong, his first urge would be to kill the other guy. The best solution, of course, is never to be that big of a chump to begin with.
As far as sexual morals, I am a big believer in the double standard. Women, all other factors being equal, are undeniably more attractive when they have less sexual experience. Men must have some sexual experience to even get their foot in the door. If a man plans on meeting a woman and spending the rest of his life with her, he should first be capable of taking charge and leading the relationship. This confidence tends to come with some experience.
A man shouldn't plan on spending the rest of his life with someone who needs to be taken charge of.
Del Arroyo
09-28-2007, 09:58
HoreTore: No comment, dude.
Sasaki: I fail to see how choosing a strong, confident man as a partner would make a woman weak or unworthy.
Not surprisingly, I like the way I did it. Be an absolute sex monkey until you're married, and then get serious about monogamy.
agreed.
i am not married, but i had a great deal of fun playing the field before getting serious with the GF
Interesting thread.
Some might be interested to know that I swore not to have sex before marriage as a teenager, was sort of a religious thing etc and would take long to explain. This is still an ideal for me but then I wouldn't necessarily want to wait years before marrying a girl.
Marriages here, from what I have seen, usually also include some big party with lots of guests and cake(both kinds of cake ~;) ) where they sometimes also play some silly group games etc. well, that's those I've seen so far. Now that's a point I would probably hate, I'm freshly married and instead of having some quality time with my girl I'd have lots of funny people around me who want to play games and eat cake. :sweatdrop:
Sorry, just had to rant about this once. :laugh4:
So erm, Las Vegas marriage(though meant very serious) does appeal to me but that doesn't mean I want to exclude my friends and family either.
That said, I'm undoubtably going to think about all this again once I actually have a girlfriend so everything said here is subject to change, as always.
Strange fact: Most of the really good decisions I have made came from very short deliberation. Most of the real messes have come from long, considered planning. There's something to be said for jumping in with both feet.
I think that statement holds some truth. :2thumbsup:
Louis VI the Fat
09-28-2007, 13:08
Do you mind sharing a partner, or do you have multiple partners, or just date/have sex with one at a time? Err...yes to all of the above?
Sex is good fun most of all, people make so much out of it. Don't think so much just have fun.
Geoffrey S
09-28-2007, 14:08
I'm with Fragony (no, not in that sense...). It's fun, why be complicated when that really isn't necessary?
No ridiculous commitments, no problem. Only thing I place a lot of value on is honesty; I value my health, and don't tolerate things going on behind my back (no, not in that sense either...).
Kagemusha
09-28-2007, 14:20
Err...yes to all of the above?
The French,you cant just help but to love them.:bling:
ICantSpellDawg
09-28-2007, 14:55
monogamy. go for the virginity until marriage thing if you can, too. i couldnt. i didnt really try either, but at least i try to put if off for a little while. oh and pull out. EVERY TIME. it's a big deal and really does help with trying not to give them a bad case of stomach baby. birth control helps even more. and i dont use condoms. out of principle. i figure if i get burned in a committed relationship, it is the best way to find out. plus then i have a legal excuse to kill if the disease is bad enough and it is the heat of the moment.
Rodion Romanovich
09-28-2007, 15:13
Monogamy when in relationship = good :knuddel:
Polygamy when in relationship, after agreement on this with partner = bad :scastle: (plus it must apply to both parts in the relationship with around equal success getting other partners, of course)
Polygamy when in relationship, without agreement on this with partner = cheating = :hmg:
Ser Clegane
09-28-2007, 15:14
monogamy. go for the virginity until marriage thing if you can, too. i couldnt. i didnt really try either, but at least i try to put if off for a little while. oh and pull out. EVERY TIME. it's a big deal and really does help with trying not to give them a bad case of stomach baby. birth control helps too. and i dont use condoms. out of principle. i figure if i get burned in a committed relationship, it is the best way to find out. plus then i have a legal excuse to kill if the disease is bad enough and it is the heat of the moment.
I urge anybody who it might concern not to see "pulling out" as the primary means of birth control (unless you are feeling lucky and would not mind if your sex results in having a child) - part from that it does not really strike me as the most "fun" way of having sex :juggle2:
ICantSpellDawg
09-28-2007, 15:26
i meant pull out even when on birth control. it makes the 99.9% chance of not becoming pregnant even less likely.
plus, if you have a 99.9% chance of non-pregnancy and you have sex numerous hundred times, chances are that you may get a girl pregnant i would think. unless my statistics are off. which they probably are.
PS - i have had fun when using a condom probably 1 out of 10 times. so i say screw that. you just need to be able to last for the lady. ladys first. no problem.
Ser Clegane
09-28-2007, 15:28
i meant pull out even when on birth control.
OK - then I misunderstood you - thanks for the clarification :bow:
PS - i have had fun when using a condom probably 1 out of 10 times. so i say screw that. you just need to be able to last for the lady. ladys first. no problem.
Well a condom prolongs it but it isn't that much fun for us gents, hate these things. You could of course use a certain illegal substance that numbs the senses if you want the lady to be satisfied.
If you despise condoms, I'd like to introduce you to my good friend, monogamy. And kids are kind of fun, too.
ICantSpellDawg
09-28-2007, 15:35
Well a condom prolongs it but it isn't that much fun for us gents, hate these things. You could of course use a certain illegal substance that numbs the senses if you want the lady to be satisfied.
oh, that's not a problem. i aint no two pump chump.
8:slomo:
Innocentius
09-28-2007, 15:40
I have no morals when it comes to everything else, so I guess I don't really care about who I have sex with and why. I tend to get turned-off by people I don't like however, which narrows it down quite a bit, since I don't like... well, pretty much everyone.
oh, that's not a problem. i aint no two pump chump.
8:slomo:
Been a few occasions that a particular fine meal didn't get the time to be probably digested, rather tragic :beam:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-28-2007, 23:40
Monogamy, preferably no sex before marriage.
About long engagements. They say a relationship has to go two years before it has a real chance of lasting, so I suppose it depends when you pop the question. If you've already been together for seven years then it should probably be a day longer than it takes to actually plan the wedding.
HoreTore
09-28-2007, 23:44
preferably no sex before marriage.
Why would you want to limit yourself like that?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-28-2007, 23:49
Why would you want to limit yourself like that?
Because I'm more interested in the woman I'm with that what she can do or what she'll let me do to her.
Why are you so thickle?
HoreTore
09-29-2007, 00:33
Because I'm more interested in the woman I'm with that what she can do or what she'll let me do to her.
Why are you so thickle?
That has no relevance to why you wouldn't have sex before you get married.
I'm more interested in the woman I'm with than what she can do or what she'll let me do to her.
Hmm, can't you be genuinely interested in a woman you're dating while also being interested in what she'll let you do to her? And don't forget what she can do to you. No need to be one-sided about anything.
rotorgun
09-29-2007, 03:22
The sexual triangle that we are given as a basis for our discussion puts me in mind of an old Hank Williams tune, Long Gone Lonesome Blues.
There's a bit in the refrain that goes something like......
....She'll do me She'll do you, She's got that kind a lovin'......but now She's Long-onnenn Gone-onnenn, I've got the lonesome blues.....
Pardon the poor rendition of this classic country song, but ole' Hank could sum it up better than anyone I know.
Yup.....monogamy for me. After all, we are a separate race from Monkeys are we not?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-29-2007, 04:19
That has no relevance to why you wouldn't have sex before you get married.
I think he wants to wait, so it can be special with the one person, if you follow my meaning.
Strike For The South
09-29-2007, 06:53
Before you get to that person you have to slay a few hood rats. You dont want her to think your bad do you!
Del Arroyo
09-29-2007, 07:11
Yeah, like I said, I think it's good for girls to wait until marriage, but for guys it probably isn't feasible. And not because guys can't control themselves, either. How is a girl going to respect you if you have to wait for God's and Jesus's and your parent's permission to bang her? If you really like her and she likes you then you'll take her right here and now.
And what if she isn't a virgin but you are? In today's society if you keep to the path of chastity odds are you'll end up with some sad, used creature who needs a fall guy.
HoreTore
09-29-2007, 09:19
Btw Del Arroyo, are you promoting gay sex?
Del Arroyo
09-29-2007, 09:40
Btw Del Arroyo, are you promoting gay sex?
Gays don't figure big into my world view. They're there, for sure, but what they like or don't like doesn't really have an effect on me or the general majority of human beings, and I'd rather it stayed that way.
Well, experience doesn't necessarily mean you get better and if she really loves you she will want more than good sex from you.
Basing relationships on sex isn't really advisable IMO, I see it more as an additional benefit.
HoreTore
09-29-2007, 16:03
Well, experience doesn't necessarily mean you get better and if she really loves you she will want more than good sex from you.
Basing relationships on sex isn't really advisable IMO, I see it more as an additional benefit.
Well of course, who said otherwise? Just because you don't want to limit yourself doesn't mean that you're a sex-crazed loonie, you know...
The point is, sex is a great thing, and I really can't see any good reason for not wanting it.
Dîn-Heru
09-29-2007, 16:37
Considering the topic, I just have to ask why you have chosen your name HoreTore? (If you don't want to answer it in public, just pm me, been wondering about it for some time now)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-29-2007, 17:58
Hmm, can't you be genuinely interested in a woman you're dating while also being interested in what she'll let you do to her? And don't forget what she can do to you. No need to be one-sided about anything.
It's not that I'm not interest Lemur it's that it's so far down my list of priorieties that it doesn't figure into any decision making process in a significant way.
HoreTore, my point was very simple. I wouldn't be with a woman for sex. Sure, sex is great but if it's an important part of a relationship I think that's a bit shallow.
Anyway, if you're found the right woman for you why would you want to go off and have sex with someone else.
I know a couple of guys who broke up with girls because the girls wouldn't open their legs, it's truely pathetic.
HoreTore
09-29-2007, 21:35
Considering the topic, I just have to ask why you have chosen your name HoreTore? (If you don't want to answer it in public, just pm me, been wondering about it for some time now)
Haha!!
Actually, it's a nickname we had for the dad of a friend of mine... His name was Tore, and HoreTore just rhymes sooo good...
Anyway, if you're found the right woman for you why would you want to go off and have sex with someone else.
I don't?
I know a couple of guys who broke up with girls because the girls wouldn't open their legs, it's truely pathetic.
As I can't stand prudes, I probably would've too. Fortunately for me, that's not a very big issue on this side of the country...
Yeah, like I said, I think it's good for girls to wait until marriage, but for guys it probably isn't feasible.
Del Arroyo, are you promoting gay sex?
My brain just caught up with that exchange. Very, very funny. Excellent point, as well! If women are to remain chaste, while we men are to cavort like sex-crazed otters, the only solution is lots and lots of gay sex.
If that doesn't drive a stake through the heart of the double standard, nothing will.
Big King Sanctaphrax
09-30-2007, 03:39
Well, experience doesn't necessarily mean you get better
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. Sorry mate.
Del Arroyo
09-30-2007, 05:56
My brain just caught up with that exchange. Very, very funny. Excellent point, as well! If women are to remain chaste, while we men are to cavort like sex-crazed otters, the only solution is lots and lots of gay sex.
If that doesn't drive a stake through the heart of the double standard, nothing will.
What, do you guys think I'm making this stuff up? To cite only one example, here is how the Mexicans (in Mexico) handle it:
Practice as much as you want on table dancers, American tourists, and "bad" girls, then go find yourself a "good" girl to marry. To people from more liberal societies this may seem "messed up", but it has a certain logic-- even if you want girls to be "good", not all of them can be good; and if you have a constant external stream of unattached, drunk women flowing through your country and peaking around spring break time, well, why not?
And this is only speaking on a whole-societal level. When I say that I would prefer to marry a younger girl with less sexual experience, I am mostly speaking of my own personal goals, which if I personally choose to pursue them are more than feasible. Now, when seeking female companionship in general, there are other factors which definitely rank higher in importance; but that doesn't change my preference on this point.
Strike For The South
09-30-2007, 06:01
Becuase Mexico is what we should be shooting for in the socitey department lol. I think its funny you want were women to remain pure. You scared of someone who could give you a few pointers big guy?
Del Arroyo
09-30-2007, 06:31
I think its funny you want were women to remain pure.
This is a less than relevant misrepresentation of what I've been saying here. But if what you mean is that you'd prefer to get serious with a pregnant, chain-smoking 35-year-old who already has two kids from two other guys, then I think that is a goal you should pursue.
Kagemusha
09-30-2007, 09:16
I think that thinking that having sex make´s people somehow dirty is archaic. My opinion is that people should have sex as much they like with as many partners they want. People should just remember to be careful and use protection. To me sex is a gift that i want to enjoy and i dont see any reason to reject that gift from myself because of any weird moral issues. But then its up to each person to decide what they want to do with their bodies.
For those that think sex is not important part of relation, i would like to ask,what is the difference between friendship and relationship? I would say sex. And if the sex is not working on a relationship, it is usually over very fast.
AntiochusIII
09-30-2007, 09:31
My brain just caught up with that exchange. Very, very funny. Excellent point, as well! If women are to remain chaste, while we men are to cavort like sex-crazed otters, the only solution is lots and lots of gay sex.Or do it the Victorian way and have two classes of women, equally oppressed: the wives and the prostitutes.
Who cares about wimmin' anyway. :balloon2:
I'm surprised by the number of people in this thread insisting on no sex before marriage. I mean, wow. There's a middle ground between change-partners-weekly and complete abstinence you know.
Rodion Romanovich
09-30-2007, 09:51
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. Sorry mate.
More xp means +attack +defense and +morale which makes a big difference, but you can also upgrade your barracks and crank out better troops from start :idea:
Rodion Romanovich
09-30-2007, 09:58
I think its funny you want were women to remain pure
Maybe he, like me, prefers monogamy over getting married with both the girl and her herpes? :grin:
Though for the record I see little problem with sex before marriage, I think it's a problem with unprotected, limitless disease spreading before marriage (for both sexes). Unprotected sex first night you meet someone, for instance, should be illegal. The sad thing is that many of the party girls from high school age, when they grow up and want someone with brains instead of someone with a good supply of alcoholic beverages, they've already been infected by STDs and the sensible men who form relationships with them are hurt by these phenomena as well, even though they tried to avoid STDs by avoiding drunk, unprotected sex at a young age.
PanzerJaeger
09-30-2007, 10:17
Multiple, multiple partners for me... :dizzy2:
I can't believe how many people still do the abstinence thing. There's a special place in heaven for you guys Im sure, but do you know what your missing? And for what... to make it special? If you're the type of person who can and does find that special one, it will be special, no matter how experienced you are!
And to the whole unrealistic expectation of girls to somehow remain pure while guys should pursue sex with hookers... :wall:
Making girls out to be dirty or used after having sex is a really messed up thought process.
Look at the wonderful world of islam. :yes:
CountArach
09-30-2007, 12:31
Yeah, like I said, I think it's good for girls to wait until marriage, but for guys it probably isn't feasible.
Why the double standard?
Oh and TuffStuffMcGruff - I will never be able to look at another one of your posts without getting some of the images you have put in in this thread.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-30-2007, 13:37
Del arroyo, you have some weird views. But you seem to straw man a lot and we're obviously not going to change your mind, so I'll just leave it at that.
One thing that I'm curious about, if lots of sex with everybody is such a natural thing for some, then why use protection? Natural things usually don't require unnatural protection, do they?
Innocentius
09-30-2007, 16:50
One thing that I'm curious about, if lots of sex with everybody is such a natural thing for some, then why use protection? Natural things usually don't require unnatural protection, do they?
Think of it like this: What if you risked getting cancer every time you drank with your friends unless you wore a certain t-shirt? Sure, you might not like the look of that t-shirt, but it's better than getting cancer just from having some fun, isn't it?
Louis VI the Fat
09-30-2007, 17:21
One thing that I'm curious about, if lots of sex with everybody is such a natural thing for some, then why use protection? Natural things usually don't require unnatural protection, do they?Gah! It is unnatural to wear clothes to protect oneself against the elements too.
So I guess it is unnatural for humankind to live in Europe - we couldn't survive without putting on protective gear all the time.
Yet, somehow, I don't care and will do the very unnatural thing of putting on my rain jacket tomorrow again.
As for the double standard crowd - would you mind sticking to your own kind and not have disrespectful sex with liberated women all the time? It tends to mess up things for everybody, because women will become quite reluctant to engage in affairs if half the men they meet are secretly thinking that they are a bunch of whores.
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. Sorry mate.
Well there is such a thing such as sexual compatibility, just like there is in talking.
ps, always let her take initiativie first time then you at least have a sense of direction
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-30-2007, 22:41
For those that think sex is not important part of relation, i would like to ask,what is the difference between friendship and relationship? I would say sex. And if the sex is not working on a relationship, it is usually over very fast.
Good first point but the second bit is backwards. You know we have a problem with guys over here taking Viagra when their relationship is going down the toilet because they think if they can go longer the sex will get better and everything will be fine.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-30-2007, 22:42
HoreTore, here's a question for you:
Which is sexier, a clothed woman or a naked one.
Kagemusha
09-30-2007, 22:46
Good first point but the second bit is backwards. You know we have a problem with guys over here taking Viagra when their relationship is going down the toilet because they think if they can go longer the sex will get better and everything will be fine.
Well in humble point of view, sex is lot more then whether man is capable of sex in the first place or not. I think that the ability or lack of ability for having sex is not the only reason some couples have problems in their sex life.:no:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-30-2007, 22:48
Well in humble point of view, sex is lot more then whether man is capable of sex in the first place or not. I think that the ability or lack of ability for having sex is not the only reason some couples have problems in their sex life.:no:
Exactly, and in general the sex is bad when the relationship is bad, not the other way around.
Kagemusha
09-30-2007, 22:58
Exactly, and in general the sex is bad when the relationship is bad, not the other way around.
No it can be either also other way around . In some relationships sex can be great,while there are problems in other parts of the relationship, in other cases it can be the opposite. Im not in any way saying that having great sex will cure other problems in a relationship, but also if its not working between two people after trying hard to fix the problem. There usually is not great future for the relationship ahead. Ofcourse to different individuals,different things matter more, so there is no universal truth in these issues, since all people are different and have individual things that are important for them.
Del Arroyo
10-01-2007, 14:06
As for the double standard crowd - would you mind sticking to your own kind and not have disrespectful sex with liberated women all the time? It tends to mess up things for everybody, because women will become quite reluctant to engage in affairs if half the men they meet are secretly thinking that they are a bunch of whores.
Well, neither of us plan on staying with her, so from her perspective what's the difference?
The difference between us is not that either of us disrespect loose women-- I do not have this luxury, whether I want to sleep with them or not. The difference is that I respect virtuous women more.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-01-2007, 21:49
The difference is that I respect virtuous women more.
Prescisely. To me, this raises the question: How many people here would try to get a woman that they knew was in a relationship? Let's say she was drunk, or perhaps just a slut? What if you were friends with her significant other? How would it change things?
AntiochusIII
10-01-2007, 22:33
The difference is that I respect virtuous women more.No, the difference is that you claim that men are better (more appealing etc.) if they are experienced, while women are better if they're completely inexperienced virgins.
It's a 1+0 = 2 equation. That doesn't follow. Somebody has to have sex with you then to add another 1 into the equation and give you the needed exp points, and that somebody will be subsequently regarded by you as - pardon the vulgarity of the word, but I think it is appropriate in the context of the expression here - a whore; because, you know, she sleeps with you before marriage...
This kind of attitude is extremely damaging to any pretensions of equality between the sexes.
Why the double standard?
Because the double standard is natural. Most women get one shot at making a single baby per month. For females it's about getting sperm from a quality donor to fertilize her single egg. If a female exhibits poor judgment and/or shows a general lack of discrimination regarding who gets the green light to have sex with her she runs the risk of alienating males who fear that when she does get pregnant, the child she bears may not be their own. The overwhelming majority of men shy away from raising another man's offspring because it puts their own shot at genetic immortality at risk.
On the other hand the average man has the potential to father millions of babies from a single dose of ejaculate. Not that he actually will but it's a telling thing that the potential is there. Meaning males are, by design, less discriminant about who gets to father their children. For males more is better because that means your likelihood of success increases with every conquest. Not that the average male isn't inclined to settle down, because the act of doing so is the ultimate expression of a man's desires to see his offspring survive and thrive. Females that are judged to be trustworthy and make good mothers are deemed to be worth far more than females who give up the goods to anybody with a nice smile, broad shoulders and a good tailor.
Interestingly enough the double standard is also strongly promoted by women. Take note of how little women, even those made of 'strong moral fiber', seem to care about how many sexual partners a prospective mate might have had before her. Does it mean women are, by design, morally superior to men? Not at all. So long as a woman believes that a desirable suitor is going to settle down with her and treat their offspring properly then his sexual history with competing females isn't that important. Not to mention the fact that a male with a considerable sexual history is actually considered to be more desirable than one with little to none at all... Why? Because numerous other females have deemed him to be worthy enough to give him the green light! Also try to take into account that the act of getting a human male to settle down is far more significant than when a human female does so since the average male's reproductive capabilities are not limited by their biology as females are.
In the evolutionary scheme of things human males are mainly concerned with quantity, females with quality. Thus the double standard.
Simply because we can envision and, to a degree, practise cultural phenomenons like gender equality it doesn't mean it's natural or for that matter 'right'.
Wow, there are a ton of :laugh4: posts in this thread.
Personally, I believe in monogamy when in a relationship. If someone wants to get out and sample the platter more, then fine, just not when dating me. That was my view and it worked out fine, in fact it prevented me from getting into relationships with a few girls that most likely would have ended very poorly, given how they behaved later in life.
As for abstinence, I think it's got both good points and bad. For starters, I don't/didn't believe in waiting until marriage, because in my former christian life, the reasons given were archaic and rather pointless, which my experiences justified. However, I DO believe that casual sex is often dangerous/risky and I personally view that with negative connotations. I guess everyone has their "limits" on what they view as acceptable in a potential life partner and their past number of sexual partners. As for the "don't ask, don't tell" on that subject, that's bull and a cop-out.
Also, being in a relationship just for the sex can be fun. :sweatdrop: It just gets old after a bit. Can safely say I'm glad I did it, because I learned a few things about myself and relationships, and uh... other things too. And I dunno about ya'll, but sometimes those weekend long binges can actually become painful after a point.
:balloon2:
Rodion Romanovich
10-02-2007, 18:11
Because the double standard is natural. Most women get one shot at making a single baby per month. For females it's about getting sperm from a quality donor to fertilize her single egg. If a female exhibits poor judgment and/or shows a general lack of discrimination regarding who gets the green light to have sex with her she runs the risk of alienating males who fear that when she does get pregnant, the child she bears may not be their own. The overwhelming majority of men shy away from raising another man's offspring because it puts their own shot at genetic immortality at risk.
On the other hand the average man has the potential to father millions of babies from a single dose of ejaculate. Not that he actually will but it's a telling thing that the potential is there. Meaning males are, by design, less discriminant about who gets to father their children.
I'm afraid you're very narrow-sighted and incorrect here. If the offspring quality is undermined, it hurts the men of a herd as much as it hurts the women, to begin with. The males, too, therefore have a need for instincts that helps them make good partner choices, given that there's a lot of work competing with the other males for rights to too many partners, and that the expected utility of the outcome mustn't be too biased towards short term Nash equilibria and away from long term Pareto optimal decisions. It's essentially a pretty straightforward version of the Prisoner's dilemma.
In fact, to take a practical example, in many animal species the entire partner choice mechanism is solved by the males forming an agreement on which male gets which woman, established by rank fights, and the woman then simply has sex with the man that, according to the general consensus of the males, was chosen to have her, and she has no further influence on that matter. The female then needs no capability of choosing a good partner, but only an ability to signal when she's fertile. So, the female chooses (though questionable how mind-controlled this "choice" is) when to have sex, the males choose with whom (naturally, this too may be more of an instinctive than a mind-controlled, deliberate choice, to be honest). NOTE: ONLY the men do the partner choice in such a system! Another method is used by for example the bonobos, where the females have a larger impact on partner choice. There, it's reasonable to assume that women too have a decent instinctive capability of partner choice.
Of our nearest relatives, the common chimps use something more like the former method, and the bonobos something more like the latter, so I don't think there's any acceptable biological motivation to stating that either men or women should be more instinctively prone to or more biologically justified to follow double standards than the other sex. About whether we're like bonbobs or common chimps in this aspect, everything suggests we're in the middle of them, but we have no conclusive argument for stating that we would be closer to one of them than the other. Among the motivations for us being in the middle (as opposed to being at either extreme), I can mention two things: 1. we still have rank fight instincts and similar among men, 2. females experience mental suffering from involuntary sex with a partner she doesn't want. The existence of mental suffering in a particular unwanted state often implies a capability of avoiding (and instinct to try and do so) such a state (because pain/fear is the driver of acting in all animal behavior). This means women must have a not at all completely insignificant influence on partner choice in our biological pre-civilization state. However, involuntary states causing pain may also occur as an effect of the pain developing for other reasons, even though the individual has little capability of avoiding it (but if you think carefully, it's difficult to find any example at all of a pain/fear which would occur in a particular situation in pre-civilization society, without you being capable of choosing some type of action to avoid the stage with a probability larger than 0 - in fact, I still haven't found any such example! And the rule that pain often suggests an ability to avoid it, is further motivated by the fact that in animals who leave partner choosing to the males exclusively, the females don't experience mental pain during mating, because they don't need to, or benefit from, avoiding such a situation...).
Now, I'll try to make an informal mathematical/economical argumentation to further explain why males choosing quality matches over quantity of matches are beneficial for the individual male: After a few generations, some males who try to have as many partners as possible at the cost of undermined genetical quality of the offspring, will often be weaker than those males who took great care to only have sex with partners that were good matches. For example say one who goes for quantity has sex with 10 partners, and only 1 is a perfect match, while those who go for quality go for 2, both of which are perfect matches. Even after just one generation, the one striving for good matches may actually be considered more successful. Then, you may think, why not increase the quantity of the quantity-type of guy? Well, if he increases even more, he may cause inbreeding and kill the entire herd. Moreover, quality-seeker men will also benefit from developing instincts to bully or murder the quantity-type guys to defend themselves from such inbreeding-causers who threaten to destroy the entire herd, to be able to remove them from the gene pool before they have had time to cause inbreeding. So, will the quantity-only guys really benefit in the end? No, quality is more important! Quantity AND quality is even greater, BUT if you get too successful in terms of [I]number of partners, it will be too important for the survival of the others to kill or sabotage for you, that you won't be very successful then either! The optimal choice is usually to go for quality, and a moderate (only slightly over average) quantity.
Now, naturally since it's not illegal to have say 1000 partners in today's society, and globalization and movement of people provides (at least temporary) solution from inbreeding (but a long term anti-solution to it, because it in the short term breeds persons with genes prone to increasing the inbreeding level by favoring the quantity instead of quality strategy), going for quantity will become increasingly successful strategy if we keep living in the current type of civilization, unless someone saves us from this horrible, self-destructive thing called civilization.
Finally, let me again as so many times before point out the importance of herd evolution as opposed to evolution by an individual's genetical survival being granted, by a few examples:
1. if two of your brothers survive to have offspring, but you don't, it may leave the world with a gene pool containing more of your genes, than if both your brothers die and you survive to have offspring. This can be extended to "your relatives", or, in the ultra-long term even: "your species".
2. for a lot of herd animals, higher average expected utility over all individuals in the herd matters more than utility of the individual. Superherds in wildebeest for instance may cross a river and have 500 dead individuals (to crocodiles, drowning and trampling), yet the entire herd takes advantage of this crossing as it takes all of the survivors to an area where there's better supply of food than in the area they left. The individuals have evolved to keep doing the seemingly stupid (if you only think in terms of the survival of the individual) thing to cross the river with the risk of dying as individual, instead of staying. Compare this with soldiers in war: an army where one soldier is ready to sacrifice himself to throw a grenade into a bunker which would otherwise kill 10 of his mates, is a far more effective army than one where each individual thinks only of his own survival (personal utility), rather than on maximizing average utility of his regiment.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-02-2007, 18:13
@spino
If we've evolved to be that way how come the number of people who believe in such a double standard has declined drastically within the past couple generations? Our genes can't change that fast. Come on, at least think about it. Jesus.
Not that the average male isn't inclined to settle down, because the act of doing so is the ultimate expression of a man's desires to see his offspring survive and thrive.
...
In the evolutionary scheme of things human males are mainly concerned with quantity
If it's all about the quantity then why do they settle down?
Take note of how little women, even those made of 'strong moral fiber', seem to care about how many sexual partners a prospective mate might have had before her.
...
Not to mention the fact that a male with a considerable sexual history is actually considered to be more desirable than one with little to none at all...
I mean, come on.
I am personally a monogamist, simply because I'm naturally jealous and could never share my wife, but I do not care what other people do. I had married friends who had a live-in girlfriend that joined them both in bed regularly. They also would regularly sleep with other people, and had a rule that the other partner had to approve the third party before the sex could occur. It worked for them for a long time, though they are currently going through a divorce for unrelated reasons. The only thing that matters to me is that both partners truly agree with whatever setup they are in. If you don't want to be monogamous, that's fine, but make sure your partner is okay with it beforehand.
I would also never marry a person I hadn't slept with or lived with before. Sex and harmonious cohabitation are so incredibly important in a marriage that to leave either one as an unknown is just asking for trouble. If you wait for sex until your wedding night, you might find out that you are sexually incompatible. That almost guarantees a divorce or an unhappy marriage. My wife was a virgin when we met and it was a major negative in my initial impression of her. She herself has since said that she wished she had slept with other people before she met me. She grew up in a relatively conservative household and was taught that sex outside of marriage was a bad thing and that men would not respect her or want to marry her if she did it. That had a very negative impact on her dating life before she met me and if things had been different she probably would have enjoyed those years a lot more.
Goofball
10-02-2007, 19:05
It's not that I'm not interest Lemur it's that it's so far down my list of priorieties that it doesn't figure into any decision making process in a significant way.
HoreTore, my point was very simple. I wouldn't be with a woman for sex. Sure, sex is great but if it's an important part of a relationship I think that's a bit shallow.
As any marriage counsellor in the world will tell you, sex is an extremely important part of any marriage.
Quite honestly, if you really feel sex is that unimportant in a relationship, I despair of you chances for long-term relationship success, unless you happen to end up with a woman who simply doesn't enjoy sex.
Anyway, if you're found the right woman for you why would you want to go off and have sex with someone else.
I know a couple of guys who broke up with girls because the girls wouldn't open their legs, it's truely pathetic.
Not pathetic at all. If their views on sex are that different (i.e. he wants to have it, and she doesn't), then they are really not a compatable couple, and breaking up really is for the best.
It's no different (other than it's perhaps more sensible) than breaking up for any other paucity of mutual interests.
If you were a rugged, outdoorsey type who wanted to spend all of your free time mountain biking, camping, and rock climbing, would you stay with a "princess" who wanted to spend all of your time together shopping, clubbing, and eating out?
Rodion Romanovich
10-02-2007, 19:08
One thing that I'm curious about, if lots of sex with everybody is such a natural thing for some, then why use protection? Natural things usually don't require unnatural protection, do they?
It is not natural to, by globalization, spread any STD that may arise in one part of the world to every other corner of it, then once having achieved this, make sure massive local promiscuity spreads it to almost everyone in each such local area. I think that in nature, perhaps, a lot of entire herds would become extinct if they'd spread too much disease. Which is another reason for limiting promiscuity. By the way, I don't believe any scientific studies have shown any animal (other than humans) that practises total promiscuity, but rather from what I understand they practise restricted promiscuity with informal limits on how many partners, and it's not like they try as hard as they can to create a link of sexual intercoarses between every pair of individuals so that everyone will get a disease once it has been acquired by one of them. On the contrary there seem to be two types: 1. those that have one male for many women (like lions), or 2. those that have equal promiscuity of the sexes, but with restriction on number of partners (bonobos etc). Promiscuity is incredibly dangerous unless it's limited in the correct spots and controlled in a clever and responsible way, as instincts can do, but human reasoning can not. Perhaps, monogamy is the only thing the human brain with its limited intellect is capable of handling properly without spreading epidemias like crazy?
So: protection from these dangerous diseases is needed, because we live in civilization, not nature
@spino
If we've evolved to be that way how come the number of people who believe in such a double standard has declined drastically within the past couple generations? Our genes can't change that fast. Come on, at least think about it. Jesus.
Well it's your opinion that the double standard is in decline and it's a very western-centric, post-war generation view of life. And yet despite the lip service given to denouncing said double standard it seems to be going strong. Even in midst of a politically correct culture and society it's not uncommon to hear the term 'slut' or 'stud' used in everyday vernacular. I see the double standard going strong on TV shows, music videos, books, movies, etc. Whatever conscious disdain people may have for the double standard they're still making the same judgment calls about sexual behavior that their ancestors did countless generations ago. Rather than look at the limited view a single life living in a particular type of culture can offer take into account of the entire human populace, its experiences and the history of our species into account. Don't confuse fleeting and/or shifting cultural trends for the whole experience.
If it's all about the quantity then why do they settle down?
I mean, come on.
Please re-read my post. I wrote that settling down ensures that the male's offspring will have the best chance of survival and success. However to maximize one's reproductive potential reproducing with less selective females with no long term strategy (i.e. 'settling down') also works to a male's advantage. On the cellular level the end goal is reproduction, getting those genes into the next generation. By design, males simply aren't as strongly hardwired for monogamy as females. Please explain why men are obsessed with the numerical values regarding their conquests? X number of women in Y number of days/weeks/years. You never hear women bragging or carrying on about such things, when they do it's usually to recount a specific relationship or experiences with select male(s) that best exemplify what they would consider to be 'alpha' material. Good old Genghis Khan is a classic example of the male quantity model applied. Apparently Genghis really got around, so much so that he fathered more children than any other man known to history. Even though his reproductive strategy might have taken into account nothing more than a woman's looks and availability he ultimately succeeded in 'spreading his seed' and getting his DNA into the next generation like no man before him. As a result of his countless conquests the chances that his bloodline will die out are much lower than those of a man who only fathers a few children with one woman. And yet Genghis also 'settled down' to get married... with numerous wives. Did Genghis have legitimate children who were raised with all the advantages enjoyed by your typical 'monogamous' couple? Absolutely.
I'm afraid you're very narrow-sighted and incorrect here. If the offspring quality is undermined, it hurts the men of a herd as much as it hurts the women, to begin with. The males therefore also have a need for instincts that helps them make good partner choices, given that there's a lot of work competing with the other males for rights to too many partners, and that the expected utility of the outcome mustn't be too biased towards short term Nash equilibria and away from long term Pareto optimal decisions. In fact, in many animal species the entire partner choice mechanism is solved by the males forming an agreement on which male gets which woman, established by rank fights, and the women then simply have sex with the man that, according to the general consensus of the males, was chosen to have her. The woman then needs no capability of choosing a good partner, but only an ability to signal when she's fertile. So, the female chooses when to have sex, the males choose with whom. Another method is used by for example the bonobos, where the females have a larger impact on partner choice as well.
Of our nearest relatives, the common chimps do the former and the bonobos the latter, so I don't think there's any acceptable biological motivation to saying that either men or women should be more instinctively prone to or more biologically justified to follow double standards than the other sex.
You make strong points but nothing I wrote said that males did not exhibit selectivity. The fact that most males prefer to settle down with sexually selective females is proof that males do make qualitatively based decisions. Regarding humans nothing about our behavior is cut and dry however we do possess a general template for behavior which affects everything we do.
As much as I'd love to take credit for what I wrote most of it did not spring forth from my own observations about life or the nature of our species. The bulk of my post came straight from the pages of evolutionary psychology....
Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal"
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4509760-9033767?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191346128&sr=8-1
Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene"
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4509760-9033767?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191346288&sr=1-1
Blodrast
10-02-2007, 23:21
Very interesting thoughts/ideas, Spino and Rodion Romanovich. I like the turn that the thread has taken, I find it very interesting. Thank you for your contributions (however strange that may sound, I actually mean it). :bow:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-02-2007, 23:38
The point is spino, there's absolutely no reason to assume we evolved to perform in an "ideal" manner as far as spreading our genes. Sure, a male who had a trait of having sex with as many women as possible and passed on that trait to a bunch of his kids would spread it through out the population. But you don't know that such a person ever existed. Women would spread their genes more if they could have 20 babies a year but we didn't evolve that way.
Secondly, the ideal nature of your proposed strategy is questionable. If you live in a small community and start impregnating all the women, one of the other guys will get pissed at you and possibly kill you. If they are all trying to do the same thing fights will start. Another thing, infant mortality was insanely high. I don't remember the number, but you were very lucky to get a kid to grow up to be an adult. That's the reason people are monogamous as far as having kids goes. You can't take care of that many children adequately.
And no matter how accurate your evolutionary argument is (it could be 100% accurate) it's not a valid reason for supporting a double standard. We evolved to stereotype, but racism is undeniably wrong.
You also have to be really careful trying to distinguish genetic evolution and cultural evolution. The double standard originated because it was important to know who was the heir...bastards by the father are easy to distinguish, bastards by the mother aren't. But it's only relatively recently that we've had a civilized enough society to have heirs, and I don't think we've evolved much biologically in that time. It was important that a wife be a virgin when wed so that there would be no question when the baby was born. So the double standard was merely a social construct created to prevent fights over who inherited the possessions and there is no reason to hold to it today. We have birth control and paternity tests, and our laws of inheritance are different.
And it's not my "opinion" that people don't believe in the double standard as much as they used too. I remember my mother telling my that her father was very upset with her for living with my father before they got married ("living in sin" he called it). Nowadays that's expected. Many of the people in this thread disagree with the double standard. You claim it's still going strong in society (I've met very few people who believe in it personally) but that's irrelevant. There's a significant percentage of people who don't, and humans just don't evolve that fast.
Banquo's Ghost
10-03-2007, 14:10
Tangentially, there is an article in the Independent today on Prof Bryan Sykes (http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3022246.ece) which contains a reference to his work on the genetic links between people with the same surname.
It had been thought that infidelity over time would weaken the relationship to a negligible level, but his research shows that there is in fact a strong correlation - and that therefore infidelity may be much rarer than might be expected.
In the 1980s, Sykes' career shifted from medical doctor to work normally associated with genealogists. "We were analysing large families, and found it was common to discover children who could not – due to the genetics – be the children of the people involved," he says. "We talked about the idea of whether people who have the same name have the same Y-chromosome. But we thought, 'Of course they won't,' because illegitimacy must have been greater in the past."
If Y-chromosomes were "spread" through infidelity and sons born out of wedlock, it would cause diversity in surnames attached to specific Y-chromosomes, he explained. Scientific thought at the time suggested that such infidelities over time would ultimately mean little linkage between Y-chromosomes and surnames. However, by tracing his relationship to another prominent academic – Sir Richard Sykes, the rector of Imperial College – Bryan Sykes deduced that this was not the case.
"Richard and myself were genetically related," he says. He met the other Sykeses at a conference, and decided to test his theories. "Of the other Sykeses that exist, 70 per cent have the same Y-chromosome." The infidelity rate to get this result was 1.3 per cent per generation, which is lower than levels seen today.
Worth reading the whole thing.
It is worth noting that this result is not really valid since it seems to assume that every instance of infidelity resulted in a child who survived to procreate. Given that high morality rates amongst the poor for most of human history, and the fact that not every sex act results in a child, the 1.3% figure seems to be highly inaccurate. It's possible that the study took these things into account as well, but if it did the article doesn't say so.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.