I’d have to go with Foxy40; they’re not high, just eccentric. To each her own and all, but let’s not make a virtue out of something that is a rather silly prejudice for a man or a woman to have.
Just stay away from the guys who wear khaki pants and a button-down dress shirt with no tie. Business-casual sex is right out.
What’s a guy who looks great in jeans to do? If I can’t bring my ass into play I might as well concede.
I actually was going to post in this thread, and offer some thoughts, but it’s obvious that you feel superior in your standards.
I was into casual sex during a period of my life, but an not not. However, I have nothing to say to someone who is judgemental.
Heh, I have always found this fascinating and women totally floored by the idea that holding up the sex carrot is not always going to get me to jump through a bunch of hoops. If all I want is sex…I would go find it. If all you have is sex and expect me to be so thrilled that you finally had sex with me that I would ignore that you have no real life skills, job, education, common interests besides sex, intelligence, etc.
Yes. As someone very eloquently stated in the “If I Fuck More Than Ten Guys I’m A Slut” thread a few days ago, penises and vaginas do not become inherently less valuable with use. Implying that seeking men who don’t wish to engage in (what you term) casual sex is somehow a “higher” standard rather than a merely different one speaks volumes about your prejudices.
May I defend those guys who are not social misfits but who always liked girls who had a boyfriend elsewhere? (And it was not an excuse, in several cases they actually met the boyfriend)
I don’t know why women don’t get that. There are so many single women out there who have nothing going on except their interest in landing a man to take care of them.
There’s a million girls out there. It shouldn’t be too hard to find one who doesn’t have a boyfriend.
Quoted for Truth…
It seems almost like the implicit assumption is, in the end, many females who “hold out”, do so because they think they’re somehow manipulating or having the guy prove something by pursuing sex, as if no matter what, that’s what the guy is after. News flash, when I get in to a relationship, it’s for the person involved, not because if I do so I can finally put it in at the end of the night. Sex is, really, what I’m LEAST concerned about, insofar as forming a lasting relationship. That’s not to say it can’t be important, and sex with a deep emotional attachment is better than a one off for sure, but I’m far more concerned about finding a partner for reasons of personality, intellect, and overall worth than finally being able to score again.
ETA: and that’s why I’m concerned about the personality of people who are so hung up about sex, because it seems like they’re placing too much emphasis on the wrong parts of the relationship
My question is why would you specify that you want a man who isn’t into casual sex? Does it really matter that much? Unless he’s also a rapist, he won’t have sex with you casually if you don’t want him to. Does it matter to you what he’s done with other women before you were with him?
I want someone with similar values. It does matter very much to me. Someone’s sexual history is important to me. Though several respondents in this thread have called me “eccentric” :rolleyes: and ironically judged me as “judgmental” 
though logically it makes no sense since everyone has standards that are subjective. I don’t want to waste much time on bitter guys like that. I think everyone or most everyone cares about their partner’s sexual history. For example I think most guys would not want to marry someone who was a former prostitute (how judgmental of them to not want to be with someone who’s fucked thousands of guys, how eccentric). Some people unnecessarily take it personally to know that someone would not accept them for their sexual history.
Well, asuuming that she’s disease free and faithful to me, that just means she’s more skilled. Goody for me! As long as the past stays in the past it really doesn’t matter.
The bad part is when the trauma that caused those actions is still there. Its not the past actions that are promblematic but the mindset that still remains.
You mean you are judging her on having some trauma–how judgmental of you! How eccentric of you! Of course I write this sarcastically. Sex is never just sex.
If my partner is clean, meshes well with my personality, and enjoys our sexual relationship, regardless of how many partners she’s had before, it’s a worthy relationship. To compare “casual sex” to “former prostitute” is ridiculous. “prostitution” clearly does not count as “casual sex”, and arguing an extreme doesn’t make you look any better. It’s not like we’re advocating that everybody sleep with everybody, or that sleeping around as much as possible is even a DESIRABLE trait, per se, what (I at least, and it appears others), are concerned about is that you have such a hangup about sex at all (read my posts above).
In particular, the fact that something that most of us judge to be comparatively trivial (most people’s sexual histories aren’t that extensive, even if they ARE “in to casual sex”<which you’ve still left quite ambiguous>) is a make-or-break criterion is what’s causing the discussion.
ETA: you’re comparing apples and oranges. In particular, somebody having the mindset of prostitution during the sex act is COMPLETELY different from the fact that they may have USED to have that mindset. A prostitute views sex a business transaction, which may produce detachment and emotionally unfulfilling sex, whereas an ex-prostitute who is now your lover won’t
The OP lost my support as well.
I realize that “Casual Sex” is a fraught and as-yet undefined term. Still, let’s say that humans in the dating pool are either CS or NCS. (This is too simple, but since we haven’t defined CS I’m not going to subdivide it further.)
Let’s make another gross generalization and say that CS males would rather avoid NCS females. Cite. 
A CS male would like to have sex and would rather not waste resources on a female who will not provide it. Very understandable. I wouldn’t condemn the CS male for being upfront about his preferences and “weeding out” the NCS females so as to conserve his resources.
Instead, this threads posits an NCS female who would like to weed out CS males. Some posters understand the logic: it conserves her resources and incidentally saves CS males from some frustration.
Some other posters are insulted that anyone would like to weed out CS males from the dating pool. This leads to veiled insults for NCS males who must certainly be social rejects and condescension for the NCS female who is odd enough to prefer NCS males and brazen enough to express that preference.
Speaking just for myself, “Huh?”
Speaking for myself and myself only (a seeming rarity in this thread!), the only brazenness that’s grating on me is the OP’s continued insistence on referring to her “high” standards, as if there’s something innately superior about being more restrictive in your choice of sex partners.
Well, I’m not and never really have been a “casual sex” kind of guy. I’ve historically always been a long-term relationship kind of guy. However, like many adults, I have had casual experiences, fun romps where there were no expectations of anything more.
I’ve never actively sought out casual sex, and don’t consider myself to be the casual type. So I don’t feel particularly insulted, but somewhere around the start of page two, the OP started taking on a condescending tone of superiority that I find objectionable. It’s one thing to say “I’m looking for commitment. I don’t want to meet a player. I want to meet Mr. Right and these are the criteria I’m looking for.” It’s another when you say “I have high standards” then you are broadly painting a lot of people with a coat of bad attitude.
I have standards when it comes to looking for a partner. I’m not going to tell someone that my standards are any better than theirs, they’re just different.
The thread has also become a bit stupid with suggestions like “find a guy that has sexual hang-ups”. Puh-lease! Just because I’ll turn down a one night stand, doesn’t mean I have “issues”, it means I’m looking for more than what I was offered.
The problem is that you’re supposing wrong, and there is no such arbitrary division, which is also what’s wrong with the OP.
Now, GIVEN what you say is true, than by all means, I see your point. The problem is, and what most of us who aren’t hurling random snark in to the thread (not you), are trying to say, is that this generalization CAN’T be made.
Wow. My slutty brain just had a little slutty stroke. What the HELL are you gibbering about. First of all, there are SO MANY times when sex is just sex. Especially if you never see the person again because they said something really bizarre in the boudoir (true story) And comparing a man not wanting to marry a prostitute and a man not wanting to marry Prudy McJudgerton is insane.
In Slutsylvania (from which our OP would be immediately deported) we look down on prostitutes because they expect cash (or cocaine) in exchange for something we all can do and enjoy. Its the lowest level in terms of job skill. Dogs do it to people’s legs. Also, they arent as clever as the rest of us who have sex for things like jewelry, fancy dinners, christian louboutin shoes, and la perla.
I do not think “most” people want this. Indeed it is usually considered bad form to start questioning your partner’s past sex life as usually nothing good can come of it. Not only can little good come of it I cannot see a useful purpose it achieves.
If you meet someone you deal with them as they are today. You can judge their character and if you like what you see great! I do not want to know a woman I am with was a former prostitute. I want to know that she loves me and is committed to me in the here and now and that we get along well and have good times. Busting her chops for decisions she made long ago serves no purpose.