I learned so much about sex today (sorry, kinda long)

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

  1. Yes, I do. If a girl is reasonably attractive and I like her personality and she has recently arrived from the parallel universe where I’m a sex idol (hey, don’t laugh, physics can be weird), we may end up engaging in various clothing-optional activities. But as far as relationships are concerned, I’m not currently looking for one, since all that energy is being channeled into my narcissism, and even then, it’s not enough.

  2. No. But of course I support the measured use of the ducking stool for those goodwives who have of late neglected their God-given butter-churning and offspring-bearing duties.

  3. Not applicable because I don’t have a significant other. But it makes sense that certain standards of decorum apply in small (non-orgy) group settings that don’t in sexual/romantic situations.

Perhaps. But there are plenty of non-pigs with girlfriends as well. And non-pigs with pig girlfriends (Kermit the Frog comes to mind). I find that if you look at the types of people who are in relationships and compare them with single people, there isn’t much of a difference. Which proves that human attraction is a pretty arbitrary thing. So don’t feel bad about your lack of experience.

22

I’ve had sex with people with whom I did not want any kind of relationship…but damn they were hot. But, 4 years later I could still tell you their names, and the names of their siblings. Which means that it falls into the casual, but respectful one night stand. Never treat people as objects, it’s not right.

Had a friend I liked a lot, was attracted to, slept with, but knew that I didn’t love. Stopped the sex, sadly it also stopped the friendship.

Slept with someone, realised we had a connection, fell in love, marrying him next September.

I think it’s a bad idea to sleep with someone you don’t respect, or actively dislike. But there is nothing wrong with a good old-ashined one-night-stand, where you both no what you’re doing, and no one gets hurt.

23

1) Do you differentiate between relationship potentials and fuck-buddies? If so, how?
I don’t have fuck buddies. I’m just not that kind of girl.

2) Do any of you actually believe that it’s the woman’s place to be “pure” and reject advances; otherwise she is the skanky one, regardless of how many partners the male has had?
A woman has as much right to sleep around as a man.

3) Do any of you act drastically different when around friends than SOs? (I.e. Guy being sweet and cuddly when alone with a girlfriend vs. acting embarrassed and like a jerk when the girlfriend tries to act that way when his “guy friends” are hanging around)
I act pretty much the same around my friends as I do with my SO.

24

In spite of all “modern” progress to the contrary, your friend’s attitude is perfectly sound evolutionary psychology.

25

Isn’t it also a good evolutionary strategy to provide a stable relationship for a stable family life?

It’s a bleak conjecture, but maybe some males are directed to impregnate lots of women, and have other men actually raise the children.

_
_

26

I hope Soapbox Monkey finds that pure Christian virgin he’s looking for, because most other women are going to fall below his judgmental standards. :rolleyes:

A man can be a skank the same as a woman can be a skank. And, believe it or not, your “number” can be up there and you aren’t necessarily a skank. Some of us live it up in our single years, taking care along the way, not hurting anyone, and have a great time. Some of us stay single longer than others and that magic number increases over time.

Then once we wild chicks finally decide to settle down, that’s it. We are just as able to have a committed relationship when we choose to do so and it only bodes well for our mates that we have the experience necessary to satisfy.

Women are more than just virgins or sluts, there are all kinds of in-betweens.

27

Well I certainly don’t want to end up with a girl who’s got your attitude. :rolleyes:

Funny you should make a point like this, because I was actually considering bringing it up. Up until not to long ago, I couldn’t quite understand why so many people would say "Why would I need a relationship, I loooooove being single. :smiley: " and I would think…but what do you do for that lack of contact from the opposite sex? :smack:

I didn’t realize that most of those “single” people were living it up by sleeping around in relationships that were all about sex. I just never considered something like that to be “single living.”

And you know what? I admit that I would not want to date a woman who has slept around outside of serious relationships. It’s not a decision I can defend, and I shouldn’t have to. It’s just my own personal decision. It’s really no different than me choosing not to be with a girl because she is a heavy drinker or drug user.

28

FWIW, I’m a 33-year-old female. Never been married, only been in a few serious relationships. Definitely not a virgin. Draw your own conclusions.

1) Do you differentiate between relationship potentials and fuck-buddies? If so, how?

There are all kinds of sex: with a fuck buddy, with a one-night-stand, with a significant other, with the guy you met at that party and his friend with the really big. . .

But I digress. :smiley:

Yes, I differentiate, largely the same way that’s been mentioned before: there are friends you’ll screw and friends you’ll date, and if you are very, very lucky will you have a friend (or two) who is both. :slight_smile:

2) Do any of you actually believe that it’s the woman’s place to be “pure” and reject advances; otherwise she is the skanky one, regardless of how many partners the male has had?

I think Cisco gave a great answer to this question: “Try to get away from thinking that the number of partners is relevant.” It’s how you treat the people you’ve slept with, not how many people you’ve slept with.

3) Do any of you act drastically different when around friends than SOs? (I.e. Guy being sweet and cuddly when alone with a girlfriend vs. acting embarrassed and like a jerk when the girlfriend tries to act that way when his “guy friends” are hanging around)

In this case I’m with Jonathan Chance: “Sounds like a maturity issue to me.” Acting differently around friends vs. your SO is behaviour that most people outgrow – or should outgrow, IMO – by the time they’re old enough to drink.

Seems like you think that “single” and “celibate” are synonyms. It’s fine if that’s what works for you, and you’re right that you’re entitled to your own opinion/preference, but you should watch that tendency to assume that others have the same narrow definition. It can come across as a little judgemental, even though it doesn’t seem like that’s your intent.

29

23-year-old gay male, had a few serious relationships and lots of sex partners, genderqueer- and slut-identified.

1) Do you differentiate between relationship potentials and fuck-buddies? If so, how?

No. Who I fuck has to do much more with how hot we think each other is than our relationship potential. That’s more emotional. I’m way more stringent about relationships than fucking.

2) Do any of you actually believe that it’s the woman’s place to be “pure” and reject advances; otherwise she is the skanky one, regardless of how many partners the male has had?

I don’t even know where to begin with this one, except to say that having lots of partners doesn’t make you “skanky” in the first place. There are plenty of skanky virgins and amazing, together, respectful and mature sluts out there. And it sure as fuck has nothing to do with gender.

3) Do any of you act drastically different when around friends than SOs? (I.e. Guy being sweet and cuddly when alone with a girlfriend vs. acting embarrassed and like a jerk when the girlfriend tries to act that way when his “guy friends” are hanging around)

Well, when I’m with friends and an SO I try to pay some attention to the friends rather than just the SO, but other than that, no, I wouldn’t get annoyed at an SO for acting romantically with me as long as it didn’t impede the social interaction, and I certainly wouldn’t act colder to the SO when with people. Even leaving out the closet-ness issues, that seems to me to be a very good way of producing an ex-SO.

30

I just realized that wasn’t at all clear. What I meant is that since I choose tricks/fuckbuddies and potential partners based on different criteria, there’s no reason the groups wouldn’t overlap.

There are people who I would say, “yes, I would sleep with that person, but I don’t think we’d be good as a couple;” but I would make that decision not because they were a fuckbuddy, or because of the ‘sluttiness’ or ‘dirtiness’ of that person, but because of the usual relationship criteria, such as emotional factors, temperament, personality, whether it clicks, etc.

Conversely, like most people, I prefer relationships with people I’m sexually attracted to. My past SOs would have made scorching one-night stands, and I was even more fortunate that it turned out to be more.

31

Married female, very few sexual partners.

1) Do you differentiate between relationship potentials and fuck-buddies? If so, how?

When I was single, I wasn’t looking for a FB. It always sounded like a good way to mess up a friendship.

I did differentiate between relationship potential vs. “just hanging out” potential vs. “none of the above” though.
2) Do any of you actually believe that it’s the woman’s place to be “pure” and reject advances; otherwise she is the skanky one, regardless of how many partners the male has had?

Male or female, you sleep around a lot, you’re treading on skanky ground. I don’t think it takes more whoring for a guy to achieve skankiness than it does a girl, it’s equal.

As far as what that magical body count number is, I don’t know. Depends on your age, for one thing. Someone who is, say, 60 and has slept with, oh, 10 people doesn’t register as much on my skanky meter as someone who is only, say, 18 would. (I just picked the number 10 because it’s nice and round, I am not suggesting that 10 is the magic number.)

As far as women and sex go, though, the fact is that we’re the ones that can get pregnant. It’s not the woman’s “place” to reject advances, but she should think seriously about any offers she gets since she, not the guy, is the one that might end up with a baby.

I do agree with matt_mcl on one point. You can definitely be a skanky virgin.

3) Do any of you act drastically different when around friends than SOs? (I.e. Guy being sweet and cuddly when alone with a girlfriend vs. acting embarrassed and like a jerk when the girlfriend tries to act that way when his “guy friends” are hanging around)

No, I never did. Still don’t. I’m not into big PDAs but it’s not like I’m an ice queen in front of our friends and then get cuddly when we’re alone. I go for a happy medium.

32

First of all, don’t be worried about being a virgin, your worth is measured by far more important things than the number of skanks you’ve shagged.

  1. I never got the concept of FBs. If it gets to the point where I want to screw her, it’s a signal I want to get to know her better, a lot better. FBs are just masturbation with baggage.

  2. Equal responsibility. Honestly, though, “skanky” IMO is not a very useful label. Past sleeping around vs not sleeping around should not be the main factor in a relationship (barring STDs), but it should be the attitude in a relationship. I don’t care if she’s screwed around before, as long as she’s willing not to do it while she’s with me. If I were female, I would expect the same. If she/he can’t do it, then that’s a problem with self-control, and not the number of people she’s screwed in the past.

With regards to your comment about not wanting to have a relationship with a girl who’s slept around before, well, all I can say is, present behaviour is more important than past.

  1. Eh. Guy here. My gf had to tell me not to be so cuddly when other people were around, because I tend to zone out and focus only on her, to the exclusion of everyone else. YMMV
33

Hey, whatever blows your hair back. Just as long as you don’t think that your outlook is somehow “better” than that of those with opposing viewpoints.

34

Because morals are relative, Soapbox Monkey. :wink:

At least on these boards, anyway.

35
  1. Yes. I sleep witha guy who I love but know would drive me over the edge in a relationship. Fuck buddy. Respect and adore him. Will never date him and could never have a serious relationship with him. Honestly, he has no desire for children and has a lot ofemotional work to do before meeting his potential. I want to be matched in a relationship with constant emotional growth and I’m at the point where I no longer have the time to screw around in relationships that can’t lead to marriage (re:kids). He is incredible in bed and one of the most facinating and lovely people I know. It works for us.

2.Eh. Virgins can be skanky, sluts can be innocent. All in the care and respect involved.

  1. That’s just wrong. Some activities with your SO are not for public consumption, but the care and respect in the relationship should be obvious.

And don’t sweat the virgin bit - its really no big deal. Sex is fun and will come about when it does.

36

I think perhaps he’s stating what works for him, and what he approves of and doesn’t approve of.

We’re all entitled to not approve of someone, or something, or consider a certain quality a “deal breaker.” One would hope that we’d not go around preaching or being really sanctimonious about it, but we all are entitled to think, “No, I don’t think that’s right. I wouldn’t want to be romantically involved with that person.”

For me, one of the things that is an absolute deal breaker is drug use. Full stop. No compromise. Does that mean that I think I’m “better” than those who use drugs? Well, not exactly. It mostly means I’m not going to get romantically involved with someone who uses drugs. But it also means that I don’t like drugs, don’t think they’re good, don’t approve of them. Even though I know a lot of people (here on these boards, for starters) who do okay with some drug use. But it simply is not for me. As far as I am concerned, my stance is “better”—for me.

As for the questions from the OP: 1. No FB for me. I’m just not wired that way. 2. No, a girl doesn’t have to work harder than a guy to say “no.” Males can be skanks as much as females can. It’s all about attitude. 3. I’m not much for lovey-dovey in public, but small gestures of affection are fine. (I’m a female.)

37

I think you are very much mistaken in this view. (I see the hedging most now that I’m rereading this, but I think that is probably still too strong.) I suppose I don’t really know that much about this, but I have known plenty of woman who were very interested in sex. With a few exceptions, every woman I have ever got to know well has said or done something that seems to indicate that they are as interested in sex as any man (if not more so). What seems particularly telling to me is that I’ve known a number of women who I’ve thought really weren’t that interested in sex, but turn out to be very interested in sex and have sex often. (In none of the cases was I dating or sleeping with any of them, they just happened to tell me this or imply it.) And on the other hand, I’ve known a few guys who I would have thought had lots of sex, based on the way they acted and their apparent charm, who in fact remained virgins into their late twenties or thirties. (Interestingly enough, I don’t think I’ve ever heard them say this themselves and only learned this from other, reliable, sources).

I don’t really know whether men are more interested in sex than women or vice-versa or, for that matter if they are equally interested in sex. All I know is that when I get to know men and I get to know women I find that there is a wide range of attitudes about sex. I tend to think that many of us think about sex much more than we let on. I base this on my experience with other people as well as on my own behavior.

38

The impression I get from this comment is that you would rather have experienced it all before you’re forced to commit than to learn new things with the person you finally settle down with. It’s that attitude that I have trouble comprehending.

I would much rather be with someone who is eager to start being adventurous than to be with a girl who has “seen everything there is to see.” Learning with someone just seems like it would be better than learning from someone who’s already experienced it.

39

Said the guy who’s had neither.

40

I did say “seems.”