There was a time when women were encouraged to marry young men who were interested in LTR. But the model for women today seems to be to screw around during their twenties, and wait until their thirties to get serious about marriage. It’s great news for men who just want pussy, but not so great for men who want families.
If you don’t want a girl who’s just fucking guys for fun, you might consider attended church. It’s probably the most likely place to find a girl like that. And who’s looking for LTR.
There was a time when men were encouraged to marry young women who were interested in LTR. But the model for men today seems to be to screw around during their twenties, and wait until their thirties to get serious about marriage. It’s great news for women who just want dick, but not so great for women who want families.
If you don’t want a boy who’s just fucking women for fun, you might consider attending church. It’s probably the most likely place to find a boy like that. And who’s looking for LTR.
Not my experience. Hell, I spent my entire twenties looking for women who were interested in long term relationships, only to get serial-dumped by a ton who weren’t. I got used to it after a while.
Maybe it’s just something in the water where I live, but the pattern I see now is this: Men and women all screw around during their twenties. That’s completely gender-independent. At around age thirty, you get into a long term relationship with, and possibly marry, the person who happens to be standing next to you. That’s the deal for pretty much everyone I know.
YMMV, I guess.
(Personally, at around age 30, I instead realized that a LTR probably isn’t my thing. Yes, I got it backwards. Thanks for that, brain.)
And, some people – no more than 1% of the general population, but that’s still a lot of people – are just born asexual. I would no more shame them for that than I would shame a homosexual for being homosexual.
C’mon, you know better than that. Promiscuous gals are whores, promiscuous guys are studs (so long as they’re straight, that is; promiscuous fags is whores).
And by “today” you mean the last 4,000 years, right?
My daughters and pretty much all their friends were interested in LTRs. And never darkened a church.
This circles around back to the OP. This modern age has to be, using the most admirable and beautiful qualities of the word, the sluttiest era in history. I’ve heard from old heads that the decade before AIDS was a free for all as well, but I think this one has it beat. Probably not many objective measures to qualify this. The breadth of NSA, friends with benefits, and hookup culture is mind boggling. You don’t have to be a catch, either. Poor guys who are in and out of jail get laid on the regular. Everyone probably knows a girl with a bf who bums around on her couch and can’t get a job to save his life. I’ve seen fat guys with just a little bit of game have success. As much as a lot of guys espouse “no fatties,” when no one’s looking they’ll quite happily pounce on that anyway. Big girls need lovin’ too.
So I’d agree with earlier posters that if a guy can’t get laid nowadays there’s probably some sort of pathological thing going on.
From old studies I vaguely remember (rock solid, I know), the majority of women only have something like 4-5 partners in their life time, but something like 15-20% of women have 15+. Those are the unsung heroes they should parade around at half time.
See, it’s like 80% of the women are having sex with 20% of the guys. So, everyone being slutty does not equal easier sex for “lower value” men. “Higher value” men will have sex with “less attractive” women because they are eager to please, and most men at some point won’t turn it down, at least not a BJ or something that some ladies are practically begging to give.
Then the other 80% of guys are competing (or deciding to sit out) for the other 20% of women who aren’t drooling over the top guys.
Women don’t have to have a higher number of partners to be more sexually active.
Sure. But this is a shame distribution matrix. When it comes to the situation on the ground, I’m with marshmallow:
So, you have:
Group A - men who shag a lot
Group B - men who shag little or not at all
Group C - women who shag a lot
Group D - women who shag a little or not at all
Groups A and D are held up as paragons of virtue, while group B and group C are shamed. The ideal is to have men who shag an infinite amount of women, and women who shag zero men.
But frankly, in practice, these are pretty orgiastic times we’re living in. Our mores seem to be applied more to determine who feels bad about their sex lives, rather than to determine people’s actual sex lives.
A vague-ish memory prompted, of a passing mention made in a work of fiction which I read – may well have been a whodunit – set in the USSR not very long after World War II. Sketches a scenario not unlike actualliberal’s as above. One of the main characters is a rather quiet, shy guy. He reflects at one point, that what with the country’s horrendous losses of men in the recent war, a surviving man should have little difficulty finding a woman to pair up with. In fact, what happens is that with two women to every man*: the guys more adept at the womanizing game usually get two women apiece, leaving the less adept, like himself, with none.
One is liable to suspect that in one way or another, it’s been apt to be this way at most times and places throughout history – not across-the-board-100%, but this seems to be a tendency on the part of humans.
*This was fiction, not sociological / demographic scholarship: so accuracy, or not, of figures, isn’t the point.
I wonder how much virgin shaming is a reaction to decades of smugness from virgins, to the point that people mentioning it entirely neutrally often sound smug (though not as smug as the people who say that if you think they sound smug, it must mean you’re secretly ashamed of your own conduct).
There will always be ‘shaming’. If somebody is too conservative on this board, they will be ‘shamed’. On another board, the too-liberal will be shamed. If somebody thinks differently than the mobocracy, they will be ‘shamed’. Of course, those who do the shaming will not call it ‘shaming’ until the current starts to turn in favor of the shamed. They will call it something anodyne, or just shake their heads with superiority, and let all of their own friends know what losers those in the minority position are.
I don’t know that ‘fat-shaming’ and ‘slut-shaming’ are unacceptable, just to the fat and sluts who were shamed. If it IS unacceptable, it is because ‘society’ is getting fatter and sluttier.
Even if it is so, it wouldn’t be fair, as most virgins today weren’t around back when virgins were smug, or, at least, probably weren’t the virgins being smug to others.
Is that a fact? There is a significant segment of society who considers fat-shaming and slut-shaming to be unacceptable, but it is not universal. There is also a segment of society that considers virgin-shaming to be acceptable. Is it your assertion that these segments overlap (and so are hypocritical)? If so, you need to back up that assertion.
Personally, I find all three forms of shaming unacceptable, on the grounds that what grown-ups do or don’t do with their bodies is their own damn business, whether it’s promiscuity, virginity, or obesity, and I suspect that a lot of people who find slut-shaming and fat-shaming unacceptable feel the same way.
Or maybe religious reasons, or maybe asexual. It seems to be assumed that people who are virgins are that way because they want to be laid but cannot get laid.
