Women are not necessarily whores.

[Zoe]

**A Priori **, you are really inconsistent in your POV.

…nowhere here did I claim that Dopers are easily or regularly bought off.

I guess the exception would be the Dopers who are women, right?

Women are not necessarily whores.

Subtitled: Women, please stop being whores so I’ll be right.

I really, sincerely wish that women felt no pressure to be whorish in order to get their way.

Here he claims that the “generic” or “average” woman (whatever that is) uses such manipulation to get what she wants:

But if you’re looking for my ideal solution, you (generic female you) would not attach the availability of sex or the stability of the relationship or your willingness to show your partner that you’re happy to how long it’s been since the last time your partner bought you something nice. It’s entirely too easy for your average het woman to twist your average het man around with her ability to be unhappy the minute she discovers something she wants but can’t have.

Nowhere did he distinguish female dopers from the women that he describes. Is he backtracking or not?

When I talk about or to poly folk, or bi folk, or sluts, or perverts, or any other group to which I feel I belong, then I will use “we” and “us.”

Here you admit that when you talk to a group of people to which you feel you belong, you will use “we” or “us.” That was my point all along. You were talking to women, but you knew you didn’t belong. You didn’t use “we” or “us.” When you were talking with the menfolk, there was no time when you ever needed to use “we” or “us” because you weren’t talking about the men. You were still running down the women.

Of all that you had to write, this was the most telling about your opinion of women:

I am a slut, and I enjoy that fact. I am picky about my partners, but I think that once I’ve chosen, there is no reason not to enjoy my relationships to the fullest.

So a woman who enjoys (sexual) relationships to the fullest is a “slut”? That is truly sad that you feel that way. The sexual urge is normal and healthy and wholesome. What in the world has twisted your thinking so badly?

Finally, in Post 72 of your thread:

I don’t by any stretch think that every woman who enjoys getting gifts from a sexual partner is part of the problem…

I doubt that most Dopers ever thought we were.

I suppose that, at its core, my anger is about the disparity of ability to deal with emotional manipulation.

I don’t think there is a disparity. Adults can learn ways to keep their emotions from being manipulated by others.

Upon preview: A Priori, although your OP was truly interesting, I think some of the offers to buy you a membership were meant as a little joke – a bit of irony. Your membership dues would be in lieu of a nice dinner or a pretty bauble. (wink, wink)

[A_Priori_Tea]

Okay, Zoe, let me take this point by point. I have to admit, this is the first time someone’s maintained such an… interesting… point of view about both my opinions and method of writing (not to mention biological sex, since you persist in calling me “he”) in the face of what I think is fairly clear explanation. I will try again, though, because I am still having fun.
I did not claim that Dopers are easily or regularly bought off, not even the women. I would very much like for you to quote whatever portion of my posts in this thread you feel makes that point. Nowhere did I claim that all women are whorish, and nowhere did I claim that the attitude I am pitting is something to which all women ascribe. If you can quote evidence for any of those assertions, I will be all eyes. As it is, I think you are severely misreading my posts, and taking a fair number of things out of context in order to cast me as misogynistic.

Your claim that I am inconsistent is really pretty bewildering. Let me boil it down very simply, in the hopes that you will see how everything I have posted supports these basic points:

1. SOME women behave whorishly.
2. SOME men and women believe that they must enable that behavior in order to have a relationship.
3. I wish that no one (male or female) felt that they had to be part of either 1) or 2) in order to have a successful relationship.

To express those points, I pointed out what women who feel it necessary to trade their sexual favors away should do instead. I also pointed out what partners of those women should do. In no case was I addressing a group that included myself, because I neither trade my sexual favors for commodities, nor do I date women who do. There was never a reason to use “we” or “us” in the OP, because I was never talking to a group that included me. I was never, in fact, talking to a group that included all of either sex! I can see how the advice to men could be construed that way, because I failed to qualify, but I specifically addressed women who engage in whorish behavior, rather than women as a whole.

I will freely and willingly cop to being a number of things: misanthropic, slutty, perverse and perverted, a right bitch, sesquipedalian, callipygian, among others. NONE of those is an insult. I recommend that you read about the reclaiming of epithets in modern speech if you’d like some more clarification of my usage in this (and pretty much every) case. You don’t know me, and I don’t expect you to know much (if anything) about me at this point. I will say, though, that I think if you met me you’d realize just how far and wide you’d have to cast your net in order to find someone who is more sex-positive than I am. I hope that in time, this will become apparent through a posting trend, rather than just a bald assertion for which I have no credible evidence. The hard part will be keeping myself away from the topics of sex and feminism and gender roles enough not to get warned not to post about them anymore.

I agree that adults are capable of learning how to prevent their emotions from being manipulated. However, I don’t agree that men and women are equally socialized to deal with emotional manipulators effectively, nor even to spot emotional manipulation when it happens. That is why I am particularly annoyed at SOME het women using this weakness against SOME het men with such abandon. I would very much like to see a society in which men are socialized to acknowledge and deal with a wide range of emotions in an adult manner, but that’s not the society we live in. I am not denigrating men - I think they are as emotionally capable as women. I just don’t think they get the training that we (holy crap, I used we - because I’m talking about women as a whole!) get from infancy onward; we are taught to express our emotions and learn to deal with them, and they are generally taught to repress. That does not lead to men being (generally) qualified to deal with the sort of subtle manipulation that women develop with and among each other. Again, this is NOT a judgment of whether one sex is more qualified to have or deal with emotions naturally - it’s a judgment about how our society treats the different sexes and gender roles. It’s not a matter of ability, but of socialization.

On that note, nowhere have I claimed that this insufficient socialization gets men off the hook. They are responsible for continuing to engage women who behave this way, and they are responsible for ensuring their own happiness and fulfillment. As I pointed out earlier, the blame does not in any way accrue to only one side or the other.

And, on preview: Sattua, the weird thing is that I haven’t actually taken any formal education in gender studies. I just hang out with a lot of genderqueer folk, and read a lot of books. I am looking forward to finding classes on related topics in coming semesters, though, as I’m going back to college this spring.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Zoe

Nowhere did he distinguish female dopers from the women that he describes. Is he backtracking or not?

I think it was clear enough that by ‘‘generic female,’’ she was referring to all females guilty of the Pitworthy behavior. The ‘‘generic female’’ comment was probably inserted specifically to avoid being accused of pitting any specific person. She did not consider herself to be guilty of aforementioned Pitworthy behavior, therefore she did not address herself. I no way interpreted by the OP that she was pitting all females… only females guilty of the behavior she deemed Pitworthy… which did not include herself.

Edit: I just got the pun in APT’s username.

[A_Priori_Tea]

Thanks, olives! That’s just what I was trying to say, only shorter and more understandable.

[shamrock227]

@Rubystreak

…I wouldn’t call the women who get the jewelry whores, though. That’s not a word I’d throw around. I agree, however, that the ads do seem to indicate that, in order to show a woman how much she’s treasured, you’d have to give diamonds. And I also know some people who want the diamonds. The leap I don’t get is how that makes you a whore, unless you are threatening to leave the guy or withhold sex unless you get it. It’s like any other gift expectation on a holiday or birthday.

(emphasis mine)
ding, ding, ding. Now you’re getting it. Those are the women the OP is talking about.

Not tonight I have a headache
Not tonight I have a headache
guy makes with the jewelry gets sex
Not tonight I have a headache.

I know women like this. Hell, I know women who are proud to be like this. Getting nice presents from your significant other doesn’t make you a whore - but what else do you call someone who expects ‘payment’ up front for sex?

[Rubystreak]

@shamrock227

I know women like this. Hell, I know women who are proud to be like this. Getting nice presents from your significant other doesn’t make you a whore - but what else do you call someone who expects ‘payment’ up front for sex?

They expect gifts before each and every occasion of sex? Really? I must be leading a sheltered life, because no one I know or have ever known has behaved in this way, that I’m aware of. I know women who enjoy jewelry for occasions like birthday, Xmas, anniversary, Valentine’s Day, and hey, maybe those are the only times they put out. If so, wow. That’s pretty horrendous. Is it remotely a true phenomenon? Honestly, seriously? No sex without expensive gifts? Without reciprocation? That is whorish behavior, but I’m skeptical that this is a common thing.

OTOH, my husband’s friend, who likes to buy his lady friends the sparkly crap from Kay’s, thinks I’m kind of a freak because I don’t like that kind of jewelry and don’t expect expensive gifts. He thinks it’s normal for a man to buy a woman diamonds and wouldn’t know what to do with someone like me. Maybe the men in this equation don’t necessarily feel manipulated-- maybe it’s just part of the way things are, they like the predictability and they’re OK with it? The women I know who get jewelry often usually get nice presents from their SO’s too, to be fair, just not usually jewelry. They are the kind of people who feel they need to spend a lot of cash for special occasions, and it’s not just a one-way thing.

[lobstermobster]

Okay first of all we have to stop talking about Kay’s. It’s grossing me out. I hate to be predictable but I don’t see whats wrong with getting a piece of jewelry for each anniversary. If he can afford it and jewelry is what she wants, I think it’s nice. A lot of people upgrade their rings. Again, if you can afford it you should get the biggest god damn diamond in the world. Who cares? Upon receiving a nice present it’s pretty common to be really excited and happy and that will probably lead to having sex. This does not mean there is an exchange. If a woman was ONLY having sex after receiving presents this would be a problem. I honestly don’t believe there are relationships like this though where the sex is that circumstantial. If it was like that, the men would only keep those women around a few days because they are literally hookers. Even the very rich can’t afford to pay that much for sex EACH time. I think this is an urban legend.

[Rubystreak]

@Rubystreak

The women I know who get jewelry often usually get nice presents from their SO’s too, to be fair, just not usually jewelry. They are the kind of people who feel they need to spend a lot of cash for special occasions, and it’s not just a one-way thing.

Ooops, I meant to say “usually get nice presents for their SO’s too.” The women who like expensive jewelry for gifts also tend to get their SO’s nice presents in return. It’s not a one way street as it’s being portrayed here, and any man who would put up with an arrangement where he paid out for sex in that blatant a manner is either a victim of his own concupiscence, or she’s really, really worth it… Basically, I agree with lobstermobster’s post in spirit if not in the particulars.

[Turek]

@A Priori Tea

callipygian

Prove it!

[Beware_of_Doug]

…that women putting out for material goods is not the real problem.

The real problem, per my theory, is women putting out for male gender role types associated with earning power/ability to provide material goods.

Is one any less whorish than the other just because it’s socially (or biologically - ha!) conditioned?

Discuss. Or tell me to get stuffed.

[Dangerosa]

The real problem is people not getting what they want from a relationship, getting their self esteem only from their partner, or allowing themselves to be manipulated and/or trying to manipulate others. The real problem is people who put up with neverending shit from their partner - whether that is demands for jewelry or demands that the house be kept spotless. The problem is that there are far too many human beings who are too afraid to be alone and willing to put up with crap - not that all relationships don’t come with some crap, no one is perfect and relationships do take compromise - but if your relationship violates your own values - you need to take responsibility to get out of it.

There is nothing wrong if what a woman wants from life is to be a stay at home mom and live a materially comfortable life - and if that is her life goal, she’d better the hell not marry a struggling garage band musician with a drinking problem or a guy whose advanced skill set is moving from the fry machine to the cash register at McDonalds - at least not without a major values adjustment to go along with all that love. There is nothing wrong with a guy wanting to date and marry a woman who is self sufficient and can and wants to support herself - and if that is the case, he may wish to find someone who went to college or developed a trade skill and intends to continue to work - not someone who has spent her time developing skills to take ring around the collar out. Nor is there anything wrong with a guy who wants to find a woman who wants to stay home and keep his collars clean and have his kids. There is nothing wrong with valuing a cute butt or deep eyes - and plenty of nice people who are nice, deep and intelligent have very fine back ends - you are not restricted to a dichotomy of “ugly but nice, deep human beings” and “shallow lookers.”

[Rubystreak]

@Beware of Doug

…The real problem, per my theory, is women putting out for male gender role types associated with earning power/ability to provide material goods.

Is one any less whorish than the other just because it’s socially (or biologically - ha!) conditioned?

Discuss. Or tell me to get stuffed.

Is it whorish for men to put out for gender role types associated with round butts, pretty faces, and perky tits? Absent other things like real interest in the human being, personality, compatibility, etc.? If so, I guess a good portion of the human race is made up of whores. I say that without judgment on the word “whore,” because I think it goes outside its usual meaning here, and means, “has sex for reasons other than love,” which many people have done, safe to say. Is this a problem? Only if you feel you’re being used. Some people like those crusty old gender roles, whether you and I endorse them or not.

People hook up for a constellation of reasons, some of them deep, some shallow. My doubts lie with the idea that there are men who are in ongoing relationships with women who want a gift before each occasion of sex. I don’t buy it (pun intended). I do agree that some women want the men in their lives to spend beyond their means sometimes, but that’s a boundary issue in the relationship, not someone being a whore. Right?

[Cat_Fight]

Remember, whores can’t exist without johns. But I guess ‘john’ isn’t really a common insult. Even pimp has crossed over to compliment.

[Sequent]

@A Priori Tea

Women get just as horny as you do, and don’t forget it.

News to me. Please elaborate!

[Mighty_Girl]

@Rubystreak

My doubts lie with the idea that there are men who are in ongoing relationships with women who want a gift before each occasion of sex.

If the OP made that assertion, can you please point to where? I couldn’t find it.

If she did not, and as I read it, she meant to say that they expect these things in exchange for sex or affection (not each and every time), then, yes, I know women like that.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Rubystreak

Is it whorish for men to put out for gender role types associated with round butts, pretty faces, and perky tits? Absent other things like real interest in the human being, personality, compatibility, etc.?

No, I’d say it’s slutty.

(Slut I define as a human who is promiscuous for the sheer pleasure of it. Whore I define as a human who bestows their sexual favors for either material gain or the likelihood of same. A whore need not be promiscuous.)

If so, I guess a good portion of the human race is made up of whores. I say that without judgment on the word “whore,” because I think it goes outside its usual meaning here, and means, “has sex for reasons other than love,” which many people have done, safe to say. Is this a problem? Only if you feel you’re being used. Some people like those crusty old gender roles, whether you and I endorse them or not.

I guess it gets me because it conditions women - almost all women, with any semblance of a healthy, normative, working-to-middle-class family upbringing - to be turned on by career ambition in men. And to get that uneasy pit-of-the-stomach feeling about a guy who puts anything in life ahead of his job, or has a line of work that isn’t steady, or takes a little too much explaining, or (etc etc etc)…

I do agree that some women want the men in their lives to spend beyond their means sometimes, but that’s a boundary issue in the relationship, not someone being a whore. Right?

Oh, absotively.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@A Priori Tea

Women get just as horny as you do, and don’t forget it.

My experience is that women get just as horny as we do, and do forget it.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Beware of Doug

I guess it gets me because it conditions women - almost all women, with any semblance of a healthy, normative, working-to-middle-class family upbringing - to be turned on by career ambition in men. And to get that uneasy pit-of-the-stomach feeling about a guy who puts anything in life ahead of his job, or has a line of work that isn’t steady, or takes a little too much explaining, or (etc etc etc)…

Yes, I will absolutely admit that career ambition is something I looked for in a potential mate, right alongside intelligence, humor and compassion. This is because I myself have career ambition, and can’t imagine not being able to connect with someone on this level.
Is it really such a bad thing to want in a partner?

EDIT: I use ‘‘career ambition’’ in the loosest sense of the term. I wanted (and now have) a partner who values education and using that education in the interest of his family and the betterment of his community. (Neither of us particularly care about being wealthy.) This is the same standard I have for myself.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@olivesmarch4th

Yes, I will absolutely admit that career ambition is something I looked for in a potential mate, right alongside intelligence, humor and compassion. This is because I myself have career ambition, and can’t imagine not being able to connect with someone on this level.
Is it really such a bad thing to want in a partner?

Not if you feel the same way about it. That takes us out of sex roles and into life priorities.

I do have to admit, however, that I am not a competitive, high-drive type of personality, and that it’s held me back with women, and I wish the rules were different because of that.

[Rubystreak]

@Mighty_Girl

If the OP made that assertion, can you please point to where? I couldn’t find it.

She didn’t. shamrock227 did:

I know women like this. Hell, I know women who are proud to be like this. Getting nice presents from your significant other doesn’t make you a whore - but what else do you call someone who expects ‘payment’ up front for sex?

I just don’t see that happening any too often. I could be wrong, it could be quite commonplace, but then I guess those people are outside my realm of life experience.

If she did not, and as I read it, she meant to say that they expect these things in exchange for sex or affection (not each and every time), then, yes, I know women like that.

I’m confused, though. A hell of a lot of people, men and women, have expectations from their SO’s at gift time that are pretty high. There have been several threads here over the years about people being disappointed in the gifts they’ve gotten from their SO’s on birthdays and holidays. I think it usually indicates dissatisfaction with the amount of love and value their SO places on them, the gifts being symbolic of these. If you don’t feel loved or valued, you’re not going to put out as much. Whether or not receiving expensive gifts = love and value is questionable and could be debated, but I don’t think the equation is necessarily a “You give gifts/I give nookie” transaction as it’s being depicted here. Know what I mean?

ETA: I don’t think all women are turned on by career ambition in men, but wanting a guy to have a good job that he cares about maintaining is not whorish, IMO. It’s sensible. Date an unemployed person and see how much fun it is… none at all.