Amy, I think you need to meet Mrs Robinson
http://womanofexperience.blogspot.com/
enjoy.

Actually Amy I am delighted to meet you.

But here is my general take on women who think they deserve too much.

http://womanofexperience.blogspot.com/2007/05/great-self-entitlement-swindle.html

"Is it really wise to pledge to spend the rest of your life with somebody without finding out first whether you're sexually compatible?"

No, and again Heinlein takes the lead in pointing this out, in "Methuselah's Children", pointing out the arrangements of "the Howard families" - the experiment in human selective breeding for longevity. Which should actually work, if someone were patient enough to try it.

But loneliness is strong enough to make people make foolish choices. Promiscuity, the other side of the pendulum's swing, is not the answer, either. As I suspect you demonstrate daily.

So much sorrow is reaped by those who don't have a clue what they want or need beyond the urges of the day.

Dear Goddess
Once again I have to come down on your side of this argument. If you cannot love with your whole being, heart, mind, soul, and body, then why love at all. To me it is akin to going to a restraunt, being seated, reading the menu, and then leaving and saying you had been out to dinner. It still leaves you with an empty feeling at the end of the evening. It has been said that ( That which does not destroy us makes us stronger ) and I firmly believe that is true.

Promiscuity, the other side of the pendulum's swing, is not the answer, either. As I suspect you demonstrate daily.

But what is "promiscuity"?

If you don't consider sex a sin, and you know the potential consequences from it (which, for me, were pregnancy and disease, not emotional debilitation like these nitwits suggest), what's the problem?

Life is short, as Cathy Seipp demonstrated. Crossing the street can be dangerous. I'm not going to stop doing that either, although I will try to remember not to do it while reading (I hit a parked car once, as a kid, while reading on my bike).

When this bimbette talks of abstinence, is she including masturbation? Because I've found, as I've gotten older (and more distrustful of the males species than I used to be), that sometimes self-pleasure can be better than being with someone who has no clue what they want out of a relationship, never mind not knowing their way around a woman's body. (For the record, I do NOT have that problem with my current BF!)

That which does not destroy us makes us stronger I know it's off topic but that mindless saying annoys me. What does it mean: I can never be weakened, only destroyed or strengthened? And since I have not been destroyed (or I would not be here to consider the point) I must have been strengthened? Yeah, right.

As she told me later, "It takes a strong woman to be abstinent, and that's the sort of woman I want to be."

I prefer the idea that it takes a strong person to live as he or she believes. That might be the same thing, but in this case, I think your assessment makes sense. This feels like a facade. I don't doubt that this is what she wants because I have no way of knowing. But she is trying to convince herself more than she's trying to convince us.

Maybe it would be better to say that it takes a strong person to get value and worth from inside rather than outside.

>>>>As she told me later, "It takes a strong woman to be abstinent, and that's the sort of woman I want to be."

>>>>I prefer the idea that it takes a strong person to live as he or she believes.

In either case, one should have the power to say no, a power many sad people lack to some degree, and power we don't teach enough.

I had to laugh when I read the "Suzanne" interview on R's site.

So for a decade and a half (or longer), she's been craving black guys, big cocks, and group sex?

Gee, I wonder why her marriage seemed sexless to her. "Honey, do you think you could grow three more giant cocks and turn black for me? You'd do it if you loved me."

I can't decide if she's just a slut, or she's doing it to prove that SHE wasn't the 'sexless' one who ruined the marriage, or if she's desperate to feel attractive, if only as the center of a bukakke hose-down every Saturday night.

...That which does not destroy us makes us stronger I know it's off topic but that mindless saying annoys me.

Gets my off topic goat too, Norman. I have an intensely infuriating in-law who seems to believe she minted the phrase herself...

(And I also note, in a brown nosey way, that Amy- who you were obviously not quoting - is careful and right to say that actively "surviving" heartbreak is indeed a key to strength).

"But what is "promiscuity"?" - Amy

Right - it's subjective. But I have a clear definition for what I think promiscuity is:

When you starting seeking and having sexual encounters with people for reasons other than it being fun and seeking sexual satisfaction...when the encounters leave you feeling really empty, degraded and unfulfilled. I don't think it has anything to do with judging sex as "dirty" but I think that when people have sex to gain acceptance or to please someone else* (ie: they don't really want to have sex but do it anyway) it can leave people feeling...grody.

I might be having a tough time explaining myself. Bottom line, though: having sex with X number of partners isn't "promiscuity." It's when you're screwing people for all the wrong reasons and it leaves you feeling like shit (doesn't mean you think sex is wrong, just that you're doing it for not the right reasons).

*I don't think this applies to the occasional sex with your partner when you aren't totally in the mood. I'm talking about seeking out random sexual experiences on a regular basis when the sex itself isn't really want you want...

...rambling thought continues...when I think of a "slut" I think of someone who screws guys b/c she doesn't like herself (or himself) that much and is trying to fit in and get some attention.

Someone who just screws lots of guys b/c it's fun and walks away feeling more or less neutral (but sexually satisfied) isn't a slut...just into sex. And since I think of "sluts" as being "promiscuous" that's where my preceding idea came from.

By and large, men don't want relationships with sluts. It's well explained by the same evidence from evolutionary psychology offered up by may women here. This is a classic case of woman wanting their cake and eating it, too.

Ms. Fredell seems hollow to me too, but she's is accord with evolutionary psychology. She wants a long term relationship. Women who act like sluts are treated like sluts. They are bought, used, and discarded as sexual dalliances unworthy of the investment of a relationship. Moreover, a woman's sexual history carries significant importance for a man considering a relationship. By and large, men correctly believe that sluts are unlikely to become monogamous partners.

A woman's sexual history is more important in relationship-seeking that is a man's sexual history. This seems to disturb women. One gets the idea that men are supposed to be above such double standards. But that opposes the evolved natures of men and women. The asymmetrical import of sexual promiscuity between the sexes is not my opinion. The observation is made by the same evolutionary biology sources that Amy uses to justify most of her evidence-based advice.

I regret to write it: when it comes to female promiscuity, many women aren't evidence-based.

A woman's sexual history is more important in relationship-seeking that is a man's sexual history.

Oh really? I don't want to have sex with a man who's had sex with a vast array of women - I don't need to take the risk of getting an STD any more than anyone else, male or female.

One gets the idea that men are supposed to be above such double standards.

Aren't they?

Jeff, you have got to chill out, man.

How much communicating can be done? It's ok with her to touch lips but not hips?!? That is far more perverted to purposely deny yourself such a basic intimate connection.

"He said conversations with me were more enjoyable than sex would be with anyone else."
I want to meet the man who actually believes that!
Love can be strong and true, but that is just deprivation of the senses.

She views oral sex as "disgusting and disrespectful". That is a childish notion at the least, but dysfunctional given she is a college student.

I do hope she finds the kind of love she is searching for.

Someone who just screws lots of guys b/c it's fun and walks away feeling more or less neutral (but sexually satisfied) isn't a slut...just into sex. And since I think of "sluts" as being "promiscuous" that's where my preceding idea came from (Gretchen).

I'm pretty sure no one would. I'm pretty sure no one should.

Oh really? I don't want to have sex with a man who's had sex with a vast array of women - I don't need to take the risk of getting an STD any more than anyone else, male or female (Flynne).

Your preferences do not warrant rejecting a well-known, true generalization.

Aren't they (Flynne)?

No. It's a justifiable double standard.

Jeff, you have got to chill out, man (Flynne).

Why? You're an adult. You can handle rational disagreement. Right?

Women who are so "into sex" that they will screw lots of guys is a slut.

Oh really? What about guys who are so "into sex" that they will screw lots of women? Aren't they sluts?? Oh wait, no, they're manly! Bullshit. They're sluts. They're users. They're misogynists. They're All of the Above.

A man will not evaluate how a woman felt about herself while she screwed her way through the college football team.

Then it's fair to say a woman will not evaluate how a man felt about himself while he screwed his way through the college cheerleading squad. Nor should she. Nor should anyone else.

You are mind-numbingly misogynistic, Jeff. Why?

Why? You're an adult. You can handle rational disagreement. Right?

You're not being disagreeable, you're being misogynistic. You're over-generalizing. And there's no need for it, really.

"a palpable sense of loss, betrayed trust and unwelcome memories"

Yeah, sounds like a broken heart, alright. So what? Mine's been broken dozens of times, but it never stayed that way. It's never been the end of the world, never will be, and doesn't scare me a bit.

For all her talk about virginity as proof that she's strong, this sounds an awful lot like being chickenshit.

Flynne, you are verging into hysteria again. I think you are the one who needs to chill out.

Oh really? What about guys who are so "into sex" that they will screw lots of women? Aren't they sluts?? Oh wait, no, they're manly! Bullshit. They're sluts. They're users. They're misogynists. They're All of the Above.

Then it's fair to say a woman will not evaluate how a man felt about himself while he screwed his way through the college cheerleading squad. Nor should she. Nor should anyone else.

You are mind-numbingly misogynistic, Jeff. Why?

You're not being disagreeable, you're being misogynistic. You're over-generalizing. And there's no need for it, really (Flynne)

You're failing to accept well-know facts to maintain a false conclusion.

So, like, this person doesn't want to fuck. Is anyone begging her to? Treacher once talked about a freaky woman named something like Marilyn Mooky Martina Massey who tried to do a mass marketing campaign of her virtue using similar rhetoric. After appearing as the punch line in one of his jokes, she was never heard from again.

> that mindless saying annoys me.

Word. There are others. We should make a list, so we can bicker about which is the worst.

> Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers

I bet you think we're going to beg you to tell us what that name means.

Well.

Seriously, homey, what's that all about?

"By and large, men correctly believe that sluts are unlikely to become monogamous partners."

Jeff,

Re-read Gretchen's comments.
It's obvious people have different ideas of what a slut is - and Gretchen has taken pains to clarify her definition of, basically, a sad slut.

And - for the record - I was a happy slut and my husband was a swordsman (i.e. same deal, but that's the old 'blokeworld' term).

Yet the monogamy thing has worked out well for us, thankyou.

And - by and large - many of my happy slut friends have found monogamy with happy slut partners. It's a funny old world.

Maybe "bonding hormones" are released after orgasm...creating emotional intimacy from psychical. But my most painful break ups were with people with whom I wasn't physical. I think you can have your heart broken regardless... refraining form sex doesn't really hedge you against emotional heartache. Unless you're really deluded.

Jeff, why is it that every time I disagree with you, I'm becoming hysterical, and that every time I accuse you of being misogynistic, I appear to be "incapable of rational judgement"? I realize you're probably getting a tremendous rush from having to be right all the time, so I'll refrain from further discussion with you, seeing as how you refuse to answer my question anyway.

And - by and large - many of my happy slut friends have found monogamy with happy slut partners. It's a funny old world.

Jeff, why is it that every time I disagree with you, I'm becoming hysterical, and that every time I accuse you of being misogynistic, I appear to be "incapable of rational judgement" (Flynne)?

Trust me, I won't miss our unproductive conversations.

The True Love Revolution Web site warns that bonding hormones are released during any "sexual activity that culminates in an orgasm."

No problem, my college boyfriends never gave me any orgasms anyway.

Because you verge into name-calling without providing reasons. Reason is the essence of rationality. Hence, you flee from reason into name-calling.

Oh bullshit. I called you a misogynist because your comments lead me and others to that conclusion, so now I'm hysterical, and "flee from reason into name-calling". Uh-huh.

Trust me, I won't miss our unproductive conversations.

We don't have conversations of any sort, really; I express an opinion, and you call me hysterical. Nice.

Jeff, you're not old enough to use the word "hence."

And - by and large - many of my happy slut friends have found monogamy with happy slut partners. It's a funny old world.

Again, your anecdotal experience is no counter to a valid, true generalization. I can see that this is not sinking in.

Jeff,
You gotta problem with someone saying "it's a funny old world" now? Blimey!

We let Jody pretend to be exotic with those little sayings of hers as compensation for not being born here like a real American.

Back in the stone ages when I was dating, I met a wonderful woman who was keeping her virginity until she got married. She was about 28 at the time. After a couple of dates the relationship evolved into a friendship. We were really close for years, then she moved to Texas, and I never heard a word from her again. She is one of about 5 people I wish I could meet again, but she is nowhere to be found, I suspect she finally married and changed her name.

Boy, did she smell nice.

PS- She kinda looked a bit like our blogmate Gretchen!

We let Jody pretend to be exotic with those little sayings of hers as compensation for not being born here like a real American.

Actually, Crid. I was going to comment cunningly to Jeff:

"Blimey - you asshole!"

(But I thought that would be laying it on a trifle thick - even for moi).

my college boyfriends never gave me any orgasms anyway hey, it's not up to your boyfriend to give you an orgasm (unless you're tied up or something) - it's up to you to get your own. Did you see it as your responsibility to give your boyfriends their orgasms? No, I didn't think so.

As much as I hate to agree because I find the tone condescending, I think Jeff's evolutionary theory is accurate.

The challenge is the conotation of the chosen words. Women who are known to sleep with a lot of men are not generally viewed as potential monogamous partners. They are the chick the guys want to nail and then carry on. The woman has demonstrated her willingness to participate in such activity and so becomes a target of fellows behaving in their programmed predatory way, perpetuating the role in which she finds herself.

Where I disagree with Jeff is on the idea that women are less likely to care about a man's sexual past. If the man is known to sleep around indiscriminately, that doesn't suggest he's going to stick around and provide for the offspring...which, I believe, is what evolutionary biology says we're looking for.

The key word in both cases is known. Our brains may work the same, but our social structure has evolved and so has our ability to reason around our primal instincts (although we shouldn't be surprised when they behave the way they were designed). Men and women who choose to "sow their wild oats" responsibly shouldn't start out first dates with potential long term material by advertising how many partners they've slept with.

Further, that evolved sense of reason means both men and women can make a choice with any potential mate about sex early or later, provided they anticipate the possible consequences. Make good choices in potential mates, and that reason can win out over biology.

The whole "slut" moniker just clouds things. I agree with Gretchen's definition, if there has to be one. And sadly, the ladies who fall into her definition ARE the ones who everyone knows are the town bicycle. I think we call the male equivalent "baby's daddy"??

> I agree with Gretchen's
> definition

I dowanna even go back and read it. Let's not get too clinical, OK? The concept of the slut, like the concept of a nice rack, is a lot of fun once you know better than to take it seriously.

It's all part of the entrenched human weirdness about authenticity (in things) or sincerity (in people)

"If the man is known to sleep around indiscriminately, that doesn't suggest he's going to stick around and provide for the offspring...which, I believe, is what evolutionary biology says we're looking for.

The key word in both cases is known."

Somewhat disagree, moreta.

The key word in many cases is "indiscriminately".

One can sleep around with discrimination and evolutionary impunity. (As long as one has good manners).

I hear you loudly and clearly Moreta...and agree for the most part.

I think there's a reason men have, traditionally, had more sex (from a biological viewpoint) and why it was accepted - this part is a bit more complex.

The acceptance and the "You're the man!" attitude towards guys screwing around is (in my lowly opinion) based in the fact that they made the rules. Women were valued for their virginity, it was their #1 marketable asset...marketability to be married, which was the life goal and expected path for women, was of utmost importance.

Jeff, your generalizations aren't entirely wrong. It's the fact that you spout them off as if history (where men ruled, women did not) somehow proves these generalizations are the be all end all.

Yes, it's been socially acceptable for a guy to sleep around for a long time. Women can't really get away w/ it. That's obvious, Jeff, and we get it. I think what Flynne was getting at (and I'm sorry, love, if I misinterpret you) is why is this totally cool?

Just because, historically, women were chastised for liking sex and having lots of partners doesn't mean it has to stay that way. It doesn't ACTUALLY mean it's MORE OK for guys to be sex fiends and LESS OK for women. It's a generalization based on a history of misogyny and biological fallacies (--> women don't really like sex less or enjoy it less, that was nurture not nature).

So when you spout this shit off like it's gospel it's hard not to think "gee wiz, what's this Jeff guy's deal w/ women?"

"Her girlfriends are surprised that she can maintain a relationship without having sex, she said, but her boyfriend, at Georgetown, "knew from the get-go what he was getting into." "

Or not getting into.

Thank you, Gretchen, you got my thoughts exactly right.

As much as I despise the feminazis, I have to utilize some of their logic in further agreeing with the irrationality of this bullshit:

"Saving" your "self" for marriage defines a woman's worth via sex, and turns sex into a manipulation tool. It is incredibly degrading to women to perpetuate this archaic social construct. It turns a woman into a purchase rather than a partner.

Agreed. But if no one knows you had bad judgement before, you've still got a clean slate...at least until your indiscriminating tastes show up in your partner's medical exams or child support bills.

Should have been more specific -- I think that's the generally accepted definition -- personally, I'm a happy slut...in monogamy with my hub. Hmmm....I wonder if he's got time at lunch today....

Moreta is correct in her introduction of the concept of knowledge of your partners sexual history into the argument presented by Jeff. Smart women NEVER tell the guy they are dating about their sexual history, so he will never be able to judge her as being a slut in the way Jeff likes to define it.

I learned the hard way that male competition in this area is hardwired. My first boyfriend was a virgin when I met him, and I was stupid enough to tell him that I had been sexual with 2 guys prior to meeting him. Because my number was higher than his, he harped on it till I broke up with him. He was upset that I dumped him, but the damage was done, and I couldn't take that information back once he knew about it.

I think guys usually learn not to ask after a certain point in their lives, maybe because they know that any answer will bother them.

I bet Fredell's boyfriend is screwing around like a bunny behind her back, but since she clearly hates sex and love feeling morally superior to everyone, it really shouldn't matter to her in the slightest.

For all the long discourse on how to define promiscuity...and what makes someone a slut, I don't think its really all that difficult.

I know I tend towards long explainations... but that is for complicated things. These are simple.

Here are some definitions I think may be helpful:

A. Promiscuous person is...Someone who fucks alot...of people.

B. A slut...see above...but said by guys about cheating exes or easy lays.

Emotion doesn't have much to do with contextual definitions of these things, only with the psychological evaluation of the person providing mental help to someone who is tired of or afraid of being one of the above.

I believe in the KISS method:

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Sometimes its just the way things are. ;)

I have a problem with militant virgins, the same way I have a problem with pretty much anyone who gets on a high horse and tells other people how they should live their lives. And I don't think it's immoral to have sex, or to like to have sex.

On the other hand, I also don't think it's weird or pathetic or stupid to not want to have sex -- either at all, or until certain conditions are met. And I have some sympathy for girls like the one in the article, because these days, most people seem to think it's weird if you don't have sex. Do I think the girl's going too far by acting like her way is the only way and that there's something wrong with girls who have sex? Yes. But I also think people are going too far when they act like women who are virgins in their late teens or twenties must be fat ugly freaks because they've never had sex. I think this girl's militancy is a reaction to the prevalent view in society that there's no such thing as a virgin by choice. If you're a virgin past a certain age, it's because you're ugly or there's something wrong with you -- that's the message in popular culture.

Of course, people shouldn't let outside sources pressure them -- especially popular culture. I do think the girl's taking this way too far by making her personal decision a crusade, which tells me that she's not entirely comfortable in her own choices. People seeking converts are usually seeking safety in numbers -- they want their choices to be affirmed and validated by other people making the same choices. I think most people comfortable with themselves aren't terribly interested in what other people choose to do, as long as those choices aren't hurting anyone.

But maybe I'm just a raging narcissist.

Me, I'm a 26-year-old female virgin. I'm not a militant VIRGIN BY CHOICE!; I don't have religious reasons for holding out; I don't have moral reasons for holding out; I don't really even have strategic reasons for holding out. I like men; I'm attracted to men; I've had my opportunities. I'm pretty (and vain; my mom says I've never met a mirror I didn't like), and I get accused of being a tease and a glacial bitch because I like to be playful and flirt but I don't like to hook up. Why not? Beats me. I've just always been that way. When I was a baby, I was generally happy, but I'd throw a tantrum if someone I didn't know well tried to pick me up. I'm horribly claustrophobic. I don't particularly like being touched; even brief hugs are awkward for me. Once I know someone well, I lose that aversion -- that rule holds for friends and family as well as potential boyfriends.

So if I don't know someone well and they try to touch me, I tend to freeze up. It's an instinctive reaction; I don't blame guys who find it off-putting, and I don't resent them for moving on to other girls. But I also don't think I "need counseling" or "need to sort out my issues" or something like that; I just have a personal preference for not being touched by someone until I know them well. If guys are game, fine; if not, that's fine too. I am what I am and they are what they are, and I don't really think there's a need to blame or change anyone. If someone -- like the girl in the article, for example -- is unhappy with the way things are, then maybe she should evaluate her own choices; if a person's unhappy, maybe they need to change. But if a person's content with their decision, and it's not hurting them, and it's not hurting anyone else, what does it really matter?

That's why the whole "sex or no sex?" debate leaves me a little flabbergasted. We're all individuals and we should all make choices that are right for us, and if you're not happy with the way things are going, maybe you should evaluate the choices you've made. Otherwise -- who cares?

As much as I hate to agree because I find the tone condescending, I think Jeff's evolutionary theory is accurate (moreta).

I am not a very good writer. I know that. If my style of writing bothers you, please cut me some slack.

It is not my intention to condescend.

Says Jeff.

Flynne, you are verging into hysteria again. I think you are the one who needs to chill out.
By and large, men don't want relationships with sluts. It's well explained by the same evidence from evolutionary psychology offered up by may women here. This is a classic case of woman wanting their cake and eating it, too.
Again, your anecdotal experience is no counter to a valid, true generalization. I can see that this is not sinking in.
Because you verge into name-calling without providing reasons. Reason is the essence of rationality. Hence, you flee from reason into name-calling.
Nope. The different perceptions of promiscuity between the sexes is very well-established in many disciplines. We use evolutionary psychology here, and it's particularly well understood from that viewpoint.
You're failing to accept well-know facts to maintain a false conclusion.
Trust me, I won't miss our unproductive conversations.

Look, I'm in mathematics. My writing style probably reflects the dry, almost pedantic, style necessary to communicate effectively in the deductive sciences.
I am not a very good writer. I know that. If my style of writing bothers you, please cut me some slack.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. You say this every time someone calls you on being condescending. You are condescending, you know you are, and you think you can bullshit us. Nice try.

We're all individuals and we should all make choices that are right for us, and if you're not happy with the way things are going, maybe you should evaluate the choices you've made. - Seconded. (Or "word", if that's the argot du jour.)

Look, it's really simple. Female chastity is valued because no woman (except for certain blondes) has ever been told "you're pregnant" and responded with "are you sure it's mine?"

Contraception may have minimized the baby-daddy assignment issues, but let's face it - we've side-stepped biological evolution. We're living in a technological society with brains that are still tuned to being hunter-gatherers.

You don't like it? I can't help you. You can rage over how it's unfair, and it may be.

But life isn't fair, and it never will be.

I'd like to point out, Jeff, that Evolutionary Psychology is a theory. It can't ever be proven, because we have no way of determining the conditions in which we evolved. We can make inferences based on our behaviors and cultures, but none of this is "fact", as you so confidently bluster on about.

Even if it were proven fact, we reason, which makes your dogged determination to rely on evolution as a kind of backing for your thoughts bad logic. It can be used as an explanation, but elementary education in the field tells one that no one explanation can be considered to explain everything, and that other factors probably play a part, like social norms for example. These change over time and have an impact on our "evolutionary" responses.

In short, your argument is based on theories, but fails to take anything else into consideration, and it makes you sound condescending and arrogant.

Brian- I don't think it's that simple. If we just had the usual rate of evolution as other animals, then we have not had long enough for female chastity to have acquired much value since the time about 10k years ago when we discovered what sex was for.

It could be that we've had a speeded up evolution, as a result of cultural selection of mates. A kind of selective breeding program of ourselves.

Or it could be that all the behaviours around "female chastity is valued" are entirely cultural.

But if it's the case that we have "brains that are still tuned to being hunter-gatherers" then the explanation must work even for a sub-human state of ignorance about sex and reproduction. And I don't think it does - otherwise, it would apply equally to chimps and other apes, who are, I believe, fairly promiscuous.

my college boyfriends never gave me any orgasms anyway - Amber

And I'll just bet you faked them rather than saying 'thats not working, try this'

Right?

I'd like to point out, Jeff, that Evolutionary Psychology is a theory. It can't ever be proven, because we have no way of determining the conditions in which we evolved (christina)

No theory in the empirical sciences is ever proven. It's only the best explanation we have. I'm very well aware of that. Nothing in my claims changes from that.

In short, your argument is based on theories, but fails to take anything else into consideration, and it makes you sound condescending and arrogant (christina)

And you fail to mention what I've not taken into account. Nor do I ever claim that it "explains everything." So, please tell me what I've left out.

Am I now entitled to note that all this makes you sound stupid and dishonest? No, it doesn't. How about a little reciprocal respect.

Jeff, your generalizations aren't entirely wrong. It's the fact that you spout them off as if history (where men ruled, women did not) somehow proves these generalizations are the be all end all (Gretchen).

You mean in the way women assume men must protect and provide and pay and pay and pay? Get real.

Yes, it's been socially acceptable for a guy to sleep around for a long time. Women can't really get away w/ it. That's obvious, Jeff, and we get it. I think what Flynne was getting at (and I'm sorry, love, if I misinterpret you) is why is this totally cool (Gretchen)?

No, Flynne was being a bitch who can only call names in a disagreement. Your just protecting the poor little girl against the big, meany man! It's a dumb, girly thing to do.

I'm saying women don't care as much about male promiscuity and there's rational grounds for it. Men "get away with it" precisely because it's not as important to women. Yet, a woman's sexual behavior is vitally important to men for the reasons brian presented above.

Just because, historically, women were chastised for liking sex and having lots of partners doesn't mean it has to stay that way. It doesn't ACTUALLY mean it's MORE OK for guys to be sex fiends and LESS OK for women. It's a generalization based on a history of misogyny and biological fallacies (--> women don't really like sex less or enjoy it less, that was nurture not nature) (Gretchen).

I've not made normative statements, though. If you are attributing them to me, then you're lying. I've said that, in fact, it is more OK for men to be promiscuous. It is that way. Whether it should be that way is an open question. Certainly, using evolutionary psychology to justify a normative claim, one would have to overcome the is-ought problem. I've not even attempted that here.

The generalization is most definitely not based in the "history of misogyny" whatever that is. So, I ask you: justify your claim that "it [the fact of double standards about promiscuity] is a generalization based on a history of misogyny and biological fallacies." Betcha' can't.

So when you spout this shit off like it's gospel it's hard not to think "gee wiz, what's this Jeff guy's deal w/ women? (Gretchen)"

It's hard to read you spout off shit like "it's a generalization based on a history of misogyny and biological fallacies" and not wonder gee, what's Gretchen's problem with men? She can't disagree without impugning the guy's character. Maybe she thinks that anyone who disagrees with a woman is a "misogynist" '. Which, of course, would be stupid and weak.

Poor Amber...must establish your seriousness before being allowed to make a joke.

I think that most of us have sex before that "ready" state sex educators used to tell me about -- that time when both partners are willing and able to talk openly about sex. (How I look fondly back on those fateful 45 seconds with a gear shift in my back culminating in my thinking "That's it?")

It takes trial and error and experience to learn how to succeed at most things, sex is no different. College days are there to help build that experience (sexual and otherwise), aren't they?

I agree its an individual choice. But there's nothing wrong with opining in favour or against based on experience and evidence. If Fredell thinks even masturbation is wrong and oral sex is disgusting and gross, I'd say the issue is with sex in general...ever. Good luck to her future husband. I hope he has a talented palm!!

"Look, I'm in mathematics." Oh come one your trying that as a cop out. I'm an engineer with more paper (hanging on the wall) than I know what to do with. I still make damn sure that when I'm being a condescending ass (I'm better than you because I'm right) it's 100% intentional. There are two reasons why 1)people who you treat well remember you (I have reeped the benefits of this more times than I can count) 2) When I'm being intentionally being a condescending asshole that the person it is directed at has no doubt what so ever that it's at them and I'm not normally like that.

With regard to promiscuity and abstinence any one who beat me over the head with it either way is a turn off. You want to have fun do the nasty go ahead I don't need to get gory details. If you are saving yourself for marriage be my guest but two points your probably not going to be very good in bed and I'm not interested in you.

The only time I get cagey on that subject is when my wife's ex gets the same career as me by nailing the right girl. I had to endour service on my knees at the alter of academia. He was a slut super slut and in many ,many ways I envy him. I know this is nothing more the jealousy and when asked I don't hide it.

As far as Jeff's general rule, yeah there is some validity to that. Evolutionary biology I'm not so sure. We are not a monogamous species by design, apparently men have special combat sperm that fight off a competitors sperm. It has to do more with human ego. Every guy wonder about size and skill. So if she's virgin you know she's had no one better and no one bigger. If she's not a virgin most guys have that moment of angst: his (ex) dick hits the floor when he walks, can do needle point with his massive gargantuan member, and can lick his eyebrows. Then we calm down and forget about it, or drink till the part of our brains that make mental images stops working. Get up nurse the hangover for a day and let it go.

If she's had her slut phase out of the way then she's not wondering what else is out there and will be more likely to stay. She know what she's got and what's on the other side of the fence.

How about a little reciprocal respect.

You get it when you give it, or did you miss that little life lesson?

Yes, actually you're right. Whenever a man disagrees with me I scream at him that he's a misogynist. I'm also a closet lesbian who wishes she had a dick. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

"You mean in the way women assume men must protect and provide and pay and pay and pay? Get real."

You've got to be fucking kidding me. If that's the way things are I should DEFINITELY dump my boyfriend b/c I split costs with him 50/50 (and he earns TWICE what I make). Damn, what a slime BF is, thinking he can get away not paying hand over fist for the privilege of wooing me.

You LIKE that you, as a guy, can fuck anything that walks and that when a woman calls you a dirty player you can shrug your shoulders and blame your dick. It's his fault. It's mother nature's fault. But women are just disgusting SLUTS if they do that...

Women WERE at the bottom of the totem pole for much of recorded history (don't even make me go find a bible or a copy of Blackstone's Commentaries which were used as the framework for early American law). That's not a theory and it's not subjective - it's just a fact. I had to go down this same path when an argument about taking the man's name came up. It's like guys don't want to admit that a lot of this way of thinking it rooted in a history where women were just shit. I don't worry about it too much b/c I can pursue the life I want - but that's a relatively new thing for women.

I'd never argue that there's biology at work when it comes to human sexuality but honestly: as conscious thinkers you can't conclude that it's the same for a woman or a guy to have sex w/ X partners? It ISN'T different when all is said and done. YOU JUST WANT IT TO BE.

Brian (I think) said something about how chastity of women was valued b/c men (the providers) had a real need to know that the kids they were working hard to support were theirs. It's a different world and if biology can't catch up we can look at it to explain social phenomenon but you can't use it to justify social "rules" that are dumb and don't really serve a purpose. Get a DNA test; don't demand chastity.

I'm saying women don't care as much about male promiscuity and there's rational grounds for it. Men "get away with it" precisely because it's not as important to women. Yet, a woman's sexual behavior is vitally important to men for the reasons brian presented above. - Jeff

I'm missing something about your "rational grounds for women not caring as much". As I suggested previously, women do care because the guy who fucks around isn't as likely to stick around and take care of those babies -- the woman's evolutionary psychological perogative.

In re-reading brian's post above, I believe he suggests a woman's sexual behavior is vitally important to herself as she can't abandon the baby...from an evolutionary psychology standpoint.

Your point, I believe, is that men won't stick with a women they know sleeps around because he won't know for sure the babies are his...which you could exand upon from brian's post, but not specifically what he said, I don't think anyway.

And I believe you get to what really irks you about this in the "pay, pay and pay" comment. While you can use evolutionary psychology to generalize preferences and spontaneous reactions/behaviors, we have that whole higher brain function which can moderate. And we have developed a culture with specific thoughts about sexuality (Gretchen & Flynne's points). I don't think you'll find one of the female "regulars" here who thinks the man should "pay, pay and pay", just a preference that he pay first...and then we can let our higher brain take over.

Just like we don't advertise how much sex we've had at first....and then let your higher brain take over.

Being in mathematics is not a valid excuse for being an asshole. I'm an asshole, but the math is just a coincidence.

Also, I do think that known promiscuous males are becoming less desired by female partners, as time goes by. Hence the use of words like "player." I think this is sortof in a transitional phase right now as younger generations raised with different values are growing up.

Of course Men will still value male promiscuity, so who cares what the women think, right?

Jeff - were you the Jeff that posted on the article? If that was you and it was genuine then thank you. And I hope that after reading it you realize I am NOT anti-guy. I'm not a "crazy feminist." I just think that we have the ability to not blame biology when there's an egregious lapse in judgment: this is one of those lapse that almost everyone is guilty of.

Pretty much any contribution I have to this conversation has already been covered by someone at some point by now, so I'll just content myself to watch - with only this minor contribution...

That which does not destroy us makes us stronger I know it's off topic...

I much prefer the more pragmatic version of this phrase: "That which does not destroy you, may well leave you very sore in the morning."

Ah, but I'm a bitch if I disagree with Jeff; and he's just a misogynist because he's RIGHT, goddammit and he WON'T pay, pay and pay. I get it now. This is why my ex husband doesn't work, and only pays $69/week for child support - it's because I'm a slut! I'm so glad that's been cleared up. Just because I'm the one who's working, paying a $1300/month mortgage, and paying all the girls' medical costs, I'm the bitch because I want my ex to pay, pay and pay! Yeah, that's it, that't the ticket! Oh my. If that's the problem, I thank the gods I'm the one who's actually got enough of a backbone to pay for it all; if I had to rely on the ex, the girls and I would be living in a cardboard box under the highway! All because I had sex with more than one man, even though it's been proven that both girls are his alone. Wonderful. Thanks for clearing all that up Jeff. I can get on with my life now, knowing what a bitch I am. Swell. Thanks for that. Wow. /sarcasm

I'm late, but I can't help but pile on this: "That which does not destroy us makes us stronger."

That is so stupid it makes my teeth hurt.

Here are my instinctive counter arguments:
1. Unless, of course, it makes us weaker.
2. Ever met a bitter old alcoholic?

Jeff, I found your tone to be direct and perhaps a little unfeeling, but I liked it. Then again, I'm generally a fan of the "Let's cut the shit and get to the facts" approach. It's also one of the reasons I enjoy Amy's writing so much, even when the facts she notes are inconvenient or emotionally painful for me.

Have you tried the Keirsey Temperament test?

"This is a classic case of woman wanting their cake and eating it, too." That's a gender based attack so the name calling was justified, more than justified.

"The asymmetrical import of sexual promiscuity between the sexes is not my opinion. The observation is made by the same evolutionary biology sources that Amy uses to justify most of her evidence-based advice." Well yes but just cause Amy uses a specific source does not make it true nor does it mean that all the text of the source is correct.

The evidence is usually irrefutable the conclusions are not. The disparity can just as easily be a throw back of patriarchal societies. The fact that we in the US were a patriarchal society back as recently as the 50's is not disputable. So this view may still be cultural as opposed to evolutionary.

Yes, actually you're right. Whenever a man disagrees with me I scream at him that he's a misogynist. I'm also a closet lesbian who wishes she had a dick. Thanks for clarifying that for me (Gretchen).

You've got to be fucking kidding me. If that's the way things are I should DEFINITELY dump my boyfriend b/c I split costs with him 50/50 (and he earns TWICE what I make). Damn, what a slime BF is, thinking he can get away not paying hand over fist for the privilege of wooing me.

If I was "fucking kidding you," my copious humor endowment would split your skinny ass in half. You wanna' get nasty, let's get nasty. Just don't get testy when you see my red hand print on your ass in the morning.

You LIKE that you, as a guy, can fuck anything that walks and that when a woman calls you a dirty player you can shrug your shoulders and blame your dick. It's his fault. It's mother nature's fault. But women are just disgusting SLUTS if they do that...

Women WERE at the bottom of the totem pole for much of recorded history (don't even make me go find a bible or a copy of Blackstone's Commentaries which were used as the framework for early American law). That's not a theory and it's not subjective - it's just a fact.

I'd never argue that there's biology at work when it comes to human sexuality but honestly: as conscious thinkers you can't conclude that it's the same for a woman or a guy to have sex w/ X partners? It ISN'T different when all is said and done. YOU JUST WANT IT TO BE.

And no one's arguing that biology isn't at play, I've only asked you to justify your claim that my argument is based in "biological fallacies."

It's a different world and if biology can't catch up we can look at it to explain social phenomenon but you can't use it to justify social "rules" that are dumb and don't really serve a purpose. Get a DNA test; don't demand chastity.

Have you tried the Keirsey Temperament test (vlad)?

INTP straight down the line, even on the long version of Myers-Briggs.

That's a gender based attack so the name calling was justified, more than justified.

moreta:

Your point, I believe, is that men won't stick with a women they know sleeps around because he won't know for sure the babies are his...which you could exand upon from brian's post, but not specifically what he said, I don't think anyway.

Actually, it's precisely what I was saying. For a man to be tricked into providing for children that were not his is a failed reproductive strategy. Conversely, banging every attached woman you can find is a highly optimized strategy because you get to reproduce without ever having to put any effort or capital into raising the offspring. Sure, you don't get any input in how they are raised, but prior to the advent of civilization beyond the nomad level, did that really matter much?

Like I said - you might not like it, and it may not be fair, but what is, is.

I don't have mystical powers in my vadge but I'm still working on it.

Also, thank you for calling my ass skinny. Even in jest it's a wonderful thing to hear. I do work hard to keep it nice.

"Oh after you've rolled around in all that self-pity"

This is exactly where I knew this could go and didn't want it to. It's not about pity. It's just...well, a fact that we're here at this point in time and lots of stuff has happened to get us here. Just because something is one way for XYZ reasons doesn't make it justified. The status quo isn't always the right thing. Standards change and it's a GOOD thing. I'll stop before I Obama and Hillary accuse me of stealing campaign slogans. P.S: have they fucked, yet?

"men have had it at least as hard as women, have been at least as oppressed as women."

Double standards apply to men and they suck just as much. But do you REALLY think men had it the same (as in "just as bad") as women? Men had to fall into line like women did. Social pressures forced men to work. Maybe there were guys 100 years ago that wished they had more time to play with their kids. But they couldn't b/c they had to hit the fields (actually back then I doubt moms played much either. Kids had it the worst back then, I think).

I won't disagree with you on that...up to a point. B/c at the end of the day men got to call a majority of the shots. They made up almost all the rules (owned property when women didn't) AND they got to fuck prostitutes! Now, come on - you can't possibly think it's fair our great-great-great-great grandmothers couldn't fuck prostitutes do you?!?!?

...oo I have a good come back for you Jeff:

...maybe my great X 4 grandmother WAS the prostitute! :-)

That's a gender based attack so the name calling was justified, more than justified. - vlad

Nope. then every generalization about men on this blog, and there's plenty, would warrant name calling. Reduction to absurdity. You're busted. - Jeff

By and large, men don't want relationships with sluts. It's well explained by the same evidence from evolutionary psychology offered up by may women here. This is a classic case of woman wanting their cake and eating it, too. - Jeff

Nope back. Your generalization was that men don't want relationships with sluts. Your suggestion that the women here only refer to that evolutionary psychology when it suits them (ie: means the man asks and pays for the first date) is your own conclusion and was written in a manner to which one could take offense. I'm trying to cut you some slack for your style of writing...but you do make it a challenge!

Shinobi took the words right out of my mouth:

> Being in mathematics is not
> a valid excuse for being an
> asshole. I'm an asshole, but
> the math is just a coincidence.

(except I'm useless at math, too)

A lot of the problems with people's attitudes are with their tone. Tone is important. Especially in considering how women get treated. There are probably a lot of men in the Muslim cultures who, in their day-to-day lives, don't treat women any worse than lots of Western guys. But their mouths are way out of whack, and their society can suffer for it for a long time. Amy got seventy comments by lunchtime for this post, and most of our complaints are with these tonal minutia. (Sometimes people will use a word like "bourgeois" in here and I'll hound them for months.)

> I think guys usually learn not
> to ask after a certain point in
> their lives, maybe because they
> know that any answer will bother
> them.

Guys outgrow that stuff anyway. Also everyone figures out that even though your partner spent X number of years with someone else, it didn't mean they were happy or felt close.

(This is kind of a big theme with me: Envy is *always* stupid. You just don't know what's going on in other people's hearts.)

Please. Keep that skinny ass tight.

Double standards apply to men and they suck just as much. But do you REALLY think men had it the same (as in "just as bad") as women (Gretchen)?

B/c at the end of the day men got to call a majority of the shots. They made up almost all the rules (owned property when women didn't) AND they got to fuck prostitutes! Now, come on - you can't possibly think it's fair our great-great-great-great grandmothers couldn't fuck prostitutes do you (Gretchen)?!?!?

I feel for those old grannies, I do. They fuck any man whatsoever and force their husband at law to care for it. They could take up multiple trades, while men could only take up one. they could commit crimes and have their husbands punished for it. Those oppressive male serfs were enslaved to the land, while their wives weren't. Those oppressed proto-feminist waifs, they.

Your suggestion that the women here only refer to that evolutionary psychology when it suits them (ie: means the man asks and pays for the first date) is your own conclusion and was written in a manner to which one could take offense. I'm trying to cut you some slack for your style of writing...but you do make it a challenge!

Oh, so now it's not a "gender based attack" it's a "a manner to which one could take offense."

I missed the point. I can perhaps be forgiven, it was a moving target.

brian -- thanks for clarifying what you meant. I agree, it is what it is, whether I like it or not. Fortunately, we do have other skills to help us override basic biology when we find it beneficial to do so. I think Shinobi is right that it is becoming less beneficial for guys to sleep around in such "public" a manner...if they want to eventually land with certain women.

Being in mathematics is not a valid excuse for being an asshole. I'm an asshole, but the math is just a coincidence.

Assumes a fact not in evidence. LOL

"Nope. then every generalization about men on this blog, and there's plenty, would warrant name calling. Reduction to absurdity. You're busted." No you half literate anal wort (you said nasty so lets go) and here's why. The generalization that women want their cake and eat it to is crap. Fist you biological accident all people every where want their cake and eat it to. So saying that it applies to women only is an assinie generalization.

Your use of the pay, pay, pay crap means that either you got fuck in court or are certain you would be. Given how much of a self loving rectal blemish you are I agree. Only a self loathing women would come near you so you are your own self fulfilling prophecy. She could not possibly want anything from you but money as you have nothing else to offer.

"men have had it at least as hard as women, have been at least as oppressed as women." Besides you pointless and delusional pontification on modern society give examples of men being oppressed where women were not equally or more so oppressed.

A lot of the problems with people's attitudes are with their tone. Tone is important. Especially in considering how women get treated (crid).

True. But relying on nuanced measures of tone in blog comments to adjudge someone's character is like using a divining rod to diagnose cancer. In other words, it's fucking stupid.

If women want to be treated to the deference accorded 18th century ladies, then they should act like 18th century ladies. If they want to act like petulant babies, then they'll be treated like that, too.

Some think I'm cretinous; I think they protest too much.

"They could take up multiple trades, while men could only take up one." Where the hell are you getting this crap?

I dunno--she's certainly more thoughtful than Lena Chen, who's got a bright future as the Susie Bright of the next generation. Chen's a sociology major, which is the gut of guts.

But the most telling statement was something about Harvard forcing people to "define themselves" which really means "brand themselves". God forbid, anyone at Harvard have two conflicting ideas in her head at the same time. Any place where students are less self-obsessed, and she could live a quiet life.

Given how much of a self loving rectal blemish you are I agree. Only a self loathing women would come near you so you are your own self fulfilling prophecy. She could not possibly want anything from you but money as you have nothing else to offer (vlad).

You know so much about me from these blog comments, don't you?

vlad, you're such a pussy. lol That's the kind of complaint one hears from the guy who just got his ass kicked by the Rugby team captain who just fucked his girlfriend. Did I fuck your girlfriend by accident, witty bitty vlad?

See, I can make personal comment about you too, vlad. lol

OK...I give up. Sorry for clogging your BLOG, Amy. So far the only response I get from Jeff is when I edge slightly closer to making a bit of fun at his expense. This leads me to believe he is only interested in an argument that gets inflammatory so he can respond in what appears to be a rational and calm manner. Your superiority is dazzling. And you wonder why you come off as an asshole? Maybe you are one?

I tell the guy I'm seeing that we have the best sex I've ever had in my life. A lot of the issue in this particular blog seems to revolve around male insecurity, and since he is a very confident man, he is pumped knowing he is better in bed than quite a few guys, most of whom are older and more experienced than he is.

I'm not bullshitting him because I'm trying to trick him into having a relationship with me, and I'm not faking orgasms to stroke his ego, I'm just being completely honest because I enjoy the intimacy of connecting with another person.

If we're talking about blaming biology, how about the fact that kids fresh out of puberty have raging hormones and are, shall we say, fruitful?? Yet obviously teenagers are ill-equipped to be good parents or even partners in today's society. The solution to this problem is education and proper parenting to show kids how to think with their brains and not just their loins. Obviously this is not always done but has a great effect when employed.

I think the slut issue is similar. From a biological standpoint, sluttiness may be undesirable for a guy in choosing a girl, but fortunately he also has a brain. A well-adjusted, confident man will not let his primitive side get the better of him if the confident, well-adjusted woman to whom he is attracted happens to have had a whole lot of sex with many partners. However, the primitive side will always be there, and not everyone is well-adjusted. That's modern life! A smart woman accepts the possibility that perceived promiscuity may affect her desirability as a long term partner, and is discreet. You don't have to be ashamed, but do avoid tormenting a guy with tales of your slutty adventures.

Every woman, she said, should have this "incredibly moving experience" of being appreciated for who she really is.

This is what really fired me up. Who am I but a sexual being? I'm composed of a mind and a body that is so much fun to play with... I mean that in every sense. THAT is an incredibly moving experience! How incredibly short-sighted and stingy of her to deny that.

"vlad, you're such a pussy." I am what I eat.

"That's the kind of complaint one hears from the guy who just got his ass kicked by the Rugby team captain who just fucked his girlfriend." No and when accused of such that's my response.

"Did I fuck your girlfriend by accident, witty bitty vlad?" If she let you near her I'd leave right now.

"See, I can make personal comment about you too, vlad. lol" Your just not very good at them.

"A well-adjusted, confident man will not let his primitive side get the better of him if the confident, well-adjusted woman to whom he is attracted happens to have had a whole lot of sex with many partners." - Debra

Debra: give up, go back, stop, do not pass go.

I said that 1,000 times already it doesn't get anywhere.

> relying on nuanced
> measures of tone in blog comments
> to adjudge someone's character is
> like using a divining rod to
> diagnose cancer.

Care to say why? Is anything more fair than judging strangers by the things they say? Upon what else could you expect to be adjudged here?

"You know so much about me from these blog comments, don't you?" Well let me see. You think all women are out to get you. You think that all women are focused on getting their hands on your money. That no matter what happens men will get screwed in the new feminist conspiracy. Women want to fuck everything that walks and then "settle down" with someone like you and take your money?

Did I miss any thing?

Oh, your raving lunacy and conspiracy theories give credence to the real feminazis out there.

You don't have to be ashamed, but do avoid tormenting a guy with tales of your slutty adventures.

Bang on, Debra. (Pun not intended, amazingly. I just mean you've nailed it).
And Gretchen -your comments have been brill.

This is the part that annoys me the most:

**"So I'm free!" she said. "I'm free to experience the emotional and intellectual and spiritual intimacy of another person." By closing herself off to sex, she claims to have found the humanity in her boyfriend and to have opened herself to an experience of love.**

I'm free to do all these things, too. And have orgasms. I consider orgasms an essential part of my humanity and the humanity of a man I am with.

On the topic of the article posted (a real shocker, I know):

"So I'm free!" She said.

The comment that followed that, I felt, was a bunch of malarkey. Now, I could just be a bitter little girl or whatever, but when I read that statement I thought, "The only thing this girl's free from is trying." See, not only does she have this great excuse for not getting intimate with whoever she's seeing, but she has a little something to cuddle up with if the relationship goes sour ("It's because I wouldn't put out."). Her comments on oral sex only confirms that suspicion for me.

Now, I didn't have sex until I got married, either, but I'd be a little upset if that became my defining moment. It's a decision millions of people make and the fact that she seems proud that it became her defining moment just seems... strange to me. She's at Harvard-- doesn't she have anything bigger to define herself by?

"But what is "promiscuity"?" - Amy

Actually, if you think back, you'll see we've agreed on this, though in different words: if you have sex with someone you don't know, that's a mistake; if you continue to do that, you're a menace to public health, as are your partners. I think that makes you promiscuous.

I'm not requiring anyone to make lifelong commitments, and in fact I cheer your relationship with Gregg, even as I think you might be a little too public for his comfort. But I do expect you to be thoughtful, clean and honest with him, all traits I do not expect of the sexual gourmand.

"She's at Harvard-- doesn't she have anything bigger to define herself by?"

Maybe it's a problem with ivy league guys. Perhaps if she transferred to, oh, diesel engine repair vo-tech school she'd find something bigger.
To define herself by.
At least she'd be surrounded by guys who wouldn't buy her "my power is my virginity" BS.
I could see it now -- "My last boyfriend was sweet and accepted my decision to tease him half to death!"
"Yeah, I think I plooked a guy like that in prison a few times. Get on the Harley."

Radwaste, what on earth does "knowing" someone have to do with it? (Although in some Bible or I read as a kid, "knowing" was what Jacob was doing to all his wives in the Old Testament). You can "know" someone, date them a while, trust them because they have a decent background and you agree on things and they only had like two other relationships... and still get an STD from them if you don't use a condom! Oops, someone in the chain of trusting monogamy had sex with a carrier! Then said STD goes undetected a good while, there's no reason for you to get tested because you were just having monogamous sex with this nice person you trust. You move on to other "relationships", cycle continues... THEN you are a public menace!

I'm not supporting actual sex addicts who go around screwing everyone in sight, but jeez, if people want to treat sex like a sport, fine with me as long as they use protection--not just the parenthood but the DISEASE-preventive variety. I honestly don't understand how so many women can go on the pill for their boyfriends without test results, so many diseases don't show symptoms.

Anyway, my point is, any menace to public health is due to lack of condom use and regular STD testing, not a lack of "knowing" one's sex partner.

During my recreational sex period, I always used condoms, was very selective, and got tested every 6 months for any and all possible STDs. I didn't get pregnant, and if I did, I knew where to go to get a quick abortion for free (I live in Canada). I was also very discrete, so no-one knew what I was up to.

Promiscuity never made me a menace to public health, nor did it make me a gold-digging baby-factory.

What this is really about is male insecurity (some men anyways), and the inability of men to control women and their sexuality. I love orgasms, and only have sex with men who treat me with respect and enjoy seeing me have them.

Whiney little bitches don't get anywhere near me, and believe me, they all try.

I avoid men who are full of anger and bitterness towards women, they are pretty easy to spot. I'm not interested in being the target of all that venom.

"Anyway, my point is, any menace to public health is due to lack of condom use and regular STD testing, not a lack of "knowing" one's sex partner."

Hey, he has an STD and you get it, you didn't know who you were having sex with, that's all, regardless of how long you've been with him. Or her, for guys out there. Are you trying to say that you would claim to actually know somebody you have sex with who conceals having HIV or Hepatitus-B - or another STD - from you?

As your acknowledgement of the risk of STDs points out in no uncertain terms, sex itself is a serious bet that the consequences will be good for both of you. If you don't have an honest person in your arms, you've made a mistake. Feel free to think otherwise; the clinic needs business.

Oh, you people are all talk. Orgy at my house!

Patriarchal societies evolved during the move from hunter-gatherer to farming communities. Societies that encouraged a stable extended family and few unexpected mouths to feed had a selective advantage. Arranged marriages and parental influence over adult children solved the problem of the hormone glut in the young (arranged marriages are still common in traditional societies found in India, Pakistan, etc). At a time when one year's bad crop might wipe out the group, it was the most effective strategy for the survival and perpetuation of family and society. Not much fun for the people themselves I'll grant, especially women, but the evolutionary pressure was for the fittest society to survive.

With today's abundance, there's little point in continuing those old ways, but societies are certainly homeostatic. One thing that's still the same, though - the reason to get married is so you'll have someone to watch your back.

Radwaste, I think you misunderstood me. I know far too many people who otherwise appear to have common sense who would not be aware they had an STD until symptoms showed, perhaps a long time after infection, because they are careless about condoms and testing. My point was that any person you have a relationship with could unknowingly be carrying an STD. They could be a person with a relatively monogamous relationship history who is "honest" about other aspects of their life, but how can they be completely honest about being clean of STDs unless they have recent test results? They just assume they are, say they've been monogamous in the past, and that's enough for a lot of people to move on to mere contraceptives. Not for me! It only takes one unwise encounter to infect someone, sometimes incurably. I assume many people are not as vigilant as I, or Chrissy, are, to avoid that unpleasant outcome. And that's only prudent, sadly.

Even if you are in a sexually exclusive relationship, it's still a good idea to get tested for STDs when you go in for your annual physical. I trust my guy 99%, but there is still a 1% unknown due to human weakness, and it's better to catch and cure STDs sooner rather than later.

The first guy I had sex with, who was a surgeon, gave me my first and only STD (which I got rid of-both him and the STD). This set the stage for my meticulous vigilance in all my sexual contacts.

I am delighted to read how careful you are being, and I hope it's enough. Now, I don't think that's the norm; feel free to tell me people at clubs are that careful. I don't know, but the disease rates make me think they're not.