Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you've created a false dichotomy here. I will respect a women who is open to new things more than one who is holding on to a tradition. I'm not saying all have to agree with casual sex but don't shut it down because you can only interpret it to mean "disrespect". progressive intellectualism and moderate exploration trump some forms of traditionalism, this is one of them.
I didn't create a dichotomy, it's implied in the OP. The response to the OP's question is, that it's a big deal to many women because they expect men to take an interest in who they are as people. Why is that so hard for men to understand?
I didn't create a dichotomy, it's implied in the OP. The response to the OP's question is, that it's a big deal to many women because they expect men to take an interest in who they are as people. Why is that so hard for men to understand?
that's the false dichotomy. You can take an interest in a women's character and still want sex sans romantic relationship. Can you not see that?
I haven't read all 25 pages, but the OP clearly doesn't understand that men and women process things differently. Its a scientific fact that women become chemically attached (brain releases dopa-mine or serotonin, I forget)for a longer period of time than men do (I think its 14 days vs 48 hours, but not sure). Women need to feel connected before having sex and men need sex to feel connected. But I digress, because thats more of a relationship thing. Of course there are women who can somehow pull this off, and maybe convince themselves that it means nothing, but not many. Even speaking as a man, I don't look for meaningless sex. I just have more depth than that. I got it out of the way in my 20's anyway. But its not about being perceived as a sl*t, its a chemical difference is my point.
you've created a false dichotomy here. I will respect a women who is open to new things more than one who is holding on to a tradition.I'm not saying all have to agree with casual sexbut don't shut it down because you can only interpret it to mean "disrespect". progressive intellectualism and moderate exploration trump some forms of traditionalism, this is one of them.
Here's a thought: why can't you respect both for doing what they each want to do? By saying you won't respect a woman b/c she holds onto tradition, you just shut that notion down, so others may shut down the notion of casual sex as well.
that's the false dichotomy. You can take an interest in a women's character and still want sex sans romantic relationship. Can you not see that?
I guess not, lol! Because if you're really interested in her as a person, then your interest is not superficial. By definition it's deeper than just interest in a pretty face or body. That is the beginning of romantic interest. Combine that with sex, and emotions often get involved. Men who think they can love 'em and leave 'em are sometimes surprised to find they're hurt if it's the woman who leaves. Or who "cheats" . (If it's an undefined relationship, or just about sex, then there's no such thing as cheating, right?)
Usually a guy who just wants to use a woman for sex expects sex on the first date. That allows no time to get to know the woman as a person. That's why there's a dichotomy that is not a false one. This is the scenario that comes to mind when the OP's question is raised. If you have an alternative scenario, by all means, please share.
I'm not so sure I agree, Atlguy. I have now heard it twice (in an American newspaper and in a foreign broadcast) that women who are with the beta guy are attracted to the alpha guy when ovulating. That means their desire to mate isn't driven by emotional attachment, were they to act on their urges.
Also, in addition to having college girls who engage in "dormitory sex," there are the cougars on the other side of the coin. They are attracted to youth and the reaffirmation that gives them. I doubt Kim Cattrall of "Sex and the City" needed to have an emotional bond. Some women know it isn't as likely to happen, and will settle for the "roll in the hay."
Lastly, when you hear some women's laundry list, some of them have ZERO emotion. I was friends with a couple who I went to undergrad with. The wife had a Filipina friend. I casually asked "What's up with (insert name of Filipina chick)?" She told me that this chick was looking for a white guy who was rich and about 10 years younger. I thought "good luck." She hasn't found him! But if I bet if such a guy came along, he could score a homerun on the first date.
But I will agree that MOST men do NOT need any emotional attachment to perform sexually.
Here's a thought, why can't you respect both for doing what they each want to do?
I can respect both people. But we all discriminate against other's ideas and I think not having sex because the idea has been passed down to you through some family/moral tradition is kind of irrational. Im not saying there are no good reasons to not have casual sex, but in most cases the girl isn't even reasonably considering it because of some old, unquestioned idea they about it.
I guess not, lol! Because if you're really interested in her as a person, then your interest is not superficial. By definition it's deeper than just interest in a pretty face or body. That is the beginning of romantic interest. Combine that with sex, and emotions often get involved. Men who think they can love 'em and leave 'em are sometimes surprised to find they're hurt if it's the woman who leaves. Or who "cheats" . (If it's an undefined relationship, or just about sex, then there's no such thing as cheating, right?)
Usually a guy who just wants to use a woman for sex expects sex on the first date. That allows no time to get to know the woman as a person. That's why there's a dichotomy that is not a false one. This is the scenario that comes to mind when the OP's question is raised. If you have an alternative scenario, by all means, please share.
I think we just disagree. I can respect your priority here, you don't seem to think it is possible to have casual while at the same time being respected or whatever.
I can respect both people. But we all discriminate against other's ideas and I think not having sex because the idea has been passed down to you through some family/moral tradition is kind of irrational. Im not saying there are no good reasons to not have casual sex, but in most cases the girl isn't even reasonably considering it because of some old, unquestioned idea they about it.
I think you beleive they didn't "reasonably" consider it because they came to a different conclusion then you did about it.
edit: Meep okay, agree to disagree as well b/c I am with Ruth on this one.
I think we just disagree. I can respect your priority here, you don't seem to think it is possible to have casual while at the same time being respected or whatever.
We must be coming at the question from different angles or assumptions. I find being propositioned by a virtual stranger disconcerting and off-putting. Why would I want to have sex with someone I hardly know? On the other hand, if we're already friends, and we decide to add benefits, I don't see a problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
