SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Some sweet potato fries would be better than the popcorn...justsayin

Sweet potatoes are not real potatoes. They're an insult to potatoes everywhere.

Imagine me acknowledging that yes, there was shaming but because you are a woman, you wouldn't understand. Also, I never said I failed to see the female version of this thread. I seen many angles of it. I seen some shitty things said. I seen more shitty ideas wrongly assumed. I seen women from both sides stating sexual history was or wasn't important. I seen women pointing out that wanting to know wasn't slut shaming. I seen women saying it was. I also seen women just jumping on an ideological band wagon.

Sigh.

I think what you are missing is that when you earlier stated that there is already an internal stigma towards these things...you were exactly right.

The comments I made about women having this go from generation to generation was exactly the same comment. There IS an internal stigma women carry and it comes from it being passed down not only from our families and those around us, but it creates a societal conditioning. WITHOUT having had that conditioning, there is really no way to understand it. Just as I can not claim that I understand how it is to be a male and have been conditioned to control your emotions, or what effects that had. We DO experience things differently because of our gender. That doesn't make one sexist. What makes one sexist is the belief that one person gets to be superior because of their gender, and I do not believe in that at all.

That's why all my posts basically say, if the man is conservative and has few sexual partners, then it makes sense that his preference is to have a female partner with that same conservative view (and therefore a lower number of partners or "devious" experiences). What doesn't work is when the man has been devious and promiscuous but expects something different from his SO because of ones gender.

When you say you saw the woman's side, you keep just saying you see what the women said. I didn't go back to try and catalog what some of the men said, because I don't have the time or inclination. But, it did happen in this thread, not by all male posters but by some. And, in turn I agree, that there were some female posters who took there internal stigma and interpreted some things a little more harshly than they were likely intended. But, it happened on both sides. Your failure to see that may not have anything to do with being a man, but you seem to be a man who was intent on going back and cataloguing only what the women said against the men, so I guess I assumed that had to do with proving your own confirmation bias.

At the end of the day, it's a place where you firmly want to look at your oppression as a male, but not recognize that the oppression of the female here was just as real. My comments about the longevity of it was not about females having it worse, it was about how ingrained and stigmatized some of this stuff is. I truly see the word whore no less than a racial slur. If it was derogatory towards both sexes in the same weight, I wouldn't see it that way. Yeah, men get called whores, but the ones who do, do they care? No.

You can not FULLY understand the oppression of someone who experienced it differently than you. Neither can I. Noone can do that because they can't experience it as the one being oppressed. That was my point.

[This message edited by hikingout at 8:48 AM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

What doesn't work is when the man has been devious and promiscuous but expects something different from his SO because of ones gender.

<Fart in church warning>

Sure it works. People do it all the time. Poor women want to date rich men. Fat men want to date thin women. Unattractive men want to date attractive women. Even sillier, tall men want to date short women. There's no "must be the same" requirement for dating/attraction. And there's no problem with any of that. Is it hypocritical? Sure it is. It's also reality, people often want, in a partner, the things that they themselves do not have. And that could me money, looks, power, youth, and yes, chastity.

Also, we continue to skirt the real issue here; there is a biological reason that chastity is valued more in women than men. Yes, it's no longer valid (DNA testing), but, it was valid for eons, and that value isn't going to fall away in 50 years simply because rationally it doesn't matter anymore (and, in some cases, it's still valid, if your wife cheats on you and gets pregnant from the OM, in some areas, you are automatically the "father" and required to support the child, DNA or not). There are differences, and those differences exist for a reason.

I know people hate the "slut/stud" comparison, but even that one exists for a reason. It's difficult for a guy to bed lots of women. We can argue "how difficult", but, I think we can all agree "It's harder" for a man. So, status is conveyed because it's the "difficult" thing to do. Again, I'm not arguing this is RIGHT, but there's a reason for it, and that reason has little/nothing to do with "I want to oppress women today" and a whole lot to do with the different experiences that men and women have with sex and sexual access. The "hard" thing for a woman to do is to reject sexual advances and NOT sleep with lots of men, so that has an implied value..

Some sweet potato fries would be better than the popcorn...justsayin

Ewwwwwww. NO. Maybe healthier, but not better. Yeah, that's my opinion - fight me!

If anyone lush-shames me tomorrow for this *side-eyes everyone*...

So Yeah, I think I am basically just trolling the shit out of this thread at this point...

HO, I highly recommend you actually take the time to go back and catalogue. If you want me to believe that there was actual sexist comments made, it will be easy to prove. The list I provided hasn’t been challenged in 8 pages now. It was that obvious. If you are so inclined to argue your point, at least give me reference to understand.

Sweet potatoes are not real potatoes. They're an insult to potatoes everywhere.

Ok, I could handle Mr. Benchpress, but I refuse to take on 2 of ya. Especially when I don’t even like sweet potatoes. Yukon Golds FTW!

@Slowlygoingcrazy

Blahblahblah I didn't object to the list because I'm sure that I said a lot of those things. Some were completely taken out of context, some weren't.

Ok, this is a starting point, now the question, why is it ok for you to use "X" shaming yet vilify the iota of the perception of stigmatization of any kind for women.

To put this more clearly, your direct shaming statements while calling out what you perceived as shaming are the EPITOME of hypocrisy and/or double standard (hence why the term SJW)

I'm fighting this one because it's harmful to stigmatize women for their sexuality. Women are still blamed for rape. Women are still afraid to come forward in sexual harassment cases because they're worried about their reputations.

You are confusing either intentionally are not stigmatization with a value judgement based upon the willful actions. Now rape is obviously intended to control the conversation, however, I shall defuse the attempt by stating if you are confusing a reasonable and proper investigation with blame that again is a double standard. I'll touch on the harassment issue in the next paragraphs.

I think you were the one who brought up new HR rules.

That was not I. However I'll comment below.

They're a godsend. Before the new rules, someone in upper management could sneak up behind me, rub his dick in my butt, have the whole thing recorded on the security camera, and get away with it. Because I was nice to him earlier that day. Because I froze and didn't say no. I'm probably asking for it and then running to HR to ruin his career. That's the bullshit women deal with. Now there's some progress. The next time someone touched me he was fired with cause that same day. I wasn't questioned about my behavior or what I was wearing. Same with the guy who asked me if I had panties on under my dress at the company Christmas party last year. I didn't even have to say anything, he was fired the next day. Progress.

I state the following without intent of ego or arrogance but for clarification of my perspective however, I have been more than decade executive senior management within a reasonably sized private equity group. Either the organization you are with has a substantial culture issue (I have seen a few of these examples) or well once is an unfortunate occurrence, twice an outlier, three a pattern of significance. In either case, it would be determined a distraction from objective and would be solved.

A common error of employees is to believe HR does exist for the purpose of helping the members of an organization. That is most certainly not what they are tasked, their entire reason for existence as they are not a revenue generating division is to protect the value of the company and deal with various compliance issues.

You have stated your concern of judgment how would you argue against a simple threat assessment (judgment) of the behavior swirling about/around you. Would you consider it "slut-shaming" if you were "transferred/ allocated for assignment or simply made redundant? or would you see it as the simple truth.

Threat management of the organization's value. Thrice, thrice.....

@ Ellie

I don’t even like sweet potatoes. Yukon Golds FTW!

*scoffs* Some ally you turned out to be, Loukas!

*happily munches sweet potato fries*

Hey, their relative Convolvulus arvensis causes our local community garden big time heck, so of course I want a chance to get even with that family! Plus they ARE delicious! So there!

I think, that yes the sexual history should be discussed - maybe not in detail but to some extent. I think it avoids embarrassing situations like what was mentioned and it helps to determine if your sexual drive, likes/dislikes mesh. For instance, I am more dominate than many of my female friends - some of my previous boyfriends didn't like my "take Charge" attitude in bed. It would have saved me a lot of heartache had we discussed things before our relationship turned physical. It also would have kept me from marrying my first WH had I known what he was into. (He liked to share)My current FWH knew about my adventures in dating/marriage before we ever got in bed together. I didn't want to date anyone who could not be up front and honest about their sexual desires.

It also helps bc of the STD factor, it is nothing now days for someone to ask to see your std panel. (FYI, I hang around a lot of folks who live alternative lifestyles, which include Poly couples even though I am in a mono relationship cause I don't share well)

I know discussing your likes/dislikes, what you have done etc works very well in BDSM relationships. In that type of relationship you don't want to leave something out that could trigger you or your partner.

With any relationship, communication is the key and if your potential partner cannot handle your past then you may not be happy in your future.

Blahblahblah, I’m an engineer. There are very few women in my role anywhere, but at my company there are 2 of us. That’s it. It’s extremely common for women in STEM to be harassed in the workplace. It’s not just my company culture, but an industry issue. HR probably does see my reporting as a liability, but reallocating a technical lead, and the only female technical lead, would also look bad for the company.

I’m not saying that consensual sex is the same as rape or harassment. I’m saying that talking about women who have had sex in a negative light can affect women who have been assaulted. It’s why I find terms like “damaged goods” so offensive.

As for calling someone a misogynist? Sure, I’ll also call someone a racist for using racial slurs. Not hypocritical at all.

[This message edited by Slowlygoingcrazy at 10:06 AM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

This whole thing shows in a bunch of statistics across the board.

Let's remember that correlation is not causation.

*****

When I sought out my W, I wanted her enough to give up trying to control the outcome. Her number, her list of characteristics that she was looking for, etc. - they were meaningless to me. I threw my hat into the ring and let her decide.

I don't mean to project, but don't we all have to do that at some point in building a relationship?

*****

I can't help thinking that making a high number a disqualifier stems from one or more feelings that the person wants to avoid.

For example, I considered the competition when I fell for my W. I feared the competition. If she had had a high number, I could have let it scare me away.

One way I could have avoided dealing with my discomfort is:

I could also have suppressed my fear and soothed myself with, 'She's (probably) a slut.' I wonder if there's sexual symbolism in Aesop's fox and grapes fable.

I don't care what the feeling may be - any person can find any feeling too much to accept. When a person is turned off by a high number in a potential partner, that may say more about the person than about the potential partner.

*****

A number of negative adjectives have been used about people, especially women, with high numbers.

Consider:

1) 'Durians disgust me.'

2) 'Durians are disgusting.'

If I liked durians, the 2nd statement would get a much different reaction than the first. Personally, I'd think the speaker of the 2nd statement thought I was disgusting because I liked durians.

Now consider another example. It's one thing to say something like, 'I feel ____ about high numbers.' Instead, in this thread, I've read more statements like, 'If you have a high number, you're _____.' The first formulation is sharing. The 2nd is easily interpreted as woman-shaming.

*****

If you have a high number and think any potential partner has to have a low number, you're holding a double standard.

That's a big problem, IMO. Double standards are probably one of the main justifications for doing evil, IMO. I urge you to change to adopt single standards.

Just sayin'....

loukas,

Not gonna bother. I have pointed out some specific examples in my other posts and they were ignored. I don't really have the inclination to take it any further. You are committed and entitled to your beliefs.

Sure it works. People do it all the time. Poor women want to date rich men. Fat men want to date thin women. Unattractive men want to date attractive women. Even sillier, tall men want to date short women. There's no "must be the same" requirement for dating/attraction. And there's no problem with any of that. Is it hypocritical? Sure it is. It's also reality, people often want, in a partner, the things that they themselves do not have. And that could me money, looks, power, youth, and yes, chastity.

Also, we continue to skirt the real issue here; there is a biological reason that chastity is valued more in women than men. Yes, it's no longer valid (DNA testing), but, it was valid for eons, and that value isn't going to fall away in 50 years simply because rationally it doesn't matter anymore (and, in some cases, it's still valid, if your wife cheats on you and gets pregnant from the OM, in some areas, you are automatically the "father" and required to support the child, DNA or not). There are differences, and those differences exist for a reason.

I know people hate the "slut/stud" comparison, but even that one exists for a reason. It's difficult for a guy to bed lots of women. We can argue "how difficult", but, I think we can all agree "It's harder" for a man. So, status is conveyed because it's the "difficult" thing to do. Again, I'm not arguing this is RIGHT, but there's a reason for it, and that reason has little/nothing to do with "I want to oppress women today" and a whole lot to do with the different experiences that men and women have with sex and sexual access. The "hard" thing for a woman to do is to reject sexual advances and NOT sleep with lots of men, so that has an implied value..

Anyone can fall in love with any one under the right circumstances. A man who has a conservative view could meet a women who has been promiscuous in her past but there is something about her that counterbalances that belief in some way. A woman who has specific height requirements or other "lists of musts" can be derailed when she meets someone at a party who is 5'5" but charismatic as hell.

The problem with these "fart in church" posts is it takes the humanity out of them, it's all a bunch of generalizations.

Where you have a problem with the sexist part - the part where people articulate out loud that "yeah I have a sketchy sexual past but I would not accept it from a partner", and then you put a gender spin on it, well then that's just asking for trouble. It means you have a mindset that perpetuates these stigmas. So, when you post shit like this, I have to say it makes you look like a cave man. When in all reality, I gather you to be a respectful, and loving husband. I also think that you are capable of falling love and marrying someone with a sexually adventurous past if they carried themselves forward in a way that made their entire package seem attractive to you.

It's stupid. All of it. Sorry. When you put people in all these classes that are stereotypical it comes across ignorant. I have lots of female friends, not one of them have a bank account or a height requirement on any male. I also know a lot of males who have long and happy marriages with women who were known as "slutty cheerleaders" back in our highschool and college days. People grow up, and while certainly people can and will continue to select others to date based on superficial bias, it's largely unsuccessful for a long term happy partnership. Your post makes it sound like you advocate it. I know how the world works, I am not blind that people pick other people for stupid reasons. That doesn't mean when one is expressing their ideals that it should be based on that stuff rather than the way it should be.

So, yes, ideally - if a man or woman is conservative then their sensibilities should point them to a conservative partner. One who's views on sex match their own. A man who is promiscuous picking a conservative woman? Or vice versa? Most of the time that's really not going to work. So, stating that as my ideal has nothing to do with not everyone is going to fall under that ideal. It's the real world and we are all human picking other humans to spend time with and often we base it on stupid things and then it doesn't work out.

[This message edited by hikingout at 10:10 AM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

You are committed and entitled to your beliefs.

Just clarifying, committed was your word, not mine. I’m more than open.

A number of negative adjectives have been used about people, especially women, with high numbers.

Consider:

1) 'Durians disgust me.'

2) 'Durians are disgusting.'

If I liked durians, the 2nd statement would get a much different reaction than the first. Personally, I'd think the speaker of the 2nd statement thought I was disgusting because I liked durians.

Now consider another example. It's one thing to say something like, 'I feel ____ about high numbers.' Instead, in this thread, I've read more statements like, 'If you have a high number, you're _____.' The first formulation is sharing. The 2nd is easily interpreted as woman-shaming.

Interpretation is not intent. I don’t disagree that folks could have felt a certain way, but that in no way implies fact of what was said.

Your post makes it sound like you advocate it. I know how the world works, I am not blind that people pick other people for stupid reasons. That doesn't mean when one is expressing their ideals that it should be based on that stuff rather than the way it should be.

I can't see how I can be more clear. I DO NOT advocate it. But how does it help us to sit here and say "this is how it should be" rather than discuss "this is how it is, and this is how we should react based on that". Sure, we should all be impossibly beautiful, young, rich, tall, (add a million other characteristics that people use to select partners) but we're not. And those differences are exactly the things that people use to say "I prefer this person more than this one". And yes, some people (ironically, not me), use sexual history as a filter, and that's just fine. Sure, it can be argued that it's "stupid" and, again, I might not even argue with you on it. But it's reality, that's how people operate and act. Furthermore, none of these are in a vacuum, heavy woman with a tame sexual past vs thin woman with a partner count in the 100's? Well, I know how I'd weigh those options, other people will weigh differently. And all of that is just fine, and it's not slut shaming that I desire the heavier woman more OR fat shaming that I desire the more promiscuous woman more. And, complicating all this, there are different criteria for a ONS, dating and marriage. And feelings play into all this too, you might fall madly in love with someone who meets none of your criteria. But, you, I, everyone on here.. We're all entitled to have "criteria", thin, heavy, tall, short, white, black, virgin, promiscuous. ALL of it is fine, you can choose based on any of those things (and the millions of other criteria that people use). None is better or worse, some make more sense to me, I'll grant you that, but I don't get to decide for you (or anyone else) what's "acceptable" partner selection criteria.

Just clarifying, committed was your word, not mine. I’m more than open.

I have explained myself no less than 3 times on why I made a remark about the longevity of the judgment of women's sexuality, but it was unacceptable to you. Instead, from one comment that I made out of LOTS of comments to the contrary, you feel I am sexist. Yep, it feels like you are wide open.

I am not going to go back and make a list of what people said, taking it out of the context of what they were responding to, and berate the males who said it in the process. And, even if I did venture to make the list, then I would be a man-hater who is treating the males on this site terribly and it would only serve to reinforce your belief of my sexism and unfair treatment of said males. It's a no win situation. I have no inclination to treat any male on this site this way anyway. Many of them have supported me, and I have supported them. I wouldn't even be addressing you but you got bent out of shape over one remark, and it was a factual remark that really was meant to do anything other than to point out there was an inherent stigma that runs deeply amoung women.

So, from this exercise I understand that we are not going to understand each other. I am as committed to my opinion as you are to yours, so it's just a stale mate. That has no bearing on whether I may agree or disagree with anything in the future with you.

I can't see how I can be more clear. I DO NOT advocate it. But how does it help us to sit here and say "this is how it should be" rather than discuss "this is how it is, and this is how we should react based on that". Sure, we should all be impossibly beautiful, young, rich, tall, (add a million other characteristics that people use to select partners) but we're not. And those differences are exactly the things that people use to say "I prefer this person more than this one". And yes, some people (ironically, not me), use sexual history as a filter, and that's just fine. Sure, it can be argued that it's "stupid" and, again, I might not even argue with you on it. But it's reality, that's how people operate and act. Furthermore, none of these are in a vacuum, heavy woman with a tame sexual past vs thin woman with a partner count in the 100's? Well, I know how I'd weigh those options, other people will weigh differently. And all of that is just fine, and it's not slut shaming that I desire the heavier woman more OR fat shaming that I desire the more promiscuous woman more. And, complicating all this, there are different criteria for a ONS, dating and marriage. And feelings play into all this too, you might fall madly in love with someone who meets none of your criteria. But, you, I, everyone on here.. We're all entitled to have "criteria", thin, heavy, tall, short, white, black, virgin, promiscuous. ALL of it is fine, you can choose based on any of those things (and the millions of other criteria that people use). None is better or worse, some make more sense to me, I'll grant you that, but I don't get to decide for you (or anyone else) what's "acceptable" partner selection criteria.

I do not think anyone is wrong for choosing their own version of an acceptable partner. I don't even think it's wrong if you are a conservative male who wants a conservative female. Or if you require a virgin even. That's really not the point I was making.

I said in my post that a male who was promiscuous who only wants someone conservative sexually was a problem. The error I made was not to elaborate why.

You said, "Sure it works. People do it all the time."

My argument back, while not well made, was really "the problem with that as an ideal is that the two people will not share the same sensibilities and they are setting out on a relationship that has a greater possibility of failing in the future".

So, in other words, I was stating an ideal. As in ideally, you want to get two like minded people together" You argued it with a generalization.

The other problem I have with it is it does in fact perpetuate "it's okay for men to judge women sexually" but not judge themselves or other men on the same basis. YES it exists, rampantly. YES it happens on the daily. That doesn't make it right. It creates this whole issue for women that I don't think you can even begin to understand.

I know men who have had few partners. They are only going to be comfortable with someone else who has had few partners. There is no hypocrisy in that. In fact, I think that's great because it means they have a compatibility point.

But, as a female, if I have had a lot of partners, and you tell me you had more. But, my situation makes me a slut, and yours makes you a hero....and you keep defending that "because that's how it works" or because "that's just how people are"...then I don't understand why. Sorry. I think if you think it's fine to have casual sex, then it should be fine for anyone to have casual sex. Otherwise you are slut-shaming, and you are sexist. I am probably one of the only hold outs on this site who actually thinks that maybe you aren't those things. That you like to talk in devils advocate, or state how things are. But, your entire response really does support you think that things should be that way. Things are only going to change when people as individuals change their own ideals. You can't change the world, no. But believing or defending it to be right is part of the problem.

Don’t worry, Hikingout, I already made a list of vocabulary people were using (at least from the first four pages of the thread) that seemed to be putting a negative spin on women’s sexuality. Though I was careful to not berate posters, I’m fairly sure I’ll be earning the “man-hater” label today, not you.

You’re welcome to have some of my fries.

I just realized that I've been at work for hours now and not once thought of anyone's gender, race, height, weight, or body count. Gosh it's nice to just be "people" for a while.

I feel like someone should represent how great red potatoes are in mashed potatoes. 3 lb of red potatoes mashed with a brick of cream cheese and half a stick of butter, some garlic, and additional spices. I'm kissing my fingertips just thinking about it. Hand mash it, too, you want it to be a little thick.

One of the biggest lessons in this thread is this: people don't like to be generalized at, no matter how much they may fit the mold.

Nobody wants to think of themselves as part of a statistic, and nobody wants to think their behavior is unbecoming. This goes for how we interact, how we choose partners, etc. This is why I try to couch my opinions and arguments in real world experience rather than stats. Stats can be quite easily manipulated. Social science is itself messy as hell because its subjects are messy as hell. Relying on anecdotal evidence is of course its own fallacy, but more often than not it gives me actionable evidence.