SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Then to make a claim about tearing down a system due to perceived double standards despite obvious ones?

I honestly don't understand this comment. How does anything WornDown or emergent posted negate my point? I didn't reference them at all or comment on their views. I just took issue with Rideitout's assertions.

RIO wrote that the idealistic thing to do is to believe that social systems can change, and the realistic thing is to operate within them to get what you want. He thinks his father's attitude was well meaning but naive. Because there have been accusations of misrepresentation of fellow posters, I submit this quote to illustrate my point.

See, my father, in particular, was much like many of the posters here, a starry eyed optimist. "Just be a good man and it'll happen for you". And while I think we all agree, that's a great "fatherly" answer, it's also, in my personal experience, bullshit.

So I pointed out that playing the game may be viable advice if you are a member of the group that has controlled the business, financial and academic world for most of the history of this country, which is not women, and even less so minority women. We are groups who historically have had an infinitesimal chance of success through "playing the game." RIO's view that any clear-sighted person should follow those rules as a recipe for success has not typically been true for people in my demographic. We're the ones who were far more likely to have been told that our "rules" were to be skinny and beautiful and bat our eyes and marry rich, as RIO himself posited. Discrimination and harassment have been widely practiced towards women who tried to play by men's rules. Is this what you mean by a "perceived" double standard? Are you arguing that for the last 300 years, women and men have operated on a level playing field? Since this thread values scientific data, do you want me to quote stats on women in STEM, women CEOs, women in government, women billionaires, and the list goes on?

So women fought those realities. We decided to make our own rules. And in doing so, many of us were subjected to the kind of disdain and dismissal that RIO offers up as a deal breaker. "What do you want me to do? Confront them? They'd just laugh at me and ignore me." No shit? Geez, that never happened to us! That would be just awful! SMDH.

I don't know why you are conflating my response with those of WornDown and emergent when I did not reference any post but RIO's. For someone who is so outraged about people putting words in others' mouths, you sure seem quick to do that to me.

To be frank, a recurring theme at the beginning was "If a woman had [X] number of partners, I would want to know because I find that problematic."

Then it went back and forth with women feeling objectified and men feeling judged for their preferences.

I think I feel that way bc for me, I'm more concerned with the gang bang, Eiffel Tower, King Kong on the Eiffel Tower aspect.

[This message edited by GoldenR at 11:44 PM, December 4th (Wednesday)]

Tell it, BraveSirRobin.

@slowlygoingcrazy

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.

Excellent, there should be a logical foundation to build upon. My undergraduate work was in chemical engineering and solid state physics before I was taken to the other side (they had better cookies).

I could not more strongly disagree, my experience fresh out of school was nobody simply cared as again in this field as any quantifiable metric is easily observed. That is to simply say if your peers saw your intellect/skils respect was earned.

Furthermore, most are "nerds" which I have been before the time of it becoming fashionable.

For example, nerds were the driving force in the Marvel and DC universes. Have you ever looked at the character constructions and storylines of these books (more so than the simplified movies that my children enjoy). Ever wondered why women seem to enjoy an equal status in the many of the storylines? It is simply the demographics and our relative psychology, equality is earned.

Socially inept yes, misogynist the evidence does not support it.

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.

Thrice, it would be a foregone conclusion of perceived liability after acquisition. I believe you're overestimating the negative consequences for the company regarding a particular person. If this company were or be associated with an organization that required the headcount for the various government contracts, any female will do it does not require a particular woman.

Reflect upon this for a moment, you are a known threat (people have been fired) in the office how can you possibly function as a technical lead effectively. I would like to say I believe the management used your actions as an opportunity to rid themselves of less than desirable performers. However, how could you have the trust of your group, how can you mentor?. I cannot see it, however, I am not on the ground in your organization, thus this is conjecture on my part.

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.

By this logic you would disregard a known pattern of behavior because it is personally distasteful? or you hope to find an outlier? If you are true to your logical side you know, that best indicator of anything is its previous behavior or known characteristics. Offense is a tool used to manipulate, you would be surprised to find the number of people employed to manage and use the energy created from it for profit.

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

Where was misogyny? There has been none, there has been opinions that you did/do not agree with from various posters about their preferences (which they have the right). If anyone has been guilty of offense and an attempt at imposition of will, it has been you and frankly most of the others on your side of the discussion.

This is why I used the term “SJW”, it is a very adapt description of the posters again your side of the argument including yourself.

"Social justice warrior" (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism. The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction and engaging in disingenuous arguments

Respect is earned, not demanded. This is why your side of the discussion and its posters have floundered so terribly.

[This message edited by blahblahblahe at 5:43 AM, December 5th (Thursday)]

Are you arguing that for the last 300 years, women and men have operated on a level playing field?

Absolutely, positively NO. Not even close to level. But, if we change that to the "past 20 years", I'd argue "yes, it's a level playing field", in fact, if anything, the field is slanted a bit in the other direction now.

So I pointed out that playing the game may be viable advice if you are a member of the group that has controlled the business, financial and academic world for most of the history of this country, which is not women, and even less so minority women. We are groups who historically have had an infinitesimal chance of success through "playing the game."

"Playing the game" doesn't mean "be a white male". Trust me, I know plenty of white males who either decided they didn't want to play or didn't play well. Does it mean "play by the rules created by white men"; OK, this I think is more defensible, in fact, I think that I agree with it. But you don't need to be a "member" of that demographic, you just need to play by those rules. But those rules weren't developed in an arbitrary manner, it's not like there's some cabal that white men belong to where they get together and decide how to stack the rules (anymore, 50+ years ago, yes, I think you might be able to argue that was occurring). The rules are simple and consistent, generate income for your employer, have rare/difficult to reproduce skills, negotiate for the things you want, be reliable. "Be a male" isn't one of those rules, in fact, in my company, it would be better if you weren't (because we have so few women). As a hiring manager, I would often get 20 resumes for a position, 19 guys and 1 women. And HR would always get on me about "why didn't you hire the woman" and I'd have to justify it, point by point (The man I hired went to MIT and worked for a competitor in the exact same field, the woman didn't finish college, wasn't studying in the field and has no experience that has bearing on this position; and I would still have to justify it for every hire where I was offered but did not select a woman).

Since this thread values scientific data, do you want me to quote stats on women in STEM, women CEOs, women in government, women billionaires, and the list goes on?

Well, since I work in one of those fields, I don't need the stats quoted there, the number of women in STEM is ridiculously low. Now, ironically, the company I worked for, yes, deep in STEM, had a female CEO. Who, you guessed it, actually did go to MIT and get a degree in the field. And then went on and got additional degrees in the field from equally prodigious colleges. She was an absolutely amazing CEO, and I loved working with and for her. But she got there the same way our current CEO got there, by having the education to back her, getting the experience, and then rising to the top of the company. Yes, she is a wildly rare story in my field, so I don't call this out as a "your wrong, there's plenty of women in STEM", I would never make that argument. The argument I would make is that the rules, whoever created them, are consistent, if you go to MIT as a woman and get a degree in my field, your going to be at the front of the line when we go to hire. If you go to a local college and get a degree in psychology, well, sorry, but there are 100 guys in line for this position that all went to prodigious colleges and got degrees in field that want this position too. That's what "playing by the rules" means to me. How do I get a job at Goldman Sachs making 5M/yr? Well, it's very difficult, but, if you want to do that, regardless of gender, I'd suggest going to an ivy league college, majoring in finance or some technical field, interning there as an undergrad, working like a dog (forgoing basically anything else in your life) through college; getting a 4.0 from Princeton and then, after all that, getting on the wheel at Goldman and running even faster. You'll be 35-40 when you can take a breath, and yes, you'll likely be very rich by that point. But you will sacrifice your youth for it, just like every guy sitting next to you does/has. Those are the "rules" of success in high finance for you, me, and anyone else who chooses that as their career path. And we can (and do) rail on as a society about how it's "not fair" that bankers make 5M a year when teachers make 40K a year (and add much more value to society, I'd add), or, we can accept that there are multiple paths and take the one that leads where we want to go.

So women fought those realities. We decided to make our own rules. And in doing so, many of us were subjected to the kind of disdain and dismissal that RIO offers up as a deal breaker. "What do you want me to do? Confront them? They'd just laugh at me and ignore me." No shit? Geez, that never happened to us! That would be just awful! SMDH.

You're conflating two things. I was talking about guys banging their way through the country on business trips; that's not illegal, it's not the companies business, and while I can pass moral judgement, I'm coming from very shaky ground myself. Fact is, these women are willing participants in their antics. It's not for me to tell them how to live their lives, sure, it would be nice if they didn't do this (especially since it was exactly this guy who was my wife's AP), and MUCH better for society if they didn't, but it's not illegal, it's not against company rules, and it's not really any of my business who they are sleeping with, I only know because of their bravado. Now, let's flip this to the other scenario; if one of the other managers at work went out with me for dinner, and after a few drinks, leaned over and said "RIO, I've got a story for you. My last new hire, Jeff over there, he's such a putz compared to this woman I interviewed for the position. She went to MIT, published 3 papers on economics before she finished undergrad, did a few years at GS, then off to Sloan. What a resume! I'm not sure Jeff finished high school and he's hopeless with numbers and has difficulty spelling banking. And, on top of all that, he asked for more money than the girl we interviewed!". If I then asked why in the hell he hired Jeff over the woman and he responded, "Well, duh RIO, Jeff's a guy". Yes, I would report that behavior. That's illegal, it's horrible for my company and it's completely unethical both personally and professionally. That conversation has literally never happened, and likely won't, but that would be entirely different to me than this same manager bragging about the "barfly" he took home last night. That's not my or the companies problem.

We're the ones who were far more likely to have been told that our "rules" were to be skinny and beautiful and bat our eyes and marry rich, as RIO himself posited.

What's your definition of "success"? If it's living in a beautiful home, your children running around, being home when they go to and come back from school, having designer clothes and a 100K SUV... Well, yeah, as a woman, I'd tell you that the most likely way to get that is to "be beautiful and marry rich". There ARE other ways to get it, you could start a business at 25, sell it at 30, make 25M dollars and never need to work another day in your life. You could be a tennis pro and make 50M a year, retiring at 29. There are a lot of possible ways to get it, some are more likely to succeed than others, particularly if you want to be in that situation as a young woman. Is it wrong to say that? I'd say the same to man, the most likely way to be a millionaire by 30 is probably to follow the course of action I laid out above, go to an Ivy college, work your ass off, get into a big high finance firm and kill it there for another few years and yes, you will likely be a millionaire by 30. Could you practice basketball all day, land in the NBA and make a M before 21? Sure you could. But it's less likely to succeed, the "sorting mechanism" barring you from NBA riches is much, much more selective than that barring you from riches at GS.

But those aren't "rules" they are just different paths you can take with different likely hoods of success for each path. And those percentages change for each person, if you're a woman with a 190 IQ and not terribly attractive, you're more likely to succeed on the "Harvard/GS" track (again, assuming success is defined as "lots of money"). If you have model good looks and a 95 IQ, you're more likely to succeed on the "Marry rich" track than you are on the "Harvard/GS" track. Nothing wrong with either track, or the 1000's of others that people choose for themselves, at least not in my eyes.

Now, one concession that I will make, while I don't see discrimination in this discussion between men and women, I do clearly see discrimination based on intellectual capacity. And that is a very large and unspoken problem in society today. We have become far too "G" (general intelligence/IQ) loaded in our selection of candidates today, and in distribution of assets in society. I have no idea how you fix this problem, but I do see it as a significant issue that we face as a society, men and women, today. Yes, there are some lower IQ people who are very successful, but, by and large, when you get to top of any big company, you start to realize (at least I do) that I'm often the dumbest person in the room and I just cannot keep up anymore. Doesn't matter how hard I work, they are just smarter, and I can't rise to their level because I just don't have the horsepower to do so. Fair? No, it's not. And that's some big time discrimination that's occurring, both for men and women, in lots and lots of big companies today. I don't see this as a gender problem at all, it's a society problem. Worst of all, it's a problem that's not broken down by saying "your biased" and "it doesn't matter". It does matter, it matters a lot, and it's something that we, as a society, have to figure out how to deal with collectively. We point at banker A not hiring a woman and all scream "discrimination", which, may be true. But the real discrimination is that his entire candidate pool is composed of people who have an IQ >140, a tiny, tiny segment of society who happened to be lucky enough to win the genetic lottery.

I am going to isolate this exchange/response here because I feel it is very important.

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.

By this logic you would disregard a known pattern of behavior because it is personally distasteful? or you hope to find an [outlier]? If you are true to your logical side you know, that best indicator of anything is its previous behavior or known characteristics. Offense is a tool used to manipulate, you would be surprised to find the number of people employed to manage and use the energy created from it for profit.

Okay. I'm not going to talk about or address the seemingly pervasive idea that women routinely abuse their ability to cry foul to hurt men. I find such a thing ridiculous, as in the root meaning of the word "worthy of ridicule."

What was specifically brought up in the selection was, and I quote...

...talking about women who have had sex in a negative light can affect women who have been assaulted.

... and you go to the angle of "offense as a tool to manipulate."

Dude. Bullshit. You do -not- understand the mindset, the mental space, and the effects of sexual assault. If you did, then you would not brush aside that statement with "oh, you're an offended SJW."

The brains, the physical brains of people who have suffered trauma are literally different from the brains of people who have not. It is an injury. It is a hardwired difference with emotional, psychological, and logical changes that take place. If you talk about a woman (as was the original statement you quoted) who has been sexually assaulted in a negative because she has had sex, then you are sticking your expressive fingers into the wounds caused by trauma and saying "Stop being a big baby" when they get upset.

I am diagnosed with Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and it's not because daddy was mean to me and took away my XBox, like I have seen said by people who foam at the mouth against that particular diagnosis (I'm not saying anyone on this board has done so, but I have seen it nonetheless). I have been diagnosed with C-PTSD from physical beatings, emotional and psychological abuse including being made to kill things in gruesome ways or be beaten, sexual assault, and more things that, right now, I don't care to get into.

The reason I am bringing this up is because the scars that those things left on and in my body are not just in my flesh, my skin, and my bones, they are in my brain and how my brain processes certain things. When I hear people talk about male sexual assault victims as 'weaklings' and 'they must have been gay if they didn't like it' etc etc, it is what is called a trigger. It triggers a powerful emotional and psychological reaction that can include panic attacks, depression, dissociation, or fight/flight/freeze adrenal reactions. I don't have a lot of flight or freeze left, but I've got a whole shitload of fight. I want to be clear, I am not saying that anyone in this thread said those things; I am bringing them up as examples of triggers from a male perspective.

When women who have been assaulted hear men deriding women who have had sex as whores or as less than, I can only imagine the reaction that they have is similar to the reaction that I have. I can only imagine the amount of impotent rage they have at having the act that was used to scar them also used to devalue them by someone who has no fucking idea.

Again, I'm using that quote and that response in isolation. I am sure there is other context that can be used to justify or sidestep or 'logic' around, but the fact of the matter is that for this entire goddamn thread, I've seen wheedling, passive-aggressive, snarky, sneaky language slipping between the ribs of both sides like stillettos, and frankly, it's fucking bullshit. We should all be goddamn better than this.

I see a lot of "I'm not calling you a whore, I'm just saying that easy, promiscuous women are worth less." I'm also seeing "I'm not calling you a rapist, I'm just saying you're creepy and I wouldn't want to be alone in a room with you." Not in those words, but the undercurrent is present, and it should not be.

We're. All. On. The. Same. Side. Personal politics, personal religions, personal creeds aside, we're all here because our partners fucked us over. We all have our limits, our guidelines, our personal preferences in what we look for in a mate, what we are willing to forgive, what we need to know and what are dealbreakers for us. The problem comes in when we start trying to assign absolute values to these subjective, personal things.

I think we need to remember what brought us here, what we share, instead of hacking away at the cracks that are dividing us.

No Politics

[This message edited by SI Staff at 6:14 AM, December 5th (Thursday)]

Blahblahblah

Really? You think I’m doing something to invite sexual harassment, or that I don’t have the respect of my peers due to my ability?

All I did was wear makeup. Sometimes I wear a dress. Both at once and it’s like creep bait. Literally every woman I know in the tech industry has had this same issue. A friend at a different company had a coworker follow her home and she needed to call the police when he refused to leave. Another company stopped doing management retreats after a woman was raped by her colleagues. That’s just in my city.

As for nerd culture, it’s an interesting thing. It’s lead to a sense of entitlement in some people. Being incredible at theoretical physics, chemistry, programming etc doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll have women knocking down your door for a date. The same isn’t true for athletes. There’s an underlying sense of resentment.

My experience is completely normal. Unfortunate, but common.

Just because you never experienced something, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

[This message edited by Slowlygoingcrazy at 6:47 AM, December 5th (Thursday)]

There are biological reasons for it is as close to I come at justifying it.

I can't help wondering if the 'biological reasons' lie with men worrying that women with experience might be comparing them to better... well, experiences.

Haven't read all 99 pages, but it does surprise me how many people seem to have regressed to the 1950s. Can we blame Reddit?

As for the initial question - I don't know if I would consider it technically my business. But I would consider talking about sexual pasts- experiences, likes, dislikes, preferences, etc. - part of really knowing each other, so I'm not sure how I'd feel about marriage or a long-term partnership with someone who didn't wouldn't or couldn't be open about it.

Not first date conversationl, obviously.

And sweet potatoes are the only food almost as disgusting as fresh coriander.

Maybe we could meet in the middle on yams? Though it probably would explode into regional divides on whether yams are or are not the same thing as sweet potatoes, how they should be prepared, who has traditionally been stuck preparing them, and eventually the cultural implications of yam farming in West Africa.

Suggestion retracted to prevent Yamgate 2019.

I don't have any problem with numbers, I'm old by the standards of this forum (70) and I don't figure that women go into "hibernation" in between serious relationships.

Gangbangs are another thing entirely. I think a woman who let's herself be used (and I do mean Used) probably has self-esteem problems and that kind of issue would most probably show up in SOME way in any long term relationship.

In a gangbang there is NO affection or love being expressed at all, at least in my opinion. No I have never participated in any serious group gropes. I am a one on one type of person. (I have enough trouble figuring out 1 woman at a time no way I can handle more than 1 at a time). Yes I have had fantasies of a FMF threesome but never could talk anybody into it.

Never even tried hard because while I would love a FMF threesome I would then feel I should let Her also have a threesome with a MFM combo if I want to be fair.

However knowing me I would NOT want to be fair. I have 0 desire to be involved that intimately with a male. Nothing "wrong" with it just not my cup of tea.

I have PTSD from the time I was 11 and really don't like to be in a compromising position with a male. (I usually make it a point to NOT take anybody who could kick my ass to bed!!)

To put it another way I can't be vulnerable to another man (no sexual incidents of male sexual harassment in my background just can't be physically exposed)

My reality is I don't do sex without a "romantic" interest. Now I'm also not saying that booze didn't, in itself, generate some lust driven encounters, just not my normal mode of operation. My problem is that I actually like and respect women on a normal basis. I have ALWAYS tried to see if anything serious could come from any "Hook-ups I had.

I have always just wanted to be in a relationship with someone I love and respect. My KISA syndrome has interfered in my romantic life a lot!! I have found out that when you "rescue" a damsel in distress what you wind up with is a damsel prone to "NEED" rescuing a lot.

JMO YMMV.

I can't help wondering if the 'biological reasons' lie with men worrying that women with experience might be comparing them to better... well, experiences.

I'd argue that's more an emotional reason than a biological one, but, yes, of course, I think for both sexes, that's a big reason that sexual history might be important. Am I his or her best ever? Well, if they've slept with 2 people, I have a much higher chance of being number 1 than if they've slept with 100. Just statistical likelihood there. And if you break it down into it's components, am I the best kisser? Am I the best at oral sex? Do I have the best anatomical parts? Each of those, with every passing partner, becomes more and more likely to be a "no".

But those have little to do with biology, and those same claims could be made by women as well (and would almost certainly be true, I've seen many threads where women expressed exactly that concern). The biological reason is much deeper in our history/psyche. Until about 50 years ago, men had no way to tell if a child was there's or not, where, for women, it's assured. It's got nothing to do with who "suffers more" from an affair, I'd never claim that. But it does make a lot of sense for why chastity is an important virtue for a lot of men even when they don't value their own chastity to the same extent.

The biological issue usually is in regards to paternity. Remember Ladies that for thousands of years men had NO way to actually know if their children were actually theirs. Which, I imagine, is the reason behind men's possessiveness of their women.

Chastity belts are one sign of men's insecurity. If a woman has numbers but they run consecutively it is easy to understand but if a woman has gangbang's then the "specialness" of sex obviously isn't something that is important to her so it would be almost expected that she would say to you at some point the dreaded "It's only sex why are you so upset with it" line.

JMO YMMV

Being incredible at theoretical physics, chemistry, programming etc doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll have women knocking down your door for a date.

Isn't that shaming them for being smart?

Being incredible at theoretical physics, chemistry, programming etc doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll have women knocking down your door for a date.

Isn't that shaming them for being smart?

Not sure if you're joking?

I'm not saying they are less worthy or they can't date. I'm not saying I wouldn't date them. Their dating lives are probably completely average.

It's true that nerd culture puts a high value on accomplishment and ability. That's cool. It doesn't always translate to above average success in dating. Scientific accomplishments don't get the same degree of societal recognition as say a athletic or acting. Maybe that can change.

I'd argue that's more an emotional reason than a biological one, but, yes, of course, I think for both sexes, that's a big reason that sexual history might be important. Am I his or her best ever? Well, if they've slept with 2 people, I have a much higher chance of being number 1 than if they've slept with 100. Just statistical likelihood there. And if you break it down into it's components, am I the best kisser? Am I the best at oral sex? Do I have the best anatomical parts? Each of those, with every passing partner, becomes more and more likely to be a "no".

While I think this is a concern for both men and women, I think the impact is greater to men as a whole. There is still a pervasive mindset that men just want to get laid with little regard to the actual quality of the sex, they just want a body to do it to.

So women always have the fall back position of the fact that she's having sex with him at all will be enough to keep her from being rejected, where as a man not being above average is more likely to lead to his ultimate rejection. The mindset of when it comes to sex and rejection, men actually have to be good, where women just have to be available.

How that plays out in reality across society, I am not sure, but anecdotally, there is some support.

There is still a pervasive mindset that men just want to get laid with little regard to the actual quality of the sex, they just want a body to do it to.

Which, if you look at the biological response, also kind of makes sense. A lot of time spent after an affair with a WW unpacking "did you enjoy it", "did you orgasm", "how many times", etc, etc, etc. I doubt many a BW asks these questions, sex for me anyway, yes, I'm going to orgasm and yes, I'm going to enjoy it. It's "built in" or "assured" by virtue of what it is for me, where, for my wife, it's very much so an "iffy" experience. Could be wonderful, could be awful and leave her more frustrated than when she started it.

Incarnate: YES!

Ramius - I don't think the lady was cheating on her husband, this was a past experience prior to them getting together. I am not saying it's right and no lying about it should have occurred, I just wanted to specify that this isn't being applied to infidelity.

Candyman - I am not a woman who would want a gangbang. It's just not a fantasy of mine. But, I will point out the woman is only being used if she doesn't want a gangbang and she is being persuaded to have one. There are women who have those kinds of fantasies and might be using the males to have it. Just pointing it out because there are scenarios that are maybe considered deviant, that a woman may actually be the one in Power and not having her power being taken. Not really disagreeing with the rest of what you said.

I have been open that prior to marriage, H and I did *some* swinging stuff. I never felt used or demeaned because we were exploring our fantasies together. At some point I decided I was finished with that, that I wasn't enjoying it as much and we stopped. We entered into a monogamous relationship and my value was not questioned by my husband. It actually kept us very open to each other sexually, and we have never judged each other over our fantasies or the ways our bodies have changed and needed different things over the years.

Oh and RIO, in response to your response yesterday (sorry I had a lot to do last night)

OK, I just have to ask. Would it be OK as a gay man to say while I was promiscuous, I would not want that in a partner?

No! You really do not understand hypocrisy?

hypocrisy

[həˈpäkrəsē]

NOUN

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

"I can do this, but you can't because you are a woman"

You CAN do it. In fact, it's going to be a lot easier for you to do it than me. But, yes, you're going to pay a higher price for it.

I am NOT going to pay a higher price for it. If the higher price is I can't date someone who is going to judge me - then I will pay that price ALL DAY LONG. The problem is not with me - the problem is either the two of us are incompatible in our beliefs or it COULD be, (not guaranteed) that he is a sexist, slut-shamer. Either of those things are not a statement about me. I will not miss out on anything. People are incompatible for all sorts of reasons. When it's right, it's right, and the acceptance will be there.

I'm not even sure anymore, but, in my eyes, no, not at all. He's not making a moral judgement on bodybuilding, in fact, he enjoys it himself greatly. He just doesn't want to date someone else who enjoys it. Not because he's better than them (he IS them), it's just not his preference.

No, you can have all sorts of "types" that you are compatible with. It's when you place expectations on someone that you do not place on yourself, and often because of their gender. Now before you come up with ridiculous examples, it doesn't apply to everything in the world.

It's stuff you would already know is kind of ridiculous. Well, at least for God's sake I hope you would. Take your body builder example. I would be talking more about an average Joe that pushes his wife to body build, and holds that as an expectation for her to be attractive to him. He sits on the couch eating junk, and doesn't care at all about what makes him attractive to her. He doesn't see her as his equal, or even love her for her. He sees her as his property to tell her what it is he wants her to be to please him.

A man who is sexually promiscuous has the moral belief that casual sex is fine. He meets a woman who has had a fair share of casual sex and says it's not fine for her, that's saying that he has a different moral belief for a woman than he does for a man. Yes, people do it, noone is saying that it doesn't exist. But there are all kinds of problems with that. Primarily, He doesn't see a woman is equal to him. He is holding himself to a different standard.

I don't understand that, but if you are okay with it that's fine. So are you saying that if you didn't have the high paying job she wouldn't like you as much? I am not sure that's hypocritical, but it's shitty. It would mean she sees your value in your wallet rather than somewhere else. If you are okay with that, then that's okay I guess, but I would not be okay with that.

Of course she wouldn't like me as much. Now, how much less? IDK, 1 point on a 1-1000 scale or 10 points on a 1-10 scale? Who knows. But of course it's important to her, just like my humor is important to her and her looks important to me.

And yes, there's more double standard for you; I put a higher standard for her on getting ready to go out than I do myself. Frankly, because it's not possible to put the same standard on myself (no makeup), but also because I value her beauty more than she values my handsomeness. And she values my income more than I value hers. That's fine, right?

Whatever works, other than maybe the sense of humor part those are all pretty shallow things. I have lived a lot of different financial scenarios with my husband. There was a time early in our marriage he had a business fail and we were bankrupt. We have obviously overcome that and live a comfortable lifestyle today with excellent credit, but he was no less valued to me then than he is now. When I was pregnant for our last child, I was so swollen, my face, my hands, my ankles were the size of my calves. Before we realized I had a medical condition my husband still found me, marshmallow woman, attractive and we made love sometimes multiple times a day. You don't love people for their jobs or looks. You might appreciate those things, but in my opinion they should not factor into how much you value them. Jobs change, people age, the things that really matter will be the things that keep your love moving through all the stages. But, everyone gets to choose their reasons for marriage or what they value people for. Not my thing, but no, not a problem if it's yours. You do you.

Regarding false reporting of sexual harassment or sexual abuse, the number u e heard directly from the police department is 60%. Another posters husband also worked fir the police department and the same number was mentioned. Unfortunately I do believe men have a very valid reason to be concerned about being alone with a woman they don’t know nowadays. There may be a small percentage of women who would do that but they seem to do it a lot to make it 60% of reports to be false in two separate countries.

That statistic came from two police officers in two separate countries who both worked in the sex crimes departments in their police department and what they know personally from their job as well as what is discussed regularity based on investigations throughout the countries.

You don't love people for their jobs or looks. You might appreciate those things, but in my opinion they should not factor into how much you value them. Jobs change, people age, the things that really matter will be the things that keep your love moving through all the stages.

If we're talking about "how it should be", 100% agree. If we're talking about "how it usually is", I don't agree at all. People select a partner based on the "package deal" that's presented at the time. If that package deal gets better, great. If it gets worse, people eject left and right, especially if they think they can do better back in the open market. And there are countless examples of this, men getting rich and dropping the wife, women getting thin and dropping the husband. Should it be this way. You have my violent agreement there, NO, it should not. But it IS, often, this way. It's the same reason we don't see a lot of models dating plumbers or a lot of rich young men dating unattractive women. We're in agreement that it's not the way the world should work, just not in agreement (maybe) on this being the way the world does work for lots of people. Shoot, even the purpose of this site, in some ways, can be linked to it; an affair "alters the deal" in so dramatic a fashion that most of us feel divorce is an entirely reasonable response.

A man who is sexually promiscuous has the moral belief that casual sex is fine. He meets a woman who has had a fair share of casual sex and says it's not fine for her, that's saying that he has a different moral belief for a woman than he does for a man. Yes, people do it, noone is saying that it doesn't exist. But there are all kinds of problems with that. Primarily, He doesn't see a woman is equal to him. He is holding himself to a different standard.

Your assuming he's passing moral judgement on her, which is no way implied by him deciding he doesn't, even as a promiscuous man, want to date a promiscuous woman. Which, while somewhat ridiculous, is why the bodybuilder example works for me, just because I spend 6 hours a day in the gym doesn't mean I have to accept my partner do the same. I'm free to say "I don't want to date gym rats" for any reason at all, despite being a gym rat myself.

I would be talking more about an average Joe that pushes his wife to body build, and holds that as an expectation for her to be attractive to him. He sits on the couch eating junk, and doesn't care at all about what makes him attractive to her. He doesn't see her as his equal, or even love her for her. He sees her as his property to tell her what it is he wants her to be to please him.

But, in your example, the only thing you've changed is that instead of her NOT bodybuilding, now he wants/expects her to. Which, I can see the difference, he's holding her to HIGHER standard than himself and that does seem a bit unfair. But, if we flip it around the way I had it, if he's holding HIMSELF to the higher standard (I will spend 6 hours a day in the gym, she will not) then it's OK? And honestly, we have NO idea if he sees her as property, cares what makes him attractive to her or sees her as his equal. Those are all big leaps, they might be true, or he might just have a preference for women who bodybuild. Or blondes. Or those who skydive even though he doesn't because he loves to live vicariously through their stories. Can a woman not be attracted to men with powerful/high paying jobs without having a high paying job of their own? That's where this flies off the rails for me, because, if the expectation is "you can only date people who do what you do" and having expectations outside of what you do/have done is wrong; it pretty much sounds like we all much date our mirror image. You were an alcoholic and now if you don't want to date an ex-alcoholic you're in the wrong somehow?

It seems like just yesterday men would have been told they were demeaning a women for participating in a 4 on 1. I’m pretty sure that opinion would still hold true for the majority of the women on SI right now. And I’m sure it’ll still be true tomorrow. But under this topic, well, that just doesn’t exist.

BSR, my reply had nothing to do with your last response to me. It was a progression of my thoughts as I seen them develop in the thread. I quoted what I was responding to. It was your flippant remake about a laugh. It strikes me, with great power, comes great responsibility. If you are willing to overlook something as simple as an inappropriate joke, I could only imagine what else you’d be willing to overlook as you’re tearing it down.

But I guess that brings me to Dee’s humour, no I don’t feel oppressed. Hardly so. It just seemed so obvious to me how your willing to throw that out there, completely oblivious to the sensitive nature the topic is. Because while the men here have had their words twisted and bent to fit a narrative, despite obvious attempts to be considerate and compassionate, only to then be accused of not saying what they mean, you completely overlooked the simple reply to your joke. A reply I debating posting to be snarky, but I guess that’s the difference between you and I, because I do rebel, but I do consider society.

HO, I truly wasn’t trying to paint you into a corner. Or get you to shame the men. Or even call you a sexist. My hopes were that as you revisited the posts to find examples, knowing you’d have defend your position, you might look at them differently. Through more open eyes, rather than narrative driven.

—————————

But alas, triggers, don’t they suck? Let’s not forget, that first and foremost, triggers are your responsibility. As a whole we can try and be aware of others triggers, but we will never achieve it. At this point, we’d have to start burning dictionaries. So let’s not confuse attacks with triggers, because attacks should be called out. They are done with malicious intent. Triggers aren’t. Sharing an opinion, only to be screamed down does no one any favours. And let’s not forget why we are here. If a man can’t come to something as simple and helpful as an infidelity site and share his thoughts and opinions without being attacked by the narrative driven. Then were can he go?

If you don’t think he’ll go to some echo chamber instead, then you are sadly mistaken.

There are very few things I fear in life. A man without a voice is top of that list. And there is more then enough toxic websites out there to give him one. From there, who knows.

I’m reminded of a WWI stories, from the trenches of Gallipoli. The men were on a charge, the first wave took off and ran straight into the machine guns. Despite knowing what had happened to the first wave, the second wave followed. Then the third. And finally, on the fourth wave, a soldier looked over at his friend, said goodbye and leaped from the trench.

Imagine the conviction.

To be willing to protect those you love so much you’d do that? Good Lord. I can’t even. And this is just one man of so many.

Unfortunately, you don’t have to look any further then the man on the machine gun to know what else he’d be willing to do to protect what he believes in.

So while your busy tearing everything down, don’t underestimate the foundations. They are always the most stubborn to remove.

It’s funny, I’m thinking back to my first post on page 1 of this thread. It seems we are at least considering the man’s own standards before labeling him a slut shamer. Unfortunately, the narrative still hasn’t changed and the bigger picture is still only a star in the sky.

And with that, I truly am out.

[This message edited by Loukas at 10:02 AM, December 5th (Thursday)]