Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
LW does seem very brave and honest, and it's clear that she has many wonderful qualities. But that does not make her boyfriend an insecure little jerk. Mostly likely he just can't help how he feels about such a volatile issue. The truth is that none of us can really help how we feel. It seems to me that he must be very in love with her actually, and is genuinely caught between a rock and a hard place. I predict that if they do give each other a little space he will eventually come to terms with her past.
But it will always be a sore point. Science has shown that most men literally put women into Madonna/whore categories in their brains. And that this process is involuntary. That doesn't mean we have to go around judging people left and right. Just the ones we are planning to marry. It would be nice if feminist ideology stopped promoting the myth that it's every girl's divine right to kick up her heels and never be judged on it by anyone. Of course if a girl isn't interested in ever getting married, then that is a different story.
There is nothing equal about the mating game. Women give birth to the kids. Men don't. That's not equal, and it never will be.
BTW the issue orignally wasn't whether or not experience makes one better
the issue was the fact that women have more experience and it matters. Someone suggested that men could become better and know they were better and negate the consequences of less expereince without having more experience, for example by reading books or adopting the appropriate attitudes. I think this is unlikely to work in most cases.
-- anon
Anon, as LWW wrote earlier, maybe, MAYBE, women have the opportunity for more experience, but men end up being the ones with more experience actually. You can keep saying "wome have more experience" but all the statistics are against you. Are all the statistics lies? where did you get this idea that women actually have more experience than men do because they have more opportunity for it? It would be like saying, people who live in big cities have more opportunity to eat fatty food (because of the close proximity and abundance of restaurants), but in reality, they tend to be thinner.
And more importantly, as someone brought up, more experience does not make you a better lover necessarily (just eating a lot of food doesn't make you a discriminating gourmand). Some people are just naturally talented, and some people don't want to be good lovers, they just want to get laid. Do you dispute this? Is all the anecdotal evidence in support of this useless (can there be any scientific evidence of skill in bed)?
So what's your point?
It's so easy to say give someone up when he or she sounds bad on paper, but when you or I love that person, whatever the good reasons that she or he is bad for us are just blemishes, and not nearly enough to break the bond, however irrational the relationship might seem to someone else, whether someone else is reading about it or hearing about it over coffee or something stronger.
Is the impulse to stay a drive, ie, something apart from love?
as they want to and men cannot and that this fact has effects on both and on their relations with each other.
the point is that women can sleep with as many people for whatever reason
as they want to and men cannot and that this fact has effects on both and on their relations with each other.
-- anon
First of all, if you are not a hideously repulsive troll and don't live in the middle of nowhere, with some effort, you too can rack up your number as high up as you see fit.
Secondly, this is starting to sound like angels on the head of a pin. In theory, women can sleep with as many men as they want to, but on average they sleep with fewer men that women. What is the point of sleeping with as many people as you possibly can (just like contemplating the angels on the pin)? What is the point of obsessing over this theoretical ability? I don't know, but if it is your goal in life to sleep with as many people as possible, see the first paragraph.
Lastly, I don't know about you, but i don't know any one, male or female, who is upset that their number isn't high enough. If people want to get laid, they go out and get laid, but not to raise their number. Even if they do it to raise their number, somehow people find a way to do it.
Why are you so obsessed with the theoretical number of people women can potentially have sex with? What does that have to do with anything?!
You're missing the point. You get better by working on it with your partner at the moment. This doesn't require you to have 100 partners, just to be attentive to the one who's right in front of you. Books can help, but the real point is that every time you're naked with a woman you have another shot at learning how to do it better. But obviously you're intimidated or too insensitive to consider doing that, so instead you whine about numbers. It's not an attractive attitude and is the real reason you don't get laid.
and all of those facts add up to more sexual choices and opportunities for women, which apparently doesn't matter to women, (such as when men point out the fact that women are in a better position than men in this area) except when it does (such as when someone tries to control what women do).
exactly, and women and gay men have many more opportunites to learn, not to mention a much greater choice of teachers.
it's not the number in the abstact that is the issue but the facts that are indicated by the number
and all of those facts add up to more sexual choices and opportunities for women, which apparently doesn't matter to women, (such as when men point out the fact that women are in a better position than men in this area) except when it does (such as when someone tries to control what women do).
-- anon
Let's assume what you're suggesting, that women have more "sexual choices and opportunities" that men do.
Ok, so what? (1) What implications does that have on male-female relations? (2) Women in reality have lower numebrs. So what do these theoretical opportunities really matter? (3) Why does how many partners someone has had actually matter?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
