Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Sex and Dating  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 kasandroid
Joined: 3/22/2006
Msg: 104
Bed Jumpers over Girls with MoralsPage 4 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
BOOOOOOOOO what a bunch of haters.

It's just page after page of Bullies on these forums, so she offended you, BIG FAT DEAL, now go reread all your own posts where you offended her, are you any better? Then you gotta all come back and recap again with your BULLY boring drivel just so YOUR RIGHT and once again she can be in the wrong..............HOLY IS THIS A COURTROOM? You all a bunch of lawyers or what?



Give it up, she's 21, you never said the wrong things at 21? You were all perfect at 21 were you?

I tell ya, if a 21 WHO DRESSES LIKE EVERY 21YR OLD WHO HAD THE GREAT MISFORTUNE OF BRITNEY SPEARS and other GREAT INSPIRATIONS teaching her how to dress; upsets you so much with her 21 year old judgements on morals, well BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO get some help now.

AND APPLAUSE FOR 21 year old with a BRAIN who hasn't POPPED OUT A BUNCH OF BABIES YET.

What a bunch of CHERRYPICKERS around here.

CHILL BILL AND JILL

 hibirdie
Joined: 9/11/2011
Msg: 106
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 7:31:07 AM

So, you use sex as a commodity?
Something to be bought and sold....traded, used to receive something in exchange?

I would hope that while on a date, the woman would let me know if she's just not into me and not feel the need to keep using me for covering her entertainment and meal expenses!

I certainly wouldn't want a woman who places a value on sex beyond the mutual pleasure it provides.... I want one that does it because she enjoys it, wants it and isn't ashamed of it.
One that wants to be with me because she likes me...not for what she can get out of me...be it actual goods and services or affirmations.


who ever said the OP was using sex as a commodity? sex may be a commodity in certain instances, but that doesn't mean she was using it manipulatively. what made you assume?

also, you say you want a woman who is with you for reasons other than what she can get out of you? what makes you think that's any different than a woman wanting a man who is with her for reasons other than sex? the truth of the matter is, sex is a commodity because men made it that way by objectifying women (whether you do this or not doesn't alter the fact that the damage has been done by MANY other men). the truth is, there are men out there with ill intentions that use sex as a commodity... and they try to lie, deceive, etc. to get what they want for less. a lot of women want meaningful connections with a guy she has sex with; many guys just aren't willing to put in the effort. have you ever felt the need to pull back on money/goods/services/affirmations to find out a girl's true intentions? that is no different from a girl pulling back on sex to find out a guy's true intentions. honestly, people who don't do that who are looking for deep, meaningful relationships are opening themselves up for being taken advantage of. refraining from sex can be a sign of manipulation or shame, but it can also be a sign of level-headedness, ability to think ahead, and ability to control impulsivity. it could be a sign of a woman who has little tolerance for being taken advantage of. explore the facts and details before making an assumption.
 hibirdie
Joined: 9/11/2011
Msg: 107
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 7:58:45 AM



Sex should be given freely between (notice I said between - not as a reward because someone met some vague criteria) two people who want each other - whether it is within an hour of meeting or 6 months down the road.

Agreed. it all smacks of insecurity, control issues and sexual immaturity. It happens when it happens not when one person thinks the other has jumped through enough hoops as some sort of reward.

I wouldn't be interested in dating someone who didn't know what passion was or had the spontaneity to act on those feelings without some sort of guilt at breaking your own silly self imposed rules.


really now? sex should be given freely between two people who want each other? i would agree except for the fact that... it's really not that simple. we live in a complex society with complex people. some people might want you for the wrong reasons, some people have STD's and lie about them, etc. on the other end, some people wish to be wanted for more than just sex, i have yet to meet someone who wants STD's, etc. the problem with dating (especially on a site like pof), is that you hardly know the person until you've spent plenty of time with them. even then, there are some damn good liars/imposters who can string you along for years. in a perfect, threat-free world, i'm all for free love, free sex, whatever you want to refer to it as. however, this world is far from perfect or threat-free. it's ridiculous to assume that a girl who is waiting to have sex is playing games, is insecure, has control issues, is immature, etc. sure, some may be, but MANY others are not. sponteneity is good for many, but within the confines of reason.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 108
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 8:22:19 AM
So tell me why you are still arguing?

My argument was with your slogan stating that having sex with someone is the same as having sex with all of the people that person had sex with. I've demonstrated that isn't correct and given an exampe in which I calculated the probabilities for those two cases to show what you claimed was incorrect. If you're still arguing, it's only because you want to find something else to argue about.

As far as having sex with an infected partner, why would you take the chance?

Do I really have to point out the obvious by explaining that you can't know if someone is infected. If that was possible, then you could be 100% sure of never getting an std no matter how many people you slept with, and you wouldn't have any argument at all.

I'd put #2 reason as self respect and or reputation

If your self respect and reputation hinges on how soon you have sex with someone, well, ok. Mine doesn't and I hope I'm never reduced to that.

As to the "moral agenda", are you saying that you don't have one yourself?

No, actually I don't unless you consider my objection to your fallacious reasoning a moral agenda.

Looks to me like you are defending past actions, understandable, but after admitting that an increased number of partners increases risk you seem to be desperately looking for a way to explain past behaviour or future behaviour.

This an example of an outright falsehood. Since I never said that an increased number of partners did not lead to an increased risk, there was never anything to admit. What I said was that your comment about sleeping with someone being equivalent to sleeping with every person that person slept with was a content free slogan and wrong. I demonstrated that it was wrong and provided the numbers to show that. You are attempting to shift the focus by attacking me personally, although I've nothing to defend nor said anything either way about my personal life. Again, you're using fallacious reasoning to avoid admitting that comment you made was false on its face.

I wonder if you are somehow basing your "moral agenda" on something other than your "personal" beliefs.

You can wonder about anything that suits your purpose of evading an issue, but it's fallacious reasong to do so rather than directly address what is actually stated. My personal beliefs are not even relevant to the statistical example I gave, so your commentary that goes beyond addressing that is irrelevant.

Let's face it, some people are selective about who they will sleep with and others are not.

The term ``selective'' applies to a lot more things than how soon a person will sleep with you. If your notion of being selective is based oon how soon a woman will sleep with you, just date any woman who won't have sex before marriage and you can respwect yourself for being the most selective person in the world.

Many women are still raised with good morals or standards if you wish, and avoid making the mistakes that others do.

Again, if your notion of good morals is based on how soon a woman will sleep with you, then only date women who won't sleep with you until marriage. Then, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you're dating the most moral women on the planet. My notion of morality is a little broader than that and quite a few things have a much higher priority than sex.

Either way most people eventually understand that jumping into bed too quickly isn't good for the chances of a long term committment.

I have news for you. If a woman is really into you, she WILL sleep with you rather quickly (with the possible exceptions of women who plan to wait until marriage, but even then, they might have a sudden change of plans.) With the exception of two women who had never had sex before, it's never taken longer than two dates to have sex. (I felt obligated to make sure the two exceptions were sure that's what they wanted to do, so I made them wait about two weeks.) Those mostly led to long term relationships, 3 of which were live in relationships including one lasting 6 years. My fiancee was no different in that it took two dates as well. We've been together for 2 years and 4 months. I'm here only forums (and now as a moderator). I can assure you of one thing. A woman may not sleep with you right away, but I'm quite sure she has or would sleep with someone right away. If it's not you, it's only because (1) She isn't all that hot for you; or (2) She is holding out because she's afraid of what you would think. That doesn't make her more moral. It only makes her wary of your opinion of her. I have 30 years of dating experience to support that belief. Women will tell guys what they think guys want to hear with regard to sex.

A person with standards is true to themselves, thus more trustworthy than those with no moral compass.

Another red herring. I have standards. My standards happen to include a lot of factors other than sex, and I don't really consider sex out of wedlock as immoral. How long should someone wait before that person is moral? Give me a number and explain why that number is more or less moral than any other.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 109
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 8:41:09 AM

the truth is, there are men out there with ill intentions that use sex as a commodity... and they try to lie, deceive, etc. to get what they want for less.

That has nothing to do with sex. That has to do with having sex with a guy who is fundamentally a dishonest person who will lie and deceive any time he perceives a benefit from doing so. Choose better men from the outset.

a lot of women want meaningful connections with a guy she has sex with;

So do many men. What's your point?

many guys just aren't willing to put in the effort.

If making a connection requires effort, it's not very meaningful as I see it. The only real connections I've ever found were the ones that required no effort. Why should I put a lot of effort int o proving something to a woman for the privilige of being elevated to ``possible relationship candidate,'' when there were lots of women who recognized that right away?

have you ever felt the need to pull back on money/goods/services/affirmations to find out a girl's true intentions?

No. I've generally managed to figure that sort of thing out before getting as far as the end of a first date. If I had to ``pull back'' on anything to find out what some woman I dated was all about, I'd have been dating the wrong woman. I get into relationships either 100% or not at all. I also wouldn't get into a relationship with a woman who was not into it 100%.
 hibirdie
Joined: 9/11/2011
Msg: 110
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 9:25:13 AM

That has nothing to do with sex. That has to do with having sex with a guy who is fundamentally a dishonest person who will lie and deceive any time he perceives a benefit from doing so. Choose better men from the outset.

if it was as easy as 1-2-3 to "choose better men" in the beginning, that would be one thing. men are all different, and just because you are not one of the deceitful ones doesn't mean that women shouldn't be cautious of the possibility. this has to do with sex for the mere fact that sex is involved; it's what the guy is going after in most cases.



So do many men. What's your point?



If making a connection requires effort, it's not very meaningful as I see it. The only real connections I've ever found were the ones that required no effort. Why should I put a lot of effort int o proving something to a woman for the privilige of being elevated to ``possible relationship candidate,'' when there were lots of women who recognized that right away?

the women who recognized you as "a possible relationship candidate" right away may be coming from somewhere different. maybe they have never gotten hurt or deceived, or maybe they have never seen anyone get hurt. maybe they don't care if they get hurt... maybe they don't get hurt easily. who knows. all i'm asking, really, is that people not assume the reason why people do things. keep in mind that you might be countering negative experiences from a woman's past... that doesn't make the woman any less, imho. it might just make them initially more prudent (prudent in the "judicious wisdom" sense).

also, no one said you had to put a lot of effort into providing anything. first of all, this is not personally directed at you, so don't take it that way. second, just because a connection requires effort doesn't make it lack meaningfulness. i think "connection" was the wrong word anyway. i meant a committed relationship. a lot of committed relationships do require effort for the long-haul. a lot of guys aren't willing to put effort into this and are only looking for sex. now, it'd be one thing if they targeted girls who also didn't want to put in the effort. the problem arises when these guys target girls who are looking for a serious relationship... and they go out of their way to get sex from this girl by lying, making false promises, deceiving, etc. if a girl is aware of all these possibilities, and she's refraining from having sex because of this, you should try to understand where she's coming from... not assume she is being manipulative or stringing you along.



No. I've generally managed to figure that sort of thing out before getting as far as the end of a first date. If I had to ``pull back'' on anything to find out what some woman I dated was all about, I'd have been dating the wrong woman. I get into relationships either 100% or not at all. I also wouldn't get into a relationship with a woman who was not into it 100%.

well, i'm glad that you have phenomenal intuition, but not everyone is good at marking red flags (usually either because they don't think enough or they think too much). again, you're making these statements apply to yourself, using yourself as the contradiction. in reality, this is not about you; it's about people's experiences in general. along those lines, try giving 100% to a woman who is exceptionally good at concealing her intentions... i'm glad you haven't had to deal with this (as you've implied), but don't ignore the possibility that another person has, or that you ever will.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 111
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 12:57:43 PM
this has to do with sex for the mere fact that sex is involved; it's what the guy is going after in most cases.

It doesn't matter what his goal is. What matters is that a person is deceitful. You don't have to have sex with someone to recognize deceit in other behaviour. I would also include being secretive and other behaviour that is not transparent as being indications that a person isn't trustworthy. If I sk a question and I don't get a straight answer, then I know I'm not dealing with a person I can trust.

the women who recognized you as "a possible relationship candidate" right away may be coming from somewhere different. maybe they have never gotten hurt or deceived, or maybe they have never seen anyone get hurt. maybe they don't care if they get hurt... maybe they don't get hurt easily. who knows.

My fiancee walked out on a 12 year marriage after her husband cheated on her, so I don't think she has avoided being hurt. She's also had some tragic things happen to her and those haven't turned into a suspicious cynic, either.

all i'm asking, really, is that people not assume the reason why people do things.

I care about what a woman does. I don't care why she does what she does, so I don't need to make any assumptions or figure anything out. I make decisions based on what I observe without trying to figure out what kind of psychology is required to explain it. I'm not going to try to fix someone.

keep in mind that you might be countering negative experiences from a woman's past.

I don't have to keep that in mind because I'm not interested in being a woman's therapist. It's up to her to deal with issues before she starts trying to date and enter into relationships.

well, i'm glad that you have phenomenal intuition, but not everyone is good at marking red flags

The fact that someone tallies red flags is a good enough reason to avoid that person. I talk to people and evaluate them as a whole. I normally wouldn't date a woman who is seperated, but not divorced, yet my fiancee was seperated when I started dating her. People discard perfectly good candidates for relationships based on ``red flags'' that are meaningless out of context. There are behaviours I will tolerate and behaviours I won't tolerate, but I never looked for ``red flags.''

usually either because they don't think enough or they think too much)

Not thinking is the cause of many problems people have. I can't help it if people don't think. However, I don't have to date anyone who doesn't think, so I didn't date women who weren't intelligent, were indecisive, didn't know what they wanted or afraid to put 100% into what they wanted.

again, you're making these statements apply to yourself,

So does everyone else. The only difference is that I make that obvious by explicitly qualifying my statements. On the other hand, I do have very good intuition about people and that holds even when others have disagreed with me, so I must be doing something right, even though the way I go about things often differs from conventional wisdom.

Try giving 100% to a woman who is exceptionally good at concealing her intentions...

No one is that good at concealing intentions.

I'm glad you haven't had to deal with this

I haven't had to deal with it because I won't deal with it, not because I haven't run across people who were like that.
 hibirdie
Joined: 9/11/2011
Msg: 112
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 1:04:29 PM

try giving 100% to a woman who is exceptionally good at concealing her intentions...


Why would I even want to give 1% to someone who is deceitful?


the very nature of deceit makes it difficult if at all possible to detect. the reason you would give 100% to this woman is because you would have NO IDEA she was being that way in the first place. that's the point! stop trying to outmart yourself. by giving the definition, you were in fact proving my point.


de·cep·tive/di'septiv/Adjective: Giving an appearance or impression different from the true one; misleading.
 hibirdie
Joined: 9/11/2011
Msg: 113
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 1:14:37 PM

No one is that good at concealing intentions.


really now? have you heard of philip markoff? jeffrey dahmer? you can't possibly sit there and tell me NO ONE is that good at concealing intentions. that's really complete BS. albeit, these are extreme examples.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 115
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 2:31:19 PM
really now? have you heard of philip markoff? jeffrey dahmer? you can't possibly sit there and tell me NO ONE is that good at concealing intentions. that's really complete BS. albeit, these are extreme examples.

Fallacious reasoning. Just because those people concealed their intentions from some people doesn't mean they could get away with concealing their intentions from anyone. I trust my own intuition enough to not worry about people trying to hide something from me. If I want to know something, I'll find out what I want to know.
 hibirdie
Joined: 9/11/2011
Msg: 116
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 7:16:17 PM

really now? have you heard of philip markoff? jeffrey dahmer? you can't possibly sit there and tell me NO ONE is that good at concealing intentions. that's really complete BS. albeit, these are extreme examples.


Fallacious reasoning. Just because those people concealed their intentions from some people doesn't mean they could get away with concealing their intentions from anyone. I trust my own intuition enough to not worry about people trying to hide something from me. If I want to know something, I'll find out what I want to know.


how is this fallacious? all i stated was that your claim that "NO ONE is that good at concealing intentions" is bogus. you are basically claiming that everyone can be caught if the right people are there to detect the deceptive behavior. how do you know this? perhaps there are people out there who are just that good at deceiving. in fact, many have managed to conceal their intentions and they have yet to be caught. the examples i gave are ones that just happened to be discovered. you are not acknowledging those undiscovered instances with your claim. the only way we could prove your statement correct is if we had every person in the world encounter every deceptive person, and then see who s/he fools. i have a feeling you haven't orchestrated such a scenario. to me, making blanket statements like "no one", "everyone", "all", "none", "always", "never" is more presumptive than using examples to propose supportive framents of information or a potential exception to the rule. they have naturally built-in disclaimers. anyway, getting back on topic, there's no way of knowing whether or not a person's deceitful behavior with a group of people would have been detected by you and not the other people in the group without you actually being in the situation; so why are you assuming your ability is so advanced? you want to talk fallacious, well look at some of your arguments in that case. you keep reverting your arguments to yourself, which defeats the purpose of this discussion. this discussion isn't about you, especially since you're apparently so remarkably intuitive, advanced, and skilled at detecting deception compared to other people. another thing... why would you find out what you need to know if you don't know it's even an issue to be "found out"? in other words, why would someone look for something that s/he doesn't know exists (or in this case, doesn't appear to exist)? a person is not going to probe for things that are not apparently present or are not cued. instead, the person might be surprised later on, because the thought or idea of such an occurence never crossed his/her mind. this is in response to your statement, "If I want to know something, I'll find out what I want to know." a person may never be cued to find anything out until after s/he has already been taken advantage of. that was a little off-topic, but i had to say something about it. third, and MOST importantly, regardless of whether a deceptive person got away with it or not, being deceived for even a short time can be disturbing for the person being miseld (this is going back to a supporting idea of this thread... why a girl would choose to refrain from sex to avoid the possibility of being misled). God forbid a girl might want to take precautions to avoid being in such a situation.

what makes you think that megan mcallister, philip markoff's parents, his friends, his teachers, etc. had such poor intuition? you think your intuition is just that great, huh? and everyone else is just plain credulous, right? maybe, just maybe, philip markoff was just that damn good. and just because you haven't had the glorious privilege of encountering people like this doesn't mean that they don't exist (to varying degrees, not necessarily to the level of full-blown sociopath). and it doesn't mean you couldn't be equally fooled by such a person if you ever were to come across one. you don't know, because you have (most likely) never been in such a situation. unfortunately, many other people have (again, to varying degrees). until you've experienced everything in the world, i suggest you refrain from using examples about yourself to "prove" half-baked assertions and discount other ideas just for the hell of it (or as i suspect, for the sake of being "right").




by giving the definition, you were in fact proving my point.



You have a point?


oh come on, is that the best response you could muster? :p
 musicmaker003
Joined: 4/25/2011
Msg: 117
view profile
History
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 8:02:48 PM
I disagree. So does wearing a bikini at the beach tell a guy you want to sleep with him? Tell me what the difference is between what you wear at the beach and what you wear in the streets? Location. That's it! If she wore what she is wearing in her pictures at the beach people would think she was crazy and had too many clothes on and if she did the opposite people would think she was a slut for walking the streets in her bikini. It is the mentality of the man who ASSUMES she is willing to lay down for him because she is showing cleavage or her ass. This is the only country were showing skin is grounds for rape and other male atrocities! Men will be men no matter what we wear. Some think girls with tight jeans is an invitation or ball gown. Like is said it's the mentality of the man. They'd probably hump a dog if she looked appealing enough.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 118
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 8:44:52 PM

all i stated was that your claim that "NO ONE is that good at concealing intentions" is bogus.

You also said nothing to support your belief.

why a girl would choose to refrain from sex to avoid the possibility of being misled). God forbid a girl might want to take precautions to avoid being in such a situation.

Living involves taking risks to get what you want. Smarter people make better judgments faster.

you think your intuition is just that great, huh?

It seems to be.

and everyone else is just plain credulous, right?

If you think you're easily deceived then at least your intuition is not very good.

and it doesn't mean you couldn't be equally fooled by such a person if you ever were to come across one. you don't know, because you have (most likely) never been in such a situation.

But, I have. You're just ranting because you want to excuse poor judgment.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 119
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/21/2011 9:07:50 PM
The problem is also that the exposure potential is cumulative, in that each non-exposure encounter doesn't offset an exposure encounter...

Yu're nothing but a slogan collectr. All that matters is whether a partner is infected or not infected. The rest of your crap is just obfuscation and meaningless jargon.
Unfortunately, as soon as you include 'assume ' in your criteria, your math goes out the window..

No, it doesn't, because the assumptions I made were only to provide a concrete example. It works the same way no matter how you distribute the sexual contacts. Before you start discussing math, you need to learn a little math.
 1776or1984
Joined: 12/25/2009
Msg: 120
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/22/2011 12:06:16 AM
Well jco415 and abelian are both good sports. I do apologize for the barbs but it is hard to resist when you guys leave yourselves wide open with those commments. : )

And I should just stay out of this, hibirdie and m church have pretty much wiped the floor with their opponents!

m church, I agree assumptions aren't exact science but if you are to explain a therory, one must use some sort of numbers. Scientist friends joke about some of the work they do as being nearly useless until they get out into the field and "tag and release" workers. Slap a meter on them and see where they go, what they do, and what exposures they really have.

Isn't the internet wonderful? I've never looked up info on std before but a quick search said that Chlamydia is present in 4.5% of the population and HIV infection rates from a female's perspective is around 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000. And here is a website with statistics including the states with the most std cases, it even breaks std increase and decrease by year and even by race.

http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-america.htm

Here is another site with actual infection probabilities

http://www.malehealthcenter.com/c_std.html


Bottom line is that if man A has slept with one woman in the last year and man B has slept with 50, then a woman can estimate the risk of infection using the statistics in the above links. But does anyone really want to do the math? It should be obvious that promiscous people have more chances to get infected since they are most likely sleeping with other promiscous people. And most of these std varieties have a period where symptoms are not showing, there are even statistics giving the odds of infection using a comdom against the odds with no protection. You've said this already, that there is no knowing if someone is infected or not.


So you really can not be "careful".

Strangely enough, perhaps a woman is better off statistically getting tricked by a sexual predator that tends to prey on women with morals? Perhaps their prey would be less likely to be infected. How awful!

Still if Jill sleeps with Dan, and Dan has slept with 50 women, who have slept with 50 men, we have 50 x 50 or 2500 potential infection SOURCES on the second layer. If the 50 men had slept with 50 other women weh have 50 x 50 x 50 or 125,000 potential infection SOURCES. That is the weak link that m church pointed out.

If Beth sleeps with Bill, and Bill has had three partners who have each had three partners, then we have 3 x 3 or 9 potential infection SOURCES. The next layer would be 27 potential infection SOURCES.

So if one cannot know that someone is infected, and if the chances of getting infected rise with the promiscuity of one or more of the individuals having sex (let's hope it is just two! I can't figure the orgy odds!) then whether promiscous people use "intuition", "HOPE", or arebeing "selective", they still increase their odds. In the end it is just a numbers game, just like those guys that message hundreds of women a week. All they have to do is get one good response to "win". All a promiscous person has to do is be unlucky once and antibiotics isn't going to help.

But, we should agree to disagree on this topic. Let people make up their own mind if risks increase when sleeping with promiscous people.
 1776or1984
Joined: 12/25/2009
Msg: 121
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/22/2011 12:20:24 AM
[Unfortunately, as soon as you include 'assume ' in your criteria, your math goes out the window..

No, it doesn't, because the assumptions I made were only to provide a concrete example. It works the same way no matter how you distribute the sexual contacts. Before you start discussing math, you need to learn a little math. ]

Sigh....
Abelian,

m church was actually quoting something that I originally wrote and he had a valid point. Your defending that quote that I made! That said, you did point out that I was illustrating a concrete example.

You need all the help you can get in this debate so you might consider not knocking your suporters in the head.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 122
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/22/2011 2:35:40 AM
That said, you did point out that I was illustrating a concrete example.

No, I was pointing out that I provided a concrete example.

Still if Jill sleeps with Dan, and Dan has slept with 50 women, who have slept with 50 men, we have 50 x 50 or 2500 potential infection SOURCES on the second layer. If the 50 men had slept with 50 other women weh have 50 x 50 x 50 or 125,000 potential infection SOURCES. That is the weak link that m church pointed out.

Appaently, you don't grasp the example either.
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 124
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/23/2011 12:27:57 PM
^^ what about women who want that? let's not be totally sexist here & pretend that men are all "one way" & women are 'the opposite' ?

females today are much more sexually liberated & demanding, it is more common for them to 'demand' sex from dates or b/f's and the guy to decline
 PurposedWomen
Joined: 7/10/2011
Msg: 125
view profile
History
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/23/2011 4:27:47 PM
Thanks for the response, because I was wondering what is going on with men today. It seems they want to have sex and make out as soon as they meet you. Then they try make you feel like you have problem if say HECK NAW!
 PurposedWomen
Joined: 7/10/2011
Msg: 126
view profile
History
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/23/2011 4:30:44 PM
I wish it was as easy as reading the profile : -) Maybe, I should start making announcement we can meet, but PLEASE NOTE THERE WILL BE NO SEX. It is funny because there is nothing in my profile that reads I want to sleep and make out with you on a first date.
 Moonchild51
Joined: 3/11/2007
Msg: 127
view profile
History
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/23/2011 5:31:24 PM

I have a buddy who has complained about that for the last couple of years. He's a great guy, retired early with money and property. He's got the looks and the personality. He has turned a few down already because he simply felt that if they'd boink him on the first date, they'd probably done it with numerous other guys and he's not desperate enough to just fcuk them simply because they're available...


I wanted to comment on this earlier Mr. Church? If I may? At our age, if one was to meet someone whom you say is handsome with a lot on the ball, perhaps ladies do wish to offer up their "goods" so to speak. It doesn't necessarily mean they do it for all? And I guess I don't mean boink on first date but hint at it down the road? God, dating is so much more difficult now than it was way back then! lol...I just think your friend, should he meet someone he thinks he likes, and if she is willing, hold her off and then make a move? He could be passing up someone really great? jmho
 BigJ_78
Joined: 2/15/2011
Msg: 128
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/24/2011 4:21:46 AM
I think the debate on this topic is somewhat misguided, as it relates to POF, ...Online dating is a lot different than old -fashioned dating..

A lot of times, when I meet a women from online, we will have talked for maybe a week or two, if not more, online, before we are able to schedule a meet.... in chat, on the phone and through texting..We've seen each others pics and have a good idea of what each others personalities are... I'm a highly sexual & flirtatious type of man, so usually the flirting and sexual talk gets ramped up to a fever pitch before we even meet...often, a few non-POF type pics are even exchanged, if you get what I'm saying, lol...

SO yeah, by the time we meet , both of us are pretty sexually charged, .....and sometimes, yes we wind up doing the deed that same night, because that "first date", really isnt even like a first date at that point, after all the time we've spent talking and getting each other worked up....
 SC67
Joined: 6/21/2009
Msg: 129
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/24/2011 5:51:57 AM

SO yeah, by the time we meet , both of us are pretty sexually charged, .....and sometimes, yes we wind up doing the deed that same night, because that "first date", really isnt even like a first date at that point, after all the time we've spent talking and getting each other worked up....

ok...so I think this describes the issue. Some on POF like to call the 1st date a "meet" (not to be confused with a date) & some think it's more than a 1st date. ...it's a blind date. Yes, you've seen their pics & hopefully talked some on the phone, but you really don't know each other. Unless you're ok with the idea that it's just going to be this one night of fun & games, you should probably take a little more time to get to know the person in real life. Otherwise you wake up one morning & have gone on 20 of these "dates" & still have 20 other guys or girls texting you the non-POF pics or you're in a quasi-relationship with someone you don't know & truthfully don't like all that much.

I believe in sex. It's important. It's important that you do it frequently & like you mean it. However...I do not want to do it with someone I don't know & I'm not sure I even like or want to see the next day. I also try to keep the sexting/virtual flirting to a minimum until I know I'm really attracted in person. There's nothing like sharing a few intimate moments via phone or text & then discovering this person is a no-go in real life. Wait a couple of dates & see what they're really made of & maybe we won't see the sad sack threads saying the person turned out to be married, psycho, or both.
 Pingshooter
Joined: 3/15/2009
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/24/2011 6:22:00 AM

At our age, if one was to meet someone whom you say is handsome with a lot on the ball, perhaps ladies do wish to offer up their "goods" so to speak. It doesn't necessarily mean they do it for all? And I guess I don't mean boink on first date but hint at it down the road?


I have turned down sex from a woman I briefly met, and suffered the wrath of a crazy.
That was one of the reasons why I turned down the sex..my gut instinct told me.."wait, something isn't right here". I wasn't wrong.

And, I truly believe that if two sane, consent adults want to get it on after the first, third, sixth date..have at it. It does NOT reflect that someone is easy, someone is a tramp. Or that someone has low morals..it simply means that the two people connected.
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 131
Bed Jumpers over Girls with Morals
Posted: 9/24/2011 10:14:18 AM

) Maybe, I should start making announcement we can meet, but PLEASE NOTE THERE WILL BE NO SEX.


funny thing is, most women who make that pronouncement really early on.. WANT to get jiggy on the first date.

watch what they DO................ NOT what they SAY
Show ALL Forums  > Sex and Dating  >