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  > Relationships  > Do most men consider women who are on pof to be "damaged goods"?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 memtoo
Joined: 6/2/2016
Msg: 201
all lines are blurredPage 9 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Flaman, it's hard for me to know whether you are here just playing ...it's been known to happen here, or whether you are serious. If you are playing and just being controversial just for the fun of it..hey keep having your fun....but if you are actually serious, which I give a reasonable chance, you are one fuked up dude. Sorry, but true. In your late 50s and so messed up. So sad. Hope you are not actually looking for a partner. Good luck with that if you are. :-)

There is so much more to a woman that is important than her past sexual history, especially to people our age.
 45daydreamer
Joined: 6/8/2016
Msg: 202
all lines are blurred
Posted: 6/12/2016 7:04:26 AM
I find it odd that in various dictionary definitions of "slut" there is no mention of men. Slut shaming has been going on for eons. Shame and guilt are huge regarding sex. Shame and guilt is even used in rape, sexual assault and abuse situations; the old "what did you do to make him do that to you". Shame and guilt are used to control and for control.

I can't believe we are having this conversation in 2016.

I would say - most women are not "ashamed" of their numbers and feel they had a normal and healthy sex life. (I'm talking women 45 years +).
I would say - most women 45+ would not answer that question.
I would say - most women 45+ would walk away from a man who asked that question..
I would say - most men 45+ thinks it's more important to to find out what's in a woman's heart, what's in a woman's mind, than who has been in her vagina. Some won't , most will.
Some women with low self esteem will answer those type of questions, some. Most women will not.

In the post above about men don't want sluts, they want ladies. I'd like to know the cut-off between slut and lady. Just for reference.
 missrightright
Joined: 4/23/2016
Msg: 203
all lines are blurred
Posted: 6/12/2016 10:45:51 AM

It does make a man wonder why women get so agitated about their number.


Ummm, by your own argument, it is men who are agitated by women's numbers. Oh, say, are you trying to trick me with your smooth words? Trying to suggest that my very own number makes ME agitated? Ah, no. I made my own choices, hurt nobody in the process, and have zero regrets.

I have no way of knowing if other women get agitated when talking about their "numbers" or choices, but if they do I would suspect it isn't because THEY think they did something wrong, but perhaps because they resent the hell out of being held to some ridiculous double standard.


1. a woman who has sexual relationships with a lot of men without any emotional involvement


Hilarious. If she loves them all, then it's okay. But wait! Wouldn't that make her TOO emotional?! Damn women, having sex both with and without emotional involvement. It sounds almost like something a man would do. How awful.


a woman or girl who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous


Considered? By whom? Old people? Control freaks? The sexually rejected? The sex police? The Church Lady? Your grandpa?

Carry on then with your cool retro phrases...Daddy-O.
 flman2015
Joined: 10/3/2015
Msg: 204
all lines are blurred
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:31:00 PM



Ladies first....


missrightright



Ummm, by your own argument, it is men who are agitated by women's numbers.


Nice try but, my argument is that, some men are _curious_ about what sex means to a woman. Something which is clearly indicated by the number of "partners" she's had. On the other hand, some women seem to get quite _agitated_ over a man wanting to make that determination. It really makes a man wonder where all that agitation comes from.

I strongly believe that a man who's learned a thing or two throughout the years would most definitely want to determine if he is dealing with a promiscuous, sexually loose woman. The female agitation in this thread seems to indicate that a man is not entitled to determine what kind of woman he is considering having a relationship with. I find that rather surprising, though logical in some cases.



Hilarious. If she loves them all, then it's okay.


If she loved them all, there shouldn't be that many. After all, we all know that finding a good match, that is someone to love, isn't easy. What is interesting, not hilarious, is that you attempt to pretend otherwise.



But wait! Wouldn't that make her TOO emotional?!


Now, that ^^^ is truly hilarious. What a solid argument you got there.



Considered? By whom? Old people? Control freaks? The sexually rejected? The sex police? The Church Lady? Your grandpa?


Looks like by all of the above plus all of the people who agree with the dictionary definition (that is very likely quite a few.)



Carry on then with your cool retro phrases


I had no idea that having a modicum of moral values was a "retro" concept. A position that is suspiciously self serving in some cases.



Daddy-O.


Cute :-)


Now that I've addressed the ladies' "concerns" ....


memtoo



... whether you are serious.


I am very serious. Presuming you don't actually mind entering in a relationship with a girl with loose sexual morals and sexually promiscuous doesn't mean that other men should have the same low standards. If you want to scrape the bottom of the female barrel, be my guest but, don't pretend that other men should do the same. Some of us want better than that for ourselves.



you are one fuked up dude.


Relative to some in these forums, I am (thankful and proud of it too.)



There is so much more to a woman that is important than her past sexual history,


True but, her past is part of who she is and, should not be ignored. If you choose to ignore it, I won't say you are a fvcked up dude, I'll just say that it is unwise but, it's your choice and, you're the one who will have to live with it.
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 205
view profile
History
all lines are blurred
Posted: 6/12/2016 2:27:30 PM
As long as the man has the same low or no experience with women, I don't see the problem, other than the need to call women who have enjoyed sex with men of her choosing to call them loose, low moral women. This would be why you'd get to know, and maybe marry, someone before you have sex with them. If you are doing the opposite of what you expect of the other person, ppfftttt. It's always about compatibility.

Personally I have no interest in a man who has an FWB, not that I call them names or assume they are morally corrupt, it's just not something I am interested in getting involved with. The need to call other people names shows something much different than the preference of someone without much sexual experience or numbers.
 BBEisBack
Joined: 9/16/2015
Msg: 206
view profile
History
all lines are blurred
Posted: 6/12/2016 5:58:51 PM

I strongly believe that a man who's learned a thing or two throughout the years would most definitely want to determine if he is dealing with a promiscuous, sexually loose woman.


What is Your Number, flman2015?
Your longest Relationship is 5 years.
Have you had sexual relations with someone outside a LTR?
You claim to be 57, what were you doing sexually, 1977-1984? Before the AIDS scare changed things.
Did you live in a small town or big city, in that time period?
 missrightright
Joined: 4/23/2016
Msg: 207
all lines are blurred
Posted: 6/12/2016 8:36:52 PM

On the other hand, some women seem to get quite _agitated_ over a man wanting to make that determination.


This has been addressed. Your belief is that no woman should object to a man determining if she has had too many sex partners, unless she has had to many sex partners. The truth is that most women are, to varying degrees, offended, insulted, or outraged at the double standard inherent in the question.


If she loved them all, there shouldn't be that many.


If some people waited to be in love, they would never have sex. I don't think that is a healthy way to live, but some might be perfectly happy with abstinence. I wouldn't judge him or her for that choice.


After all, we all know that finding a good match, that is someone to love, isn't easy. What is interesting, not hilarious, is that you attempt to pretend otherwise.


I never said it was easy to find someone to love. Nor did I make light of being in love. I don't think having sex without being in love is wrong.


I had no idea that having a modicum of moral values was a "retro" concept.


Since when did an action become moral or immoral depending on the number of times a person does it? Killing is immoral, even if you only do it once. Having sex with an unattached, consenting adult isn't immoral. It can't suddenly become immoral if that action is repeated 20 times, or 50, or a 100.

Sexual double standards are most assuredly, "retro".
 BBEisBack
Joined: 9/16/2015
Msg: 208
view profile
History
all lines are blurred
Posted: 6/12/2016 8:52:07 PM

If she loved them all, there shouldn't be that many.



If some people waited to be in love, they would never have sex. I don't think that is a healthy way to live, but some might be perfectly happy with abstinence. I wouldn't judge him or her for that choice.


I'll just leave this song here.........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7BF9Z8ok6A


I've known some painted ladies that sparkled in the light
Country girls that loved the lovers moon
Some I never really knew, though I always wanted to
Some I only met once in a room

Some said they liked my smile, others of 'em stayed a while
While others left me on the run
This is the only way, only way I have to say
I loved 'em every one

Big, little or short or tall, wish I could've kept them all
I loved 'em every one
Like to thank 'em for their charms, holdin' me in their arms
And I hope they had some fun

Here's to the ladies in saloons and living rooms
Summer nights that lasted until dawn
Here's to the memories, everyone's a part of me
Oh, I loved 'em every one

Big, little or short or tall, wish I could've kept them all
I loved 'em every one
Like to thank 'em for their charms, holdin' me in their arms
And I hope they had some fun

Big, little or short or tall, wish I could've kept them all
I loved 'em every one
Like to thank 'em for their charms, holdin' me in their arms
And I hope they had some fun
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 209
Loose women just need the proper screw :)
Posted: 6/13/2016 5:52:10 AM
Worrying about a woman's honor has been a human waste of time since the days of Divine Right, when the royal bloodline had to be kept so God wouldn't allegedly be upset by a b@stard on the throne and ruin the crops. It is a pity we haven't shaken the centuries-old idea loose yet. But then I complained when young that young boys got charged more for car insurance just b/c they had a higher rate of stupid behavior behind the wheel.
 Ladyinred0407
Joined: 2/6/2016
Msg: 210
all lines are blurred on "judgement day"
Posted: 6/13/2016 6:03:21 AM
My new number. 1382.
The number of miles covered in 5 days, sittin' in the rear saddle, on my achin' back side. Yee haw!

Now, do I have this right?
A man judges my physical attractiveness/ (me), with a number between 1 and 10. ?
He judges my character/ (me) by a number, I give when asked, "How many"?
He judges my social acceptability/ (me) by the number revealed on a weight scale.?

Soooo, did I forget anything? Please do enlighten me.

I will be very honest here.
You'all may just have to take that black robe off,
cause you'll be needin' to take your boots off,
to see your toes, to count my numbers!

Hmmmm, the only number I want/need, is 1.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 211
loose women and a tight screw :P
Posted: 6/13/2016 7:40:52 AM
and who says a woman doesn't like a good long ride? :)

seriously, you got it right. Men and women will decide whether to make a friend or a lover out of someone based, initially, on looks. of course, they might over time fall for a friend, but we're talking about the first "wow!" moment we spot the new hot coworker or person on the beach or et cetera. Some men and women will use number of lovers as a suggestion about their moral character, while everyone else looks at their moral character in order to decide their moral character. or they'll judge by their sexual preference, political party, or some other such thing. same way some will look at an overweight person or a smoker and figure "it" is due to laziness or a lack of self control or willpower.

would you like to spot these people soon off? you can...by listening to them speak about what's important to them. oh, its not nice to be prematurely judged, but its been done to me since I was a kid. you learn to thicken your skin and be glad fools don't want to hide themselves for very long.
 flman2015
Joined: 10/3/2015
Msg: 212
morals are "retro"
Posted: 6/13/2016 2:52:35 PM



Ladies

This thread has become the Mall of female double standards... quite amusing....



The need to call other people names


There is no "need" to call anyone names. What there is, is an objective identification of an individual based on his/her behavior.

For instance, a person who steals is identified/"called" a thief. Their behavior identifies them. A woman who sleeps with every Tom, Dikk and Harry is identified as a slut. If an individual who steals doesn't want to be "called" a thief, the solution is simple, don't steal. If a woman doesn't want to be idenfified as a slut, the solution is equally simple, don't behave like a slut.

There is no "name calling", that would imply mis-identification. There is no misindentification, the behavior identification is clear and accurate.

It's amusing that somehow the thief and the slut are "offended" that their behavior is identified by those around them.

But, the double standards don't end there....

There are countless posts in these forums from women who consistently lament that we men only want sex. Apparently, there is something wrong with that when it is men who only want sex but, there is _nothing_wrong with it when it is women who only want sex. Quite amusing.

and it doesn't stop there....

If having sex with every Tom, Dikk and Harry is "perfectly fine" as some in this thread pretend, then why do women have profiles on dating sites seeking a monogamous relationship ?... they could simply go on having their "itch" scratched by the "man du jour". Again, supposedly there is nothing wrong with that.

The other one that is quite amusing is....

A man shouldn't be concerned with the sexual behavior of a woman because the woman isn't (presumably) concerned with the sexual behavior of the man. This is a revelation, we men should only concern ourselves with what women think we should be concerned about. Any other concern is "stupid". Gotta love that logic.




The truth is that most women are, to varying degrees, offended, insulted, or outraged at the double standard inherent in the question.


As shown above, there is no double standard. Women, you among them, claim you don't care about how many sexual partners a man has had. A signficant percentage of men do care (with good reason too) about how many sexual partners a woman has had. There is no double standard, just different concerns depending on the gender.

The rather peculiar standard is for women to claim we shouldn't care because you women don't care. It doesn't work that way. You have your concerns, we have ours. Simple.



If some people waited to be in love, they would never have sex.


Never say never. It is very likely true that if people waited to be in love, they would probably not have sex very often. That said, if they had sex with someone they reasonably believe there is a high probability of a future emotional connection, not only they would have sex more often than never, they would likely have better sex than the wam bam thank you m'am they are likely to get from Tom, Dikk and Harry. I know, mixing emotion with sex is a "retro" concept.



I don't think having sex without being in love is wrong.


See previous paragraph, I don't think so either. That said, I think that a woman having casual sex with every Tom, Dikk and Harry leaves much to be desired in more ways than one.



Killing is immoral, even if you only do it once.


A rather poor and disingenuous argument. Killing in the protection of one's own life is _not_ immoral. Killing for the pleasure of killing is immoral.

In spite of the above, I don't generally consider having casual sex as immoral but, I do consider routinely having casual sex for the purpose of "scratching an itch" as morally deficient.



Sexual double standards are most assuredly, "retro".


Retro isn't the word I would use. I don't see a double standard when I see a woman who sleeps with every Tom, Dikk and Harry asking for a monogamous relationship. I see something else in that case.



He judges my character/ (me) by a number, I give when asked, "How many"?


Add, self control, honesty and self respect among others to character above. How could anyone pretend that an individuals' past and their behavior mean anything ?... what a "retro" concept.



Gents



What is Your Number, flman2015?


If a woman with whom I am considering having a relationship with asks, she will get my number and, after that she can reach whatever conclusion she wants as to whether or not she wants to have a relationship with me.

I don't consider it a stupid question. I would much rather she determine whether or not she wants to have a relationship with me at its very beginning than later when we have both made an emotional investment in each other. That avoids disappointments on both sides. Simply what a mature, logical and honest person would do.

Whatever my number is, I own it, I don't hide it but, I only share it with those who I consider have a genuine need to know. Obviously, that doesn't include posters in a forum.



Have you had sexual relations with someone outside a LTR?


If you had read my previous posts you'd know the answer to that question.



You claim to be 57, what were you doing sexually, 1977-1984? Before the AIDS scare changed things.
Did you live in a small town or big city, in that time period?


Is there a point to these questions ?... if there is, then make your point.
 kj521
Joined: 9/20/2015
Msg: 213
morals are retro
Posted: 6/13/2016 3:18:32 PM
"A woman who sleeps with every Tom, Dikk and Harry is identified as a slut. "



Whew! That was close! I have NOT had intimate relations with ANY Toms, D.....ks or Harrys!


Guess I'm good. ;)




*****Although....I may have accidentally on purpose called a couple of past lovers by the second name in that series of names. Does that count? :D
 Chromis1
Joined: 9/9/2015
Msg: 214
view profile
History
morals are retro
Posted: 6/13/2016 3:39:16 PM
^^^^^ Nor I with any Anns, Janes or Sallys.

That should knock off a few decades in purgatory for me. Hopefully.
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 215
view profile
History
morals are retro
Posted: 6/13/2016 3:51:03 PM
Calling adults who live a life differently than you do are not sluts, the need to call other people nasty names says much more about you than about them. I am not saying it's my preferred lifestyle either, but having an active sex life is not only none of your business but calling them nasty names is ridiculous and childish. No one is making you date them, no one is saying you can't have different values, you show yourself, you do not make them in the wrong.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 216
view profile
History
morals are retro
Posted: 6/13/2016 4:45:29 PM
It's sad to see this thread has also deteriorated into the 'number' issue, assuming that someone interested in your past would 'judge' you in a shallow way, playing the victim by claiming that you're being judged because you have an active sex life...on and on and on...

But I'll add a couple of things since it's gone in that direction -

If some people waited to be in love, they would never have sex.

The thing about this is just that every time you choose to simply scratch that itch, in some way you're passing over an opportunity to some degree to find that person who you might love and decide to be in a LTR with. That's why it carries some weight. So the more you get into the habit of doing the one instead of the other, the less chance you'll find that person and the more time goes by before you do, if you do...therefore, it suggests that you don't want to find that person in the first place, and/or don't really care about 'love' anyway otherwise you'd do differently and try to actually find them/it, and so it shows a high probability that you have a certain view of it all concerning love and sex.

So, remember that while you say "If some people waited to be in love, they would never have sex", you need to also be aware that "if you keep having sex just to have sex, you may never find love." That's ok. Fine and dandy. Don't pretend that you're being judged by everyone because they want to know this about you. But remember that one of the reasons that they might want to know stuff like this is to begin forming a reasonable understanding of how you view these things...of whether or not you care about love in the first place.

but having an active sex life is not only none of your business...

...No one is making you date them

You might not be 'making' them date you, but you potentially are tricking them into dating you if you aren't forthcoming with relevant information about yourself. See how that works? You say that they don't have to date you, but then that this info isn't any of their business. If they don't know the information, then they might decide to date you because they don't know, whereas if they did know, they might not want to date you. Think about that crap for a minute.
 Ouija2025
Joined: 6/11/2014
Msg: 217
morals are retro
Posted: 6/13/2016 4:53:44 PM
Starting to think that Men who have been shut down the most first to say slut.
I guess we could walk around with a scarlet letter on our forehead, or a number tattooed on our wrist
oops
wait
All people who are concerned about their new squeeze's NUMBERS should reference that in their profiles. Problem solved
 ThroatLozenge
Joined: 3/2/2016
Msg: 218
Do snakes have testicles?
Posted: 6/13/2016 4:57:10 PM
I see red people...
 ThroatLozenge
Joined: 3/2/2016
Msg: 219
morals are retro
Posted: 6/13/2016 8:20:00 PM
I don't date much and I'm very discerning.

Seems to work.
 BBEisBack
Joined: 9/16/2015
Msg: 220
view profile
History
morals are retro
Posted: 6/14/2016 1:36:44 PM

Is there a point to these questions ?... if there is, then make your point.


As one who lived thru the Seventies-Eighties, I'm trying to understand where Your Views on Sex, came from......
Did you have the same views back then?
You share a lot of views on Sex with the Fundie Thumpers, for someone who claims to be Non-Religious....
 flman2015
Joined: 10/3/2015
Msg: 221
morals are retro
Posted: 6/14/2016 3:04:58 PM




Whew! That was close! I have NOT had intimate relations with ANY Toms, D.....ks or Harrys!


Tom, Dikk and Harry... those three guys are well known PUAs... women hogs... smart of you to stay away from them :-)




Nor I with any Anns, Janes or Sallys.


Now I understand why Ann, Jane and Sally were feeling neglected. ;-)




people nasty names


I don't call anyone nasty names.

When I see a person stealing, I identify him/her as a thief, that's reality not a nasty name. When I see a slut, I identify her as a slut, that's not a nasty name, that's reality. If they find reality unflattering, it is up to them to make different choices for a hopefully more flattering reality.

People define who they are by their behavior. That's the way it is whether they like it or not. Self serving rationalizations do not change that.



I guess we could walk around with a scarlet letter on our forehead, or a number tattooed on our wrist


No need, it's fairly easy to tell without those things.



Did you have the same views back then?


Yes but, I've learned a few things since. Among those... I've learned that the saying "live and learn" is not as often practiced as "live and never learn".



You share a lot of views on Sex with the Fundie Thumpers, for someone who claims to be Non-Religious....


I see... just because a man or a woman isn't inclined to treat the opposite's gender body and, their own as well, as the masturbatory device du jour that makes him/her a "Fundie Thumper".... it's amusing to see how determined some people are in rationalizing their dubious behavior.
 joeygagoots
Joined: 10/2/2013
Msg: 222
Do most men consider women who are on pof to be damaged goods?
Posted: 6/14/2016 4:07:09 PM

Anyone over the age of six months, who has had social contact with another human being, is "damaged goods."

ESPECIALLY the ones who think they are not.
nice cynical way of looking at things
 redryder4u2
Joined: 6/7/2016
Msg: 223
morals are retro
Posted: 6/14/2016 4:11:09 PM
"No need, it's fairly easy to tell without those things."

I'm wondering how you determine this.

I wonder why you compare a thief (criminal act) with being a slut (not criminal). And is their a magic "slut" number and your magic slut number might be different than another guy's slut number, for example, your number might be 15 and another guy thinks it's 30.

I've not been asked this question but I have only dated mature men. I have had no inclination to ask it either. The important things I've learned over the years have not included this.
 AgentNinety9
Joined: 6/9/2016
Msg: 224
morals are retro
Posted: 6/14/2016 4:26:08 PM

It's amusing that somehow the thief and the slut are "offended" that their behavior is identified by those around them.

But you didn't follow your asstard social theory to its logical conclusion, which is that no man goes to bed with a woman he doesn't actually want to screw (and there are a lot of them out there who don't care about how many of their kind preceded them), but nobody consents to be ripped off.
 kj521
Joined: 9/20/2015
Msg: 225
morals are retro
Posted: 6/14/2016 4:32:22 PM
^^^^^^No.....it's the men whose names are NOT Tom, D.....K, and Harry!

Those three are not complaining cause apparently.....they're gettin' all the action! ;) ;)
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > Do most men consider women who are on pof to be "damaged goods"?