I wish women would demand more in a relationship before getting intimate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And overall, I wish people were less promiscuous.

I look at a 26 year old who I have known since childhood. College graduate, so so job.

So far this woman has lived with two men, had at least 15 partners since the age of 15. Two STDs one requiring surgery. Around the time of the surgery, not one "Boyfriend" around. Even if they were around, they could do nothing for her since none of them have a thing to offer her. She is becoming more and more cynical at such a young age.
She told me that she wanted marriage, but in her world, that is almost a dirty word. She believed that if she uttered words like that to the men she dated, they would have run away. I suggested that she feel less ashamed of the M word and to treat herself well.

I am in healthcare and I see the burden of complications of sexual activity placed squarely on women. The worst thing is that many of these women have little to show for it.

I sometimes think that if more women held back and made greater demands from their partners things would change. I wish more women would be honest with themselves about what they really want.

Just a ramble, but don't want to see my dd who is just 10 in the same mess.

You worry about you.

Your post is patently offensive. This notion that they should have something to show for having sex is sexist, misogynistic, and disgusting. Shame on you.

And you worry about YOU. You clearly misread (or, more likely, projected your own distorted thoughts) onto OP's post. This friend WANTS marriage and stability.

Sometimes what people really want and what they convey are patently different. My guess is that when this person truly feels the need to settle down, it will happen.

As for the STD she got that needed surgery - sounds like HPV. It's almost unavoidable if you are dating, and there's no screening test for men. So you can be completely careful and still get it.

Maybe not avoidable if having sex but certainly avoidable if just dating. I'm 44 and don't have HPV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with most of the immediate PPs. Everyone, male and female, is entitled to have as much sex as they want with as many partners as they want, and should be able to do so without being shamed. The way I read the title of the thread is that OP wishes women would demand more in a RELATIONSHIP before getting intimate. That is, if what the woman wants is a relationship, not a casual hookup, or friends with benefits scenario, it's generally a best practice to actually get to know the person and that they want they same thing (demanding a little more time and commitment) before becoming intimate, so as to avoid disappointment.

This liberal nonsense that you can't "shame" anyone for being slutty is wrong. Of course people are free to shame sluts. There are good reasons why promiscuity is looked down upon. It is immoral. It won't help your physical or mental health. It won't help you build a quality relationship with a man. It doesn't help you build a family. The "silent majority" and wise people understand this.

+1

The idea that anyone should be free to have as many sex partners as you want without being judged or shamed is part of the lie. Of course you will be judged. And shamed. Sorry, but there are consequences to actions.

How does me having 500 sexual partners impact your life in any way? Where the hell do you get off on "shaming.?" It's totally ok to say that not for you and you'd rather have something different, but you absolutely do not get to shame me for it. You really need to look inward and figure out where the anger is coming from.

Well in a way it does impact my life. The diseases spread faster if a lot of people are having a lot of sex partners. Think of it like this. If I go to a place where there is a lot of TB and I get coughed on repeatedly while there then come back home and spread the didease, then others are affected. If a lot of people travel t an area with lots of TB then come back home to many work paces and social gatherings then more people get TB. Get it?

It doesn't actually work that way in educated populations. In educated populations, the more sex partners people have the less lilkely they are to have STDs. The mechanism behind that isn't clear, but it's probably because they are more careful and take more care of their health. They use condoms more consistently and get tested more frequently. People who have fewer partners have more STDS. Again, the mechanism isn't clear but it's probably because they feel "safe" and assume their partner is "safe" and so they don't use condoms and don't get screened as much as they should.

More people should be responsible sluts. It's better for the health of the community.

I have heard something like that before but it is not really true. It is true among gay men, and educated older urban folks, but NOT true among teens of any social background. AND, there are TONS of uneducated people around the DC area. The big bias is that in this generation, the people with few partners tend tone rural and poorly educated, but I have a feeling that will change. HPV has been on the rise in all populations. Even elderly people.

The populations you are pointing out as it being "not true" are excluded by the descriptor "educated." Teens are not educated. Poor people are not educated. Rural people are not educated. It is true for educated and better off groups.

The rest of your post is how you feel.

Confirmation bias is a bitch, but that doesn't make your point true.

The key to preventing STDS is education and access to health care. Shaming does nothing. Abstience does nothing. Limiting the number of partners does nothing.

Why do you assume poor or rural people aren't educated? That's bias not a fact. I'm poor and very well-educated (two advanced degrees).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm poor and very well-educated (two advanced degrees).

Nobody gives a shit how many advanced degrees you have, whether it's one or 20. Just more proof that advanced degrees doesn't make you intelligent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I have a coworker who is a successful partner making tons of money. He dates serially. Gives each woman a nice vacation, a new girl every 4-6 months. Makes them feel like he is serious. Buy he is not. They seem to get excited over the prospect of marrying this successful man, and he knows that. Why does he not just say that he has no plans to marry, but just to screw them? I suppose that would ruin the fun. Sociopath to me.

Takes two to tango. Stop inferring these women are victims, that's insulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The worst thing about this thread is that it exists vis a vis women, but there will likely never be a companion one this lengthy about men and sexuality.

Women are their own worst enemies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm poor and very well-educated (two advanced degrees).

Nobody gives a shit how many advanced degrees you have, whether it's one or 20. Just more proof that advanced degrees doesn't make you intelligent.

So poor people aren't just uneducated but they are also not intelligent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The worst thing about this thread is that it exists vis a vis women, but there will likely never be a companion one this lengthy about men and sexuality.

Women are their own worst enemies.

Sad but true. They really are...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm poor and very well-educated (two advanced degrees).

Nobody gives a shit how many advanced degrees you have, whether it's one or 20. Just more proof that advanced degrees doesn't make you intelligent.

So poor people aren't just uneducated but they are also not intelligent?

I'm poor and intelligent. Work that I find satisfying makes a big difference in people's lives, but doesn't pay well. I think I'd blow my brains out of I did corporate work like my friends. I'm sure others find that meaningful, but it isn't for me.

[Anonymous]

It would certainly be smart to make sure partners are healthy, and protect yourself. That applies to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would certainly be smart to make sure partners are healthy, and protect yourself. That applies to everyone.

Let's be mindful that vulnerable women and girls often don't have these choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And OP promptly took her friend's idiocy/issues and applied them with a broad brush to all womankind.

Not all women want a relationship to have sex.

Offensive. She's a slut-shaming prude who should be deeply ashamed of herself.

Holy crap, you're nuts. I feel really sad for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The worst thing about this thread is that it exists vis a vis women, but there will likely never be a companion one this lengthy about men and sexuality.

Women are their own worst enemies.

Sad but true. They really are...

Especially across class lines.

[Anonymous]

I can't stand sanctimonious people like OP. Mind your own vaginas and penises and keep your nose out of other people's sex lives. It isn't that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand sanctimonious people like OP. Mind your own vaginas and penises and keep your nose out of other people's sex lives. It isn't that hard.

Until drug-resistant STIs are wiped out, we should be concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand sanctimonious people like OP. Mind your own vaginas and penises and keep your nose out of other people's sex lives. It isn't that hard.

Until drug-resistant STIs are wiped out, we should be concerned.

No you really, really shouldn't. Just do what you deem right for you. I'll do the same for myself.