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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Statistically, you are an anomoly. On the whole, more education = more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, all the health care in the world is NOT going to protect you from a new variant of HPV not covered by a current vaccine. All the antibiotics in the world won't help you with drug resistant strains of chlamydia and gonorrhea.
You post is silly, you're saying that to reduce STDs in the US, first give everyone a college degree and more extensive sex ed, then ask them to run out there and have more sex? Crazy.
I am a doctor and the first way to prevent disease is to avoid it. Of course you have to know about the disease, so yes, more sex ed, but best to avoid it. If someone has MRSA, don't touch, but if you touch, wash. If someone has TB, stay away. And so on.
BTW, to all the "lots of sex" people, not everyone is as "empowered" as you, many women can not say no to persistent men. Maybe that will be the next thread...Men, why do you persist when you know she would rather not?

You may be a doctor, but you're obviously completely unfamiilar with the research on this. Teaching absitence/reduction of partners doesn't prevent STDs or pregnancy or unwanted sex. In fact, teaching abstinence/partner reduction is correlated with an INCREASE in STDs and unplanned pregnancies and unwanted sex. (Probably because people say they aren't going to have sex, dont plan for sex, and then have sex anyway.) Teaching people how to use condoms, get tested, use birth control, what consent is, and how to say "yes" or "no" without shame is associated with a descrease in STDs, unplanned pregnancies, and non-consensual sex.

[Anonymous]

Lady with single 40 yo friends and TB lady:

WOW, the ignorance is mind blowing.

I feel like I was transported bs k into the 1900.

Scary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, all the health care in the world is NOT going to protect you from a new variant of HPV not covered by a current vaccine. All the antibiotics in the world won't help you with drug resistant strains of chlamydia and gonorrhea.
You post is silly, you're saying that to reduce STDs in the US, first give everyone a college degree and more extensive sex ed, then ask them to run out there and have more sex? Crazy.
I am a doctor and the first way to prevent disease is to avoid it. Of course you have to know about the disease, so yes, more sex ed, but best to avoid it. If someone has MRSA, don't touch, but if you touch, wash. If someone has TB, stay away. And so on.
BTW, to all the "lots of sex" people, not everyone is as "empowered" as you, many women can not say no to persistent men. Maybe that will be the next thread...Men, why do you persist when you know she would rather not?

You may be a doctor, but you're obviously completely unfamiilar with the research on this. Teaching absitence/reduction of partners doesn't prevent STDs or pregnancy or unwanted sex. In fact, teaching abstinence/partner reduction is correlated with an INCREASE in STDs and unplanned pregnancies and unwanted sex. (Probably because people say they aren't going to have sex, dont plan for sex, and then have sex anyway.) Teaching people how to use condoms, get tested, use birth control, what consent is, and how to say "yes" or "no" without shame is associated with a descrease in STDs, unplanned pregnancies, and non-consensual sex.

Our culture is indeed pushing women toward YES. Because NO is uncool. Marriage is uncool. Trivializing sex is COOL.

[Anonymous]

OP here, I posted because of a tragedy that I saw before me. I saw a woman who was bitter at a young age and had regrets about her sex partners. To her, it wasn't worth it. Perhaps it had nothing to do with the diseases, perhaps it was simply the way the men treated her. You could talk forever, but she will still say that it was not worth it.
To all those who think that more sex would have meant less disease, keep in mind, you have to want sex to enjoy it. She did not want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here, I posted because of a tragedy that I saw before me. I saw a woman who was bitter at a young age and had regrets about her sex partners. To her, it wasn't worth it. Perhaps it had nothing to do with the diseases, perhaps it was simply the way the men treated her. You could talk forever, but she will still say that it was not worth it.
To all those who think that more sex would have meant less disease, keep in mind, you have to want sex to enjoy it. She did not want it.

So it sounds like she needs a therapist then. Not a chastity belt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Um... no. HPV infection rate is down 40% since Gardasil came out. Also... teens, by demographic, are not educated. In fact, all you say is that it isn't true and then go on to affirm all the points.

STDs are vastly overstated in the media and they are almost non-existent in several populations. Why? because people take care and get medical treatment when they need it. The problem is that certain people don't want sex to be without consequences and exaggerate the risk.

Do you know any reasonably attractive yet single women who aren't lesbians and are still single in their 30s/40s, etc? I do. They all got herpes in HS, college or shortly thereafter and it killed their dating. These are ladies who went to private school have advanced degrees and six figure salaries. All attractive. The stigma of stds is real. And you can catch them even if the guy wears a condom.

First of all, herpes is the equivelent of catching a cold. Most people have one mild outbreak and then never again. If these women face stigma in the groups that they date in, they can find men who are also postiive for the herpes virus and date them. There are even websites for doing this. They caught the herpes virus from men in their own social class. There are men on those websites who are dateable.

There are many other men who aren't idiots, who would be willing to date a woman who is positive for herpes virus, because they know it's NBD, if she isnt having an outbreak. Because they aren't idiots.

For that reason, I doubt that the trouble with your single friends is their STD status. It's easy to blame a virus, when the problem is you.

I've heard this from people with HSV...when they are trying to convince someone to ignore it

[Anonymous]

You may be a doctor, but you're obviously completely unfamiilar with the research on this. Teaching absitence/reduction of partners doesn't prevent STDs or pregnancy or unwanted sex. In fact, teaching abstinence/partner reduction is correlated with an INCREASE in STDs and unplanned pregnancies and unwanted sex. (Probably because people say they aren't going to have sex, dont plan for sex, and then have sex anyway.) Teaching people how to use condoms, get tested, use birth control, what consent is, and how to say "yes" or "no" without shame is associated with a descrease in STDs, unplanned pregnancies, and non-consensual sex.



The request for sex is made because there is an expectation that there will be a yes. So if there were more no answers, IOW if no became more common, there would be fewer requests.
No one on this thread has said that sex ed or access to condoms should be restricted. Not one person has said that.
The abstinence approach was done with the Sarah Palin crowd and we know that it can fail. Does not always fail, but can fail.
There is nothing wrong with sex ed, access to condoms , and a culture of no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, I posted because of a tragedy that I saw before me. I saw a woman who was bitter at a young age and had regrets about her sex partners. To her, it wasn't worth it. Perhaps it had nothing to do with the diseases, perhaps it was simply the way the men treated her. You could talk forever, but she will still say that it was not worth it.
To all those who think that more sex would have meant less disease, keep in mind, you have to want sex to enjoy it. She did not want it.

So it sounds like she needs a therapist then. Not a chastity belt.

Sounds like she is regretting past behavior. What is a therapist going to do.?

[Anonymous]

Quick show of hands:

Who is willing to date somèone with herpes? If you are std-free, who is willing to date someone with herpes (ya know, since it's the equivalent of catching a cold like a pp said?)?

[Anonymous]

Urghed herpes is terrible. My SO is a dermatologist and he has seen cases where women with herpes kiss their babies unknowingly, and the next thing you know the baby has herpes sores all over its body. Its horrible for the baby and they are in agony. Because of that, he has said he will never let any strangers kiss any children we have.

My MIL has herpes. We've had to advise her how to treat it a couple of times. Once she washed her face and it nearly got to her eye and caused blindness. Any lowering of immunity and it appears. She has multiple rashes and we're always on the watch out for it. Herpes can be transmitted by sharing utensils and drinks, so we have to have separate silverware for her.

Anyone who says HSV is just like the cold is off his or her rocker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, I posted because of a tragedy that I saw before me. I saw a woman who was bitter at a young age and had regrets about her sex partners. To her, it wasn't worth it. Perhaps it had nothing to do with the diseases, perhaps it was simply the way the men treated her. You could talk forever, but she will still say that it was not worth it.
To all those who think that more sex would have meant less disease, keep in mind, you have to want sex to enjoy it. She did not want it.

So it sounds like she needs a therapist then. Not a chastity belt.

Sounds like she is regretting past behavior. What is a therapist going to do.?

Help her figure out why she was so willing to go without stating her needs and getting them met for so long. This is about way more than sex.

[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.

There is a vaccine now for HPV. My teen just was vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

The vaccine only innoculates up to 9 strains of HPV. There are 50 something strains of HPV out there.

[Anonymous]

This thread makes me sad. Yes most women like good sex and want to get married. It is sad we live in a culture where women are afraid to voice a desire for children and marriage and a family. Sleeping around is not good for a woman's soul.