Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)
Reply to "One-sided exclusivity"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose. It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week. Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.[/quote] Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.[/quote] I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted. I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person. [/quote] Yes, in all these 19th century novels women had several suitors and were going out with all of them freely until one proposes. [/quote] They weren't having sex though. In fact, having sex with even ONE man before marriage would be unacceptable unless it immediately resulted in marriage (if necessary, at gunpoint). A woman who had sex with three men would be a social outcast, thrown out into the street to starve or work in a brothel.[/quote] Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now. And number of kids born less than 9 months from the wedding date. There was a research done in UK based on birth records: women had sex before marriage just the same. [/quote] I’d like to see the citation for that.[/quote] I have more for you: French revolutionary thinkers supported the idea of free sex choices for women. So did the communists in USSR: the concept of “liberated Soviet woman” is well known. The state propaganda was targeted at women education, sports and career achievements rather than marriage. https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1724.html https://monthlyreview.org/2020/02/01/sex-and-socialism/ [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics