The universal double standard

[Matt Rogers]

Something you see in many cultures is this double standard where men try to sleep with as many women as possible and have no qualms of cheating on their girlfriends/wives. But want to marry a girl who is as sexually inexperienced as possible (virgins in many traditional cultures) and are incredibly jealous of their girlfriends and in the tropics even go so far as to commit crimes of passion.
Even sultans or emperors with huge harems would execute a woman and her lover if she cheated on him and these were guys with hundreds of beautiful women. Perhaps the ultimate is the Arabian nights where the guy kills a girl after sleeping with her so she can never cheat on him. In modern day culture perhaps that is one of the motivations behind a one night stand.

This subforum is big on the idea of spinning plates and open relationships and while this is great for the man as we all enjoy variety. Is anyone really comfortable with the idea of one of their girls being intimate or sexual with other men at the same time?

This is the 21st century and there aren't many innocent girls left. Your average 25 year old girl has probably already slept with 20 or so men, maybe more. We think of ourselves as Don Juans because we can seduce a women within one, two or at most three dates. But she is doing that with almost every guy she meets.

While spreading your wild oats does not give time to allow feelings of jealousy and disgust at a girl's sexual past to rear its head, girls seem to have a way of worming themselves into your affections if you see them for long enough and the familiar feelings that have plagued men throughout generations appear.

For example ive got this situation at the moment. Sweet girl, 20 years old. Slept with me on the first date and was really wild wants to be beaten/spanked etc, gave me oral sex in a park second date. Always wears really sexy underwear. Claims she is a good girl and loves me and just wantsto make me happy. Her ex boyfriends are swarming around her like flies and from what she's told me about her past she was very curious about sex from a young girl and experimented a lot.

I imagine lots of guys would be happy with this arrangement. I see other girls and while she gets jealous she accepts it.

We've been seeing each for months and slowly the dynamic has changed. She's got under my skin-she does everything for me and is a total sweetheart. But I'm not happy. I know she is seeing other men and I feel uncomfortable with her sexual past. It would be useless trying to control her and even more useless pushing for a commitment because I wouldn't trust her.

Of course I should have known better-if you see a girl long enough, even with other girls in the picture you still get a bit attached. But I wish I was cool with this situation because its going to be a shame to have to let this girl go. But perhaps it is just male nature.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Every man wants a slut, he just wants her to be HIS slut.

Clinging to the idea that a woman should remain fresh, virginic and pure in waiting for her true love while simultaneously expecting her to be capable of erotic sexual nirvana is not only fantasy, but a sign of immaturity. If you can't handle that a woman would have had sex prior to meeting you, you need to reassess your own maturity. People want to ƒuck - you, me, your grandfather, your priest and the next door neighbors - everybody wants some. At 29 don't expect any woman you'd consider for monogamy to be a virgin.

I used to think like you. By 28 I'd slept with over 40 women. When I met my wife she'd had at least 7 boyfriends to speak of (in fact I pulled her away from one when we met), and probably a few ONSs. We were non-exclusive for about 3 months before she asked me to be exclusive with her. We know each other's sexual pasts, we accept it and move on. In over 13 years she's never cheated on me, nor have I ever suspected her. In fact I'm glad she'd had some sexual experience prior to us meeting in as far as she knew how to please me and was fun in bed.

I've slept with 2 virgins in my time, and while it was an experience no doubt, I'd much rather have a woman who's comfortable being sexual.

 

[syemour]

Agreed.

Every man wants a slut, he just wants her to be HIS slut.



Clinging to the idea that a woman should remain fresh, virginic and pure in waiting for her true love while simultaneously expecting her to be capable of erotic sexual nirvana is not only fantasy, but a sign of immaturity. If you can't handle that a woman would have had sex prior to meeting you, you need to reassess your own maturity. People want to ƒuck - you, me, your grandfather, your priest and the next door neighbors - everybody wants some. At 29 don't expect any woman you'd consider for monogamy to be a virgin.

I used to think like you. By 28 I'd slept with over 40 women. When I met my wife she'd had at least 7 boyfriends to speak of (in fact I pulled her away from one when we met), and probably a few ONSs. We were non-exclusive for about 3 months before she asked me to be exclusive with her. We know each other's sexual pasts, we accept it and move on. In over 13 years she's never cheated on me, nor have I ever suspected her. In fact I'm glad she'd had some sexual experience prior to us meeting in as far as she knew how to please me and was fun in bed.

I've slept with 2 virgins in my time, and while it was an experience no doubt, I'd much rather have a woman who's comfortable being sexual.

 

[Warrior74]

madonna/***** complex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna-*****_complex

 

[Colossus]

I don't really care about a chick's sexual past as long as it's not obscene. I'd rather she have some experience so sex is fun. Yeah I know, I know---the nihilists like to say there is no way you'll ever know the horrible acts every woman has done behind closed doors so you might as well just pump em and dump em---but they're losers.

Any DJ worth his salt knows that there is no crystal ball into the past, but there are always cues in her behavior.

 

[muscleman]

As long as she's not into animals.

 

[jophil28]

Any DJ worth his salt knows that there is no crystal ball into the past, but there are always cues in her behavior.

Indeed there are- always - if you can extract an honest and accurate history from her stories..

The DJ who tends to be a serial 'boyfriend', rather than a PUA chasing ONS, will tend to filter out those women who fail his 'slvt' tests and couple up with those women who fit his definition of what a G/f 'should' be.

Nobody could realistically expect a western woman to appear in your life as a virgin at age 25 or older. Sexual experience and experiments are a given. However, the devil as always, is in the detail and the circumstances of her past.
I would have no problem with a woman who had several LTRs with perhaps one marriage . She may have been intimate with a dozen guys over 20 some odd years.
Compare that situation with a woman who had only one or two LTRs but still admits to sleeping with many men in ONS or as FBs..In reality she has probably slept with double the number that she admits to. I adjust my calculations and my assessment of her accordingly. That kind of woman would never get a G/f badge from me.

Similarly if there is any hint of her cheating on her previous Husband or B/f.
Unfortunately women are very protection and secretive about their past and the details leak out drip by drip.

 

[Luthor Rex]

Clinging to the idea that a woman should remain fresh, virginic and pure in waiting for her true love while simultaneously expecting her to be capable of erotic sexual nirvana is not only fantasy, but a sign of immaturity. If you can't handle that a woman would have had sex prior to meeting you, you need to reassess your own maturity.

And you talk about feminist shaming language! By using this kind of shaming you are telling men to accept what is not in their best self-interest to accept. It is not in any man's best self-interest to accept a woman who has slept around. The more men she's had the more men she will likely have while you're "together".

Of course you might say "but she'll be good in bed!". So what? Pleasure is a TRAP that lures people in and gets them to work against their own best self-interest. Women will say "oh but all those other men make it better for when I'm with you!" I'm sure a wife could rationalize her cheating by saying "oh honey having all these other men on the side makes me better in bed while I'm with you!" FFS grow and deal with her virginity. So what if she's inexperienced? If you can't lead her in the bedroom then you aren't a man.

By trying to shame men into accepting sluts into their lives you are demanding that we put away what nature is telling us: that sluts really are worthless as wives and mothers. Feminists have tried to shame the humanity out of people they have tried to shame the masculinity out of men and by telling us that we should accept sluts you are serving their agenda.

No man in his right mind will reject his own human nature, nor his masculinity, and he sure as he11 won't cut his own throat so women's selfish goals can be realized.

 

[Werman]

For me, any girl over the age of 20 and is a 7+ who claims that they are a virgin is a red flag.

If you ever meet one of these girls and they try to give you the virgin routine, ask yourself why. At best, she will be a liar, at worst, she has some sort of mental disorder that you DON'T want to deal with.

Case in point, I know a girl who attends the local university who is 21 and is a virgin. Her body is easily a 10 and stacks up against any centerfold. Her face brings her down a bit as it's a 7 at best. Her dad wasn't around much when she was a child, so she has some daddy issues. To make it worse, she was violently raped as a child and has serious issues with sex in general.

Because of her daddy issues, she desperately wants male attention, and acts like a typical flirty attention wh0re everywhere she goes. When an AFC type uses typical AFC asexual "game" on her, she eats it up, but $hit tests these guys into oblivion until they can barely even be called orbiters.

However, because of her issues with sex, when she encounters a more-DJ like guy who has real game and knows how to exude true masculine sexuality, she runs. If one of these guys actually corners her and even so much as uses a line that hints at sex, she will literally have a panic attack. I've seen this with my own eyes... it's almost scary.

Would you REALLY want to deal with this just so you can have a hot virgin? Any sort of LTR with this girl would be a nightmare, and a ONS would suck as she would have no skill whatsoever and likely be holding so much back that banging a blow up doll would be more fun.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a well adjusted girl who has had a few partners in her past.

 

[Matt Rogers]

My post was partly generalizing, partly personal. Certainly I do not expect a virgin like men in a lot of cultures want for relationships or marriage. But as jophil put it if you are more of a relationship kind of a guy at what point does a girl's sexual past become disturbing and an indicator that a girl is low quality?

While guys are quite happy scoring with slyts in college and bars, it is a pretty universal thing that when looking for a girlfriend or a wife any indication that a girl is "easy" or "been around the block" counts against the girl.

Of course girls have responded to this by learning to play hard to get and keeping quiet about their past when they meet a guy they want to get serious with. And im sure all girls halve the number of men they've slept with when asked.

I know there is the argument that "Yes she experimented and was a little wild when she was younger but she has changed now she is in a serious relationship". Of course in many girls this is the case. But do leopards always change their spots? How can you tell which girls have really changed?

Personally my belief is that a girl in most cases regardless of her past can be trusted 100% when she is deeply in love with you. But if her morals are a little lax once the infatuation wears off can she really be trusted?

I admit to having a subconscious slvt test like jophil described when screening a girl for relationships. Basically i escalate sexually and see if she puts up any resistance. Alternatively I bait her with slightly suggestive comments and see if she picks up on it.

I guess what provoked this post was that I really like this girl but she failed my slvt test and ive been trying to understand the psychology behind it.

How did she fail?

1. She started very young...around 16
2. Admits she had a thing for bad boys growing up. She even showed me the bruises one guy gave her and seemed proud about it.
3. Keeps begging me to be really rough and beat her in bed saying she likes to see men's power.
4. Wore a very provocative dress on the first date with fishnet stockings and high boots, gave me endless come-on signals, encouraged me to feel her breasts, came home with me, insisted on seeing my bedroom and the rest you can imagine!
5. Gave me oral sex in a park second date

Despite this she is a sweetheart and very loving and affectionate and is pushing for a commitment. But can I really give my heart to a girl who most men would probably consider a slyt.

 

[Werman]

By trying to shame men into accepting sluts into their lives you are demanding that we put away what nature is telling us: that sluts really are worthless as wives and mothers. Feminists have tried to shame the humanity out of people they have tried to shame the masculinity out of men and by telling us that we should accept sluts you are serving their agenda.

While I may be wrong, I don't think Rollo is saying that we should accept sluts.

Most decent women I've met tend to be serial monogamists. In this day and age, when people are in a relationship, they have sex. We don't go through old fashioned courtship rituals and go through matchmakers who chaperone us on our dates. It is completely unrealistic to expect a 25-year old woman to not have had a relationship at some point. And, as I pointed out in my previous post, there is likely something wrong with her if she hasn't.

 

[Zunder]

And you talk about feminist shaming language! By using this kind of shaming you are telling men to accept what is not in their best self-interest to accept. It is not in any man's best self-interest to accept a woman who has slept around. The more men she's had the more men she will likely have while you're "together".

Of course you might say "but she'll be good in bed!". So what? Pleasure is a TRAP that lures people in and gets them to work against their own best self-interest. Women will say "oh but all those other men make it better for when I'm with you!" I'm sure a wife could rationalize her cheating by saying "oh honey having all these other men on the side makes me better in bed while I'm with you!" FFS grow and deal with her virginity. So what if she's inexperienced? If you can't lead her in the bedroom then you aren't a man.

By trying to shame men into accepting sluts into their lives you are demanding that we put away what nature is telling us: that sluts really are worthless as wives and mothers. Feminists have tried to shame the humanity out of people they have tried to shame the masculinity out of men and by telling us that we should accept sluts you are serving their agenda.

No man in his right mind will reject his own human nature, nor his masculinity, and he sure as he11 won't cut his own throat so women's selfish goals can be realized.

Please point to exactly where Rollo writes we have to "accept sluts into our lives"?

 

[jophil28]

And you talk about feminist shaming language! By using this kind of shaming you are telling men to accept what is not in their best self-interest to accept. It is not in any man's best self-interest to accept a woman who has slept around. The more men she's had the more men she will likely have while you're "together".

Of course you might say "but she'll be good in bed!". So what? Pleasure is a TRAP that lures people in and gets them to work against their own best self-interest. Women will say "oh but all those other men make it better for when I'm with you!" I'm sure a wife could rationalize her cheating by saying "oh honey having all these other men on the side makes me better in bed while I'm with you!" FFS grow and deal with her virginity. So what if she's inexperienced? If you can't lead her in the bedroom then you aren't a man.

By trying to shame men into accepting sluts into their lives you are demanding that we put away what nature is telling us: that sluts really are worthless as wives and mothers. Feminists have tried to shame the humanity out of people they have tried to shame the masculinity out of men and by telling us that we should accept sluts you are serving their agenda.

No man in his right mind will reject his own human nature, nor his masculinity, and he sure as he11 won't cut his own throat so women's selfish goals can be realized.

First class post, Luthor. A Gold medal rebuttal to a pointless provocation.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

And you talk about feminist shaming language! By using this kind of shaming you are telling men to accept what is not in their best self-interest to accept. It is not in any man's best self-interest to accept a woman who has slept around. The more men she's had the more men she will likely have while you're "together".

Of course you might say "but she'll be good in bed!". So what? Pleasure is a TRAP that lures people in and gets them to work against their own best self-interest. Women will say "oh but all those other men make it better for when I'm with you!" I'm sure a wife could rationalize her cheating by saying "oh honey having all these other men on the side makes me better in bed while I'm with you!" FFS grow and deal with her virginity. So what if she's inexperienced? If you can't lead her in the bedroom then you aren't a man.

By trying to shame men into accepting sluts into their lives you are demanding that we put away what nature is telling us: that sluts really are worthless as wives and mothers. Feminists have tried to shame the humanity out of people they have tried to shame the masculinity out of men and by telling us that we should accept sluts you are serving their agenda.

No man in his right mind will reject his own human nature, nor his masculinity, and he sure as he11 won't cut his own throat so women's selfish goals can be realized.

I think you missed the point of his post a bit dude.

How do you KNOW that the woman you are fvcking has not been ****ed by 200 men before you? I dont tell women how many partners I have had. I dont expect them to ever be honest when they tell me.

If a woman is 25 years old and attractive chances are she is going to be into double figures. Maybe one or two long term relationships, a few shorter ones that never worked out and maybe one or two ONS. 10 partners is not much for people who date more and marry at an older age which is the norm these days.

The alternative is to start marrying when we are 21 years old.

 

[Jitterbug]

Don't women lose the ability to bond with male partners through sex if they've had too many of them?

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Don't women lose the ability to bond with male partners through sex if they've had too many of them?

Depends how large his bank account is

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

And as expected, all the absolutists come out of the woodwork thinking that recognizing a woman's sexual past is automatically excusing it.

Put it this way, most guys who get hung up on a woman's sexual past tend to be insecure themselves. Essentially that insecurity amounts to a fear that he wont measure up to experiences she's had in her prior sexual escapades. This is AFC, and this is immature. As you think, so will you become.

If you've come to a point in your early 30's where you've met a woman and you're considering monogamy with her, it is juvenile to expect that she'd be sexually inexperienced or a virgin in western society. I'm not saying you should consider or excuse the slut who's had triple digit lovers or done amateur sorority house porn videos in college - but realize that most women you'd consider for an LTR WILL have had sex with other guys (probably multiple). A mature DJ doesn't let this phase him. Sure, looking for the red flags is all part of the process, but expecting a woman to be some virginic lady in waiting is idealistic and ultimately self-defeating.

You're not going to turn a who're into a housewife, but you equally wont turn a housewife into a who're either. Both of those are extreme, absolutist caricatures (once again) - most women are going to fall into a middle ground between the two. Your job is to be the positive, alpha, DJ Man who a woman WONT want to cheat on, and the first place you start is accepting that your new GF (the one you so carefully vetted, remember?) has had some lovers before you, but she's with YOU because YOU are the PRIZE. The moment you allow doubt into that equation is the moment she looks for another PRIZE.

 

[Trader]

First off - on an *individual* level - you are free to bang as many girls as you want

And you are also free to expect and demand that your girl be a virgin.

But on a *collective* level - as in, men in general - there is no way girls in general will stay sexually pure if men are impure. Guys lead, girls follow.

Just like how girls as a whole cannot have their cake and eat it too, men as a whole cannot have their cake and eat it too. Men can *try*, but it obviously won't work. The more men sleep around, obviously the fewer virgins there will be.

 

[Colossus]

But on a *collective* level - as in, men in general - there is no way girls in general will stay sexually pure if men are impure. Guys lead, girls follow.

Just like how girls as a whole cannot have their cake and eat it too, men as a whole cannot have their cake and eat it too. Men can *try*, but it obviously won't work. The more men sleep around, obviously the fewer virgins there will be.

Good point.

I grew up in the west-midwest, where there are many large Christian "mega-churches", with HUGE youth contingencies. Some of my extended family was very involved in church, and I had a few cousins around my age who were totally into the whole charismatic lifestyle thing.

In these circles it was not uncommon to see very attractive girls in their early 20's who were still virgins. Their parents were either church staff or very involved themselves, and all their friends were also. When that's the social environment someone lives in, it's easy to see how a girl could remain a virgin (guys too), because that was the value that everyone espoused and they had the scripture to back it up. It was 'God's will' for them. They didn't drink or do drugs, just did their own church things and hung out with each other. It was almost kind of cult-ish, to be honest, because it was like no one could think for themselves.

Outside of these groups, however, finding a 25+ who is still a virgin and not VERY religious, unattractive, or just plain weird is a daydream. I have long since accepted that any woman I will ever be with is going to have a sexual past. I'm fine with that. If there are red flags they will make themselves evident.

 

[scrouds]

...Case in point, I know a girl who attends the local university who is 21 and is a virgin. ...To make it worse, she was violently raped as a child and has serious issues with sex in general...

Not to bring light to a horrible event, but wouldn't that negate that she's a virgin?