I'm not advocating anything here, but have you really found that to be true? I've known plenty of people of both genders who aren't exactly chaste, and I wouldn't consider them low quality people.
The quote states that "people with quality X tend to not do Y." This does not automatically mean "people without quality X always do Y."
time_management says "in my experience" so unless you can produce a universal quantifier for your claim, or do some sort of analysis to define cardinality, you can't invalidate what he said.
Wait, what? I'd say it pretty much is a universal quantifier.
The better point for tm to claim is most chaste women are moral, whereas the same cannot be said for unchaste women. So, to guarantee a better chance of developing a relationship with a moral woman (i.e. more likely to not commit adultery and be temperate), we men should be chaste and look for chaste women.
This is probably what he intended anyways, since it makes more sense.
Edit: I use the word "love" as in "Aphrodite is the classical Greek goddess of love, sex, and beauty", not love of Jesus as preached by mainstream Christianity.
Next you'll be announcing that anyone who has more than 1 friend doesn't understand friendship.
People are not sex-crazed, ravenous beasts out to rape each other to death the instant the gate drops. Maybe the reason people go out and get drunk together is because they love people, love others, love the world. They sleep with each other; express that love personally - sometimes it ends up lasting a lifetime; sometimes, like a sakura blossom, it falls away.
This is what people want, it's nothing to do with self-control. Why would anyone want to control such a joyous thing?
Not all, but I'm just going to say that, if I had kids, I wouldn't let them anywhere near you.
Why would anyone want to control such a joyous thing?
Casual sex does lasting emotional harm to most people who participate. Stop trying to sell it as joyous just because it would suit you better if college freshmen fell more easily to cheesy lines about sakura blossoms.
Never fear, I don't think there's any danger of your having kids.
Funny you mention children, though. They on your mind a lot, are they? Child molestors often talk about how much they appreciate the little girls' "purity", "innocence", "lack of experience" ...
Just sayin'.
"Casual sex does lasting emotional harm to most people who participate. "
See, you state these things like they're facts, but the funny thing is you're just making them up. I wonder if you even realise that.
"it would suit you better if college freshmen fell more easily to cheesy lines about sakura blossoms"
I'll thank you to not steal my material!
Is there any evidence of this not coming from religious propaganda?
It's the first cite I found, but if that's not religion-neutral enough for you, I can find plenty more.
Sex causes the release of hormones such as oxytocin. Most people aren't capable, especially when young, of having sex with someone, never seeing that person again, and being okay with the experience.
crosswalk.com - "Your gateway to the bible and christian resources"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1031259/Casual-sex...
I can keep doing this, you know, given the enormous amount of research that's on my side.
Peer reviewed study or nothing, please.
Pwn'd.
"Even when romantic love is not linked with reproduction, this passion can provide a teen or young adult with some exceptional personal and social benefits, including exhilarating joy, increased energy and optimism, feelings of intimacy, self-esteem, inclusion in health-giving social groups, exercise, social and personal support, and crucial practice in the skills of building a long-term partnership—skills they will need to make the most important social contract of their reproductive lives."
Oh yeah man. Pwn'd all right. Self pwn'd.
You missed that inconvenient detail, didn't you? Romantic love and casual sex are mutually exclusive. (I'm railing against casual sex, not all premarital sex; if the latter, I'd be a hypocrite.)
Women may be particularly vulnerable to falling in love with a casual sex partner because seminal fluid also contains dopamine and tyrosine, a building block of dopamine (Burch & Gallup, in press). Although these chemicals do not pass across the blood-brain barrier, elevated activities of dopamine and tyrosine may affect brain physiology through other complex interactions. In fact, people report that sex can lead to romantic love. The natives of rural Nepal even use an off-color term for this phenomenon, saying "Naso pasyo, maya basyo," or "the penis entered and love arrived" (Ahearn, 1998).
Once again, this biological link between lust and romantic love is not direct or simple. Athletes who inject synthetic androgens to build muscle do not fall in love. When middle-aged men and women inject androgens or apply testosterone cream to stimulate their sex drive, their sexual thoughts and fantasies increase (Sherwin & Gelfand, 1987; Sherwin, Gelfand, & Brender, 1985). But neither do these individuals become enamored.
Nevertheless, the chemical interactions between testosterone and dopamine and the chemical changes that accompany sexual arousal suggest that those who engage in sexual intercourse are more likely to fall in love; their threshold for this passion is lowered. And women who engage in sex without a condom may be even more susceptible to romantic passion. Hence teens and young adults who pursue "casual sex" with a friend or stranger can become enamored with their sexual partner even when they have no intention of beginning a romance.
Lust Can Trigger Attachment
Sexual activity can also trigger the brain system for attachment. In humans, orgasm elevates the activity of oxytocin and vasopressin (Carmichael et al., 1987; Young et al., 1998); and these neuropeptides are associated with attachment in people and other animals (Wang, Ferris, & DeVries, 1994; Williams et al., 1994" Young et al., 1998). ' B Hence, teenagers who engage in casual sex can trigger the brain system for attachment (as well as that for romantic love), leading to complex, unanticipated emotional entanglements with psychologically and socially unsuitable mating partners." (Emphasis mine.)
In other words, casual sex hacks the brain system, by aping at least some of the biochemical signature of romantic love. Of course, in most cases, it's not romantic love but a shallow infatuated attachment. In any case, it's not good for you.
Funny, I could have sworn otherwise.
"Romantic love and casual sex are mutually exclusive."
You speak for yourself and no-one else. Most women would consider being boned by James Bond for one night only to be a highly romantic proposition.
I'm not James Bond but I do my best. I've never had any complaints. At least I have some experience in such things. You are just making shit up to support your wacky beliefs.
Hooked is not an *explicitly* Christian book
Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion? Do you want your teenage daughters to be raised by a woman who dated the football team, and to learn about respecting themselves from such a person? Is sex with a woman special if it used to be available to any guy with a six-pack and a nice car?
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship, even if the relationship is otherwise going well. It's not a habit that people break easily.
That's how I was using "quality" too. I'm not sure that I would refuse to marry someone simply because she had engaged in casual sex from time to time when she was younger.
A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof).
To a degree, I agree with you - it can be in some cases. But I'm not convinced that occasional casual sex necessarily indicates lack of character.
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship
And there's the rub. I totally disagree with this statement.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I've never had casual sex. I've only had one partner, and we dated for two years.
Why are you so afraid of women?
The fact is that, if a woman's had a lot of casual sex, she's developed a taste for variety and you have no hope of being her ideal man. When you're in bed with her, she's wishing you had Biff's abs, Jethro's penis girth, and the "roughness" of that club promoter whose name she's forgotten. So she's likely to cheat after a while in search of those traits, and even if she doesn't go off and do it, she's going to be mentally cheating all the time by fantasizing.
I'm a guy of mostly above-average physical traits and skill, but it's humanly impossible for any man to be the best at everything, for every woman. I don't have, for example, a 10-inch dick that's 5 inches wide, and I wouldn't really want one, to be honest; I'm more than happy with what God gave me. But that's what it takes to please a woman who's had 20 partners, because she's taken a lot of huge dicks and is "stretched out".
A woman who's been with too many guys is always going to be missing that one thing that some other guy did or had, and nobody wants to be with a woman who's going to be constantly fantasizing about other men.
Sound about right?
Just sounds like your whole strategy for winning the beautiful babies is to deny them the information they need to make an informed decision.
Just sounds like your whole strategy for winning the beautiful babies is to deny them the information they need to make an informed decision.
No. I think women would she able to make informed decisions, but I also think they ought to be ladylike, resolute, and discriminate, rather the enabling the asshole alphas who go on to become rapists. Also, a woman who has had a lot of casual sex is simply not going to be emotionally stable enough for a long-term relationships.
Casual sex does not necessarily make people emotionally unstable. Alpha males do not need to become rapists. Nothing you say makes sense. And what on earth do you mean by "ladylike"? They are ladies, by definition they act ladylike.
You live in a very strange world my friend.
A man who is successful in getting lots of casual sex stops seeing women as people, and starts seeing them as objects to be "acquired". At this point, bad behavior is likely to ensue.
They are ladies, by definition they act ladylike.
Lady is a proper subset of woman. Look the word up.
There, I looked the word up. It means what I thought it meant, ie, a woman. What did you think it meant?
Your views on "alpha male rapists", which apparently descend entirely from Mike Tyson, are ridiculous. That is a single data point and is utterly meaningless. Where's the rest of it?
I can personally attest to the fact that in contrary to your blanket statement, men who have been "successful" in "getting" lots of "casual sex" do not, in fact, stop seeing women as people.
You think you know everything, but you know nothing. I don't know who told you this crap, but they were utterly wrong. The sooner you realise this, the better.
Notice definition 1.
la⋅dy /ˈleɪdi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ley-dee] Show IPA noun, plural -dies, adjective –noun 1. a woman who is refined, polite, and well-spoken: She may be poor and have little education, but she's a real lady. 2. a woman of high social position or economic class: She was born a lady and found it hard to adjust to her reduced circumstances. 3. any woman; female (sometimes used in combination): the lady who answered the phone; a saleslady. 4. (Used in direct address: often offensive in the singular): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Lady, out of my way, please. 5. wife: The ambassador and his lady arrived late. 6. Slang. a female lover or steady companion. 7. (initial capital letter) (in Great Britain) the proper title of any woman whose husband is higher in rank than baronet or knight, or who is the daughter of a nobleman not lower than an earl (although the title is given by courtesy also to the wives of baronets and knights). 8. a woman who has proprietary rights or authority, as over a manor; female feudal superior. Compare lord (def. 4). 9. (initial capital letter) the Virgin Mary. 10. a woman who is the object of chivalrous devotion. 11. (usually initial capital letter) a. an attribute or abstraction personified as a woman; a designation of an allegorical figure as feminine: Lady Fortune; Lady Virtue. b. a title prefixed to the name of a goddess: Lady Venus. –adjective 12. Sometimes Offensive. being a lady; female: a lady reporter. 13. of a lady; ladylike; feminine. Origin: bef. 900; ME ladi(e), earlier lavedi, OE hlǣfdīge, hlǣfdige, perh. orig. meaning “loaf-kneader,” equiv. to hlāf loaf + -dīge, -dige, var. of dǣge kneader (see dough; cf. ON deigja maid); see lord
I haven't heard anything so ludicrous since I used to frequent teen sex ed forums (to dispense advice) at 14.
Gentlemen, the true character of this discussion, revealed.
And unlike the other young people on the forum, I read a lot of scientific books, so I was able to counter such idiotic, voodoo-type teenaged beliefs such as "stretched out" vaginas.
No, this is not a fact. Perhaps the real problem here is you don't know a whole lot about women. I'm not trying to be rude to you. Most women, regardless of sexual history, DO NOT marry and stay with a man for the same reasons as a man marries and stays with a woman.
Here is a fact: A woman can have many partners, search what feels to her a lifetime, find a man, fall in love and never, ever in her mind compare you with another man.
My only advice to you is to not project this as an issue of morals. To be certain, there are times when what you would call "loose morals" come in to play and this is correlated to high sexual activity. But I have found this correlation does not extend to the majority of women. In fact, I have known women with low or no sexual activity who had questionable morals.
which is a shame, because i agree with your comment completely, quoted below:
No, this is not a fact. Perhaps the real problem here is you don't know a whole lot about women. I'm not trying to be rude to you. Most women, regardless of sexual history, DO NOT marry and stay with a man for the same reasons as a man marries and stays with a woman.
Here is a fact: A woman can have many partners, search what feels to her a lifetime, find a man, fall in love and never, ever in her mind compare you with another man.
Agreed that a woman's reasons for infidelity are probably different than a man's reasons. But I don't think that is much consolation to the man she cheats on. So, I feel that time_management's desire to find a woman not prone to infidelity is wise, but he is embarrassing himself with an immature understanding of women (to put it kindly).
I would also say that this issue is covered in considerable depth in the movie "Chasing Amy", and I think that one of the conclusions in that movie is that, no, it is not psychologically easy for most men to set aside a woman's sexual history, even if he wants to.
Sex isn't the Olympics. You're not always going to hook up with the best person and if you find a new person move on to them. Looks aren't everything. As Ben Franklin observed about having sex with older women "All cats are gray in the dark"
I've been in relationships with girls who had multiple partners who thought this way. They were sluts. (same goes for guys on the other side of the deal). I've also been with girls who had multiple partners who were extremely loyal.
Yes -- people who are uninhibited, risk-takers, and have poor judgment skills are not the kind for long-term relationships. But that set of people does not include everybody who has had multiple sex partners, even though all of those people are probably promiscuous. You're being silly.
It's much wiser to spend your time creating boundaries about how you deserve to be treated, not about what somebody's past is. Get out. Meet people. Date. Have sex if that is what comes natural to you. If you don't feel like it, don't have sex. But don't go berserko over past sex partners. You'll never compare up to the best of 20 other guys -- and if you think you have to, you don't understand what having a relationship means.
This is where I have to remain idealistic. I'd much rather have no relationship at all than one in which the woman's constantly pining for some other guy.
In any case, I'd dump a girl on the spot if I found out she'd had 20 partners, so that particular example's not very relevant to me.
You're conflating concepts that don't relate. I dated a girl once who was pining for some other guy and who wasn't promiscuous. I dumped her. Likewise I dated a girl who had had better sexual partners than me who did not pine for any of them. The relationship lasted a while until another unrelated event caused it to split.
I've dated girls and had sex with them and dated girls and didn't have sex. I've seen all of these combinations, and it really looks like you're taking shortcuts that don't always hold up.
You've got your cause and effect mixed up -- in my opinion only, of course.
The most risky relationship? One with someone who had never had sex or made any "moral" mistakes at all. Because everybody has to screw up sometime. I'd much rather have somebody who has sewn their oats and learned from it. To mangle an old phrase, if you're a kid and not promiscuous, you have a problem with your heart. If you're an old person and are promiscuous, you have a problem with your head.
I certainly would not want my wife/serious gf to have been "around" a lot (i.e. knowing the football team). Maybe casual sexual encounters is American culture, but respectfully I think it is a bad thing.
Otherwise you're just trying to fulfill a shopping list, and it's not going to work out for anyone.
Would you marry an ex-child molester? Assume he claimed to be reformed, and that he didn't do it anymore, and that it was something he only did when he was intoxicated and "caught up in the moment" (whatever that means).
Obviously, the reasonable answer is no. Nobody wants to marry someone who's done something like that in his or her past. Experiences and past behaviors matter.
Now you understand how normal men feel about casual sex.
Holy crap man, please seek lots and lots of therapy.
You cannot equate "Would you marry an ex-child molester?" and "Would you marry someone who has had casual sex?"
Cannot.
CANNOT.
One raped a fucking child, dude. RAPED. A. CHILD. Another had a consensual relationship with another willing adult. You cannot and should not equate the two just because you happen to disagree with both. That is plain and outright creepy.
I hope you're a troll. Seriously.
I just read the rest of this thread and time_management is an idiot that probably SHOULD be seeking therapy.
Or could be a 17 year old who slept with a 15 year old, if using a legal definition.
Women have the power to hurt him.
In this day and age, outright threats to our survival are rare unless we choose to seek them out. Food, shelter, and other basic necessities are easily within the grasp of nearly the entire population. Desirable sexual partners are not. Due to our nature, the majority of men and women cannot get the partner they want most of the time.
The pain of being betrayed or discarded by that one you thought you had found is considerable. Not only that, but it's visceral. It's hard-wired into our physiology that that will hurt in a way few other things can.
How did you reach this strange conclusion? It seems to me that a person's sexual activities are completely orthogonal to their moral character (excluding non-consensual stuff of course). Sex is a wonderful thing to do with someone, not an awful thing.
Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion?
What does that have to do with anything? It seems to me that being monogamous has more to do with keeping a promise than not being tempted. I suggest you find someone who will keep their promises in the face of temptation, not someone who won't be tempted at all.
Do you want your teenage daughters to be raised by a woman who dated the football team, and to learn about respecting themselves from such a person?
Some people take the view that sex is fun, and having fun is good for you. Respecting yourself might involve having sex, not repressing your natural desire.
Is sex with a woman special if it used to be available to any guy with a six-pack and a nice car?
Just because a person has a lot of sex doesn't mean they didn't find quality partners.
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship, even if the relationship is otherwise going well. It's not a habit that people break easily.
Citation needed!
This was held throughout large parts of the Western world, throughout history (Indeed, I have not heard of any sort of egalitarian society in the past, perhaps barring some special cases).
You clearly feel that sexual history is highly correlated to moral character. This is a common position. Its not that you may be wrong (neither position can be proven) but more importantly if that's how you "feel" then you know what kind of woman to exclude from your search. Its great to find a "nice girl" and live happily ever after. Please be careful though to not brand people as immoral simply because their past is different than yours. Its better to simply talk about "compatible" instead of moral. Character judgment like this is a slippery slope.
From my perspective, I do not find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "morality". I do find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "sexual 'fitness'". This doesn't make me correct. Its my perspective and I don't project moral character with it.
Bringing up the topic of sexual history with a woman is generally a huge turnoff. When you do so, you are clearly judging her and telling her she must fit some predetermined notion of what you, a man, thinks a woman's place is in the world. It doesn't matter if you actual think you think so. Its what most women hear when you bring up this topic.
Additionally, I have found that many men that feel as you do have internal feelings of sexual inadequacy and/or "control issues" and in turn project these feelings into a moral dilemma on others. My only training on this matter is from living my own life and having to grow out of some of these issues myself. To put is bluntly, this is the common story of the geek who didn't get laid in high school and has evolved a blanket of morality around the reasons why.
> From my perspective, I do not find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "morality".
I doubt that your definition of “niceness” is right. Morals (to me at least) is the basic rules that you live your life by – so it is inherently a personal concept.
So whatever morals you live by – he may live by a different set of morals and feel that excessive intercourse may be immoral. There is no reason for you to blankly dismiss his moral values (just because your personal morals are not the same as his). Whether you agree with his morals or not – the fact remains that it is real to him and he chose to live his life by them.
> Bringing up the topic of sexual history with a woman is generally a huge turnoff.
In every relationship you must discuss several things that may or may not be a turn-off (e.g. religion, politics, views on certain things such as abortion – basically everything that we do not discuss on HN). This may not be always pleasant – but it still is important.
> When you do so, you are clearly judging her and telling her she must fit some predetermined notion of what you, a man, thinks a woman's place is in the world.
No. It is important to discuss all of those things in a serious relationship. If you have a notion of a girl that differs from reality it is important that you know that. If the relationship ends because your notion of her is different than reality then it is ultimately a good thing.
If you have ever been in a relationship and your partner did or said something and you thought “WTF??” you will know this to be important.
> My only training on this matter is from living my own life and having to grow out of some of these issues myself. To put is bluntly, this is the common story of the geek who didn't get laid in high school and has evolved a blanket of morality around the reasons why.
Maybe. My take on this is as follows (I am not a US citizen): The USA became sexually liberal extremely quickly – and even now there is huge encouragement from media to engage in casual sexual intercourse (+). IMHO I don't think that this is the right approach – and sexual intercourse should preferably go hand in hand with stable monogamous relationships.
I don't know what this USA view is that you 'have to get laid' in high school and that it is a shame to be a virgin. It is stupid (Paris Hilton stupid).
Even if the past was too conservative, I think the pendulum swung to much to the liberal side – and the good position is somewhere in the middle.
---
(+) If I sound like your father/grandfather forgive me – it was not the intent.
My words to the OP were mostly about understanding that his values are personal to him and his needs are about compatibility. I asked him to worry more about "compatibility" than morals.
I agree, I feel pendulum has swung too much the other direction in the last 30 years. Does this mean that all the children growing up now have less an inherit ability to know right from wrong just because they may have had more sexual partners than someone of a prior generation?
For what its worth, I find that most women, regardless of their past, are more likely to not stray when in a committed relationship as opposed to men in a comparable situation. Also, women usually stray for different reasons than men.
I do not agree with the view that "you have to get laid in high school". But the environment, as it is, makes it such that those who do not feel very strongly about other's sexual past. Its a complex set of problems.
I'm actually in my mid 20ies, but I noticed that I sound a lot like an older person on moral issues (because I tend to be a tad bit more conservative).
> I do not agree with the view that "you have to get laid in high school"
That is unfortunately the view among young people. A virgin is looked upon as someone with a type of disease.
> inherit ability to know right from wrong just because they may have had more sexual partners than someone of a prior generation?
The problem is that stable relationships (that eventually leads to marriage &&/|| children) aren't being formed any more. People like instant gratification (like 2 minute oats, etc...) anything that takes a tad bit commitment is ignored.
---
I am also amazed at some morals of younger people (including most of my friends) - but this is a whole other topic.
I really don't think this is true. I was a virgin until I was 19, wasn't secretive about it (which is not to say I broadcast the information) and no one ever seemed to care. I have friends who are still virgins and don't think of them differently at all.
At any rate, such a criteria is much more subjective and open to a wider variety of interpretations than "morality." Whether you believe morality principles are based on objective reality or not, moral principles are codified in certain behavioral standards that are measurable, unlike something such as "sexual fitness."
I feel there is more correlation between "sexual history" and "sexual fitness" as opposed to a correlation between "sexual history" and "morality".
Your choice of language sets you up as a sexist and undermines whatever point you are trying to make. Ranchers say "quality livestock" and butchers say "quality meat." Your phrase "quality women" is dehumanizing and sexist in itself. If you were talking about "quality blacks" or "quality asians" there'd be no ambiguity about whether you were being racist.