Dear Prudence: a case of "my abortion was right, but all others are wrong"

Quote
evilchildlessbitch
I would advise any woman to run away fast from any man who judges her number of sexual partnersm Asking for proof of no STIs? Fine. Agreeing on breeding or not? Fine. Being honest about existing chidren? Of course. But I found most men with the low partner count requirement to be hypocrites as they don't apply it to themselves. They also tend to be close minded about gender roles and expect women to become their mommy.
That may be "the way it is" but as soon as women stop putting up with this it will stop happening.

Men who want to breed can and should judge whom the mother of their children will be. And since the sexual dynamic between men and women is so vastly different, the same rules do not apply to both parties. Women are permitted to say, "My past shouldn't matter!," and that's fine. But it can matter to a potential partner, and that partner has every right to feel a certain way about it. At least that's how it's tied to evolution. Me? I don't want to breed so this matters less. But I sure as hell don't want to be dating anyone whose name and phone number are scribbled on the wall of a restroom, if you catch my drift. By the same token, the mothers should indeed be very circumspect when choosing who will impregnate them. Consequently, if a man is penniless and unemployed, the woman should judge that man, as he's clearly unfit to support a child. Whether it is "fair" that we are judging these external factors is inconsequential. Personal preference takes priority over what's "fair" to the other partner.

And so my philosophy regarding dating/partner selection is tied to one very key concept, and that is freedom. You can (and should) sleep with anyone you want, so long as everything is consensual and all parties are legal adults. By the same token, you can reject any partner you want, at any time, under any circumstance, and for any reason. And those reasons don't have to be "fair" by today's politically correct standards.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
At least that's how it's tied to evolution.

Citation, please. And not some pseudo-science which looks exclusively at one culture and then tries to extract biological determinism from it.

Polyandry has existed and continues to exist, although it is not common. Polygyny is more commonplace. Monogamy is also common. Therefore, there is reason to believe that both promiscuity and monogamy are within the range of normal human behaviors for both men and women. The fact that many cultures condemn female promiscuity while accepting male promiscuity only tells us that it is a widespread cultural belief, and says nothing about biological determinism.

Most cultures are also patriarchal. (This in a large part explains why female promiscuity is not accepted and male promiscuity is.) To say that this organization of society is the result of biological determinism - the same argument being made about attitudes toward promiscuity - is to enter MRA territory. The fact that men are more often in charge doesn't mean it has to be that way, or that it is better for it to be that way, or that it is natural for it to be that way.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
And so my philosophy regarding dating/partner selection is tied to one very key concept, and that is freedom. You can (and should) sleep with anyone you want, so long as everything is consensual and all parties are legal adults. By the same token, you can reject any partner you want, at any time, under any circumstance, and for any reason. And those reasons don't have to be "fair" by today's politically correct standards.

I don't believe I or anyone else is suggesting there should be a law against being a hypocrite. As long as there are collaborators who relish in being "not like other women," sexist hypocrites will continue to find women to partner with.

I merely wish that this all was in the realm of personal preferences, like finding green eyes more attractive than blue. I have no problem with the attitude when it is a preference, such as a person who wants to be a virgin until marriage looking for another person who wants to be a virgin until marriage. But it cannot be ignored that the hypocritical attitude stems from sexism and that this does hurt women.

The cultural stigma against female promiscuity hurts women who have had a lot of sex. However, it isn't the sex-positive women who are curbed (such women have no problem finding partners who don't care, and can use their history to weed out unsuitable partners), but the women who buy into the ideal of female chastity. In short, the very women who would otherwise be smug gatekeepers wind up suffering when their personal history doesn't match the views they've internalized. These are women who have slept around out of poor self-esteem, or women who have been sexually assaulted. I recently watched a rather heart-breaking video where a sexual assault victim talked about how worthless she felt as a result of having absorbed the chewed gum analogy. These are the people who are hurt by slut-shaming the most.

...And to what end? So that we can uphold the privilege of a minority of men to sleep around while still being confident that they can marry a woman who won't have any way to compare their performance? What do most men - who will average something like 5 sexual partners - get out of this? What do most women - who will have a similar average - get out of it?

Quote
yurble
Citation, please. And not some pseudo-science which looks exclusively at one culture and then tries to extract biological determinism from it.

Polyandry has existed and continues to exist, although it is not common. Polygyny is more commonplace. Monogamy is also common. Therefore, there is reason to believe that both promiscuity and monogamy are within the range of normal human behaviors for both men and women. The fact that many cultures condemn female promiscuity while accepting male promiscuity only tells us that it is a widespread cultural belief, and says nothing about biological determinism.

Yurble you are one of the finest posters on this forum so I want to take some time and address your points one by one, and maybe clear up some misconceptions.

You don't need a link to determine that western civilization was built on relationships that were monogamous, and with (a man's and society's) expectation that biological children were his. Think back to the pre-birth control days. Men wanted some kind of assurance that they were raising their own child. And regardless of the time period, I think this is a relatively universal truth. I believe it was 50 Cent who said so un-eloquently, "What the fuck do I care about some other [N-word's] kid?"

Quote
yurble
Most cultures are also patriarchal. (This in a large part explains why female promiscuity is not accepted and male promiscuity is.) To say that this organization of society is the result of biological determinism - the same argument being made about attitudes toward promiscuity - is to enter MRA territory. The fact that men are more often in charge doesn't mean it has to be that way, or that it is better for it to be that way, or that it is natural for it to be that way.

It doesn't really matter. We can only live in the world we live in, not in a world in which we wish existed. It's useless for either of us to stomp our feet and demand that other people not judge us for our actions, but that would be a wish for utopia. People judge all of us, and we are all held to different standards and for different reasons. Some of these reasons may be completely unfair. If you or I went to the Bible Belt and discussed our true feelings on childfreedom, I can guarantee you we would be judged negatively. Although this may be completely unfair, it should be expected.

I'd suspect that men being more often in charge goes back to hunter-gatherer days, and to the fact that men are by in large physically stronger than women. Of course that doesn't hold as much weight in the modern world, as evidenced by the women who work and hold office.

Quote
yurble
I don't believe I or anyone else is suggesting there should be a law against being a hypocrite. As long as there are collaborators who relish in being "not like other women," sexist hypocrites will continue to find women to partner with.

I merely wish that this all was in the realm of personal preferences, like finding green eyes more attractive than blue. I have no problem with the attitude when it is a preference, such as a person who wants to be a virgin until marriage looking for another person who wants to be a virgin until marriage. But it cannot be ignored that the hypocritical attitude stems from sexism and that this does hurt women.

Again, this is just the world we live in. And I am completely in favor of people choosing whatever partner(s) they want and for whatever reason(s) they want. And these reasons can be completely prejudiced, superficial, unjust, unkind, or unfair. You have every right to discard those reasons, or you can embrace them. It is, and should be, completely your choice.

For example: A man may not be a virgin himself, and yet want a virgin bride. A woman may be quite poor, and seek out a man that is affluent. Both are completely acceptable in my book, as individual has the right to seek out his/her own path toward happiness.

Does the former example "hurt women" who clearly aren't virgins? I'd say yes. Does the latter example "hurt men" who clearly aren't wealthy? I'd say yes. And in both cases, it really doesn't matter. No one has the right to demand or expect a date, a romantic relationship, or sexual activity based on what they perceive to be fair or just treatment toward them. That is the cornerstone of choice and consent--the ability to accept or reject any partner for any reason.

For me personally I never, ever, ever, ever want to date a woman with children. I feel no sense of responsibility for being "a provider" for another man's children. Additionally, I don't care about raising children. In polite society these statements are regarded by most as being highly offensive. But it's my truth, and my life, and I'm going to live it as I want.

Furthermore, I want to date a woman who works a good job, has her own money, her own ambitions, and her own career. If I wanted a SAHM, I'd hire a maid service.

Consequently there are guys out there who marry women who have kids, and they willingly open their hearts and wallets to those kids. Other guys want to be "a provider" to a SAHM. I say to each his own.

And again, everyone's actions in life are judged and count toward something--sometimes positive, sometimes negative, sometimes both. My attitudes toward breeding are seen on here as being quite positive. However, the Catholic Church would vilify me for them!

We can't please everyone.

Quote
yurble
The cultural stigma against female promiscuity hurts women who have had a lot of sex. However, it isn't the sex-positive women who are curbed (such women have no problem finding partners who don't care, and can use their history to weed out unsuitable partners), but the women who buy into the ideal of female chastity. In short, the very women who would otherwise be smug gatekeepers wind up suffering when their personal history doesn't match the views they've internalized. These are women who have slept around out of poor self-esteem, or women who have been sexually assaulted. I recently watched a rather heart-breaking video where a sexual assault victim talked about how worthless she felt as a result of having absorbed the chewed gum analogy. These are the people who are hurt by slut-shaming the most.

Sexual assault is a crime and the sentences for those convicted should be harsh and severe. Please keep in mind I am purely speaking on behalf on consensual sexual activity among adults 18+.

So when it comes to consensual sex, I don't care why any man or woman sleeps with anyone else, whom they sleep with, how many times they sleep with them, or the number of people they sleep with.

I also don't care about anyone's "self-esteem" before, during, or after the sex act, whether or not they feel "ashamed," or how they feel at all actually. People need to manage their own lives.

Quote
yurble
...And to what end? So that we can uphold the privilege of a minority of men to sleep around while still being confident that they can marry a woman who won't have any way to compare their performance? What do most men - who will average something like 5 sexual partners - get out of this? What do most women - who will have a similar average - get out of it?

I'm not here to save people's marriages, help people get married, or encourage marriage or non-marriage.

I don't care if certain men prefer virgins, and I don't care if certain women want only a man with money. By in large, both men and women who are making such demands will by-in-large find themselves very disappointed with what's out there. And again, it is of little concern to me whether or not they find contentment in their marriages. That is solely their responsibility.

Beyond the very basic necessities (clean air, clean water, food...) I am as indifferent to their wants and needs as they are to mine.


PS: I do not want this thread to go any further off course as it already has. If you want to respond off-board, my PM is open.