more fundie dribbel: good girls aren't supposed to like nasty filthy dirty sex!

Quote
ladybug2203

If you don't want me due to the fact that I have too much sexual history, that is fine, but don't say untrue garbage that I'm not gf/wife material, I may not be for you but I do make a fiercely loyal partner for the right person. Just cuz I'm not your type doesn't mean I'm incapable of being a good wife/gf to someone else.

I made no claim as to your sexual history, your worthy or unworthiness as a romantic partner, your loyalty or disloyalty, or your ability to serve as a wife to someone else.

I don't care about your sexual history. I am completely indifferent to it. I don't care what "type" you are, or of you are capable or incapable of being a good wife or girlfriend. It makes no difference to me.

And why? Because this is an internet forum, not a singles bar. Hypothetically, even if I was interested in you as a romantic partner, I have no independent access to the information you are providing, anyway.

I am not writing of you, as an individual. I am simply stating the truth---that sex is an open marketplace and people have choices. No one is obligated to have sex with another person, date another person, love another person, etc. etc. etc. And their reasons for engaging OR not engaging in such behaviors are 100% valid, regardless of what they are.

Quote
yurble

You have said that women who have lots of sexual partners will have fewer potential marriage partners. I have named two ways in which that could be the case. One, all men prefer women without experience, but some will settle for women with experience. Two, there are men who prefer experience, men who prefer inexperience, and men who are neutral, but far more men prefer inexperience to experience. Which of these is the reason that you think women with lots of sexual partners will have fewer marriage offers, or is there a third reason that I haven't thought of?

Also, why do you think that statement (about fewer marriage offers) is true? Personal observation, rigorous study, or what you were taught?

Some religions preach chastity among women. If you live in an area with a high percentage of men from those religions, you may have fewer marriage partners to choose from.

I don't personally care what people prefer. It make no difference to me.

You want a guy/girl who has had a lot of sexual experience? Fine. A guy/girl with little sexual experience? Fine. You want a partner who is only interested in certain types of sex? Fine. Gay sex? Fine. Threesomes? Fine. Orgies? Fine. You want a partner who has no interest in sex at all? Fine.

As long as these connections are based on mutual consent, what other people do (or DON'T do) makes no difference to me.

The only point which I continue to make is that people are not obligated to have sex with other people, and their reasons for not doing so are immaterial.

Even if you think the girl/guy is a total jerk, being completely unreasonable for not liking you, and having totally unfair and unrealistic standards it does not matter. He or she has absolutely 100% no obligation to engage with you in any romantic way, under any circumstance.

I know, I know... "B-b-b-but StudioFiftyFour... it ain't fair that some guys want virgin brides!" And to that I say, so what? Some women want millionaires. You don't always get what you want. This isn't kindergarden.


I don't care who sleeps with who, who marries who, who dates who, who isn't dating at all... I. do. not. care.

And I find myself scratching my head as to why other people believe that it's their right to basically demand that other people respect them, date them, sleep with them, marry them, etc.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
ladybug2203

If you don't want me due to the fact that I have too much sexual history, that is fine, but don't say untrue garbage that I'm not gf/wife material, I may not be for you but I do make a fiercely loyal partner for the right person. Just cuz I'm not your type doesn't mean I'm incapable of being a good wife/gf to someone else.

I made no claim as to your sexual history, your worthy or unworthiness as a romantic partner, your loyalty or disloyalty, or your ability to serve as a wife to someone else.

I don't care about your sexual history. I am completely indifferent to it. I don't care what "type" you are, or of you are capable or incapable of being a good wife or girlfriend. It makes no difference to me.

And why? Because this is an internet forum, not a singles bar. Hypothetically, even if I was interested in you as a romantic partner, I have no independent access to the information you are providing, anyway.

I am not writing of you, as an individual. I am simply stating the truth---that sex is an open marketplace and people have choices. No one is obligated to have sex with another person, date another person, love another person, etc. etc. etc. And their reasons for engaging OR not engaging in such behaviors are 100% valid, regardless of what they are.

I should clarify when I said "you" I wasn't specifically targeting studiofiftyfour, I meant "you" the audience as a whole. You have to admit the article seems to believe all women should be virginal before marriage if any man will want them, and its such a sweeping generalization.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
yurble

You have said that women who have lots of sexual partners will have fewer potential marriage partners. I have named two ways in which that could be the case. One, all men prefer women without experience, but some will settle for women with experience. Two, there are men who prefer experience, men who prefer inexperience, and men who are neutral, but far more men prefer inexperience to experience. Which of these is the reason that you think women with lots of sexual partners will have fewer marriage offers, or is there a third reason that I haven't thought of?

Also, why do you think that statement (about fewer marriage offers) is true? Personal observation, rigorous study, or what you were taught?

Some religions preach chastity among women. If you live in an area with a high percentage of men from those religions, you may have fewer marriage partners to choose from.

True. And if you live in an area with a low number of religious people, and you want to wait until you are married, you may have fewer marriage partners to choose from.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
And I find myself scratching my head as to why other people believe that it's their right to basically demand that other people respect them, date them, sleep with them, marry them, etc.

Has anyone on the thread said they are owed sex or marriage?

As for respect, everyone has the right to demand respect in their relationships, and should. Society also expects a certain amount of respect toward strangers, as in it is fine to say among friends that you think women who have sex are sluts, but it is unacceptable to stand on a streetcorner yelling at every woman that passes that she's a slut.

To repeat: I do not care what preference each individual has in the bedroom, and I wish them all luck in finding compatible partner(s).

What I disagree with is that it is acceptable for people to teach these preferences as the truth on a broad scale when that so-called truth results in disrespectful treatment of much of society. That is where we disagree, I think. You are more libertarian, whereas I think bigotry like sexism and racism will never diminish if they are treated as personal preferences. I also believe that they must be eliminated. People must not be treated differently on the basis of factors outside their control such as sex, race and sexual orientation, but on the basis of their public choices and actions. Because there's a double standard on sexual purity, it is not about the action, which is a private action at any rate (in that it affects nobody other than the participants), but about the femaleness of the person being judged.

Quote
ladybug2203

I should clarify when I said "you" I wasn't specifically targeting studiofiftyfour, I meant "you" the audience as a whole. You have to admit the article seems to believe all women should be virginal before marriage if any man will want them, and its such a sweeping generalization.

Point taken.

Keep in mind that articles are usually aimed at their audiences. Articles aimed at fundamentalists will have that slant on them. Men with certain religious beliefs may by a wide majority, prefer a virginal bride. Other men may feel neutral on the topic. Others still will prefer someone with experience.

Women or men who are vain enough to think that they will be "a catch" to all or even most members of the opposite sex will be disappointed when that fantasy does not manifest itself.

Quote
yurble
Has anyone on the thread said they are owed sex or marriage?

It has been more than implied that if a man prefers a virginal bride, he's wrong for doing so; hence, the non-virginal bride has the right to stomp her feet and demonstrate some sort of entitlement toward a date, sex, marriage, etc.

Me? I personally don't care. People have baggage. Other people have the right to accept or reject that baggage. Some may see certain baggage as a non-entity, while others may see it as a deal enhancer, and others still may see it as a deal-breaker.

If people can't get over that another person (or group of people) won't date them, marry them, sleep with them, etc., they need professional help. Seriously. This is the kind of mentality that breeds obsession, compulsion, and stalking.

Quote
yurble
As for respect, everyone has the right to demand respect in their relationships, and should. Society also expects a certain amount of respect toward strangers, as in it is fine to say among friends that you think women who have sex are sluts, but it is unacceptable to stand on a streetcorner yelling at every woman that passes that she's a slut.

That kind of harassment--yelling slurs at specific people in public--is against the law in the US. I am sure it has happened somewhere, at some time. But as a person who has been to cities all over this country, I haven't ever witnessed this once. I would classify this kind of behavior as being insane.

As far as respect goes, I don't know if I agree. What do you mean by "respect?"

I do believe that common courtesy is important in polite society. You don't slam the door on others, you don't bother your neighbors, you abide by the laws. Other than that... what do you mean by "respect?" Does "respect" mean that you open up your dating pool to just anyone? That isn't "respect," that's "entitlement" on the part of those who are currently being rejected.

Quote
yurble
What I disagree with is that it is acceptable for people to teach these preferences as the truth on a broad scale when that so-called truth results in disrespectful treatment of much of society. That is where we disagree, I think. You are more libertarian, whereas I think bigotry like sexism and racism will never diminish if they are treated as personal preferences.

"Truth" in sexual preference comes from your heart, your mind, and your hormones. What you "want" sexually is very visceral in nature. It doesn't connect with logic very well.

While I think it is certainly immoral to exclude groups of people from public accommodations, it is in no way immoral to say, "I don't date people of this particular group."

Some people want to marry/date/sleep with a person of their own color. Or the opposite color. Or of their own faith. Or of the opposite faith. Or of a certain financial status... on and on, so on and so forth. This is a personal preference and it does not matter to me.

I can tell you that I personally have taken a load of crap from people who just couldn't comprehend why I wouldn't date single mothers. I don't want to date single mothers. It's not my preference. I don't want to take care of another man's child.

So I ask you, yurble, is that wrong as you see it? Should I be compelled--or at least, pressured--to date these people? Even though I have no interest?

Quote
yurble
Because there's a double standard on sexual purity, it is not about the action, which is a private action at any rate (in that it affects nobody other than the participants), but about the femaleness of the person being judged.

I don't really care about double standards. People have the right to hold anyone to whatever standard they choose, in the realm of sex and love.

Comparable to that... I would hold a surgeon about to operate me to a much higher standard than the teenager at 7-11 who pours me an Icee and sells me lottery tickets. If my surgeon showed up to the surgery intoxicated, I'd run. The teenage kid behind the counter? I really wouldn't care.

Two different people, both serving me in some capacity, different standards.

I think dating market is like breeding market. Nobody owes anything to anyone.

Funny shit: once a black man told me that I am racist because I didn't want to date him

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
As far as respect goes, I don't know if I agree. What do you mean by "respect?"

I do believe that common courtesy is important in polite society. You don't slam the door on others, you don't bother your neighbors, you abide by the laws. Other than that... what do you mean by "respect?" Does "respect" mean that you open up your dating pool to just anyone? That isn't "respect," that's "entitlement" on the part of those who are currently being rejected.

Respect is common courtesy. I have said multiple times that I think people are and should be free to choose their friends and partners.

I just don't think that saying nasty things about women who have sex, from the position of a pulpet or in a classroom, complies with respectfulness/common courtesy.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
yurble
What I disagree with is that it is acceptable for people to teach these preferences as the truth on a broad scale when that so-called truth results in disrespectful treatment of much of society. That is where we disagree, I think. You are more libertarian, whereas I think bigotry like sexism and racism will never diminish if they are treated as personal preferences.

"Truth" in sexual preference comes from your heart, your mind, and your hormones. What you "want" sexually is very visceral in nature. It doesn't connect with logic very well.

It is personal but it is also cultural. For instance it is well-known that the female breast is considered sexual in some cultures and not in others. What I would like is to promote a culture which recognizes a broad range of normal between consenting adults, where individuals will be able to express their innate personal preferences. Fundy teachings narrow the definition of 'normal' and add preferences/constraints to people they might not otherwise have.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
So I ask you, yurble, is that wrong as you see it? Should I be compelled--or at least, pressured--to date these people? Even though I have no interest?

For fuck's sake, when have I ever said anything remotely like that? I have repeatedly promoted personal choice in relationships. I have repeatedly objected to institutionalizing and teaching those preferences. The fundies are grooming for a purity fetish.

Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between acting on a personal preference in your own life and teaching that preference to others as if it were the only option?

Quote
yurble
Respect is common courtesy. I have said multiple times that I think people are and should be free to choose their friends and partners.

I just don't think that saying nasty things about women who have sex, from the position of a pulpet or in a classroom, complies with respectfulness/common courtesy.

You don't like it, and you have a right not to like it, but I find it perfectly acceptable. And in the US, it is completely legal, too.

People have the right to free speech, free expression, and free association.

If people were being forced to hear such a message, it would be a violation of individual rights and liberties. But no one is being forced to attend any particular class that I know of, or being forced into a certain church that might preach that message. (There have been cases of extremist cults that refuse to let their members leave. In the past, authorities have had to break these up, sometimes by using force. I oppose any forced religion or association. People should be free to listen to or refuse to listen to any religious message they choose.)

Quote
yurble
It is personal but it is also cultural. For instance it is well-known that the female breast is considered sexual in some cultures and not in others. What I would like is to promote a culture which recognizes a broad range of normal between consenting adults, where individuals will be able to express their innate personal preferences. Fundy teachings narrow the definition of 'normal' and add preferences/constraints to people they might not otherwise have.

I agree. I don't have any interest in regulating anything that goes on in people's bedrooms, as far as what consenting adults want to do.

But if fundamentalists want to preach certain values or norms for sexuality, that's fine too. Even if I disagree with their message, they still have First Amendment rights to free speech, expression, and religion. And as long as no one is being forced to hear or abide by their message, I see nothing wrong with it.

Quote
yurble
For fuck's sake, when have I ever said anything remotely like that? I have repeatedly promoted personal choice in relationships. I have repeatedly objected to institutionalizing and teaching those preferences. The fundies are grooming for a purity fetish.

So what? They'd say that your message is grooming for something else.

Either way, I favor free speech and expression. In the same way I favor their right to make a claim, I equally support your right to make a claim as well. If your message is objectively better than theirs, most people will gravitate toward yours. And they have a right to be critical of your message, and you have a right to be critical of their message. That is the marketplace of ideas and it is a beautiful thing.

As long as no one is being forced to abide by certain standards or listen to messages that they do not want to hear, I have no issue with either.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
yurble
Respect is common courtesy. I have said multiple times that I think people are and should be free to choose their friends and partners.

I just don't think that saying nasty things about women who have sex, from the position of a pulpet or in a classroom, complies with respectfulness/common courtesy.

You don't like it, and you have a right not to like it, but I find it perfectly acceptable. And in the US, it is completely legal, too.

People have the right to free speech, free expression, and free association.

If people were being forced to hear such a message, it would be a violation of individual rights and liberties. But no one is being forced to attend any particular class that I know of, or being forced into a certain church that might preach that message. (There have been cases of extremist cults that refuse to let their members leave. In the past, authorities have had to break these up, sometimes by using force. I oppose any forced religion or association. People should be free to listen to or refuse to listen to any religious message they choose.)

The used gum metaphor is known to have been used in an abstinence-only sex "education" class taught in public schools in the US. Those students are presumably a captive audience.

Quote
yurble

The used gum metaphor is known to have been used in an abstinence-only sex "education" class taught in public schools in the US. Those students are presumably a captive audience.

I am completely unfamiliar with that curriculum. If that's the case, then yes, they are a captive audience because they are required by law to go to school.

I am not a supporter of abstinence-only sex ed. I do believe that students should be taught the risks that accompany sex, particularly if it is unprotected. You could get a number of infections, some which never really leave your body. If you are infected, it may in fact impact your future sex life, so be careful.

Quote
screaming sausage
Are these fundies convinced this god of theirs created everything but the clitoris?

Probably. Why else would some cultures cut it off as a rite of female puberty?

Some of the men who treated me the worst I wasn't in a sexual relationship with, a bad stalker for one.
I've had men reject me for my hair color, my size, my job, and just about anything else you can think of and many of these were men who walked up to me and initiated a conversation with me then announced they were rejecting me. Or it was a first date where an explanation wasn't expected. Very few take the high road. Other than a few words I hadn't accepted any of them in the first place. My favorite was one who started talking to me and rejected me because I wasn't a model (he told me this) because my 5'6" height didn't clue him in and as if there are any models in the middle of the country or anywhere else that would want him. Bet he was baffled as to why I stopped talking with him. One guy told a bunch of people we were having sex and I had no idea who he was. Once he was pointed out to me I walked up to him in a very crowded hallway, introduced myself and loudly said it was great to finally meet the guy I'm having sex with. That shut up all the gossip.

I think you have to watch out because in my experience most people are incredibly stupid and this article is written by one. Just leave the stupid ones in the dust as soon as you figure it out, whether on the first date or after sex. Pretty soon they'll most likely "accidentally breed".

Quote
Dorisan

Quote
screaming sausage
Are these fundies convinced this god of theirs created everything but the clitoris?

Probably. Why else would some cultures cut it off as a rite of female puberty?

Because they are incredibly stupid.