If you read the actual powerpoint you can tell that she's kind of sad that none of the men she sleeps with is eager to pursue her further than that, so the triumph is really theirs and not hers. Plus *now* that she's been with 13 athletic men, why would another alpha male want her as a wife knowing her dirty shameful past? And how can any average joe satisfy her when she'll always have 13 athletic men to compare him with? The more men a woman sleeps with the more likely the woman is to get divorced:
Hopefully she gets a book deal out of this and gets settled for life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Plus *now* that she's been with 13 athletic men, why would another alpha male want her as a wife knowing her dirty shameful past?
Are alpha males stupider and more shallow than regular males?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
If she wants to get married later on she might attempt to snag a man similar to the sort she selected for her "experiment" but they won't want her because of her past whereas some beta guy might be willing to settle for her but she won't be satisfied with him given her experiences with manlier men.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Athletic does not necessarily mean alpha.
Alpha does not necessarily mean athletic.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What dirty shameful past?
You point to a correlation between sexual partners and divorce, but you certainly haven't demonstrated that having multiple sexual partners is dirty or shameful.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If she wants to get married later on she might attempt to snag a man similar to the sort she selected for her "experiment" but they won't want her because of her past whereas some beta guy might be willing to settle for her but she won't be satisfied with him given her experiences with manlier men.
Because, of course, no 'beta' could possibly be as good as an 'alpha' in the sack, right Clive? I mean, it's pretty much a given now, you're pointing in anti-affirmative action, sexist, and Jewish directions now, so it's the trifecta. Why even deny it at this point?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If she wants to get married later on she might attempt to snag a man similar to the sort she selected for her "experiment" but they won't want her because of her past whereas some beta guy might be willing to settle for her but she won't be satisfied with him given her experiences with manlier men.
You make several assertions here. Let's examine them:
1) Athletic men who play lacrosse will not marry a woman who has admitted to sleeping with many athletic men who play lacrosse.
2) Men who do not play lacrosse might be willing to marry a woman who has slept with many lacrosse-playing men, but this is only because they cannot get a better woman.
3) In both cases, this is because sleeping with many lacrosse-playing men makes a woman less worthy of marriage, as the acts have devalued her in some way.
4) Once a woman has slept with enough lacrosse-playing men, no less athletic man can satisfy her.
I would argue that all four of these premises are unsubstantiated, and in fact false.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
At first I thought "Why should I care about this girl at all?"
Then I read the article.
And my first thought was right. I don't care. I suppose I feel sorry for the guys, but to hell with her.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Plus *now* that she's been with 13 athletic men, why would another alpha male want her as a wife knowing her dirty shameful past?
A true Alpha Male would take it as a challenge to make her forget about all of them.
By the way, does it matter how many women the alpha male has been with? Are men less marriageable if they've slept with 13 women? Just curious.
(I'm glad this came up, by the way. What with all the Jew-based posts I'd completely forgotten about the bizarre alpha male opinions, and they're way more fun.)
[ October 13, 2010, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
By the way, if you read the report you'll see that not all of those athletic alpha males were satisfactory. Amazingly enough, being athletic is not enough to ensure sexual performance. Who knew?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I did! Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
My mother is, in fact, not talking about her. Even if my mother knew about Karen, she wouldn't talk about her. She might raise an eyebrow, however.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Plus *now* that she's been with 13 athletic men, why would another alpha male want her as a wife knowing her dirty shameful past?
I was wondering when you were going to get back to your obsessive slutshaming.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Personally, I wouldn't be turned off by the fact that she's slept with 13 guys, though self-esteem issues might make me a little insecure around her. What would turn me off is her casual attitude towards sex. I don't think it'd be a problem anyway given the fact that I'm obviously not her type since I'm not in fact on the lacrosse or baseball teams, and I'm not ripped, but she certainly wouldn't be my type.
I don't however think that makes her an unmarriable fallen woman.
I read the whole "report," and thought quite a bit of it was pretty interesting. She strikes me as pretty shallow, but perhaps no more so than any other average person is. What was most interesting was how brutally honest she was about a lot of things. It's not like she was really working from a true random sample of guys, since these were only athletes, but in a number of ways there was quite a bit of variance in them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must say that I would hate to have my deepness or lack of it judged on a report that was explicitly (pun intended) made as a joke. For all we know each of these jocks connected with her on a deep level and she merely chose to hide that so as not to appear vulnerable.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
What I think is interesting, and I'm not sure its brought up in the article posted as I didn't read it, is that several of the guys in the report have considered suing her for defamation or something like that. Especially the baseball player she... ermm... slighted.
On the one hand, it wasn't her fault that this got all over the internet, and I'm inclined to think that these guys have to live with the consequences. But on the other hand, should a one night stand open you up for national ridicule?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... but in a number of ways there was quite a bit of variance in them.
Elaborate? I can't say they look very different, but I only scanned the pictures.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: On the one hand, it wasn't her fault that this got all over the internet
what did she expect, though? stuff like this spreads like wildfire, and she'd shared it with at least four other people.
quote:and I'm inclined to think that these guys have to live with the consequences.
Her lowest-scoring entries pretty much deserve to live with this =)
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Was it Mark Twain who said that as soon as three people know something, it's no longer a secret?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I thought it was three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. But it's been awhile.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
In order for three people to keep a secret, two must be dead.
- Ben Franklin
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... but in a number of ways there was quite a bit of variance in them.
Elaborate? I can't say they look very different, but I only scanned the pictures.
Well on the surface they're all just ripped white guys. But they're different as far as personality, performance, "equipment" and other ways. They all seem to meet a minimum standard for attractiveness, but they vary in other ways. Like I said, it's nowhere near a random sample of all the nation's men, but within the small subsection of the population that she was sampling from, there is some variance.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I just think Sa'eed is annoyed he isn't on that list.
That's the heart of it, isn't it? "Slut" means "girl who would sleep with other guys, but not me."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Guys who are being sexually fulfilled rarely bother to devote so much energy to discussing he sex lives of others. Why would I care how, or with whom, some person I don't know and will never meet is having sex? Seems like the obsessions of a lonely pervert, present company excepted, I'm sure.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think Sa'eeds view is sadly shared by quite a few men in the US.
It is that that a woman that sleeps with 13 men it is a negative thing and is called names such as slut, whore, hussy, etc.
When a man sleeps with 13 women, it is a good thing. He is called a pimp, stud, player, etc.
Then again if a man talks dirty to a girl it is sexual harrassment, but if a girl talks dirty to a guy its $3.99 a minute. I guess there is a trade off.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Trust me, things resembling Sa'eed's views on women are held by an excruciating, disturbed minority of men.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
While I strongly disagree with it, I'd say that notions resembling his are pretty darn common.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think Samp is saying that Sa'eed's views on women go far beyond the level of the typical sexist man. I don't think Samp is necessarily saying that sexist views are uncommon amongst men.
And so long as we keep Geraine's caveat that we're discussing men in the US, I agree with Samp. While "macho" sexism is still pretty common here, I don't think sexism on Sa'eed's level is very common.
PS: Samp I know you feel I put words in your mouth a lot so if I interpreted you wrong here you have my apologies! I'm just theorizing, I know I could be misunderstanding you. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I can't speak for all men, nor would I want to, but to me the word slut doesn't mean "won't sleep with me" at all.
Then again, I see nothing wrong with applying that word to guys as well. If you are going to use it at all, I mean.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
I don't get the whole "this-girl-is-devalued-from-sex-with-too-many-other-guys" viewpoint on the part of some men. Aren't more practice and experience good things? They would enhance performance, no?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, no, no. Women are property, and the more people who touch them the less they're worth.
Or they're perfect angels, never to be demeaned by physical touch -- which they would never dream of attempting early because good girls don't think like that -- until the magic moment of marriage when her rightful husband can then teach her the ways of physical love, which I assume he just knows instinctively.
Or they're symbols of true love, or motherhood, or something else besides, you know, just human beings.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I think Sa'eeds view is sadly shared by quite a few men in the US.
It is that that a woman that sleeps with 13 men it is a negative thing and is called names such as slut, whore, hussy, etc.
When a man sleeps with 13 women, it is a good thing. He is called a pimp, stud, player, etc.
Then again if a man talks dirty to a girl it is sexual harrassment, but if a girl talks dirty to a guy its $3.99 a minute. I guess there is a trade off.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: While I strongly disagree with it, I'd say that notions resembling his are pretty darn common.
Only on an excruciatingly superficial level. When you have only the barest notion of Sa'eed's apprehension of women and their supposed psychology and tendencies, it has common appearances with typical sexism. When you get the full story on his apprehensions and assumptions about females, it quickly becomes apparent that his sexism resembles common american sexism about as much as, say, Westboro resembles common American christianity.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:What would turn me off is her casual attitude towards sex.
There are reasons for finding sleeping with 13 guys off-putting beyond sexism. As a female, if a guy in his low 20s told he'd slept with 13 people I would be extremely hesitant to consider dating him. It is highly unlikely that all 13 were committed, meaningful relationships. It's also too large of a number to be a one or two time type thing. It implies an attitude towards casual sex that is not compatible with my own views.
Now calling this "dirty", "shameful", etc. is unproductive and mean. There are plenty of people who share her attitudes about sex and I don't see this incident (public as it is) harming her long term opportunities for marriage. But I think it's worth pointing out that seeing overt promiscuity as a negative doesn't imply something sinister about your character.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kwea -
I agree with everything in your post.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: No, no, no. Women are property, and the more people who touch them the less they're worth.
Or they're perfect angels, never to be demeaned by physical touch -- which they would never dream of attempting early because good girls don't think like that -- until the magic moment of marriage when her rightful husband can then teach her the ways of physical love, which I assume he just knows instinctively.
Or they're symbols of true love, or motherhood, or something else besides, you know, just human beings.
I can only speak for myself, but my objection has nothing to do with any of those things. Call me naive if you wish, but sex means something to me. The woman in question has detailed her experiences of casual, romantic attachmentless sex with a baker's dozen. The fact that she has been with so many guys itself is not my problem, neither is her level of experience, it's with her devaluation of something that I personally think is very valuable for reasons beyond just getting off. It might not be an absolute deal breaker, but it's certainly a turn off.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
having slept with 13 people by the time you are 25 is, indeed, off-putting for anyone who dislikes casual sex as an accepted practice, yes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Certainly understandable, but that's not what seemingly put Sa'eed off. It was the acts, not the cavalier attitude.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am fine with it to a certain extent. Sex with multiple partners isn't something to be ashamed about, but it's nothing to brag about either. I find women who are promiscuous less attractive. It increases the risk of disease, and I prefer women who are a little more discriminating, for that and other reasons. I also think that sex should be more than just a physical act, although I know not everyone agrees with me.
In return, I also am discriminating. I never slept around, although I had the opportunity. It isn't just about the number of previous partners though. It is about the time frame, and why they because intimate. Casual sex, in my experience, leads to poor self images....or follows it, depending.
I just don't care for women who are into one night stands.
I also think that men can be sluts as well, as much as women. There is a double standard, but I don't think that both sexes sleeping around equally is the right answer.
It's a personal choice...I wouldn't want to force someone to meet my standards. I just wouldn't be interested, or would be less interested, in someone who doesn't have the same values as I do regarding sex.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: While I strongly disagree with it, I'd say that notions resembling his are pretty darn common.
Only on an excruciatingly superficial level. When you have only the barest notion of Sa'eed's apprehension of women and their supposed psychology and tendencies, it has common appearances with typical sexism. When you get the full story on his apprehensions and assumptions about females, it quickly becomes apparent that his sexism resembles common american sexism about as much as, say, Westboro resembles common American christianity.
Well, I don't read enough of his posts to have a sense of what his beliefs really are. I was more responding to the notion that women having lots of sex partners == slut, while men having lots of sex partners == stud.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
To be fair, Sa'eed has not stated or implied in this thread that he has a different standard for men.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Casual sex, in my experience, leads to poor self images....or follows it, depending.
Or... it could lead to, or follow from, the enjoyment of orgasms.
Sometimes the easiest explanation is the best one.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Casual sex, in my experience, leads to poor self images....or follows it, depending.
Or... it could lead to, or follow from, the enjoyment of orgasms.
Sometimes the easiest explanation is the best one.
This explanation seems to be missing something as well, since there are ways other than casual sex to achieve that goal, some of which are even easier to manage.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Casual sex, in my experience, leads to poor self images....or follows it, depending.
Or... it could lead to, or follow from, the enjoyment of orgasms.
Sometimes the easiest explanation is the best one.
And sometimes it isn't. The fact of the matter is that well over 90% of the people I see at The Centers as a nurse (a mental health crisis center) have a large number of sexual partners. They also have one of the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases in the state.
Also, a large percent of people who have high numbers of sexual partners, male and female, were also sexually abused at some point in their lives. While I do not claim causation, merely correlation, it is more than a casual link between these factors. Self esteem issues are common in both populations.
Please keep in mind that orgasms, sexually transmitted diseases and mental health issues are not mutually exclusive. Nor an I saying that every person who has a large number of sexual partners will end up with mental issues, or that they were all abused.
All I am saying that is that as with most things, moderation works best for me. I see a lot more people with serious issues who are promiscuous than people who are not. And I haven't even touched on parenting issues within that population.
YMMV, of course.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Correlation != causation. Still.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
YMMV, of course.
Mine, in fact, varies to the other end of the scale. Casual sex is the norm for my peers, varying between poly and 'serial monogamy.' they're the (larger) portion of the sex positive culture that won't find anecdotal representation at a mental health crisis center, either =)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ahhh, Samp, I knew I liked you. Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think part of it is that movies and TV shows push this train of thought. How many teen comedies have been put out over the last 10 years that make fun of teen males for being a virgin and makeu fun of girls that sleep with someone?
Even the new movie "Easy A" shows a girl that fakes having sex with a guy to help him out, then gets labled a slut, harlot, etc. Guys start showing up and offering her money and help with school work so they can fake losing their virginity to her, all so they can be considered "cool" as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Easy A is, in fact, an empowering exposure of that notorious double-standard. It's not pushing that train of thought; it's mocking it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Casual sex, in my experience, leads to poor self images....or follows it, depending.
Or... it could lead to, or follow from, the enjoyment of orgasms.
Sometimes the easiest explanation is the best one.
This explanation seems to be missing something as well, since there are ways other than casual sex to achieve that goal, some of which are even easier to manage.
There's also such a thing as the joy of touching another person, and of feeling a connection however fleeting. 'Orgasms', here, is shorthand for a whole range of pleasures, some of which are not readily manageable by oneself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I agree wholeheartedly with KoM.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Easy A is, in fact, an empowering exposure of that notorious double-standard. It's not pushing that train of thought; it's mocking it.
You and I may understand that, but the average teenager in high school doesn't.
District 9 is a good example of a misunderstood movie. The film showed how horrible human nature can be, yet ask the average teenager what they got out of the movie and you will probably get an answer about how cool all of the blood and guts was.
The difference is the demographic. Easy A is geared towards a younger group of people than District 9 was. While the messages of both are worthwhile, most people in that demographic aren't going to really "get" it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Have you even seen Easy A? The moral of the story is straightforward and blatantly shown.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:most people in that demographic aren't going to really "get" it
This attitude strikes me as a bit elitist. Maybe I'm sheltered, but I think most people in both demographics do get it- hence the success of both movies.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:most people in that demographic aren't going to really "get" it
This attitude strikes me as a bit elitist. Maybe I'm sheltered, but I think most people in both demographics do get it- hence the success of both movies.
You have to understand I live in Las Vegas. Half of the kids here don't even pass their math proficiency exam on their first try. I believe we are ranked 49th in the country for education. But hey, we are #1 in unemployment and foreclosures! At least we are the best at something.
Elitist? No. I just know a lot of kids here in town, and most of them didn't get what District 9 or Easy A was really about. I asked my brother's friend what they thought of Easy A, and I got the response "Emma Stone is so hot!"
[ October 18, 2010, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Of course, most teenagers have the self-confidence to tell their friends about their true judgements and feelings. They would never dream of hiding anything that might not quite fit their image behind a screen of juvenilia and socially-approved blather.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Again, had you actually seen Easy A?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Correlation != causation. Still.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)