Ok everyone. I have a scenario, followed by a question. This is mostly for men, but I'd like women to read it too if you will, as it affects us too. The following is not hypothetical, though names have been changed (*).
Last summer I was sitting on the back porch of the home of my good friends Robin* and Eddy*. Married for 20 years, this kind, generous, completely atheist, rational couple had one great son, a wonderful home, and a full life. Robin was telling us about the first date she'd gone on with Eddy. Theyd gone to dinner and a show, and when he drove her home, they were kissing in the car, and he asked to come in. She said no and he accepted that, she went in, he called her next day, and the rest was history.
When she got to this part, Eddy chimed in that it was a good thing she refused or he wouldn't have called her the next day. Maybe after a few days for a booty call, but not serious dating. He said this as if it was a humorous and obvious thing. She laughed too. I didn't get it, and he couldn't really explain it. What is that judgement? Their wonderful life wouldn't be if she'd only agreed to what he'd asked for. Even though they both had wanted sex, she at least had to play the game... or he would have lost respect for her.
So comes my question. Have you ever found yourself judging women in this way? If so, why? Is there a reason in a secular world to judge women and men differently? Is there any kind of consentual sexual behavior that is universally objectionable? Sex on the first date? Ladies, we can be worse on each other than men can at times; do you disparage your fellow women for this behavior?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I would have to see I think they would have got together regardless... guys talk garbage quite often in a bantering way for fun.
But the truth is most men would stay with any women the felt compatible with, had fun with and obviously had a physical connection for.
Or at least that is my opinion.
My partner and I have been together for 8 years, we have little in common but have such a good laugh together, always have fun.. And even after 8 years and two kids together, we are still very drawn to one another.
But I do also think it works both ways, it's highly spoken in social media and other avenues about how men are and think and they tend to be way off base, and it's not entirely fair.
I had one girl friend that told me she had slept with at least 1500 men. We were together 3 1/2 years.
I have dated two strippers. One became my first wife.
I have never dated a virgin.
Both of my wives had been married before.
Sex on the first date has never been a problem for me!
@ Ligeia
Dual Morality when it comes to sexual behaviour is common in almost all cultures. In the cultures that have adopted the Abrahamic religions they/we have been conditioned to the contradictions of subservience yet purity of women. Men having uncontrollable sexual urges whilst women have been cast as the temptress and virgin pure at the same time.
Countless sermons have been preached about the sanctity of the hymen and the need to protect your female virgins..note: men are congratulated when they have sex frequently with different partners and women vilified, stoned to death, ostracised to brothels or worse.
I notice that in western millenials ( bless em) that this is less and less important; that having a "fuckbuddy" is normal, same sex relationships are normal, in fact the younger generation are a whole lot nicer without the conditioning than I was with the manners of my day. I was subject to the same conditioning of purity and a girl thought of and treated as cheap or 'for sale' if she displayed any normal sexual urges beyond a tongue strangling goodnight.
I had to consciously reason my way out of that conditioning which I did in my early twenties.Many of my contemporaries are sadly stuck with it.
I suspect that as a male, I'd judge a female as more reckless for carrying out particular behavior than I would if a male had done it. I have a high aversion to reckless behavior and thus I possibly have an unfair bias against females in that way. Although at the same time, I certainly would consider females to be "safer" than males, in regards not being reckless.
@Sap
"Reckless" in what way?
Sleeping with someone they don't know, for example. But in general, I mean engaging in behavior that would even put my own security at risk.
@Sapporo
I've read enough of your comments to be 100% certain you're not saying "nice girl's wait", Sap, in fact, I'd stake my life on it, and I'm pretty sure you're not talking about unwanted pregnancy either, in this day and age of reliable contraception, so you must be talking about male aggression.
Trouble is, domestic violence starts AFTER the couple become sexually intimate, not before, so the woman could wait quite awhile and still discover her nice guy boyfriend really isn't once the sex starts. Violent men have a honeymoon period where they're on their best behaviour, too. He's not going to clout his intended on the first date - she'd run a mile and subjugation takes time. Likewise, the statistics tell us the majority of date raped women knew their rapist well: he was her partner, ex-partner, in-law, colleague, boss, friend.
At the risk of getting all 'I am woman, hear me roar', until we accept there isn't one damn thing women can do to stop male aggression towards them and aggressive men accept full agency for it, we won't stop it. Whilever we tell ourselves the women put themselves in harms way, we give the bastards an excuse.
@Ligeria
Many times in our lives we are shallow people. Men tend to be far more shallow than women although I have seen my share of purely materialistic women. The thing is, when you find someone, a real someone, you want them in your life. You as a man might have sex with that person almost immediately relatively but that really doesn't change your opinion. Look at it this way. When a man and woman first meet, they make immediate "judgements" of each other. They imagine scenarios that run in their heads, sometimes unrealistic ones. The scenarios never seem to fit with reality. But back to the man's perspective. If he chose that woman purely based on her sex appeal, that is basically all he wants. It doesn't matter how great a person she is if that is all he is thinking about. I think if Robin and Eddy had got together on that first night they may have stayed together despite what Eddy said. The fact is he just can't know. Oh sure he might have fulfilled his immediate needs so to speak, but he isn't accounting how or what he would have felt afterward. There may have been a nagging feeling that he still wanted Robin.
I have seen a lot of successful marriages. Some were traps that worked out, some were idealistic high school sweetheart bonds, some were love at first sight and still, others were a friendship that grew to unseperatable love.
I don't believe in destiny or that there is one person for everyone or that there is someone for everyone. That just doesn't make sense. But what there is is a bond that can grow, and there is no definitive way that occurs. I must have had over 30 plus girlfriends in my life. All unique. yes, I would say that I had loved them all. I actually miss some of them, but the thing is there was a mutual love there, unmistakable!
I think people, ALL people make shallow judgments but those judgments are replaced when you actually learn who the person is.
Well... for my part almost every man I've dated seriously has tried to shame me about my sexual past or desires. I just got used to it. But from what Eddy told me, he was serious. "Fucking on the first date" was the mark of a slut that you woildnt date seriously, even though you'd get points for doing it. It's strange.
I disagree!
Hi, people. It's been a while... I'm more than happy to read your amazing posts again. Btw, nice one, @Mykcob4.
@Ligeia: Ladies, we can be worse on each other than men can at times; do you disparage your fellow women for this behavior?
I don't disparage my female fellows according to anything related to sexual behavior, although I do remember being judgemental about openly sexual females as a teenager and I have some friends who are. For that silly thought I blame my RCC background and theirs.
It makes no sense for an atheist to judge women in those terms; it's just pure bigotry.
@Flamenca
You're back,! I'm back! We're both back! Yay!
:-D
Great to finally see you back in the game, Flame!
Hello, my godless friends! It feels good to be home.
No. I have never found myself judging women this way. More important than if she says yes or no is whether or not she lies. If she says yes and the sex is good and she is honest, things will work out. If she says no and is honest, things can also work out. Catching someone in a lie is significantly more important early on than whether or not we are having sex.
Hat's off to the gentlemen on this thread, who look at women and just see women, not damned whores and god's police. Sadly, you're the exceptions that prove the rule.
I can remember the first (and only) time my son referred to a girl as a slut a dozen years ago. He was speaking about a girl at school. I quietly called him on it and he patiently explained she really was a slut- she'd had sex with lots of guys. He was quite taken aback when his explanation didn't have the expected effect on me. I went postal. He told me years later it did give him a bit of an epiphany.
I'd really hoped the sexual double standard would be dead and gone by the time my son was 16. It was hard enough on my generation of women (and men. What divides, conquers). I wanted it to be different for his generation. It still isn't, 12 years later. The proof's all around us. Popular culture's full of it. A woman's worth is how many men want to fuck her in inverse proportion to how many do. Only the very best men get their end in. You'll note this has sweet fuck all to do with the woman and everything to do with the men? The man who beds her bags the respect of all the other men. He can preen now. His dick really is bigger.
Consider the movies. First, consider the leading man. There he is, having makeup trim his nasal and ear hair between takes, his wheelie walker beside him. He has his prop gun in one pocket and his reading glasses in the other. He is The Man, a Silver Fox, a genuine action hero and Alpha Male. His wrinkles speak of wisdom and experience, not time and gravity.
Now consider his leading lady. She's twenty-something. She's hot enough to fry an egg on. She's got legs up to her armpits, an ass like a poem and tits so perky they don't move when she runs. She's also a member of Mensa and got her first degree at 18, but who cares?
Now consider the women actors who are age contemporaries of our leading man. In their youth, they had ten times his talent, but less than half the work. They still have ten times his talent, but It's less than less than half the work now and what they do get is mostly support roles playing mothers and grandmothers. One will occasionally get a lead role as the Iron Lady or Queen Victoria or Queen Elizabeth, but you won't ever see an old woman playing the saviour of the world because audiences won't buy it, but we buy old men doing it, all the time. And he gets the girl!
I agree Millennials aren't buying it and things will change as a result, Old Man. The Millennials aren't buying a lot of things, thank dog. I hope they keep it up. I hope they maintain their rage like we didn’t. No pressure, Millennials- but the planet's fucked if you don't.
It is something I have heard both men and women say,
Us ladies can be equally scathing when with friends, i.e. "She/He slept with them on a first date, what a slut/pig"
I have never quite understood it (Not that I would go there myself so early on), it is ridiculous to pin people down
over their actions.
After all it could be a one off? It could be their very first time and they just hit it off on a first date.
Life is as weird as it is equally wonderful.
I have read the lady's responses and it hit me and reminded me of the traditional roles they played long ago.
Women gathered and took care of camp as men left to hunt for meat.
Now the best hunters and most important hunters/scouts got the best portions of the kill.
Let's call that "money".
Women used their sexual appeal to attract the men with the most money.
In eons, this has basically not changed. Even today even though women have carved out a way to make their own "money" (underpaid), they still use their feminine wiles to attract the most successful men.
So men with their shallow minds "judge women" with sexual objectivity, and women judge women with jealousy and contempt.
It takes social sophistication to overcome 10,000 years of a basic practice.
@ Myk "I have read the lady's"
I don't often disagree with you there Myk.
But on this I think modern studies have caught up and passed your social theory. Some anthropologists are now convinced that young women have been hunters and warriors since the African diaspora up until modern times.
Jean Auels' Cave Bear series is based on the discoveries of prehistoric finds and evidence that suggest up until pregnancy women did indeed hunt as a group with the older men. Without that extra number of bodies many hunts would have been unsuccessful. Similar instances still occur in modern day relatively undisturbed societies
The latest re evaluation of Viking funeral chambers in the UK and Norway have also shown that the legend of the warrior princess was true, some of the skeletons once identified as male with rich weapons and hunting trophies have now found to be female.
In South Africa see "Women in South African History": the females were the fiercest of warriors and guarded the king. They also had their own regiments (impis) of trained and regular soldiers (amabutho) feared by most other african tribes. The Ancient egyptians also had regiments of young women depicted in battle order.
The suppression of women as hunters and warriors seems to have been a relatively recent societal change cemented in the pre roman era even though examples of female warriors crop up through history ( Joan of Arc,Artemesia of Calley.Triue Thi Trinh, Nakano Takeko, Tomoe Gozen, Boudicca of the Icenii, Grace O'Malley and without singling any one of them out women represented 15 to 20% of the total number of French Resistance fighters within the country during WW2.
Whereas your social theory was at one time accepted as 100% true of all societies we are learning that that interpretation, like most of the time it gained currency, were and are a tad simplistic.
Simply, women rock, dude as we agree!.
I'm not too sure there were too many big game hunts by either gender. I'm not saying they didn’t happen, but they were the exception, not the rule. I'd say hunter gatherers then went about the activities of daily living pretty much the same way they do now: the lady over there bagged two good size lizards, the kids tickled a few fish, the guy over there got some rabbits and everyone grabbed some salad greens on their way home.
I think we need to tell ourselves primitive man had to risk life and limb to eat to excuse the dog's breakfast we've made of it all. I suspect we work much longer hours at our work creation schemes than they did.
@ Sushisnake
I was only referring to a period ( last ice age) and a geographical area that I knew something about, Evan Evans-Pritchard had some interesting observations on female game hunts as well in Africa.
Its not as cut and dried as we all think. In arid and hard areas like most of Australia the division of labor over the last few thousand years would favor specialisation, especially by sex. In Northern Eurpoe in cold climes the more in the hunt for seasonal herding mega fauna ...the better.
The Madonna and The Whore. Interesting. It seems that so many men want a woman who can fuck like a ‘whore’ but act like a ‘Madonna’.
I raised two boys and two girls. I did my best to teach them that sex is just sex, that it was not different for males and females. It was others that suggested a doubt to that.
I really hate that sexual intercourse is elevated to such heights. I hope that one day having sex is just having sex and it does not infer comment on the person engaging in it. As long as that engagement is consensual, who cares.
Even during my teenage years long ago I could never understand why there was such a double-standard for males and females regarding sex. Why do the guys get highly regarded as studs when they have sex with multiple girls, but the girls get labeled as sluts/whores/etc. If they have sex with multiple guys? BUT, if a guy happens to have sex with one of those "sluts", then he gets a pat on the back from his buddies, but the girl is still looked down upon and possibly shunned by the other females. WTF? Never made sense to me.
Beyond the STD's and potential unplanned pregnancies, I have no issue with how many sexual partners any gender has had.
I too take issue that: all too often in popular culture, a man that has had many sexual partners is almost elevated, where a woman that has had many sexual partners is often looked down upon.
Both the unplanned pregnancy and STD's can be largely solved with condom use.
But, I will openly admit I big time judge any gender that has lots of unprotected sex with many different partners. Of which I can only surmise if I learn of STDs picked up or unwanted pregnancies occurring.
Re: Female Judgement
Pulled the questions out...
Have you ever found yourself judging women in this way? If so, why?
No I never have. Due to my father's teachings, I have always looked on women as being the ones who control their own destiny. Although my father may not have been a true atheist, he did hold quite a lot of the Bible in contempt. One of his major disagreements was how "god" says women are to be treated. One thing I remember he told me, "Never, ever, strike a woman for ANY reason. There is only ONE time it is OK. If she is coming at you with a butcher knife, then deck her ass. Because you are then defending your life. Never, ever, strike a women for ANY reason." And I loved the way he reiterated the first statement at the end. Other things my father taught me is that is the woman's right to choose the man, not the other way around. Yes, you may want her, but it is her decision. If the one you want does not want you, move on to the next.
Is there a reason in a secular world to judge women and men differently?
In my honest opinion, Hell No. Both genders can be "exceptional" or "horrid," or somewhere in between. Another thing my father taught me, "Judge persons by what is in their heart. Just because a person may be beautiful on the outside, if their heart is black, then their beauty won't be so." Thus, I do judge people by how they act. Not how they look.
Is there any kind of consentual sexual behavior that is universally objectionable?
The only one I can think of would be to force another into sex against their will (one sided consensual). In other words, rape. Otherwise, if the sex is consensual with both, I cannot think of anything objectionable. My wife and I did things all theists would find objectionable. However, I always use the Bible verse Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled...
Sex on the first date?
I am one of those weirdos when it comes to this one. I am neither for, nor against. It is dependent upon the two persons. Although it was more than a month before my wife and I ever had sex, I feel it is ultimately up to the lady. Due to my father's upbringing, I always leave it up to the lady. Even though I may get blue balls wanting her, it is for the lady to decide when. However, once committed to a relationship, whether married or not, I have no problem letting her know. But it would still be her decision.
Now, I will be the first to admit that I have heard some males talk about women with such disparaging comments and remarks, that I refuse to repeat them here due to the fact that they are exceptionally vile and repulsive to me. Hell, I even despised thinking about them to write this. OTOH, I have also heard women use the same. Those were persons I never wanted anything more than a passing acquaintance. Some of those guys used to work for me when I had my own landscape architect business. And I wanted to terminate their employment, but could not do so on the grounds that I did not like their opinions.
As far as I am concerned, I reserve judgment of everyone until they prove themselves good or bad. Of course, the "good or bad" is entirely subjective with my sense of morality and opinion. However, it also tends to follow with the majority of other humanistic atheists. Or should I call us godless heathens? I remember a theist called me a godless heathen, and I replied, "And proud of it."
Here are two listings that have long dictated to myself how I should live my life:
MY PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE
Live and Let Live.
Leave me alone, I shall leave you alone.
Mess with me and mine... Just don't. The results won't be pretty.
Want to be friendly? We can be friends. Want to be belligerent? We'll probably be enemies.
Respect the Right of ALL persons to have whatever beliefs they wish to have, even if contradictory to your beliefs.
Wish to discuss beliefs? We can discuss them. Do not force beliefs onto others. Force your beliefs onto me, we are enemies.
Mind your own business and affairs. Allow others tend to theirs.
All women are ladies until they prove otherwise. All women are to be honored and respected. Never, ever, strike a woman for ANY reason. All women have the final decision for relationship.
Any friend in need should be aided to the fullest of one's capacity.
Live and Let Live.
MY TEN COMMANDMENTS
1) Question everything, trust nothing; for it is more important how to think than what to think.
2) Mind your own business and responsibilities and allow others to tend to theirs. This does not mean that if your friends are self-destructing, desperately need help, etc. that you cannot poke your nose in and offer help.
3) You shall not do to others as you shall not want others to do to you.
4) You shall respect the right of ALL persons to believe whatsoever they wish to believe; even if contradictory to your beliefs. You may discuss beliefs; however, forcing your beliefs onto others is condemnable.
5) You shall live your own life always seeking to cause no harm.
6) You shall test everything; but you shall check your own ideas against the facts and evidence, and you shall always be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
7) You shall never overlook evil or shrink from administering justice; but you shall always be ready to forgive minor wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
8) You shall treat ALL living things with love, honesty, respect, fidelity, and trust.
9) You shall never indoctrinate anyone, especially children, regardless of their situation; rather, teach them how to think, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you without disrespect and dishonor.
10) You shall value the future on a timescale longer than your own.
As for My Ten Commandments, they have been synthesized from so many sources, I could not hope to list them. Much of what is My Philosophy of Life came about from what my father taught me before he died.
And this just popped into my frond... A psychology professor asked the class, "List the six most important things in a healthy relationship." My list: 1) Trust, 2) Love, 3) Communication, 4) Respect, 5) Friendship, 6) Intelligence. After collecting them and reading them overnight, the next class, the professor made me get up in front of the class and read my list. After reading it, there was a very short hesitation, then another classmate asked, "What about sex?" I looked at him and calmly replied, "If you have those six things, then sex is a given. It will happen." The professor then commented, "I only asked you to read your list because you were the only one out of the whole class who did not list sex." I still have that sheet of paper in a frame.
Again, I have spewed...
rmfr