The Hazards of Online Dating

I have a female friend who, along with myself and a few others I know, are signed up to online dating websites like Match.com, Plenty of Fish, etc.

Recently my friend called me up and told me she had just discovered that the man she's been talking to for months and getting to know, a man who seemed very earnest and sincere about wanting a serious long term relationship, only, in the end, wanted sex.

He apparently was very patient and had told her a lot of what she wanted to hear over a long period of time - almost as if he had many stock responses that had been rehearsed many times over. He seemed perfect from her pov. Yet the moment he had sex with her, all bets were off. That same night he went home early and began looking for and chatting with other women planning his next conquest - allegedly.

Needless to say I felt bad for my friend. I tried to console her, but I'm pretty miserable at consolation. She was more bitter, angry than hurt in any way emotionally. She said she felt deceived and had been robbed of ... something. Apparently, when my friend had discovered his philandering with other women after they had sex, she confronted him point blank, and he without reservation admitted fully and unabashedly to only really wanting to be intimate with her sexually. He then asked her, "Didn't you enjoy what he had together?"

My friend was taken aback by this. She of course tried to make him feel small by insulting his ego and whatnot, but she admitted she did enjoy it but only because she thought, she was convinced he and she would have more than just sex. Needless to say she dropped him.

... but she was very angry and still is today. A lot of time was invested in the possibility, for her, of something long term and meaningful. She felt she was used and abused.

This story, though it's not the first time I've heard these kinds of complaints from many women, and even a few men, nonetheless often give me pause. Many men do tend to want sex and nothing more, and many are willing to go to great lengths, including prolonged deception in order to fulfill their desires. Yet they often leave a trail of angry and bitter women in their wake. Women who become very distrusting of men. I often wonder if there are any, and just how many, women who just want sex and are willing to deceive to get it?

(where on earth are they and could you please put them in contact with me)

Anyhow, I personally have nothing against anyone wanting sex and just sex, but how one goes about fulfilling that goal, through upfront, honest means, or at least non-deceptive means, this would be preferable and healthier. These dating sites allow for checking off your personal wants, desires, and intentions in meeting someone. People only have your profile to go by. So we are all blind on a dating website.

As a man who admittedly wants sex, with no strings attached, I personally would not be willing to go to the unethical extent that this guy did by misleading and hurting women through deliberate deception. I empathize and am disturbed, knowing and being very fond of my friend as I do, that she was taken advantage of. And even though she's a tough woman and has had her share of quick and dirty sex over the years, this is not what she joined the site for. She is at a point in her life where she wants something serious, a commitment. I find this guys behavior deplorable conduct. Deception is deception.

Yet even so, I understand the impulse and temptation this man had... he clearly knew, for instance, that if he was honest on the website, in his profile, that he wanted nothing serious and just wanted an intimate encounter, he likely wouldn't get any takers regardless of how good looking he was - and he was good looking, and well off financially too it seems, if his profile at all could be trusted.

Part of the catch 22 of finding intimate fuck/buddies/partners is getting to know them for a while, then mutually, and consentually (and that is the key) coming to the conclusion that maybe we aren't meant to be long-termers, but why can't we simply have some special benefits on the side while we are still trying to find that special someone to commit to?...
The difficulty with that is that if after the first-time-sex one or the other doesn't want anything serious or ongoing, the other often feels used, betrayed, etc.

So the well-intentioned guy is damned if he does mis-lead, and damned if he doesn't. If he connives his way into someones bedroom, he's an asshole. If he takes it slow and easy, seeing how things go, then decides, either before or after sex, that something serious probably wouldn't work... he's still an asshole.... because he still allowed the sex to occur. He alone, apparently.

My friend admits openly to enjoying picking up people on a regular basis in her younger years. So she's no innocent spring chicken. She admits to having been sexually adventurous with many men and sometimes while dating others at the same time. But yet now.... today... she wants something dependable. Something steady. Reliable. Honest. True. Not that ones sexual history should have any bearing, of course...

That guy may have been unethical in his approach, but I can't help but thinking that he really wasn't doing any differently than most men and women do regularly in the dating scene. They play the field. They "see-how-it-goes..." until they realize they want to move on. If the person is attractive, then having sex is difficult to resist regardless of whether one or the other has made up their minds about their compatibility. "Oh what the hell let's do it then call it a day... just don't tell anybody." It's all fun and games until someone, man or woman, or both, gets hurt.

Hopefully neither does.. and the sex can still be great. And they can remember each other with fondness rather than enmity, then move on to their quest for the 'perfect' partner, or fuck-buddy, or both, as the case may be.

I still believe deception, as a general rule, is immoral and hurtful - and potentially dangerous, especially for the man. But it seems to me, based purely on my life experience with other partners, having been on both sides - the victim of deceit as well as the accused purveyor (though in my case I've never had it in me to "intentionally" deceive as this guy above did to my friend) - there seems to me to be a little deception mixed into all potential dating scenarios. From both sides. Women are just as capable of using deception to get what they want... just because it isn't necessarily always sex, doesn't make it any less hurtful... and sometimes, it is JUST sex, even for women.

For women it seems sex is the tool of exchange for other things; for men it seems to be the reverse - other things for sex.

... be careful out there.

Your thoughts?

SAI2 wrote:

For women it seems sex is the tool of exchange for other things; for men it seems to be the reverse - other things for sex.

The old saying is, women give sex to get love, men give love to get sex.

I think there's a fundamental difference between men's and women's perceptions of intimacy. Perhaps because women (evolutionarily-speaking) can get "stuck" with the results of a dalliance, they tend to take such dalliances a lot more seriously than men.

For many men -- and the guy in your story certainly fits the bill -- dating is like hunting: it's the thrill of the chase. Once the quarry is bagged, it's time to strike out for the next conquest. It's in their genes.

An ancillary puzzle for me is the role of strippers and erotic dancers. I have seen a couple, I have tried to imagine what it is that attracts men to these places of business. But for the life of me, I cannot fathom the appeal.

Another puzzle I've never understood: groupies. Women who are so bewitched by fame or power or money that they'll fuck (or blow) somebody (rock star, politician, millionaire) just to get close to him for a few minutes. What do they expect, he'll fall in love with them and dump their wives? That he'll impregnate them and they'll get rich on child support? Or their own sense of worth will be elevated by being close to somebody famous for 8 minutes? I don't get it.

Then there are women who pull a bait-and-switch routine.

While they're dating they're flirtatious, sexually adventurous, solicitous, considerate of their boyfriend's needs and desires. But as soon as he slips a ring on their finger, BANGO. The door closes.

"I don't have to do that anymore, we're married."

NoCoPilot wrote:

I think there's a fundamental difference between men's and women's perceptions of intimacy.  Perhaps because women (evolutionarily-speaking) can get "stuck" with the results of a dalliance, they tend to take such dalliances a lot more seriously than men.

NoCoPilot wrote:

For many men -- and the guy in your story certainly fits the bill -- dating is like hunting: it's the thrill of the chase.  Once the quarry is bagged, it's time to strike out for the next conquest.  It's in their genes.

Could be. Well, that very likely is the root explanation on a purely pragmatic level, but... I think there must be more to this perception thing also. I know some men experience sex in a very visceral, consuming way - akin to a hunger impulse not unlike the consuming of food for sustanance. The "hunter" analogy is apt. So it is ironic that "predation" has earned a negative connotation. Depends whether sex is considered a biological need, not unlike a nutritional need for the body say, if we see the hunt as acceptable human behaviour between potential mates, or as evil or harmful - or anti-social. Some would say that the hunt is always harmful if the hunted does not condone or consent to it. But then that defeats and undermines the point and experiential value of the hunt.

My point is some people tend to view sex as an unnecessary part of the human condition, and abstinance as the default or norm. In my view abstinance is, especially over time, a repression, a self-abuse, a deprivation of the human body. I think males see sexual activity as sustanence, whether it actually is in the biological sense or not. Males also see sex disconnected and separate from the intent to procreate, or even socially bond - they are separate acts; sex for sex's sake and sex for procreation's sake, and thus for the purpose of bonding. Women, otoh, see sex moreso as a whole part of the procreative/bonding process. So when men are having sex their attention is on the woman alone, the object of their desire, they are not concerned or mindful of the consequences of impregnation, or the long term assumption of development of a relationship; when women are having sex they are preparing themselves for a potential partner and for procreation, or the possibility of it. It has always baffled me why women tend to see sex as dirty from the male pov, yet from their own pov it is healthy. The implicit assumption being made is that a man's view is sex is unhealthy and unnatural - which couldn't be further from the truth. It can be said though that male perceptions of sex are... uncivil. The hunt, in nature, is naturally uncivil though.

That negative pov only seems to change for women as they mature into middle age. Then they tend to take on a more masculine, run-with-the-wolves perception of sex. Which would explain why older women and younger men are a perfect match.

NoCoPilot wrote:

An ancillary puzzle for me is the role of strippers and erotic dancers.  I have seen a couple, I have tried to imagine what it is that attracts men to these places of business.  But for the life of me, I cannot fathom the appeal.

It's a stoking of the fire. To keep the flame of passion alive while enjoying a "caged" beast or prey in front of you (to stretch the metaphor). At least that's what I think it is. A hunter spends its time observing its prey, being enticed by it, but also enjoying the fantasy of its prey being tamed and "captured" for their personal pleasure under "controlled conditions". If you can't hunt and capture your prey in the field, you take the next best thing while relaxing with a nice cold beer - the prey are dallied in front of you, but don't touch.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Another puzzle I've never understood: groupies.  Women who are so bewitched by fame or power or money that they'll fuck (or blow) somebody (rock star, politician, millionaire) just to get close to him for a few minutes.  What do they expect, he'll fall in love with them and dump their wives?  That he'll impregnate them and they'll get rich on child support?  Or their own sense of worth will be elevated by being close to somebody famous for 8 minutes?  I don't get it.

Yeah, that one baffles me too. I think we need a woman's view to clear some of these mysteries up.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Then there are women who pull a bait-and-switch routine.

While they're dating they're flirtatious, sexually adventurous, solicitous, considerate of their boyfriend's needs and desires.  But as soon as he slips a ring on their finger, BANGO.  The door closes.

"I don't have to do that anymore, we're married."

I wonder if that has to do with marriage moreso than anything else. Men behave the same way. A caged bird or beast means the "hunt" is over. Time to retire.

SAI2 wrote:

Men behave the same way.

Yeah I guess men can be all lovey-dovey/supportive before the ceremony, and not after.

SAI2 wrote:

I often wonder if there are any, and just how many, women who just want sex and are willing to deceive to get it?

(where on earth are they and could you please put them in contact with me)

*raises hand* Right here!

SAI2 wrote:

Part of the catch 22 of finding intimate fuck/buddies/partners is getting to know them for a while,

My thoughts? Wrong site. Ashley Madison, my friend. Or FetLife is one is into kink.
You meet people who want to play on your terms. I tend to play with women who like s and m but trust me, there is someone for everyone.
That man needs to have a profile on some place to pick up women like me who are married and simply want some drama free fun. Where the problem comes in is people aren't honest with themselves. They don't want to admit they want casual sex or they don't want to admit they want a relationship and it all ends up trouble. If you are honest going in about what you can do it's better. None of the people I play with expect to be my significant others.

(Most of this I'm not going to discuss here, we can move it to asylum if anyone wants further info.)

In the end I think men sort of are gonna have to reap what they've sown for so long before it all sorts itself out. You men, as a culture, have made pussy a commodity to be valued, owned, possessed. So women have grown to almost without thought see sex as something the man has to earn. Which creates a wad of shit for both sexes. In recent years women have taken to policing each other and books like "the Rules" came out urging us to wait to give it up. But it all began with women as commodity. It's just gonna take time.

I will say this. If I had back the time I had spent chasing sex, I'd probably have a second life. Men are not so easy as they appear. Your egos needs stroking and more than one of you at a time is a chore, lemme tell ya.

SAI2 wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

Another puzzle I've never understood: groupies.  Women who are so bewitched by fame or power or money that they'll fuck (or blow) somebody (rock star, politician, millionaire) just to get close to him for a few minutes.  What do they expect, he'll fall in love with them and dump their wives?  That he'll impregnate them and they'll get rich on child support?  Or their own sense of worth will be elevated by being close to somebody famous for 8 minutes?  I don't get it.

Yeah, that one baffles me too. I think we need a woman's view to clear some of these mysteries up.

Nope. I got no insight whatsoever. Seems silly to me. I mean I wouldn't kick one out of bed, but I'd not chase them either.

SAI2 wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

I think there's a fundamental difference between men's and women's perceptions of intimacy.  Perhaps because women (evolutionarily-speaking) can get "stuck" with the results of a dalliance, they tend to take such dalliances a lot more seriously than men.

NoCoPilot wrote:

For many men -- and the guy in your story certainly fits the bill -- dating is like hunting: it's the thrill of the chase.  Once the quarry is bagged, it's time to strike out for the next conquest.  It's in their genes.

Could be. Well, that very likely is the root explanation on a purely pragmatic level, but... I think there must be more to this perception thing also. I know some men experience sex in a very visceral, consuming way - akin to a hunger impulse not unlike the consuming of food for sustanance. The "hunter" analogy is apt. So it is ironic that "predation" has earned a negative connotation. Depends whether sex is considered a biological need, not unlike a nutritional need for the body say, if we see the hunt as acceptable human behaviour between potential mates, or as evil or harmful - or anti-social. Some would say that the hunt is always harmful if the hunted does not condone or consent to it. But then that defeats and undermines the point and experiential value of the hunt.

My point is some people tend to view sex as an unnecessary part of the human condition, and abstinance as the default or norm. In my view abstinance is, especially over time, a repression, a self-abuse, a deprivation of the human body. I think males see sexual activity as sustanence, whether it actually is in the biological sense or not. Males also see sex disconnected and separate from the intent to procreate, or even socially bond - they are separate acts; sex for sex's sake and sex for procreation's sake, and thus for the purpose of bonding. Women, otoh, see sex moreso as a whole part of the procreative/bonding process. So when men are having sex their attention is on the woman alone, the object of their desire, they are not concerned or mindful of the consequences of impregnation, or the long term assumption of development of a relationship; when women are having sex they are preparing themselves for a potential partner and for procreation, or the possibility of it. It has always baffled me why women tend to see sex as dirty from the male pov, yet from their own pov it is healthy. The implicit assumption being made is that a man's view is sex is unhealthy and unnatural - which couldn't be further from the truth. It can be said though that male perceptions of sex are... uncivil. The hunt, in nature, is naturally uncivil though.

That negative pov only seems to change for women as they mature into middle age. Then they tend to take on a more masculine, run-with-the-wolves perception of sex. Which would explain why older women and younger men are a perfect match.

NoCoPilot wrote:

An ancillary puzzle for me is the role of strippers and erotic dancers.  I have seen a couple, I have tried to imagine what it is that attracts men to these places of business.  But for the life of me, I cannot fathom the appeal.

It's a stoking of the fire. To keep the flame of passion alive while enjoying a "caged" beast or prey in front of you (to stretch the metaphor). At least that's what I think it is. A hunter spends its time observing its prey, being enticed by it, but also enjoying the fantasy of its prey being tamed and "captured" for their personal pleasure under "controlled conditions". If you can't hunt and capture your prey in the field, you take the next best thing while relaxing with a nice cold beer - the prey are dallied in front of you, but don't touch.

I'm bothered by how much of this is written as though it's objectively a thing.

The older I get the more I see I am not an aberration. Women are as interested in sex as men and a lot of the perceived divisions in how we approach sex are constructs meant to present us in a certain way to the outside world, they don't actually reflect how we feel. "It can be said...."...no, man, who is saying this stuff? Because it's weird. And stupid. Yes, even when I was younger this all would have sounded stupid. I think it's because no one has done a great job separating what people say about sex from what they really think and feel?

And stop characterizing it as a hunt. Jesus christ, could you possibly remove more agency from women?! It's not a hunt. No one is taken down, no one dies, there's not one party that gets fed and one party that gets dead. Sex is not like that. Or if it is you are doing it wrong. Sex is two parties who both come away with a win from the transaction. Oh, I see NoCo started that crap.   

SAI2 wrote:

... but she was very angry and still is today. A lot of time was invested in the possibility, for her, of something long term and meaningful. She felt she was used and abused.

Women are not immune to being assholes.
In addition to other things I think, I think it happens often that women think they can trade sex for a relationship. You can't do that. You have sex because you are attracted to someone and maybe after a time of sex and fun and attraction you find out that you have something long term and meaningful.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

I often wonder if there are any, and just how many, women who just want sex and are willing to deceive to get it?

(where on earth are they and could you please put them in contact with me)

*raises hand* Right here!

I love your honesty, Jenny. I would love to learn how you deceive, to get what you want. I am a little sorry to hear that you should need to deceive... but hey, whatever works for you. You would not have to deceive me. Just sayin. ;-)

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Part of the catch 22 of finding intimate fuck/buddies/partners is getting to know them for a while,

My thoughts? Wrong site. Ashley Madison, my friend. Or FetLife is one is into kink.

I have checked out Ashley. Seems like a very deceptive, shady company, in her tactics toward members and their wallets. I read an article recently indicating they purposefully have many fake members to lure customers into purchasing points (they have a peculiar point system), so those members will be forced to spend money on false prospective women who only appear interested in them.

Jenni wrote:

That man needs to have a profile on some place to pick up women like me who are married and simply want some drama free fun. Where the problem comes in is people aren't honest with themselves. They don't want to admit they want casual sex or they don't want to admit they want a relationship and it all ends up trouble. If you are honest going in about what you can do it's better.

Agreed.

Jenni wrote:

In the end I think men sort of are gonna have to reap what they've sown for so long before it all sorts itself out. You men, as a culture, have made pussy a commodity to be valued, owned, possessed.

That is so... surprising... to hear you say that. I have always believed it is exactly the opposite. Any woman I have ever met makes their bodies, their sexual attributes, the sex act itself, something so precious and untouchable, so desirable and highly valuable, that males cannot help but see them as commodities. I certainly do not see women giving themselves away as if there was nothing special they had to offer physically and sexually...

Jenni wrote:

So women have grown to almost without thought see sex as something the man has to earn. Which creates a wad of shit for both sexes. In recent years women have taken to policing each other and books like "the Rules" came out urging us to wait to give it up. But it all began with women as commodity. It's just gonna take time.  

I will say this. If I had back the time I had spent chasing sex, I'd probably have a second life. Men are not so easy as they appear. Your egos needs stroking and more than one of you at a time is a chore, lemme tell ya.

Waiting to give it up is wise if you do not know the man and want or expect a relationship. If a woman wants sex and only sex, the world is a womans oyster afaict... unless you are picky about the men you are willing to have sex with. I am a little picky, in that I expect a woman to take care of her physical body to some degree. She does not have to be athletic, and she can even have a few extra pounds... as long as I find her attractive. I like to think I am pretty easy going that way.

My ego does not need stroking if the woman and myself are on the same page. I do not know too many men who need their egos stroked in order to have sex. I just dont get that. What do you mean by ego stroking.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

I think there's a fundamental difference between men's and women's perceptions of intimacy.  Perhaps because women (evolutionarily-speaking) can get "stuck" with the results of a dalliance, they tend to take such dalliances a lot more seriously than men.

NoCoPilot wrote:

For many men -- and the guy in your story certainly fits the bill -- dating is like hunting: it's the thrill of the chase.  Once the quarry is bagged, it's time to strike out for the next conquest.  It's in their genes.

Could be. Well, that very likely is the root explanation on a purely pragmatic level, but... I think there must be more to this perception thing also. I know some men experience sex in a very visceral, consuming way - akin to a hunger impulse not unlike the consuming of food for sustanance. The "hunter" analogy is apt. So it is ironic that "predation" has earned a negative connotation. Depends whether sex is considered a biological need, not unlike a nutritional need for the body say, if we see the hunt as acceptable human behaviour between potential mates, or as evil or harmful - or anti-social. Some would say that the hunt is always harmful if the hunted does not condone or consent to it. But then that defeats and undermines the point and experiential value of the hunt.

My point is some people tend to view sex as an unnecessary part of the human condition, and abstinance as the default or norm. In my view abstinance is, especially over time, a repression, a self-abuse, a deprivation of the human body. I think males see sexual activity as sustanence, whether it actually is in the biological sense or not. Males also see sex disconnected and separate from the intent to procreate, or even socially bond - they are separate acts; sex for sex's sake and sex for procreation's sake, and thus for the purpose of bonding. Women, otoh, see sex moreso as a whole part of the procreative/bonding process. So when men are having sex their attention is on the woman alone, the object of their desire, they are not concerned or mindful of the consequences of impregnation, or the long term assumption of development of a relationship; when women are having sex they are preparing themselves for a potential partner and for procreation, or the possibility of it. It has always baffled me why women tend to see sex as dirty from the male pov, yet from their own pov it is healthy. The implicit assumption being made is that a man's view is sex is unhealthy and unnatural - which couldn't be further from the truth. It can be said though that male perceptions of sex are... uncivil. The hunt, in nature, is naturally uncivil though.

That negative pov only seems to change for women as they mature into middle age. Then they tend to take on a more masculine, run-with-the-wolves perception of sex. Which would explain why older women and younger men are a perfect match.

NoCoPilot wrote:

An ancillary puzzle for me is the role of strippers and erotic dancers.  I have seen a couple, I have tried to imagine what it is that attracts men to these places of business.  But for the life of me, I cannot fathom the appeal.

It's a stoking of the fire. To keep the flame of passion alive while enjoying a "caged" beast or prey in front of you (to stretch the metaphor). At least that's what I think it is. A hunter spends its time observing its prey, being enticed by it, but also enjoying the fantasy of its prey being tamed and "captured" for their personal pleasure under "controlled conditions". If you can't hunt and capture your prey in the field, you take the next best thing while relaxing with a nice cold beer - the prey are dallied in front of you, but don't touch.

I'm bothered by how much of this is written as though it's objectively a thing.

What is ... its... please elaborate. I dont understand.

Jenni wrote:

The older I get the more I see I am not an aberration. Women are as interested in sex as men and a lot of the perceived divisions in how we approach sex are constructs meant to present us in a certain way to the outside world, they don't actually reflect how we feel. "It can be said...."...no, man, who is saying this stuff? Because it's weird. And stupid. Yes, even when I was younger this all would have sounded stupid. I think it's because no one has done a great job separating what people say about sex from what they really think and feel?

Agreed.

Jenni wrote:

And stop characterizing it as a hunt. Jesus christ, could you possibly remove more agency from women?! It's not a hunt. No one is taken down, no one dies, there's not one party that gets fed and one party that gets dead. Sex is not like that. Or if it is you are doing it wrong. Sex is two parties who both come away with a win from the transaction. Oh, I see NoCo started that crap.   

Well, I like the analogy of the hunter vs the hunted. Its sexy. Keep in mind though I see this as gender equal - meaning, I love and fantsize being hunted by a woman sexually. No, death is a real downer, and you are right that it is that part of hunting that isnt desirable, except maybe to Klingons. But its just an fun analogy or metaphor, nothing more. Men truly do desire women and that desire very much resembles a hunger. Its visceral and quite oral in nature and character. The killing part is distasteful, true. I would much more enjoy my meal alive, and enjoying, finding it pleasurable, in being consumed. Just as I would enjoy being consumed. ;-)

Jenni wrote:

And stop characterizing it as a hunt. Jesus christ, could you possibly remove more agency from women?! It's not a hunt. No one is taken down, no one dies, there's not one party that gets fed and one party that gets dead. Sex is not like that. Or if it is you are doing it wrong. Sex is two parties who both come away with a win from the transaction. Oh, I see NoCo started that crap.   

"Cos I got you in the sights of my LOVE GUN..."

SAI2 wrote:

I love your honesty, Jenny. I would love to learn how you deceive, to get what you want. I am a little sorry to hear that you should need to deceive... but hey, whatever works for you.  

I guess I'm sort of from the House school of thought. Everybody lies. I tell the same little white lies men do to get in the sack. I'm not the least bit interested in that code you (or whoever) may be running at work. Nor do I care that you voted for the latest Voice contestant. I'm sort of like Kesha- quit with the chit chat and just show me where your dick's at. In fact, most of, my sexual philosophy can be summed up with "Gold TransAm." (Sorry Howard, I was slumming it and she's on all the channels!)

And I don't mean it mean. I just have no clue if I really like you as dating potential until I fuck you. You can fake all kinds of shit until you get in bed with a person. Then you see how people really act. Are they considerate, clean, educated or kinky? It all comes out during sex. And I make it a personal habit not to date anyone I wouldn't fuck. You can screw up and make them knickers come up, but if I'm out with you, I'm willing to do you. I think a lot of people are scared to dispense with the bull so the lying becomes more needed than it is with someone like me.  

SAI2 wrote:

You would not have to deceive me. Just sayin. ;-)

Yeah, I would for a little longer, anyway. Even though I've lost over a hundred pounds I'm still fat. I'm only posting the really good pics right now, lol. But on the upside, I've been at the gym like 2 years now and I could probably tote you through that obstacle course and win us your weight in beer. So I'm not all bad.

SAI2 wrote:

I have checked out Ashley. Seems like a very deceptive, shady company, in her tactics toward members and their wallets. I read an article recently indicating they purposefully have many fake members to lure customers into purchasing points (they have a peculiar point system), so those members will be forced to spend money on false prospective women who only appear interested in them.

I have not found that. They have a deal where you can opt out of marketing contacts and perhaps I have not had issue because I'm a woman, I don't have to pay. But there are many men who have found ways around this, which is how I found out there was a charge. If you don't like AM try Fet or some other place. But as long as you casual sex seekers are dipping your hooks into the dating pool rather than the "no strings attached" pool there's going to be trouble because you are casting off in the wrong pond.

SAI2 wrote:

Jenni wrote:

In the end I think men sort of are gonna have to reap what they've sown for so long before it all sorts itself out. You men, as a culture, have made pussy a commodity to be valued, owned, possessed.

That is so... surprising... to hear you say that. I have always believed it is exactly the opposite. Any woman I have ever met makes their bodies, their sexual attributes, the sex act itself, something so precious and untouchable, so desirable and highly valuable, that males cannot help but see them as commodities. I certainly do not see women giving themselves away as if there was nothing special they had to offer physically and sexually...  

I'm speaking of the history of western (mostly) culture and you're talking about your personal experience. Do you not see the mismatch?

I'm not denying what you have observed in your life, I'm talking about where all that originated.
If you can honestly say women are not just as open to sex, just as pleasured by it and most of what comes out in dating culture is a social response to social demands then I have a list of feminist literature and female made porn I'd like to share.

You actually know a number of sex-positive women including me, Clancy, Kasira. I know even more. These are women who are happily embracing their sexuality and mostly don't subscribe to the above belief system. As the consequences of sex are lifted more and more women will change further. How can we be carefree about sex when we still fight for basic rights to our reproductive system? We haven't even had rights long enough to adjust to that change and in some places we still have none. Men have made sex very costly to us and as a consequence we have been forced not by our sexual natures but by male governed society to alter how we approach sex.

It's sort of like when they took praying mantis' in labs and the females bit the males and they all decided that's what they do. No it's not. Until you take them in labs and stress them out. How can you even know how they behave under such fake conditions? Same thing- we've never seen women left to themselves on sex. All we have is this fake set up where historically women are commodity and following our sex drive can get us killed- so how does you or anyone else know what we really think? You can't. The consequences for free expression of women's sexuality are still too severe. We're still whores if we like it.

Now, I say science is on my side. Science says women are just as randy and kinky as men. I'm not saying you didn't have the experience you had, I'm saying the responses are conditioned.  

SAI2 wrote:

Waiting to give it up is wise if you do not know the man and want or expect a relationship.

How? How is it wise in anything other than a socially acceptable manner or for some women in the third world? How would waiting to fuck my husband have been a wiser move for me? Who buys a car without test driving it? I'll tell you who- dumbasses- that's who.

SAI2 wrote:

If a woman wants sex and only sex, the world is a womans oyster afaict... unless you are picky about the men you are willing to have sex with.

Unproven myth you men keep spreading but my experience has proven it wrong- at least for me. Else-wise why on earth would I need profiles on sites? I could just walk up to any random guy and say hey wanna fuck? But that actually does not work. In fact it can backfire because men too have been raised within similar social constructs.

Also as policy it does not hold. If men were so keen on sex how come everything from condoms to abortions is costly and often difficult to get? If men loved sex so much how come birth control isn't available in gum ball machines? Again, I think this boils down to reaction to society not biology. I can easily see how men's approaches are affected by historical societal structures rather than their own beliefs personally.

SAI2 wrote:

I just dont get that. What do you mean by ego stroking.

It's been my experience that it's hard to get men away from the same things women want. They want to be your only guy, they want your attention when they want it and then want you to shove off when they are ready- god forbid your desire doesn't match theirs you are either labeled clingy or a cold fish. There seems to be no more good old fashioned one night stands anymore. Again, just my experience- but my experience is plentiful.

I've dated men and women and I've dated and been a paid escort. The one sad fact I wish I didn't know is being a guy's date and being his paid date are often a very similar experience. Men always approach sex as a transaction. Always. Even when it's meant positively. To me that is heavy evidence for the societal wads of crap that keep us all in our respective roles.  

SAI2 wrote:

What is ... its... please elaborate. I dont understand.

It meaning that whole thing about, men think this way and women this way. That's not objectively true, as I tried to explain above. Women as a unit don't share many views about sex. We still very much differ. Sex positive women like me argue with "The Rules" type women and the religious, they think we're whores, and even among ourselves feminist differ on their thoughts about sex work. There are many who think my kind needs "rescuing." Or that I'm damaged because I like s&m. But the way you said it, "males see..." "women see" bothered me.

I do agree with you that I think a too large portion of the population sees sex as an unnecessary part of the human condition. I think if you told people they had to go without food for a long period they'd all be upset but take away sex and people have been conditioned to accept that. It's messed us up, I think. Like starving people in front of a buffet, we lose our minds about sex.  

SAI2 wrote:

Men truly do desire women and that desire very much resembles a hunger. Its visceral and quite oral in nature and character.

Don't you think this would be more accurate if we said "men desire sex"? And I'd say so do women, and it is a hunger. It's a physical need the same as anything else, it just so happens the damage from being denied it is not so physical and fast. But yes, I continue to dislike the analogy, because one party is always acted upon. I much prefer to see it as a dance, one party may take a lead but it's never a situation where one is acted upon without being active.

And if you think about it can't you see how such analogies- as fun as they may be personally- can lead to the very view of pussy as commodity that we both seem to dislike? Something the male hunts for- like a precious diamond- as opposed to a mutual exchange of pleasure. It goes from "Let's" to the man "imma hunt this down and posses it". It totally changes the vibe to me. And let's not forget that hunger- that sexual starvation is caused by the same societal constructs that I'd like to see go. In Jennitopia sex will not be so forbidden that that hunger gets created to start with. That hunger that so creates that analogy is not a good thing. It's a symbol of sexual deprivation. I'd rather see people generally mostly sated and sane about sex.

Jenni wrote:

If men loved sex so much how come birth control isn't available in gum ball machines?

Funny you should mention that. In England, you could find machines selling condoms in pub bathrooms, so if your date was unexpectedly going well you weren't desperate for an all-night drug store. I don't think I've ever seen that in an American bar.

Sorry, that's a bit off-topic.

Jenni wrote:

I'm sort of like Kesha- quit with the chit chat and just show me where your dick's at.

Well, men cannot assume that women other than yourself will have the same attitude, though I'm sure they might like that. So it is either hit or miss - and more often than not it is grounds for sexual harrassment for a male to make such an assumption with any woman.

Jenni wrote:

I just have no clue if I really like you as dating potential until I fuck you. You can fake all kinds of shit until you get in bed with a person. Then you see how people really act. Are they considerate, clean, educated or kinky? It all comes out during sex. And I make it a personal habit not to date anyone I wouldn't fuck. You can screw up and make them knickers come up, but if I'm out with you, I'm willing to do you. I think a lot of people are scared to dispense with the bull so the lying becomes more needed than it is with someone like me.

That is the most awesome paragraph I think you have ever written. Quote of the decade. I really like your attitude, Jenni. I wish there were more women like you. 

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

You would not have to deceive me. Just sayin. ;-)

Yeah, I would for a little longer, anyway. Even though I've lost over a hundred pounds I'm still fat. I'm only posting the really good pics right now, lol. But on the upside, I've been at the gym like 2 years now and I could probably tote you through that obstacle course and win us your weight in beer. So I'm not all bad.

Let me be the judge of that. Where are these pix of which you speak?

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

I have checked out Ashley. Seems like a very deceptive, shady company, in her tactics toward members and their wallets. I read an article recently indicating they purposefully have many fake members to lure customers into purchasing points (they have a peculiar point system), so those members will be forced to spend money on false prospective women who only appear interested in them.

I have not found that. They have a deal where you can opt out of marketing contacts and perhaps I have not had issue because I'm a woman, I don't have to pay...

Er, yeah.

Jenni wrote:

But as long as you casual sex seekers are dipping your hooks into the dating pool rather than the "no strings attached" pool there's going to be trouble because you are casting off in the wrong pond.

Excellent advice. I think I'll take it.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Jenni wrote:

In the end I think men sort of are gonna have to reap what they've sown for so long before it all sorts itself out. You men, as a culture, have made pussy a commodity to be valued, owned, possessed.

That is so... surprising... to hear you say that. I have always believed it is exactly the opposite. Any woman I have ever met makes their bodies, their sexual attributes, the sex act itself, something so precious and untouchable, so desirable and highly valuable, that males cannot help but see them as commodities. I certainly do not see women giving themselves away as if there was nothing special they had to offer physically and sexually...  

I'm speaking of the history of western (mostly) culture and you're talking about your personal experience. Do you not see the mismatch?

I do.... but, I interpreted your pov as just that - your pov. Not that I am doubting your learning or experience. I'm just trying to be, uh... agnostic about all this.

Jenni wrote:

I'm not denying what you have observed in your life, I'm talking about where all that originated.
If you can honestly say women are not just as open to sex, just as pleasured by it and most of what comes out in dating culture is a social response to social demands then I have a list of feminist literature and female made porn I'd like to share.

I can and do honestly say women are distinctly different with regard to sex, than men. In my experience they seem, at least on the outside, less interested in sex for sex's sake, with no strings attached, for a majority of their lives...

I do believe that, generally speaking, males are far more hungry and desirous for sex than females. I could very well be wrong about that and probably am. I just haven't heard or read anything that has convinced me otherwise. This is not to say that women don't have their phases, or moments. But overall, over the entire course of the average males or females life...

I would love however to see some female made porn... is there such a thing as feminist porn? Who'da thunk it...?

Jenni wrote:

You actually know a number of sex-positive women including me, Clancy, Kasira. I know even more. These are women who are happily embracing their sexuality and mostly don't subscribe to the above belief system. As the consequences of sex are lifted more and more women will change further. How can we be carefree about sex when we still fight for basic rights to our reproductive system? We haven't even had rights long enough to adjust to that change and in some places we still have none. Men have made sex very costly to us and as a consequence we have been forced not by our sexual natures but by male governed society to alter how we approach sex.

That seems quite plausible and reasonable to assume.

Jenni wrote:

It's sort of like when they took praying mantis' in labs and the females bit the males and they all decided that's what they do. No it's not. Until you take them in labs and stress them out. How can you even know how they behave under such fake conditions? Same thing- we've never seen women left to themselves on sex. All we have is this fake set up where historically women are commodity and following our sex drive can get us killed- so how does you or anyone else know what we really think? You can't. The consequences for free expression of women's sexuality are still too severe. We're still whores if we like it.

You have no argument from me here.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Waiting to give it up is wise if you do not know the man and want or expect a relationship.

How? How is it wise in anything other than a socially acceptable manner or for some women in the third world? How would waiting to fuck my husband have been a wiser move for me? Who buys a car without test driving it? I'll tell you who- dumbasses- that's who.

Waiting is wise if you are a woman who desires a faithful loving serious commited relationship, and you are well aware of how likely it is that most men will want only sex and tell you anything you want to hear to get sex. I don't see that tactic as being dumbass. It simply is one way of determining whether the man might desire, and yes.... respect you enough, to meet you when you are ready to give it up on her terms, or on mutual terms, and not just his terms.

For young women in particular... maybe not so much more seasoned and experienced women.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

If a woman wants sex and only sex, the world is a womans oyster afaict... unless you are picky about the men you are willing to have sex with.

Unproven myth you men keep spreading but my experience has proven it wrong- at least for me. Else-wise why on earth would I need profiles on sites? I could just walk up to any random guy and say hey wanna fuck? But that actually does not work. In fact it can backfire because men too have been raised within similar social constructs.

Also as policy it does not hold. If men were so keen on sex how come everything from condoms to abortions is costly and often difficult to get? If men loved sex so much how come birth control isn't available in gum ball machines? Again, I think this boils down to reaction to society not biology. I can easily see how men's approaches are affected by historical societal structures rather than their own beliefs personally.

If you or any women walked up to male strangers randomly I'm willing to bet any amount that you would all get laid far more than males conducting the same random experiment would. In point of fact most males would be arrested after a certain period of lack of success.

... and no women would be arrested.

Any males who would complain are likely just afraid what might happen if they agreed to go with you... like it would be too good to be true. It would have little if anything to do with their societal conditioning (well, excepting the devoutly religious, etc...)

Of course, I am assuming we are discussing western culture.

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

I just dont get that. What do you mean by ego stroking.

It's been my experience that it's hard to get men away from the same things women want. They want to be your only guy, they want your attention when they want it and then want you to shove off when they are ready- god forbid your desire doesn't match theirs you are either labeled clingy or a cold fish. There seems to be no more good old fashioned one night stands anymore. Again, just my experience- but my experience is plentiful.

I've dated men and women and I've dated and been a paid escort. The one sad fact I wish I didn't know is being a guy's date and being his paid date are often a very similar experience. Men always approach sex as a transaction. Always. Even when it's meant positively. To me that is heavy evidence for the societal wads of crap that keep us all in our respective roles.

I don't buy this entirely... men and women approach sex as a transaction. We all transact, and it isn't just about sex. That has more to do with a business culture of impersonal yet appropriate exchanging of goods and services, without the strings, than anything else. And yes it is even that way when not officially business (as in the sex trade or escort services, etc). Women are no different in that regard.  

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

What is ... its... please elaborate. I dont understand.

It meaning that whole thing about, men think this way and women this way. That's not objectively true, as I tried to explain above. Women as a unit don't share many views about sex. We still very much differ. Sex positive women like me argue with "The Rules" type women and the religious, they think we're whores, and even among ourselves feminist differ on their thoughts about sex work. There are many who think my kind needs "rescuing." Or that I'm damaged because I like s&m. But the way you said it, "males see..." "women see" bothered me.

I do agree with you that I think a too large portion of the population sees sex as an unnecessary part of the human condition. I think if you told people they had to go without food for a long period they'd all be upset but take away sex and people have been conditioned to accept that. It's messed us up, I think. Like starving people in front of a buffet, we lose our minds about sex.

I don't think I have any argument with what you've said here. I'm glad we can agree on something. 

Jenni wrote:

SAI2 wrote:

Men truly do desire women and that desire very much resembles a hunger. Its visceral and quite oral in nature and character.

Don't you think this would be more accurate if we said "men desire sex"? And I'd say so do women, and it is a hunger. It's a physical need the same as anything else, it just so happens the damage from being denied it is not so physical and fast. But yes, I continue to dislike the analogy, because one party is always acted upon. I much prefer to see it as a dance, one party may take a lead but it's never a situation where one is acted upon without being active.

Fair enough. It's just a fun analogy to me - nothing more.

Jenni wrote:

And if you think about it can't you see how such analogies- as fun as they may be personally- can lead to the very view of pussy as commodity that we both seem to dislike? Something the male hunts for- like a precious diamond- as opposed to a mutual exchange of pleasure. It goes from "Let's" to the man "imma hunt this down and posses it". It totally changes the vibe to me. And let's not forget that hunger- that sexual starvation is caused by the same societal constructs that I'd like to see go. In Jennitopia sex will not be so forbidden that that hunger gets created to start with. That hunger that so creates that analogy is not a good thing. It's a symbol of sexual deprivation. I'd rather see people generally mostly sated and sane about sex.

Me too. Okay. I see your point.

Jennitopia sounds a lot like a bonobo colony.

And that is a good thing, a very good thing.

Jenni, I'd just like to add that my friend I was speaking about in my first post, she opened my eyes to some less than subjective data on what you are arguing. All the men she has spoken with on Match.com and POF, all get an average of only a few per day responses at best.... if they are good looking and reveal themselves as somewhat successful in life.A majority of them are lucky to get any responses at all for weeks or even months at a time.
She gets an average of 15 to 20 males contacting her per day. In addition she says, as do many women on these sites, that one major complaint they all have is that men don't pay much attention to profiles.... they are more interested in pictures. I'm just making a point regarding what you said about having to make profiles. It seems many men don't really care much about profiles. .. unless there is a test prior to the sex.

SAI2 wrote:

If you or any women walked up to male strangers randomly I'm willing to bet any amount that you would all get laid far more than males conducting the same random experiment would. In point of fact most males would be arrested after a certain period of lack of success.

... and no women would be arrested.

Yep, although the overall supply is theoretically equal, the effective dating marketplace is oversaturated with males seeking "female companionship" (shall we say) and there's a dearth of females seeking male companionship.  Reasons for this could be several: societal, biological (frequency), safety, self-administration(!), etc.

Although to be fair, men walking up to random "male strangers" seeking sex would probably get punched in the nose 9 times out of 10 and get a blowjob the 10th.

SAI2 wrote:

I would love however to see some female made porn... is there such a thing as feminist porn?

Femme Productions and Candida Royalle tried such a thing in the mid-1980s but the few of hers that I have seen were decidedly unerotic.

It's funny what triggers eroticism.  We could go into a whole long discussion of that if you want.

NoCoPilot wrote:

"Cos I got you in the sights of my LOVE GUN..."

I still laughed at this. Again.

PS working on rest of response

Waiting is wise if you are a woman who desires a faithful loving serious commited relationship, and you are well aware of how likely it is that most men will want only sex and tell you anything you want to hear to get sex. I don't see that tactic as being dumbass. It simply is one way of determining whether the man might desire, and yes.... respect you enough, to meet you when you are ready to give it up on her terms, or on mutual terms, and not just his terms.

Ok, I'm working on a longer response I'm not really trying to skip any important points but while I have the flash of inspiration.....

^that jumped out at me

A woman who desires a faithful                                                           vs men only want sex + will tell you anything for it
                                 loving
                                 serious
                                 committed relationship

needed: method by which to determine a level of respect a man has for agreeing to her terms not just his

I didn't do that like that to be a douche I think like that and it helps to see it.

Ok, so what you are actually asking me to agree with there is that testing to see how long a man can hold out, his willpower, is my (as a woman) best tool to find out if he can be those four things there that it's been decided that I want.

If his need is sex and her terms include faithful and committed, then aren't we talking a will power situation? He has to stop himself from seeking something that only he wants or at least places great importance upon in exchange for committing to be with this person for a long time with the promise of sex. It's almost a annuity distribution of the sex lottery isn't it? You don't get as much but it's guaranteed for life. (supposedly)

What does this mean? Do you think that willpower is the key to the relationship? I hate to infer something- I don't mean to. Tell me where I've broken it down wrong, please. Because to me that's what it looks like you just said.

I'm not sure what to make of that.
I don't know if I disagree.

NoCoPilot wrote:

It's funny what triggers eroticism.  We could go into a whole long discussion of that if you want.

I think that would actually be an interesting topic, Sir Thread Starter.  

Jenni wrote:

Ok, so what you are actually asking me to agree with there is that testing to see how long a man can hold out, his willpower, is my (as a woman) best tool to find out if he can be those four things there that it's been decided that I want.

A woman who proves too great an obstacle to bed will be cast aside, if bedding the gal is the only goal. There are other fish in the sea.

However, if the gal is sumpin' special and THE ONE, the man will pursue her to the ends of the earth and never take no for an answer.

The trick, the skill is in determining that break point where it's safe to give in to mutual desire. Many a heart has been broken over this.