Do very sexual women turn you off??

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2003-06-24 09:57am

Robert Treder wrote:
Tosho wrote:Mmm... Amish women. j/k

Driven by curiousity I searched the internet and didn't find any amish porn. thank god.
Hm. I decided I'd try and show you up by finding some Amish porn, but I was stumped, too. Granted, I didn't look very hard. At all. But still, I guess there isn't much to be had.

Well I'll be damned. I hit Kazaa, and that was the first thing to come up.

Granted, it was only one file(the rest were a work by a Mr Weird Al Yakovich. Ever heard of him?), and an imcomplete one at that, but damn!

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-06-24 12:14pm

Considering that I've never had sex, let alone been involved in a relationship, my opinion probably has virtually no weight.

Anyway, I think that being involved with an openly sexual woman or one that was somewhat aggressive wouldn't bother me. As a mild submissive, it might actually be fairly interesting...

As for one that has had multiple sex partners and/or casual sex, probably not. Call me an outdated romantic, but I've always thought that sex should be reserved for two people involved with each other.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-06-24 01:17pm

There is the old saying about the road less traveled. In the end i'd rather not date a woman or man who was sexually open or in impolite speak the "town bike". Most men are insecure beings when it comes to these things and a man might not want to give his heart to a person only for him or her to leave when a hotter/funnier/richer man turns up. If you want a woman for just sex then the "loose woman" is peachy but most men these days just want love. I don't sleep arround and i am old fashoned in that i believe certain things are best kept private and a good relationship needs more than good sex.

--Leia-- · Post by **--Leia--** » 2003-06-24 01:42pm

I wouldn't mind screwing around with a very sexual woman but I wouldn't want to date one. Wild women aren't the type to take home to meet mom and dad.... unless, of course, you want to piss them off.

Acacia · Post by **Acacia** » 2003-06-24 04:14pm

I find it interesting that some of you assume that you or your parents can tell if someone is sexually free by appearence. Is this an example of the fallacy that a woman who indulges her urges is cheap and easy and looks used? This along with the erroneous assumption that sexual freedom automatically means commitment issues and a propensity for infidelity is quite sad to me. Men do not get these presuppostitions heaped upon them based on their sexual experience.

I also noted the tired old saw "there are women you sleep with and women you marry". How very Victorian! Who would have thought to see such an artifact on a board with an eye to the future.

Personally, I base my liasons on personal chemistry more than looks. Of course, like anyone else, a filthy, oily, smelly person will most likely be avoided. Some of my best experiences have been with intelligent, witty and attentive types as opposed to extremely attractive yet somewhat vapid sorts who know they are good looking and depend on it for everything. Personality can really tip the balance for a man.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-06-24 04:19pm

Acacia wrote:I also noted the tired old saw "there are women you sleep with and women you marry". How very Victorian! Who would have thought to see such an artifact on a board with an eye to the future.

I don't want to sound like I'm flaming or criticising you, but what exactly do you mean here?

Post by **Zaia** » 2003-06-24 04:21pm

Acacia wrote:Some of my best experiences have been with intelligent, witty and attentive types as opposed to extremely attractive yet somewhat vapid sorts who know they are good looking and depend on it for everything. Personality can really tip the balance for a man.

I concur.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2003-06-24 04:22pm

I think she's pointing out that the attitude that 'if you want casual sex then you go to someone who behaves like a prostitute, and that if you want someone to marry then you go for someone who will cook, clean and be a good mother' is not quite gone from todays society. I think...

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2003-06-24 04:24pm

Zaia wrote:
Acacia wrote:Some of my best experiences have been with intelligent, witty and attentive types as opposed to extremely attractive yet somewhat vapid sorts who know they are good looking and depend on it for everything. Personality can really tip the balance for a man.
I concur.

And of course, vice versa, I wouldnt want to go out with someone who looks fantastic but has no personality, I want to go out with someone who will be themselves, the tired old stereotypes of a good sense of humour still apply, as frankly, the only way someone is going to go out with me is if they have a good sense of humour!

If I had a pound for every threat against my life for my humour, then I could have slightly more money than I do now...

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-06-24 04:25pm

The_Lumberjack wrote:I think she's pointing out that the attitude that 'if you want casual sex then you go to someone who behaves like a prostitute, and that if you want someone to marry then you go for someone who will cook, clean and be a good mother' is not quite gone from todays society. I think...

I see. I think that's pretty much what I thought she meant.

I was just hoping that my thoughts weren't being included into that equation.

Acacia · Post by **Acacia** » 2003-06-24 04:29pm

The_Lumberjack wrote:I think she's pointing out that the attitude that 'if you want casual sex then you go to someone who behaves like a prostitute, and that if you want someone to marry then you go for someone who will cook, clean and be a good mother' is not quite gone from todays society. I think...

Yes, and the fact the two are seperate is a stereotype. Multiple sex partners have no bearing on a womans ability to cook, clean, mother or look a certain way.

I also agree that humor is an absolute must. There is nothing more unattractive than a man with no sense of humor.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-24 05:01pm

Hey! I can be intelligent, witty, and attentive. Oooh, pardon me, I must go answer the door. There's a line of beautiful women stretching around the block who want to see my intelligent, witty, and attentive self naked.

Ahem. That was sarcasm. Anyway, I don't know if I'm really qualified to answer this question. I did date a sexually aggressive and open woman once, but she was a psychopath and not really a representative sample. However, after spending some time with women who are too "moral" for really dirty fucking (by "dirty" I mean no oral, no anal, and missionary position only) and get a damn guilt complex every time they do it...yeah, hook me up with a girl who's into sex.

--Leia-- · Post by **--Leia--** » 2003-06-24 05:07pm

RedImperator wrote: However, after spending some time with women who are too "moral" for really dirty fucking (by "dirty" I mean no oral, no anal, and missionary position only) and get a damn guilt complex every time they do it...yeah, hook me up with a girl who's into sex.

Where do you meet these girls? I've never been with a girl who didn't do oral or like multiple positions.

Post by **Zaia** » 2003-06-24 05:17pm

RedImperator wrote:Hey! I can be intelligent, witty, and attentive. Oooh, pardon me, I must go answer the door. There's a line of beautiful women stretching around the block who want to see my intelligent, witty, and attentive self naked.

If you only are intelligent, witty and attentive with vapid, brainless Playboy bunny wannabes, then your sarcasm is appropriate. Any guys who whine (I'm not saying you're necessarily one of them RI--I have no idea) about chicks not being interested in them have to look at who they chase. If these same guys, the whiny ones who complain about women not dating them because they aren't "classically handsome,"--if they whine because they only go after the beautiful people and constantly get dissed, they get NO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER from me.

Double-standards shit me like nothing else. Don't expect people to look past your looks to your personality, brain, and sense of humour if you're only going to the gorgeous chicks. So women are expected to look for inner beauty and men are allowed to remain superficial pigs? I think not.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-24 06:02pm

--Leia-- wrote:
RedImperator wrote: However, after spending some time with women who are too "moral" for really dirty fucking (by "dirty" I mean no oral, no anal, and missionary position only) and get a damn guilt complex every time they do it...yeah, hook me up with a girl who's into sex.
Where do you meet these girls? I've never been with a girl who didn't do oral or like multiple positions.

Catholic university.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-06-24 06:04pm

Zaia wrote:Double-standards shit me like nothing else. Don't expect people to look past your looks to your personality, brain, and sense of humour if you're only going to the gorgeous chicks. So women are expected to look for inner beauty and men are allowed to remain superficial pigs? I think not.

THANK YOU, Z. I couldn't agree more.
Of course, IMO that is what happens - I know far more ugly (fat, sweaty hairy) men then I know unattractive women, and yet the men are still getting it!

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-06-24 06:05pm

Acacia wrote:I find it interesting that some of you assume that you or your parents can tell if someone is sexually free by appearence. Is this an example of the fallacy that a woman who indulges her urges is cheap and easy and looks used? This along with the erroneous assumption that sexual freedom automatically means commitment issues and a propensity for infidelity is quite sad to me. Men do not get these presuppostitions heaped upon them based on their sexual experience.

Incorrect. When I find out that a guy goes through girlfriends on a short cycle, I usually suspect that he's a flake (ie- unreliable personality). I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way.

Acacia · Post by **Acacia** » 2003-06-24 06:29pm

I agree that you are not alone, but you must admit your attitude is in the minority. The double standard of men should have experience and women should be more reserved is alive and well. From what I have seen, it is still a majority view.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-06-24 06:40pm

Acacia wrote:I agree that you are not alone, but you must admit your attitude is in the minority. The double standard of men should have experience and women should be more reserved is alive and well. From what I have seen, it is still a majority view.

Particularly in high schools. Men who wear the titles "husband and father", however, may have a somewhat different outlook.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-24 06:45pm

Zaia wrote:If you only are intelligent, witty and attentive with vapid, brainless Playboy bunny wannabes, then your sarcasm is appropriate. Any guys who whine (I'm not saying you're necessarily one of them RI--I have no idea) about chicks not being interested in them have to look at who they chase. If these same guys, the whiny ones who complain about women not dating them because they aren't "classically handsome,"--if they whine because they only go after the beautiful people and constantly get dissed, they get NO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER from me.

Double-standards shit me like nothing else. Don't expect people to look past your looks to your personality, brain, and sense of humour if you're only going to the gorgeous chicks. So women are expected to look for inner beauty and men are allowed to remain superficial pigs? I think not.

Except that is the a lie. In my experience, the majority of women don't get into a relationship with any speed faster than continental drift without being physically attracted to the guy and I can site the countless times I've seen women (and not airheads either) go for the handsome dumbass rather than the all-around-decent-guy-who-isn't-cute. The case that spells this out comes to mind is a pair I know who are best friend and are practically joined at the hip personality wise, but she won't have anything to do with him in a relationship (which drives him nuts and causes him to bitch no end). Why? She may appreciate his humor, personality, and intelligence, but she isn't attracted to him and will go straight for a cute chucklehead rather than him, even though he'd be a vastly more attentive boyfriend IMHO. Yeah, they will get into relationships who are less attractive, but only after knowing them a good time, and moving at speeds that are dusted by your average tortoise.

Really, the majority of women around my age with a bit of tolerance don't want an intelligent witty funnyman. Those are bonuses, but rarely a requirement. On the contrary, they seem to want a confidant and handsome fellow much more, and will tend to chose them over the guys who would be likely much better for them, even when said handsome confidant guy is an utter asshole. Maybe in the few years, but not now. Likewise, guys my age do have a legitimate complaint, given the attitude of your average gal.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-24 06:52pm

Acacia wrote:I agree that you are not alone, but you must admit your attitude is in the minority. The double standard of men should have experience and women should be more reserved is alive and well. From what I have seen, it is still a majority view.

It's not just a standard perpetuated by men; girls in high school can be conniving, cruel and inhumane bitches if word gets around that one of their "enemies" actually enjoys asserting her sexuality. They go all out, calling her a slut, whore and whatnot. Girls perpetuate the idea that having sex with multiple partners or experimenting sexually is a bad thing just as much as, if not more than, boys do.

And let's not pretend, as men, that we're not massively sexually insecure during adolescence. Why do you think guys in high school make such a big deal out of having sex?

As usual, I blame Christian sexual repression for these negative and wholly unproductive attitudes toward sex.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-06-24 06:57pm

Excuse me, but I just had to say that I think the double standards that are coming out today are really funny.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-06-24 07:00pm

Durandal wrote:

And let's not pretend, as men, that we're not massively sexually insecure during adolescence. Why do you think guys in high school make such a big deal out of having sex?

RE: the maturity level on this board when it has to do with Women...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-24 07:00pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:Excuse me, but I just had to say that I think the double standards that are coming out today are really funny.

Hey, I fully admit that myself and other guys like attractive girls, but I expect the same out of women, instead of the same tired lines about caring more about intelligence and personality and all that, which are good and fine in thoery, but fall apart at mach 5 in practice.

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2003-06-24 07:01pm

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, I like a woman who's publicly demure. You know the old saying: "men like a woman who's a chaste princess in public and a nymphomaniac in the bedroom".

I thought it was "an economist in the kitchen, a princess in the living room, and a harlot in bed."

One Joke told about a guy who married "a princess in the kitchen, a harlot in the living room, and an economist in bed."