Playing Hard to Get

otto_26

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

The *you* and *he* in my post were referring to the hypothetical guy we were discussing up to that point, not you personally. One might have been better.

Below was posted with my post quoted above it... One might have been better.

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

You have already justified the need for punishment by agreeeing the woman deserves no respect.

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Your information is not to personal for me, but you really don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. As you feel your opinion is fact there is really no need for you to offer it as it nullifies the need for a discussion at all.

No I believe other people's opinions of me have been determined because of facts I do in front of them for example:

Being easy to have sex with and showing no respect for my body.

daisybelle2008

otto_26 wrote: »

We are talking about opinion and facts? Your claiming I'm being judgemental when I tell a person facts.

I'm easy to have sex with. That's not an opinion that's fact.

I don't have respect for my body I'm willing to sleep with strangers regardless of the dangers I present to my body. That's not an opinion that's fact.

Why is it judgemental for someone to tell me I'm easy?

Why is it judgemental for someone to tell me I don't have respect for my body?

I am easy and don't have Respect these are facts? And I show people these facts by the way I act...

A fact is quantifiable and fixed. A judgement is fluid and subjective. 'Respect' is not a fact it is a fluid, subjective judgement.

otto_26

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Huh?

What if you slept with the person on the 50th date but he told you he'd HIV 10 years later?

You stated that jumping into bed with someone immediately was dangerous which implies that waiting is less so. I'm asking you why.

I'm not really interested in going around in circles about the technical ins and outs about how much or less dangerous it is.. I mean you can of course meet someone like that who will tell you on the 50th date but you can also meet someone who will tell you on the 3rd date. Making it safer for you to choose if you want to put your body at that type of risk. Also if you date someone for a bit you can also see if they are the type of person you want to sleep with.. but I guess everyone to their own..

What about the opinion and facts we were discussing?

otto_26

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

A fact is quantifiable and fixed. A judgement is fluid and subjective. 'Respect' is not a fact it is a fluid, subjective judgement.

So... if I do stuff in front of people they receive facts about me... if I keep doing these things the person then sees that these things are facts about me. which they are.

If I'm easy to have sex with then I'm easy!! :rolleyes:

daisybelle2008

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Some of the people decrying others on here for being judgemental are being just as judgemental themselves. 'Tiny socially conditioned minds' is one such horribly judgemental comment.

That was used in my post, it was not directed at a poster, the point I was making is that misogynistic behaviour is small minded and socially conditioned like racism or homophobia, not with a scientific justification. And it is a judgement not a fact about those behaviours. I feel they are wrong, that is an opinion not a fact.

Eve_Dublin

otto_26 wrote: »

I'm not really interested in going around in circles about the technical ins and outs about how much or less dangerous it is.. I mean you can of course meet someone like that who will tell you on the 50th date but you can also meet someone who will tell you on the 3rd date. Making it safer for you to choose if you want to put your body at that type of risk. Also if you date someone for a bit you can also see if they are the type of person you want to sleep with.. but I guess everyone to their own..

What about the opinion and facts we were discussing?

Why aren't you interested considering it's your main point? If you're not going to back up your "facts" with facts, then there's no discussion. You know as well as I do if you stop and think about it, that a person is not in any more danger sleeping with someone on the 1st date. It's preposterous. If someone has HIV and they are a responsible person and a decent human being, they will tell you on the first date if you decide to sleep with them. If they're not responsible and a decent human being, then they won't tell you on the 1st date and they won't tell you on the 2nd or 3rd date either.


And of course, HIV is the very worst case scenario. Let's be more realistic here. Protected sex on the 1st date is not any more dangerous than protected sex on the 5th date, so I fail to see how you're disrespecting yourself if you're careful and use protection and you're doing something you want to do and it's consensual.

otto_26

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

That was used in my post, it was not directed at a poster, the point I was making is that misogynistic behaviour is small minded and socially conditioned like racism or homophobia, not with a scientific justification. And it is a judgement not a fact about those behaviours. I feel they are wrong, that is an opinion not a fact.

Socially conditioned!! are you saying that if there are two girls living in my street and I choose to go out with one of them over the other because I like the fact one of them doesn't sleep around that I'm socially conditioned!:rolleyes:

Have you ever considered that everyone is different and that the fact that a guy might prefer to be with a girl that hasn't been jumping in and out of bed with strangers as just him preferring that rather then he must be socially conditioned because it goes again what I want people to like or dislike???

If I'm easy to have sex with. Then I'm just easy. If someone says I'm easy then I say yes I am that is a fact about me.

daisybelle2008

otto_26 wrote: »

So... if I do stuff in front of people they receive facts about me... if I keep doing these things the person then sees that these things are facts about me. which they are.

If I'm easy to have sex with then I'm easy!! :rolleyes:

We are talking about 'easy' in a pejorative sense. That is a judgement about your behaviour that no two people will offer an identical quantitative conclusion on an empirical value......

I give up, you don't WANT know the difference between fact and opinion...

Some people might think you are not easy unless you are giving homeless guys blowies, is that what you mean by you are easy sexually, because if not then you are a little bit more fussy than you imply. Are we still talking about you.

Eve_Dublin

otto_26 wrote: »

So... if I do stuff in front of people they receive facts about me... if I keep doing these things the person then sees that these things are facts about me. which they are.

If I'm easy to have sex with then I'm easy!! :rolleyes:

If someone is easy to have sex with, I presume they like sex and fancy me. The fact that our views differ but are both valid proves it's not a fact but an opinion.

alphabeat

you must be young , no one plays hard to get once they are 40 +

otto_26

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Why aren't you interested considering it's your main point? If you're not going to back up your "facts" with facts, then there's no discussion. You know as well as I do if you stop and think about it, that a person is not in any more danger sleeping with someone on the 1st date. It's preposterous. If someone has HIV and they are a responsible person and a decent human being, they will tell you on the first date if you decide to sleep with them. If they're not responsible and a decent human being, then they won't tell you on the 1st date and they won't tell you on the 2nd or 3rd date either.

I've given you my facts. I'm not interested in going around in circles you say it's not dangerous I say it is for another 2 pages its just boring. I've given you a point and backed it up with a scenario about how it could be dangerous and you have said no doesn't count. OK doesn't count.

What about being easy and that being a fact or judgement was one of my main points too? or would you rather ignore that?

Eve_Dublin

otto_26 wrote: »

I've given you my facts. I'm not interested in going around in circles you say it's not dangerous I say it is for another 2 pages its just boring. I've given you a point and backed it up with a scenario about how it could be dangerous and you have said no doesn't count. OK doesn't count.

What about being easy and that being a fact or judgement was one of my main points too? or would you rather ignore that?

What? Seriously, wha?

otto_26

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

If someone is easy to have sex with, I presume they like sex and fancy me. The fact that our views differ but are both valid proves it's not a fact but an opinion.

If one of my friends says to a girl "see that boy over there he's easy to have sex with".

That's not opinion that's fact because he knows for a fact I'm easy to have sex with.

Eve_Dublin

otto_26 wrote: »

If one of my friends says to a girl "see that boy over there he's easy to have sex with".

That's not opinion that's fact because he knows for a fact I'm easy to have sex with.

Right. You're all over the shop there, so the discussion between you and me ends there. Sleep tight!

otto_26

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

What? Seriously, wha?

What about being easy and that being a fact or judgement was one of my main points too? or would you rather ignore that?

otto_26

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Right. You're all over the shop there, so the discussion between you and me ends there. Sleep tight!

One could have been better.

Sleep tight!

Eve_Dublin

otto_26 wrote: »

What about being easy and that being a fact or judgement was one of my main points too? or would you rather ignore that?

Reread what you wrote there. It makes zero sense.

daisybelle2008

otto_26 wrote: »

If one of my friends says to a girl "see that boy over there he's easy to have sex with".

That's not opinion that's fact because he knows for a fact I'm easy to have sex with.

it is when it used as a pejorative.

asherbassad

All I can say is I GUARANTEE, Siuin, you'd like me when you first meet me......I SWEAR!!!

Siuin

asherbassad wrote: »

All I can say is I GUARANTEE, Siuin, you'd like me when you first meet me......I SWEAR!!!

Lol! Well, unfortunately I mentioned my current situation in post #150, but had we met in another life, who knows lol

ArtSmart

the aul playing hard to get - ie acting against one's nature to comply with a set of moral 'codes' one didn't conceive of. yeah, sad stuff. It's a Catholic thing, for sure - but dying out. thankfully.

Sorcha16

Siuin wrote: »

Just as an update on the original post- things actually turned in my favour with that guy my 'friend' told me I should have played games with to keep keen. He told me that he really liked how I wasn't like the other girls and was so honest with him.

Just got invited to meet his family this weekend...
Just sayin' :cool:
*giddy as a Catholic school girl!!*

So if you're such an independent, liberated feminist, why is some guy's approval of you making you pee your pants with excitement?

Eve_Dublin

ArtSmart wrote: »

the aul playing hard to get - ie acting against one's nature to comply with a set of moral 'codes' one didn't conceive of. yeah, sad stuff. It's a Catholic thing, for sure - but dying out. thankfully.

Not sure if it is a Catholic thing. Fairly common among women in the States even now. I remember reading this article a while ago - it was written 10 years ago thought, so perhaps things have changed.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/its-hard-dating-american-women-6318739.html

Eve_Dublin

Sorcha16 wrote: »

So if you're such an independent, liberated feminist, why is some guy's approval of you making you pee your pants with excitement?

Firstly, when did she claim to be any of these things and even still, feminists can get excited when a man they like likes them back. Feminists have relationships with men. You don't seen to understand what feminism means. Totally unnecessary dig there, Sorcha.

Siuin

Sorcha16 wrote: »

So if you're such an independent, liberated feminist, why is some guy's approval of you making you pee your pants with excitement?

Believe it or not even feminists fall in love, my dear Sorcha And it's not his approval which I sought, but his reciprocation of my feelings.
I always find it funny when a fellow female uses the word 'feminist' as if it's a derrogatory term- one would think that all women would appreciate equality and fair treatment with their male counterparts, but alas not everyone is an enlightened.

Sorcha16

Siuin wrote: »

Believe it or not even feminists fall in love, my dear Sorcha And it's not his approval which I sought, but his reciprocation of my feelings.
I always find it funny when a fellow female uses the word 'feminist' as if it's a derrogatory term- one would think that all women would appreciate equality and fair treatment with their male counterparts, but alas not everyone is an enlightened.

Au contraire 'my dear', I appreciate equality as much as the next person. As a traditionalist, what I don't appreciate is feminism and the increasingly complex and hypocritical assertions made by those who pledge their bra-burning allegiance to it.

I'm whole-heartedly sick of this nonsense being peddled that you're somehow liberated and equal for giving in to your every sexual whim. I think physical relationships are absolutely fantastic but it is not, nor will it ever be attractive to be riding around like Shergar.

Sleep with Santa Claus for all I care but keep it discreet because there is nothing less sexy than sharing your intimate details with the world

Siuin

Sorcha16 wrote: »

Au contraire 'my dear', I appreciate equality as much as the next person. As a traditionalist, what I don't appreciate is feminism and the increasingly complex and hypocritical assertions made by those who pledge their bra-burning allegiance to it.

You do realise that feminism is simply "The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men", right? If you can't reconcile your so-called traditionalism with basic equality with the opposite sex, I really do pity you.

Sorcha16 wrote: »

I'm whole-heartedly sick of this nonsense being peddled that you're somehow liberated and equal for giving in to your every sexual whim. I think physical relationships are absolutely fantastic but it is not, nor will it ever be attractive to be riding around like Shergar.

Sleep with Santa Claus for all I care but keep it discreet because there is nothing less sexy than sharing your intimate details with the world

If you had actually bothered to read my posts you would have realised by now that I am not advocating sleeping around. I am, however, stating that a double standard exists when it comes to judging the sexual practices of men and women. I do not feel that a woman should be constrained by arbitrary social conventions if she wants to sleep with someone, simply by virtue of the fact that she is a woman. I also don't agree with purposefully engaging in childish mind games in order to retain the interest of a man, because it shows a complete lack of maturity from both sides.

I will happily continue to be open about sex because I don't see it as shameful in the slightest- if you don't like it, nobody is compelling you to read my posts

eth0

Siuin wrote: »

If you had actually bothered to read my posts you would have realised by now that I am not advocating sleeping around. I am, however, stating that a double standard exists when it comes to judging the sexual practices of men and women. I do not feel that a woman should be constrained by arbitrary social conventions if she wants to sleep with someone, simply by virtue of the fact that she is a woman. I also don't agree with purposefully engaging in childish mind games in order to retain the interest of a man, because it shows a complete lack of maturity from both sides.

I will happily continue to be open about sex because I don't see it as shameful in the slightest- if you don't like it, nobody is compelling you to read my posts

I dunno what sort old fashioned values you are trying to have a go at but I think the world has moved on from the battle you still seem to be fighting. Beours are almost encouraged to be slutbags now, just like men were back in the day. In those days beours were given a hard time but now they are "just having fun" and what have you.

caste_in_exile

this is not an excercise; heeeeelp.... you bastards left me out here in the first place

Siuin

eth0 wrote: »

Beours are almost encouraged to be slutbags now

:rolleyes: Charming

Scanlas The 2nd

Siuin wrote: »

I must say, I find this whole supply/demand thing rather bizarre and unnatural- I've never had to withhold sex in previous relationships in order to gain the upper hand or whatever. That said, I've never actually wanted to take over power from my partner, since I believe in having a relationship where everyone's on equal footing and doesn't lord over the other.

You haven't that doesn't mean it doesn't happen generally.

Why do women hate "sluts" when "sluts" are doing absolutely nothin wrong?

I'll tell you what I think, lots of women hate "sluts" because the more free sex for men that exists the harder it is to make a man commit and to follow their demands in the household.

Siuin

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You haven't that doesn't mean it doesn't happen generally.

Why do women hate "sluts" when "sluts" are doing absolutely nothin wrong?

I'll tell you what I think, lots of women hate "sluts" because the more free sex for men that exists the harder it is to make a man commit and to follow their demands in the household.

So much wrong with the one post... I'd like to think you were simply taking the piss, but unfortunately this mindset actually exists. I'm not sure what's worse- your free use of the term 'slut' or the fact that you think so little of your own kind to believe that men are unable to settle down of their own accord and need a woman to trade off sex in order to pressure him into making a committment. What ever happened to actually loving your partner?

Scanlas The 2nd

Siuin wrote: »

So much wrong with the one post... I'd like to think you were simply taking the piss, but unfortunately this mindset actually exists. I'm not sure what's worse- your free use of the term 'slut' or the fact that you think so little of your own kind to believe that men are unable to settle down of their own accord and need a woman to trade off sex in order to pressure him into making a committment. What ever happened to actually loving your partner?

Well let me know what's wrong with the post so it can be discussed. The word "slut" was in quotes as that is the word women use to insult promiscuous women who are doing nothing wrong.

I'm one person. Men aren't "my own kind".

I'm discussing this issue non judgementally.

People love people. I don't dispute that. Do you think the same number of men would choose to commit to one woman if they could walk out their front door and have sex with any attractive woman they wanted?

Siuin

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Well let me know what's wrong with the post so it can be discussed. The word "slut" was in quotes as that is the word women use to insult promiscuous women who are doing nothing wrong.

I'm one person. Men aren't "my own kind".

I'm discussing this issue non judgementally.

People love people. I don't dispute that. Do you think the same number of men would choose to commit to one woman if they could walk out their front door and have sex with any attractive woman they wanted?

Where exactly in my posts did I ever promulgate women throwing themselves at every man who darkens her door step. Many people on this thread have completely twisted what I originally said as some kind of sexual free for all. My point was that women should be allowed to sleep with a man if she wishes to without fear of being lambasted by 'traditionalist' do-gooders for her actions.

Tell me; how many of your friends decided to marry their now wives because she told them she'd stop having sex with him if he didn't? Sex isn't a pawn to reign control over men.

smash

Siuin wrote: »

Sex isn't a pawn to reign control over men.

I'm glad you think that, but there are women out there you do use sex to get what they want out of their partners.

Scanlas The 2nd

Siuin wrote: »

Where exactly in my posts did I ever promulgate women throwing themselves at every man who darkens her door step. Many people on this thread have completely twisted what I originally said as some kind of sexual free for all. My point was that women should be allowed to sleep with a man if she wishes to without fear of being lambasted by 'traditionalist' do-gooders for her actions.

Tell me; how many of your friends decided to marry their now wives because she told them she'd stop having sex with him if he didn't? Sex isn't a pawn to reign control over men.

Your point is that "women should be allowed sleep with whoever they want without fear".

When did I disagree with that?

Many women hate openly promiscuous women because it makes it harder to have a man commit and gain a degree of power over him.

Sex is most definitely used as a pawn to gain control over men why otherwise would women hate promiscuous women?

Siuin

smash wrote: »

I'm glad you think that, but there are women out there you do use sex to get what they want out of their partners.

Then shame on them. My point is that reality doesn't match the ideal in many areas of men and women's sexual interplay.

Siuin

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Your point is that "women should be allowed sleep with whoever they want without fear".

When did I disagree with that?

Many women hate openly promiscuous women because it makes it harder to have a man commit and gain a degree of power over him.

Sex is most definitely used as a pawn to gain control over men why otherwise would women hate promiscuous women?

Many women openly hate beautiful women. Doesn't mean they should stop being beautiful or that there is anything wrong with being beautiful.

smash

Siuin wrote: »

Then shame on them. My point is that reality doesn't match the ideal in many areas of men and women's sexual interplay.

I blame Hollywood romcoms!

Scanlas The 2nd

Siuin wrote: »

Many women openly hate beautiful women. Doesn't mean they should stop being beautiful or that there is anything wrong with being beautiful.

Do you actually think I think there is something wrong with being promiscuous?

Men don't hate promiscuous women they don't even know. Women often do. This is because they reduce their power over men.

smash

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Men don't hate promiscuous women they don't even know. Women often do. This is because they reduce their power over men.

Maybe they just think its disgusting. I know a lot of guys who wouldn't go out with or even shag someone who sleeps around. They find it a complete turn off.

dizzywizlw

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Do you actually think I think there is something wrong with being promiscuous?

There isn't ?

Scanlas The 2nd

smash wrote: »

Maybe they just think its disgusting. I know a lot of guys who wouldn't go out with or even shag someone who sleeps around. They find it a complete turn off.

Hate is very strong for something they just find disgusting. I find blue steak disgusting but you wouldn't see hatred in my eyes after seeing someone eat it.

Scanlas The 2nd

dizzywizlw wrote: »

There isn't ?

I certainly don't see anything wrong with being promiscuous or slutty. If someone wants to sleep around and enjoy themselves good luck to them. It's no one else's business.

CdeC

I do think that lads seem to prefer a bit of work. They feel like they charmed and seduced a woman through their amazing pulling powers.
It just makes sense and lads like to feel that they have worked for the girls affections.


I'd never judge a girl for hopping into bed on the first date but I think it is better if you hold off until you are a bit more relaxed with eachother and know eachother a bit better. Especially if it's a stranger.

dizzywizlw

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I certainly don't see anything wrong with being promiscuous or slutty. If someone wants to sleep around and enjoy themselves good luck to them. It's no one else's business.

I'm in the minority that believes sex isn't just a thing to do for fun most of my friends are gigantic whores. I don't dislike them for it, I just think what they are doing is bad for them and bad for society. Really the only time I'd judge on that is when looking for a partner, which I have. I view promiscuity and binge drinking as the same manner of thing, something that isn't really 'nice' to do but a lot of people do and is seen as the 'thing to do' and an expression of freedom. I happen to dislike both but I take your point.

Eve_Dublin

Sorcha16 wrote: »

Au contraire 'my dear', I appreciate equality as much as the next person. As a traditionalist, what I don't appreciate is feminism and the increasingly complex and hypocritical assertions made by those who pledge their bra-burning allegiance to it.

I'm whole-heartedly sick of this nonsense being peddled that you're somehow liberated and equal for giving in to your every sexual whim. I think physical relationships are absolutely fantastic but it is not, nor will it ever be attractive to be riding around like Shergar.

Sleep with Santa Claus for all I care but keep it discreet because there is nothing less sexy than sharing your intimate details with the world

Let's just clear some things up here for those posters who weren't bothered to read and digest the OP.

Firstly, there was no mention by the poster of giving in to your every sexual whim. She's specifically talking about one area of sexual relations. Pure hyperbolic nonsense from some posters here.

Secondly, you need to look up what feminism means. You're idea of what it means to most of us is quite warped.

Thirdly, this thread is not about sleeping around (that's a discussion for another thread), it's about sleeping with someone on the first date. For some reason, posters on here have confused the two. Some women hold out in order to give the impression they're not "sluts" but the very fact that WOMEN are judged (not men) as sluts for deciding to have consensual, safe sex with someone because she wants to instead of waiting 'till the second or third date are judged so harshly (in turn, perpetuating the sexist judgement) is the topic of discussion here. Siuin simply believes it's unfair and I agree. I've never burnt a bra in my life.

A might woman not sleep around but she might decide to sleep with a man she really fancies and likes on the first date. People seem to be purposely confusing the two as an excuse to get their knickers in a twist and mount their high horses.

Siuin

dizzywizlw wrote: »

I'm in the minority that believes sex isn't just a thing to do for fun most of my friends are gigantic whores. I don't dislike them for it, I just think what they are doing is bad for them and bad for society.

Jesus Christ. With friends like you, who needs enemies? I'm pretty sure that if your 'friends' knew how harshly you were judging them, they wouldn't be your friends at all. Tbh your nasty attitude is much worse for society than what anyone does within the privacy of their own bedrooms.

smash

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Hate is very strong for something they just find disgusting. I find blue steak disgusting but you wouldn't see hatred in my eyes after seeing someone eat it.

I didn't say hate though, you did.

Eve_Dublin

CdeC wrote: »

I do think that lads seem to prefer a bit of work. They feel like they charmed and seduced a woman through their amazing pulling powers.
It just makes sense and lads like to feel that they have worked for the girls affections.


I'd never judge a girl for hopping into bed on the first date but I think it is better if you hold off until you are a bit more relaxed with eachother and know eachother a bit better. Especially if it's a stranger.

So you're advocating playing games? Most men I know hate games.