Community Chat

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@Ms X wrote:

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@Ms X wrote:

For those who think the modern way is a romp is just a romp, no strings attached, what is the yardstick?  Don't have sex with someone you don't trust enough to lend a hundred bucks to?  $50?  $25?  $5 anyone?

---

A "romp" has always been "just a romp".

Nothing "modern" about it, really.

---

You didn't answer my question.

---

Your question doesn't make any sense.

Sometimes there ARE no strings attached, hence no yardstick needed.

[SaRina]

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@SaRina wrote:

@QueenDanceALot.  I meant over-rated in terms of the idealistic advisements our mothers imparted.  That has nothing to do with "doing it right."

---

My mother never gave me an "idealistic advisement" on sex.

I just found out how great it could be by accident.

---

Okaaaay..... a little confused about our conversation.

However, I guess some "accidents" can be a good thing and I will leave it at that.  :-)

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@Ms X wrote:

No offense, ladies, but what I get from these comments is that women shouldn't expect to be treated a certain way by a man and have trust and commitment as a necessary condition to sex.  This is considered hopelessly old-fashioned.  I've read articles in the media in recent years that you have to "do it" by the third date or you might get dumped.  Oh, really? That is so modern and such a wonderful improvement over the "olden days"--NOT!

---

You don't seem to get that sometimes a woman isn't interested in the whole megillah, they're just interested in the sex.  And sometimes they want more.

Has nothing to do with "modern" or "old-fashioned".

[SaRina]

---

@Ms X wrote:

No offense, ladies, but what I get from these comments is that women shouldn't expect to be treated a certain way by a man and have trust and commitment as a necessary condition to sex.  This is considered hopelessly old-fashioned.  I've read articles in the media in recent years that you have to "do it" by the third date or you might get dumped.  Oh, really? That is so modern and such a wonderful improvement over the "olden days"--NOT!

---

No, what is modern about sex is that a woman may choose to have sex because she desires sex without being labeled a "bad girl" like she would have been in the 1950's. The idea that a woman has to have sex by the third date or she might get dumped reflects poorly on the woman only if she succumbs to this merely to hang on to the man.  If he expects sex by the third date and she doesn't want sex, she should dump him and look elsewhere.  However, if both parties desire sex without further commitment, IMO there's nothing wrong with that. 

[Ms X]

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@Ms X wrote:

No offense, ladies, but what I get from these comments is that women shouldn't expect to be treated a certain way by a man and have trust and commitment as a necessary condition to sex.  This is considered hopelessly old-fashioned.  I've read articles in the media in recent years that you have to "do it" by the third date or you might get dumped.  Oh, really? That is so modern and such a wonderful improvement over the "olden days"--NOT!

---

You don't seem to get that sometimes a woman isn't interested in the whole megillah, they're just interested in the sex.  And sometimes they want more.

Has nothing to do with "modern" or "old-fashioned".

---

I think that generally my point of view is considered old-fashioned, as evidenced by a previous post on this thread.  This view is prevalent in the greater society as well.  The sexual revolution most definitely passed me by.  Frankly, I've never understood it, but to each her own.  It does bother me that it has created a pervasive attitude that women shouldn't expect, for want of a less outdated word, to be courted but should just hop right in and expect little to nothing in return.  I've never been willing to spend time with a man who didn't treat me well and act in a very considerate fashion, much less go to bed with him!  I just walked away. 

I'm a big women's libber, but I don't consider this liberation.  I consider it being sold a bill of goods.  I respect that you and others don't see it my way, but that's my view.

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@Ms X wrote:

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@Ms X wrote:

No offense, ladies, but what I get from these comments is that women shouldn't expect to be treated a certain way by a man and have trust and commitment as a necessary condition to sex.  This is considered hopelessly old-fashioned.  I've read articles in the media in recent years that you have to "do it" by the third date or you might get dumped.  Oh, really? That is so modern and such a wonderful improvement over the "olden days"--NOT!

---

You don't seem to get that sometimes a woman isn't interested in the whole megillah, they're just interested in the sex.  And sometimes they want more.

Has nothing to do with "modern" or "old-fashioned".

---

I think that generally my point of view is considered old-fashioned, as evidenced by a previous post on this thread.  This view is prevalent in the greater society as well.  The sexual revolution most definitely passed me by.  Frankly, I've never understood it, but to each her own.  It does bother me that it has created a pervasive attitude that women shouldn't expect, for want of a less outdated word, to be courted but should just hop right in and expect little to nothing in return.  I've never been willing to spend time with a man who didn't treat me well and act in a very considerate fashion, much less go to bed with him!  I just walked away IMMEDIATELY. 

I'm a big women's libber, but I don't consider this liberation.  I consider it being sold a bill of goods.  I respect that you and others don't see it my way, but that's my view.

---

I NEVER suggested a woman should "spend time with" a man who didn't treat them well.

You are assuming that a woman who chooses to have a sex-only encounter with a man is being "treated badly".  I don't.

[SaRina]

@MsX, nothing wrong with your view -- it is part of your being and works for you.  I am all about equality between men and women in all aspects of life, and sexual freedom for women which, btw, does not mean a woman "hops into bed" at first glance, definitely levels the playing field.  Treatment (e.g., consideration) goes both ways and no person should "expect" anything in return for sex.  I am considerate to my man in exactly the same way he is considerate to me.  I don't even think twice about holding the door open for him if I am there first.

[Ms X]

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@Ms X wrote:

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@Ms X wrote:

No offense, ladies, but what I get from these comments is that women shouldn't expect to be treated a certain way by a man and have trust and commitment as a necessary condition to sex.  This is considered hopelessly old-fashioned.  I've read articles in the media in recent years that you have to "do it" by the third date or you might get dumped.  Oh, really? That is so modern and such a wonderful improvement over the "olden days"--NOT!

---

You don't seem to get that sometimes a woman isn't interested in the whole megillah, they're just interested in the sex.  And sometimes they want more.

Has nothing to do with "modern" or "old-fashioned".

---

I think that generally my point of view is considered old-fashioned, as evidenced by a previous post on this thread.  This view is prevalent in the greater society as well.  The sexual revolution most definitely passed me by.  Frankly, I've never understood it, but to each her own.  It does bother me that it has created a pervasive attitude that women shouldn't expect, for want of a less outdated word, to be courted but should just hop right in and expect little to nothing in return.  I've never been willing to spend time with a man who didn't treat me well and act in a very considerate fashion, much less go to bed with him!  I just walked away IMMEDIATELY. 

I'm a big women's libber, but I don't consider this liberation.  I consider it being sold a bill of goods.  I respect that you and others don't see it my way, but that's my view.

---

I NEVER suggested a woman should "spend time with" a man who didn't treat them well.

You are assuming that a woman who chooses to have a sex-only encounter with a man is being "treated badly".  I don't.

---

Please reread my post.  Treated badly refers to men who "date" women but don't want to take the time and effort to "court" them (I hate that word, but the modern age has no name for it, sadly) but expect to jump right into sex.  I was not referring to a hook-up.

[occasionalrain]

The fact is that all men are not created equal. Before a woman commits to a lifetime with one of them, she owes it to herself to be informed, well informed. Comparison shop to put it plainly.