Polls | Forum profile

Quote: Originally Posted by nursej007 That's obvious. It should be, because I just stated it. wtf?

Quote: Originally Posted by mytmouse57 I guess it would have to do more with her reasons for having sex than the raw numbers. The fact still stands, having lots of casual, meaningless sex is far more likely to mess up a woman emotionally than a man. If that's true how do you know it isn't because men judge her so harshly? Call her damaged goods, question her mentality, compare her to a screen door slamming in a hurricane, etc? Most...

But to argue that casual sex is bad for young women in some way that it isn't for young men is just stupid. And to further argue that women don't like it as much when they're currently engaging in it in record numbers just doesn't ring true. Hmmm... better wait 10, 20 years or so, and then see how those young women are doing.. before you so boldly make that statement. What, you think that just because they don't...

Quote: Originally Posted by talloulou If women are defensive it's only because women are talked about in terms of "damaged goods, used up, driven hard and put away wet, slammed more times than a screen door in a hurricane, etc..." Phrases which suggest a females self worth is lowered with each and every sex act she performs in her lifetime -which is of course total rot. Men are rarely talked about in similar terms. Men...

Quote: Originally Posted by rivrrat wtf? Your behavior makes it obvious. Roseann Quinn was a 28yo schoolteacher who cruised the bars like you, picking up men to sleep with. She was brutally murdered. Three or four books have been written about it. Diane Keaton starred in the movie: Looking for Mr. Goodbar You must be too young to remember it.

Quote: Originally Posted by GottaGo I'm going to say no, but that is me. Other women, yes. Reasoning: they fear what they could so easily do, and quite often, would like to do. Women seem to have this constant battle of being better than another woman, insecurity I guess? Thinking back to days of yore, a woman was to remain pure so that a man would know the offspring was his. Not so for the man. Actually, there was pride in the number...

Quote: Originally Posted by talloulou Exactly. What if she isn't one of us "slammed like a screen door in a hurricane," types and instead she's some poor sap who has only ever been with 1 man before you? What if that 1 man cheated on her left and right for years and years and years before she finally dumped him? She could be all cruded up. I am wondering if any of these people have ever seen the movie...

Quote: Originally Posted by rivrrat Personally, I'm not so arrogant as to claim, or even think, that our species is the only thing in the entire universe capable of being a 'person'. rivrrat, that is probably the most bizarre thing I've ever heard on a political forum like this. Could you elaborate?

Quote: Originally Posted by talloulou Back in the days before birth control women had to remain pure because they had no real control over their reproductive systems and they had no real means of proving a man was responsible for the children they were carrying. It could easily be his word against hers - making it incredibly easy for men to not be held accountable. Abortion wasn't widely available or acceptable. So frankly a bit of sex...

Quote: Originally Posted by talloulou In other words much of the disdain is entirely fear based. Anyone that has casual sex who does not concern himself/herself with the possibility of contracting a sexually transmitted disease is obviously ignorant about the health risk. As I mentioned earlier, there are some STDs that are incurable. That means no antibiotics are going to cure the disease, and that person will have the disease for the rest...