Sexual past matters for women, but not men

I accept that not everyone will agree on this
The important thing, to me, is that I'm not a hypocrite. I don't judge others.
There's sinning, and then there's being married with 4 kids and carrying on with an affair for months, lol. That's not Christian-like, whatever way you spin it. :laugh:
You never know. Her husband could be an absolutely horrible human being that she can't leave for the children or whatever. I try not to judge situations without knowing the people involved.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It feels intellectually dishonest to say that someone like, say, the SS soldiers who sorted out the Jews to be sent to gas chambers were Christian. Or that Hitler was Christian. Can anyone doing anything call themselves a Christian? I haven't read enough theology to come up with an answer.
By many accounts Hitler was raised Catholic but denounced Christianity in his adult life, so that is probably irrelevant.

Anyone who has "accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior" as the line goes can call themselves a Christian. And we can't necessarily know if it is sincere - that's between them and God. We can hold them accountable for their actions but we cannot deny them their belief. I think it is more dishonest to point out specific individuals or specific actions and say they can't possibly be Christians because of such and such. Do Muslims get to say that the terrorists and radicals among them are not Muslim?

Like @WildZoo said, it's not our place to judge. However, using the label "very religious" for a married woman with 4 kids carrying on a long term affair is something I'm uneasy with.
Seemed pretty clear he was talking about the way she presented herself publically, so it's probably an accurate label. Tells us nothing about her heart or her personal relationship with God.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I disagree, but that's fine. Honest questions though because I'm curious ...How long is long term? Or is it that any time we sin, our Christianity is revoked until we repent, in your opinion?

The short version would be that the line is when we are sinning and don't address it...anyone who has been a christian long enough for people to label them religious should know not to cheat on their marriage and couldn't with any honesty claim to be christian while having the affair. To be christian would be to repent and end the affair...if this person had christian friends it would be their responsibility to express to her the need for her to address the issue with God and end the affair for the sake of her spiritual well being
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
The short version would be that the line is when we are sinning and don't address it...anyone who has been a christian long enough for people to label them religious should know not to cheat on their marriage and couldn't with any honesty claim to be christian while having the affair. To be christian would be to repent and end the affair...if this person had christian friends it would be their responsibility to express to her the need for her to address the issue with God and end the affair for the sake of her spiritual well being
Interesting. I don't know that I've ever seen that line of thought before. I just don't think it's a start and stop kind of thing.

I agree with the last part though. We are meant to hold each other accountable. I have doubts that she would have shared that secret with any religious friends though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Interesting. I don't know that I've ever seen that line of thought before. I just don't think it's a start and stop kind of thing.

I agree with the last part though. We are meant to hold each other accountable. I have doubts that she would have shared that secret with any religious friends though.
no one likes to advertise things they are ashamed of, particularly to those who know we know better...confession is a difficult undertaking
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
no one likes to advertise things they are ashamed of, particularly to those who know we know better...confession is a difficult undertaking
Certainly. I was just saying that while I would hope that her friends would have told her she was wrong etc, I doubt they got the opportunity.
 
You never know. Her husband could be an absolutely horrible human being that she can't leave for the children or whatever. I try not to judge situations without knowing the people involved.

I wasn't judging her character or saying she was a bad person for having an affair. Just saying that labeling herself a "very religious" person seemed questionable.

I think it just made me uncomfortable that the person using her as an example in this thread was labeling her "very religious" to make a negative generalization about women - that we can't resist sexual temptation to the extent that we'll override our strongly held values (e.g. Christianity) and have extramarital affairs. Such nonsense. That person has a very jaded view of women and relationships, apparently.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't judging her character or saying she was a bad person for having an affair. Just saying that labeling herself a "very religious" person seemed questionable.

I think it just made me uncomfortable that the person using her as an example in this thread was labeling her "very religious" to make a negative generalization about women - that we can't resist sexual temptation to the extent that we'll override our strongly held values (e.g. Christianity) and have affairs, screw multiple men a day, etc.
I agree that the intent and the implication was ****, I guess I'm of the idea that your very religious if you say you are, and as an outsider I'm not one to say otherwise.

I can think that homophobes are going against what Jesus wanted and still see them as Christians, I just think they are hypocrites
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Certainly. I was just saying that while I would hope that her friends would have told her she was wrong etc, I doubt they got the opportunity.
I mean I'm sure she knows that it's wrong. It's not like people who cheat don't have a full understanding of what they are doing, and most people I've talked to (myself included back in the day) were very conflicted about the whole thing. Just having a friend say - what you are doing is wrong isn't particularly helpful or likely to change behavior
 
I wasn't judging her character or saying she was a bad person for having an affair. Just saying that labeling herself a "very religious" person seemed questionable.

I think it just made me uncomfortable that the person using her as an example in this thread was labeling her "very religious" to make a negative generalization about women - that we can't resist sexual temptation to the extent that we'll override our strongly held values (e.g. Christianity) and have affairs, screw multiple men a day, etc.
Ah, I understand your reaction more now. And of course his generalization, like all the others he has made, is ridiculous. At that point his posts became so familiar I had stopped really paying attention. Same old stuff that has come up in this thread many times before. I only noticed it because of sb's response.

I mean I'm sure she knows that it's wrong. It's not like people who cheat don't have a full understanding of what they are doing, and most people I've talked to (myself included back in the day) were very conflicted about the whole thing. Just having a friend say - what you are doing is wrong isn't particularly helpful or likely to change behavior
No, it might not, I was just agreeing with sb in that as fellow Christians it would be their responsibility to do so if they knew.
 
Um....almost every single guy I have dated/slept with in my entire life was a engineer. Mostly EEs and ECEs, so not exactly the "bro" civils either. The only two that weren't were a scientific writer and a research biologist. I'm married to a programmer. I like it very much. Go take the "nice guys finish last" wah-wah bull**** somewhere else; it's tiring.


Sidenote - is this what's his face again? Studentpox? Sheesh.

Probably is, in which case I don't even know why I'm trying. Some brick walls you can't even napalm sense into.

It has nothing to do with being a nice guy lol. You can be nice or you an be a jerk. It'll work out fine as long as you look good. Of course being a jerk will attract a certain subset of females and being a nice guy will attract nicer females.
 
I wasn't judging her character or saying she was a bad person for having an affair. Just saying that labeling herself a "very religious" person seemed questionable.

I think it just made me uncomfortable that the person using her as an example in this thread was labeling her "very religious" to make a negative generalization about women - that we can't resist sexual temptation to the extent that we'll override our strongly held values (e.g. Christianity) and have extramarital affairs. Such nonsense. That person has a very jaded view of women and relationships, apparently.
There are plenty of examples of men who are the same. On a large scale there are an equal number of men and women that cheat, lie etc. My point is that the total number is far higher than idealists on liberal forums like SDN believe. Important info for those who are future professionals and have limited dating experience (while still single).

Ah, I understand your reaction more now. And of course his generalization, like all the others he has made, is ridiculous. At that point his posts became so familiar I had stopped really paying attention. Same old stuff that has come up in this thread many times before. I only noticed it because of sb's response.


No, it might not, I was just agreeing with sb in that as fellow Christians it would be their responsibility to do so if they knew.

In a debate or argument you have to actually state what's wrong with what I'm saying and provide examples. Simply saying it's wrong because it goes against your idealist beliefs doesn't mean it actually is.
 
All sin and fall short. Doing so does not make someone not a Christian as far as I know. The fact that it doesn't is kind of the point.


Perhaps not; but at the very least, that person had better make sure that they really know (spiritually) if they are what they say they are. If it's not eating away at them, chances are they are not. And I'm not talking about having that indefinite low-level guilt, which you can repress or rationalize away. It's beyond that, and you will not have genuine peace. It's beyond cognitive dissonance, and you either know it, b/c it knows you, or you don't.

I won't say it doesn't happen; b/c we all know of it happening, and now, Christians have a divorce rate as high as the general population. It's just a continue conflict whereby you will not know the freedom that you have known, spiritually speaking, either that or you perhaps never really knew it in the first place. If it goes on indefinitely and there is no spiritual struggle, sure, the person has to question if he/she is just carrying the religion by name, or if there is something more genuine in place.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
It has nothing to do with being a nice guy lol. You can be nice or you an be a jerk. It'll work out fine as long as you look good. Of course being a jerk will attract a certain subset of females and being a nice guy will attract nicer females.

So you think that engineers on the whole don't look good? How many engineers do you actually know? Because I can pretty much guarantee I know more. My entire family, not to mention my social circles over the past 15 years post puberty, have been engineers. And from personal experience, I don't care how hot a guy is - if you are a jerk, that overrides everything. I have shot down many guys who I initially thought were physically attractive because of their self-obsessed, **** attitudes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
So you think that engineers on the whole don't look good? How many engineers do you actually know? Because I can pretty much guarantee I know more. My entire family, not to mention my social circles over the past 15 years post puberty, have been engineers. And from personal experience, I don't care how hot a guy is - if you are a jerk, that overrides everything. I have shot down many guys who I initially thought were physically attractive because of their self-obsessed, **** attitudes.

How about dozens and dozens of upper year engineering students? And it's not just engineering... same thing in many related fields and basically anything requiring intelligence.

And you're talking about your own personal preference. Obviously it's not just about looks for you but you can still admit that looks are the first thing that matter. For example whatever you are out of 10 - can almost ensure that your partner is the same or at most +/- 1. Same holds true throughout society.
 
How about dozens and dozens of upper year engineering students? And it's not just engineering... same thing in many related fields and basically anything requiring intelligence.

And you're talking about your own personal preference. Obviously it's not just about looks for you but you can still admit that looks are the first thing that matter. For example whatever you are out of 10 - can almost ensure that your partner is the same or at most +/- 1. Same holds true throughout society.

Dozens and dozens of college engineering/computer science/etc students? And you consider that a representative slice of the population? Ok well, you are young, so I suppose you have yet to expand. I'm older than you and have seen and met many, many more people in those fields over the course of my life. Not upper year college students. I mean actual engineers.

Look absolutely matter. That is what first attracts us to another person. What I took issue with was you saying an entire class of people have such terrible looks they are unapproachable by women based on their intellectual/career interests, when your only experience with that class of people has been in college. Basically anyone in a "field requiring intelligence" is going to be "husband material" but otherwise unattractive to those terrible judgey women who only want bad boys or some drivel like that? Come on now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Dozens and dozens? And you consider that a representative slice of the population? Ok well, you are young, so I suppose you have yet to expand. I'm older than you and have seen and met many, many more people in those fields over the course of my life.

Look absolutely matter. That is what first attracts us to another person. What I took issue with was you saying an entire class of people have such terrible looks they are unapproachable by women based on their intellectual/career interests, when your only experience with that class of people has been in college.

I was more referring to the nerdy look. I don't think one's career is a factor at all in dating...
 
I thought you were just saying that no one gives these nerdy boys any love, and now you're saying they have all these options?

I'm sure they have an option at some point or all those faculty profs wouldn't be married. But it's very easy to notice a huge trend of virginity among males in engineering and science faculties and a huge trend of partying in business and arts faculties.
 
TIL that because I love engineers, I must be uggo :rofl:
Looks are always a touchy subject with just about anyone anywhere. Right away it creates a sense of insecurity in anyone who's involved in the conversation. I think your idea of a nerdy guy you find attractive is probably a 6/10 (which is above average) and in your view he'd be a 7 due to the subjective component.
 
This is an interesting viewpoint.

It feels intellectually dishonest to say that someone like, say, the SS soldiers who sorted out the Jews to be sent to gas chambers were Christian. Or that Hitler was Christian. Can anyone doing anything call themselves a Christian? I haven't read enough theology to come up with an answer.

Anyone who has "accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior" as the line goes can call themselves a Christian. And we can't necessarily know if it is sincere - that's between them and God. We can hold them accountable for their actions but we cannot deny them their belief. I think it is more dishonest to point out specific individuals or specific actions and say they can't possibly be Christians because of such and such. Do Muslims get to say that the terrorists and radicals among them are not Muslim?

I'm with wz here. There is a difference between saying someone is a hypocrite and committing and "un-Christian" act, and saying they don't have a right to call themselves Christian. The problem with the latter is that, in the end, our opinion is worthless because God decides whose worship He accepts. Not only are we opining on something we know very little about, but we run the risk of speaking for God when we have no right to do so.

It is much more precise and to the point, I think, to judge the act rather than the person as a whole.

There's a story in the Islamic tradition of a woman who was committing adultery. One day while walking outside she encountered a thirsty dog, and stopped to draw water from a nearby well and used her shoe to give the dog a drink. For this very small act of mercy God forgave her crime.

I've always really liked this story, in part because it emphasizes that we don't know -- can't know -- the balance of a person's soul. I'd rather run the risk of overlooking a crime than risk condemning a person who doesn't deserve it. If we believe that God is perfectly Just, well then no one can escape their due punishment. But it is possible in trying to condemn that we needlessly cause injustice, and then how have we helped anything?

I think we have to draw a distinction between the punishments and judgements we give to people in *this* life, because we need to maintain a just, orderly society as best we can, and God's judgements which are for Him alone to render.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I'm with wz here. There is a difference between saying someone is a hypocrite and committing and "un-Christian" act, and saying they don't have a right to call themselves Christian. The problem with the latter is that, in the end, our opinion is worthless because God decides whose worship He accepts. Not only are we opining on something we know very little about, but we run the risk of speaking for God when we have no right to do so.

It is much more precise and to the point, I think, to judge the act rather than the person as a whole.

There's a story in the Islamic tradition of a woman who was committing adultery. One day while walking outside she encountered a thirsty dog, and stopped to draw water from a nearby well and used her shoe to give the dog a drink. For this very small act of mercy God forgave her crime.

I've always really liked this story, in part because it emphasizes that we don't know -- can't know -- the balance of a person's soul. I'd rather run the risk of overlooking a crime than risk condemning a person who doesn't deserve it. If we believe that God is perfectly Just, well then no one can escape their due punishment. But it is possible in trying to condemn that we needlessly cause injustice, and then how have we helped anything?
I haven't even followed this religious debate. If you claim to practice a religion but have ongoing premarital sex then you're a hypocrite. End of story. There's no ifs or buts.
 
I haven't even followed this religious debate. If you claim to practice a religion but have ongoing premarital sex then you're a hypocrite. End of story. There's no ifs or buts.

Being a sinner doesn't ipso facto make one a hypocrite, so you're quite wrong there. A person is a hypocrite if they condemn others for doing things they do themselves, or if they overlook their own sins while judging others for theirs.

If a person does something wrong but doesn't hold others to a standard they can't be bothered to maintain themselves, that's a moral failing, not hypocrisy. I would argue hypocrisy is a sin in and of itself, all other actions aside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm sure they have an option at some point or all those faculty profs wouldn't be married. But it's very easy to notice a huge trend of virginity among males in engineering and science faculties and a huge trend of partying in business and arts faculties.

You don't think a lot of that could be due to 1) different personality types, i.e. shyer ones, gravitating to certain fields as well as 2) the relative time requirement for STEM careers as opposed to others which results in less free time to socialize, as opposed to simple facial aesthetics?
 
You don't think a lot of that could be due to 1) different personality types, i.e. shyer ones, gravitating to certain fields as well as 2) the relative time requirement for STEM careers as opposed to others which results in less free time to socialize, as opposed to simple facial aesthetics?

Better looking people get too much positive feedback and too many invitations to parties and such to become the neckbeard basement dweller type. But yes there are other factors.
 
Being a sinner doesn't ipso facto make one a hypocrite, so you're quite wrong there. A person is a hypocrite if they condemn others for doing things they do themselves, or if they overlook their own sins while judging others for theirs.

If a person does something wrong but doesn't hold others to a standard they can't be bothered to maintain themselves, that's a moral failing, not hypocrisy. I would argue hypocrisy is a sin in and of itself, all other actions aside.
All religious people who secretly sleep around condemn others for doing so. It's like when slutty girls call other girls sluts. Laughable at best and overly common.
 
There has been plenty of studies done that show having more sexual partners negatively affects *pair bonding* more for women than for men.

That's what it does. A woman with 30 past partners will have a more difficult time pair bonding to a man than a woman with 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There has been plenty of studies done that show having more sexual partners negatively affects *pair bonding* more for women than for men.

That's what it does. A woman with 30 past partners will have a more difficult time pair bonding to a man than a woman with 2.
"Plenty of studies" doesn't fly here. Put up or shut up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
 
Better looking people get too much positive feedback and too many invitations to parties and such to become the neckbeard basement dweller type. But yes there are other factors.
...because the way you look dictates how you spend your free time? :eyebrow: Not, say, your personality and your interests?

Must be hard for you to woo physically attractive (in your estimation) women if you think so little of them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
...because the way you look dictates how you spend your free time? :eyebrow: Not, say, your personality and your interests?

Must be hard for you to woo physically attractive (in your estimation) women if you think so little of them.

Unattractive people don't do too well at parties unless they have exceptionally good personalities. They also don't do too well with the opposite sex. Also what's the "personality obsession" anyway? Why can't we admit that how you look is the most important thing? At least men will realize that their appearance matters a lot and comes first... not to mention that looks are very objective for men in particular.

There has been plenty of studies done that show having more sexual partners negatively affects *pair bonding* more for women than for men.

That's what it does. A woman with 30 past partners will have a more difficult time pair bonding to a man than a woman with 2.

That's also common sense anyway. It's like a heroin addict taking codeine... good luck getting high off of that. Same way the stimulus from partner #34 would be nowhere near the stimulus of partner #1 or #2.
 
Last edited:
Unattractive people don't do too well at parties unless they have exceptionally good personalities. They also don't do too well with the opposite sex. Also what's the "personality obsession" anyway? Why can't we admit that how you look is the most important thing? At least men will realize that their appearance matters a lot and comes first... not to mention that looks are very objective for men in particular.



That's also common sense anyway. It's like a heroin addict taking codeine... good luck getting high off of that.

Not entirely accurate
 
Last edited:
See above ^^
One study ever, that didn't ever bother to examine correlation versus causation, nor the male component of things. Maybe women who have had more partners are more likely to end up with men that have had more partners, and those men are more likely to cheat? That's just one of thousands of possibilities- it's a pretty terrible study.
 
"Unattractive people don't do too well at parties unless they have exceptionally good personalities. They also don't do too well with the opposite sex. Also what's the "personality obsession" anyway? Why can't we admit that how you look is the most important thing? At least men will realize that their appearance matters a lot and comes first... not to mention that looks are very objective for men in particular."

Not entirely correct. There are studies that show there are more than 'looks' that attract a female, whereas males rely heavily on what the female looks like. studies were done on amygdala (emotions) and hypothalmus (sexual desire)
 
One study ever, that didn't ever bother to examine correlation versus causation, nor the male component of things. Maybe women who have had more partners are more likely to end up with men that have had more partners, and those men are more likely to cheat? That's just one of thousands of possibilities- it's a pretty terrible study.

No. if you do enough research there's more. Here's another one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.html

Let me know if you become delusional.
 
Last edited:
Mmmmmmmm......false. Here's another one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.html

Let me know if you become delusional.
Women who are marrying after ten parners or more are likely marrying later and often settling because they're tired of playing the field. It's likely more a function of why they married and the pool of available partners at the age when they married than it is of anything else. Men are, in general, much less likely to feel like they are settling, which likely explains the male side of things. Another poor study that sought to confirm its own hypothesis rather than answer the question of why its hypothesis is correct. Corration does not equal causation, please take a statistica course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
"Unattractive people don't do too well at parties unless they have exceptionally good personalities. They also don't do too well with the opposite sex. Also what's the "personality obsession" anyway? Why can't we admit that how you look is the most important thing? At least men will realize that their appearance matters a lot and comes first... not to mention that looks are very objective for men in particular."

Not entirely correct. There are studies that show there are more than 'looks' that attract a female, whereas males rely heavily on what the female looks like. studies were done on amygdala (emotions) and hypothalmus (sexual desire)

I don't disagree with you. There are *more* than looks. However looks are #1 and can't be compensated for. A 5/10 guy could never compete with an 8/10.

Also appearance/looks are highly objective for men and somewhat subjective for women. Basically a 1-10 scale rating would be very accurate for a guy and there wouldn't be much disagreement whereas for a girl it'd be different since guys can have widely different preferences.
 
Women who are marrying after ten parners or more are likely marrying later and often settling because they're tired of playing the field. It's likely more a function of why they married and the pool of available partners at the age when they married than it is of anything else. Men are, in general, much less likely to feel like they are settling, which likely explains the male side of things. Another poor study that sought to confirm its own hypothesis rather than answer the question of why its hypothesis is correct. Corration does not equal causation, please take a statistica course.

But....but....hypergamy!!! AWALT!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Women who are marrying after ten parners or more are likely marrying later and often settling because they're tired of playing the field. It's likely more a function of why they married and the pool of available partners at the age when they married than it is of anything else. Men are, in general, much less likely to feel like they are settling, which likely explains the male side of things. Another poor study that sought to confirm its own hypothesis rather than answer the question of why its hypothesis is correct. Corration does not equal causation, please take a statistica course.

Lol men "feel" like they settle allll the time....look around.

I get what you're saying about causation.

But the study measures marital satisfaction for women with a large # of previous partners vs small #. Is there a logical explanation for why this trend is not evident with males who have large #s.

What you are saying is women who 'feel' like they are settling are more prone to marital disatisfaction. And what that study shows is the women who 'feel' this way are the ones with a large # of previous partners, hence marital dissatisfaction being high for those women who have high #s.

If the woman 'feels' like she is settling then why does she engage in a partnership? It sounds to me like a woman with a lower number of partners gets into a partnership with a guy and stays in it b/c she got him from a "good pool" of partners or that he is "high value" and she isn't "settling". In other words, a girl who has a low number of previous partners and is in a partnership is more likely to not feel like she is "settling" and thus more likely to be happy in marriage.

Idk my brain hurts. if you can come up with an example to your claim above that would help.
 
I don't know if I would go as far to say looks are #1. It's more holistic buddy. First of all, do you have any super good looking friends? Some of them don't even know how to talk to girls and are "squares". I've seen a good looking buddy of mine get told he was a square by a cute girl to his face and she basically walked away. that is a bigger turn-off to girls than an avg looking dude chatting a girl up and making her laugh etc.

There are more factors than looks. Yes it is a factor, but if you aren't blessed with good looks it's not an end all to being with good looking girls.
Those are outlier cases. As long as you can hold a basic convo then you're good to go... which the vast majority of guys can. The average guy making her laugh will get friendzoned if he's out of her league.
Also it depends on the level as well...

This guy:
oMtJ1wc.jpg


Won't need anything beyond very basic social skills. Even a 7/10 with supreme social skills can't compete with him. Much less an average guy.
 
I don't disagree with you. There are *more* than looks. However looks are #1 and can't be compensated for. A 5/10 guy could never compete with an 8/10.

Also appearance/looks are highly objective for men and somewhat subjective for women. Basically a 1-10 scale rating would be very accurate for a guy and there wouldn't be much disagreement whereas for a girl it'd be different since guys can have widely different preferences.
Bahaha, this guy actually believes looks are everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Top