The non-mean explanation. I hope.
I have had this conversation with my self over the years. Thanks for putting it out there. “Pumped and dumped” got a chuckle out of me.
Tackling a sleazy one here John. ☺️
My Grandma used to classify my girlfriends as “marrying types” or “not so much.”
As a lifelong bachelor and serial monogamist, I’ve always been particularly fascinated by our puritan views about the connections between sex and marriage. As if.
Thanks for talking about this. I suspect your readers probably don't need any of this pointed out, but we may know of young women with whom to share this with and possibly shield from major mistakes that can ruin or seriously de-rail their hopes of finding a good mate.
When my daughter was a teenager she went to a conference on dating where one of the speakers said, "There are two kinds of women in the world. Some are like fine china that a person will treasure and take care of carefully. Others are like paper cups that someone will use once and throw away. Which do you want to be like?"
Yes, if a woman is cheap and easy, men will happily use her. But they don't value such a woman. She's cheap entertainment, not a life partner.
I will admit straight up that I wasn't the one the girls liked when I was younger. Rather stupidly opinionated and knew nothing about them and was a little too unfiltered in things I said.
I was also dense.... like where one woman made a very open and direct advance on me and I didn't realise it until several hours later what she meant.
There were always the blokes around who banged girls they picked up who were drunk and then proceeded to tell the world about what she did to him and what he did. Because the "numbers" that I saw where very few (.... zero), I decided that, if I wanted a woman with a certain set of values (ie: not been ridden like the school bike), then I needed to demonstrate that in kind.
I've had a couple of relationships over the years and they've all been long-term and the looks I get from some people when I proudly say that I've never had a one-nighter is quite funny. A lot of women shut up around that point as well :D
I understand why, to keep your advice 'positive', you would advise women with a 'high body count' to keep it to themselves to avoid negative repercussions from men they want for a relationship. However, I'd advise you to consider that this does not fall under 'what he doesn't know won't hurt him'. It causes real harm to men, and to the women who foolishly choose to open their legs indiscriminately in the 'feminist' belief that they can walk away from it clean, later. Female promiscuity should be openly shamed and firmly discouraged. Your essay is contradictory on the matter. You are suggesting on one hand that men are justifiably concerned with a woman's history, but on the other that they are pridefully overreacting to it and so it is justified for a woman to conceal her past to get what she wants. You even acknowledge in your article that a promiscuous woman may have (read: definitely does have) serious issues. A man considering joining his whole life, posterity and reputation with hers has a right to know about those issues, and you should not be tacitly encouraging women to be deceptive about it. There are many far-ranging potential consequences for female promiscuity, and denying it is tantamount to criminal fraud. It certainly means starting a marriage under false pretenses, with the act of the bride making a cuckolded fool of her husband. Do you think she can go on to love and respect him, knowing that she has so fundamentally deceived him from the outset? Do you think the relationship has anywhere to go but down, from there? It should be grounds for annulment. If it were up to me, women would have have a number tattooed on their back showing how many partners they've had, so they CAN'T lie about it. Again, I understand all the public pressure you're probably under to put a friendly face on it, but the world would be better off not hearing from you at all, if you're going to be giving poisonous advice to opportunistic 'ladies' that can end in nothing but divorce and chaos. Keep it real, man.
We still hear of the complaint that "A man that beds a lot of women is a 'stud' but a woman who sleeps with a lot of guys is a 'slut'." But you ask people who complain about that, Who is in control of whether something happens or not? The woman. They'll get that right. And they should, because this has been true across civilizations. Men pursue. Women consent or reject.
It simply doesn't make sense to go looking for cachet for having had something happen a lot, when you're the one in control of things happening. It's like looking for congratulations for having walked into a room and turned on the light switch a hundred times. For you, it's a switch. Congratulations, you flipped it. Big deal.
Lock and key. A key that can open a lot of different locks, would be a valuable key indeed. A lock that can be opened by any ol' key, would be a piece of junk. But I'm sure you've heard that one, and you said you were after "the non-mean explanation," so maybe this doesn't belong.
"...particularly since men usually have to work very hard to get laid, while any attractive woman will have practically unlimited opportunities to have sex without even trying. ..." While some women get this, I am always surprised by how many don't. Recently I've attempted to explain this to female friends and have been successful implying to me that the issue is more that they just tend not to think about, not to put themselves in mens place and think how dating is for them, and once they do, they understand quickly. Something that has worked well has been to say to a woman who does not accept the difficulty men have relative to women: "OK, lets both this Saturday night go to (insert name of any local bar/club known as "singles" bar/club). You stand alone at one end of the bar and I stand alone at the other. We both agree that neither of us will approach or even make eye contact with anyone. Which one of us will be approached by the opposite sex more often?" I did this with one friend and her immediate response was: "Well yeah, of course, you have to approach girls though; of course you'll need to flirt with them" To which I responded: "And you would you have to flirt?". I could see the bulb light up over her head almost immediately as she realized that she could do literally nothing and get hit on while I, or any man, would have to work for it.
My then-20-something daughter once said that feminists are trying to tell women that the secret to a satisfying romantic life is to treat sex just like many men do, as something cheap and casual. Then she said, of all the stereotypical characteristics of men, this is the one they choose to copy. Not strength or courage or honor or responsibility or hard work, they don't want to do those things. That's "toxic masculinity". But being a promiscuous slut, that's what they want to copy from men.
People have an instinctive sense of morality. No matter how much society or the media or elites tell us that promiscuity -- or homosexuality or transgenderism or whatever -- is fine and good, most people know "deep down" that it's not. And they react on this visceral level. Like I've seen surveys where they ask people if they think men who have had sex change hormones or surgery are now "real women" and many say yes. But ask those same men if they have ever dated such a "woman" and they say no. They'll mouth the words that the elites tell them to say, but they don't really believe it.
I do so enjoy your Substack. Takes me back to teaching creative writing to high school sophomores.
This is a serious no-win situation, one that makes me glad I’ve accepted that getting married may be slightly more likely than winning the lottery, but only slightly.
—woman who has been ghosted after refusing to have sex on the first date nine times and on the second date four times
I saw a play once -- and I'm probably ruining it by summarizing it so briefly --d where at the beginning they introduced a young man who had a beautiful bouquet of flowers. He went to a women and offered her a flower. She casually said, "Oh, thanks", and threw it away. He gave another flower to another woman, and she stuffed it in her pocket. Etc through many women. Then he meets another woman and we're given to understand that they fall in love. At the end she puts on a veil and he puts on a black bow tie to indicate that they're getting married -- this was a "minimalist" play -- and then she takes out a bouquet and says, "I have something that I have been saving just for you." And then he takes out his bouquet and all he has left is one limp, wilted flower. Then the lights go down.