When, at what point, does a woman become a whore (or slut or whatever term you wish to use)?

I mean, if a girl fucks two different men over a two year period, is she a whore?

If she fucks twenty men over a two year period, is she then a whore?

How 'bout if she fucks 405,236 men in two HOURS, is she then a whore?

There must be some cutoff, some measure, of whoredom ...but in all of my 60-some years, I've never known what it is. And now that I'm totally surrounded by some of the smartest people on the entire planet, I'm hoping to find the answer to this perplexing question!

Baron Max

why does it have to be a woman that is a slut?

When does a man become a man-whore? Is the "cutoff" point higher than when a women becomes a whore? If so, why?

Well first off lets use the term slut, whores get payed, sluts give it away.
When does a man become a man-whore? Is the "cutoff" point higher than when a women becomes a whore? If so, why?
Unfortunately society seems to still have this double standard, and women use that to sleep with more people and proclaim "guys do it why shouldnt we", so really the cutoff point is entirely personal perception of how many partners you're happy being with or having your partner previously been with and for how long etc.

You become a whore when you accept money for sexual favors. You become a slut when you give sex away for fun instead of love.

Double standards ftw, eh?

Whores are awsome
LOL
Guys This Is Such a Ignorant topic, but yet interesting...

The term "slut" is a derogatory term used to express an opinion.

Saying "She is a slut" is really just code for "I don't like her or approve of her behaviour."

The term "slut" is a derogatory term used to express an opinion.

Saying "She is a slut" is really just code for "I don't like her or approve of her behaviour."

Im tempted to agree with you although many people do 'enjoy their company' shall we say? These people dont always refer to them in a derogatory way when using the term slut.

I had hoped a thousand posts would have left a wise proverb or two somewhere along the way, im sadly disappointed in myself....

How 'bout if she fucks 405,236 men in two HOURS, is she then a whore?

No. If she charges each man $2.47 per fuck, she's a millionaire.

No. If she charges each man $2.47 per fuck, she's a millionaire.
Heheheh, good post.

Well first off lets use the term slut, whores get payed, sluts give it away.

Interesting. I've always considered "whore" and "slut" as a derogatory term for women who had sex without being paid for it. "Prostitute" is one who is paid for sexual favors.

I realize that there is some cross-over in modern definition, but in all of the legal descriptions/offenses and in newspaper articles that I know, a woman is arrested and charged for "prostitution". Have you ever heard of a woman arrested for being a "whore" or a "slut"?

But just from reading the posts above, I'm led to believe that it's all just whatever anyone wants to call it. If one likes a girl, and then he discovers that she's had sex with someone ELSE, then to bolster his own ego, he calls her a "whore" or "slut", right?

And are those terms loosing their "derogatory-ness" in modern western society? I.e., we have tv shows and movies where the heroine of the show has sex with several people ...and the shows are popular, and the actress is popular. Am I just too fuckin' old for this era?

Baron Max

Am I just too fuckin' old for this era?

Baron Max


Yes, quite old in fact. Borderline obsolete I would say.

:m:

Sluts are disgusting, male or female.

Hell at least a whore gets paid, and they are pretty nasty as well.

Interesting. I've always considered "whore" and "slut" as a derogatory term for women who had sex without being paid for it. "Prostitute" is one who is paid for sexual favors.

I've always considered whore and prostitute to mean the same, since brothels were long called whorehouses, though you're correct the modern definitions do cross-over slightly, whore is merely more of a slang/derogatory term for the profession IMHO. Perhaps it depends how and where you were brought up? :)

yah you are veeeeeeeery old and crusty bmax, and i bet you've known many hos...

regardin the question tho. i think many men fear women who enjoy sex. they see it as a threat. especially if they feel or have been told they aint good in bed

but sex IS goood isn't it. and man would like to experiemntwit lots of different partners

'whores' means women who take money for sex. and men who take money for sex

is thiw bad? no. if people want it there is a demand to be fulfilled. and is theoldest known profession, cause this is primal urge

but men arehypocrites. dig this. in our press media recetly, a prominent MP was found to havehad kinky sex with two young lads. tis MPwas married with two children, but secretly he liked to be have'humiliating' sex with lads dressed in football strip-s.

only relatiovely short time before he got exposed, he had publicly put down a judge who'd been caught with rent boys!

so, what men say and do are two completely differnt things

a man mayt want a virginal wife who is so good nd putre, yert secretly lust after bopys or women who do blow jobs and 'around the word' and all kinds of stuf his mrs wouldn't---at least not with HIM

so much hypocrisy. and actually i havekown postitutes in my time as friends, ad they can be the most real no-bullshit pople you can trust. they really learn about human nature

When, at what point, does a woman become a whore (or slut or whatever term you wish to use)?

I mean, if a girl fucks two different men over a two year period, is she a whore?

If she fucks twenty men over a two year period, is she then a whore?

How 'bout if she fucks 405,236 men in two HOURS, is she then a whore?

There must be some cutoff, some measure, of whoredom ...but in all of my 60-some years, I've never known what it is. And now that I'm totally surrounded by some of the smartest people on the entire planet, I'm hoping to find the answer to this perplexing question!

Baron Max
SLUT:

- A woman who has sex before marriage or actively looks for sex!

- a woman who has sex outside of marriage (with a few exceptions!)

- a woman who hangs around with men rather than with women (especially for all the wrong reasons!)

- a woman who shows off her breasts or other private parts in public!

- a woman who uses sex to gain favours from people!

The term "slut" is a derogatory term used to express an opinion."
James, why do you think 'slut' is a derogatory term and 'homosexual' is not?

Is that because a group of people has appropriated the word 'homo'?

If a group of sexually active women proudly call themselves 'slut' will you then approve of it?

SLUT:

- A woman who has sex before marriage or actively looks for sex!

- a woman who has sex outside of marriage (with a few exceptions!)

- a woman who hangs around with men rather than with women (especially for all the wrong reasons!)

- a woman who shows off her breasts or other private parts in public!

- a woman who uses sex to gain favours from people!

LOL, sometimes I wonder if this is really the year 2006.

LOL, sometimes I wonder if this is really the year 2006.
This is 2006 alright! The only difference is that you live in an anti-male society that indulges its females and encourages them to be 'sluts' (by making it a common practise), while discouraging same-sex activities by calling them 'homosexuals'.

The basic essence of a 'heterosexual' woman is that of a 'slut'. Just like that of a 'heterosexual' man is that of a wimp. Most men and women are not heterosexuals.

(Note: just a woman loving a man in itself doesn't make her a heterosexual woman!)

By the way they have found a gene that 20% of women have that makes them 'sluts'. the other 'heterosexual' women are just acting due to social conditioning. Of course they get lots of power from the heterosexual society which enslaves the men and disempowers them (makes wimps out of them) for women's sake. And women become masculine and slutty with that power. The more slutty a woman becomes the more powers she holds over men.

A good definition of a slut:

A woman who dates.

Dating is just a cover up for slutting.

Other definitions:

a woman who holds a man's hands in public or kisses him in public.

I think a man who is a slut is called a manwhore, but I could be wrong. I think a slut is more of that person you call after being rejected at a club. It's your trump card. The girl who gives the title "Friends with benefits" to lots of "Friends"

i always called them he whores

Another definition of a whore:

A woman who demands sex from men, and gets aggressive about it.

LOL, Buddha is funny.

LOL, Buddha is funny.
Well, certainly I am, since what I am saying hurts your image of a heterosexual woman, doesn't it!

I would have had nothing against sexually aggressive women, if:

- the society was not forcefully heterosexualised leaving men completely vulnerable against them,

- and women were not given such huge powers over men.

When, at what point, does a woman become a whore (or slut or whatever term you wish to use)?

I mean, if a girl fucks two different men over a two year period, is she a whore?

If she fucks twenty men over a two year period, is she then a whore?

How 'bout if she fucks 405,236 men in two HOURS, is she then a whore?

There must be some cutoff, some measure, of whoredom ...but in all of my 60-some years, I've never known what it is. And now that I'm totally surrounded by some of the smartest people on the entire planet, I'm hoping to find the answer to this perplexing question!

Baron Max

no fuckin way, youre 60 something?

i'm pushing him over the top
so ease up man

Well, certainly I am, since what I am saying hurts your image of a heterosexual woman, doesn't it!
have you ever figured out what a social gendered inner sexed outer masculine feminist is?

it's sarcasm buddha
don't get your panties in a bunch

lol :D ..... :confused:

:confused: is my feeling exactly

:confused: is my feeling exactly
I think you're referring to the entire discussion about gender and sexuality.

There is nothing not to understand here!

I would like to extend a great "thank you" to all the sluts out there.

<3

- N

sorry Buddha1, i do not agree with your tughts about 'sluts'...in fact it pissess me right off

it is men who concot this scenario. why is it wrong for women to enjoy sex? and sleep around? or haei got u wrong? please explain

IMO, a whore is someone who would, for instance, sleep with someone after first date and then someone else right after that or someone who would sleep with her/his sister boyfriend/husband, wife/girlfriend. Someone who would not care about the protection of themselves or the other parties involved. And not care about who gets hurt in the process. Great Example?! Just watch anything on the JERRY SPRINGER Show! Full of whores/sluts male and female

it is men who concot this scenario. why is it wrong for women to enjoy sex? and sleep around? or haei got u wrong? please explain

The problem isn't with women who like to sleep around as much as men, the problem is when the girl finds the term "slut" offensive, when she shouldn't. Hell, you can call me a slut, manwhore, or whatever you want and I'll thank you for the compliment. ;)

- N

The problem isn't with women who like to sleep around as much as men, the problem is when the girl finds the term "slut" offensive, when she shouldn't. Hell, you can call me a slut, manwhore, or whatever you want and I'll thank you for the compliment. ;)

- N
ask yourself WHY you'd feel so smug.
isn't it cause being seen to be sexually promiscuous as a male is more accepted by patriarchal culture?

sorry Buddha1, i do not agree with your tughts about 'sluts'...in fact it pissess me right off

it is men who concot this scenario. why is it wrong for women to enjoy sex? and sleep around? or haei got u wrong? please explain
It is hard to explain, but I'll try!

To understand my point of view you will have to see and observe the world from my standpoint and point of reference.

The oppression of (masculine gendered) men is directly related with pressures of social masculinity that force men to exaggerate their sexual need for men, to have sex with women and to suppress their sexual need for men. It is for this reason that women have been given the power to decide who is a man and who is not.

No one is more capable of using that power and to destroy men than the sexually aggressive heterosexual woman --- who thinks it is her natural right. In the traditional society, her powers were kept under control, for being openly desirous of sex was considered unacceptable for women, and women could exercise this power over men only in limited circles.

The heterosexual society gives such women total freedom and men complete vulnerability before them. They are the first ones to cry 'homo' if they see men being close with other men, or a man who doesn't submit to her demand for sex.

Now heterosexual women are very amenable with 'homosexuals' (It's a mutual admiration and support!), and are all for their rights, because that is a separate group and they don't see them as a threat to their power base (which is invisible, but real!). But they can't stand masculine gendered men in the mainstream, who don't submit to their sexual subordination or show an attraction for another male. They are the first ones, together with the real 'hetero' males (a minority) to marginalise same-sex behaviour.

You have seen how 'heteros' put pressures on men to submit to women's sexual expoitation. A society which doesn't even recognise the sexual exploitation of men, and doesn't think there is anything wrong with the compelete heterosexualisation of society will only exacerbate the oppression of men by allowing freedom to the 'sluts'.

I don't know if I"m making myself clear.

To understand my point of view you will have to see and observe the world from my standpoint and point of reference.

But what is your stand point, or point of reference?

I don't know if I"m making myself clear.

Not to me your not. :m:

But what is your stand point, or point of reference?
From a masculine gendered/ straight (not heterosexual) point of view. From someone who has worked extensively with straight men and know the real issues involved.

Not to me your not. :m:
It will only make sense if you:
- are not part of the vested interest group.
- if you are you are still capable of viewing things objectively.
- you 've been following my threads on male gender and sexuality.

.....being seen to be sexually promiscuous as a male is more accepted by patriarchal culture?
That statement is only partly true.

This statement, which is often propagated by the heterosexual society is only true if one believes the heterosexual viewpoint that man is primarily and exclusively interested only in women, and has no sexual need for men at all. For male promiscuity, in a heterosexual society is exalted and accepted only if it is vis-a-vis women. So you should qualify your statement accordingly, otherwise it misleads.

However, male promiscuity does include (even in the heterosexual west, but I guess to a much lesser degree in the US than in Europe) 'active' penetrative sex with another man or a transgendered male, and almost all other kinds of sex with another man if there are proper excuses (like a supposed lack of girls or being drunk, or a socially acceptable occasion like hazing!).

One who has/wants to have sex with many different people, regardless of sex or gender, with disregard for their own personal honour or the honour of those they are sleeping with is a slut.

Until you start applying the value differently to each gender because of their gender, the definition stays the same. When we apply our value systems i.e. Males are less likely to be considered sluts because in the society in the U.S., it is a rite of passage and even encouraged for males to "sow their seed" before settling down to get it out of their system. But females who experiment with their sexuality and sleep around before settling down are considered "damaged goods" and not worth marrying. It is this way because, like it or not, the majority of the United States is Christian based morals/values. Women should be virginal, and men do not have to be so. It is much less pronounced in Europe, and much more pronounced in the Middle East and Asia excluding the more progressive places like China and Japan.

Your statement that male promiscuity includes having sex with another male, is not accurate and not relevant. Men who use anyone, male or female as an object to eject their sperm into and not a living feeling human being, are sluts. The same could be said for females who do the same thing, although that scenario in the female gender is less likely. Women tend to be more emotional about their sex, and it is done to make themselves feel more wanted or boost self-esteem, or to make someone jealous, or to sabotage a current relationship, or in worst case scenario, cover some old wound such as rape/abuse with good feeling sex to make it go away or to bring their self-esteem down more.

One who has/wants to have sex with many different people, regardless of sex or gender, with disregard for their own personal honour or the honour of those they are sleeping with is a slut.

Until you start applying the value differently to each gender because of their gender, the definition stays the same. When we apply our value systems i.e. Males are less likely to be considered sluts because in the society in the U.S., it is a rite of passage and even encouraged for males to "sow their seed" before settling down to get it out of their system. But females who experiment with their sexuality and sleep around before settling down are considered "damaged goods" and not worth marrying. It is this way because, like it or not, the majority of the United States is Christian based morals/values. Women should be virginal, and men do not have to be so. It is much less pronounced in Europe, and much more pronounced in the Middle East and Asia excluding the more progressive places like China and Japan.

Your statement that male promiscuity includes having sex with another male, is not accurate and not relevant. Men who use anyone, male or female as an object to eject their sperm into and not a living feeling human being, are sluts. The same could be said for females who do the same thing, although that scenario in the female gender is less likely. Women tend to be more emotional about their sex, and it is done to make themselves feel more wanted or boost self-esteem, or to make someone jealous, or to sabotage a current relationship, or in worst case scenario, cover some old wound such as rape/abuse with good feeling sex to make it go away or to bring their self-esteem down more.
Much of what you've said belongs in an ideal world. But alas we live in an unequal world with the reality not always being what it appears.

Also, men and women are neither equals nor the same. Although this fact I don't see necessarily applying here, not directly at least.

Different sexual mores are not basically a handiwork of Christianity as you assume. The seeds of it were sown way back at the start of the marriage institution, when the society wanted to force men and women into marriage and they developed different social mechanisms for men and women for this purpose.

With men the issue was to force them into sex with women --- because by nature it happens with much less frequency and intensity. So their pressures developed accordingly. There pressures basically sought to block male sexual attention from men and to divert it towards women. That is how 'sex with women' became a big deal --- and a test of manhood, a matter of honor. And not participating in it became a great dishonour which almost amounted to being outcast from the 'men's' group.

Men were also offered several sops, including ownership of the 'wife' and children, and a guarantee that the woman will bear his sperms and carry on his lineage. All this made the man feel very important indeed, and the society too encouraged him to have a huge ego.

With women (in nature a majority of whom seek sex with men but not an emotional bonding --- and this sex is limited to only what is required for procreation) the issue was to ensure that they had sex only with men so as to ensure the male lineage. Of course, women too were blocked from their natural urge to form sexual bonds with other women --- but this was easy to achieve since it was easy to use external force on women. With men the pressure was mostly internal.

We share the same sexual mores to this day. Although heterosexual societies have changed the pressures of women to a great extent. The pressures of men have been intensified.

Yet the society doesn't even need to force men into marriage anymore! Today, the pressures exist for their own sake. Their objective today is to feed the power base of the 'vested interest group' --- the group that has learned to thrive on the ancient social mechanisms of oppression.

The problem isn't with women who like to sleep around as much as men, the problem is when the girl finds the term "slut" offensive, when she shouldn't. Hell, you can call me a slut, manwhore, or whatever you want and I'll thank you for the compliment. ;)

- N
My own mother still occasionally calls me a slut even though I've been married for ten years. My girlfriends used to also called me a slut often enough, I always took it as a complement, especially when they came back for more :p

It is hard to explain, but I'll try!

To understand my point of view you will have to see and observe the world from my standpoint and point of reference.

The oppression of (masculine gendered) men is directly related with pressures of social masculinity that force men to exaggerate their sexual need for men, to have sex with women and to suppress their sexual need for men. It is for this reason that women have been given the power to decide who is a man and who is not.

No one is more capable of using that power and to destroy men than the sexually aggressive heterosexual woman --- who thinks it is her natural right. In the traditional society, her powers were kept under control, for being openly desirous of sex was considered unacceptable for women, and women could exercise this power over men only in limited circles.

The heterosexual society gives such women total freedom and men complete vulnerability before them. They are the first ones to cry 'homo' if they see men being close with other men, or a man who doesn't submit to her demand for sex.

Now heterosexual women are very amenable with 'homosexuals' (It's a mutual admiration and support!), and are all for their rights, because that is a separate group and they don't see them as a threat to their power base (which is invisible, but real!). But they can't stand masculine gendered men in the mainstream, who don't submit to their sexual subordination or show an attraction for another male. They are the first ones, together with the real 'hetero' males (a minority) to marginalise same-sex behaviour.

You have seen how 'heteros' put pressures on men to submit to women's sexual expoitation. A society which doesn't even recognise the sexual exploitation of men, and doesn't think there is anything wrong with the compelete heterosexualisation of society will only exacerbate the oppression of men by allowing freedom to the 'sluts'.

I don't know if I"m making myself clear.

yes you are. and as you sai it is YOUR POINT OF VIEW. itis not mine. hope i am clear also.

of course over the time i've been here, i have gelled with SOMEinsightsof yeours, example being materialistic science. but in thi instance i notice women and homoseexuals yet agin being blamed for 'man's' troubles

it seems quite a mission of yourse this subject. for i have noticed it being rased by you in even threds where its a different subject.
i feel this:
pepple are as they are. if a bloke is gay and feels totally Gay. it is for NOone to tell the they aint right, and need help etc. that is wrong.
if a bloke feels otally into women. again it is absurd to tell them they really have secret desires for males but wont admit it. as it is for te gay b;oke if you claim they really want women also. NO. they feel like they feel. it is noone's right to chalenge their sexuality, UNLESS it impinges on others' freedom
usually very women-loving men are very cool about homosexuality. ie., they are at ease with Gays. so i see no harm with that. if they dont fancy males. leav e it!

as for women wo love sex. many feminists wuld really challenge you on your...patriarchal view about how 'proper culture' would keep tem in check. for that idea IS patriarchal. the idea that only males can be promiscuous, and efe ENJOY sex.

so i am afriad i have to say Buddha1, you views seem to me patriarchal. it is all centred around males and THEIRneeds.

yes you are. and as you sai it is YOUR POINT OF VIEW. itis not mine. hope i am clear also.

of course over the time i've been here, i have gelled with SOMEinsightsof yeours, example being materialistic science. but in thi instance i notice women and homoseexuals yet agin being blamed for 'man's' troubles
I have not blamed women and homosexuals. Not in the way you think. But why do you think its only men who need to take the blame.

I've stressed it again and again, and I think you're ignoring it, that both men and women had to make sacrifices and were given priviliges in their own way --- in order to pressurise them into patriachy (the marriage institution!). Just because man's powers are visible and his oppression is not doesn't negate his oppresion. And just because women's oppression is visible and her powers are not, shouldn't negate her powers either.

When you think I'm blaming woman I am actually opposing lifting her pressures and giving her outer powers (much more than she ever sacrificed in the first place!) when no one cares about the oppression of men becasue it is invisible. And that his oppression is infact intensified. This violates the social balance and makes men really vulnerbale and isolated.

The role of the homosexual becomes important because he has appropriated the social space for male-male bonds, leaving little option for men --- but that is another story.

it seems quite a mission of yourse this subject. for i have noticed it being rased by you in even threds where its a different subject.
i feel this:
If you're talking about male gender and sexuality, yes it is a mission. But I've not lost my objectivity and I am basically looking to discuss my observations, analysis, ideas, opinions and values with others with an open mind so as to find out the real truth.

pepple are as they are. if a bloke is gay and feels totally Gay. it is for NOone to tell the they aint right, and need help etc. that is wrong.
if a bloke feels otally into women. again it is absurd to tell them they really have secret desires for males but wont admit it. as it is for te gay b;oke if you claim they really want women also. NO. they feel like they feel. it is noone's right to chalenge their sexuality, UNLESS it impinges on others' freedom
That is a heterosexual/ homosexual/ woman's point of view. It is also an individualistic standpoint --- and though looks cool as an attitude towards individuals, has no relevance here --- when we are talking about larger issues. You are basically denying that men are under an intense pressure to be 'heterosexual'. There is no way to look behind what is going on behind men's masks if we were to respect their masks even for the purpose of this discussion. I have seen what goes behind those masks, because I'm part of that group, and I want to bring that out. There is no other way than to talk about the 'behind the masks' man. Your 'politically' correct approach is not very helpful here. It also reflects a total lack of understanding of men's issues. And don't forget that I'm not challenging individuals about their sexuality --- unless I see reason to. And when there is a reason to suspect (e.g. when it is used as a power statement to disarm the oppostion), then I limit myself to pointing out that there is often a different reality behind the mask. This is done as a strategy and it has worked so far.

usually very women-loving men are very cool about homosexuality. ie., they are at ease with Gays.
Yes for sure. Women are very cool with homosexuality. But they are not cool at all with masculine bonds or even the idea of it. They are at ease with gays --- and share quite a lot with them --- but they don't want masculine men to like men --- that makes them insecure. So all those fag hags will be the first one to cry 'homo' when a masculine gendere man spurns their advances or shows interest in another man.

so i see no harm with that. if they dont fancy males. leav e it!
If you think that I have been forcing men to admit that they have a sexual need for men, then you're sadly mistaken. I don't think you've understood the basics of the issues that I'm raising.

as for women wo love sex. many feminists wuld really challenge you on your...patriarchal view about how 'proper culture' would keep tem in check. for that idea IS patriarchal. the idea that only males can be promiscuous, and efe ENJOY sex.
As for feminists, they are part and parcel of the heterosxual world! They are just there to ensure a greater share of power within the heterosexual system. They don't oppose it. The same is the case with homosexuals.

[QUOTE=duendy]so i am afriad i have to say Buddha1, you views seem to me patriarchal. it is all centred around males and THEIRneeds.
I don't support marriage, so I cannot be patriachical! :) :m:

My position vis-a-vis sexually aggressive (heterosexual) women is this:

There can be no freedom for men within the heterosexual system. The heterosexual system is basically and intrinsically anti-men. Sexually aggressive women are one of the primary beneficiaries of the heterosexual system. Therefore, I cannot be expected to view them favourably.

I see homosexuals, feminists and heterosexual males in more or less a similar fashion. Because they are all part of the heterosexual system. They are all based on the heterosexual ideology.

I'm willing to change my views if someone can show me why!

Your statement that male promiscuity includes having sex with another male, is not accurate and not relevant.
Believe me you're a woman and you have no way to know or understand what goes on inside the minds of men. This only another man can know. But then he is supposed to keep it a well guarded secret (esp. from women and homosexuals). I happen to disagree! and for a purpose.

As far as male promiscuity is concerned, in my society, most definitely a desire to have sex with men is seen as: the man is brimming over with sexual desire (hormones). It is not seen as something that comes in the way of marriage (with us marriage and procreation is important, sex with women is not of much use on its own --- barring the peer-group!).

I can see that the west has more or less the same values --- even after decades of heterosexualisation. I remember a post made by a 'heterosexual' poster who bragged about 'fucking homosexuals' and 'getting sucked by men'.

as for women wo love sex. many feminists wuld really challenge you on your...patriarchal view about how 'proper culture' would keep tem in check.
Where are all those feminists? How come Sciforums don't have them? I'd love to discuss things with them, and see them challenge me!

when i say 'patriarchal' i mean that, but also basically i mean a fear of Nature. so forme a celibate ascetic monk is patriarchal...it is part of that mindset which fears Hature, for very aniceintly Nature was conceptualized as being female.

please dont assume me politically correct. that to me is false coporate shite,and double speak. i try and speak from the heart. u should have gotten that frpm me by now dude

look. the 1950s had the psychiatric establishment doing all kinds of horrors to Gay men claiming theyweren't really Gay

i see no idfference wid your attitude. by patronizingly telling people they dont know who they are

Leary had similat attitude, and tried to 'imprint' Aby Hoffman with LSD to become 'straight'...it din't err work

it also is very un-tA TO TRY FORCE PEOPLE TO BE WHAT THEY FEEL THEY ARE NOT. TO ONE CAN GENTLY HINT

A GOOD EXMAPLE. THERE ARE THEORIES THAT THE LATE kURT cOBAINE was really Gay, yet he had been oppressed to deny it, andthis married and had a baby. well it would have been nice for him to not feel guilt about sex with males....a it would other males

also if a male who is hetero is totally ito women ad doesn't attack Queers, good luck to him. iw women love the company of gay males, good luck to them. if women want lots and lots of sex. that is their right. sex is fun. ofcourse they ned 'take care' adivice. but so do males

it is wrong wrong to call them sluts

but in another way, being 'slutty' cn be a part of their character they might liketo explore. why not

to really understand te male conception of WOMAN. you need to explore about thier suppression of te Goddess/ how they keep the submissive aspect, ie, Virgin Mary, and demonize the wilder sexual woman who will not be submissive, such as 'Lilith'. this mythis narative reveals very profoundy the underying fears and motives of men

of course i dont only see wome as vitims in patriarchal cultue. but many men not into that trip LOVE wild strong women. it turns em on

Women tend to be more emotional about their sex, and it is done to make themselves feel more wanted or boost self-esteem, or to make someone jealous, or to sabotage a current relationship, or in worst case scenario, cover some old wound such as rape/abuse with good feeling sex to make it go away or to bring their self-esteem down more.
The best emotional bonds women share is with other women.

In heterosexual societies women are under pressure to have boyfriends and to date. They feel incomplete without it. And there is an intense competition amongst peers about getting a boyfriend and winning dates. That makes them feel worthwhile.

But the best sexual bonds women have is also with other women. When there is perfect understanding, acceptance and equality. Of course the society has blocked them from this need, though in heterosexual societies women are reclaiming it slowly, and it is coming out of the 'lesbian' prison. (of course the term lesbian doesn't have the same negative connotations for women as the word 'homosexual' has for men!).

when i say 'patriarchal' i mean that, but also basically i mean a fear of Nature. so forme a celibate ascetic monk is patriarchal...it is part of that mindset which fears Hature, for very aniceintly Nature was conceptualized as being female.
I have no fear of nature. Neither does natural masculinity fear nature. I think your concept of patriarchy is a bit misplaced.

It is also wrong to believe that masculinity is negative and fears nature. Or that nature is feminine --- that I totally disagree with. If anything the nature would be either neutral or hermaphrodite.

For the very ancients too, nature (or more precisely god) was seen as a hermaphrodite.

please dont assume me politically correct. that to me is false coporate shite,and double speak. i try and speak from the heart. u should have gotten that frpm me by now dude
Alright Pal!

look. the 1950s had the psychiatric establishment doing all kinds of horrors to Gay men claiming theyweren't really Gay

i see no idfference wid your attitude. by patronizingly telling people they dont know who they are

Leary had similat attitude, and tried to 'imprint' Aby Hoffman with LSD to become 'straight'...it din't err work

it also is very un-tA TO TRY FORCE PEOPLE TO BE WHAT THEY FEEL THEY ARE NOT. TO ONE CAN GENTLY HINT

A GOOD EXMAPLE. THERE ARE THEORIES THAT THE LATE kURT cOBAINE was really Gay, yet he had been oppressed to deny it, andthis married and had a baby. well it would have been nice for him to not feel guilt about sex with males....a it would other males
I think you're again displaying a total lack of understanding of the issues that men face.

Let me illustrate the point you've raised with an example.

There is a pressure on men to be masculine. But there is no pressure on men to be feminine. In fact the society is hostile to the idea.

So you can't compare what appears to be masculine on a similar footing with what appears to be feminine. Because a lot of 'masculinity' will be a pretense precisely becasue of the pressures. But the femininity will be totally genuine (at least in the mainstream society, in the gay world it is exaggerated!).

The same is true of so-called heterosexuality and homosexuality. The division of society along these lines also complicates the matter. And though homosexuals, especially the true ones are honest and clear about their choice, it would be a mistake for them to make the same assumption about the other side, because they don't know the issues that men on the other side face.

also if a male who is hetero is totally ito women ad doesn't attack Queers, good luck to him. iw women love the company of gay males, good luck to them. if women want lots and lots of sex. that is their right. sex is fun. ofcourse they ned 'take care' adivice. but so do males

it is wrong wrong to call them sluts

but in another way, being 'slutty' cn be a part of their character they might liketo explore. why not
I have already expressed my reservations about the issue above.

to really understand te male conception of WOMAN. you need to explore about thier suppression of te Goddess/ how they keep the submissive aspect, ie, Virgin Mary, and demonize the wilder sexual woman who will not be submissive, such as 'Lilith'. this mythis narative reveals very profoundy the underying fears and motives of men
I disagree Duendy. You make out men to be the stereotypical culprits. It is not the reality!

of course i dont only see wome as vitims in patriarchal cultue. but many men not into that trip LOVE wild strong women. it turns em on
Yes, heterosexual men! :rolleyes:

when i say 'patriarchal' i mean that, but also basically i mean a fear of Nature. so forme a celibate ascetic monk is patriarchal...it is part of that mindset which fears Hature, for very aniceintly Nature was conceptualized as being female.
The feminine in males has been really, really victimised. But if you think the female in itself has been meted out the same treatment you are not totally correct. Women, received several important powers in the patriachal society --- that more than compensate for everything they lost.

Also, masculinity itself has received a pretty shabby treatment by the civilised society. Indeed, the civilised society had no place for natural masculinity since the beginning and saw it as a threat. Unless and until it imprisioned natural masculinlity of men, they could never have been imprisioned in the patriarchical/ marriage institution. So the civilised society practically banned natural positive masculinity from its spaces.

Of course it did not just disappear. It survived in negative and mutilated forms. And this is how it got a bad name. Masculinity is seen as something negative, destructive and exploitative. But it is not the real, positive form of it.

Also, the society kept using superficial and often negative images of masculinity as ideals for men --- in order to keep them clamouring for social masculinity, the society's only means of controlling men. In the absence of their natural masculinity men too became heavily dependant on 'social masculinity'.

So you see, females or femininity in males have not been the only sufferers. Someone's suffering has been recognised and someone's hasn't been. It's the latter who has paid the worst price.

i see no idfference wid your attitude. by patronizingly telling people they dont know who they are

it also is very un-tA TO TRY FORCE PEOPLE TO BE WHAT THEY FEEL THEY ARE NOT. TO ONE CAN GENTLY HINT
Most men are aware of their same-sex feelings and hide it. Some express it through hostility towards such feelings. Other suppress it for 'social masculinity'.

The first group is the majority and keeps quiet when such issues are raised.

The second group is sometimes encountered in such discussions --- as in the outside world.

It is the last group which is vocal in such discussions.

Of course there are men who are confused --- because the society has confused them.

The few real really heterosexuals ones don't see it as a power issue, even when they believe that everyone is 'heterosexual' like them. They are neither aggressive about the issue, nor do they use their 'heterosexuality' as a weapon. And it is the same on such discussion forums as in real life.

And where have you seen me forcing someone to believe that he has a sexual attraction for men?

How 'bout if she fucks 405,236 men in two HOURS, is she then a whore?

Baron Max

I wouldn't say so. I'd say she has super powers.

you tend toreveal to me Buddha1, in this thread and in others, that you are not so au fe with mythology.....one thread i thought was gonna be good u started youseemed to just forget about

but thepoint. yu dont dig that the concept of the Earth being feminine, hence 'Mother Earth' is w idely spread/global anceint one.....Obviously the association is that Earth is home, it nurtures, and is reponsible for the birth of all forms of life

so the patriarchal mindset, which includes monotheism and mystical schools, andEastern metaphysics, desigen their doctrines to denigrate BOTH woman AND Nature. if you dont get ths crucial cue, then your shit's bound to be limited in scope of insight, in my opinion

women hafve NOT had any good deal out of the patriarchy. ae you mad?? they have been demonized. not solong ago the Curch theologians eve wondeed wheter women had SOULS. compare wit Rene Descartes' same absurd idea that animals are mere machines

Also with Nayture. we are living in the lEGACY OF cARTESIAN DUALISM, IN THat materialistic science has the idea that Nature is dead/insentient

do you see a pattern here? I do. it is that when a power decides to degrade another, first it must 'dehumanize' it/...and/or dis-spirit it, in order to feel superior towards it and then have power-over

so we have Woman, Nature, Gays, peoples of a darker skin tone.......all degraded by silly beliefs from a male mindset

why should it have come from males?

a good plausiable reason is that unlike woman who isfeeling-connecxted with Earth process due to her periods, conception, childbirth and nurturing, usually males haf not felt so, and so certain of them have ganged togther and deliberately decided to take power-over. and to eventually escape what they haveunderstood to be a Feminine trap. for when you look at th etymology of the Eastern concept of 'Maya' you see it drives from feminine associations, ie MA-meter, measure, and Mama

let me qicikly add. this mindset is not ALL males. it is eliyes whove split their beings in two. mind/'logic' versus body/emotions. the latter always, in patriarchal myth etc., with femininity and the former with masculinity

The feminine in males has been really, really victimised. But if you think the female in itself has been meted out the same treatment you are not totally correct. Women, received several important powers in the patriachal society --- that more than compensate for everything they lost.

Also, masculinity itself has received a pretty shabby treatment by the civilised society. Indeed, the civilised society had no place for natural masculinity since the beginning and saw it as a threat. Unless and until it imprisioned natural masculinlity of men, they could never have been imprisioned in the patriarchical/ marriage institution. So the civilised society practically banned natural positive masculinity from its spaces.

Of course it did not just disappear. It survived in negative and mutilated forms. And this is how it got a bad name. Masculinity is seen as something negative, destructive and exploitative. But it is not the real, positive form of it.

Also, the society kept using superficial and often negative images of masculinity as ideals for men --- in order to keep them clamouring for social masculinity, the society's only means of controlling men. In the absence of their natural masculinity men too became heavily dependant on 'social masculinity'.

So you see, females or femininity in males have not been the only sufferers. Someone's suffering has been recognised and someone's hasn't been. It's the latter who has paid the worst price.

So everyones bi, but we don't know it?

you tend toreveal to me Buddha1, in this thread and in others, that you are not so au fe with mythology
Although in the past I'd leave the discussion with you when it got to this part (about nature, mythology, femininity and patriarchy), because, yes I do not have enough knowledge about mythology --- and its totally difficult for me to understand your concepts.....but I can definitely see that you're barking up the wrong tree.
.....one thread i thought was gonna be good u started youseemed to just forget about
Maybe I did, but then I asked you a question about......what was that, ecclestial something.....you've never replied to that.
but thepoint. yu dont dig that the concept of the Earth being feminine, hence 'Mother Earth' is w idely spread/global anceint one.....Obviously the association is that Earth is home, it nurtures, and is reponsible for the birth of all forms of life
Yes, earth is seen as feminine because it gives birth and sustains, but then nature is not only this earth. There is also the sky which is seen as masculine. And so many other symbols of nature. I think you've built on a theory on the heterosexual stereotypes of men being heteroseuxal, masculine and bad.
so the patriarchal mindset, which includes monotheism and mystical schools, andEastern metaphysics, desigen their doctrines to denigrate BOTH woman AND Nature. if you dont get ths crucial cue, then your shit's bound to be limited in scope of insight, in my opinion
The patriarchal mindset is nothing but a cliche, and a superficial one at that, which seeks to judge men from what feminists see on the outside, compeletely ignoring the pain and suffereing that men go through on the inside. Men and masculinity are as much a part of nature as women and femininity. Men love nature as well as women do!
women hafve NOT had any good deal out of the patriarchy. ae you mad?? they have been demonized. not solong ago the Curch theologians eve wondeed wheter women had SOULS. compare wit Rene Descartes' same absurd idea that animals are mere machines
a.) the ancient mythology and the church are far removed from each other and no comparison is valid. What church did cannot be blamed on men or masculinity.

b.) Sure women have received a lot from patriarchy. We can discuss this again. Soon.
Also with Nayture. we are living in the lEGACY OF cARTESIAN DUALISM, IN THat materialistic science has the idea that Nature is dead/insentient
I see logic in this.....
do you see a pattern here? I do. it is that when a power decides to degrade another, first it must 'dehumanize' it/...and/or dis-spirit it, in order to feel superior towards it and then have power-over
If you mean that men and masculinity have dehumanised women and femininity, then I don't agree. AT least not completely. For me men are as much victims as women and two-spirited people.
so we have Woman, Nature, Gays, peoples of a darker skin tone.......all degraded by silly beliefs from a male mindset
Males are just as fond of nature as anybody else. Even to think otherwise is being biased.
why should it have come from males?

a good plausiable reason is that unlike woman who isfeeling-connecxted with Earth process due to her periods, conception, childbirth and nurturing, usually males haf not felt so, and so certain of them have ganged togther and deliberately decided to take power-over. and to eventually escape what they haveunderstood to be a Feminine trap. for when you look at th etymology of the Eastern concept of 'Maya' you see it drives from feminine associations, ie MA-meter, measure, and Mama
Tooooooooooo far fetched and based on stereotypes.
let me qicikly add. this mindset is not ALL males. it is eliyes whove split their beings in two. mind/'logic' versus body/emotions. the latter always, in patriarchal myth etc., with femininity and the former with masculinity
By 'elites' if you mean 'heterosexual', then let me remind you that till as late as the Greeks men considered those who loved women or were promiscuous with women to be effeminate --- and thus 'unmanly'. Femininity in males had become denigrated even in the times of the Greeks which celebrated love between men as masculine.

The heterosexuals became Elites much later --- gradually as Christianity took hold. Actually heterosexuals did not become elites till the onset of the 20th century. Today, they rule the roost. That doesn't mean you can view the past just by extrapolating 'today'.

You haven't yet answered to the account of denigration of femininity that I have enumerated in the thread "men and masculinity". Perhaps you haven't considered it because it doesn't fit in your concept of things or ideology. But unless you do, we can't get ahead.

So everyones bi, but we don't know it?
that's more or less the moral of the story!

But we can't say that we don't know it! Most people are aware of it (although many others are confused because of the way they are brainwashed!), but our society (and its culture, institutions and spaces) don't allow us to express it openly. Most people express their same-sex needs secretly without surpassing the limits of 'heterosexuality'.

So everyones bi, but we don't know it?
Once we understand this --- everything that was unexplainable earlier, starts falling into line.

Buddha1, you're awesome, but I am not going to be sexually active with a male ever. I was far too humiliated at how un - loving it was the last time I was brainwashed into it.

I have told a secret, so keep it!

The problem isn't with women who like to sleep around as much as men, the problem is when the girl finds the term "slut" offensive, when she shouldn't. Hell, you can call me a slut, manwhore, or whatever you want and I'll thank you for the compliment.

- N
”

ask yourself WHY you'd feel so smug.
isn't it cause being seen to be sexually promiscuous as a male is more accepted by patriarchal culture?

No, I'm smug because there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Why should I not feel confident to say something that is absolutely not wrong? Why should I feel ashamed?

I'd say and do the exact same thing about telling everyone that I occassionally scratch my ass-cheeks when they itch because there's nothing wrong with that either. Oh yeah, and I look at internet porn too!

:D

- N

Buddha1, you're awesome, but I am not going to be sexually active with a male ever. I was far too humiliated at how un - loving it was the last time I was brainwashed into it.

I have told a secret, so keep it!
I will keep it a secret. But you should also ask the rest of the 15431 members and thousands of guests who browse through these pages everyday to keep it a secret!!! :D

Buddha1 - are you so insecure in your sexuality that you have to think that everyone must be bi or homosexual? why isn't it ok to just let everybody be whoever they are? I don't understand why you keep insisting that everyone who is heterosexual is just suppressing their 'bi' natures.

Buddha1 - are you so insecure in your sexuality that you have to think that everyone must be bi or homosexual? why isn't it ok to just let everybody be whoever they are? I don't understand why you keep insisting that everyone who is heterosexual is just suppressing their 'bi' natures.
I can't start the whole discussion from the scratch! You have to go and read my threads and then comment!

In short, its not about me, its what I've found out after 10 years of extensive work with men, including studying history, biology (including wildlife), society, cultures and religion for 3 years.

(If you're a woman then you'd have difficulty understanding this!)

In other words, Buddha, you're gay and you're trying to reconcile it by claiming everyone has a little "gay" inside of them. Sorry, I feel no attraction toward the male ass. Therefore, I have just proven you wrong.

In other words, Buddha, you're gay and you're trying to reconcile it by claiming everyone has a little "gay" inside of them. Sorry, I feel no attraction toward the male ass. Therefore, I have just proven you wrong.
No you haven't. First you've proven yourself to be a complete ass!

Of course, there are always exceptions --- in nature as well as in humans. If heterosexuals are an exception in the nature, there is no reason why they can't be amongst humans too! We have dealth with the subject before!

Please refer to the thred "heterosexuality is unnatural".

Also, my experience has told me how to distinguish a true heterosexual from someone who is just pretending. I just need to know some of their views/ attitudes that is all.

Yeah, right. I'll say this, if it's found that women are really bisexual, threesomes will be mandatory from now on! :m:

Buddha1- I have, indeed, read not only this entire thread, but several other in which your defend your homosexuality. And just what is it about homosexuality that you don't think a WOMAN might understand? Though I would find it easy to believe that your experience is only with men. Further, I have worked for many years in wildlife biology, and hetersexuality is the norm.

Buddha1- I have, indeed, read not only this entire thread, but several other in which your defend your homosexuality.
That you're not being objective or honest is clear from this line. I've never defended my homosexuality. I've always denied I'm a homosexual.
And just what is it about homosexuality that you don't think a WOMAN might understand?
Women understand homosexuality alright. And they get along with homosexuals very well. It is 'straight' men that they don't understand! They believe their masks of heterosexuality.

Though I would find it easy to believe that your experience is only with men.
Unfortunately, I've not had a single sexual experience with another man. I guess it is because, there are enough socio-psychological barriers in my mind --- given by my society of course. I can only deal with the issue on a 'scholarly'/ intellectual level. I think the society has been structured so that two straight men will find it extremely difficult to relate to each other on a sexual level, even with a strong inner desire. And I don't care much for the homosexuals space. They have their own world and world view which I just don't understand, even though I accept.

Further, I have worked for many years in wildlife biology, and hetersexuality is the norm.
The entire scientific community did not know about same-sex activities in the wild life in the 200 or so years that science has been around.

I think you can't get the truth unless you go with an unbaised mind.

By the way if you saw any incident of heterosexuality in the wild, you should report it in the section 'heterosexuality is unnatural' which has proved that there is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature --- that after about 20 or so pages of intense and often heated discussion.

OH!... I understand now. You don't know which word belongs with which activities. Heterosexuality means male and female sex.... which virtually all animals subscribe to. Homosexuality means same sex sex. You know, like you are talking about 'two straight men' 'relating on a sexual level'. Straight people don't HAVE sexual levels with people of their own gender.

OH!... I understand now. You don't know which word belongs with which activities. Heterosexuality means male and female sex.... which virtually all animals subscribe to. Homosexuality means same sex sex. You know, like you are talking about 'two straight men' 'relating on a sexual level'. Straight people don't HAVE sexual levels with people of their own gender.
Missy, you don't want me to start all over again from the a.b.c. of it! I don't have the energy, neither does sciforums the space.

We've already rejected (at least partly) the western concepts and definitions, and we are not blindly following them, unless they can be proved.

And we have already shown how sex between male and female for reproduction purposes is not 'heterosexualtiy' even if the dictionary says so. We're trying to get at the truth, if you haven't notices.....and the first step is to clear the cobwebs of confusion created by the English language.

Straight people don't HAVE sexual levels with people of their own gender.
To that I can only say, "welcome to the world of men!"

Oh! and I'm sorry if it shatters your image of 'men' or 'real men'!

Well, certainly I missed the part where you had rewritten the dictionary. Have you been off your meds long?

Although in the past I'd leave the discussion with you when it got to this part (about nature, mythology, femininity and patriarchy), because, yes I do not have enough knowledge about mythology --- and its totally difficult for me to understand your concepts.....but I can definitely see that you're barking up the wrong tree.

me))))))ahaaaaa, but how do you KNOW i am if as yo say you are not au fe with mythologial history?
it is wise to look at the ROOTS dont ya think?

Maybe I did, but then I asked you a question about......what was that, ecclestial something.....you've never replied to that.

me)))can you remember the url of that thread?i will try and reply then

Yes, earth is seen as feminine because it gives birth and sustains, but then nature is not only this earth. There is also the sky which is seen as masculine. And so many other symbols of nature. I think you've built on a theory on the heterosexual stereotypes of men being heteroseuxal, masculine and bad.

me)))well you are showing your ignoreance-wirth respect-regarding the prepatriarchal cosmological understandig. in that Strea there was see to be no division between heaven ad earth. it is the patriarchas who 'slice' up the Goddess! and from there desigante her place as earth and denigrate it whilst deifying the 'male' heavens

The patriarchal mindset is nothing but a cliche, and a superficial one at that, which seeks to judge men from what feminists see on the outside, compeletely ignoring the pain and suffereing that men go through on the inside. Men and masculinity are as much a part of nature as women and femininity. Men love nature as well as women do!

me)))Buddha1, your confusing a male MINDSET which is patriarchal with ALL males. i am not

a.) the ancient mythology and the church are far removed from each other and no comparison is valid. What church did cannot be blamed on men or masculinity.

me)))rubbish. anceint mythology was major influence on church, and from there the patriarcha bias frm their chosen pagan approriations and their Judaic christian additions completely alsmost dismiss Goddes. in this myth, Nature becomes th 'shit of the devil'!

b.) Sure women have received a lot from patriarchy. We can discuss this again. Soon.

me)))go tell it to he women who have been abused and batyered by the patriarchy. listen to THEM. not male apologists. same as listen to the VICTIMS of psychiatry, NOT the shrinks.

I see logic in this.....

If you mean that men and masculinity have dehumanised women and femininity, then I don't agree. AT least not completely. For me men are as much victims as women and two-spirited people.

me))please listen closely B,cause i have said itmanyt times before. men HAVEben victims of the patriarchy, of COURSE theyt have. so what we are on about is not ALL men, but a mindset that is prticular for males. clear?

Males are just as fond of nature as anybody else. Even to think otherwise is being biased.

me))))))of course. see above.

Tooooooooooo far fetched and based on stereotypes.

me))forget what that was referring to, sorry

By 'elites' if you mean 'heterosexual', then let me remind you that till as late as the Greeks men considered those who loved women or were promiscuous with women to be effeminate --- and thus 'unmanly'. Femininity in males had become denigrated even in the times of the Greeks which celebrated love between men as masculine.

me))))))yes i know and which proves that is is the FEMININE a certain male mindset fears, which also for thm includes Nature.

The heterosexuals became Elites much later --- gradually as Christianity took hold. Actually heterosexuals did not become elites till the onset of the 20th century. Today, they rule the roost. That doesn't mean you can view the past just by extrapolating 'today'.

mePPPit means the hetero patriarchal men have ruled the roost for lots longer than 20th century. why you think they went on and on in Bible etc about the rule for procreation?!....and their condemnation of males sleeping with males...?

You haven't yet answered to the account of denigration of femininity that I have enumerated in the thread "men and masculinity". Perhaps you haven't considered it because it doesn't fit in your concept of things or ideology. But unless you do, we can't get ahead.

i find it truly sad when men put down feminism. for it is they who have totally deconstructed the patriarchal scam. always depend on the victims to one day find a way.
i eel with you B, ou seem in your way misogynistic. sorry, but tis is how your sounding--to me at any rate.

that's more or less the moral of the story!

oh, okay. Well I don't know about that. I guess everyone might have some level of gayness. I don't think I could feel the same way about a girl the way I feel about a girl though.

oh, okay. Well I don't know about that. I guess everyone might have some level of gayness. I don't think I could feel the same way about a girl the way I feel about a girl though.
Well, by the time the society is through with us, that does describe a lot of us!

But in reality, that is biologically speaking the truth is the opposite. Everyone has some sexual feelings for the opposite sex, when the primary sexual desire is for the same-sex. (of course there are exceptions!).

This is what I have learned after 10 years of extensive work with mainstream men.

I have already given several evidences for this assertion both from history, culture and biology. I will provide more when the time comes.

oh, okay. Well I don't know about that. I guess everyone might have some level of gayness. I don't think I could feel the same way about a girl the way I feel about a girl though.
:confused: :confused:

The society attempts to block our same-sex needs/ capacities since our childhood. Some of us really loose touch with them. But sometimes people are jolted from this blockage, when it comes out all of a sudden when they least expected it. I have seen or heard it happening both with men as well as women.

oh, well... I really don't think I'm bi though. I'm just being honest with you.

Only a real prick can call a woman a whore.

But it takes a big prick with a picayune brain to want to define the meaning of the word whore.

What's wrong with the dictionary definitions? They've served our language just fine for hundreds of years. Whore is just another word for prostitute, a woman who is paid for sex. A slut is any woman who has many sexual partners, whether she gets paid or not. Whether these words have positive or negative connotations, and therefore whether it's an insult or a compliment to call a woman that, depends on the moral codes of the era and culture and in our culture it's generally been an insult. But the root meanings are pretty clear. The subtleties are in the fine points of what constitutes "payment." And if the payment is something other than monetary, how many times does she have to do it for that payment to qualify?

A certain woman doesn't really like sex--or perhaps doesn't really like heterosexual sex--but she marries a man she more or less likes and agrees to have sex with him regularly, in return for a home and support for herself and the children she wants. Is she a whore? What if she doesn't tell him of her feelings and lets him think she likes it? What if that marriage doesn't work out and she marries another man who gives her a nicer house and sends her kids to an Ivy League school? And then another who gives her servants and diamonds and stock options? What if she does this ten times in her lifetime?

A substantial number of women born since WWII have as many as twenty sex partners in one year and may have more than fifty in their lifetime. Not necessarily overlapping. Short romances that run their course in a few weeks interspersed with even shorter ones that don't last beyone one or two dates. Women who have strong sex drives and don't suppress them. Pretty much like a lot of men. Are they sluts? What if these romances do overlap, pretty much like a lot of men? What if a lot of them are one-time only, pretty much like a lot of men?

Only a real prick can call a woman a whore.

But it takes a big prick with a picayune brain to want to define the meaning of the word whore.
what are your thoughts on the word 'homo' and its usage to describe men?

Well, certainly I missed the part where you had rewritten the dictionary. Have you been off your meds long?
What's wrong with the dictionary definitions? They've served our language just fine for hundreds of years......Whether these words have positive or negative connotations, and therefore whether it's an insult or a compliment to call a woman that, depends on the moral codes of the era and culture and in our culture it's generally been an insult. But the root meanings are pretty clear.
Dreama, your frustration and way of talking clearly shows that you are speaking from a point of view of a person from 'vested interest group'. I can't expect you to be objective in determining or accepting the truth then.

Dictonary definitions are only reflections of the language we use, and how we use it. And our language is often a reflection of the mores and values we hold as a society. Often, in matters such as these we invent words to describe specific situations or qualities that we want to uphold or denigrate --- depending on how we want our people to think and act.

Slut or whore is one example. The other example is 'unmanly'. There is no direct equivalent of 'slut' for a man --- if there would be an equivalent it would read something like 'virile' or 'real man'. And similarly there is no equivalent word for 'unmanly' for woman. The dictionary doesn't have the word 'unwomanly'.

As societies and their mores change, languages and dictionary meanings also change --- and new ones are (sometimes artificially) introduced, while several old ones become obsolete.

The concept of slut or whore was, from the point of a man, a good 'reign' on sexually aggressive women, who otherwise were given extreme (although invisible) power over men to obtain sexual gratifications (and thus exploiting them) --- as women had been made the source of man's 'social masculinity'.

The modern heterosexual society is openly pro-women and anti-man. It has taken the sting from the word whore or slut, and it really doesn't mean all that bad for women in the west. But that means that the situation of men has fallen down immenesly, since now they have few safeguards against being exploited by women (see the thread: female sexpidemic). One day, the word would probably be written off from the dictionary.

And Dreama, that's where when we want to find out the truth, it becomes important to remove the words with cultural connotations in order to find out what nature says and wants.

After all, the word 'homosexual' was introduced in the early 20th century only to marginalise and denigrate scientifically, sexual bonds between men --- as religion was weakening. It was incorporated into the dictionary way afterwards. The concept of heterosexuality came much later.

Do you know, originally heterosexuality referred to a sexual perversion where the individual wanted way too much sex with the opposite-sex? Today, we have a different meaning in the dictionary.

But if we can find out (as I have shown) another angle to the truth, we can and should have another meaning for these words.

This is Globalisation backwards --- from east to the west. West has entered our societies, has changed our concepts and definitions (including dictionary definitions!), why are you so afraid of your own definitions being challenged!

I honestly didn't want to go through five pages of material to type this. So this is how it is where I'm from (it might not be the same everywhere, and I'm not claiming it to be): There is a strong double standard. Men who constantly recieve sex are considered "players", but women who constantly recieve sex are usually seen as "sluts" or "whores". In the same way, it's unacceptable for a guy to lead a girl on, but its commonplace for women to do this. I don't want to stereotype anybody, but this is from my own personal experiences, observations, and analysis of the situation.

AmishRakeFight

what are your thoughts on the word 'homo' and its usage to describe men?
Why does the heart of true heterosexual men sink for the plight of women, but they don't feel anything at all for the pain and sufferings of men?

I'll tell you why, because they can't relate with men. They can only relate with women. It's actually very funny to think of them as 'manly'.

The heterosexual society propagates this attitude and trains men to kill their ability to relate with other men, as a part of what they have to go through for becoming heterosexual. It involves breaking men apart from other men.

However, being naturally masculine and a true man is all about understanding men, relating with them and feeling their pain and happiness!

me)))can you remember the url of that thread?i will try and reply then
Here it is: Defining religion afresh (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=935334#post935334)

me)))Buddha1, your confusing a male MINDSET which is patriarchal with ALL males. i am not

me))please listen closely B,cause i have said itmanyt times before. men HAVEben victims of the patriarchy, of COURSE theyt have. so what we are on about is not ALL men, but a mindset that is prticular for males. clear?
Deundy what are these males who are not part of the patriarchy, and have been victims of the patriarchy?

How are these males different from the males who are part of the partriarchy? Is this difference social or biological? What makes these males different?

What is the mindset particular for the males?

mePPPit means the hetero patriarchal men have ruled the roost for lots longer than 20th century. why you think they went on and on in Bible etc about the rule for procreation?!....and their condemnation of males sleeping with males...?
What makes you think they were heterosexuals? Sure they made sex between men a sin (is it sexual intercourse or just any kind of sex --- is even mutual masturbation between two men a sin?) --- but they also made masturbation a sin, and of course non-marital male-female sex was a sin too.

You have to understand that the concepts of sexuality and sexual preference is only a modern one. Earlier people did not think in those ways. They banned sex between men because that did lead to procreation --- and those guys really needed to swell their numbers --- See they were just starting off.

In all likelihood this making of sexual intercourse between men a sin, which was meant for abetting reproduction and to deal with the widespread practise of sex between men which was a great obstacle in enforcing the marriage institution, as well as an impediment in civilising men into a new religion --- triggered a a social response which led to the empowerment of some groups, who finally developed the concept of 'sexual orientation' to further consolidate their powers.

By 'elites' if you mean 'heterosexual', then let me remind you that till as late as the Greeks men considered those who loved women or were promiscuous with women to be effeminate --- and thus 'unmanly'. Femininity in males had become denigrated even in the times of the Greeks which celebrated love between men as masculine.

me))))))yes i know and which proves that is is the FEMININE a certain male mindset fears, which also for thm includes Nature.
Duendy, I think you also have to break this psychological connection that you have made between 'heterosexuality' being the oppressor of femininity, while male-male sexual bonds being supporters of femininity. That may be the visible reality today, but believe me, behind men's mask the reality is still the same as it was in the time of the Greeks.

I think that true heterosexuals are much more amenable to femininity in men, than masculine men who like other masculine men --- some of whom will be the worst oppressors of femininity. It's not good but that is how it is. It is not natural for men to do that, (if it is natural then it is part of negative masculinity), but it is the social manipulation of men that has brought about this situation.

oh, well... I really don't think I'm bi though. I'm just being honest with you.
Well, good for you! But never be sure about these things. I know so many people who have just suddenly fell in love with people they 'out' of their sexual profession!

Deundy what are these males who are not part of the patriarchy, and have been victims of the patriarchy?

me)))pagans, 'heretics'.......

How are these males different from the males who are part of the partriarchy? Is this difference social or biological? What makes these males different?

me))belief. men who would have not been prt of the ptriarchal mindset would have been closer to Nature, and more part of the Goddess Stream

What is the mindset particular for the males?
which males?/...forpatriarchy it is someting like this pttern----emphasis on procreation, andownership of womn and Nature. you can see this attitudew throughout patriarchal mythology, and even now in materialistic science. it is a fear of Nature and a desire to control it, and others

What makes you think they were heterosexuals? Sure they made sex between men a sin (is it sexual intercourse or just any kind of sex --- is even mutual masturbation between two men a sin?) --- but they also made masturbation a sin, and of course non-marital male-female sex was a sin too.

me)))))'heterosexual: having, or pertaining to sexual attraction towards the opposite sex' (Chambers dict.). so itis clear. patriarchal myth promotes sex between men and women and condemns sex between males. ad even in so-called homoexual-friendly anceint Greek times, to be a 'bottom' was considered inferior than being a 'masculine' 'top'. and 'effiminacy' was denigrated to. or let's remember, femininity was considered LESS thah masculinity. ad Nature les than the heavens

You have to understand that the concepts of sexuality and sexual preference is only a modern one. Earlier people did not think in those ways. They banned sex between men because that did lead to procreation --- and those guys really needed to swell their numbers --- See they were just starting off.

me)))well, yer entitled to your opinion, but as i see it it is clear they DID feel that way as is evidenced in rthe TEXT of their myth.

In all likelihood this making of sexual intercourse between men a sin, which was meant for abetting reproduction and to deal with the widespread practise of sex between men which was a great obstacle in enforcing the marriage institution, as well as an impediment in civilising men into a new religion --- triggered a a social response which led to the empowerment of some groups, who finally developed the concept of 'sexual orientation' to further consolidate their powers.
if say you looked at Allegro's research in hisbook The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. you see how the gnostic-christian mystics revered the male seed, ad concoted thebelief of 'God's' "spermatozoa' supposedly collated andmore powerful in certain plants and fungi which were psychedelic. we could see tis belief as seed-centric
this is really interestinf becaue it reveals howpatriarchal values create the mystical sense for ancient man. theidea that 'spirit' is separated from Nature. so yet again we have this patriarchal fear of Nature. this shit is shot thru the whole mindset!

Duendy, I think you also have to break this psychological connection that you have made between 'heterosexuality' being the oppressor of femininity, while male-male sexual bonds being supporters of femininity. That may be the visible reality today, but believe me, behind men's mask the reality is still the same as it was in the time of the Greeks.

me))))no. i a saying the patriarchy oppression. of course some heterosexual males are fine wit women and gays. ........yu know in te persecution of women in te middle ages, that along with tem lso pagan males were prsecuted dont you? AND apparently the very dergatory term 'faggots' to descriobe homosexual males derive from tose times when they were used to light the burnings!.....point: both women and gueer males hafe both recifved persecution from the patriarchy.
Buddha1. the patriarchal mindset demands ORDER. a favorite term of their writ in the Bible in certain books is 'ABOMINATION'. as a kid that word used o frighten me a bit. it is so judgemental-soundig. well nowwhat i means?it was used as a tern to denigrate Goddess religion. why? because their rituals involved ambiguity. males dressed as women, males having sex with each other etc. to the patriarchy this was totally evil, and hence the term

I think that true heterosexuals are much more amenable to femininity in men, than masculine men who like other masculine men --- some of whom will be the worst oppressors of femininity. It's not good but that is how it is. It is not natural for men to do that, (if it is natural then it is part of negative masculinity), but it is the social manipulation of men that has brought about this situation.

what it is is tat all kinds ofmen exist. in the Ga community we havemales in various states o acceptance. some try and live up to their idea of maculinity. this might mean dressin in stereotypical 'macho' uniforms. and of course we have the S&M fraternity, which can get pretty heavy and grosss. YES, i agree wid you that for many men caught up in al that there is shame about themselves. and with tis will be a fight against femininity. against sensitivity. a love of aggression, and power. women can also get into this too.
i am seeing it a deep problem brought about by limited understanding of myth, ad cultural propaganda.......but alo i dont wholly condemn SUMifit harms noone. spme like it rough. what can i say...?

hmmmm Buddha1, i am confused. you claimed i hadn't addressed a question of yours from an earlier thread (the one you linked me to here, buthaving looked at it i cannot for the life of me see where you asked me aything outright......?

hmmmm Buddha1, i am confused. you claimed i hadn't addressed a question of yours from an earlier thread (the one you linked me to here, buthaving looked at it i cannot for the life of me see where you asked me aything outright......?
Well, its strange because when I pressed the link it led me to it, here is the text of that message:

"Duendy, I'm greatly interested in what you've been saying about spirit and matter. I think they may hold an answer to most of the problems that humans face today."

OK! I looked it up on urban dictionary for everyone.

A whore is a women who sleeps with everyone but you.

I took a slut home last week, sadly I'm not single but my mate did fuck her. Damn hot too.

For me, a slut is a girl who will have sex without much investment in time or money, not necessarily anything to do with fuck frequency.

If whoring is the best you can do in life, you should become a whore so others can use you. Sort of like a predator-prey relationship.

Well, its strange because when I pressed the link it led me to it, here is the text of that message:

"Duendy, I'm greatly interested in what you've been saying about spirit and matter. I think they may hold an answer to most of the problems that humans face today."
yew i know, i got to the link and read that. but didn't you say you had asked me a question i didn't answer....? was that a question? and/or what was it you asked me.....?

OK! I looked it up on urban dictionary for everyone.

A whore is a women who sleeps with everyone but you.

Haha, that's perfect!

- N

OK! I looked it up on urban dictionary for everyone.

A whore is a women who sleeps with everyone but you.
Haha, that's perfect!
Another of those anti-male and heterosexual cliches to 'mainstream' 'whoreness' and further marginalise men.

A whore = an anti-man

I think alongside treating sex casually, another sign of a whore is that, they are sexually aggressive, dominant --- almost masculine.......and they know how to use the power that the society has granted them over men --- to grant manhood.

So they are willing and capable of exploiting that power that the ordinary feminine woman is not easily inclined to do --- unless being a whore is thrust upon women by the popular culture (as in a heterosexual society).

So any woman that 'demands' and expects sex from men as a birthright is a 'whore'.

I think alongside treating sex casually, another sign of a whore is that, they are sexually aggressive, dominant --- almost masculine.......and they know how to use the power that the society has granted them over men --- to grant manhood.

So they are willing and capable of exploiting that power that the ordinary feminine woman is not easily inclined to do --- unless being a whore is thrust upon women by the popular culture (as in a heterosexual society).

So any woman that 'demands' and expects sex from men as a birthright is a 'whore'.

'DEMANDS'? tyhis isimmediately then putting men into the role of a cocquetish-like female, all coy and hard-to-get. a real turn on...heh

no. males havea voracious sexual appetite, on the whole---pun not intended--so a woman who can match it wouod beSOMEmen's dream......
IF you want themythical motif for such a woma, checkout abot Lilith. she is an aspect of the Goddess demonized by patriarchal tradition because yshe would not cow tow to Adam/man........go girrrrl go girrrrl!!

I was thinking of putting £500 to one side and waxing the lot on a drugs/sex holiday in Amsterdam. I don't see how whoring is anti-male in any way. Other than the proliferation of disease.

no. males havea voracious sexual appetite, on the whole---pun not intended--so a woman who can match it wouod beSOMEmen's dream......
All stereotypes!!!

Men do that because it has an enormous 'social masculinity' value. Take that value off and see how many men have such voracious appetite?

In other words this voracious appetite has been artificially created and a lot (most) of it is just pure pretense!

Bullshit Buddha1.

Check your local college male dorm, and count the number of men who whack off on a daily basis and tell me that they don't have a sexual appetite.

It's not a stereotype, or the porn industry and male magazines wouldn't be a billion dollar industry.

And don't give me the East vs. West bullshit on that either, because the instance of masturbation all over the world is the same.

Men don't masturbate for "social masculinity value", trust me.

Just like the rest of your posts, it's mostly crap with no support and no research. You speculations are bizarre and out of touch with reality.

Bullshit Buddha1.

Check your local college male dorm, and count the number of men who whack off on a daily basis and tell me that they don't have a sexual appetite.

It's not a stereotype, or the porn industry and male magazines wouldn't be a billion dollar industry.

And don't give me the East vs. West bullshit on that either, because the instance of masturbation all over the world is the same.

Men don't masturbate for "social masculinity value", trust me.

Just like the rest of your posts, it's mostly crap with no support and no research. You speculations are bizarre and out of touch with reality.

Kotoko, do you know that you're one very angry dame!

I'm sure you look beautiful when you're angry......

I remember what my female friend told me about this female friend of hers who had a love marriage. In my country couples often don't have sex before they get married.

On their first night after the couple had sex, the man remarked, "I enjoyed doing masturbation better than sex with you!"

That men masturbate doesn't mean that they have a natural vociferous appetite for women. In nature men's sexual need is multifaceted and has different time and importance for different needs.

Usually youth is the time for sexual bonding with another man/ men. Even scientists have talked about a 'homosexual' adolescent phase. This phase useually lasts for the first half of adulthood (in nature!). Later youth is the time for sexual relations with girls.

The porn industry fulfills the artificial need created by the social pressures that work on men. Men do exaggerate their sexual need for women. If you notice carefully, see how much it means for the sense of 'manhood' of a man......and how low a man feels if somehow he is seen to have not enough sexual attraction for females or can't 'satisfy' his woman enough!

You know in my country, how many young men go to prostitutes before their marriage to know about sex. Because they are utterly afraid of finding out that their wife will find out they know nothing about sex!

And ALSO, the way women have been sterotyped by the patriarchy as the virginal wife etc etc is ALSO anothewr reason dudes will seek out Hoes....ie., for the wolman of the night will be prepared to DO thangs for the male that his wife amy not, and/or he may not want his wife to do

origins for this expctation?

again, its to be found intact in mythologies where te Great Goddess is SPLIY up into different aspects. in Judeo Christian myth the timid model of the 'Virgin' Mary is glorified, and trhe Hoe is the Hoe in the Book of Revalations, andmuch muc older--as i've already told you, LILITH. She who would not obey the patriarchy/'God' and would not lie UNDEr Adam
so we can see with these clues ,n's mindset can we not. he demands women keep to stereotypes the patriarchy demands.not ALL men. but men that buy this, and have been indoctrinated to.

the extreme of tis fear of women is found in the mythof the 'Succubae'. tis wa the belief that female 'demons' visited men at night--a particular 'problem' for many celibate clergy. who blamed 'wet dreams' on these 'succubae'...!

And ALSO, the way women have been sterotyped by the patriarchy as the virginal wife etc etc is ALSO anothewr reason dudes will seek out Hoes....ie., for the wolman of the night will be prepared to DO thangs for the male that his wife amy not, and/or he may not want his wife to do

origins for this expctation?

again, its to be found intact in mythologies where te Great Goddess is SPLIY up into different aspects. in Judeo Christian myth the timid model of the 'Virgin' Mary is glorified, and trhe Hoe is the Hoe in the Book of Revalations, andmuch muc older--as i've already told you, LILITH. She who would not obey the patriarchy/'God' and would not lie UNDEr Adam
so we can see with these clues ,n's mindset can we not. he demands women keep to stereotypes the patriarchy demands.not ALL men. but men that buy this, and have been indoctrinated to.

the extreme of tis fear of women is found in the mythof the 'Succubae'. tis wa the belief that female 'demons' visited men at night--a particular 'problem' for many celibate clergy. who blamed 'wet dreams' on these 'succubae'...!
EVen though femininity has been unduly and severely suppressed, femininity is not always good. There is negative femininity and it is equally disastrous as negative masculinity.

Heterosexuality (which is not equal to sexual desire for women) represents negative femininity.

EVen though femininity has been unduly and severely suppressed, femininity is not always good. There is negative femininity and it is equally disastrous as negative masculinity.

me)))))hmmmmwell, all wehavehad since god knpws when is negative patriarchy. and Nature ITSELF is now severely under threat...!!!

Heterosexuality (which is not equal to sexual desire for women) represents negative femininity.

As saaid. Goddess Stream honoured ambiguous sexuality. patriarchy dont. 2plus 2 equals.......

Another of those anti-male and heterosexual cliches to 'mainstream' 'whoreness' and further marginalise men.

A whore = an anti-man

It wasn't anti male at all. Don't be like that. It was off of urban dictionary, everything off there is a joke.

On their first night after the couple had sex, the man remarked, "I enjoyed doing masturbation better than sex with you!"



Oh man, I feel so bad for her.

Where are all those feminists? How come Sciforums don't have them? I'd love to discuss things with them, and see them challenge me!

I'm maybe jumping in a bit late to this discussion, and I have not read the entire thread. To answer the OQ, I define a whore as someone with an agenda who fucks to get what he/she wants. It is someone who does not honour his/her body, but uses it for gainful purposes (not necessarily just monetary gain). It is someone who uses sex as a vehicle by which she/he acheives a less-than-admirable/honourable goal, and does so at the expense of his/her own mental, emotional, spiritual and/or physical health and complete disregard for that of others.

Now...Buddha... I admit that I have not read all of your posts - even in this thread - and I likely won't hang around for a really lengthy debate, so let's keep it short.

I am a little confused about your stand on things. It probably would help to know: are you a person of the male persuasion? Or to rephrase, do you consider yourself to be a man, a woman or neither? For some reason, you seem really touchy about the whole subject of heterosexuality, homosexuality and the stigmas and agendas of either camp. I am a woman, I'm probably about 95% heterosexual, and I'm not a feminist. I'm just a "humanist". When I say heterosexual, I mean that I prefer to have sex with men rather than women. It doesn't define me. It merely labels my preference. I wonder, does my heterosexuality somehow seem threatening to you? Does it mean that I wish to exert some sort of control over you or any other man? If it seems so to you, then it is merely your imagination telling you this. It sure as hell isn't me! Am I married? Yes, very happily. Is my husband happy? Most certainly. He must be, because he is still with me after 12 years. "Big freakin' hairy deal!" you say? I suppose it wouldn't be if we had a "standard" marriage, where both parties sign a contract that locks each to the other until they die, no ifs, ands or buts. But we don't. He is free to leave me any time he pleases if he sees a life out there waiting for him that will treat him better than I can.

What if that life is with another man, you ask? Well then...so be it. It is his life, and not mine. I only want for his happiness. I have no agenda. There is no secret plot for hetero women to take over the world. I just happen to prefer men over women (and I've tried both). This, by definition, makes me a heterosexual woman. Until you brought it up, it never ocurred to me that the terms hetero- or homosexual carried with it any negative connotations. I just thought they were the terms we used to describe a person's sexual persuasion. There are lots of other derogatory names we could use.

Okay, maybe not quite so many derogatory names for heteros, but that's because you're right that heterosexuality has definitely been the social default relationship for a very long time. But hey! Don't beat up the heteros just because our preference has been favoured over the years by those who DO have agendas...

Maybe I'm waaaay off base here, but I guess I'm just unclear as to what it is, exactly, that you are so afraid of?

All stereotypes!!!

Men do that because it has an enormous 'social masculinity' value. Take that value off and see how many men have such voracious appetite?

In other words this voracious appetite has been artificially created and a lot (most) of it is just pure pretense!

Are you saying that men are inherently asexual? That they wouldn't like women if they didn't HAVE to?? I agree with the other posters above: men typically have a high sex drive. It's just biology! HOW they prefer to get off is a matter of individual taste. Some men like men. Some men like women. Some men like both. Some men prefer to have sex with inanimate objects or themselves. So... which camp are you in?

I just think that sex, while it can be indulged in solo, is a social activity. How long can a person have a conversation with himself without losing his/her mind? Okay, okay, let me rephrase that. Quality time with one self is good, but I find that it's nice to sexually connect with other people, too. Humans have a great capacity for doing just that. Seems a shame not to.

men like sex
men act like sex is the most important thing in the world
women like sex
women act like they dont want sex

a man who acts like he doesnt want sex gets called a fag

a woman who acts like she wants sex gets called a whore

but shes only a whore if she takes money for sex

Sounds like a lot of ideas in this topic are really confused, Showing a real lack of understanding sexuality, and the natural poster of sexuality. However that is not unusall anthorpologist have spent years trying to find the proper stature of sexuality, as well it has been a debate among many of the major religions in their formation, the confusion over the issue has made it a taboo type topic for centuries, and so because of this many people still have that confusion.

I simple measure for rule of the issue is to remember that males are different females, and because of this each has a different name, one male and the other is called female. Both have different sex organs, and other behaviors.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

a woman have the right to be whore and whore is not some thing bad what's wrong to be a whore? if you can't keep your woman by yourside you want her to sufur your penis decrease problem with you?
:)

When, at what point, does a woman become a whore (or slut or whatever term you wish to use)?

I mean, if a girl fucks two different men over a two year period, is she a whore?

If she fucks twenty men over a two year period, is she then a whore?

How 'bout if she fucks 405,236 men in two HOURS, is she then a whore?

There must be some cutoff, some measure, of whoredom ...but in all of my 60-some years, I've never known what it is. And now that I'm totally surrounded by some of the smartest people on the entire planet, I'm hoping to find the answer to this perplexing question!

Baron Max

a whore is someone who charges for sex, so your entire question is invalid, are you a whore?

a whore is someone who charges for sex, so your entire question is invalid, are you a whore?
are you?