Some days a guy on my forum posted about a recent one-night stand he had. To make it short, he met a girl at a bar and ended up at her place with relatively little effort. His story was quite interesting to read because he didn't view it as a warning signal that the girl let him raw dog her:
I ate her out (risky) and then had unprotected sex with her, she let me do it without a condom. Wow!!!
We thought that this was indeed risky, but when questioned, he offered his assessment of the situation:
Usually I would not even think about unprotected sex but I figured since she was a grad and not some common bar slut I was at less of a risk.
Does something about this strike you as somewhat questionable?
Frankly, I think this is all just wishful thinking. If she acts like a "common bar slut" then it doesn't really matter that she is also a graduate students. Besides, just look at the situation of higher education today, which for many is just an excuse to have one four-year long party. I would not at all make the conclusion that a woman is more responsible because she happened to attend university while going out, drinking and trying to hook up with random guys as opposed to a girl who does that without being enrolled as a student somewhere.
More generally speaking, you can deduce very little about people if you don't know them. If everybody was so fantastic at reading cues, figuring out motives, or deducing one's background, then there wouldn't be so many crooks, liars and scam artists around. Just looking at guys like Tony Robbins or Tim Ferriss should be all the proof you need that people are out there to deceive, and that plenty of people are incredibly gullible. It's your choice to be honest. However, you should not easily make the assumption that anybody else is, and particularly not if you've known her for only half an hour or so.
It doesn't matter if she says, "Don't worry, I'm on the pill!" or, infinitely worse, "I've been with a lot of guys and nobody managed to knock me up yet." (True story, btw. I was so turned off by that that I got up and left.) Or let's say she's got some nasty STD. She also happens to be horny. So, what's more likely, that she asks you what you're waiting for or that she'll tell you about her most recent trip to the STD clinic, and that she was told to refrain from sex for a while?
In general, people are very poor at reading other people. Sure, tell yourself that she's some kind of Virgin Mary, but a much more realistic assessment is that you're probably not the first guy she's ever met. For all you know, she might go out every weekend and try to get laid.
The only plausible advice I can give is to not assume anything about a girl. Just think of yourself first, and forget about how sure you are that she doesn't have an STD or won't get pregnant. This won't help you at all if she hunts you down nine months later. "You Honor, I swear, she said she wouldn't get pregnant!", or if you have to pay a visit to your local STD clinic. "Doctor, I swear, nobody would have suspected that she has anything. She looked so sweet and innocent." (Those may be the worst, actually.) In the end you should be aware that you are making a choice. If you think sex without a condom is so much better than with that if outweighs all risks, then go ahead. However, you should be aware of what you might be getting into.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
I think a good rule of thumb is that if she let you fuck her the first time without a condom then she has probably done it with the other guys who fucked her. And from the linked story, she has probably fucked a lot of dudes given how she lead the interaction.
ReplyDeletehaha assuming that a girl is innocent is so typical for some men. I've been quilty of this myself.
ReplyDeleteSleazy what do you think of the entire "slut" discussion? Cause here's what I've realized, I don't think that a lot of guys will have a problem banging such a girl, but I think that most of them will drop her when it comes to relationships. And why wouldn’t you? I mean if her number is drastically higher than yours is it so weird that you’re turned off by that? I mean it’s not that weird that you’re going to look for different qualifications if you’re choosing a girl for a one night stand or a serious relationship.
Heck, women do this just as much as men. When they go for a relationships they might decide to choose the guy who’s a bit boring but very stable etc.
I’m not trying to enter a “slut” shaming discussion here, but I really feel that you can’t hold it against someone if he simply doesn’t prefer that quality in a person.
Just curious to hear your thoughts on this one.
Great suggestion! This is a more complicated issue. I've made a note of your comment and will, hopefully, eventually be able to reply to it on my blog.
DeleteI too would really like to hear your thoughts about this.
DeleteI've always viewed promisicuous girls as less attractive, but i've always acknowledge it was not logical.
Yeah I find it hard to hold that against girls when I'm a pretty big slut myself. In fact, I find that the girls who aren't slutty are pretty boring to me. They don't like doing drugs, they don't like partying, and sometimes they don't even really like sex.
DeletePeople say that slutty girls make bad wives/mothers. But as a promiscuous guy, would I be any better as a father/husband? The same qualities that cause me to live the way I do are terrible qualities for a stable relationship. So I think it goes both ways.
@Geert: I understand where you're coming from and this is pretty common. But isn't this the old Madonna/Whore complex in action? I know you say you don't intend to slut-shame, but if men don't change this attitude, women will keep being raised to use their vaginas as commodities (nymphomaniacs are rare, and sexually carefree women are a minority even in this day and age). Women will keep using their pussies as leverage against men.
ReplyDeleteSomehow we must change this mentality. If we want to have the freedom to fuck as many women as we want, we should let women have the same freedom. After all, it's been said to exhaustion that most guys label girls sluts if they're fucking anyone but themselves. And if you're capable to be promiscuous for a time and then settle down with one woman, then we should give a promiscuous woman the benefit of the doubt too.
@Aaron, what are your thoughts on all this? Or do you you prefer to save them for a blog post?
I've checked the madonna/whore complex, but I think you're reading too much in my comment.
DeleteWhat I was implying with my statement is the double standard that goes on for promiscuity.
Two situations:
- If a guy doesn't want a girl who had tons of sex for a relationship, then he's viewed as mysogonistic.
- If a women says that she doesn't want a guy with a promiscuous past, it's more or less accepted.
That was my point the entire time when it comes to relationships, people have a very different set of qualities they prefer in a partner. Both men and women do this. If you’re truly honest with yourself then you’ve probably had this reaction to a girl as well “I definetly wouldn’t mind having sex with her, but I just can’t see myself in a relationship with her”.
Women are not so different.
Off-topic: if Freud can deduce causality from something that happened in your youth, then he’s not that different from those scientist who asked cancer patients whether or not they once had a disturbing emotional experience in their youth and then link it with cancer. This isn’t a joke such research exist!
Sorry man, but even if what you state is true, society still frowns upon promiscuous women more than it does upon promiscuous men, period. You see apprehensiveness towards the former perhaps, but not shaming. Add to that that women are known for falling in love with "challenging" men, and some of them take on the task of trying to change him (as whimsical and far fetched as that could prove to be); then you have that a history of "whoring around" for guys is an advantage rather than a "damaged goods" label as it is for girls.
DeleteAs to your off-topic, sorry but your logic is flawed; we're talking psychology here, not medicine. People nowadays quickly jump to discredit Freud for anything he said, when it were only some of of his methods/conclusions that are considered questionable. It's really exaggerated.
Well In all honesty, the minute I hear crazy stories about all of her sexual escapades (and we're not talking about experimenting here), then it's a huge turn off for me.
DeleteI just can't help it but feel turned off by that and I really feel that I'm not the only guy with this. Somewhere in my head it quickly goes "ok, not relationship material, but I might have sex with her".
To my off-topic:
lol, only some of his methods/conclusions were considered questionable. Well wasn't the example that I stated one with a questionable method/conclusion? The fact that I used an example from medicine doesn't discredit my example, because it's about drawing cause-effect conclusions too early and without real proof.
Another good one that I heared was this "well the only problem with Freud is that you can't test his stuff". Well if you can't test something, then it's just bullshit, cause how else can you know it's true?
Exactly, even i have felt this way about some women, and i know it's extremely common. That's what bugs me, and IMO it should change for good because it's an inheritance from the religion-dominated past, and please, let's be all over it completely.
DeleteFreud: LOL, then you'd have to discredit most of Psychology and question it as a science altogether. You know, there's a whole sector of academics that has this stance, so you could fit there, but do you have vast knowledge on Freud's (or any psychologist for that matter) work of study so as to be able to pass judgement on it? If not, be happy to join the bandwagon of anti-psychology, but don't feel as part of the movement.
Sorry if i come across as angry or offended, i'm not, really. And English is not my native language.
Also and this is something that I don't like in these discussions as well:
DeleteAll of the cases where men appearantly gain privilige from having sex with a lot of women, it's always the case that women give them this privilige.
Just look at you're examples:
1) add to that that women are known for falling in love with "challenging" men and 2) then you have that a history of "whoring around" for guys is an advantage.
Ask you'self is it the guys who gave themselves this advantage? Or are it the women who judge it as attractive?
So then why is it that it's always men who are guilty of having privilige?
Look, these are just some of my objectifications that I've had with this stuff. I'm nowhere near an expert on this.
Hey man
DeleteNo you don't come across as angry at all, in fact I find it important that people can share their opinions with me!
I was hoping that I wasn't coming across as angry as well, see arn't we all a bunch of jolly good fellows, lol.
I'm not overly familiar with Freud's stuff, but I've read into some of his stuff and I still find it to be a very dangerous proposition. I mean something happenned in your youth and he can tell that it was this that caused it? That sounds fishy to! Why don't you simply ask whether people have overslept once and use that correlation to find proof for whathever theory you have.
I'm definetly not anti-psychology, since I enjoy reading but some stuff is too fishy for me.
Your hunch is correct, Geert. Freudian psychoanalysis is nothing but a pseudoscience. Karl Popper, the eminent philosopher of science, wrote a damning critique on Freud, and other intellectual fads about half a century ago. The book is called "Conjectures and Refutations", and well worth a read.
DeleteHere''s a relevant excerpt:
"The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their "clinical observations." As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, Although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold."
What I had in mind was that his previous observations may not have been much sounder than this new one; that each in its turn had been interpreted in the light of "previous experience," and at the same time counted as additional confirmation. What, I asked myself, did it confirm? No more than that a case could be interpreted in the light of a theory. But this meant very little, I reflected, since every conceivable case could be interpreted in the light Adler's theory, or equally of Freud's. I may illustrate this by two very different examples of human behavior: that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. Each of these two cases can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and Adlerian terms. According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing perhaps the need to prove to himself that he dared to commit some crime), and so did the second man (whose need was to prove to himself that he dared to rescue the child). I could not think of any human behavior which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact—that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed—which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favor of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
That's certainly an amazing piece of text!
DeleteI really admire people who can be this sharp!
I'll definetly check it out!
Perhaps Freud being circumcised had an impact on his strange theories on sexuality? Maybe circumcision causes castration anxiety.
DeleteMy point is Freud might not have been so accurate in his dealings with universal human behaviour just because of something as simple as being circumcised.
Yes @Aaron, although you're certainly far better read than i am, i know this is the main criticism of Freud's work. Psychoanalysis as a method is widely questioned, but as a psychological issue, the MWC is still accepted at least as an identifiable pattern in many people (i guess this is the same for most other Freudian theories even if you don't care for his scientific approach or lack thereof).
DeleteI'm looking forward to your blog post addressing this as you told Geert.
Every time you decide to have sex with any women, you have to have an expectation that she could be pregnant and she may have STDs. So to go through with it, is a risk reward decision. So having unprotected sex is high risk, minimum reward. Protected sex, low risk, high reward (as you have certain sense of secruity nothing bad can come from it).
ReplyDeleteAs the majority of western states will always favour women over men in terms of baby cases and who gets to keep the baby and pay for the baby etc, this is another thing to note when deciding the risks of unprotected sex. Even in the past, when women did not have as much protection from the law, they had protection from society (well mainly the maternal side and family side). Where if you got her pregnant, you were meant to marry her.
But to decide if she is a slut or not, actions always speak louder than words. We can't tell from observing from a distance, or listening to her whether she is a girl that sex with anyone with out condoms etc.
But saying this, some girls will be caught in the moment (esp if drunk) and not bother to think about protection. But then that is your duty as a man to think.
But it is an overall observation that counts. From first interaction till forever, and your judgements of her character will constantly change.
The world is not such a fair place when it comes to sex and reproduction. There is lot of competition for mate selection both for male and females. There are natural limitation and civilizational obstacles an individual cannot overcome, that’s just a part of life. There is outbreak of STDs like HPV, HIV, Herpes (HSV1), HSV2, genital warts etc that demands careful and healthy approach to sex life. According to CDC's statistics some 50-60% adults are infected with various strain of STDs, HPV being the most common among them. There are more than 40 HPV types that can infect genital areas of males and females. These HPV strains can also infect mouth and throat through oral sex. Scary part is that most infected persons do not realize they are infected or that they are passing the virus on to a sex partner. All these factors increase the sum total of our sexual misery and it is bound to make people chronic fatigue, neurotic and perverted.
ReplyDelete-Thanks for calling out Tim Ferriss, fucking scam artist.
ReplyDelete-Never go down on a girl on the first night (unless you have been "dating" .. urgh). You won't get any pleasure from it other than the pleasure to make her come. You going down on a girl is supposed to be a reward, or a demonstration of affection, and it does not have its place during a ONS, even if that can make sex better afterwards. Plus you can come across as "tring too hard".
Anyway, the risk/benefits ratio is just not there
-good rule of thumb : if you don't encounter resistance when you try to go raw on a girl, don't go raw on this girl, because it means other guys didn't encounter resistance either. No matter what she is doing, what she says, who she is, she SHOULD refuse raw dogging on the first night.
Good rule of thumb: Forget the raw dog discussion and just always use a condom. It makes you last longer and you'll get used to it anyways. Finish by cumming in her mouth or titfucking her, if you want that "raw" feeling.
ReplyDeleteStop judging the sluts for being such!Sluts are the only women who see us,men,as equals.
ReplyDeleteSlut shaming is the biggest threat to the game.It is unfortunate that we have now so called "manosphere" where butthurt creepers like Roosh devote 99% of their time to slut shaming.
Wait Aaron, in reference to your OP, what's questionable about Tony Robbins?
ReplyDeleteHe is a snake oil salesman just like all the others.
Delete