Talk About Marriage banner

121 - 130 of 130 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,392 Posts
I'm finding this is not working for me. My guesses have been about something other than sexdar. My sexdar does not light up and try to read just based on a picture.

So this guy, all I can say is he is a handsome fella and I would expect a conversation with him to be delightful. He has an impish grin which makes me think he's a rascal (in a good way).

But again, none of that is coming from sexdar. It is coming from my womanhood. I feel attraction and then all sorts of other thoughts and assumptions come to mind.
From what I've heard, he could be charming when he wanted to be, and very controlling and manipulative when he wanted to be. He basically totally isolated his wife and family from the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,615 Posts
First, I think this is an interesting debate and i have nothing against you. Just a discussion.

I don't think i mischaracterized anything that you said. Gullible and Naive are not usually considered a positive description of someone. Anyway, whether it's positive or negative isn't the issue. We all interpret things differently but saw your post dripping in bravado. Like hearing a story about someone getting ripped off and all the tough guys fall all over themselves to say how it could NEVER happen to them. Not naive and gullible like that chump.

I very well know that men deceive just like women do. My comment had nothing to do with who deceives more. Simply that women deceive more THAN IS GENERALLY APPRECIATED. I didn't say women deceive more than men. Maybe a lot of men with the bravado (I can tell a woman's history blah blah) have very misplaced trust. But that doesn't matter. Men can be blissfully content thinking that they would know if their wife "got around" (not like "chumps" like my husband) and the wife can keep her secrets safe. Works for everyone. Pretty normal arrangement, I would say.
You are the one referring to your husband as a chump. I don't believe anyone else is.


Learn terms. Gullible isn't derogatory, neither is naivete. Ignorant isn't a negative term either.

I have never had an issue with your husband. I have always believed the onus is on you and my response to your post was along that same line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
First, I think this is an interesting debate and i have nothing against you. Just a discussion.

I don't think i mischaracterized anything that you said. Gullible and Naive are not usually considered a positive description of someone. Anyway, whether it's positive or negative isn't the issue. We all interpret things differently but saw your post dripping in bravado. Like hearing a story about someone getting ripped off and all the tough guys fall all over themselves to say how it could NEVER happen to them. Not naive and gullible like that chump.
There is a very thin line between "Gullible and Naive" and "trusting." In fact, it may not be a line at all; it may be entirely in the mind of the beholder. One person's "naive" could be another person's "trusting." And "trusting" would generally carry a positive, not negative, connotation.

The difference in perception may be all about opportunity. The person seeing someone as "gullible and naive" may be the type of person who would take advantage of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
You are the one referring to your husband as a chump. I don't believe anyone else is.


Learn terms. Gullible isn't derogatory, neither is naivete. Ignorant isn't a negative term either.

I have never had an issue with your husband. I have always believed the onus is on you and my response to your post was along that same line.
There is a very thin line between "Gullible and Naive" and "trusting." In fact, it may not be a line at all; it may be entirely in the mind of the beholder. One person's "naive" could be another person's "trusting." And "trusting" would generally carry a positive, not negative, connotation.

The difference in perception may be all about opportunity. The person seeing someone as "gullible and naive" may be the type of person who would take advantage of that.
Whether gullible and naive are positive traits or not is irrelevant to the points made. However, if someone thinks that describing a grown man as "gullible" does not have a negative connotation, especially when accompanied with -- (to paraphrase) "that would never happen to me", then I'm not going to sit here and waste time arguing.

Yes, "trusting" often carries a positive connotation while "gullible" rarely does. "Gullible" was the word used, not "trusting". I get that not everyone has a good command of the nuance of language but if someone wishes to convey a positive trait related to believing things you hear, you'll use "trusting", not "gullible, especially related to a grown man and accompanied by the bravado of (to paraphrase), "that would never happen to me". Back to the real topic of discussion...

It can be insulting (and ignorant) to suggest that one is gullible or naive if they can't tell that a woman has had sex with a lot of guys. That's why I'm picking up on these words and the general attitude that "guys just can tell". I still don't understand why that is and nothing that's been explained makes much sense. Like I'm marked or damaged? Like somehow it gives me traits that are readily apparent to every man except for the gullible and naive? Like maybe I'd be stretched out or "nasty"? I know that nobody said anything like this but those are the undertones that I feel from it.

Maybe men don't understand this because they don't have to deal with "sl** shaming" but there's something insulting about an attitude such as (to paraphrase) "we just know...". I'm not trying to twist your views or your words and I assume it's unintended but just pointing out that it has a slightly misogynous hue to it. Men may notice this less but it's not uncommon to hear people describing "easy" women in graphic physical terms or somehow otherwise damaged. Although I'm sure it's unintended, the language used felt a little like code for this.

If I'm the only woman here sensitive to this then you can ignore me. Just being open about my feelings to some things i'm reading and I think pointing this out is relevant to the topic being discussed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,686 Posts
Yes, there is...

Cars and other vehicles have an odometer on them to indicate the actual mileage.
Some HD trucks and most boat engines, aircraft engines and industrial machinery have an hour-meter to indicate how long they been run.

Ladies, all of them have an "Oh damn! meter. It indicates how many times she got off.



Men have an hour meter. Every time they have sex they must put in a penny.

At first, it was a quarter, but their SO's kept stealing it for pin-money.

It was not to amass a fortune but to keep count.

You could tell which men had a lot of sex by the coin count.

You could tell which men put everything into the endeavors, this by the amount of sweat and salt corrosion in the meter.
Unfortunately, the time on the job was never a consideration. The two minute pumpers got the same credit as those who lasted an hour.


The Typist-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
Whether gullible and naive are positive traits or not is irrelevant to the points made. However, if someone thinks that describing a grown man as "gullible" does not have a negative connotation, especially when accompanied with -- (to paraphrase) "that would never happen to me", then I'm not going to sit here and waste time arguing.

Yes, "trusting" often carries a positive connotation while "gullible" rarely does. "Gullible" was the word used, not "trusting". I get that not everyone has a good command of the nuance of language but if someone wishes to convey a positive trait related to believing things you hear, you'll use "trusting", not "gullible, especially related to a grown man and accompanied by the bravado of (to paraphrase), "that would never happen to me". Back to the real topic of discussion...

It can be insulting (and ignorant) to suggest that one is gullible or naive if they can't tell that a woman has had sex with a lot of guys. That's why I'm picking up on these words and the general attitude that "guys just can tell". I still don't understand why that is and nothing that's been explained makes much sense. Like I'm marked or damaged? Like somehow it gives me traits that are readily apparent to every man except for the gullible and naive? Like maybe I'd be stretched out or "nasty"? I know that nobody said anything like this but those are the undertones that I feel from it.

Maybe men don't understand this because they don't have to deal with "sl** shaming" but there's something insulting about an attitude such as (to paraphrase) "we just know...". I'm not trying to twist your views or your words and I assume it's unintended but just pointing out that it has a slightly misogynous hue to it. Men may notice this less but it's not uncommon to hear people describing "easy" women in graphic physical terms or somehow otherwise damaged. Although I'm sure it's unintended, the language used felt a little like code for this.

If I'm the only woman here sensitive to this then you can ignore me. Just being open about my feelings to some things i'm reading and I think pointing this out is relevant to the topic being discussed.
I'm not seeing where I said anything that contradicts you. I'm especially sensitive to misogynous tendencies and the sl_t shaming issues. Shaming in particular is counter-productive.

Where things get interesting is when we talk about guilt. Guilt is not always such a bad thing, as guilt can motivate us to become a better person, if we actually deal with it instead of bury it. There is no good side to shame that I can think of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Interesting discussion. I guess I should weigh in as this thread was started from an exchange between Conan and me. Just some points to add:

1. I have no doubt that people can get a sense for how in touch with their sexuality someone is. But "in touch with their sexuality" can be a very poor indicator of sexual history. There are loads of sexy and sexually charged people who have little or no experience. And vice versa.

2. I don't think very many people would describe me as outwardly sexual or "in touch with my sexuality". In fact, I've always been uncomfortable with my sexuality. Yet I've had sex with many guys. Not much in the way of longer term relationships where I may have grown more comfortable with sex.

3. Sexual skill also doesn't have much to do with it. I'm pretty far from what anyone would call a "firecracker". I'm more of a follower. Like a ragdoll.

4. As already mentioned on the other thread, I wear outdoorsy stuff. Turtlenecks. I cover up. Nothing sexy. In the summer I wear a bikini sometimes but that's for the beach or pool.

So in summary, being able pick out people "in touch with their sexuality" or a "sexual person" is very different from determining the sexual history of a person through some kind of intuition, CIA-like brain, body language expertise, having "been around" or whatever.

In thinking about the exchange that started this discussion on the other thread, I think it was more about bravado to infer that my husband was some kind of chump or "gullible" for being fooled and how that could NEVER happen with him as he knows the ropes unlike my husband. I'm just trying to explain how I perceived that exchange. My husband is one of the smartest people that I know and not just book smart but he is extremely good with people - he deals with all kinds of people and is tough. Nothing gets past him. Well almost nothing.

One of the more interesting aspects of this is how it seems that the "sexdar" is a highly prized attribute for men. The "she'll never fool me" thing. I learned from psychology that in primitive times, males evolved to avoid being cuckolded (having another man impregnate their partner). Men's natural instinct is to avoid this at all costs. Seems like this might be the source of the bravado of being able to pick out a "good" partner (one that is less likely to cheat) from a "bad" one (one who has a promiscuous history). There's a view that "sissies" get cuckolded so I guess it's a trait aligned with "real men" to know what you're dealing with with your partner. What's behind her angel eyes. What she's really been up to. "Real men" know. "Chumps and sissies" have no idea.

Furthermore, Conan and others have linked having "been around" (sex with a lot of women) as the reason for gaining this "real man" trait of sexdar...this innate ability to know a woman's sexual history regardless of what she says. As he said, my husband can't possibly have it despite truly having "been around" in areas other than sex. So is male promiscuity justified by giving you this ability to choose a "better" partner ----or at least avoid being deceived by a partner who has had more men than she lets on???

{{{{Women deceive their husbands - more often than is generally appreciated.....The trust of husbands is often cruelly misplaced. >>>Psychology Today.
Much of what you describe is what people who barely know you would think of you from afar.
I believe the core of this debate is what someone who knows you well and is intimate with you would think or pick up on.
Who knows what your man thinks. Maybe he really knows you've been a promiscuous woman and just doesn't say. Maybe if you came clean he would say..."yeah I could tell"
Who knows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Honestly, if experience has developed an intuition for recognizing sexual experience, and it holds true for them, what is the point of arguing from the "unique" situations? Even if the unique situation is themselves. My experience working with thousands of folks administering personality profiles is that they are not nearly as nuanced as they (or the TAM community) would like to think. You are likely more of an open book than you think. I know this, because if anything is lacking in the thousands of folks I've facilitated personality tests to, it is self-awareness!

That being said, I think the conversation regarding men of bravado/strong men being able/good at "just recognizing" sexual experience is not particularly accurate. Again, that would be more of an intuition based on experience, since men in that dominant category tend to have the least emotional intelligence...ie the ability to just read a person and know. (Ya sucks...the flip side is they likely have more "experience" lending to intuition but that's a separate conversation). Strong men can be emotionally intelligent...but once you get into the bravado/arrogant/direct personality trait you really start to move away from your more emotionally intelligent side of the wheel. Strong dominant men's men kept their women in ages past by being strong dominant men's men...it's your weaker "beta" men, like myself, who had to develop EI to understand where their mates head was at by paying attention to behavior and non-verbals.

All this is true for women as well (obviously). Women who fall in the dominant category tend to have the least emotional intelligence (for women...some would argue they have more out the gate than men...not sure on that but I'm inclined to agree).

As someone who has little nuanced sexual experience to build intuition from, I find I am still pretty accurate when it comes to my perceived biases (confirmed via social media or conversation that happen later). I naturally operate, though not always, with a higher degree of emotional intel than guys around me. It gets to the point where it bothers my wife (and I know it does...separate story lol).

I agree [email protected] perspective...whether from intuition or just knowing via EI...don't care. I agree that you can't be 100% accurate, there are nuances, but I don't agree that negates the use and accuracy of either intuition or EI of judging sexual experience or any personality trait for that matter. A man who is duped is likely less emotionally intelligent or has very little experience to build the necessary intuition. Obviously if you couple that with a women's desire to hide her experience, than yes you got a duped husband. But I wouldn't use words like naive or ignorant to describe the guy as much as lacking some facet of EI or intuition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Well... actually I have. While single, of course.

This would be part of the reason that I'd go to a party and pick out the hot girl at the back of the room that wasn't necessarily the extroverted, obviously hot woman that was the center of everybody's attention.

You could pick up these waves of female sexuality coming off this woman, even if she was ignoring everybody else there. And, should she choose to come home with you... whammo! You'd wake up in the morning wondering what the hell kind of sexy crazy train just rolled over you. Often the hot popular girls would have the opposite effect.

I'm sure I've been wrong at times. Nobody is perfect. Confirmation bias is a thing. But on the whole I'm fairly sure I'm more right than wrong.

I remember in my mid-30s. I went to the first day of classes and we were told to group up for an assignment. Teacher then halved the amount of groups by putting groups from different streams together.

Anyways, right after class we got together to “brainstorm”. I had never met the woman beside me. For some reason I snickered out loud after she talked. She was like wtf? I said to her i could sense things about her. She was like ok, what? So I said first you are a lesbian, she snickered, I then said that she was a cop.
She laughed, sat back, looked at me and asked me how in the hell I knew that.

I was totally right about both, she was just blown away because I got that from just my senses. Told me I should be a cop because I can read people but am hard to read myself so I would make a good detective.
Been friends ever since.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
if it walks, talks and acts like a duck chances are it is a duck.

so if one dresses, talks, acts a certain way that is most likely what one is.

people give off vibes.
there are stereotypes for a reason.

vibes and stereotypes are not as correct when told to trust your gut when you suspect
that your WS is cheating on you. though they are more often correct than they are
wrong.
 
121 - 130 of 130 Posts
Top