I feel like I can't compete with easy women...I also usually don't want to

that being said...I'm also the anti-flirt haha....I don't know how to flirt and I generally end up shooting people down without even realizing it. lol oops??

Easy women freak me out... I typically run the other way if I ever encounter them.. the only thing I find more freaky then them are the girls who have sex to fulfill their own prophecy of "guys only like me for my body." I lived with one of those for a year.. and it was the most terrifying year of my life.

@Amazon_Bunny@xanga - Same here. I'm just an all-around awkward person. haha

Stop talking about me, asshole. J/k

Easy girls are alright. They weeded out all the guys I didn't want to date.

I used to have a really slutty best friend who would flirt with every guy I was interested in.  They ate it up like cake.  Needless to say, that is most definitely past tense (our friendship, that is).

@ohforrealson@xanga - ha ha, thanks. It would look good cross-stitched on a pillow too.

this was so incredibly slut shaming I wanted to puke.   Please go look up the 101 version of why you're being a dickwad about this and how you're using women's sexuality as a way to control and shame them into acting like "proper, reserved ladies."

Just because you don't feel the same sexual attraction, doesn't make the woman "easy," a "slut," "lacking self-respect," or "insecure."    Get over yourself; you can't define for someone else whether they respect themselves or are insecure.   I mean, really, just because they're very forward means they're disrespecting their minds or body?   Just because they didn't feel like pretending to not be attracted when they are, they're not secure in themselves?

"Her level of self-respect will never match your intellect"  Cool, suddenly we can tell exactly how smart a woman is by observing for five seconds how she acts on her night off!   Who needs to talk and learn about someone's personality or ideas when we can operate with that misogynistic assumption!   Sorry, but just because I'm more reserved when I go out on the town, does not make these women inherently "less smart" than I am.   Their self-respect and their intellect could match or exceed mine, depending on the person they are, and not on what they do with their vagina.

It is rude if she's touching you inappropriately.   But just the fact that not every woman wants to talk about third world countries before sexytime does not make them less worthy human beings.     Some women and men like yourself like to take longer before engaging in sexytime, and that's fine; that's your way of doing things.   But you don't have to slut-shame the entire world into doing things your way.  

There's several billion people out there, so it shouldn't be too hard to find a girl who is on the same page as you, without simultaneously dissing all the ones who aren't.

PS, check out Jessica Valenti for more info on why this post is so offensive. 

"You can be vapid, stupid, and unethical, but so long as you've never had
sex, you're a "good" (i.e. "moral) girl and therefore worthy of
praise."

-Jessica Valenti from The Purity Myth, How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women.

What was the definition of a "good, smart" girl in this article?   yeah, pretty much one who isn't having sex right away.    Because girls who have sex aren't capable of having coffee with you later, or having lengthy conversations about complex topics.  

Because girls who hold off on sex or on even acting sexy for no reason other than "this guy thinks they should," even if they find partners who are willing to have consensual sex with them, are obviously always great people, because sexuality is the only thing that defines our moral worth.   Girls who have sex right away are just dumb nasty sluts amirite?

@Joobie82@xanga - Oh yeah, haha

@ScarletMoth@xanga - Slut shaming? Slow down there, cowgirl. I'm all for women opening up and being sexual. There's a difference between an easy woman and a woman who likes being sexual or enjoys having sex. I wouldn't date an easy girl, and you want to know why? Because she's boring. Is it wrong to have a preference? That's essentially what you're trying to tell me, and it's unsound. Even if I'm incredibly attracted to a woman, if she seems to want nothing but my cock and shows it by being really touchy, she's not worth the lack of effort on my part if I'm looking for a long-term relationship.

You're telling me that the only way for a woman to show she's attracted is by literally grabbing for your crotch or feeling up your body five seconds after having met? If a man were to exhibit such behavior, you'd be crying sexual harassment faster than penile dysfunction on a Megan Fox poster. How dare you marginalize women.

Have you ever thought, just maybe, that a person who doesn't throw themselves around like a rag doll with raging hormones is less likely to contract an STI? Less Likely to get murdered? Less likely to suffer emotional damage from having sex with random men based solely on their attractiveness and not their personality? Seriously, have you not seen how many women (and men) try to start off a relationship on a sexual base, only to get hurt later on when they're trashed or cheated on? Your emotional IQ comes into play, of course.

To make things a little more interesting though, here's a study that suggests there's a potential trade-off somewhere at the gene level between intelligence and androgen sensitivity: http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2806%2900658-X/abstract

Furthermore, a study conducted which shows that those with a higher level of intelligence are less likely to have sex: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

While I don't buy the idea that it's at a gene level, I do believe that your level of education usually influences the choices you make, sexually. Thus, why I made my comment about women who don't literally throw themselves at every cock having a higher level of intellect.

As for self-respect, c'mon. That's an easy one. A woman willing to sleep around with any guy they deem to be attractive has no self-respect because they're putting themselves at risk of contracting diseases or getting pregnant. Men don't have to worry about pregnancy, for that matter. A self-respecting person would at least get to know the other person a little bit before having sexual relations. We're not talking about swingers parties here; it's about the bar/club scene.

You're taking my post way too literally. That's the conclusion I'm arriving at. This is more about me and my opinion that women with something interesting to say are infinitely more attractive. Where did I generalize and say that any person who can't make interesting conversation is worthless? I simply suggested that easy women are boring, which is true for me.

Girls who have sex five minutes after meeting you aren't nasty sluts, but I do question their intelligence and it also means that they're boring to me by default. In fact, I dislike the word "slut" when used against a woman. I don't think having many sexual partners makes you a slut if you're a woman or a God if you're a man.

By my definition, an easy woman and a person who's genuinely interested are indeed different. Here's why: An easy girl just wants your dick, while a girl who's genuinely interested in you wants to get to know who you are and what you do before having consensual sex.

I mention talking about world problems as a way of stating that I prefer intelligent conversations. It's hyperbole.

I just don't understand why you're being so aggressive in attacking this post like I'm some horrible monster who's looking to strip women of their sexual rights.

@June - That quote means that I don't think highly of myself simply because a girl wants to get into my pants, except exaggerated by comparing girls who don't care about my personality and only want my dick/try to rub up on me to flies, since they tend to hover around things they want or like mindlessly.

As for that specific part of my reply to Moth, it was just a bit of sarcasm against her response which accuses me of "slut shaming."

Loved this post. Easy girls don't threaten me. They used to when I was in high school and boys were the ones I were after. Once I met my husband, easy girls didn't make a darn bit of difference. My husband isn't in to all that. We're very comfortable talking about the attractiveness of other people. I've come to realize that his taste in women is very conservative. :)

@AsylumBlue - "You're telling me that the only way for a woman to show she's attracted is by literally grabbing for your crotch or feeling up your body five seconds after having met?"

No, I'm telling you that just because not everyone woman wants to have a deep intellectual conversation with you when you go out, doesn't make them a slut.    Just because not every woman is looking to begin a serious relationship 24/7 does not make them a slut.    Just because not every woman is attracted to YOU in the way you want them to be, DOES NOT MAKE THEM A SLUT.   You keep talking about how sexual women are "boring," and if you find them boring, that's fine.   But that doesn't make them boring to all people.   

Women can be into sex one day, and want to meet people to be in a relationship with the next day.   They can do this because they are complex people full of multiple needs and desires, and because there is nothing inherently wrong with having sex with someone you don't want to romantically date, unless you are a slut shamer.

This is not just about your personal preference because you did not write it like that.   You wrote it as an effort to chastise all women who act this way.    You decided to label ALL women who act that way with the derogatory labels of "slut," "easy" etc.   

"If a man were to exhibit such behavior, you'd be crying sexual harassment faster than penile dysfunction on a Megan Fox poster. How dare you marginalize women."

Please, stop mansplaining this and trying to make your point something it never was.   If we're talking about very specifically, women grabbing the crotch of men, then you're the one using dangerous terminology.    That IS sexual harassment, and completely different from the case of a woman not wanting to talk about starving children, or a woman wanting to have sex.   So if that really was your point, and not all this stuff about how sexual women are bad and "do you ever feel like you can't compete with an easy girl?"   Then you should have cut all the slut shaming stuff out of it.   

"a person who doesn't throw themselves around
like a rag doll with raging hormones is less likely to contract an STI?
Less Likely to get murdered?"

Again, this is slutshaming, to accuse people that have sex of having diseases, and being likely to get murdered???  So what, because they have sex it's their fault if a murderer MURDERS them?    People who have sex are capable of using protection.    People who don't have a lot of sex are capable of getting stds.    
"Less likely to suffer emotional damage from having sex with random men based solely on their attractiveness and not their personality?"   So you're trying to tell me you wrote this out of concern for the women?   No.    They are grown women and can decide that for themselves.   But it's a pretty sad outlook if you think all women are so fragile that they automatically will suffer emotional damage from having sex.    Some women will be bothered by it, just as some women suffer "emotional damage" by being in serious relationships with the people they love.   It's not about sex, it's about all relationships being inherently full of things that can go wrong.   

I'll reply to the rest later and see what other people have covered, if they have.