If a girl won't sleep with a guy after a few dates is she a progressive?

l;jkjk wrote:

Avoiding sexual promiscuity is usually strongly associated with good outcomes which equates to good progress; therefore her behavior is progressive. I think confusion occurs because "Progressive" is often a self-styled label for those who reject traditional values or mores, and in this case she is concordant with traditional values and mores.

This must have really been a "rojo" type post. It took 10 posts to get a good reply. 3+ people took the time to post and say what a stupid post it was. I figured I'd get a lot of replies but not the majority of them saying how stupid the thread was.

No. It's an unintelligent humans failed attempt at manipulating someone with the wrong adjective.

Cute Asian Teen wrote:

How come wejo gets to create a dating and sex thread but my thread about a problem with a cute Asian teen girl begging for money at the grocery store got deleted?

Letshopatthegrocerystore.com is available.

A Nobot wrote:

Sounds like she attracts guys that are blowhards, trying to sound smart, but actually have no clue what they are saying.

Amazing it only took 3 post to turn this on the woman. A new record. 👏👏👏

If it was a black guy she would have no choice but to give it up ho ho ho

wejo wrote:

A relative is in town and she was being hit on by a married guy the other night. She got the point across she wasn't interested and asked him about his wife. He said "that's so progressive" in terms of having "traditional" values.

Same relative said guys say the same thing to her when she goes on a few dates and they want to sleep with her and she says she's not interested. They say she's "really progressive."

Got a laugh that they called her a progressive for what are deemed "conservative" or "traditional" values.

But if the majority is sleeping around, is it progressive not to?

What was your aim here?

Hermes link ice blue mink wrote:

A Nobot wrote:

Sounds like she attracts guys that are blowhards, trying to sound smart, but actually have no clue what they are saying.

Amazing it only took 3 post to turn this on the woman. A new record. 👏👏👏

LOL. Idiot trying to turn a man hating post into a woman hating one.

Jamin and Wejo are the same person. QED.

...bourgeoisie...Wejo?

Monkeys typing wrote:

https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/sites/default/files/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/2014-teen-pregnancy-map.png

inverse relationship with education rankings meaning the less the birth rates under the 20 the higher the education

Cmon wejo, you're supposed to be the smart one.

Progressive = feminist

Actually, I will defend Wejo on this one, after all it is Father's Day, so this post is very relevant to the day. 57% of first children born to millennials are born outside of wedlock. That is a damning statistic for that group and if the United States continues to decline in the future in comparison to other countries, we need look no further than that one statistic (as statistics on poverty, health, etc. are all tied to that). If you want to look at the most successful ethnic group in this country (Asian Americans, not white Americans as many would try to lead you to believe), they have the lowest rates of divorce and percentage of children born outside of marriage. Lets face it, social conservatives are the new counter culture. As such, they will have better financial outcomes, health outcomes, etc. and will continue to be the culture of power. Props to your relative for acting in her self interest.

Calling BS. Conversation never happened. Made up story to push political leanings.

Who hear has conversations with their relatives about how quickly they sleep with strangers? Call me old fashioned, but I'm not interested in how long it takes before my cousin bones a guy.

wejo wrote:

A relative is in town and she was being hit on by a married guy the other night. She got the point across she wasn't interested and asked him about his wife. He said "that's so progressive" in terms of having "traditional" values.

Same relative said guys say the same thing to her when she goes on a few dates and they want to sleep with her and she says she's not interested. They say she's "really progressive."

Got a laugh that they called her a progressive for what are deemed "conservative" or "traditional" values.

But if the majority is sleeping around, is it progressive not to?

Everyone's opinion varies so much on LRC.

Many will say that women are only interested in one thing...security (i.e. money). Then those same folks tell guys posting about dating that it the guy posting is really that attractive to get attention from a woman he would be married by now!

What about if the guy is shy, has a social problem, hearing disorder, or etc.

Besides it's the man who must truly make the first aggressive move even if women give "subtle," hints. One can be an attractive man and be unmarried. Look around. Girls do not always go for the best looking guys!

DaneRauschenberg wrote:

She is more likely a closeted Lezbo

That's an island in Greece.

This post will be deleted because it tells the truth.

There is a large faction of religious conservatives who believe women are by nature hypersexual beings whose only purpose is to seduce men. Our Vice President here in America is one of them. When we dig deeper here we realize what this belief implies is that women don't have autonomy over their sexual desires or choices. They cannot say no to sex with men because their sole reason for existing is to seduce men/and or serve the purpose of procreation. This is why there are religious conservatives who believe a man cannot rape his wife. Anyway, progressives in this country believe everyone should have full sexual autonomy, and they tell women it is ok to say no to men's sexual advances (rather than religious conservatives blaming the women's nature for those sexual advances), so when a woman says no to sex it is seen as progressive. The Christian conservative "traditional" perspective on sex is not that it should be saved for marriage; it is that God has placed women on earth to seduce men and test their virtue. How could a woman say no to me if God put her here to seduce me?

TLDR; Controlling your sexual choices = progressive. Capitulating to a patriarch's sexual will, due to social conditioning that suggests you're nothing more than a sexual being = conservative.

I apologize for any incoherence in the post. Just landed after a transcontinental flight and a bit jetlagged!

that's cause you is a whole mole sacks usual

Are you really going to blame that stupid rant on jetlag, come on we all know what time of month it is.