Is this concept really such a difficult thing to obtain?

Post Reply New Topic

So in a nutshell, I figured out what I'd like in a relationship... or something like it.

Basically, I date a gal. We hang out on the weekends. Do stuff together, hook up. But at the same time, I don't wanna get married anytime soon or have kids ever. I don't feel the need to hangout every day, nor want to considering I put in long days at work.

Seems like gals out there, they're looking for Mr. Forever, some guy they get married to and then have a couple of kids with. Or, they're total slutbags - like the last gal I dated.


Surely it can't be this difficult to find a gal in her mid 20s that is looking for a similar type of relationship.

q. 1: What is a total slutbag, out of curiosity?
q. 2: Can a guy be one?

1. I presume he meant someone who sleeps around with no-one connections.
2. Yes. Man-whore/Player.

What Em said

You can probably save some time if your confine your attentions to women who consent to being referred as a "gal."

that's not a girlfriend, it's a friend with benefits..

But I think Lene is right, that would be how most people would define it. I agree it's hard to find though, unfortunately.

All I'm saying is, you seem to want a noncommitted relationship so why are you labelling girls want a noncommitted relationship negatively?

Some suggestions:
1. He never actually said noncommitted, as in having other partners, he just mentioned not seeing her as often as most couples do.
2. There are different ways to be non-committed. There are those in open relationships, or who are single and sleep with friends every once in a while. Then there are people who sleep around out of total not caring about anything, i.e. they seem not to respect their own health or the health of others, they don't even care who is pleased in bed, etc. I hate the whole idea of the word "slut", but if I ever used "slutbag" it would be to refer to this latter category.

Okay. I should have said "not fully committed," maybe.

What really makes me angry is that in 2011 this blatantly misogynistic language not only still exists but is still being made up. Slutbag? Anyone who uses this is reducing a person to the frequency and people she has sex with. Maybe I think too literally but it's calling a person a bag. As in, her body is an empty sack functional only for sexual purposes.

Unless it's the female equivalent of "douchebag," which although it's a negative term for a male is also misogynistic cause it's calling a guy as disgusting and shameful as the product.

Why do 90% of sexual insults come down to misogyny. I'm really very sick of it.

QFT. We really need a new word to describe what this is really referring to. Essentially, how I see it is kind of like this: There are people who like to eat large, wholesome meals. Then there are people who prefer small snacks of fruit, crackers, whatever. And then there are people who like to eat primarily snacks of high-fructose-corn-syrup-saturated, artificially colored, vitamin-free sawdust. We need a word to refer to the sexual equivalent of the third type.

Non-monogamous? It's descriptive yet not judgemental.


Back to the OP.

Yes, it is such a hard thing to obtain because it is the precise opposite of what so many women want. How do NT men deal with this mismatch between their desires and women's? By leading the women on into thinking that in time they will morph into Mr. Forever who will get married and have kids. OIther men actually are honest and upfront say that they are not looking for marriage or kids. In that case the women lie to themselves and convince themselves that he doesn't actually mean it and will want committment when he finds the right woman (them). So you can lie to a woman and make her think you want committmenrt, or you can be honest and she'll lie to herself that someday you'll want committment. But it will be hard to find a woman who actually doesn't want commitment yet does want monogamy. For women, monogamy and committment tend to go hand in hand.

The laughing emoticon sucks. It looks like an embarrassed laugh to me.

I must sincerely agree.

I'm not sure why I need to clarify my thoughts on the matter, but apparently few people around here got it. And I think Purchase there just called me a woman hating scumbag... which is way off from reality.


I was dating someone early this year, who was primarily interested in a sexual relationship and nothing else. That and she wanted to see me all the time, even on days where it was snowing outside or after I had a long day at work.

I only want to be with one girl at a time, and I only want her to be with me. So it's not that I'm non-committal. I just don't want a relationship based where we have sex and that's all we get out of each other. I also only want to see her a few times a week, instead of spending as much time as possible together. Especially with the likelihood I won't be dating someone who lives near my work or home.

Understood. I was not calling you a woman-hating scumbag. I take issue with misogynistic language is all. If all the people who used words like "b***h" etc hated women and were scumbags at least 50% of women would hate themselves and I'd say at least 67% of people would be scumbags. No one's a scumbag.

It's the usage that makes me angry, not the people who use the words. Sorry for derailing your thread but I just can't see past words like that.

Anyway sounds like what you want is attainable. There are girls out there who want the same as you I'm certain.