FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > Sexually liberated ladies
Sexually liberated ladies
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Does anyone else get turned on by sexually confident women? A lady who knows what she wants and her hubby supports and encourages her." A sexually confident woman needs neither support nor encouragement from a man. | |||
"Does anyone else get turned on by sexually confident women? A lady who knows what she wants and her hubby supports and encourages her. A sexually confident woman needs neither support nor encouragement from a man." Agree, she strong enough on her own. | |||
"Does anyone else get turned on by sexually confident women? A lady who knows what she wants and her hubby supports and encourages her. A sexually confident woman needs neither support nor encouragement from a man. Agree, she strong enough on her own. " And they are doing their thing,whilst many merely look on. Intentions and real actions Count! Too much thinkng,seeking perfection creates doubt. | |||
"A sexually confident woman needs neither support nor encouragement from a man. Agree, she strong enough on her own. " Careful. There are still societies out there with decidedly less supportive and encouraging attitudes to female sexuality from men. The women in those societies aren't doing so good... The sexes are better together than they are alone. Always have been, always will be. More unity, less division. | |||
"Careful. There are still societies out there with decidedly less supportive and encouraging attitudes to female sexuality from men. The women in those societies aren't doing so good... The sexes are better together than they are alone. Always have been, always will be. More unity, less division." Crap. I'll let my gay friends know they're weakening the species immediately 
As for pandering to outdated societies by trying to make the members of more liberated ones adhere to standards that shouldn't exist in the first place. Fuck that noise.
I'm happily solo poly. I have wonderful men in my life who love and support me, but we're not married, we don't live together, and we can all be independent whole humans all by ourselves  | |||
| |||
"Does anyone else get turned on by sexually confident women? A lady who knows what she wants and her hubby supports and encourages her. A sexually confident woman needs neither support nor encouragement from a man."  | |||
"I have wonderful men in my life who love and support me," This is the key part. The rest? I feel like you may have drastically misunderstood me. But I may be wrong, of course. | |||
"I have wonderful men in my life who love and support me, This is the key part. The rest? I feel like you may have drastically misunderstood me. But I may be wrong, of course." The original point was in reference to the implication that a husband was needed. My partners are fucking wonderful, but I wouldn't be any less sexually confident or free without them. I have wonderful friends and women who love and support me too. If for some reason all the penis wielders dropped out of my life, it wouldn't make me weak. | |||
"The original point was in reference to the implication that a husband was needed." Was it? Or merely that was what was desired? Or 'optimal'? Only the TC knows definitively, I guess. "My partners are fucking wonderful, but I wouldn't be any less sexually confident or free without them. I have wonderful friends and women who love and support me too. If for some reason all the penis wielders dropped out of my life, it wouldn't make me weak." And that's great. Thank goodness you live such a free and fulfilling life - thank goodness that women AND men have worked together to build such a society where that is possible. I was merely commenting on the fact that caution may be advisable if running towards the "I'm a strong, independent woman and I don't need no man" cliff, losing sight of the road behind you of what led us to this great place. It's misguided and detrimental, in my opinion. There are literally countries today, right now, where women are having their rights and liberties stripped away. Why? Well, because the men in those countries are decidedly less supportive and encouraging of the sexual libery of their women. You seem to have interpreted that as some sort of anti-gay and anti-poly stance, I apologise for any misunderstanding. | |||
"I was merely commenting on the fact that caution may be advisable if running towards the "I'm a strong, independent woman and I don't need no man" cliff, losing sight of the road behind you of what led us to this great place. It's misguided and detrimental, in my opinion." Why is it detrimental to lose sight of the road behind? And why is it a cliff? I doubt that many of the strong and independent women out there are unaware of the roads that were travelled to get here. | |||
"Why is it detrimental to lose sight of the road behind? And why is it a cliff? I doubt that many of the strong and independent women out there are unaware of the roads that were travelled to get here." Okay. So, we live in a pretty good society here in the UK/West, right? Where, generally speaking, men are supportive and encouraging of women's freedoms and liberties, not least of which being sexual. Agree? Now, think of an alternative UK/West society where that isn't the case. Or, try to imagine a future where that support and encouragement went away and was no longer there. This should be quite easy to do as we currently have places just like that in the Middle-East and Africa. Now, are women better off? Or worse off? | |||
"Why is it detrimental to lose sight of the road behind? And why is it a cliff? I doubt that many of the strong and independent women out there are unaware of the roads that were travelled to get here. Okay. So, we live in a pretty good society here in the UK/West, right? Where, generally speaking, men are supportive and encouraging of women's freedoms and liberties, not least of which being sexual. Agree? Now, think of an alternative UK/West society where that isn't the case. Or, try to imagine a future where that support and encouragement went away and was no longer there. This should be quite easy to do as we currently have places just like that in the Middle-East and Africa. Now, are women better off? Or worse off?" And you really think we need you to explain to us the plight of women around the world? This is Fab - a very small subset of women globally, and the OP's original comment was made to those women, the vast majority of whom know how to enjoy their sexuality without any need for "encouragement and support" from a man. | |||
"Okay. So, we live in a pretty good society here in the UK/West, right? Where, generally speaking, men are supportive and encouraging of women's freedoms and liberties, not least of which being sexual. Agree? Now, think of an alternative UK/West society where that isn't the case. Or, try to imagine a future where that support and encouragement went away and was no longer there. This should be quite easy to do as we currently have places just like that in the Middle-East and Africa. Now, are women better off? Or worse off?" So, women should attach themselves to men in societies where it's no longer necessary to survive, because other women across other parts of the world still have to do that shit whether they actually want to or not? I just don't quite get the logic. | |||
"Why is it detrimental to lose sight of the road behind? And why is it a cliff? I doubt that many of the strong and independent women out there are unaware of the roads that were travelled to get here. Okay. So, we live in a pretty good society here in the UK/West, right? Where, generally speaking, men are supportive and encouraging of women's freedoms and liberties, not least of which being sexual. Agree? Now, think of an alternative UK/West society where that isn't the case. Or, try to imagine a future where that support and encouragement went away and was no longer there. This should be quite easy to do as we currently have places just like that in the Middle-East and Africa. Now, are women better off? Or worse off?" Wtf crap did I just read, jfc | |||
"And you really think we need you to explain to us the plight of women around the world? This is Fab - a very small subset of women globally, and the OP's original comment was made to those women, the vast majority of whom know how to enjoy their sexuality without any need for "encouragement and support" from a man." I mean, possibly yeah. If it looks like people are making misguided statements about this issue. All I'm saying is, maybe take a moment to think about what things could look like if you suddenly didn't have the thing that allowed you to do what you're doing, before claiming so boldly that you don't need it in the first place? | |||
"So, women should attach themselves to men in societies where it's no longer necessary to survive, because other women across other parts of the world still have to do that shit whether they actually want to or not? I just don't quite get the logic." Maybe we should just be thankful that it's no longer necessary? Even if it's still preferable? I mean, I know I don't personally need women to survive (as a speices notwithstanding, of course)... but that doesn't mean I'm going to just throw them to the wind and celebrate while doing it, y'know? Life is still better together, than apart, was what I was saying in my first post. I don't understand the controversy? "Wtf crap did I just read, jfc " You just read me asking some hypothetical questions. Which part is "crap"? | |||
"And you really think we need you to explain to us the plight of women around the world? This is Fab - a very small subset of women globally, and the OP's original comment was made to those women, the vast majority of whom know how to enjoy their sexuality without any need for "encouragement and support" from a man. I mean, possibly yeah. If it looks like people are making misguided statements about this issue. All I'm saying is, maybe take a moment to think about what things could look like if you suddenly didn't have the thing that allowed you to do what you're doing, before claiming so boldly that you don't need it in the first place?" Why keep digging an even deeper hole than you've already dug for yourself? You're coming across as a misguided, self important misogynist, and many of us "sexually confident women" don't find that at all attractive. | |||
"Why keep digging an even deeper hole than you've already dug for yourself? You're coming across as a misguided, self important misogynist, and many of us "sexually confident women" don't find that at all attractive. " Why have you resorted to personal attacks rather than just engage with the discussion? This is a public forum. I'm allowed to ask questions and try and have an adult conversation. As you're allowed to not do so and instead make things personal. So maybe I've just answered my own question on that one... | |||
"Maybe we should just be thankful that it's no longer necessary? Even if it's still preferable? I mean, I know I don't personally need women to survive (as a speices notwithstanding, of course)... but that doesn't mean I'm going to just throw them to the wind and celebrate while doing it, y'know? Life is still better together, than apart, was what I was saying in my first post. I don't understand the controversy? " So, because someone is happy and whole without having to rely on another person, they're ungrateful? I love and appreciate my partners, but acknowledge that I could live happy and whole without them, and this is throwing them to the wind? The species evolved and thrived because of the community nature, but that doesn't mean that an individual shouldn't be celebrated. Particularly when they're not rejecting the whole idea of community, just the idea of direct reliance on another and smothering codependency. | |||
"The species evolved and thrived because of the community nature, but that doesn't mean that an individual shouldn't be celebrated. Particularly when they're not rejecting the whole idea of community, just the idea of direct reliance on another and smothering codependency." Agreed. Merely advocating caution when taking things beyond the individual to a societal level, particularly with the "we don't need no men" mentality. Which seems to be very popular in recent times. That's all. | |||
"Why keep digging an even deeper hole than you've already dug for yourself? You're coming across as a misguided, self important misogynist, and many of us "sexually confident women" don't find that at all attractive. Why have you resorted to personal attacks rather than just engage with the discussion? This is a public forum. I'm allowed to ask questions and try and have an adult conversation. As you're allowed to not do so and instead make things personal. So maybe I've just answered my own question on that one..." Perhaps all of us women should climb back into the box, be eternally grateful for the men that allow us to be what we want to be, not talk back to them and forget that the emancipation of women happened over a century ago, while sitting quietly and pondering the terrible plight of other women around the world that a man on Fab has had to carefully explain to us, and recognise how tenuous are freedoms are because (presumably) men could take them away from us. | |||
"Does anyone else get turned on by sexually confident women? A lady who knows what she wants and her hubby supports and encourages her." This suddenly got very deep. Is now a bad time for one of my famous sexist jokes  | |||
"Agreed. Merely advocating caution when taking things beyond the individual to a societal level, particularly with the "we don't need no men" mentality. Which seems to be very popular in recent times. That's all." But the thing is, we don't. And with the history that is something to be celebrated. Like gay pride is a thing when straight pride doesn't have to be, or black lives matter when obviously all lives matter, but that this particular aspect is now recognised really is something to celebrate. For the centuries and millenia when men could be without women and not be judged or have their lives be less because of it, is there not something to celebrate in the fact that now there is something approaching equality for those that didn't fit in the previously privileged sector? | |||
"Does anyone else get turned on by sexually confident women? A lady who knows what she wants and her hubby supports and encourages her. A sexually confident woman needs neither support nor encouragement from a man. Agree, she strong enough on her own. " Respectfully disagree. We're still human! A x | |||
 | |||
"Do you ever find the most confident people also tend to be the most insecure "No | |||
"Do you ever find the most confident people also tend to be the most insecure "There's plenty of fake it til you make it out there. But some of them have actually made it | |||
"Does anyone else get turned on by sexually confident women? A lady who knows what she wants and her hubby supports and encourages her. A sexually confident woman needs neither support nor encouragement from a man." Yes but this attitude is a massive turn off. I don't understand women who need to turn posts like this around in such a negative way. I suppose you would act the same if your husband or partner did not support and discouraged it! Why do some people have suck big chips on their shoulders | |||
"Perhaps all of us women should climb back into the box, be eternally grateful for the men that allow us to be what we want to be, not talk back to them and forget that the emancipation of women happened over a century ago," Or, instead, maybe just ponder the questions and issues raised? Pretty sure my point advocates NOT forgetting the history that got us here. Again, I feel like you're misunderstanding me, starting to look like it's on purpose now. "while sitting quietly and pondering the terrible plight of other women around the world that a man on Fab has had to carefully explain to us, and recognise how tenuous are freedoms are because (presumably) men could take them away from us." This truth being exactly the reason for not forgetting the history and pondering the above. But hey-ho. "But the thing is, we don't." Have you already forgotten how this started? Re-read the OP, the knee-jerk replies, and then my original response. "For the centuries and millenia when men could be without women and not be judged or have their lives be less because of it," What? Do you know what happened to men back in hunter-gatherer tribes that weren't good with the ladies? Or couldn't secure a mate? They were ostracised. Which is death in such societies. We still have that today, only it's more social "death"... well, until that man commits suicide, then it's actual death, too. Male heirarchies are built on status. Men who are "without women" tend to be seen as losers in society. Men without women in their lives are MASSIVELY less because of it. Why do men chase status to begin with? To secure a mate / attention from women (generalising massively, of course, just in case that doesn't go without saying). I'll repeat my point: it's not that we literally NEED women, as much as we desire to have them by our side anyway rather than be alone. Because the sexes are complimentary and are both better for it - in GENERAL. | |||
"This suddenly got very deep. Is now a bad time for one of my famous sexist jokes "Sometimes that's the best time for jokes! "Respectfully disagree. We're still human! A x" How dare you!? You'll never be attractive to them if you disagree. Now keep digging that misogynistic hole! (I'm joking) | |||
"For the centuries and millenia when men could be without women and not be judged or have their lives be less because of it, What? Do you know what happened to men back in hunter-gatherer tribes that weren't good with the ladies? Or couldn't secure a mate? They were ostracised. Which is death in such societies. We still have that today, only it's more social "death"... well, until that man commits suicide, then it's actual death, too. Male heirarchies are built on status. Men who are "without women" tend to be seen as losers in society. Men without women in their lives are MASSIVELY less because of it. Why do men chase status to begin with? To secure a mate / attention from women (generalising massively, of course, just in case that doesn't go without saying). I'll repeat my point: it's not that we literally NEED women, as much as we desire to have them by our side anyway rather than be alone. Because the sexes are complimentary and are both better for it - in GENERAL." People will always judge people. I should have said judged less. That women were seen as part of a man's status rather than a whole human in themselves is part of the problem. The point is that women no longer have to rely on a man to provide income, we're now a part of the workforce and can make our own ways rather than having to attach to someone that's tolerable just to survive. Most people lean towards people and community, and those who don't have always been shunned and branded weird by the majority. You act as though any single woman over 30 doesn't get comments about being a weird old spinster or crazy cat lady said about them just because those of us who are happy to be that way can actually express it now. We are not immune to the "social death" that you speak of, but the point is that we can actually live our lives the way we want despite that. That's what should be celebrated. That's why there's a knee jerk reaction to the implication that we can't or shouldn't exist without a man. Same as telling a gay man he just hasn't met the right woman yet. It's an insult to how far things have come since the days when we had to force ourselves into the societal standard boxes. | |||
| |||
"People will always judge people. That women were seen as part of a man's status rather than a whole human in themselves is part of the problem." But here's the thing, because both of those things are true, they will always be true. Both men and women seek social status, some of which they get via a mate. That's never going away, no matter how much equality we achieve. "The point is that women no longer have to rely on a man to provide income, we're now a part of the workforce and can make our own ways rather than having to attach to someone that's tolerable just to survive." And my counter point to that has always been: why be separate when we're happier and better off together? Just because something is possible doesn't automatically make it preferable or optimal. Which was itself an adjacent point to your reply to my original post in this thread, which was: be careful about discarding the support and encouragement of men in order to be sexually liberated, seeing as it's only with such that it was possible to begin with, and we know what can happen without it! I'm sorry if that ruffles feathers around here, but it doesn't make it any less true. "You act as though any single woman over 30 doesn't get comments about being a weird old spinster or crazy cat lady said about them just because those of us who are happy to be that way can actually express it now." It was not my intention to act that way. However, the important distinction here is that those women are happy to be that way, in your words. Men who are judged as weirdos and ostrasiced from the mating pool are very, very much not happy about living that way. And they never have been. "We are not immune to the "social death" that you speak of, but the point is that we can actually live our lives the way we want despite that. That's what should be celebrated." Again, it was not my intention to suggest women are immune from it. But, again, upsetting as they are; facts are facts. And the facts are that these issues impact men significantly more than they do women. Men are more likely to become homeless, more likely to be victims of violence, more likely to be in jail, more likely to commit suicide (and succeed). There is a growing problem in society around male loneliness, sexlessness and disillusionment. Now, this isn't a "woe is me" argument, nor is it me blaming these things on women - not at all. Just some perspective that, while not immune, women aren't as heavily impacted compared to men, that's all. And again, it all comes back to this: it's great for women to have that choice. But maybe don't go throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to knowing how and why we've got here in the first place. Y'know? "That's why there's a knee jerk reaction to the implication that we can't or shouldn't exist without a man." And my response to that knee-jerk reaction 1) disagrees with the implication in the first place (again, TC can weigh in on whether or not that's what he meant) and 2) is simply pointing out a valid truth. | |||
| |||
"Does anyone else get turned on by sexually confident women? A lady who knows what she wants and her hubby supports and encourages her." Met one years ago and she gave me self confidence, showed me what a classy pervy woman is capable of and we had a brief affair. Love to find you again Gill. We couldn't walk straight for 4 days after first meet. | |||
"Holy crap a lot of “girl boss” defensive on here! For what it is worth, I have no problem with the guy on here pointing out that a balanced dynamic between the male and female of the species is beneficial to relationships and wider society. That does not imply that women must be subservient to or reliant on men, just that we are better cooperating rather than fighting. As someone else on here said, we are all human with the frailties that implies. Supporting someone in whatever way they need is not an admission of weakness on their part, whether male or female. I was a plain Jane tomboy with incredibly low self esteem following years of bullying, yet my husband helped me to heal, realise my fantasies, build my sexual confidence and ultimately become the independent exhibitionist I am today. Should I be ashamed that a loving man helped me achieve this, I think not?! And to be clear, this applies equally to same sex couples, or are they too not allowed to rely on their partner’s support? Modern society has become too polarised of late leading to a bite first ask questions later mentality. Surely it is far better to be open minded, assume the best of people until they prove otherwise, and be tolerant to other points of view. If we disagree, then calm mature debate is the key because a community stands and falls ultimately on mutual cooperation." | |||
| |||
"Declaring it a huge mistake and flying towards a cliff is disrespectful. Telling them to be grateful because other people haven't had that choice as though they don't know how lucky they are to be able to have these choices." But here's the thing, they clearly don't know how lucky they are, or they have forgotten, to be having such knee-jerk reactions and saying such things in the first place. It's not disrespectful to point out a basic truth - that people should be wary of discarding the support and encouragement of men when their sexual liberation is built upon it, and requires its continuation. And we know this because we can see, right now, today, in other countries around the world what happens when this isn't the case. What's is disrespectful is using the OP - which says nothing whatsoever controversial or inflammatory - as an opportunity to take a jab at men. "The fact is, a strong and independent person does not need another person to provide that love and support. " But the fact is that's not what this was about at the start. It was about not needing men in order to practice sexual liberty. It doesn't matter how internally strong or independent you are, if you don't have the support and encouragement of the society around you... you're not going to be having a fun time. It really is just that simple. "Not all men who are outside of the dating pool are there because they're forced to be." Extreme exceptions to the rule don't disprove the rule, though. Clearly we're discussing men and women at large, and in general on a societal level. The number of men who are genuinely celebate by choice and are happy living that way are such a tiny sample of humanity they don't change what I've said in any significant way. "Men may be more likely to be homeless, because women have been conditioned for so long to know how to survive without their own means of support that most will endure situations that make them deeply miserable rather than be openly destitute, because once they're openly in that position, they're even more at risk. Many of the worst people will prey on the openly vulnerable before the ones that appear to have at least the basics. And survival is something we learn very early on. From things as simple as having to soften a no to avoid escalation, being soft, calm, compliant to avoid danger." So, men are more likely to end up on the streets, yet women still get to claim the most victimisation around the risks of homelessness? Yeah... no, I don't think so. "Men may be more likely to be victims of violence, but also more likely to be the perpetrators of such if we look at the statistics. Men are more likely to be involved in violent altercations on either side." Correct. Being female makes you safter from the chances of violence at the hands of men, vs if you were male. "Men don't tend to view suicide is the obscenely selfish option that women do overall. A woman will stay and suffer for the sake of others, a man will only consider ending his own suffering without it being nearly as coloured by the effect it's going to have on those left behind. Broad sweeping strokes here of course, all are individuals and not everyone has their thought process defined by their genitalia, but these are the patterns that have been demonstrated over time." Not only is this a broad sweeping generalistion, I don't quite get the point here? The biggest disparity between male and female suicide is that men succeed more, because we're more willing to use lethal force. As for causes, the biggest psychological factor for men is when they lose themselves in despair and see no way out, a lot of which boils down to them feeling helpless and unwanted/needed. But of course, let's spin a real male issue into just yet another way of jabbing at them by calling them more willing to be selfish compared to women. Jeez. | |||
| |||
"Christ almighty. Not everything is a jab at men. The conditioning that all genders face from birth affects them in different ways. Women are raised to believe that the feelings of men are more important than their own. I'm not saying men are more selfish by nature, but by nurture, and however far our society has come that is still being instilled in the youth. Saying someone doesn't need a man of their very own to feel liberated isn't saying that they don't need to be in a society that can support that kind of behaviour. Or that men are irrelevant or lesser in any way. We're not going to agree on anything here. So I'm going to bow out and get myself ready to see my partner. Because, even though I do happily believe myself to be independent, I still greatly value the people that I choose to have in my life through choice, not necessity." Andrew Tate has a lot to answer for. Some people don't understand that equality of thought and action does not denigrate those with whom they have equality. Indeed it should enrich them both. | |||
"The conditioning that all genders face from birth affects them in different ways. Women are raised to believe that the feelings of men are more important than their own." Well, they certainly become more important when they decide to strip the rights and freedoms of women away, wouldn't you say? Thus being equally wary of current conditioning that "women are strong and independent and don't need no man!" But hey-ho. "I'm not saying men are more selfish by nature, but by nurture, and however far our society has come that is still being instilled in the youth." We'll have to just agree to disagree here, I guess. What's being instilled in our youth is much more along the lines of; "your inherent maleness is a problem, and if not controlled and suppressed will be the cause of, or contribution to, all the worlds problems, past and present". "Saying someone doesn't need a man of their very own to feel liberated isn't saying that they don't need to be in a society that can support that kind of behaviour. Or that men are irrelevant or lesser in any way." And on the same token, saying "a lady who knows what she wants and her hubby supports and encourages her" isn't saying they need men in order to not be irrelevant or lesser in any way. The door swings both ways, here. "We're not going to agree on anything here. So I'm going to bow out and get myself ready to see my partner." Well that's a shame, especially seeing as I thought it was quite clear we actually do agree on quite a few things. Enjoy your evening / weekend. | |||
| |||
"Apparently a guy reading this thread didn't like my earlier comment and decided to PM me and say "shut up". Clearly so thick he doesn't realise that a forum is somewhere that people can express an opinion in public without being abused in private. " "Shut up" pathetic  | |||
 this is definitely me…but I don’t have a hubby  | |||
