• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tim Tebow Dumped By Miss Universe Because He Wouldn't Put Out

Okay.

I will just say this...there are two sides to every coin.

And why she dumped him (or whatever happened between them) is not my business.
 
Andalublue said:
I know a few people who are convinced Tebow's gay, but none of them assume that that is something he should be ashamed of.
Click to expand...

That might be, but the fact remains many men will claim other men are gay if they do things like stay a virgin beyond a certain age or turn down sex from an attractive woman. Staying a virgin or not wanting to have sex with a certain woman is perfectly possible for a straight man to do for a long series of reasons, but that doesn't stop ignorant people from claiming a man is gay for it.
 
radcen said:
Part 2:

I've long said that a father of a teen girl will protect his daughter at great cost, and will be upset when/if his daughter gets laid. But the same father will give his teen son high-fives for doing the same thing. It's a double-standard.
Click to expand...

That isn't true a lot of the time, but when it is.... why do you think that is so?

Why do you think it is more important for a woman to be more choosy with whom they have sex with?

It's common wisdom...and it's built into our very own genetics.
 
celticwar17 said:
That isn't true a lot of the time, but when it is.... why do you think that is so?

Why do you think it is more important for a woman to be more choosy with whom they have sex with?

It's common wisdom...and it's built into our very own genetics.
Click to expand...

In fairness - while I wouldn't say that it makes the double standard "right," per se - having sex as a man is actually an accomplishment. Having sex as a woman isn't.

Find me the dumbest, ugliest, most repulsive heffer out there, and I'll show you some guy willing to bang it. The odds are that she won't even have to put in all that much work to get him there either.

The reverse is in no way, shape, or form also true. A guy who can easily convince women to sleep with him has got a certain something other men lack.
 
Last edited:
celticwar17 said:
That isn't true a lot of the time, but when it is.... why do you think that is so?

Why do you think it is more important for a woman to be more choosy with whom they have sex with?

It's common wisdom...and it's built into our very own genetics.
Click to expand...
I am not an expert, but I think it goes waaaaaaay back. Probably for the same reason some daughters were fitted with chastity devices while sons weren't. I'm sure there's other things, too.
 
Gathomas88 said:
In fairness, having sex as a man is actually an accomplishment. Having sex as woman isn't.

Find me the dumbest, ugliest heffer out there, and I'll show you some guy out there willing to bang it. The reverse is not also true.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. ANY woman can get laid if she really wants to. For men it's a lot harder (no pun intended, and not factoring in paying for sex).
 
Henrin said:
that doesn't stop ignorant people from claiming a man is gay for it.
Click to expand...

That's because in some neanderthal minds virgin = unmanly and gay also = unmanly. I guess manly = porking whatever's available whenever possible.
 
radcen said:
I am not an expert, but I think it goes waaaaaaay back. Probably for the same reason some daughters were fitted with chastity devices while sons weren't. I'm sure there's other things, too.
Click to expand...

That is not a reason... those are just some ways cultures dealt with the problem in the past...

There are many reasons..

1. Woman are more vulnerable to STDs
2. Woman can have children, and having sex with a complete stranger or loser in which results in pregnancy would be catastrophic for the children's and the mother's future... not only that, they pass on the sleezy genes of the semen squirting tape worm.
3. it is easier for woman to have sex, and since it is easier you should be more choosy and careful, it is easier to make poor choices due to the increase in opportunity to make them.
4. Men are more prone to sexual predation and sexual violence. Since it is more difficult for a man to have sex with a woman, he also is more prone to deception and manipulation in order to obtain his goal.
5. Evolutionary history-wise a father would naturally want his son to spread his seed, while his daughter to have children with someone that give them the best chances of success.

Raising a woman whom does not have sexual restraint, and one that does not make decisions based on her long term well-being... can lead to bad consequences.

Taking this information and creating dysfunction with it is just as bad as doing the opposite. But the wisdom is not wrong, this is something every woman SHOULD be taking into account whenever they make decisions about their sexuality. Promoting the opposite, promotes single motherhood, STD spreading, immaturity, victimhood, stupidity, welfare, I could go on....
 
celticwar17 said:
That is not a reason... those are just some ways cultures dealt with the problem in the past...

There are many reasons..

1. Woman are more vulnerable to STDs
2. Woman can have children, and having sex with a complete stranger or loser in which results in pregnancy would be catastrophic for the children's and the mother's future... not only that, they pass on the sleezy genes of the semen squirting tape worm.
3. it is easier for woman to have sex, and since it is easier you should be more choosy and careful, it is easier to make poor choices due to the increase in opportunity to make them.
4. Men are more prone to sexual predation and sexual violence. Since it is more difficult for a man to have sex with a woman, he also is more prone to deception and manipulation in order to obtain his goal.
5. Evolutionary history-wise a father would naturally want his son to spread his seed, while his daughter to have children with someone that give them the best chances of success.

Raising a woman whom does not have sexual restraint, and one that does not make decisions based on her long term well-being... can lead to bad consequences.

Taking this information and creating dysfunction with it is just as bad as doing the opposite. But the wisdom is not wrong, this is something every woman SHOULD be taking into account whenever they make decisions about their sexuality. Promoting the opposite, promotes single motherhood, STD spreading, immaturity, victimhood, stupidity, welfare, I could go on....
Click to expand...

Isn't there a disconnect here? We want our sons to spread their seeds, but we don't want our daughters to be the seed receptacles. We don't care if another man's daughter suffers bad consequences, as long as it's not our daughter suffering bad consequences.
 
radcen said:
Isn't there a disconnect here? We want our sons to spread their seeds, but we don't want our daughters to be the seed receptacles. We don't care if another man's daughter suffers bad consequences, as long as it's not our daughter suffering bad consequences.
Click to expand...

That is but one aspect of the many, which I hope you understand, the wisdom does not JUST ride on this one fact... but yes, evolutionary-wise that is all that matters... because a male can have more children than a female can. Our genes don't care about ethics in this case.

Humans in general though do not have that strategy. We typically want to be careful with whom we reproduce with because we invest A LOT in our children. Men just have a slightly less motivation to do so.


The best way for society as a whole is to practice that both men and woman should be careful and not be sexual promiscuous.... but as I said before woman have different issues than men do that cause them to have to be more careful. The problem is is that the men that want to be the most sexual promiscuous are not the ones that are the best fathers, they promote the tape worm strategy, so it's in the best interest of a woman to avoid those kind of men and those kind of situations... this is not a problem that is as common among men.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Isn't there a disconnect here? We want our sons to spread their seeds, but we don't want our daughters to be the seed receptacles. We don't care if another man's daughter suffers bad consequences, as long as it's not our daughter suffering bad consequences.
Click to expand...

celticwar17 said:
That is but one aspect of the many, which I hope you understand, the wisdom does not JUST ride on this one fact... but yes, evolutionary-wise that is all that matters... because a male can have more children than a female can. Our genes don't care about ethics in this case.

Humans in general though do not have that strategy. We typically want to be careful with whom we reproduce with because we invest A LOT in our children. Men just have a slightly less motivation to do so.


The best way for society as a whole is to practice that both men and woman should be careful and not be sexual promiscuous.... but as I said before woman have different issues than men do that cause them to have to be more careful.
Click to expand...

One also has to keep in mind the role instinctual male territoriality probably plays in the "double standard" as well. A father is much more inclined to be protective, and even possessive, of his female offspring than male offspring. After all, in the old days, daughters would have been in pretty significant danger of basically being "poached" and spirited away by male rivals. A son, on the other hand, might very well be a potential rival himself.

I think mothers can have similar sentiments towards their sons as well. It's just not as strongly pronounced.
 
The most important thing to come of this is... is to know that this is meant in the best interest in the long term success of the woman.

And saying that men are not held to that standard...is actually more dangerous for men in our modern day system... this cultural bias does not repress woman, but it actually harmful to men.I just see this example typically is used as a defense against woman-haters or whatever... when it is actually just promoting the well being of woman, and risk in men
 
radcen said:
Part 2:

I've long said that a father of a teen girl will protect his daughter at great cost, and will be upset when/if his daughter gets laid. But the same father will give his teen son high-fives for doing the same thing. It's a double-standard.
Click to expand...

Er, no. This is false, but a popular perception. I would be upset with either.
 
cpwill said:
radcen said:
Part 2:

I've long said that a father of a teen girl will protect his daughter at great cost, and will be upset when/if his daughter gets laid. But the same father will give his teen son high-fives for doing the same thing. It's a double-standard.
Click to expand...
Er, no. This is false, but a popular perception. I would be upset with either.
Click to expand...

Went back and read the post above - missed that earlier, apologies :D
 
Gathomas88 said:
One also has to keep in mind the role instinctual male territoriality probably plays in the "double standard" as well. A father is much more inclined to be protective, and even possessive, of his female offspring than male offspring. After all, in the old days, daughters would have been in pretty significant danger of basically being "poached" and spirited away by male rivals. A son, on the other hand, might very well be a potential rival himself.

I think mothers can have similar sentiments towards their sons as well. It's just not as strongly pronounced.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the term Mangina?
 
radcen said:
Isn't there a disconnect here? We want our sons to spread their seeds, but we don't want our daughters to be the seed receptacles. We don't care if another man's daughter suffers bad consequences, as long as it's not our daughter suffering bad consequences.
Click to expand...

We want our sons to, "spread their seeds?" How did you come up with that?

How many parents here I wonder, want their sons to have bastards all over the place?




Originally Posted by radcen
Part 2:

I've long said that a father of a teen girl will protect his daughter at great cost, and will be upset when/if his daughter gets laid. But the same father will give his teen son high-fives for doing the same thing. It's a double-standard.
Click to expand...

I think, that is a stereo-type of "macho" fathers. Testosterone talk among men. But, really?


Parents will tend to worry more about stds their sons might get, not to mention "unwanted grandchildren," and all possible hassles like claims for child support, or early marriage, etc.

A lot of those same protective fathers who's got daughters, will not wish for their own sons to sully other fathers' daughters.
He should know and understand, since he feels that way!

If a father can be so protective of his own daughter, so can other fathers, too. His son could end up answering to the barrel of a shotgun, among other things. Also.....what goes around, might come around.
 
Last edited:
Women are predators. Don't kid yourself.
They just know enough to let the man think that he's the one doing the chasing. And I'm speaking about my time!

What more now?
 
I don't much see the point in dating a Miss Universe if carnal knowledge isn't on the table.
 
Henrin said:
Virgins these days are looked down on and when we are dealing with a twenty-eight year old man that is a virgin, yeah, he might as well have a kick me sign on his back.
Click to expand...

At least among liberals who obsesses over sex because Conservative Christians want to have committed married sex with their significant other for the rest of their lives.

And that's putting the HA into harrumph.
 
Mark F said:
I don't much see the point in dating a Miss Universe if carnal knowledge isn't on the table.
Click to expand...

I'm not into casuals ex myself. i pretty much live a celibate lifestyle, but, if I was after that sort of thing. i want to be ina committed, loving, meaningful relationship.

And i don't' see what's wrong with that.

This whole thing is a bunch of crap to me, and is very intolerant of people who have a different lifestyle than their own.

What is it with people who demand tolerance and acceptance but ALWAYS refuse to give out their own to people whoa re different than them?
 
Well, I'm single and have the very different views regarding sex and abstinence than Tebow, so she's free to hit me up.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Miss Universe Just Dumped Tim Tebow Because He Wouldn’t Have Sex With Her

tebow.jpg


Guy's committed to the ideal, you've got to give him that much. :lol:

A lot of guys out there wouldn't have been able to resist such a beautiful woman, principles or no.

To a certain extent, I think he probably made the right call. She apparently convinced Nick Jonas to abandon his own purity vow a while back, just to dump him a little while afterwards. It would appear that she's got a bit of a thing for "corrupting" religious guys, without anything much more serious in mind. If that is the case, and Tebow is as serious about marriage as his actions here would seem to imply, walking away was almost certainly for the best.

On the other hand, however, if Tebow really is that devoted to "the cause" of remaining abstinent till marriage, I've honestly got to wonder why he was messing around with a girl like this to begin with, and why he's not already married.

Seriously... The guy's good looking, famous, and reasonably wealthy. He also doesn't seem to be getting much out of "playing the field," so to speak. How freaking hard can it be to find a reasonably Conservative girl to settle down with? Just using freaking Christian Mingle or something. lol
Click to expand...

Who??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom