# Guys: Is it awkward seeing your sister in revealing clothes?



## ohgodits2014

If yes, how awkward is it?

1. Really awkward.
2. Just a little awkward.
3. Not awkward at all.


----------



## Diacetylmorphine

1.

Lucky for me they don't really wear anything _that_ revealing, even still. Very awkward.


----------



## minimized

For me... really awkward, I guess. Ugh, so nasty. But I'm used to it because mine has no shame.


----------



## Ape in space

She doesn't wear anything really revealing, but yeah, it's pretty awkward. I try to avoid looking at her.


----------



## UltraShy

Doesn't apply, as I don't have a sister. Though I don't want to see my brother in a Speedo either.


----------



## Hadron92

it'd just piss me off. just seeing guys looking in her direction gives me the impulse to beat them up.


----------



## pita

I'm not a guy, but I find it awkward. I told facebook not to notify me of her goings on, as the whole "my sister is a young adult" thing is TOO strange for me.


----------



## Lanter

No, not really. My adopted sister, man, she used to be more skin than clothes. I got used to a lot while she was around. She got payed for offering people services on more than one occasion and told us all about it at the dinner table, into the nasty little details. Dinner was never boring with her around, that's for sure. 

So for me, it's 3.


----------



## tutliputli

I wonder how fathers feel about seeing their daughters in revealing clothes? Awkward and protective...?


----------



## PickleNose

My sister never wore anything more "revealing" than shorts or a bathing suit. Now she doesn't even wear shorts anymore. It never bothered me. We never had that "big brother protector" dynamic going on. She survived and I never got into any stupid fights "defending my sister's honor".


----------



## meganmila

tutliputli said:


> I wonder how fathers feel about seeing their daughters in revealing clothes? Awkward and protective...?


I feel awkward being around my dad in a bathing suit.


----------



## millenniumman75

I wouldn't think so - this isn't WINcest.


----------



## Scrub-Zero

It makes me a little uncomfortable.


----------



## Rixy

AHHHHAHWORRAHHAHAHHAH

SHUSH. SHHH. STOP THINKING ABOUT HER LIKE THAT. AHH.

Yes...it's weird :b


----------



## heroin

Haven't got a sister. Even if I did, I doubt I'd care about her clothes as an adult. I guess I'd have a bit of a protective instinct towards her pre-adulthood, but that'd probably evaporate in due time.


----------



## Losm

I've wondered this a few times... not that I usually go around scantily clad :b


----------



## markx

Luckily my sister didn't wear anything revealing when we were living under the same roof. Mind you, I saw her nekkid a few times, but that wasn't really awkward because she never caught me.


----------



## kindasorta

It really hasn't bothered me at all.


----------



## Colton

This is going to sound mean but my adopted sister is fat and unhygienic, so when she wears tight clothes or a low-cut shirt it makes me want to throw up.

But my best friend has a hot younger sister who is a perfect 10. She's not afraid to wear little booty shorts, either. I don't know how he lives with it. If my sister was that hot I'd be pulling my hair out!


----------



## MojoCrunch

I don't really wear revealing clothing but if my brother ever spotted me in a pair of pants too low cut or tight he probably wouldn't approve. He's the overprotective type and doesn't like other guys looking at me and all of that so for him I know it'd be very awkward to see me in revealing clothes. He wouldn't like it one bit.


----------



## Cat Montgomery

1
She's 8
ಠ_ಠ


----------



## Marakunda

Yep, whenever my sister and I are swimming, and she's wearing a swimsuit/bikini, it's SUPER awkward....


----------



## Alexa

Colton said:


> This is going to sound mean but my adopted sister is fat and unhygienic, so when she wears tight clothes or a low-cut shirt it makes me want to throw up.
> 
> But my best friend has a hot younger sister who is a perfect 10. She's not afraid to wear little booty shorts, either. I don't know how he lives with it. If my sister was that hot I'd be pulling my hair out!


This post is awkward.


----------



## Cat Montgomery

Colton said:


> This is going to sound mean but my adopted sister is fat and unhygienic, so when she wears tight clothes or a low-cut shirt it makes me want to throw up.
> 
> But my best friend has a hot younger sister who is a perfect 10. She's not afraid to wear little booty shorts, either. I don't know how he lives with it. If my sister was that hot I'd be pulling my hair out!


wat.


----------



## Paper Samurai

Cat Montgomery said:


> 1
> She's 8
> ಠ_ಠ





Colton said:


> But my best friend has a hot younger sister who is a perfect 10. She's not afraid to wear little booty shorts, either. I don't know how he lives with it. If my sister was that hot I'd be pulling my hair out!


This thread is made of lulz :teeth ! I have no sister btw, so I can't put forward my point of view.


----------



## Ballerina

This needs to be bumped.


----------



## Lanter

Colton said:


> This is going to sound mean but my adopted sister is fat and unhygienic, so when she wears tight clothes or a low-cut shirt it makes me want to throw up.
> 
> But my best friend has a hot younger sister who is a perfect 10. She's not afraid to wear little booty shorts, either. I don't know how he lives with it. If my sister was that hot I'd be pulling my hair out!


I am your biggest fan. That.Was.Beautiful!


----------



## Hiccups




----------



## meganmila

Hiccups said:


>


:lol


----------



## The Professor

I purposely turn my head whenever my sister starts talking to me when she's wearing stuff like that.

And Colton, you better explain yourself...


----------



## Colton

Jeez I'm sorry... I shouldn't have said anything...


----------



## The Professor

Colton said:


> Jeez I'm sorry... I shouldn't have said anything...


It's the last sentence... you're saying if you had a hot sister who wore "little booty shorts", you would lust as the idea of having sex with her... your sister.


----------



## Colton

I meant I'd be pulling my hair out trying to protect her from horny guys all the time! Not that I'd want to have sex with her! Good grief, get your minds out of the gutter!


----------



## Cat Montgomery

Colton said:


> I meant I'd be pulling my hair out trying to protect her from horny guys all the time! Not that I'd want to have sex with her! Good grief, get your minds out of the gutter!


I get it, it's just funny the way you worded it.


----------



## Noca

Don't have a sister, but it wasn't nice to walk in on my brother having sex with his gf...


----------



## Mr Self Destruct

1. Had to go to my sister's belly dancing recital...very awkward


----------



## strawberryjulius

This reminds me of that thread where all these guys were like, yeah dude, I relatin', my cousin is hot TOO. (It was about three dudes, but still made me lol.)


----------



## bigman101

*I know the feeling...*

I'm 17 and my sister is 15. I can't stand seeing her in tank tops, short shorts or any of that other crap. WE'VE BEEN GROWING UP TOGETHER EVER SINCE WE WERE BABIES FOR GOD'S SAKE! Her attitude as well is just so snotty and teenage girl like. Seeing her like this a lot kind of prevents me from being able to enjoy other girls. I at least wish she would act and dress more modest around family.


----------



## theseventhkey

lol, it wouldn't be awkward, but I am going to berate and shame her. I can't let her go around dressing like a ***** and let her know what most dudes are thinking.


----------



## arnie

I feel no attraction or any sub-concious attraction towards her, so No. It's not awkward.


----------



## nubly

I would be. We were raised as Catholics though so my sister has your standard Christian morals. She doesn't dress like a hoochie.


----------



## komorikun

I saw my sister's boobs. It's no big deal.


----------



## AceEmoKid

I'm a girl and it's STILL awkward to see my sisters dressed like that. I had no idea what to say when I found my sister's thong in the laundry O.O


----------



## Owl-99

komorikun said:


> I saw my sister's boobs. It's no big deal.


But your not a Lesbian are you :um


----------



## ShadyGFX

My sister is a butch lesbian and doesn't wear revealing clothing. So, no lol


----------



## TobeyJuarez

this thread should be burned... burned with fire lol


----------



## Scorpio90

Me not a guy, but I feel it really awkward also :afr


----------



## SomniferumPapi

So many funny comments on this thread.



pita said:


> I'm not a guy, but I find it awkward. I told facebook not to notify me of her goings on, as the whole "my sister is a young adult" thing is TOO strange for me.


Yea, "they grow up so fast" foreal though



tutliputli said:


> I wonder how fathers feel about seeing their daughters in revealing clothes? Awkward and protective...?


I've seen some fathers actually act like "dayyuumm!" and grab their hand and spin them once lol



Colton said:


> This is going to sound mean but my adopted sister is fat and unhygienic, so when she wears tight clothes or a low-cut shirt it makes me want to throw up.
> 
> That is hilarious.
> 
> But my best friend has a hot younger sister who is a perfect 10. She's not afraid to wear little booty shorts, either. I don't know how he lives with it. If my sister was that hot I'd be pulling my hair out!


Man oh man, I would definitely try to live with it. His sister I mean.


----------



## Monotony

If I had one I'd just inform them that every one thinks that they look like a complete ****.


----------



## madsv

I would care about it. It would be her decision.


----------



## shelbster18

My sister wears short shorts and goes around showing her cleavage sometimes. It's not awkward but aggravating. -____-


----------



## farfegnugen

It's fortunate that I don't have a sister. I would probably be overprotective and beat guys up with their own arms that gawked at her. Yea, I am sure she'd hate having me around.


----------



## Josefz27

Not awkward but more like "Wtf why are you trying to dress like a ****" reaction but sometimes it might be an overreaction and my sis isn't like that so it's cool. I'm probably more fashionable as a guy then her as a girl so I give her tips every now and then on keeping it classy.


----------



## komorikun

People really hate ****s around here.


----------



## Barette

^I know, right? I get annoyed by ****-shaming.


----------



## ACCV93

uhh no lol. It's not awkward.


----------



## millenniumman75

arnie said:


> I feel no attraction or any sub-concious attraction towards her, so No. It's not awkward.


I don't know if that is the point. If your sister dressed too sexy (like they say on the talk shows), would you feel uncomfortable - not if there was anything like that.

I don't have a sister (only stepsisters but they are both married so their husbands can be the ones to get upset).


----------



## kast

Some hilarious comments in this thread. I don't have a sister... Why is it awkward? I swear at least a couple of guys here are implying that they've got underlying attraction to their sisters. :lol


----------



## Monotony

komorikun said:


> People really hate ****s around here.


Male ****, Female **** they're all the same breed of annoying.


----------



## Cam1

My sisters are in their early teens and don't really wear revealing clothes. I've seen them in bathing suits before, doesn't really make me feel uncomfortable. Never really thought about it tbh :stu


----------



## komorikun

Monotony said:


> Male ****, Female **** they're all the same breed of annoying.


At least we don't have read a zillion threads about people complaining about being ****s on here .....unlike the virgins.


----------



## rawrguy

I thankfully do not have a sister.


----------



## komorikun

Hadron said:


> I think you'll find that the only people who love ****s love them for like 5 minutes.


What would be the problem if your sister was a ****? As long as she is having a good time and not hurting one, who cares?

People on SAS are soooooo conservative. It never stops to amaze me.


----------



## AussiePea

komorikun said:


> What would be the problem if your sister was a ****? As long as she is having a good time and not hurting one, who cares?
> 
> People on SAS are soooooo conservative. It never stops to amaze me.


SAS, conservative?? What threads have you been reading!!


----------



## komorikun

Hadron said:


> Listen, society has norms. For example, having sex in the middle of a busy street is considered indecent. Yes, it doesn't hurt anyone physically, but psychologically it does.
> 
> And there are reasons for this. Females who seek lots of sexual partners are in effect ruining natural selection. Females are supposed to be picky and choose a male that's genetically fit and who is going to stay with them in order to look after the offspring. Having lots of partners doesn't make any evolutionary sense (for females). The males aren't gonna stay and look after an offspring that may not be theirs; and the offspring will most likely be less genetically fit than that of a female who is more picky.
> 
> Females don't like ****s because they compete with them "unfairly"
> 
> I know most of this is irrelevant to today's society, but we ALL have these primal instincts.
> 
> Oh and i would care if my sister was a **** because she is carrying a lot of my genes and i instinctively wouldn't want her to waste them.


We have birth control now, so need for all that. I don't have any kids. It doesn't make sense anymore to not enjoy yourself.

I don't agree with people having kids without a committed partner though.


----------



## enfield

komorikun said:


> Constantly I see **** this, slag that. Ironically these are often the same people that whine about being a virgin.
> 
> And not just about sex. Many also hate drug use. And how many said they don't think America should use the metric system? They really, really hate change. It is mind boggling.


people are opposed to negative change (change that harms society) not positive change (change that improves it).

this is, there is a lot of debate about whether X change would be negative or positive oftentimes. and there are competing interests behind change and stasis, and the people who want stasis (because it's lucrative to them) do tend to have the money a lot of times, and may invest in spreading the message that the change of X would be a negative change, and so on.


----------



## komorikun

enfield said:


> people are opposed to negative change (change that harms society) not positive change (change that improves it).
> 
> this is, there is a lot of debate about whether X change is negative or positive oftentimes. and there are competing interests behind change and stasis, and the people who want stasis (because it's lucrative to them) do tend to have the money a lot of times, and may invest in spreading the message that the change of X would be a negative change, and so on.


I think they are opposed to positive change too.


----------



## komorikun

Hadron said:


> As i said in my post, we still have these instinctual feelings even though they are irrelevant today.


Can you not look beyond your "instincts"?

I have read many books on sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. I understand why things are the way they are but I choose to try to look beyond that and have a reason based (rather than gut based) set of morals.


----------



## enfield

komorikun said:


> What would be the problem if your sister was a ****? As long as she is having a good time and not hurting one, who cares?
> 
> People on SAS are soooooo conservative. It never stops to amaze me.


ok let me rant about drugs.

i hate them because they seem to harm society. i wish the manufacturing and distributing and growing and every component of the process that brings them to market would be outlawed. and i wish the military would shoot anyone involved in such activities. to send a strong message that our society will not be compromised by these refinement technologies and so on - that you a *are not* allowed to use them for ends that harm society.

anyway it's idealistic but w/e

i have no problem with nootropics though that don't have tolerance issues and things like that - and if we put everyone on things like low-dose lithium society could be better. i would like stuff like that to be mandated

i don't know if you call that conservative or what.

just seems to me that technological advances (which lead to change) do so much harm. like the quality of life plunges for 50 years after the industrial revolution. why is that.

if the change can be brought about the right way so it doesn't cause catastrophic harm - and i think it often can be - and if the government can regulate super fiercely new, never-been-done-before things, then i think there is a lot of potential in change to be good and basically dramatically improve the quality of human life and things like that.


----------



## enfield

komorikun said:


> Can you not look beyond your "instincts"?
> 
> *I have read many books on sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.* I understand why things are the way they are but I choose to try to look beyond that and have a reason based (rather than gut based) set of morals.


omg cool.


----------



## enfield

komorikun said:


> I think they are opposed to positive change too.


yeah sometimes.


----------



## komorikun

enfield said:


> ok let me rant about drugs.
> 
> i hate them because they seem to harm society. i wish the manufacturing and distributing and growing and every component of the process that brings them to market would be outlawed. and i wish the military would shoot anyone involved in such activities. to send a strong message that our society will not be compromised by these refinement technologies and so on - that you a *are not* allowed to use them for ends that harm society.
> 
> anyway it's idealistic but w/e
> 
> i have no problem with nootropics though that don't have tolerance issues and things like that - and if we put everyone on things like low-dose lithium society could be better. i would like stuff like that to be mandated
> 
> i don't know if you call that conservative or what.
> 
> just seems to me that technological advances (which lead to change) do so much harm. like the quality of life plunges for 50 years after the industrial revolution. why is that.
> 
> if the change can be brought about the right way so it doesn't cause catastrophic harm, and if the government can regulate super fiercely new never-been-done-before things, then i think there is a lot of potential in change to be good and basically dramatically improve the quality of human life and things like that.


You are kind of all over the place with this one.

What if you amount of enjoyment people get from drugs is more than the amount of misery created by them?

More than the industrial revolution the start of agriculture really messed things up. I read that farmers were shorter and much more sickly than hunter and gatherers since they had a less varied diet.

And with farming, people could settle down and have more belongings. During hunter and gathering times people had to move every few weeks to find more food, so they had to carry all their belongings on their backs. So they couldn't have much stuff. With farming more inequality could develop. Some people with too much food/land/goodies and others without enough. This also led to worse treatment of women since women's labor was worth less in agriculture than in farming. This has reversed in the past century though, most jobs don't require much strength anymore.

And farming led to population increase since now a woman did not have to carry her kids miles and miles. So during hunter and gathering times women could only have one small child at a time and births were spaced 4 years apart. They couldn't have another kid till the older kid could walk and keep up with the group. And I think if you are getting lots of exercise and nursing at the same time ovulation is inhibited and some used infanticide. So women started crapping out kids every 1 to 3 years with farming. So even if the farming techniques became more efficient the people were still living horribly because the population kept increasing.


----------



## komorikun

Hadron said:


> I'm afraid i can't. I believe they are part of what makes us human
> 
> Perhaps in the future, when we are ready, we'll be able to genetically engineer haumans to behave in ways that would benefit us most.


So whatever makes sense evolutionary wise is okay in your book?


----------



## enfield

komorikun said:


> You are kind of all over the place with this one.





> More than the industrial revolution the start of agriculture really messed things up. I read that farmers were shorter and much more sickly than hunter and gatherers since they had a less varied diet.


the competing idea is it just allowed the more sickly people to live (less selection pressures). and the reason our brains shrunk was because we in effect domesticated ourselves ( it's widely evidenced that domesticating animals reduces their brain size, since they stop hunting,and you can see how that is cognitively demanding, etc.)

but i am with you. the agricultural diet is clearly not that great and even the kind of adaption populations did have (the example i always hear about is how whatever enzyme that breaks down starch in our saliva - oh yeah, amylase - was unregulated, or rather how copies of that gene transposed around and the people with more copies won out - or something like that) were not sufficient for it to become nutritionally competitive with people's previous diets.

i am a fan of the paleo diet or diets along that line, and it seems like that is the consensus the smart people who look sufficiently into the question of what is the optimal diet for humans. (and yeah, diet recommendations and even the science has been thoroughly corrupted by the agricultural industry since they have all the money, much more than the meat people. and so the crops that yield the most money get the most disproportionately favorable treatment - i.e grains, seed oils, sugar.).



> And with farming, people could settle down and have more belongings. During hunter and gathering times people had to move every few weeks to find more food, so they had to carry all their belongings on their backs. So they couldn't have much stuff. With farming more inequality could develop. Some people with too much food/land/goodies and others without enough. This also led to worse treatment of women since women's labor was worth less in agriculture than in farming. This has reversed in the past century though, not that most jobs don't require much strength anymore.


yeah i like the sound of all of that. and you can say society really starts to transition before agriculture, with just weapons and fire. because then tribes can catch big animals, and steal each others big animals, and you have real fierce tribal competition for the first time, since there is now also weapons to steal from each other, and those are valuable. it is also speculated that the proliferation of weapons effects the selection pressures on individuals and you get the survival odds of aggressive people with predatory tendencies increases :/.

more widespread farming accelerates the accumulation of stuff dramatically though. and you start to have real inequality between members of the same group for the first time. yeah roles change and new roles emerge, and so on. society gets way more complex, but in a lot of ways more sad.



> And farming led to population increase since now a woman did not have to carry her kids miles and miles. So during hunter and gathering times women could only have one small child at a time and births were spaced 4 years apart. They couldn't have another kid till the older kid could walk and keep up with the group. And I think if you are getting lots of exercise and nursing at the same time ovulation is inhibited and some used infanticide. So women started crapping out kids every 1 to 3 years with farming. So even if the farming techniques became more efficient they people were still living horribly because the population kept increasing.


haha yes i feel like the insane population growth even to this day has put an incredible strain on societies to continually have to adjust to accommodate the increased number of people and so on. and abundance of food does not translate to increased quality of life when it leads to more people without the infrastructure to support those people.

i read even that the increased lethality of human hunting methods put strains on tribes with regard to maintaining a stable population. and the incidence of infanticide by moms increase significantly to compensate for the fact that they were having more kids, since the effect of that was actually detrimental to the success of tribes (and it wasn't like it increased uniformly, but that during certain times it increased a lot, i think)

===

you don't have to reply - long undirected discussions of society are probably not worth the effort. but feel free too... you seem like you have a nice understanding of some interesting things...


----------



## komorikun

Oh yeah, the other reason farmers were more sickly is because they started living in large numbers (towns, cities) and that leads to...... infectious diseases spreading like wild.


----------



## enfield

also the animals. the domestication of animals was fraught with so much death and only the people with suitable tolerances to the diseases that spread from them with such close and extended contact survived. but once the art was perfected and the remaining people were tolerant and their descendants were immune the benefits accrued so much. since animal products like milk are so valuable. but there was a steep cost to that transition (and i don't know, you might infer it is a hard transition because in the americas it doesn't seem like it happened to the extent it did in europe - and the same goes for other places too - though they did have the llamas and its relatives which they made use of).


----------



## komorikun

enfield said:


> also the animals. the domestication of animals was fraught with so much death and only the people with suitable tolerances to the diseases that spread from them with such close and extended contact survived. but once the art was perfected and the remaining people were tolerant and their descendants were immune the benefits accrued so much. since animal products and milk and so valuable. but there was a steep cost to that transition (and i don't know, you might infer it is a hard transition because in the americas it doesn't seem like it happened to the extent it did in europe - and the same goes for other places too - though they did have the llamas and its relatives).


Oh right. Zoonosis. Most of our new diseases come from farm animals. Even with that tolerance we still had the black plague several times and it killed like 1/3 of Europe one time. The Indians weren't ready for the diseases coming from Eurasia. That's why most of them died off in the 1500s-1700s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death


----------



## komorikun

Hadron said:


> If it's irrelevant and does more harm than good and can be controlled, i don't think it's OK. people can't control how they feel though.


Evolutionary psychology explains many things:

murder and abuse of step-children and rivals
infanticide (particularly of disabled infants or infants with no supportive father)
kindness to family members but not strangers
cheating (male and female)
rape
spousal abuse
sex with the underage
risk taking (particularly by young males with low status)
**** shaming and men's preference for "pure" females

Obviously some of these things hurt people greatly but they do make sense evolutionary wise.


----------



## Unknown88

I am the oldest so my brothers just learnt to deal with my ****ty wardrobe. I can only remember one incident where the oldest of my brothers got weirded out by some guys hitting on me, and we were young teenagers. Now nobody cares, they're all used to it.


----------



## enfield

komorikun said:


> Oh right. Zoonosis. Most of our new diseases comes from farm animals. Even with that tolerance we still had the black plague several times and it killed like 1/3 of Europe one time. The Indians weren't ready for the diseases coming from Eurasia. That's why most of them died off in the 1500s-1700s.


yeah and the population density at the time was what allowed some of these scary viruses that made the jump to humans to spread so much.

the plague doctor costume wikipedia page amuses me. but it's also kind of sad.

the extensive deaths of the indians from the viruses is sad too. but the failed attempted at assimilation of many of the remaining ones and their decedents is maybe even sadder in terms of the magnitude of human suffering.


----------



## komorikun

enfield said:


> yeah and the population density at the time was what allowed some of these scary viruses that made the jump to humans to spread so much.
> 
> the plague doctor costume wikipedia page amuses me. but it's also kind of sad.
> 
> the extensive deaths of the indians from the viruses is sad too. but the failed attempted at assimilation of many of the remaining ones and their decedents is maybe even sadder in terms of the magnitude of human suffering.


My sister went to Venice and had a pic of her in one of those plague doctor masks as her facebook profile pic for a long time.


----------



## komorikun

I'm just glad my family never tried to tell me that sex or casual sex is bad or that I should be ashamed. Must suck to grow up with all those inhibitions. I'm sure it's ruined countless women's sex lives.


----------



## Milco

komorikun said:


> I'm just glad my family never tried to tell me that sex or casual sex is bad or that I should be ashamed. Must suck to grow up with all those inhibitions. I'm sure it's ruined countless women's sex lives.


Here, people are really just told to protect themselves and be smart about it, but otherwise 'dig in'.
That is definitely one step to making people feel comfortable with their sexuality, but it's not the only step. I'm quite a bit more inhibited than my sister, but that's more to do with social rejection than upbringing.
It's strange how much you can internalise the feedback from others and made to feel 'sinful' and wrong for a natural desire.


----------



## CK1708

I don't have a sister, but I wouldn't careless what she wore


----------



## shyvr6

LoL, I only clicked the first and the last page in this thread. It went from how awkward is it posts on the first page to farm animals on the last page. 

Anyway, my sisters didn't really wear reveling clothes, but if they did it probably wouldn't be awkward since I wouldn't be thinking of them like that.


----------



## tario

You have to take in that a relationship with a women also has been institutionalized in our system. Divorce for example has gotten more and more acceptable by nature. The same moral goes for kids/teens. A lot of people like to fool around but not tell about it because the norm is that people who do stuff like that also comes with the chance that he might cheat on you, leave you, divorce you at any time, heck even rob you.

Stuff like this is showed on television, talked about on school and so on. The conversation goes that someone that fools around is someone who most likely end up hurting someone else, like a previous partner. 

Things are definitively changing, and I agree with the experimental part that it has it`s benefits. But I still don`t like girls that hang it out there, most of them I have met also came across as someone with lower intelligence. Of course not an accurate measurement, but it holds up to some degree. I would find a women more attractive if she had less sexual partners. Then it actually might be something special, something significant. And this is the thought behind it. 

Argument can go on forever though, there are parts to each side. Which is great, because there are so many people that you are bound to find someone that likes on or the other


----------



## psychofanatic

I don't have a sister but if I did, I'd definitely find it really awkward to see her in revealing clothes.


----------



## MobiusX

maybe having a sister prepares you for dating girls and being less nervous around them since you are used to your sister and her friends


----------



## JohnWalnut

MobiusX said:


> maybe having a sister prepares you for dating girls and being less nervous around them since you are used to your sister and her friends


There's really a big difference between being around your sister/her friends and being around girls you don't know. And I can assure you that having a sister doesn't "prepare" you for dating in any way.


----------



## nullptr

Dont have a sister, maybe that and never having any friends that were girls explain my ineptitude in interacting with girls.


----------



## NoHeart

I remember going swimming with my sister there too... oh god save me.


----------

