Growing up and done with bad boys

Post Reply New Topic

There are just less memes here. ... Ah, I see.

Not really, if we assume that we have a female and a male both willing to neglect any standards in partner what so ever and both the male and the female being identical in terms of status, the woman would be more likely to not only have more partners but more choice partners.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it, a woman could have more sexual partners in 2 weeks than a man, even if the guy went nuts with Jay Z's Amex Black at the Bunny Ranch.

However, I don't see how it makes a difference in the society standard though, it's still easier for a woman to get a partner than a male. Even if she has more "choice" partners, she still has a number of "choice" partners, that a man could only match by being a "beggar". I don't see how you're arguing against me.

Don't care. Once again I'm ashamed to be apart of the human race.

Edit: First of all if you think you are free you are delusional. Typical hipster logic.

Last edited by bizboy1 on 19 Jun 2012, 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The grammar and sentence structure seems to be better, which calms my inner grammar nazi. After all, it's hard to formulate a post when you're thinking "if this person doesn't stop using "u" I will strangle them with that "u".

The arguments tend to be better as well, with the exception being the people who demand sources for every single statement and who make you define every single word before using it.

Typical hipster. /facepalm

The best analogy I've heard for the difference between men and women in sexual morals, with men often having to work hard and women having to exist, is the lock and the key.

If you have a key that can open most locks, you have a pretty good key.
If you have a lock that can be opened by most keys, you have a pretty bad lock.

Excellent. You're learning to offend people. I've taught you well, even though I've only been going for a day. Is there any money to be made doing this? I'll look into that.
But really - "settle for a down to earth poet or musician" - that's like saying "ugh, I don't have money for this Rolls-Royce, but I'll settle for this BMW if I have to."

I'm arguing against your images.

It doesn't necessarily mean that a man with more sexual partners has more skills than a man with less, he could just have broader standards for who he sleeps with. So instead of being accomplished, he could just be more like a beggar.

If a woman has more sexual partners than a man, it might not be because she is available to anyone --which the image of the 24 hour inn suggests-- but that she has the same standards as the man who has less sexual partners--yet more opportunity.

So, if this were true then it would be a double standard. Because if a woman has the same standards and (chosen) sexual availability as a man with less sexual partners than her, then there isn't any reason to look down upon her more than a man with less sexual partners (though I know we're comparing men with more sexual partners). They should be treated equally.

I don't know if the original double standard I suggested has to do with the woman lacking sexual skills? I was talking more along the lines of women who have more sexual partners being degraded as easy. Whereas men are rarely called easy, no matter how many sexual partners they have.

I don't really know if men get the same kind of criticism for having less sexual partners then other men, if they do then that also seems unfair.

Of course there is a reason for the "double standard" if its easier for the women, but she is equally "choosy" then it's still easier for her and thus not a "double standard" so much as two different things.

Think about it like this, if I'm a man and a bottle of coca cola costs me the equivalent of 30 minutes of labor, whereas for a woman it costs her the equivalent of 5 minutes of labor. I think the analogy is clear, it's the same cola, but it was much easier for the woman to get it.

That's taking the whole active approach aspect out of it as well.

Also, please note that i use exaggeration, hyperbole and crass imagery for comedic effect and to underline my points.

I like that analogy and I intend to steal it.

Aw man, this is starting to seem like it's women vs men here.

It seems contradictory to me the one can idealise the women who date bad boy after bad boy, by saying they are attractive so men want to sleep with them, and then the next moment saying these women have loose morals, so you do not want to have a relationship with them. Make up your mind!

Sleeping with someone is different from having a relationship with them. Also, I never said anything about loose morals, I just pointed out that it takes a lot less effort for a woman to reach lets say 50 sexual partners than it would take the equivalent male.

This is why I stopped posting in the thread. The thread's goal was to say "I've changed, I am after this type of guy now...so come get me "
It was a chance for the socially inept to get mingling and hook up but instead many took it as an opportunity to take out their frustrations with life on the person.

Yes, they weren't delicate with their words (perhaps an NT thing?) around the AS males. Yes, things might have come across different than intended. But they got a date in next to no time, and the angry bitter folk are still here picking away at things the OP said. So for what it's worth I'd like to think the person that can get a date with a nice guy has more validity in their statements, than a person claiming to be a nice guy that can't get a date.

First, no the word easy is not applied to men. There are other words like "player" used for men, and women will advise each other not to date them. Plenty of other ways in which promiscuous men are put down too. Ever hear anyone say how all men are dogs? If all you pay attention to are the words used, then you'll see that men get put down for sleeping around just as much. Only reason it doesn't seem as serious as when women are put down for it is because the men who those statements are directed at choose not to be so bothered by them.

And yes, men definitely are looked down upon for not having enough sexual partners. By both genders.

Well, obviously she would have to be attractive enough to guys.

It just seems ridiculous to me that these are the kinds of women men usually go for. And when you guys say you want to attract good-looking women and so have to compete, all I think about is women who have had many partners.

But then these women who have so many partners are called easy, and so deemed unattractive. And yet there are nice, young, attractive but less out-spoken women out there, who don't get around as much, and they are called leftovers.

It's like women can't win here!

Of course she had no trouble getting a date, she's female. Any female, no matter how ugly or fat, can get a date provided they are willing to put out.