Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This was my point! I was asking you what number of partners is acceptable, and what number pushes a woman over into the S-category. And what about the guy? Are the numbers different for him? Just wondering.
Ive already said its different for guys because Unlike men, it's easy for women have sex with a lot of people especially if she's attractive.
It's only true if the woman in question will sleep with anyone who comes along. Guys say it's so easy for women to "get sex." I guess it goes along with the OP's thesis, but most women don't want to just "get sex." It's easy for men, too, if they have no standards.
This.
I don't know why they say that all the time. As if go out and bang any guy, creep or not, "problem solved!"
And don't women deserve the same from the men they get involved with? It's the double standard that people are having trouble with--men who sleep around are studs; women who do the same are tainted.
Yes, absolutely. That is why I made the statement about getting to know each other before just turning down the sheets.
Brad Piffle is making the same mistake some other guys around here do. That if a woman is around her mid-20's and up, she's had hordes of guys. I think what must be going on is that the guys are projecting their own promiscuity onto women. They can't imagine a woman going years without a relationship. It's very difficult to find a good match, you know, guys. Many women don't go with just anyone. And then there are women who focus on their careers for a couple of decades. Reality is not as simplistic as it's made out to be on this forum. (OK, this is my "broken record" moment...)
Only 2 where girls I've been in serious relationships with
Okay. Instead of throwing around 'she's slept around.' someone asked what are the 'numbers' for women to qualify for that? Also what if women thought the way you guys did: "We only want men who's had 1 or 2 partners, period." Bottom line: you guys want your cake and eat it too.
Ive already said its different for guys because Unlike men, it's easy for women have sex with a lot of people especially if she's attractive.
It's seen as abuse of power.
This is so utterly ridiculous! You're assuming that just because a woman's attractive she's into being promiscuous. It's the guys who are more into being players (except for the shy guys, hi, shy guys, I know you're there! ) It's guys who have a much more challenging time going without sex. It's guys who are more likely to remarry after divorce.
Women cannot have sex with a lot of people, just like that, at the drop of a hat. Not that they'd want to, anyway. But what do you think women do, just walk out the door and bag the first guy who walks by, or hang out on a street corner until someone picks her up? Get REAL!!
Brad Piffle is making the same mistake some other guys around here do. That if a woman is around her mid-20's and up, she's had hordes of guys. I think what must be going on is that the guys are projecting their own promiscuity onto women. They can't imagine a woman going years without a relationship. It's very difficult to find a good match, you know, guys. Many women don't go with just anyone. And then there are women who focus on their careers for a couple of decades. Reality is not as simplistic as it's made out to be on this forum. (OK, this is my "broken record" moment...)
And I have dated off and on forever, but I don't sleep with everyone I have dated. Some of us can go awhile without a relationship AND still stay chaste during that time.
I may never find the right match either, but I won't opt for mediocre sex in its' place.
Location: Everybody is going to hurt you, you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for-B Marley
9,516 posts, read 20,003,071 times
Reputation: 9418
Quote:
Originally Posted by findly185
I mean really, if women could think of sex in the same light as (most) men, think about how much easier life would be. There wouldn't be the millions of threads about boyfriends looking at other women, porn being a form of cheating, how guys are d-bags for engaging in FWB and one night stands, the list goes on and on and on.
I have managed to disconnect a lot of the emotional attachment that goes along with sex (unless I am in a relationship with someone I love) and let me tell you how much easier it is. I know women are going to say they prefer the obsessive neurotic behavior because it somehow elevates their ability to "feel" to a level that far surpasses that of a man, but really, all of the BS that goes along with that "connection" we're supposed to have during intercourse really just muddies the waters and complicated the he** out of sex for everyone.
What if women could step away from that, have sex and not necessarily have emotional attachments, but rather, to fulfill a need.
Thoughts?
What if cats could stop being cats and be dogs. I have one suggestion for you. Step AWAY from the computer>Go to nearest bookstore>Grab the first copy you see of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus>Read>Come back to internet>Post thoughts. Something tells me you're going to see things in a whole new light.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) It's guys who have a much more challenging time going without sex. It's guys who are more likely to remarry after divorce.
What if cats could stop being cats and be dogs. 
