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.
No, men are not guaranteed a mind-blowing time or anything simply because there's a woman there participating but I believe, overall (not every man, obviously), men are more driven to the act for the act's sake than (again, overall, and not every woman) women are, and there's a satisfaction simply in having completed the act.
I hope that made sense.
I mean that's a pretty elementary version of what's probably a lot more than that going on but this is the gist.
If I'm wrong, correct me but there's SOME reason that - again, just by the numbers - way, way more men are willing to just have sex for literally sex's own sake, including with a woman they'll want nothing to do with afterward (IOW who doesn't bring anything else "to the table"), than women are. If that doesn't mean men are enjoying the sex, specifically, on one level or more then please correct me. I mean maybe I'm wrong and guys aggressively pursue sex even though it's boring in and of itself, who knows, stranger things have happened and I've been wrong before.
The title of this thread should be changed to: "Why Is Dating Easier for Halfway Intelligent, Attractive Women Than It Is for Socially Awkward, Non-Attractive Men?"
Bingo, that's why I ducked out of this thread. But add to that unattractive women arguing that dating for them is no better..
This reminds me of a thread here that talked about men faking orgasm. A lot of female posters were poking fun of the thread and others in disbelief. Why? I guess most think that the sex they bring to the table is always good that they simply cannot grasp the idea of a guy NOT having a good time with them and therefore having the guy faking it. Men are not guaranteed to enjoy sex with all women as much as the other way around.
Okay, since you're a man and I'm not, you'll know this answer better than I. Given what you just said above, why DO men overall pursue sex so much more aggressively than women (again, overall)?
Considering the fact that it might just be a blah lay that they may have accomplished better on their own, all other things being equal, and certainly would be much better (or at least passable if I'm reading all these posts correctly) only with a small subset of women and given a combination of factors that all have to come together or else it really isn't very good at all?
Just wondering what the motivation is here. I can accept that only a percentage of lays will be good for either sex but in the woman's case, that seems (more frequently) to mean that she won't go for it just to see, whereas with a man, it appears (more frequently) that he will go for it...even given apparently more overwhelming odds that he WON'T enjoy it since a lot goes into making it good...so...
Okay, since you're a man and I'm not, you'll know this answer better than I. Given what you just said above, why DO men overall pursue sex so much more aggressively than women (again, overall)?
Considering the fact that it might just be a blah lay that they may have accomplished better on their own, all other things being equal, and certainly would be much better (or at least passable if I'm reading all these posts correctly) only with a small subset of women and given a combination of factors that all have to come together or else it really isn't very good at all?
Just wondering what the motivation is here. I can accept that only a percentage of lays will be good for either sex but in the woman's case, that seems (more frequently) to mean that she won't go for it just to see, whereas with a man, it appears (more frequently) that he will go for it...even given apparently more overwhelming odds that he WON'T enjoy it since a lot goes into making it good...so...
Somebody maybe help me out here?
I have a friend in marketing and he explained that across all major dating apps (incl. Tinder) the ratio of men to women is give or take about 70/30. It backs up the basic argument that men just want to hook more than women.
If you look at Gay men as a control, they often have more partners than most heterosexual men on average (although some studies refute this). The only way we could account for this is obvious discrepancy is the absence of women who are less likely to want to hook up.
I think biology may be at work here. Women historically bore a greater cost of shacking up with the wrong male (9 months of pregnancy and at least a good few years of child rearing). Even in a sexually liberated environment with gender equality, I imagine that at a subconscious level some sort of selection is still going on by women?? That's my guess...
As to your boldfaced quote: I would think so myself, and yet (counterintuitively even to myself), I have encountered exceptions over the course of time. For instance:
One of my bosses/supervisors at my last job is very morbidly obese . . . like perhaps nearly 450-500 pounds (though he has a rather presentable face and a cool-looking goatee). Yet he is married and with grown children and his wife seemed presentable-enough to me. It is the case that he comes across as having a rather-good and well-developed social manner and personality and is intelligent and worldly enough. And like I said, he has, in fact, managed to become married and has varied adult children now and has often enough gotten women in life (though he has also shared some rejection stories with me as well . . . such as with women liking him over the phone and then wanting to meet him in-person but then being turned off to his large mass when they meet him and ending the encounter with him).
And when I used to be a churchgoer years ago, there was a quite-large obese young-ish adult man (though he was tall-ish, perhaps 6 feet or 6.1 feet, and had a pleasant smile and clear complexion) yet he had a great social manner and affability/congeniality about him that made everyone like him and it turns out that he was, in fact, engaged to be married to a rather attractive pleasant woman. I met them both at a large Christmas gathering at someone's house attended by many people.
And yet at that same party mentioned in the above paragraph and at other parties over the course of time thrown by varied members of the churchgoing crowd, I'd often enough see some other church-attending adult man (perhaps in his 30s or low 40s?) who was rather tall, very very handsome and debonaire, a great and stylish dresser, et al yet he could hardly engage in conversation or have much to say. Even I tried various times interacting with him and he came across as so socially stunted. He acted like a virtual social wallflower. And ALL the women seemingly passed him up (i.e, they might initially engage with him, as he put on such a good impression looks-wise . . . but then I suppose they found that he had seemingly very little depth to him and came across as rather shy and reserved and they moved on from him to others). I'd see him be seemingly perennially alone by himself at social gatherings, as well as at church.
So YES, it can be the case (though not always) that a well-developed and appealing personality and social manner can override one not being necessarily the very best in the looks department. It has been an eye opener (even to me) to encounter this enough times over my 60-something years of living thus far. Looks doesn't always deliver for a man (or a woman) and neither does the kind of material trappings and wealth that can impress others that one is well-to-do or enough so. You'd be surprised.
Some of those obese dudes might have been just a bit overweight when younger, but mainly were bulked up defense line types. Then with marriage, home cooked meals and kids ....
Next think you know, you're 400+ and shopping for clothes in the special section.
My friend told me this over the weekend: She says women can get laid with ease but the majority of women just aren't looking to f*** all the time eventually they want a man who wants more than just their private parts. She opened my eyes. Women can have it rough just like men can have it rough.
The title of this thread should be changed to: "Why Is Dating Easier for Halfway Intelligent, Attractive Women Than It Is for Socially Awkward, Non-Attractive Men?"
So many of the threads on this forum fit into this category. But the OP of this one actually is attractive (once he manages to get a good pic taken, vs. an awful selfie), and makes a lot of money. Not that I want to re-open that can of worms (still trying to figure out who to hang for resurrecting this thread, lol), but just saying that even guys with pretty good looks and money can have major issues that doom them. And few, for some reason, are willing to face themselves, and get the help they need.
Look at all those dating site stats people are constantly going on about. It's a VERY SMALL percentage of the women that get "inundated" with messages, or even messaged at all. The rest may have very occasional and very unsavory "opportunities" or, as I said, none at all, for months and months. I've seen right here on CD-R where perfectly lovely women (especially personality-wise) said they went months without even a single approach from their dating site, and that they in the meantime had approached many many men without a response at all.
But some see that "high approaches" stat for that very small minority of uber-hot "cream of the crop" (as dating sites go) women and say that ALL of us women are approached left, right and center just for walking out the door and owning breasts.
Uh, nope. In real life as online, that super-awesome girl is fawned all over and huge percentages of women are ignored unless we manage to make ourselves stand out in some way. Just as in real life as online, that super-awesome guy is fawned over and huge percentages of men are ignored unless they manage to make themselves stand out in some way.
Yet in the final analysis, men/women are getting married (one of each per non-same-sex marriage ) and it's not taking forever or anything, I believe the average first-marriage age in the U.S. is 25 for women and 26 for men, so how is this evidence that it's nearly impossible for guys and they have to be super-above-average to "get" a woman? Is the majority of those men above-average? That's impossible just by the numbers, average is called average for a reason and a significant majority can't be above-average. That's a contradiction in terms.
Wake up. We women have to work hard for a good relationship or even a date (not a pump-and-dump and again, we BOTH have the option of skipping that and taking care of ourselves instead) and so do you men, and that's it.
I have a friend in marketing and he explained that across all major dating apps (incl. Tinder) the ratio of men to women is give or take about 70/30. It backs up the basic argument that men just want to hook more than women.
If you look at Gay men as a control, they often have more partners than most heterosexual men on average (although some studies refute this). The only way we could account for this is obvious discrepancy is the absence of women who are less likely to want to hook up.
I think biology may be at work here. Women historically bore a greater cost of shacking up with the wrong male (9 months of pregnancy and at least a good few years of child rearing). Even in a sexually liberated environment with gender equality, I imagine that at a subconscious level some sort of selection is still going on by women?? That's my guess...
I know my examination of the research is old, yet it seems gay men have much high partner rates if anonymous sex is included. Some studies stated over 1000 partners! maybe AIDS has had some effect, yet last i looked, the fear of AIDS was less in more recent times.
I lived in a time when being gay was oppressed, and most women had few experiences before marriage, if any.
So many of the threads on this forum fit into this category. But the OP of this one actually is attractive (once he manages to get a good pic taken, vs. an awful selfie), and makes a lot of money. Not that I want to re-open that can of worms (still trying to figure out who to hang for resurrecting this thread, lol), but just saying that even guys with pretty good looks and money can have major issues that doom them. And few, for some reason, are willing to face themselves, and get the help they need.
Notice the socially awkward part of my re-title.
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.
) and it's not taking forever or anything, I believe the average first-marriage age in the U.S. is 25 for women and 26 for men, so how is this evidence that it's nearly impossible for guys and they have to be super-above-average to "get" a woman? Is the majority of those men above-average? That's impossible just by the numbers, average is called average for a reason and a significant majority can't be above-average. That's a contradiction in terms.