shikashika Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 They might care, but most women wouldn't want to be with a guy like that if he feels threatened. when I say most guys don't care, it's because i can't remember the last time a guy has asked. Link to comment
vertigoxo Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I agree with all of this except the double standard you clearly set out there in this post. I can't understand why men thinks it's perfectly okay to be sexually promiscuous but God forbids a woman does it as well. I still view men who are like that as harlots. (I'm not calling you a harlot, by the way. Just saying.) Link to comment
shikashika Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I agree with all of this except the double standard you clearly set out there in this post. I can't understand why men thinks it's perfectly okay to be sexually promiscuous but God forbids a woman does it as well. I still view men who are like that as harlots. (I'm not calling you a harlot, by the way. Just saying.) Maybe diabolik and his pals are like this, but many are not!! You have to remember who is posting on ENA (myself included! until I came to ENA, I've never seen so many virtuous virgins, and men who need to be men, man is a bro, but woman is a ho sort of comments. It's quite comical really Link to comment
diabolik Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I agree with all of this except the double standard you clearly set out there in this post. I can't understand why men thinks it's perfectly okay to be sexually promiscuous but God forbids a woman does it as well. I still view men who are like that as harlots. (I'm not calling you a harlot, by the way. Just saying.) You perceive a "double standard" because you are using the same measuring stick for both sexes. Do men and women compete against each other in the Olympics? Why not ? Because our biology is different. And because we are biologically different, we are designed to have different sexual strategies. Equating 1 sex partner for a man to 1 sex partner for a woman ignores basic biology. Link to comment
diabolik Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 until I came to ENA, I've never seen so many virtuous virgins, and men who need to be men, man is a bro, but woman is a ho sort of comments. Haha, my perception is quite different. Until I came to ENA, I've never heard from so many emo men. Link to comment
shikashika Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Haha, my perception is quite different. Until I came to ENA, I've never heard from so many emo men. yeah there's a lot of those type too!! Link to comment
vertigoxo Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I hate that word... Emo... It's stupid and hurtful. Anyways... I understand men are different than women but guess what, we're still both human beings, we both still have feelings. I hope my third partner becomes my last because I can't keep doing this... Link to comment
annie24 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 You perceive a "double standard" because you are using the same measuring stick for both sexes. Do men and women compete against each other in the Olympics? Why not ? Because our biology is different. And because we are biologically different, we are designed to have different sexual strategies. Equating 1 sex partner for a man to 1 sex partner for a woman ignores basic biology. the problem with this argument is that straight men need straight women to have sex with! unless 80% of the men are sleeping with the same 20% of the women!!!! unlike the olympics where men just need other men to race against. heterosexual sex requires men AND women. Link to comment
shikashika Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I hate that word... Emo... It's stupid and hurtful. Anyways... I understand men are different than women but guess what, we're still both human beings, we both still have feelings. I hope my third partner becomes my last because I can't keep doing this... I do hope the best for you, but you make it sound like you've been "at it" forever. many people say that over and over again and stuff happens that's out of your control. Link to comment
annie24 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 all this thread has taught me is to never tell my 'number' to a potential mate. lol. the number of men i've had intercourse with is quite low (as in under 5!) but the number of men i've had oral sex with...... i've lost track. where does that put my number? I don't know. I feel like the girl from "Clerks!!!" lol. Link to comment
shikashika Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 all this thread has taught me is to never tell my 'number' to a potential mate. lol. the number of men i've had intercourse with is quite low (as in under 5!) but the number of men i've had oral sex with...... i've lost track. where does that put my number? I don't know. I feel like the girl from "Clerks!!!" lol. I do think that people don't ask after a certain age It's generally younger people who are petrified at the thought of someone else being more experienced. Even older less experienced people don't seem to care. There are so many more important things to talk about than. .. How many have you slept with? How was it? Am I just as good? am I? am I? am I? am I? Link to comment
Miss Firecracker Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 yes, but just because you had a bad experience, doesn't mean others should and that they are going to have your same issues. I don't regret anyone I slept with, event those that acted like asses. Me either. I don't regret a single thing I did in the years I dated different people. I felt I was friends with each one at the time, and then time moved on. Link to comment
diabolik Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 the problem with this argument is that straight men need straight women to have sex with! unless 80% of the men are sleeping with the same 20% of the women!!!! unlike the olympics where men just need other men to race against. heterosexual sex requires men AND women. This isn't a flaw with the argument. There will be a range of promiscuity amongst women. I'm suggesting that most men, whether they are promiscuous or not, will *tend* to seek out less promiscuous women for LTRs. Just like most men *tend* to seek out more physically attractive women. Obviously not all men will be successful in either pursuit, and many will find a combination of qualities (including physical beauty and promiscuity) that is acceptable, even if one particular quality (e.g., level of promiscuity) isn't what they would optimally prefer. Link to comment
Cognitive_Canine Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 This isn't a flaw with the argument. There will be a range of promiscuity amongst women. I'm suggesting that most men, whether they are promiscuous or not, will *tend* to seek out less promiscuous women. Just like most men *tend* to seek out more physically attractive women. Obviously not all men will be successful in either pursuit, and many will find a combination of qualities (including physical beauty and promiscuity) that is acceptable. You should tell that to the men in my neck of the woods. haha. Link to comment
shikashika Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 This isn't a flaw with the argument. There will be a range of promiscuity amongst women. I'm suggesting that most men, whether they are promiscuous or not, will *tend* to seek out less promiscuous women. Just like most men *tend* to seek out more physically attractive women. Obviously not all men will be successful in either pursuit, and many will find a combination of qualities (including physical beauty and promiscuity) that is acceptable. I guess the biggest thing here is what people consider promiscuous. One member shuddered at the thought of someone sleeping with 2 people a year, where as I think most people wouldn't see that as a lot. If one said 2 a month, then I could see why some would think THAT is promiscuous Link to comment
diabolik Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 You should tell that to the men in my neck of the woods. haha. Left out the qualifier "for LTRs". Updated. For casual sex, guys definitely seek out more promiscuous women. Link to comment
annie24 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 This isn't a flaw with the argument. There will be a range of promiscuity amongst women. I'm suggesting that most men, whether they are promiscuous or not, will *tend* to seek out less promiscuous women. Just like most men *tend* to seek out more physically attractive women. Obviously not all men will be successful in either pursuit, and many will find a combination of qualities (including physical beauty and promiscuity) that is acceptable, even if one particular quality (e.g., level of promiscuity) isn't what they would optimally prefer. of course it's a flaw!!! olympics require 1 gender, heterosexual sex requires 2. I've heard a joke, whatever number a man says he has been with, divide by 3. Whatever number a woman says she has been with, multiply by 3. how else could men and women have such different numbers, unless they are lying, or the men are going to prostitutes? (or super promiscious women). the math just doesn't work out. Link to comment
jc123 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 15 is way too many. i think women on average are supposed to have a maximum of 8 partners in their lifetimes. if you're insecure you shouldnt be calling her a ho. she is a human being. if you cant trust her or cant get past her sexual history then you should end it for the good of both of you. Link to comment
Cognitive_Canine Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 of course it's a flaw!!! olympics require 1 gender, heterosexual sex requires 2. I've heard a joke, whatever number a man says he has been with, divide by 3. Whatever number a woman says she has been with, multiply by 3. how else could men and women have such different numbers, unless they are lying, or the men are going to prostitutes? (or super promiscious women). the math just doesn't work out. I read that as "super prostitutes". I also agree with this. In the end, people get far too wrapped up with numbers. It's all just bullocks. Numbers are the last thing I think about when I'm interested in a guy. I've been interested in every guy from virginal to completely promiscuous (has had threesomes and group sex) men and I see no reason to worry based on how they see sex. My mindset about sex is very flexible. I enjoy experiencing things with a different point of view. How much people must miss out on when they only have one way of looking at things and refuse to change that view until forced to. Link to comment
diabolik Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 of course it's a flaw!!! olympics require 1 gender, heterosexual sex requires 2. Please explain specifically what the flaw is. My point is that our biology is different, and men and women are evolutionarily designed to have different sexual strategies. So measuring them with the same yardstick is irrational. The [insert 4 letter term for promiscuous female]/stud paradigm reflects biology. Link to comment
shikashika Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 15 is way too many. i think women on average are supposed to have a maximum of 8 partners in their lifetimes. if you're insecure you shouldnt be calling her a ho. she is a human being. if you cant trust her or cant get past her sexual history then you should end it for the good of both of you. Where did you read this? Is it a peer-reviewed article? Link to comment
Cognitive_Canine Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Please explain specifically what the flaw is. My point is that our biology is different, and men and women are evolutionarily designed to have different sexual strategies. So measuring them with the same yardstick is irrational. The [insert 4 letter term for promiscuous female]/stud paradigm reflects biology. Are 5% of the women in this world going to have to "take one for the team" and have sex with most of the male population to get the men's numbers up and keep the women's numbers low? Of course that 5% can never be married. It's not right for them to have high numbers... Link to comment
shikashika Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Please explain specifically what the flaw is. My point is that our biology is different, and men and women are evolutionarily designed to have different sexual strategies. So measuring them with the same yardstick is irrational. Your flaw is that in the men's 100m race at the Olympics, it only requires men, so it's pointless to compare. With heterosexual sex, you need a penis and a vagina, you NEED the woman... you don't NEED the women to win a men's race. The race will still take place if only men run in it. The human race would be no more if men just sat there jerking themselves off. Link to comment
vertigoxo Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I do hope the best for you, but you make it sound like you've been "at it" forever. many people say that over and over again and stuff happens that's out of your control. Yeah... I guess. I just don't think I can handle another broken heart... Link to comment
diabolik Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Are 5% of the women in this world going to have to "take one for the team" and have sex with most of the male population to get the men's numbers up and keep the women's numbers low? Of course that 5% can never be married. It's not right for them to have high numbers... Please see post #138. Your flaw is that in the men's 100m race at the Olympics, it only requires men, so it's pointless to compare. With heterosexual sex, you need a penis and a vagina, you NEED the woman... you don't NEED the women to win a men's race. The race will still take place if only men run in it. The human race would be no more if men just sat there jerking themselves off. Oh, I see - some of you are misunderstanding why I mentioned the Olympics. That was only to illustrate an area where we acknowledge that we need different measuring standards for men and women b/c they have different biologies. So we only compare a man's 100m time with another man's, not with a woman's. See post #145 for the general logic, sans Olympics reference. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.