Spinoff: Why are dudes so threatened / disgusted by females with "high" body counts?
Comments
-
And @beam the key/lock analogy goes deeper than just the ? /? ...its more about the effort it takes for a man to get ? compared to the effort it takes for a female to get ? .
Its why female stripping is so popular and lucrative and male stripping is some ? /funny ? (even most females would rather go to a female strip club than a male strip club)
the number of men that buy ? isn't even comparable to the number of women that buy ? ...
Men know this, females know this.
Being a ? isnt going to prevent a woman from getting a man, but she isn't going to get the man she wants being a known ? ....thats why they lie....they know. -
@ShiveDreadz
So you're going to persist with your faulty key and lock analogy? Yeah, I'm sorry but..
All these reactions and attractions, most of them are societal at this point. Your failing to realize that is no fault of a perspective that isn't so one-dimensional, nor is it a defense for the unfortunate fact that our society is built on such ridiculous ideologies.
? wanna ? everything, and vaginas make ? ? far more often than the other way around, yet somehow what men do is more "efficient." Yeah, alright.
We'll have to agree to disagree. -
blakfyahking wrote: »@beam
do you believe it's just as easy for a man to get ? as it is for a woman to get ? ?
really simplistic question, but I wonder what you think in that regard
Of course it's easier for a woman to get ?
^^^well if you understand this much
what does society really got to do with the reality that it really isn't as easy for men as it is for women?
it's like you saying you admitting that it's easier but somehow the double standard benefits men..........well if it's actually easier for women, isn't the current "double standard" just a balance of fairness for men in some sort of way?
you think women should be applauded equally for not having to exert any considerable effort to achieve the same goal? -
ShiveDreadz wrote: »If you look through the thread, i have cosigned/goated some of your post just based on the philosophy behind it, im not an idiot, and not bias...my post has nothing to do with me or what i want out of the situation.
You can do all the typing you want to do, you can post all the gifs and articles but it wont change one fact.
Men dont like chicks with high mileage, its often either a deal breaker or it adds conflict to a situation.
Women don't care as much about that ? , a man's sexual history is not going to scare a woman away....shid some women want that dude with that reputation!!
And I apologize for coming off brashly.
But you've got to realize that these preferences are societal, bruh. They are.
It's nothing more than long-standing bias rooted in pride, something the male psyche is built on.
Its got more to do with nature than society at the core.
A man can impregnate 9 women and have 9 children in 9 months
A woman can get pregnant by 1 man and 1 child in 9 months
It can't be broken down any further than that brother.
We are NATURAL creatures at the core no matter how much society wants to change that and twist our wrist and make us obey what they want us to.
A woman being able to weed out weak, less dominant men before sleeping with them is a strong trait that not many women possess. She is more likely to pass on strong genes due to her patience.
A woman that can do that will be coveted. -
Being a ? isnt going to prevent a woman from getting a man, but she isn't going to get the man she wants being a known ? ....thats why they lie....they know.
Real got damn ? !! -
@ShiveDreadz
So you're going to persist with your faulty key and lock analogy? Yeah, I'm sorry but..
All these reactions and attractions, most of them are societal at this point. Your failing to realize that is no fault of a perspective that isn't so one-dimensional, nor is it a defense for the unfortunate fact that our society is built on such ridiculous ideologies.
? wanna ? everything, and vaginas make ? ? far more often than the other way around, yet somehow what men do is more "efficient." Yeah, alright.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Doesn't the underline point out the value of "good" ? compared to "good" ? ? Its easy for a man to get a nut, any woman can do it. It takes way more effort for a woman to get a nut, and not every man can do that for a woman.
How does the underline not support the "faulty key and lock analogy?"
How does the underline not tie in to everything that i have been posting in the last 2 pages?
I agree with some of what you are kicking from a philosophical standpoint, it just doesn't have much practical use. -
ShiveDreadz wrote: »@ShiveDreadz
So you're going to persist with your faulty key and lock analogy? Yeah, I'm sorry but..
All these reactions and attractions, most of them are societal at this point. Your failing to realize that is no fault of a perspective that isn't so one-dimensional, nor is it a defense for the unfortunate fact that our society is built on such ridiculous ideologies.
? wanna ? everything, and vaginas make ? ? far more often than the other way around, yet somehow what men do is more "efficient." Yeah, alright.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Doesn't the underline point out the value of "good" ? compared to "good" ? ? Its easy for a man to get a nut, any woman can do it. It takes way more effort for a woman to get a nut, and not every man can do that for a woman.
How does the underline not support the "faulty key and lock analogy?"
How does the underline not tie in to everything that i have been posting in the last 2 pages?
I agree with some of what you are kicking from a philosophical standpoint, it just doesn't have much practical use.
Because the key and lock analogy is skewed; It's tangled.
Just as a man can be seen as efficient for making a woman ? , he can be seen as inefficient for being able to be made to nut by most vaginas, if he's held to the same standards he holds women to. "Good" ? is MOST ? , if we keep going with this analogy. The same can't be said for ? . So tell me, where's the efficiency if you're using the same scale?
I had an interesting convo with a group of friends recently. A femme in the group suggested that, "If a woman makes a guy nut, but he doesn't do the same for her, then the guy got ? , not the other way around;" And it's funny how many of the guys got upset about it. They were upset because their conquest is made available to both sexes in that scenario, yet they come out the loser. They think they're the only ones ? , while women are being ? .
See, men and women are held to different standards societally, which supports shallow analogies such as this.
It's harder for men to get ? , societally, so they should get more.
It's easier for women to get ? , societally, so they should get less.
But why, because of a key and lock analogy some man came up with? Yeah, that makes ZERO sense.
Men want to feel like they're winning at something, and have literally shaped a society where they can do just that with the opposite sex, yet they've handicapped their opponents by not allowing them to play, only to be played. -
Don't ask, don't tell
-
Don't ask, don't tell
Because truthfully, the ? doesn't matter; And if it does, the reasoning applies to both sexes, not just one.
But pride swoops in and creates all this unnecessary nonsense used to judge others and force a desired result, just so people can feel good about themselves. It's pathetic. -
Don't ask, don't tell
Because truthfully, the ? doesn't matter; And if it does, the reasoning applies to both sexes, not just one.
But pride swoops in and creates all this unnecessary nonsense used to judge others and force a desired result, just so people can feel good about themselves. It's pathetic.
I ? with this. -
Again it's not nonsense just because you don't agree with it.
At some point you have to realized opinions that challenge your opinions aren't always nonsense. They could brr very valid arguments. You just don't agree -
Again it's not nonsense just because you don't agree with it.
At some point you have to realized opinions that challenge your opinions aren't always nonsense. They could brr very valid arguments. You just don't agree
Why you always tryna police me now, bruh? lol
I know I'm aggressive. I know I'm persistent. But I'm also quite liberal, very open-minded, and extremely aware. It just doesn't seem that way because I may or may not have a bad reputation on this site due to my not being open-minded to small-mindedness.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, yes; But not all opinions are created equal. Even you have to admit that..
And with that, I respectfully bow out of this debate. Nice talking with you all.. -
Don't ask, don't tell
Because truthfully, the ? doesn't matter; And if it does, the reasoning applies to both sexes, not just one.
But pride swoops in and creates all this unnecessary nonsense used to judge others and force a desired result, just so people can feel good about themselves. It's pathetic.
Wait I don't agree with you though...if I know, I'm not effing with it
If I don't, I'm assuming she's changed and her past ain't got ? to do with me
But there's behavior and a mindset that produces a high body count that I don't find desirable in a spouse -
Don't ask, don't tell
Because truthfully, the ? doesn't matter; And if it does, the reasoning applies to both sexes, not just one.
But pride swoops in and creates all this unnecessary nonsense used to judge others and force a desired result, just so people can feel good about themselves. It's pathetic.
Wait I don't agree with you though...if I know, I'm not effing with it
If I don't, I'm assuming she's changed and her past ain't got ? to do with me
But there's behavior and a mindset that produces a high body count that I don't find desirable in a spouse
Then you don't know my viewpoint, because I've neither excused nor supported promiscuity. All I've said is that both sexes should be held accountable for engaging in such reckless behavior, not just females.
The "behavior and mindset that produces a high body count" is not exclusive to women, yet societally, men are allowed to act as if it is.
It's very possible for a woman to have a high body count, for you to know, and for all of it to be part of her past, effectively posing no threat to you two's potential relationship.. -
I refuse to let beam have the last word in this thread so:
? !.................................that is all. -
Again it's not nonsense just because you don't agree with it.
At some point you have to realized opinions that challenge your opinions aren't always nonsense. They could brr very valid arguments. You just don't agree
This tends to be the way the IC runs when someone doesn't necessarily agree with someone else's opinion but I whole heartedly agree with you here. -
this is a stupid ? argument,
-
Women want to ? just as much as men, but our societal programming shrouds that truth.
That seems false
The idea that women Seldom want sex is an exaggeration, but responding to it with a notion that the average woman has the same desire for sex as the average man is unsupported by our knowledge of biology, psychology and history
-
Don't ask, don't tell
Because truthfully, the ? doesn't matter; And if it does, the reasoning applies to both sexes, not just one.
But pride swoops in and creates all this unnecessary nonsense used to judge others and force a desired result, just so people can feel good about themselves. It's pathetic.
Wait I don't agree with you though...if I know, I'm not effing with it
If I don't, I'm assuming she's changed and her past ain't got ? to do with me
But there's behavior and a mindset that produces a high body count that I don't find desirable in a spouse
Then you don't know my viewpoint, because I've neither excused nor supported promiscuity. All I've said is that both sexes should be held accountable for engaging in such reckless behavior, not just females.
The "behavior and mindset that produces a high body count" is not exclusive to women, yet societally, men are allowed to act as if it is.
It's very possible for a woman to have a high body count, for you to know, and for all of it to be part of her past, effectively posing no threat to you two's potential relationship..
the behavior may not be exclusive to women but it is more damaging to them.
I'm sorry but defending ? based on logic is pure stupidity
male or female slutdom is wrong but one has greater negative affects on society so it's hated more. -
That seems false
The idea that women Seldom want sex is an exaggeration, but responding to it with a notion that the average woman has the same desire for sex as the average man is unsupported by our knowledge of biology, psychology and history
It seems false because it contradicts the results forged by previous societies, all of which were created and ruled by men and meant to keep women "in their place," which makes your need to latch on to history moot. However extensive, our history's values haven't evolved nearly as fast as other sectors, like technology or art. Sure we've got diff customs and ways of doing things, technically, but they all accomplish the same ends, essentially.
Biologically, we've transcended sex being purely for procreation. As I alluded to earlier, these guys wanna use defenses rooted in efficiencies regarding baby making as a way to defend pleasure ? . It's stupid.
Psychology has long since supported much of what I've been saying here in this thread. The studies are no longer so deceptively narrow, because we now know to look at the big picture, instead of simply conducing pseudo-studies and cosigning them because they corroborate with what we've always falsely believed to be the case.the behavior may not be exclusive to women but it is more damaging to them.
I'm sorry but defending ? based on logic is pure stupidity
male or female slutdom is wrong but one has greater negative affects on society so it's hated more.
I'm sorry, low self-esteem in males due to an assault on antiquated ideals that have long since been the foundation of shallow male pride don't qualify as "negative effects on society."
Our societies are designed to be fixed anyway, which is why change is always met with adversity, because change is uncomfortable for most people. You simply don't like what's happening, but that doesn't make it wrong. -
Women want to ? just as much as men, but our societal programming shrouds that truth.
That seems false
The idea that women Seldom want sex is an exaggeration, but responding to it with a notion that the average woman has the same desire for sex as the average man is unsupported by our knowledge of biology, psychology and history
Society plays a role in that as well. Desire is shaped by a lot of things, not just biology. -
Again it's not nonsense just because you don't agree with it.
At some point you have to realized opinions that challenge your opinions aren't always nonsense. They could brr very valid arguments. You just don't agree
Man thats nonsense. Sometimes, ? is just nonsense. -
That seems false
The idea that women Seldom want sex is an exaggeration, but responding to it with a notion that the average woman has the same desire for sex as the average man is unsupported by our knowledge of biology, psychology and history
It seems false because it contradicts the results forged by previous societies, all of which were created and ruled by men and meant to keep women "in their place," which makes your need to latch on to history moot. However extensive, our history's values haven't evolved nearly as fast as other sectors, like technology or art. Sure we've got diff customs and ways of doing things, technically, but they all accomplish the same ends, essentially.
Biologically, we've transcended sex being purely for procreation. As I alluded to earlier, these guys wanna use defenses rooted in efficiencies regarding procreation as a way to defend pleasure ? . It's stupid.
Psychology has long since supported much of what I've been saying here in this thread. The studies are no longer so deceptively narrow, because we now know to look at the big picture, instead of simply conducing pseudo-studies and cosigning them because they corroborate with what we've always known to be the case.
Psychology and biology hold testosterone to be the primary factor in determining desire for sex, of which men still have much more than women, generally speaking. However it goes deeper than this as there have been efforts to find men who have never consumed Pornography to participate in studies and they cannot find them, as they don't seem to exist. The female counterpart does.
Add in a higher propensity for infidelity, a higher rate of sex crime conviction, and even higher rates of sex and porn addiction, and there is an obvious trend.
Women that rival men in sexual desire are not that uncommon, but are much more the exception than the rule.
Not that any of that negates their sexual freedom, but the comparison does not look quite the way you portray it
-
That seems false
The idea that women Seldom want sex is an exaggeration, but responding to it with a notion that the average woman has the same desire for sex as the average man is unsupported by our knowledge of biology, psychology and history
It seems false because it contradicts the results forged by previous societies, all of which were created and ruled by men and meant to keep women "in their place," which makes your need to latch on to history moot. However extensive, our history's values haven't evolved nearly as fast as other sectors, like technology or art. Sure we've got diff customs and ways of doing things, technically, but they all accomplish the same ends, essentially.
Biologically, we've transcended sex being purely for procreation. As I alluded to earlier, these guys wanna use defenses rooted in efficiencies regarding baby making as a way to defend pleasure ? . It's stupid.
Psychology has long since supported much of what I've been saying here in this thread. The studies are no longer so deceptively narrow, because we now know to look at the big picture, instead of simply conducing pseudo-studies and cosigning them because they corroborate with what we've always falsely believed to be the case.the behavior may not be exclusive to women but it is more damaging to them.
I'm sorry but defending ? based on logic is pure stupidity
male or female slutdom is wrong but one has greater negative affects on society so it's hated more.
I'm sorry, low self-esteem in males due to an assault on antiquated ideals that have long since been the foundation of shallow male pride don't qualify as "negative effects on society."
Our societies are designed to be fixed anyway, which is why change is always met with adversity, because change is uncomfortable for most people. You simply don't like what's happening, but that doesn't make it wrong.
The negative effects on society don't just come as a result of male pride being hurt, if you have a bunch of women running around ? then the problem becomes how this effects the children of these women. because ultimately she is the one who will get pregnant sooner or later and even if she takes the pill. knowing that your mom has a football team of lovers will be damaging to children
number one she will have a bunch of different men she nor her child really know around. which opens up a lot of problems. number two sooner or later she will ? someone husband which often leads to some sort of violence
number three she increases the chance that she will catch an std and women are more susceptible to get those than men and the affects is more damaging for them.
change is not always a good thing and our disrespect for women who sleep around is not changing ? lovers are rare thank ? .
and obviously i am talking about women with children who ? around too much -
Women slutshame more and prefer men with "experience" so there's that
