girls who are easy

Jet Black

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I asked a young lady whom I was about to bone if I could inspect her gowler for cleanliness and crabs and stuff.

Pulled up her knickers and went off in a huff.

So that doesn't work:mad:

do you carry a nit comb around with you or where you going to use your teeth?

veryangryman

cork1 wrote: »

I recently had this arguement with a few buddies and said id see what ye think. so if a girls sleeps around would ye honestly think less of her? alot of people do. as far as im concerned they can do as many guys as they like it doesnt change a thing. i mean to call her easy or a slut is just a form of discrimination. so if ye were to meet a girl and go out and after a while find out that her bed post is covered in notchs would ye let it influence your opinion of that person?

Yes

Joey the lips

Zadkiel wrote: »

Why would you be dying of Aids!?
They have non latex condoms now ...just incase you were allergic to the old ones

I agree but the condom never stays on my finger, imagine if I had to get it over my [EMAIL="P@nis"]P@nis[/EMAIL]!

Dragan

Thaedydal wrote: »

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slut

tbh as long as she's clean and not a pro and respects her self whats the issue?

Oh yeah women aren't meant to have more sexual experience then the man they are with :rolleyes:

Actually, i have a pretty interesting theory about the whole "slut" thing. It's mostly based on fear from what i can see. A bloke may be very interested in a girl but upon finding out she has had a decent number of sexual partners, she then becomes a "slut". As far as i can tell this change about comes from the fact that the bloke is suddenly uncomfortable with the number as it implies a good chance that someone else made her come a whole lot more than he is able to.

Same applies to women who find out the man in there life may have had a wandering penis before they got together.

People are weird.

gardaitester06

There is a difference between men and woman on this topic....

Its the endless slut v stud argument.

For a man to shag around consistantly, I think he must be attractive to the majority of females, I'd imagine he'd have to be good looking or funny or caring or all of the above. In others words guys usually have to work hard in order to achieve the "Stud" status.

If we look at girls doing this...... well they just have to be there. Men are pigs and most would nail anything. Hence the "Slut" status.

IMO:cool:

BraziliaNZ

women just get more action than men these days it seems, of all the girls I know they are never without dick for more than a couple of weeks at a time, whereas i have to go months and months sometimes without getting laid.

Abi

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

women just get more action than men these days it seems, of all the girls I know they are never without dick for more than a couple of weeks at a time, whereas i have to go months and months sometimes without getting laid.

Well thats because women dont actually have to try. Theres always men around looking for their hole :pac:

BraziliaNZ

Abigayle wrote: »

Well thats because women dont actually have to try. Theres always men around looking for their hole :pac:

I know! it's not fair!

Dragan

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

women just get more action than men these days it seems, of all the girls I know they are never without dick for more than a couple of weeks at a time, whereas i have to go months and months sometimes without getting laid.

Maybe you are just ugly?

In fairness, you seem to know a good few "easy" women as you say, and are unable to seal the deal with any of them.

But of course, the issue is women....and other men.....not you.:pac:

Zadkiel

Abigayle wrote: »

Well thats because women dont actually have to try. Theres always men around looking for their hole :pac:

Very true, I'm so glad I'm not single.
If I get dumped I wouldn't know where to start on the pull again.

Abi

Zadkiel wrote: »

Very true, I'm so glad I'm not single.
If I get dumped I wouldn't know where to start on the pull again.

Aye. Tis a jungle out there. But if you just came out of a relationship, I doubt you'd want to nose dive into another anyway. You'd more than likely want to have some fun first

BraziliaNZ

Dragan wrote: »

Maybe you are just ugly?

In fairness, you seem to know a good few "easy" women as you say, and are unable to seal the deal with any of them.

But of course, the issue is women....and other men.....not you.:pac:

Maybe I am ugly and unattractive yes, that explains me not getting laid, but i've lived with some pretty wrote off girls in the past that would still be getting pretty regular action from different blokes. As a previous poster said, men will bang anything.

FlutterinBantam

Mask wrote: »

do you carry a nit comb around with you or where you going to use your teeth?

Just a poke around the flaps with a lollipop stick would establish all i wanted to know.

Wibbs

gardaitester06 wrote: »

There is a difference between men and woman on this topic....

Its the endless slut v stud argument.

For a man to shag around consistantly, I think he must be attractive to the majority of females, I'd imagine he'd have to be good looking or funny or caring or all of the above. In others words guys usually have to work hard in order to achieve the "Stud" status.

If we look at girls doing this...... well they just have to be there. Men are pigs and most would nail anything. Hence the "Slut" status.

IMO:cool:

I'd agree for the most part. It's a sellers market, so anyone overselling or selling too "cheaply" is considered a slut by men(and a lot of women). It's simply easier for women to get NSA sex. Some of the plainest women I've known would have had a higher number of sexual partners compared to even the better looking men I've known.

Dragan wrote:

Maybe you are just ugly?

In fairness, you seem to know a good few "easy" women as you say, and are unable to seal the deal with any of them.

But of course, the issue is women....and other men.....not you.:pac:

That's a tad harsh tbh. He never said he wanted to "seal the deal" with any of them for a start. They could be rough in his eyes, or he's just not interested in them in particular.

As for "sluts". Yep I've known a few(Men included). I would loosely define a slut as someone who seeks sex for unhealthy reasons, that reflect badly on them and their standing among their peers. It's not so much the number as how they go about it. I will say of the women I've known with very high numbers, not all, but most have been compensating for something. I'd say the same of the male version. I know I was when I was at that lark.

There is a gender bias and above and beyond the sellers market bit you could easily argue there is also the evolutionary bit too. Men have more to lose from a promiscuous woman as far as suspicion of paternity goes. Yes we have contraception and paternity tests now, but the animal brain has yet to keep pace. The suspicion that she's had a load in the past and is too free and easy with giving it up and the guy figures she'll do it to him in time.

It may also be a small part of the confidence thing with men too. I do agree that has a lot to do with it. A guy thinking she's had better. I'll say this though, even if she has had, doesn't mean she'll leave the current guy. Not by a long shot. Example; I had an ex that left me for another man and I discovered through a mutual mate that he was dire in the sack. This ex told the mutual mate this repeatedly and commented that she missed that part of our relationship(he must have been dire:D). She still stayed with him and left me.

Now I can't speak for men, but I would also say that high number of sex partners does not always mean women are any better at sex. A bit of a crap shoot that one. Among the best in bed I've been with had little enough experience(in one case none) and among the very worst had plenty of experience. Indeed the very worst I recall was the most "experienced" as far as notches on the bedpost go. God luv her she thought she was the bees knees in the leaba.

I would imagine that aspect would be more true with men though. A woman could have 100 sex partners and essentially just lay there and still she'd get more.

Actually there's a bit of a double standard going the other way on that score. You will hear far more how crap a guy is in bed and is often a topic of debate and derision among women, but not as much as how crap a woman is among men. And there are some that are next to useless.

Dragan

Wibbs wrote: »

That's a tad harsh tbh. He never said he wanted to "seal the deal" with any of them for a start.

Why? It's the exact attitude that he is taking towards the women he is talking about just slightly reversed. "They(he) look a certain way but(and) they(he) do(don't) get laid inspite(because) of it."

It's not always a deep psychological chat and a life history assesment that is required, sometimes it's just pointing out that people have preconceived idea's about other people, should expect that other people have them about them, and move the **** on.

Abi

*BAM*

Headshot from teh Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I know I was when I was at that lark.

Lulz. "That lark" :pac:

Wurly

Seaneh wrote: »

Usually the "sluttiest" girls are the onws who have problems with depression aswell.

Woah there - what a sweeping generalisation!!!

BraziliaNZ

Dragan wrote: »

Why? It's the exact attitude that he is taking towards the women he is talking about just slightly reversed. "They(he) look a certain way but(and) they(he) do(don't) get laid inspite(because) of it."

It's not always a deep psychological chat and a life history assesment that is required, sometimes it's just pointing out that people have preconceived idea's about other people, should expect that other people have them about them, and move the **** on.

I never mentioned the way I look, i like the way i look and look after myself. Anyway i wouldn't go near the girls in question with a barge pole.
It's like this - I'm 28, fit, in good shape, I want to say interesting, and go ages without sex sometimes. Whereas previous girls i've lived with etc take no care of themselves, are overweight, are bland and uninteresting, yet they get laid whenever they want. So I wish I had it that easy.

Dragan

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I never mentioned the way I look, i like the way i look and look after myself. Anyway i wouldn't go near the girls in question with a barge pole.
It's like this - I'm 28, fit, in good shape, I want to say interesting, and go ages without sex sometimes. Whereas previous girls i've lived with etc take no care of themselves, are overweight, are bland and uninteresting, yet they get laid whenever they want. So I wish I had it that easy.

Why? That is exactly the double standard that is being discussed.

You wish you had it that easy? Why, so you could look at yourself with very little respect? Or would the fact that you get laid a lot suddenly make you a stud?

And if not, then why the different attitude towards these girls. If a decent sex life is a goal that you have for yourself and something that you might enjoy, then why would somebody else acheiving that be a bad thing?

Honestly, it's a ****ing mystery to me.

With regard to the girls getting laid, had it occured to you that the blokes they might be with my have less in the looks department that you, they just put themselves out a bit more, or try a bit harder, or simply have completely different tastes to you?

BraziliaNZ

where are my double standards? the fact that they sleep around doesn't lower my view of them, i dont care how many people women sleep with, i just wish i could get laid as easily as them, that's all i'm saying.

Wibbs

Dragan wrote: »

Why? It's the exact attitude that he is taking towards the women he is talking about just slightly reversed. "They(he) look a certain way but(and) they(he) do(don't) get laid inspite(because) of it."

Well duh but from what I read of it, he's simply stating the obvious, that even the plainest woman has more sexual options regardless. So you can't run the reverse on that. It's not a reflection on the women, just an observation.

It's not always a deep psychological chat and a life history assesment that is required, sometimes it's just pointing out that people have preconceived idea's about other people, should expect that other people have them about them, and move the **** on.

Agreed.

Abi

Trí wrote: »

Woah there - what a sweeping generalisation!!!

I agree. He sounds like a true gent :rolleyes:

Wibbs

Trí wrote: »

Woah there - what a sweeping generalisation!!!

+1. Their mental illness status would have little to do with it IME. Just as likely to get a "frigid" person with depression as a "slut". I've not noted any correlation anyway.

Dragan wrote:

Why? That is exactly the double standard that is being discussed.

Well there is one and a pretty big one. I would look on it less a double standard and more a reflection of reality. Women can get sex easier than men all things being equal.

You wish you had it that easy? Why, so you could look at yourself with very little respect? Or would the fact that you get laid a lot suddenly make you a stud?

Agreed.

And if not, then why the different attitude towards these girls. If a decent sex life is a goal that you have for yourself and something that you might enjoy, then why would somebody else acheiving that be a bad thing?

I'm not getting the impression that he does TBH.

With regard to the girls getting laid, had it occured to you that the blokes they might be with my have less in the looks department that you, they just put themselves out a bit more, or try a bit harder, or simply have completely different tastes to you?

Again a bit of a Duh moment. If anyone, male or female lowers their standards they will get laid more often(though still the woman will have more options). If someone puts themselves out more and approaches more women, then they'll get more action. Numbers game and all.

delllat

its obviously true that women have more opportunities to be easy than men, a woman can go through miles of cock without even being attractive because men will ride anything

Women are complaining that its a double standard but its not an equal playing field since a man works harder to be a slut ,woman just says yes all the time :rolleyes:

minidazzler

delllat wrote: »

its obviously true that women have more opportunities to be easy than men, a woman can go through miles of cock without even being attractive because men will ride anything

Women are complaining that its a double standard but its not an equal playing field since a man works harder to be a slut ,woman just says yes all the time :rolleyes:

Not all men will....I will, but not all men will.

My name is URL

minidazzler wrote: »

Not all men will....I will, but not all men will.

I've turned down the ride many times, and from attractive wimmens too

I don't subscribe to the idea that men will fcuk anything on offer

or maybe I'm slightly asexual

delllat

ok,then SOME men wiull fcuk anything

not ALL obviously,but from the somme that do there is an endless supply of cock,hence the women can be easy and just say yes all the time

994

Dragan wrote: »

Actually, i have a pretty interesting theory about the whole "slut" thing. It's mostly based on fear from what i can see. A bloke may be very interested in a girl but upon finding out she has had a decent number of sexual partners, she then becomes a "slut". As far as i can tell this change about comes from the fact that the bloke is suddenly uncomfortable with the number as it implies a good chance that someone else made her come a whole lot more than he is able to.

Same applies to women who find out the man in there life may have had a wandering penis before they got together.

People are weird.

No, no, no. It's because a man knows that a woman who has slept around a lot is probably more likely to cheat on him than one who has only been with a few (or no) men. So he is more likely to end up raising a child that isn't his, making him lose in terms of evolution.

minidazzler

994 wrote: »

No, no, no. It's because a man knows that a woman who has slept around a lot is probably more likely to cheat on him than one who has only been with a few (or no) men. So he is more likely to end up raising a child that isn't his, making him lose in terms of evolution.

No, I am more inclined to agree with Dragan.

Just because a woman sleeps around when she is single, doesn't mean she is not 100% completely Monogamous when in a relationship.

twinytwo

cork1 wrote: »

I recently had this arguement with a few buddies and said id see what ye think. so if a girls sleeps around would ye honestly think less of her? alot of people do. as far as im concerned they can do as many guys as they like it doesnt change a thing. i mean to call her easy or a slut is just a form of discrimination. so if ye were to meet a girl and go out and after a while find out that her bed post is covered in notchs would ye let it influence your opinion of that person?

As it always is... a girl sleeps around she is a slut... a guy does it and he is a legend.... sad really