People who hire hookers?

nokia69

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would you acknowledge that a double standard exists in society where women are made to feel shame for expressing their sexuality, while men are lauded for expressing their sexuality?

maybe in the past but the double standard has been changed, if a women says she is reading 50 shades of grey and thinks its great, she is liberated and in touch with her sexuality

but if a man was to say something similar he would be called a sicko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sex workers exploit this double standard by advertising themselves as the answer to men's sexual fantasies, doing the stuff that "nice girls" just wouldn't do, and "nice guys" are just too afraid to ask for, so they visit sex workers in secrecy, thus maintaining their air of 'respectability'.

sex workers are not part of mainstream society

they exist and exploit the difference between men and women, because men have a higher sex drive than women and are willing to pay for sex this creates the market for escorts

if men and women were the same sexualy then they should also be a large group of women paying male escorts for sex, the fact that this does not exist is further proof of a difference between men and women

but you are unable to admit to any difference

very strange

lavdad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ok, so I can understand why you might think that it's not as freely available to men as it is women, but then, who are these women having sex with, if not men?

Takes two to tango surely?

Utter fallacy, school boy error in logic. That's like saying, because all the world's money and resources such as food were added up there would be enough for every human on earth to live comfortably, therefore it's impossible for humans to be impoverished and starving. Yes the resources are there, but they are not being distributed fairly. A minority of men are getting a disproportionately large amount of the sex, while some are getting very little to none.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Men are paying for sex because they are unwilling to sleep with women who do not meet their standards. How is that any different from women who are unwilling to sleep with men who do not meet their standards?

That's not true, often times men have no options at all. Please tell me, where can a man find sex easily if he is willing to lower his standards as much as needs be?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would you acknowledge that a double standard exists in society where women are made to feel shame for expressing their sexuality, while men are lauded for expressing their sexuality?

If by "expressing their sexuality" you mean having casual sex then yes, but men and women are different and their behavior reflects that, hence the standards they are held to do also.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sex workers exploit this double standard by advertising themselves as the answer to men's sexual fantasies, doing the stuff that "nice girls" just wouldn't do, and "nice guys" are just too afraid to ask for, so they visit sex workers in secrecy, thus maintaining their air of 'respectability'.

That's just total illogical drivel. Why would men pay hundreds when they could get it for free, don't you know the most common thing punters look for in escorts is GFE (girlfriend experience)?

Wait, did you used to post on this site under the username cszarcasm something or other? Such an illogical non-female usually only comes around at most once per century.

One eyed Jack

nokia69 wrote: »

maybe in the past but the double standard has been changed, if a women says she is reading 50 shades of grey and thinks its great, she is liberated and in touch with her sexuality

but if a man was to say something similar he would be called a sicko

FSOG is probably a terrible example. There's plenty of people who are ashamed to admit they've read it, not because of the sexual content, but because it's so badly written.

I've read the trilogy, I'm not proud of it

Truth be told though if a woman were to admit to being aroused by the content in FSOG, you'd be forgiven for thinking she doesn't get out a whole lot :pac:

Honestly I'm reminded of a friend of mine who led a very sheltered life, married 20 years to her first love at 16. They divorced anyway when he decided to shack up with a younger woman. Now honestly to look at his 40 year old ex-wife, she was stunning looking, but completely fell apart after her marriage breakdown and almost reverted to the mentality of the 16 year old she was, truly bizarre thing to witness.

Long story short anyway I without thinking it through, gave her a present of a vibrator for her birthday. It was meant as a joke present. We were in the pub and the party was in full swing, and I had told her already not to open her present till she got home. Did she listen? Did she fcuk, opened the wrapping and all in front of the whole crowd, everyone, faces dropped, and the poor woman is standing there bewildered asking "What is it? What is it?"...

She genuinely had no clue! :pac:

Neither of us lived that one down for a while, but my god she didn't half go on about how fantastic it was afterwards and that it was only a shame it wasn't rechargeable! I hadn't expected her to actually use the damn thing, it was only meant as a joke! :rolleyes:


I think it very much depends on your social circle tbh.

sex workers are not part of mainstream society

they exist and exploit the difference between men and women, because men have a higher sex drive than women and are willing to pay for sex this creates the market for escort

Nah, the only part of the above that's true really is that women discovered that some men were willing to pay for sex. Women simply didn't have the means to pay for sex, and that's ignoring all the other historical and cultural factors in MANY societies, not just in Irish society that meant that women were held to an inhumane standard of chastity and virtue, still very much in evidence today with the idea that women are just not as sexual as men.

Trust me, they are, and every bit of it!

if men and women were the same sexualy then they should also be a large group of women paying male escorts for sex, the fact that this does not exist is further proof of a difference between men and women

but you are unable to admit to any difference

very strange

Ehh, have you seen the market for women's toys to play with themselves behind closed doors?

The market for women to express their sexuality just isn't as big as the market for men, but it's growing, and society is constantly evolving all around us, and that's not because of some feminist agenda nonsense, no way should they be able to take all the credit. It's due to women themselves deciding as individuals that they don't have to be subservient to men any more, that they are no different to men, that they have just as much right to express their sexuality as men.

Ogniochialli

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well some of them seem to think that merely engaging in conversation with a woman, especially one they deem to be below average in looks, should be enough to make them swoon. If she isn't interested then she is a stuck up b!tch with a princess complex and, by extension, so are all irish women or just women in general. I've seen this attitude on here numerous times.

I don't think anyone here thinks they are owed sex, I'm open to correction.

I think what annoys some people us the refusal to believe how genuinely difficult it can be for some men with certain physical attributea to navigate the realm of dating and relationships.

Ogniochialli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

FSOG is probably a terrible example. There's plenty of people who are ashamed to admit they've read it, not because of the sexual content, but because it's so badly written.

I've read the trilogy, I'm not proud of it

Truth be told though if a woman were to admit to being aroused by the content in FSOG, you'd be forgiven for thinking she doesn't get out a whole lot :pac:

Honestly I'm reminded of a friend of mine who led a very sheltered life, married 20 years to her first love at 16. They divorced anyway when he decided to shack up with a younger woman. Now honestly to look at his 40 year old ex-wife, she was stunning looking, but completely fell apart after her marriage breakdown and almost reverted to the mentality of the 16 year old she was, truly bizarre thing to witness.

Long story short anyway I without thinking it through, gave her a present of a vibrator for her birthday. It was meant as a joke present. We were in the pub and the party was in full swing, and I had told her already not to open her present till she got home. Did she listen? Did she fcuk, opened the wrapping and all in front of the whole crowd, everyone, faces dropped, and the poor woman is standing there bewildered asking "What is it? What is it?"...

She genuinely had no clue! :pac:

Neither of us lived that one down for a while, but my god she didn't half go on about how fantastic it was afterwards and that it was only a shame it wasn't rechargeable! I hadn't expected her to actually use the damn thing, it was only meant as a joke! :rolleyes:


I think it very much depends on your social circle tbh.





Nah, the only part of the above that's true really is that women discovered that some men were willing to pay for sex. Women simply didn't have the means to pay for sex, and that's ignoring all the other historical and cultural factors in MANY societies, not just in Irish society that meant that women were held to an inhumane standard of chastity and virtue, still very much in evidence today with the idea that women are just not as sexual as men.

Trust me, they are, and every bit of it!






Ehh, have you seen the market for women's toys to play with themselves behind closed doors?

The market for women to express their sexuality just isn't as big as the market for men, but it's growing, and society is constantly evolving all around us, and that's not because of some feminist agenda nonsense, no way should they be able to take all the credit. It's due to women themselves deciding as individuals that they don't have to be subservient to men any more, that they are no different to men, that they have just as much right to express their sexuality as men.

Saying women are just as sexuality as men is a rather nebulous term which can neither be proved or disproved.

Women are deeply sexual on a more complex way in my opinion, as I illustrated with the study regarding how they are aroused by watching animals have sex whereas it doesn't turn men on. So depending on how you define a scale of sexuality determines which gender is " more sexual".

I feel men find it more difficult to go without and have less tolerance to go without physically, emotionally and mentally in my opinion.

Ogniochialli

lavdad wrote: »

Do you honestly think it's acceptable for women to be total sluts and whore out to a minority of men during their youth, then maybe when they get old and wrinkly settle down with male providers who wouldn't have gotten anything when they were young? That's what women's "sexual liberation" inevitably results in. It's an absolute disgrace.

Why is it not acceptable to sleep around?

Regarding settling down with a provider, I agree it's not acceptable to pretend to be sexual attracted to a man to gain his commitment and resourcesee and sexual exclusivity. That is deeply immoral in my opinion.

Mister Vain

Ogniochialli wrote: »

I think what annoys some people us the refusal to believe how genuinely difficult it can be for some men with certain physical attributea to navigate the realm of dating and relationships.

I don't think anybody is denying that. It can be difficult for a lot of men, even for those with normal physical attributes. Sometimes it can just be a case of bad luck, but often, as has been shown in this thread, the guy has a massive chip on his shoulder. Women are guilty of this too btw. I have often heard women say, "men are bastards" or "there are no decent men out there" etc when they are having no luck in the dating world.

Just take a look at some of the women's profiles on POF and you'll see a lot of bitterness. Ironically they're denigrating men in the place where they're actually trying to find one, crazy.

It's hard to have a proper discussion about it when you keep moving the goal posts and going off on a tangent to suit your own argument though.

KomradeBishop

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Clearly not, because it's simply a massive sweeping generalisation that really has no basis in fact, and secondly, even if I were to leave out my own anecdotal bias, I'm not sure where or how you're seeing this massive advantage manifest itself?

Women turning down guys they don't wish to sleep with? It's not whataboutery to acknowledge that guys too turn down women they don't wish to sleep with.

Women aiming for guys they haven't a snowballs chance in hell with because they can't be arsed to make the effort? No different than guys will do.

Women feeling bitter because they don't get what they want? Bet you can't guess what comes next...

Women carving out a niche market for themselves because traditionally guys could ride round themselves left, right and centre and devil may care the consequences?

Ever since the beginning of time, there have been attempts made so that women could do this too, and it's only in recent times we seem to have cracked it, and women now too, are asserting themselves and expressing their sexuality at a frighteningly fast pace.

That's some scary shìt that takes some adjusting to if you're used to being dominant and having everything your own way, and suddenly what you feel is your right is being eroded away before your very eyes as women are actually becoming more choosy in who they choose to be with, and they're no longer dependent on you to provide for them in return for sex, the only trump card you once held.

Of course that's going to make a minority of men who can't make the adjustment, very bitter at their lot, because now they have nothing to offer a woman. Is that a woman's fault?

Hardly, but I don't expect these men who can't assert their dominance any more will accept that, they'll just go and find a woman they can dominate, instead of making something of themselves that they could offer to a woman who they really want to get with. They'll settle for throwing a few quid at any woman who can offer them the fantasy they wish for instead.

The same also applies to women btw, nowadays moreso than ever, there's a reason Fifty Shades of Shìte was so successful - it sold women a fantasy they could buy into, and many, many women are taking that into the realm of paying to have their fantasies guaranteed to be fulfilled, rather than take any chances with a guy who isn't a sex worker.

They're doing this a long time now, but as socially unacceptable it is for a man to do it, the idea of a woman doing it is almost unfathomable for some people.


I wouldn't have any hard data to present for that idea either, but I'll bet you're already thinking "Where the fcuk does he come up with this stuff?" :pac:


That'll be the denial speaking.

You're projecting a crapload of attitudes onto this that I never put forward, and are delving into motives in exactly the way I asked be left out - I already separated my view from the MRA/red-pill posters.

I wish in topics like this, people would leave out the silly pop-psychology type stuff - which is just based on mounds of assumptions.

What I will say though, is that - after going looking - it is hard to find data to back what I view as a semi-obvious statement, so I guess I'm undecided on that for now.

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're projecting a crapload of attitudes onto this that I never put forward, and are delving into motives in exactly the way I asked be left out - I already separated my view from the MRA/red-pill posters.

I wish in topics like this, people would leave out the silly pop-psychology type stuff - which is just based on mounds of assumptions.

What I will say though, is that - after going looking - it is hard to find data to back what I view as a semi-obvious statement, so I guess I'm undecided on that for now.

Hmm...


You put forward this idea that women have a massive advantage in terms of sex and relationships. I gave a fair and even assessment of the evidence.

The evidence doesn't fit your perspective so I'm the one talking pop psychology based on mounds of assumptions, and your opinion is based on something you think should be semi-obvious, but you can find no evidence for, to back up your statement of something you're suggesting is obvious.

I won't assume why you asked for the motives to be left out, but if you're going to make a statement like women have a massive advantage in terms of sex and relationships, and you're unable to present any evidence for what you suggest is so obvious, then surely you can understand why I would question your motives, the ones you asked to be left out?

I know you're not the red pill/rabid nutbar type, but not even a small bit biased? Teensy weensy bit even? You're undecided about a statement you put forward and can't provide evidence for, and at the same time you're honestly trying to suggest you're being objective and impartial?

KomradeBishop

You didn't give any evidence, just tried to use pop-psychology-like assumptions to lump me in with the MRA/red-pill posters, for putting it forward as something that seems semi-obvious. Your posting style reminds me of Czarcasm (and I notice your reg date comes slightly after he closed his account) - are you him?

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You didn't give any evidence, just tried to use pop-psychology-like assumptions to lump me in with the MRA/red-pill posters, for putting it forward as something that seems semi-obvious.

I already acknowledged that I know you're not a red pill nutbar?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know you're not the red pill/rabid nutbar type, but not even a small bit biased?

Ogniochialli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I already acknowledged that I know you're not a red pill nutbar?

I'v only recently heard about the red pill stuff a while ago, I a lot of it seems fairly obvious to me. Do you actually know what the fundamental ideas are behind it? I find people criticise it without even knowing what it's about.

One eyed Jack

Ogniochialli wrote: »

I'v only recently heard about the red pill stuff a while ago, I a lot of it seems fairly obvious to me. Do you actually know what the fundamental ideas are behind it? I find people criticise it without even knowing what it's about.

I'm familiar with it a while, and it's discussed a lot on here actually. I really don't pay all that much attention to it because from my perspective, most of it is facepalm inducing stuff, and I think that's why KomradeBishop took my comments personally, because it's insulting to be associated with that shìte in the same way I have an aversion to being associated with feminist nonsense.

@KomradeBishop: If that's the way you interpreted my post, personalising the discussion was never my intention. I usef the word 'you' in the objective sense, certainly not aimed at you personally.

Ogniochialli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm familiar with it a while, and it's discussed a lot on here actually. I really don't pay all that much attention to it because from my perspective, most of it is facepalm inducing stuff, and I think that's why KomradeBishop took my comments personally, because it's insulting to be associated with that shìte in the same way I have an aversion to being associated with feminist nonsense.

@KomradeBishop: If that's the way you interpreted my post, personalising the discussion was never my intention. I usef the word 'you' in the objective sense, certainly not aimed at you personally.

What are the fundamental ideas behind the red pill philosophy?

KomradeBishop

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm familiar with it a while, and it's discussed a lot on here actually. I really don't pay all that much attention to it because from my perspective, most of it is facepalm inducing stuff, and I think that's why KomradeBishop took my comments personally, because it's insulting to be associated with that shìte in the same way I have an aversion to being associated with feminist nonsense.

@KomradeBishop: If that's the way you interpreted my post, personalising the discussion was never my intention. I usef the word 'you' in the objective sense, certainly not aimed at you personally.

I don't accept that it wasn't aimed at me personally, as you directly admitted questioning my motives:

One eyed Jack wrote:

I won't assume why you asked for the motives to be left out, but if you're going to make a statement like women have a massive advantage in terms of sex and relationships, and you're unable to present any evidence for what you suggest is so obvious, then surely you can understand why I would question your motives, the ones you asked to be left out?

This is done in a very similar (almost unique) style to what a previously mentioned poster used to do.

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't accept that it wasn't aimed at me personally, as you directly admitted questioning my motives:

Yeah, I gave a view from both perspectives, both guys and girls, because I disagreed with your statement that women had any advantage when it comes to sex and relationships. You didn't offer anything except to say that you were still undecided.

What am I supposed to do with that then? Why shouldn't I ask myself "Why would he still be holding out the possibility of the existence of this so called advantage, that he claims is so obvious, and yet presents no evidence to back up his claims?"

It's like a person who is religious saying -

"God exists!"

"Have you any evidence for this?"

"Well it's obvious, isn't it?"

"No, no it isn't?"

"Well I still believe he exists"


I mean, of course you're going to wonder are they just playing devils advocate for the lulz?

KomradeBishop

I think it's really obvious that you're just looking to make insinuations about my motives, as a smear - precisely as Czarcasm would do; I've got no patience for that, it's a particularly needling/personalized style of debate, which is just a pain in the ass really, as you force me into replying to unravel the smears, and then just keep on flinging more crap/insinuations in every post, that I yet again need to unravel (because of how personalized it is) - while at the same time pretending you're taking a moderate stance.

I am 'on the fence' regarding my original statement, and erring towards still holding my original view - and nobody has presented evidence either way; trying to present that as a religious belief, is shít-stirring bordering on smearing.

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think it's really obvious that you're just looking to make insinuations about my motives, as a smear

I'm not looking to make any insinuations. I was genuinely curious as to why you hold this particular opinion that you say shouldn't be controversial?

I don't think your statement is controversial, I just think it's wrong. I'm wondering why you would suggest such a thing, and when questioned, you take it personally. That's no way to be carrying on.

I am 'on the fence' regarding my original statement, and erring towards still holding my original view - and nobody has presented evidence either way; trying to present that as a religious belief, is shít-stirring bordering on smearing.

If you make a statement, the onus is on you to provide evidence? That at least would give me something to refute rather than just simply accept your view that it's obvious?

If you think that's shìt-stirring, then fair enough, we'll leave it there.

Ogniochialli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not looking to make any insinuations. I was genuinely curious as to why you hold this particular opinion that you say shouldn't be controversial?

I don't think your statement is controversial, I just think it's wrong. I'm wondering why you would suggest such a thing, and when questioned, you take it personally. That's no way to be carrying on.





If you make a statement, the onus is on you to provide evidence? That at least would give me something to refute rather than just simply accept your view that it's obvious?

If you think that's shìt-stirring, then fair enough, we'll leave it there.

To be honest One Eyed Jack you regularly insult posters in ways that are just subtle enough to avoid a ban, do you ever wonder why you seem to p1ss so many people off?

One eyed Jack

Ogniochialli wrote: »

To be honest One Eyed Jack you regularly insult posters in ways that are just subtle enough to avoid a ban, do you ever wonder why you seem to p1ss so many people off?

I wasn't aware that I had insulted anyone tbh, certainly that's never my intention, and if anyone ever perceives anything I'd say or have said as insulting, then I apologise for it and I appreciate being notified of the fact.

It's certainly not in my nature to attempt to humiliate or hurt anyone else here, we're all people behind the usernames, and if I piss people off, I rather they know they could be honest about it and tell me than letting it fester. At least that way I know to be more mindful of how I come across rather than coming off like a dick. No need for that like.

the evasion_kid

Ogniochialli wrote: »

To be honest One Eyed Jack you regularly insult posters in ways that are just subtle enough to avoid a ban, do you ever wonder why you seem to p1ss so many people off?

If it is who I think it is......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTcheaqt0rU

lavdad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, I gave a view from both perspectives, both guys and girls, because I disagreed with your statement that women had any advantage when it comes to sex and relationships. You didn't offer anything except to say that you were still undecided.

What am I supposed to do with that then? Why shouldn't I ask myself "Why would he still be holding out the possibility of the existence of this so called advantage, that he claims is so obvious, and yet presents no evidence to back up his claims?"

It's like a person who is religious saying -

"God exists!"

"Have you any evidence for this?"

"Well it's obvious, isn't it?"

"No, no it isn't?"

"Well I still believe he exists"


I mean, of course you're going to wonder are they just playing devils advocate for the lulz?

It's not like that at all. There is mountains of empirical evidence for the claim, for example, compare the results of these two experiments where a man approached women and asked for sex and visa versa:

www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=gxyySRgrYsU

www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=C2I28b_PxKU

As you can see, all of the women said no to the man and all of the men said yes to the women (bar one because he was working). You could replicate this experiment in Ireland or any other country in the world and get similar if not identical results.

How do you explain this if as you claim, women do not have an advantage when it comes to finding sex? Is it you who is going to be like a religious person and deny a fact overwhelmingly backed by empirical evidence?

Saralee4

lavdad wrote: »

It's not like that at all. There is mountains of empirical evidence for the claim, for example, compare the results of these two experiments where a man approached women and asked for sex and visa versa:

www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=gxyySRgrYsU

www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=C2I28b_PxKU

As you can see, all of the women said no to the man and all of the men said yes to the women (bar one because he was working). You could replicate this experiment in Ireland or any other country in the world and get similar if not identical results.

How do you explain this if as you claim, women do not have an advantage when it comes to finding sex? Is it you who is going to be like a religious person and deny a fact overwhelmingly backed by empirical evidence?

But lavdad, I imagine that alot of women do not want sex that way. It would probably do nothing but turn a woman off if a man came up to her and asked her for sex like that and maybe for a man it might not be a turn off. Part of the sexual experience for a woman, in my opinion, you need to trust the guy and you need to feel physically safe with him. I don't know if this is true but I read somewhere (now I'm not saying it's fact just an idea) that men are attracted to a woman first and then get to know her and the attraction becomes more intense or not but women more often build the attraction up over time. So while she might go out and be able to get a man to have sex with her straight away, she might know that even if she does, it will not satisfy her sexually as she has not built repoire or whatever it is that causes attraction in a woman.

So while a man might know that he will more than likely be able to release his sexual needs if he just asked a stranger who he sees straight away and can have a good idea if he is attracted to her enough for her to satisfy him, if the woman has to build the attraction based on other factors .

I myself personally, have known men who initially I thought was very unattractive but as I have got to know him have become really attracted to more so than a man who i would say was aesthetically handsome imo. Now if the first guy came up to me and asked for sex, I would say no way I'm not attracted to him, he wouldn't be able to please/satisfy me because im not attracted but after getting to know the guy I could barely sit in a room with him without blushing. If he then approached me, I would be more willing to have sex with him and this would be more likely to satisfy me.

Just speaking for myself but I'm probably not the only one. And if this is the case that might also be a reason why male escorts are not as popular for women.
So perhaps the reason why women turn men down in the way you described (man approaching on the street) is not because she does not have sexual drive/desire as much as the man, but perhaps because she finds it harder to biologically detect if he will be a good mate and satisfy that sexual desire.

Maybe it is easier for men to visually pick a woman and have a good Idea that she will satisfy him? Would you personally agree with that?

nokia69

so saralee are you now saying that there might be a difference between men and woman

because last night you couldn't admit to any difference

Saralee4

nokia69 wrote: »

so saralee are you now saying that there might be a difference between men and woman

because last night you couldn't admit to any difference

I never said there was no difference. I said they are more alike then you might think.

nokia69

Saralee4 wrote: »

I never said there was no difference. I said they are more alike then you might think.

so can you agree that men have a stronger sex drive

and I'm still waiting for one eyed jack to post a link to a study that found the opposite to be true

Ogniochialli

Saralee4 wrote: »

I never said there was no difference. I said they are more alike then you might think.

That's a nebulous comment really that doesn't really mean anything.

Saralee4

nokia69 wrote: »

so can you agree that men have a stronger sex drive

Eh? No I said that maybe women and men possibly have the same sex drive but the ways in which they need the opposite sex (or same sex) to relieve that drive/need is probably different.

Did you read the post?

Saralee4

Ogniochialli wrote: »

That's a nebulous comment really that doesn'the really mean anything.

Well I'm not sure how I could explain that to you if you don't understand.

We all, men and women are human, we can all get hurt, physically and emotionally, make mistakes with one another, have needs and desires physically and emotionally etc. Of course there are differences between men and women but the fundamentals are the same.

nokia69

Saralee4 wrote: »

Eh? No I said that maybe women and men possibly have the same sex drive but the ways in which they need the opposite sex (or same sex) to relieve that drive/need is probably different.

Did you read the post?

but it very clear from any study that I can find that men have a higher sex drive than woman, I don't know why you or one eyed jack can't admit this, its not controversial in any way

and yeah its also true that men and women have different kinds of sex drive