Promiscuous relationships - good idea?

Cold War Kid

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Never understood this reasoning. At the end of a Friday night in Coppers, the number of straight women getting their hole is the same as the number of straight men.

Very true.

justchecked

If kissing/snogging is considered getting the ride.

Which from sad experience has proved not to always be the case.

Samaris

Doesn't bother me. If both partners are up for it and understand what's what, then I see no problem with it all.

smash

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Thought she could get the ride even when wrecked-looking? Even more chance than a male model?

She could easily stand at the bar looking wrecked, but it'll take a bit longer!

Wacker The Attacker

No. Purely for practical reasons (i.e reasons of health)

NachoBusiness

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Never understood this reasoning. At the end of a Friday night in Coppers, the number of straight women getting their hole is the same as the number of straight men.

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Very true.

lol.

So what if the same amount of straight women as straight men are "getting their hole" at the end of the night? How would that not be the case and how in the name of God does that come close to retorting the point which the user made? It doesn't, quite obviously but yet ye are all pretending it did. The point is that there is never a scarcity of men for women if all they want to do is have sex. If a nightclub has 1000 single men in it looking for a ONS and there a 1000 single women there, the number of actual ONS had will largely be dependent on the women.

Let me give you a scenario:

A Saturday night. 500 single women entering a large nightclub (with approx 500 single guys inside) all of which are informed that if they manage to have a ONS later that night with a man they meet in the club, €1m will be deposited into their bank account by the end of the week. Hotel rooms will be booked for each woman, which they will be given a key to and told that the rooms will be monitored. The only rule is that they can't mention this to the guy or indeed offer him any money of her own. As far as looks are concerned, all have an equal match. Now, presuming all the women would want the €1m so bad that they would be happy to go along with this madness: how many of the 500 women do you think would successfully manage to convince one of the 500 single guys to come back to the hotel and shag them?

My guess would be 400 plus and very easily.

Now, lets switch the scenario around

A Saturday night. 500 single men entering a large nightclub (with approx 500 single women inside) all of which are informed that if they manage to have a ONS that night with a woman they meet in the club, €1m will be deposited into their bank account by the end of the week. Hotel rooms will be booked for each man, which they will be given a key to and told that the rooms will be monitored. The only rule is that they can't mention this to the girl or indeed offer her any money of his own. As far as looks are concerned, all have an equal match. Now, presuming all the men would want the €1m so bad that they would be happy to go along with this madness: how many of the 500 men do you think would successfully manage to convince one of the 500 single girls to come back to the hotel and shag them?

I'm thinking around 80, maybe? And that's at a push.

And that's where the discrepancy lies you see, as the majority of single guys would be well up for going back to a hotel for the night with a horny single girl. There is no scarcity of such men, in comparison to similarly minded girls at least. There never has been and the fact that the same amount of straight women and straight guys get laid from a club is irrelevant, it means nothing, or at least not anything close to what a few of you are suggesting it does.

NachoBusiness

Cohen Young Trigger wrote: »

But if men were willing to take 'any available partner' then they could get sex too, hell they could find paid-for sex easier than a woman could.

lol. The whole reason that prostitution exists on the scale that it does, is because there is a market there for it, and there is a market for it primarily because (quite obviously) men struggle to find women to have casual sex with. If they didn't, prostitutes would be out of business.

A very attractive man has more chance of sex than an unattractive woman.

Absolute nonsense. He can get sex more easily than an unattractive guy but he still would not get as much sexual attention as the woman. You could arrange a 500 man gangbang for an unattractive woman. You might even be able to get the guys to pay an entrance fee. I'd like to see the "attractive man" you could arrange 500 women to turn up and shag. If he was rich and famous you'd have a chance but beyond that, not a hope.

Romantic interest though? Different story.

An unattractive man has more chance of a sexual relationship with an attractive woman than vice versa.

What are you on about?

My point is, this is a situation with nuance and lots of it. Perhaps resist the instinct to see all situations in this arena as black and white ones wherein women have a perpetual sexual advantage and you'll be able to accept that

Well, in fairness, you just made a few "black and white" statements of your own and yet here you are telling others they must resist doing so?

In any case, women in western society do of course have a "perpetual sexual advantage". You'd want to be fierce divorced from reality not to be aware of that. Here's a video where a girl approaches a 100 guys and asks them for sex, and even though many of them are either gay, suss they are being pranked, or think she is a hooker, she still easily gets 30 guys in the middle of the day to agree to instantly have sex with her. And you say women don't have a sexual advantage?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBtF3I7fDfU

Penny Tration

I think an open relationship can work well for a small percentage of people, and i see nothing wrong with it.

For me, though, it wouldn't work. I'll readily admit that I'm much too insecure for that. Aside from that, even if I had no insecurities, it'd basically just be my OH going around shagging women (he's never had trouble pulling, despite what some people say here about men not being able to get sex easily), with me sitting at home, because I don't like casual sex.


Tbh though, if I wanted to shag multiple people, I'd just leave my partner, and thankfully he feels the same way!

The Corinthian

Saipanne wrote: »

I've known people who are into this. They tend to be mildly sociopathic, imo.

I once dated a woman who was into the idea. I gave it a go, but I couldn't just switch my feelings off like that.

So, it's more for sociopaths. Imo.

Ironic.

There's numerous relationship models out there. Monogamous, celibate / restricted, swinging, group relationships and, what is being discussed here, open.

An open relationship wouldn't work for me. Not because I share your insecurities regarding my other half's sexuality, but because I'm competitive by nature. As a result, I can guarantee (especially were I in a relationship with someone who was also competitive) an open relationship would end up a clusterfück before long.

But that's just me. For others it works. They have different moral values, emotions, security issues, attitudes towards sex. What won't work for me, might work for another and vice versa. I understand that.

Which brings me back to my saying ironic at the start of this post. Sociopaths don't empathize or even, at times, understand that there are other ways to view the World. Just like you've demonstrated.

zeffabelli

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you make a pact with your partner that she can have one night stands with as many men (or women) as she likes and you can do the same with as many women as you like but you will stay together would this actually make a relationship better in your view?

Or is it total no, no?

Cos I can see the side of the argument that this strategy might be preferable to maintaining a relationship than "accidents" further down the road. It's more based on honesty and trust starting out like this. No?

Depends on the people and circumstances.

All pleasures are perilous regardless of paradigm.

You could argue it's their body and they can do what they like with it on their time, and that's fine.

But that's not to say it won't alienate the person your with or you won't alienate yourself from your own intimacies by doing so.

I met a gay couple who had the policy never more than once with the same person and never in the house.

VisibleGorilla

Cohen Young Trigger wrote: »

A very attractive man has more chance of sex than an unattractive woman. An unattractive man has more chance of a sexual relationship with an attractive woman than vice versa.

No, you are 100% wrong with this.

Women can get sex 100% of the time, men cannot, it's clear as day.

zeffabelli

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

No, you are 100% wrong with this.

Women can get sex 100% of the time, men cannot, it's clear as day.

Doesn't this depend on age and circumstance?

Cold War Kid

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

No, you are 100% wrong with this.

Women can get sex 100% of the time, men cannot, it's clear as day.

It's simply not. You're deluding yourself if you think any woman at all whatsoever can get sex any time no matter what.
Why not just leave it at "women can get sex more easily than men can". It's these off the wall exaggerations that make it start to look resentful.

justchecked

Cold War Kid wrote: »

It's simply not. You're deluding yourself if you think any woman at all whatsoever can get sex any time no matter what.
Why not just leave it at "women can get sex more easily than men can". It's these off the wall exaggerations that make it start to look resentful.

Didn't you mention Melissa McCarthy ?

If you don't mind sexist and racist comedy then I suggest you look up 'Chris rock black men love white women' On YouTube by user Tubeexpression.

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

Now if you're on the same link as I am and have comments set to top comments then the very first comment should read 'sht, give me Kelly Clarkson, Adele and Melissa McCarthy any day of the week. Full figured white women are indeed sexy.

I very much doubt that this penchant exists only in Harlem (referenced in video).
I have a Nigerian acquaintance and he's commented to me on his proclivity for women like Melissa McCarthy, and that he is far from the only one. He's now settled with a daughter by a women of stature similar to Melissa McCarthy.
That's not to say all Nigerian or black men share this taste.

The point is that in a globalized world a girl like Melissa still most probably has a suitor ready and just waiting for the green light in any city.

Cold War Kid

I didn't mention Melissa McCarthy, electro did.

I'd respectfully disagree with the use of Melissa McCarthy for the analogy anyway, as I think she's very pretty. Overweight yes, but very pretty with a lovely smile and lovely hair. I still don't think she would "score" more than any male model - but maybe she might score more than *some* male models (those who aren't into shagging around).
However I agree some lads would fancy women who look like her. I love that Chris Rock sketch.

I'm talking though about women who aren't pretty, wouldn't have much in the way of social skills, are overweight or underweight. As I said, I know three such women and they are in a permanent state of celibacy. I remember one trying to ask a guy out and she just got laughed at. Being laughed at is out of order, but nothing wrong with men not fancying them.

The issue isn't saying women, overall, get sex more easily than men (we do), the issue is saying any woman whatsoever can always get sex, no matter what. It's simply not true.

I find this thread somewhat...unusual.

It's neither a good idea nor a bad idea, it's a lifestyle choice that suits some but not most. It surely is down to the people concerned. I can't for the life of me see how it would improve a relationship, I would not be in favour of it for me...but it's not for me to prescribe that for others. To a certain extent it's like saying "bondage and sado masochism, good idea?".

The Corinthian

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

No, you are 100% wrong with this.

Women can get sex 100% of the time, men cannot, it's clear as day.

I don't think you understand 100% of how percentages work.

It would be correct to suggest that women will find it significantly easier than men, on average, to find a man who'll be willing to have sex with them than the other way around, but suggesting that women can get sex 100% of the time is a pretty stupid thing to say.

Can you claim a 90-year old woman is guaranteed (that's what 100% means) to get laid on a night out? And I'm presuming you're not available to oblige, BTW.

justchecked

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I didn't mention Melissa McCarthy, electro did.

I'd respectfully disagree with the use of Melissa McCarthy for the analogy anyway, as I think she's very pretty. Overweight yes, but very pretty with a lovely smile and lovely hair. I still don't think she would "score" more than any male model - but maybe she might score more than *some* male models (those who aren't into shagging around).
However I agree some lads would fancy women who look like her. I love that Chris Rock sketch.

I'm talking though about women who aren't pretty, wouldn't have much in the way of social skills, are overweight or underweight. As I said, I know three such women and they are in a permanent state of celibacy. I remember one trying to ask a guy out and she just got laughed at. Being laughed at is out of order, but nothing wrong with men not fancying them.

The issue isn't saying women, overall, get sex more easily than men (we do), the issue is saying any woman whatsoever can always get sex, no matter what. It's simply not true.

I think this can serve as a good illustration.
However I'm skating on very thin ice to say certain things.

But maybe I can stay vague enough and say this.

Your celibate friends could end their celibacy tomorrow simply by introducing themselves to men from a particular country.

It would certainly take no longer for them to score than it would for an average male model with any given nationality.

OldGoat

justchecked wrote: »

Your celibate friends could end their celibacy tomorrow simply by introducing themselves to men from a particular country.

...and there goes Fonzie over the shark.

justchecked

OldGoat wrote: »

...and there goes Fonzie over the shark.

Why resort to derision. Reason is still available.

VisibleGorilla

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think you understand 100% of how percentages work.

It would be correct to suggest that women will find it significantly easier than men, on average, to find a man who'll be willing to have sex with them than the other way around, but suggesting that women can get sex 100% of the time is a pretty stupid thing to say.

Can you claim a 90-year old woman is guaranteed (that's what 100% means) to get laid on a night out? And I'm presuming you're not available to oblige, BTW.

Oh come on... as if I was talking about 90 year old women.

Lets take sexually active people, 17-60. Out of that I would say the vast majority of women would be able to have sex if they wanted within... 24 hours.

One eyed Jack

justchecked wrote: »

Why resort to derision. Reason is still available.

It's difficult to resist derision when it becomes obvious that reason is as elusive as that theoretical woman whom you keep harping on about, the woman who finds no difficulty in procuring sex from willing men 24/7 100% of the time, or whatever.

She doesn't exist, no woman exists who would even come close to matching that description. It's a fantasy, made up in not just your head, but the heads of quite a few people, not just young men, who seem to think that everyone else has it so easy.

The problem there isn't any lack of sexual attraction, the problem there is their perception is based upon a lack of perspective.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

NachoBusiness wrote: »

What are you on about?



Well, in fairness, you just made a few "black and white" statements of your own and yet here you are telling others they must resist doing so?

You need to read my posts in context dude. I'm responding to the nonsensical notion that any woman, no matter how "wrecked" looking, has easier access to sex at all times than any man no matter how attractive, and that this situation is one without nuance of any kind, ever. I've had to repeat and repeat and repeat myself responding to that poster so fair enough if you didn't pick up on what I was specifically responding to.

Cold War Kid

One eyed Jack wrote: »

that theoretical woman whom you keep harping on about, the woman who finds no difficulty in procuring sex from willing men 24/7 100% of the time, or whatever.

She doesn't exist, no woman exists who would even come close to matching that description.

I would say such women do exist, but they're not "wrecked" looking.

Dave_The_Sheep

Jesus, you lot. Would 99% be acceptable?

The Corinthian

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Oh come on... as if I was talking about 90 year old women.

You were. 90-year old women are still women and that's who you were discussing.

Even then, I would wager that a 22-year old women with Down's syndrome may have difficulty talking a man into bed. Basically, suggesting 100% is just one of the dumbest claims I've heard in a long time.

Lets take sexually active people, 17-60. Out of that I would say the vast majority of women would be able to have sex if they wanted within... 24 hours.

So, it gone from 100% to the vast majority now?

Look, if you don't know how to explain yourself, then don't rely on the mind reading abilities of others to magically understand what you cannot articulate on your own, because no one is interested in doing so.

One eyed Jack

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I would say such women do exist, but they're not "wrecked" looking.

Entirely subjective though, surely?

I mean, at first when you mentioned Melissa McCarthy, I thought "hard to argue with that surely?", but then I realised that I was mistaking her for Jenny McCarthy.

Quite a difference in aesthetics there, and while I personally wouldn't rule out a woman on the basis that she is overweight (one of the best nights of my life was with two fat Texan ladies, barely had the energy to squeeze out from underneath them the next morning, and they were not for moving! TMI? Perhaps :pac:), neither Melissa nor Jenny would do it for me, personally speaking.

That's not to say they wouldn't do it for millions of other men though, but to assume as much without any sort of evidence, or to weigh imaginary evidence against imaginary evidence, both perspectives based on anecdotal evidence, well, we could be arguing back and forth all day at that craic, as seems to be happening in this thread already, and the many, many threads that have preceded it.

(the persistent PUA reg must be up to his eyeballs this week, too busy to grace us with the pleasures of PUA rhetoric so far anyway :pac:)

VisibleGorilla

The Corinthian wrote: »

You were. 90-year old women are still women and that's who you were discussing.

Even then, I would wager that a 22-year old women with Down's syndrome may have difficulty talking a man into bed. Basically, suggesting 100% is just one of the dumbest claims I've heard in a long time.

So, it gone from 100% to the vast majority now?

Look, if you don't know how to explain yourself, then don't rely on the mind reading abilities of others to magically understand what you cannot articulate on your own, because no one is interested in doing so.

Oh god... hahaha.

Ok; An unattractive woman will have an easier time getting sex than an attractive man. How about that? Is that specific enough for you? Do you want height? Weight? Blood type too?

Joke of a post.

zeffabelli

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Oh god... hahaha.

Ok; An unattractive woman will have an easier time getting sex than an attractive man. How about that? Is that specific enough for you? Do you want height? Weight? Blood type too?

Joke of a post.

You can be hotter than Texas asphalt but if you're stuck at home with three kids, your opportunities are limited .... Very limited.

justchecked

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's difficult to resist derision when it becomes obvious that reason is as elusive as that theoretical woman whom you keep harping on about, the woman who finds no difficulty in procuring sex from willing men 24/7 100% of the time, or whatever.

She doesn't exist, no woman exists who would even come close to matching that description. It's a fantasy, made up in not just your head, but the heads of quite a few people, not just young men, who seem to think that everyone else has it so easy.

The problem there isn't any lack of sexual attraction, the problem there is their perception is based upon a lack of perspective.

Of course she exists.

Apart from real world factors such as pubs, clubs, street corners, lonely hearts columns, social circles, massage parlours and simple flirting. There are also online dimensions such as chatrooms, forums, swingers clubs, social media and hookup sites.
It may not be the class of man you want, or the situation you want, you may even have to drive 15 minutes, but it is generally available at the drop of a hat.

Look take it from someone who's looked into this. To reach my opinions I researched reliable source material from university lectures, psychiatrists, psychologists, anthropologists, published authors in the fields of sexuality and sexual economics who sold very well, pick up artists, pimps, famous historic figures, socialites, court cases relating to sexual economics, and historic references from etiquette to philosophy. I work in digital/web/social media/marketing related area and take an active interest in the logistics of getting mine and how society works.
The content I've read/watched and my general experience of life, I've been an adult for some time now, as well as the general message from media (including comedy), and society's use of language, humor, and cliches, all add up to tell me I'm correct in this assertion.

How about you.