Promiscuous relationships - good idea?

One eyed Jack

justchecked wrote: »

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.

The exact same thing, could be said for men with regard to any of the scenarios you present above. They may not be the standard of women you might want, but if your main priority is simply to rid yourself of blue ball syndrome, well, it's your choice between maintaining standards, and standards be damned.

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.

How about me? Well, I've never had any issue with women who seem to find me sexually attractive, for their own inexplicable reasons (I try not to think too hard about these things, better off just to accept it as my lot in life :pac:), but given the rest of what you wrote above - I wonder have you ever read up on a concept called "confirmation bias"?

Because your opinion is evidence of it, completely lacking in any attempt at even the slightest nuance of objectivity.

The Corinthian

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

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?

You still don't get it. Most would have had the brains to admit "fair cop; I was coming out with silly generalizations", but you seem oblivious to this. You even went so far as to suggest that we should not read what you posted but something you didn't post but was somehow magically self evident.

There's no need to get specific, just not to generalize especially when those generalizations are laughable.

As for an unattractive woman having an easier time getting sex than an attractive man, I seriously doubt that in many cases - I'm sure it can be true, but this too would be another daft generalization to suggest it always is.

Joke of a post.

Really? Then why is everyone laughing at your posts?

recylingbin

I had sex once. It was marvelous.

justchecked

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The exact same thing, could be said for men with regard to any of the scenarios you present above. They may not be the standard of women you might want, but if your main priority is simply to rid yourself of blue ball syndrome, well, it's your choice between maintaining standards, and standards be damned.





How about me? Well, I've never had any issue with women who seem to find me sexually attractive, for their own inexplicable reasons (I try not to think too hard about these things, better off just to accept it as my lot in life :pac:), but given the rest of what you wrote above - I wonder have you ever read up on a concept called "confirmation bias"?

Because your opinion is evidence of it, completely lacking in any attempt at even the slightest nuance of objectivity.

What lead you to believe that I was unaware of confirmation bias the whole time that I was reading content by academics and professionals.

Have you read up on a concept called irony.

You're wrong in your assumption that a man can just drop standards and obtain sex in the same manner that a woman can.

Prostitution is an option to overcome the barrier that men (almost exclusively) face but not all men will have cash on hand 24/7.

NachoBusiness

Devils advocate:

The 100% thing is nonsense, obviously, but I'm not sure it was meant literally, more as a figure of speech.

Let me put it this way:

If someone came to me with two people: One was an unattractive and somewhat overweight 25 year old girl and the other a very good looking tall 25 year old guy and said to me that if I could go drinking with just one of them and (without paying anyone or rewarding them in any monetary way) was able to find them someone in that club that would be up to going back to a hotel room and having sex with them, I would receive €10,000 no questions asked.. without question I would choose to take the woman, as it would, imo, be a cinch.

Now, I might get the guy laid, it's probable but it would just be so comparatively easy to start chatting with guys and make up some story about how the woman is my cousin and drop some hints that she is recently single and looking to meet a guy for fun for the night, as it's her last night in town etc, blah blah blah. Hell, I'm pretty sure I could easily arrange group sex for her. There are parts of Dublin that within an hour and a flash of the car headlights, she would have at least ten guys gathered around her all wanting to bang her. It's a non argument folks. It really is. Sex is available for women at a level that a guy would need to be in a famous rock star in order to mirror. I'm surprised anyone would bother trying to argue otherwise.

Of course there are exceptions, but they are so rare that they are not all that relevant tbf and even if proven, would prove very very little. When it comes to relationships, different story, as it's then somewhat closer to level playing field then and neither gender really has a massive advantage of successfully finding a long term partner. Although, in saying that, given that many relationships are based on sex and can be borne from a ONS, women still do have a slight edge there also for reasons already outlined. Vast majority of swingers clubs also accepts single women. Try and find one that accepts single guys. If you do, let me know. Been looking for one for years.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I'm looking for somewhere reasonably priced that resoles shoes in Galway city, if we're just looking for random things now

VisibleGorilla

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Devils advocate:

The 100% thing is nonsense, obviously, but I'm not sure it was meant literally, more as a figure of speech.

Let me put it this way:

If someone came to me with two people: One was an unattractive and somewhat overweight 25 year old girl and the other a very good looking tall 25 year old guy and said to me that if I could go drinking with just one of them and (without paying anyone or rewarding them in any monetary way) was able to find them someone in that club that would be up to going back to a hotel room and having sex with them, I would receive €10,000 no questions asked.. without question I would choose to take the woman, as it would, imo, be a cinch.

Now, I might get the guy laid, it's probable but it would just be so comparatively easy to start chatting with guys and make up some story about how the woman is my cousin and drop some hints that she is recently single and looking to meet a guy for fun for the night, as it's her last night in town etc, blah blah blah. Hell, I'm pretty sure I could easily arrange group sex for her. There are parts of Dublin that within an hour and a flash of the car headlights, she would have at least ten guys gathered around her all wanting to bang her. It's a non argument folks. It really is. Sex is available for women at a level that a guy would need to be in a famous rock star in order to mirror. I'm surprised anyone would bother trying to argue otherwise.

Of course there are exceptions, but they are so rare that they are not all that relevant tbf and even if proven, would prove very very little. When it comes to relationships, different story, as it's then somewhat closer to level playing field then and neither gender really has a massive advantage of successfully finding a long term partner. Although, in saying that, given that many relationships are based on sex and can be borne from a ONS, women still do have a slight edge there also for reasons already outlined. Vast majority of swingers clubs also accepts single women. Try and find one that accepts single guys. If you do, let me know. Been looking for one for years.

EXACTLY!

NachoBusiness you've put it better than I ever could.

One eyed Jack

justchecked wrote: »

What lead you to believe that I was unaware of confirmation bias the whole time that I was reading content by academics and professionals.

Have you read up on a concept called irony.

Your opinion is simply evidence of the fact that you were already of the opinion that sexual satisfaction eluded you based on your sex, and that the opposite sex must be able to avail of sexual satisfaction more easily, based on nothing more than their sex. You assume that just because you've researched information that confirms your opinion, that it must be true. That's the equivalent of suggesting that because you read the Kama Sutra you suddenly possess the ability to pleasure any woman in the world.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between possessing knowledge, and possessing ability. You may possess the knowledge, but without the ability to match, your ability to "get yours", is severely hampered by your inability to understand that not everyone is so particularly interested as you are in your logistical and mechanical view of sex and human interaction.

You're wrong in your assumption that a man can just drop standards and obtain sex in the same manner that a woman can.

Why couldn't he?

Prostitution is an option to overcome the barrier that men (almost exclusively) face but not all men will have cash on hand 24/7.

Who said anything about resorting to prostitution?

There are plenty of women available to men, just as there are men available women, but in just the same way as women have standards, so too do men.

The standards people have are those they set for themselves, and you need to spent less time obsessing about "getting yours", and more time understanding what standards means, that people are attracted to other people based upon their own standards, and not those of the other person.

Other people finding other people attractive, has no effect upon how attractive, or not, you are, to other people. The person you are attracted to will decide for themselves whether the feeling is mutual or not, just as you would decide the feeling is mutual or not, should anyone ever find you attractive.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

It's actually crazy that people think all women have access to sex that's on the level of a famous rock star. What has to be going on in your heads to think that's not only true, but indisputable? Is it some weird ego protecting extrapolation from your own sexual dryspells that "well of course I can't get laid when every woman could have sex with any man, I'm basically competing with rockstars like"?

harry Bailey esq

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The vast majority of STDs are easily treated.

Wire brush an dettol ma'am

Potatoeman

The good looking guy would have the advantage. The unattractive woman could get some guy at closing time but so could the good looking guy if he approached enough women.

The Corinthian

NachoBusiness wrote: »

The 100% thing is nonsense, obviously, but I'm not sure it was meant literally, more as a figure of speech.

No, it's more a lazy generalization.

Look, I don't think anyone could deny that, on average, a woman will have a much higher probability of convincing a man to sleep with her than the other way around.

There's probably anthropological roots in this; for men increasing your chances of successful reproduction is all about doing so as often as possible with as many potential mates as possible. For women, who cannot do this because they have to carry out a nine month rather nine minute reproductive act, it's all about improving the chances of their offspring whenever they do mate.

This means that women are more selective - they need to be, because during their lifetime they have a finite number of opportunities to reproduce. Men can afford to be less choosy as we can theoretically and literally reproduce thousands of times in our lifetime - look at Genghis Khan. And women so tend to be more selective where it comes to choosing mates with traits that will be inherited by their offspring and seek a mate who will help provide, thus increasing the chances of that offspring surviving.

Of course, this is not quite the way it is in reality, but under the surface we're all a little haunted by our prehistoric instincts.

So in this regard, the dynamic may be that women can choose what man they have sex with, but men conversely tend to be those who can choose what woman they commit to.

Cohen Young Trigger wrote: »

It's actually crazy that people think all women have access to sex that's on the level of a famous rock star.

Calm down. No one has actually said that anywhere here.

What was said is that the probability that an average woman will find a man to sleep with her, would require a significantly more attractive man (the so-called 'rock-star') to match those chances than the average. No one suggested that your average woman could attract a 'rock-star', let alone all women.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The Corinthian wrote: »

Calm down. No one has actually said that anywhere here.

Except for like, three posts up from mine

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Sex is available for women at a level that a guy would need to be in a famous rock star in order to mirror. I'm surprised anyone would bother trying to argue otherwise.

Of course there are exceptions, but they are so rare that they are not all that relevant tbf and even if proven, would prove very very little.

Pat Mustard

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Haha, made the exact same mistake myself.

They are cousins, apparently.

VisibleGorilla

Potatoeman wrote: »

The good looking guy would have the advantage. The unattractive woman could get some guy at closing time but so could the good looking guy if he approached enough women.

Wrong.

The women has the advantage from the outset as she is simply a woman.

Nothing more is really needed. She could have 10 guys willing to go home with her long before closing time.

smash

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

The women has the advantage from the outset as she is simply a woman.

Nothing more is really needed. She could have 10 guys willing to go home with her long before closing time.

But a guy could easily have the same if he wanted it.

Cold War Kid

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Wrong.

The women has the advantage from the outset as she is simply a woman.

Nothing more is really needed. She could have 10 guys willing to go home with her long before closing time.

You're ignoring the nuance. The good-looking guy would have more of an advantage because of being good-looking. You're claiming unattractive women are more sexually desirable than good-looking men, it's delusion.

If neither of them made any effort, the guy would be the one more likely to score - and with someone actually attracted to him.

VisibleGorilla

Cold War Kid wrote: »

You're ignoring the nuance. The good-looking guy would have more of an advantage because of being good-looking. You're claiming unattractive women are more sexually desirable than good-looking men, it's delusion.

If neither of them made any effort, the guy would be the one more likely to score - and with someone actually attracted to him.

No I'm not saying they are more sexually desirable.

I'm saying it is easier for them to get sex than it would be even for the good looking man simply because men want sex more than women and will have sex even with women they don't find attractive.

Potatoeman

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Wrong.

The women has the advantage from the outset as she is simply a woman.

Nothing more is really needed. She could have 10 guys willing to go home with her long before closing time.

It's supply and demand. More guys are willing to lower their standards but a good looking guy with halfway decent social skills can get laid easily too.

Cold War Kid

Potatoeman wrote: »

It's supply and demand. More guys are willing to lower their standards but a good looking guy with halfway decent social skills can get laid easily too.

And they do. We all know them. They don't even have to be good-looking - many are just average-looking (and not rich).

One eyed Jack

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

No I'm not saying they are more sexually desirable.

I'm saying it is easier for them to get sex than it would be even for the good looking man simply because men want sex more than women and will have sex even with women they don't find attractive.

Sort of shìte talk is this?

If that's truly your opinion, and you're not just on a wind-up...

Actually, forget it, it's evident you are on a wind-up as it's near impossible to come out with something so dumb without really putting some thought into how dumb an opinion one could get away with, without making themselves obvious.

harry Bailey esq

Potatoeman wrote: »

It's supply and demand. More guys are willing to lower their standards but a good looking guy with halfway decent social skills can get laid easily too.

A normal average fellow that's not socially awkward will also have no problem picking up a complete stunner to take home for some post pub coitus,i myself have form in this regard.Whereas an unattractive woman will be left with the dregs of the pub.Both men and women make bad decisions while drunk,women just make worse ones when it comes to affairs of the heart.Every good swordsman knows this,and uses it to their own gain.

Potatoeman

Cold War Kid wrote: »

And they do. We all know them. They don't even have to be good-looking - many are just average-looking (and not rich).

They usually have very good social skills though. Other than that it's a numbers game where guys are expected to do the approaching.

justchecked

Lord have mercy your post is full of multiple flaws.
Let me take them apart one by one.
Scalpel.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your opinion is simply evidence of the fact that you were already of the opinion that sexual satisfaction eluded you based on your sex

Sorry, what ? - when did I ever say or even suggest or allude to not being able to obtain sexual satisfaction.
This is assumption at best. If its based of another post where I joked about singledom and crywanking then thats not to be taken as some kind of evidence.

And how can an opinion alone be evidence that someone was operating under confirmation bias. Is this system to be used every time someone says something controversial.... noo noo, this poor fellow was simply under the influence of confirmation bias when he formed that opinion, its obvious because I disagree.

and that the opposite sex must be able to avail of sexual satisfaction more easily, based on nothing more than their sex.

Which yes, they (females), can.

You assume that just because you've researched information that confirms your opinion, that it must be true.

... and you know this how ?
I listened to professionals, from both genders. And didn't get there through some sort of biased site. Often facts which I came across were completely out of any politicized context, they were presented as part of a completely different story.

Do you think I sat there completely unaware that confirmation bias exists and just nodded along.

That's the equivalent of suggesting that because you read the Kama Sutra you suddenly possess the ability to pleasure any woman in the world.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between possessing knowledge, and possessing ability.

But I haven't claimed to possess any ability, just an opinion formed from information I've casually gathered over years. The stuff I've bothered to retain is stuff that I could have faith in because it was presented by the likes of doctorates, sociologists, people who had no reason to lie or sell me something, and in one case from a board certified psychiatrist who helps both men and women in understanding relationships and human sexuality.

You may possess the knowledge, but without the ability to match, your ability to "get yours", is severely hampered by your inability to understand that not everyone is so particularly interested as you are in your logistical and mechanical view of sex and human interaction.

Although you've digressed now who said I don't have the ability. I also reject the suggestion that I have a mechanical view of sex and human interaction. I read up on certain things for my own benefit, I never boasted about being attractive or unattractive to women one way or the other, it was you who did.

Why couldn't he?

Because men and women have a different biological imperative and different reproductive strategies, and although it will happen that a man will 'drop his standards' and and woman will happily take the opportunity it will NOT happen at the same rate as the inverse.

Who said anything about resorting to prostitution?

I did, to cover that argument.

There are plenty of women available to men, just as there are men available women, but in just the same way as women have standards, so too do men.

Yes there is availability, but men as a group will always be quicker to have sex as they don't have to deal with a list of potentially negative outcomes as long as your arm.
I dont suggest that all men have no standards.

The standards people have are those they set for themselves, and you need to spent less time obsessing about "getting yours", and more time understanding what standards means,

I dont obsess about it, more assumption, it interests me...is that wrong.

Other people finding other people attractive, has no effect upon how attractive, or not, you are, to other people. The person you are attracted to will decide for themselves whether the feeling is mutual or not, just as you would decide the feeling is mutual or not, should anyone ever find you attractive.

Don't even know why you're saying that to me. Unrelated, random digression, complete non-sequitur, Thomas the tank engine has a friend named Henry ... so there.

One eyed Jack

justchecked wrote: »

Lord have mercy your post is full of multiple flaws.
Let me take them apart one by one.
Scalpel.

You really shouldn't have bothered. This is the only part of your post I found worth addressing -

Because men and women have a different biological imperative and different reproductive strategies

One would think that in a casual sex scenario that the last thing anyone would want is to be reproducing. More effective contraception evened out that playing field a long time ago.

If someone indeed has a "reproductive strategy", they shouldn't be surprised by the amount of people wishing they were on the other side of the planet at that moment rather than engaging in any sort of interaction with someone with those ideas.

justchecked

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You really shouldn't have bothered. This is the only part of your post I found worth addressing -





One would think that in a casual sex scenario that the last thing anyone would want is to be reproducing. More effective contraception evened out that playing field a long time ago.

If someone indeed has a "reproductive strategy", they shouldn't be surprised by the amount of people wishing they were on the other side of the planet at that moment rather than engaging in any sort of interaction with someone with those ideas.

lmao. Thank you for that.

can somebody else please.

lolol.

One eyed Jack

justchecked wrote: »

lmao. Thank you for that.

can somebody else please.

lolol.

You're the person who seems best qualified to offer an opinion, what with all your knowledge gained from all these people you claim to be experts over the years, coupled with your own years of personal experience and all?

I'm just not sure what use it is to anyone claiming that a whole section of society is easier able to avail of sexual fulfillment simply on the basis of their sex?

Since we're doing generalisations and guesstimates here and anything goes it seems -

The above lamentations always seem to come moreso from immature men who claim to have vast knowledge and experience in the area of sexual relations, as if these claims mean that anyone should take their opinions seriously.

I'm nearly sure that's not how it works... could be wrong though :pac:

justchecked

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're the person who seems best qualified to offer an opinion, what with all your knowledge gained from all these people you claim to be experts over the years, coupled with your own years of personal experience and all?

I'm just not sure what use it is to anyone claiming that a whole section of society is easier able to avail of sexual fulfillment simply on the basis of their sex?

Since we're doing generalisations and guesstimates here and anything goes it seems -

The above lamentations always seem to come moreso from immature men who claim to have vast knowledge and experience in the area of sexual relations, as if these claims mean that anyone should take their opinions seriously.

I'm nearly sure that's not how it works... could be wrong though :pac:

Ok. I did something not very nice earlier and so to make up for it I will be nice on this occasion.

Here is a link that will explain the basics and put you on the right track. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mating_strategies#Sex_differences_in_mating_strategies

I also suggest you have a quick read about the subconscious.

You see mating strategies aren't a decision you consciously/independently make for yourself.

Have a good day.

One eyed Jack

justchecked wrote: »

Ok. I did something not very nice earlier and so to make up for it I will be nice on this occasion.

Here is a link that will explain the basics and put you on the right track. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mating_strategies#Sex_differences_in_mating_strategies

I got as far as "evolutionary psychologists" and had to stop. I'm not reading that crap.

I also suggest you have a quick read about the subconscious.

You see mating strategies aren't a decision you consciously/independently make for yourself.

Are you suggesting that men and women have no agency in choosing who they have sex with? I suppose I should have used that excuse when I got wedged under the two top-heavy Texan girls I mentioned earlier...

Nah, nobody gonna believe that crap, because what it suggests is that people are incapable of personal responsibility. So, if I choose to forego the "if you can't lift her, don't shift her" rule, that is my own personal responsibility, nothing to do with evolutionary psychology, biological imperatives, subconscious thought or any of the rest of your nonsense.

I'm still not sure how claims about the opposite sex are in any way helpful to anyone who isn't "getting theirs"?

justchecked

must......not......