Promiscuous relationships - good idea?

kylith

harry Bailey esq wrote: »

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.

IMO it's because men are (usually) more visual than women. An average guy can win a girl over with wit and charm much more easily than an average looking woman could do.

RDM_83 again

Think the thing is here that a lot of people are presuming a certain standard of attraction/attractiveness (e.g social skills) to this hypothetical womans partners, if they have no standards its definitely available at a rate/opportunity that could not be matched by any guy excepting those with some significant social status.
The nightclub is not the only avenue thats available, various online sites adult venues etc, IMO (not basing this on experience :-o ) a woman could probably easily get hetrosexual sex simply by attending one of the more outthere adult stores or clubs.

I can give a real life example, I'm sure some users here have lived in South central Dublin, I'm sure a decent few of those male users have been propositioned by the hookers that work the canal area, to put it in a (slightly) inoffensive way they are extremely aesthetically challenged yet they are actually gaining income from sex work even though you'd have to pay the average man to have sex with them.

I don't think its impossible for men to obtain casual sex, in fact depending on your circumstances its actually fairly easy, the thing is though is its circumstances dependent, a woman will be able to obtain sex regardless of circumstances, they might not like the idea of approaching drunken men in the street but a woman playing the numbers game some men do would always get results.

I'm basing this on a reasonably sized urban area, in a smaller community different factors come into play.

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Think the thing is here that a lot of people are presuming a certain standard of attraction/attractiveness (e.g social skills) to this hypothetical womans partners, if they have no standards its definitely available at a rate/opportunity that could not be matched by any guy excepting those with some significant social status.
The nightclub is not the only avenue thats available, various online sites adult venues etc, IMO (not basing this on experience :-o ) a woman could probably easily get hetrosexual sex simply by attending one of the more outthere adult stores or clubs.

I can give a real life example, I'm sure some users here have lived in South central Dublin, I'm sure a decent few of those male users have been propositioned by the hookers that work the canal area, to put it in a (slightly) inoffensive way they are extremely aesthetically challenged yet they are actually gaining income from sex work even though you'd have to pay the average man to have sex with them.

I don't think its impossible for men to obtain casual sex, in fact depending on your circumstances its actually fairly easy, the thing is though is its circumstances dependent, a woman will be able to obtain sex regardless of circumstances, they might not like the idea of approaching drunken men in the street but a woman playing the numbers game some men do would always get results.

I'm basing this on a reasonably sized urban area, in a smaller community different factors come into play.

Your earlier point suggests that women who are aesthetically challenged (kudos for how you skirted around that one ) would not be able to obtain sex, so that contradicts your later assertion that women would be able to obtain sex regardless of circumstances.

Circumstances obviously have a huge part to play in any sexual relations scenario, regardless of the sexes of the persons involved.

RDM_83 again

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Think the thing is here that a lot of people are presuming a certain standard of attraction/attractiveness (e.g social skills) to this hypothetical womans partners,

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your earlier point suggests that women who are aesthetically challenged (kudos for how you skirted around that one ) would not be able to obtain sex, so that contradicts your later assertion that women would be able to obtain sex regardless of circumstances.

Circumstances obviously have a huge part to play in any sexual relations scenario, regardless of the sexes of the persons involved.

The argument isn't about if a woman could obtain sex with a man she likes, its about how much easier for a woman to obtain sex.
These are very unattractive, probably drug addicted women and they can find men who will pay to have sex with them, presumably with some regularity or they wouldn't be there. There just isn't a straight male equivalent to this.

On the wider point I suppose thats one of the significant differences between the male and female experience being able to have sex with random drunk people or sleazes because you can probably doesn't seem like much of an advantage unless you want to.

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The argument isn't about if a woman could obtain sex with a man she likes, its about how much easier for a woman to obtain sex.

It's no more difficult for a man to obtain sex than a woman if neither of them are concerned with whether or not they find the other person attractive. If sex is their only motivation, then anyone will do, regardless of whether they are aesthetically pleasant, or otherwise.

These are very unattractive, probably drug addicted women and they can find men who will pay to have sex with them, presumably with some regularity or they wouldn't be there. There just isn't a straight male equivalent to this.

What else would they be doing? There aren't many career opportunities open to people on the lowest rung of the social ladder. If they were actually successfully gaining any business, you'd hardly see them standing there as they'd be getting busy elsewhere.

As for the idea that there isn't a straight male equivalent of same, well, that's just plain wrong. There absolutely is.

On the wider point I suppose thats one of the significant differences between the male and female experience being able to have sex with random drunk people or sleazes because you can probably doesn't seem like much of an advantage unless you want to.

I'm not seeing the difference there, I can't tell which gender you're applying that idea to as both genders are capable of having sex with random drunk people or sleazes? Depending upon context though, and even peer group, that's either seen as a good thing, or a bad thing -

Guys = 'stud' or scumbag, man-whore even!

Girls = 'slut' or... ehh, slut (again, depends upon context, some women are proud of the label, some, not so much).

RDM_83 again

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's no more difficult for a man to obtain sex than a woman if neither of them are concerned with whether or not they find the other person attractive. If sex is their only motivation, then anyone will do, regardless of whether they are aesthetically pleasant, or otherwise.

A guy will probably get sex depending on how he looks, a woman would always get sex if she applies the numbers game some men do, maybe baring something like extreme disfigurement or obvious mental illness.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What else would they be doing? There aren't many career opportunities open to people on the lowest rung of the social ladder. If they were actually successfully gaining any business, you'd hardly see them standing there as they'd be getting busy elsewhere.

Begging or selling flowers or some criminal activity. I would presume they are making more money than the former if they are hooking rather than begging.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As for the idea that there isn't a straight male equivalent of same, well, that's just plain wrong. There absolutely is.

Your telling me there is drug addicted unattractive male prostitutes that only service women in a city the size of Dublin?
Evidence please? I can believe there is plenty of rent boys but I doubt there is even more than a handful of male escorts that earn their money solely from women and they will be highly attractive and socially skilled.

I honestly think your being willfully obtuse here, I can point to a real life example of how numerous negative qualities aren't a bar to a woman obtaining sex if they have little standards.
Bluntly put you can't.

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

A guy will probably get sex depending on how he looks, a woman would always get sex if she applies the numbers game some men do, maybe baring something like extreme disfigurement or obvious mental illness.

But that's no different to suggesting that a woman will probably get sex depending upon how she looks, and then there are many men and women that won't, because of their looks. Even with extreme disfigurement or obvious mental illness, neither are necessarily impediments to sexual success with the opposite sex, and indeed may even be what makes them an attractive prospect to some people!

Begging or selling flowers or some criminal activity. I would presume they are making more money than the former if they are hooking rather than begging.

Sex workers of either gender are a terrible example of people who have no issues with procuring sex. They're not solely doing it for their own sexual gratification, they're doing it for the money - a form of coercion, so it's not as though one could put sex workers in the same context as people who aren't sex workers.

Your telling me there is drug addicted unattractive male prostitutes that only service women in a city the size of Dublin?

I'm telling you that drug addicted male sex workers who exclusively cater to women do exist, and not just in Dublin, but all over Ireland.

Now whether they are attractive or otherwise is an entirely subjective judgment. Just like those women are unattractive to you, they aren't necessarily unattractive to someone who chooses to have sex with them. Maybe they have another unique selling point besides their aesthetics. I wouldn't be one to presume they're depending solely upon their looks to drum up business!

Evidence please? I can believe there is plenty of rent boys but I doubt there is even more than a handful of male escorts that earn their money solely from women and they will be highly attractive and socially skilled.

At least you're willing to acknowledge that they do exist in Ireland.

(In countries such as the UK, US, the Netherlands and China, male escorts exclusively catering to women are far more common than in Ireland, and they have the potential to be quite high earners, depending upon circumstances of course!)

I honestly think your being willfully obtuse here, I can point to a real life example of how numerous negative qualities aren't a bar to a woman obtaining sex if they have little standards.
Bluntly put you can't.

I'm genuinely not being willfully obtuse. I don't think you are either, but I do think your perspective is biased. I can point to an equal amount of examples where I'm often left wondering WTF do some women see in some men!

Bluntly put - people with no standards will never have any difficulty if sexual conquests are their only motivation, or "the numbers game" as you put it. Once people start applying standards for themselves, then they are immediately limiting their opportunities for sex with the opposite sex.

This isn't rocket science like! :pac:

justchecked

RDM_83 again wrote: »

A guy will probably get sex depending on how he looks, a woman would always get sex if she applies the numbers game some men do, maybe baring something like extreme disfigurement or obvious mental illness.




Begging or selling flowers or some criminal activity. I would presume they are making more money than the former if they are hooking rather than begging.



Your telling me there is drug addicted unattractive male prostitutes that only service women in a city the size of Dublin?
Evidence please? I can believe there is plenty of rent boys but I doubt there is even more than a handful of male escorts that earn their money solely from women and they will be highly attractive and socially skilled.

I honestly think your being willfully obtuse here, I can point to a real life example of how numerous negative qualities aren't a bar to a woman obtaining sex if they have little standards.
Bluntly put you can't.

I think that certain sections of society are more prone to take an automatic unfavorable view of this line of thinking as it can be interpreted to suggest a type of soul-less biological determinism and pure materialist perspective.

Opinions that go in line with evolutionary biology can be threatening to certain demographics' personal belief systems.
Personally I don't see them as mutually exclusive. I see truths in evolutionary biology but don't go along with the idea of pure determinism.

TL;DR: some may disagree with you because God.

Maximus Alexander

justchecked wrote: »

TL;DR: some may disagree with you because God.

In After Hours? Doubt that. This place is wall to wall heathens.

Mr. Incognito

Did it for two years with a lovely lady.

Was a wreck of a relationship in the end.

Taught us both what we didnt want and are each in committed monogomous relationships now, and dont talk.

Sounds wonderful but the reality is ****.

The Corinthian

Cohen Young Trigger wrote: »

Except for like, three posts up from mine

Well, I suppose you could read it that way alright. So fair enough.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

Huh?

justchecked wrote: »

Opinions that go in line with evolutionary biology can be threatening to certain demographics' personal belief systems.

Ahhh...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's no more difficult for a man to obtain sex than a woman if neither of them are concerned with whether or not they find the other person attractive. If sex is their only motivation, then anyone will do, regardless of whether they are aesthetically pleasant, or otherwise.

You do know that to date in this thread the only evidence that's been presented contradicts your view? Given some of your recent responses, you appear to be doing the Internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly, at this stage.

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

Huh?

Ahhh...

Evolutionary biology is one thing. Evolutionary psychology is quite something else and has been widely criticised among the scientific community for the utter nonsense it is. Then PUA types put their own spin on a combination of these theories, mix it up with their own version of game theory from mathematics, et voila - "the secret" to "getting yours" - magic beans for the socially stunted generation.

You do know that to date in this thread the only evidence that's been presented contradicts your view? Given some of your recent responses, you appear to be doing the Internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly, at this stage.

It's the internet. That should hardly be surprising. AH is like a complaints department for white heterosexual young men with regard to women! I would be inclined to take anything I read here about women with a pinch of salt, especially when it comes to sex and sexuality and relationships and so on.

That's not sticking my fingers in my ears, that's treating what I read with a healthy degree of scepticism when I consider the sources it's coming from.

Chain Smoker

Timbaland's delivery really reminds me of the Lonely Island now

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Evolutionary biology is one thing. Evolutionary psychology is quite something else and has been widely criticised among the scientific community for the utter nonsense it is. Then PUA types put their own spin on a combination of these theories, mix it up with their own version of game theory from mathematics, et voila - "the secret" to "getting yours" - magic beans for the socially stunted generation.

If the article you refused to read was sourced through PUA Web sites and Twitter I might take this seriously, but it wasn't. There's been a few, both non and academic, studies cited too - fine to ignore. Meanwhile, to support your contention, you've offered what exactly?

It's the internet. That should hardly be surprising. AH is like a complaints department for white heterosexual young men with regard to women! I would be inclined to take anything I read here about women with a pinch of salt, especially when it comes to sex and sexuality and relationships and so on.

I don't disagree that there have been a few Muppets here, who don't appear to understand what they're discussing, but you're essentially behaving just like them but in the opposite direction.

Dismissal is a lazy way to debate, especially when you start dismissing academically sourced texts on the basis of your opinion.

That's not sticking my fingers in my ears, that's treating what I read with a healthy degree of scepticism when I consider the sources it's coming from.

I wouldn't take seriously some of the sweeping generalizations that have been made, but that is a poor reason to dismiss the notion that on average women will have greater chances of getting a man to sleep with them than the reverse, especially given that there's no shortage of evidence that this is the case, while what you contend (that there is no difference) is not supported anywhere.

Basically, because some Muppets have made sweeping generalizations, you have decided to dismiss a position that is well supported in favour of one which is not.

So yes, you're in denial for some reason. As this is AH, maybe just for fun.

RDM_83 again

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that's no different to suggesting that a woman will probably get sex depending upon how she looks, and then there are many men and women that won't, because of their looks. Even with extreme disfigurement or obvious mental illness, neither are necessarily impediments to sexual success with the opposite sex, and indeed may even be what makes them an attractive prospect to some people!





Sex workers of either gender are a terrible example of people who have no issues with procuring sex. They're not solely doing it for their own sexual gratification, they're doing it for the money - a form of coercion, so it's not as though one could put sex workers in the same context as people who aren't sex workers.





I'm telling you that drug addicted male sex workers who exclusively cater to women do exist, and not just in Dublin, but all over Ireland.

Now whether they are attractive or otherwise is an entirely subjective judgment. Just like those women are unattractive to you, they aren't necessarily unattractive to someone who chooses to have sex with them. Maybe they have another unique selling point besides their aesthetics. I wouldn't be one to presume they're depending solely upon their looks to drum up business!





At least you're willing to acknowledge that they do exist in Ireland.

(In countries such as the UK, US, the Netherlands and China, male escorts exclusively catering to women are far more common than in Ireland, and they have the potential to be quite high earners, depending upon circumstances of course!)





I'm genuinely not being willfully obtuse. I don't think you are either, but I do think your perspective is biased. I can point to an equal amount of examples where I'm often left wondering WTF do some women see in some men!

Bluntly put - people with no standards will never have any difficulty if sexual conquests are their only motivation, or "the numbers game" as you put it. Once people start applying standards for themselves, then they are immediately limiting their opportunities for sex with the opposite sex.

This isn't rocket science like! :pac:

I'm using sex workers not because of their desire but because of their "customers"
I don't believe there is unattractive men making money from selling hetero sexual sex.
Attractiveness is subjective at a personal level but you can make broader statements that are true for the general population.
I don't believe you about unattractive men in ireland making a living selling hetro sex.

Prove your point myself and other posters can give supporting evidence I've the feeling your basing your opinion on fetish/fringe sexuality forums and chatrooms.
Give me real world provable evidence

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's no more difficult for a man to obtain sex than a woman if neither of them are concerned with whether or not they find the other person attractive.

Do you have anything whatsoever to support this nonsense?

I posted a video earlier showing a girl asking guys for sex, with great success, well in the following two videos they switched it and got a guy to ask 300 womento sex with him. I know you don't always read/view what people post to support their opinions and so I'll just tell you that the result is that from 300 women asked for sex, only 1 of them said yes. So you wanna explain why, in your view, when they do these experiments guys are easily found but women are not? Without that is, copping out with some white knight nonsense about women worrying about their safety or something. Personally I think the most interesting thing about the women's reactions is just how insulted they are.They take the question itself as an insult more often than not. He gets slapped on one occasion and a drink thrown in his face on another.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ira9A7wSW3M

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

If the article you refused to read was sourced through PUA Web sites and Twitter I might take this seriously, but it wasn't. There's been a few, both non and academic, studies cited too - fine to ignore. Meanwhile, to support your contention, you've offered what exactly?

There have been no academic studies cited. I ignored what was a link to an explanation of evolutionary psychology as I've read up on it extensively quite some time ago and simply came to the conclusion that it is nothing more than an exercise in backwards rationalisation. I don't need to offer anything in order to dismiss nonsensical waffle for what it is - nonsensical waffle. How much credibility am I supposed to afford to people whose opinions I believe are being offered through a very subjective lens without any context whatsoever? Are we entertaining anecdotal evidence as proof of anything now?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't disagree that there have been a few Muppets here, who don't appear to understand what they're discussing, but you're essentially behaving just like them but in the opposite direction.

I'm really not. I'm suggesting that their very limited perspective is based upon their perception, which is based entirely upon their lack of experience, or indeed - lack thereof. For all anyone here knows, these chaps could be chasing after Cara Delvigne standard, and coming up short due to their own shortcomings. That's not Cara Delvigne's fault that she has no interest in them, that's their own fault. Cara Delvigne has her own standards, and they're unlikely to include Danny DeVito types.

That's the problem here - with some people, it's not just that there is an expectation, for some people they feel sex is an entitlement, whereas the person they're interested in might have other ideas, which are based upon their own standards. That can lead those people who aren't getting any to believe that the problem isn't them, everyone else is the problem, because they don't want to have sex with that person.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Dismissal is a lazy way to debate, especially when you start dismissing academically sourced texts on the basis of your opinion.

Dismissal isn't a lazy way to do anything. In fact it's quite the opposite - it saves everyone time. I don't have time to waste entertaining nonsense, and that forces those who are putting forward nonsense to come up with compelling evidence rather than anecdotal evidence and academically sourced texts which aren't even worth entertaining. Would you entertain academically sourced texts that suggest a link between autism and vaccines? You wouldn't, because there is an overwhelming body of evidence to prove there is no link. Would you be interested in wasting your time citing all these studies if it wasn't something where you had no compelling reason to do so? I wouldn't either.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I wouldn't take seriously some of the sweeping generalizations that have been made, but that is a poor reason to dismiss the notion that on average women will have greater chances of getting a man to sleep with them than the reverse, especially given that there's no shortage of evidence that this is the case, while what you contend (that there is no difference) is not supported anywhere.

It's every reason to dismiss the notion that "on average, women will have greater chances of getting a man to sleep with them than the reverse", because it's a statement that lacks any sort of context, much less any sort of evidence beyond mere anecdotes and supposition. Much of what is presented as academically sourced and cited evidence is based upon studies done among college students in the US, so the evidence presented can easily be attributed to both cultural relativism and appropriation, and of course the subjects involved - college students, often given monetary incentives to answer questions in self-reported surveys. It would be remiss of anyone not to question such nonsense presented as evidence of anything.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Basically, because some Muppets have made sweeping generalizations, you have decided to dismiss a position that is well supported in favour of one which is not.

So yes, you're in denial for some reason. As this is AH, maybe just for fun.

The position would be well supported if it weren't simply a small minority of people in society who are putting forward this nonsense as though it were fact. The position is easily contradictible if you account for the fact that the people putting forward that opinion are usually Western world white, heterosexual young males, who are suggesting that in the Western world - white, heterosexual young females have no interest in them. You also need to account for the fact that Western world white, heterosexual young males are the highest demographic with an internet presence, which can lead to an online echo chamber like what we are witnessing in AH.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Do you have anything whatsoever to support this nonsense?

I posted a video earlier showing a girl asking guys for sex, with great success, well in the following two videos they switched it and got a guy to ask 300 womento sex with him. I know you don't always read/view what people post to support their opinions and so I'll just tell you that the result is that from 300 women asked for sex, only 1 of them said yes. So you wanna explain why, in your view, when they do these experiments guys are easily found but women are not? Without that is, copping out with some white knight nonsense about women worrying about their safety or something. Personally I think the most interesting thing about the women's reactions is just how insulted they are.They take the question itself as an insult more often than not. He gets slapped on one occasion and a drink thrown in his face on another.

Do you really need me to point out the problem with "social experiments" on youtube?

That video of the woman walking around NY for 10 hours was enough to cause anyone to question the validity of these "social experiments".

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm using sex workers not because of their desire but because of their "customers"

Your point was in relation to the ease with which the women you noticed were able to obtain sex from men in spite of their circumstances. I was pointing out the reasons why your example is fundamentally flawed, and now you've changed your original assertion to focus on their "customers"?

What about their "customers" now?

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I don't believe there is unattractive men making money from selling hetero sexual sex.

I don't believe there are unattractive men making money from catering to heterosexual women either, but then not only is attraction subjective (there's no accounting for taste), but again you're ignoring the point I made earlier that their unique selling point may not be based upon their physical appearance at all. That's why sex workers don't make for a very good example when making any sort of a point about sexual relations where no money is changing hands and people are choosing who they will and won't have sex with, as opposed to having sex with someone for some form of renumeration.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Attractiveness is subjective at a personal level but you can make broader statements that are true for the general population.

You can, but you shouldn't expect that anyone should agree with you that your assertions are actually true, or indeed have any merit whatsoever.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I don't believe you about unattractive men in ireland making a living selling hetro sex.

Fair enough. I see no reason to labour the point.

Prove your point myself and other posters can give supporting evidence I've the feeling your basing your opinion on fetish/fringe sexuality forums and chatrooms.

Do they not qualify as equally legitimate sources now? Sex is sex, not just missionary, roll-on/roll-off efforts.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Give me real world provable evidence

Look around you, heterosexual men and women everywhere are having sex.

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There have been no academic studies cited.

I said academic sources.

I ignored what was a link to an explanation of evolutionary psychology as I've read up on it extensively quite some time ago and simply came to the conclusion that it is nothing more than an exercise in backwards rationalisation.

Oh, you mean the piece you ignored that is liked to a number of academic sources?

I'm really not. I'm suggesting that their very limited perspective is based upon their perception, which is based entirely upon their lack of experience, or indeed - lack thereof.

In your opinion. And that's really all you're offering. You're claiming that everyone else's view is clearly inferior to your own, despite the fact that they've presented sources and you've presented, well, your opinion.

That's the problem here - with some people, it's not just that there is an expectation, for some people they feel sex is an entitlement, whereas the person they're interested in might have other ideas, which are based upon their own standards. That can lead those people who aren't getting any to believe that the problem isn't them, everyone else is the problem, because they don't want to have sex with that person.

Sure. Problem is you're applying this to everyone and dismissing the argument based upon your own subjective belief that it is solely based on this. You're actually generalizing just as much as that misogynistic Muppet that was on earlier in the thread.

Dismissal isn't a lazy way to do anything. In fact it's quite the opposite - it saves everyone time.

Were we all to apply this principle like you, I would have stopped reading your post at "I've read up on it extensively quite some time ago and simply came to the conclusion..."

Would you prefer we did that? Go on - tell us how you don't care if we did

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Do you really need me to point out the problem with "social experiments" on youtube?

Cop out.

That video of the woman walking around NY for 10 hours was enough to cause anyone to question the validity of these "social experiments".

That was a one off and highly manipulated video made by people with an agenda. This channel here did not manipulate events and they have no agenda, hence the same experiment with different genders, but sure dodge away, wouldn't expect anything less.

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

Were we all to apply this principle like you, I would have stopped reading your post at "I've read up on it extensively quite some time ago and simply came to the conclusion..."

Would you prefer we did that? Go on - tell us how you don't care if we did

It's as easily done as I've just demonstrated. You're not under any obligation to entertain what you could easily dismiss as nonsense either.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

That was a one off and highly manipulated video made by people with an agenda. This channel here did not manipulate events and they have no agenda, hence the same experiment with different genders, but sure dodge away, wouldn't expect anything less.

There's always an agenda, always. I'm not dodging at all, I'm simply dismissing out of hand the "evidence" you present as it's simply not worth entertaining.

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's always an agenda, always. I'm not dodging at all, I'm simply dismissing out of hand the "evidence" you present as it's simply not worth entertaining.

Yeah, you came out with the cop out bs when I posted the hidden video of people alerting strangers to the fact they were being cheated on. You just can't deal with anything that shows how out of touch you are with the subjects you regularly post opinions on. Your opinions are evidently based on little. They're paper thin. Seems to me your hold them for little reason other than that they're the opinions which you want to be seen expressing. You're a bright guy. You know well that what you're saying is absurd.

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's as easily done as I've just demonstrated. You're not under any obligation to entertain what you could easily dismiss as nonsense either.

Actually I find, before dismissing, demonstrating why it's nonsense is more effective - as I've just demonstrated.

Let us know when you decide to stop humming and take your fingers out of your ears.

zeffabelli

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Do you have anything whatsoever to support this nonsense?

I posted a video earlier showing a girl asking guys for sex, with great success, well in the following two videos they switched it and got a guy to ask 300 womento sex with him. I know you don't always read/view what people post to support their opinions and so I'll just tell you that the result is that from 300 women asked for sex, only 1 of them said yes. So you wanna explain why, in your view, when they do these experiments guys are easily found but women are not? Without that is, copping out with some white knight nonsense about women worrying about their safety or something. Personally I think the most interesting thing about the women's reactions is just how insulted they are.They take the question itself as an insult more often than not. He gets slapped on one occasion and a drink thrown in his face on another.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ira9A7wSW3M

Well I think I know why. Different social pressures.

Boys and men have more peer pressure to be sexually active. If they decline they look like pussies.

Why people are yammering on about nightclubs and attractiveness .... Aren't we all gorgeous when the other person is drunk?

This thread is ridiculous.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Yeah, you came out with the cop out bs when I posted the hidden video of people alerting strangers to the fact they were being cheated on.

I can't remember five minutes ago Nacho tbh, let alone what you're referring to there. I could rack my brains, but I'm genuinely not that invested that I would want to go to the bother of doing so. I've had people drag up shít I posted over three years ago in order to point score, and that always says more about them than it does about me IMO, as my opinions change over time based upon my personal experiences.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You just can't deal with anything that shows how out of touch you are with the subjects you regularly post opinions on. Your opinions are evidently based on little. They're paper thin.

Of course I can deal with anything which contradicts my personal opinions, I can understand where other people are coming from and why they may hold the opinions they do, and I've seen people change their opinions over time too based upon their experiences. It's not rocket science to suggest that people will often times put more weight in their personal experiences and present evidence which confirms their personal experiences, and if those personal experiences aren't shared by other people, naturally they're going to be skeptical and dismissive and consider the other person's evidence not worth entertaining.

Would you for example entertain a God botherer on the street telling you that you were going to hell for example? Why would you waste your time? Some people do, they go out of their way to prove to said God botherer that hell doesn't exist and all the rest of it. Other people have no such inclinations and will dismiss the God botherer out of hand.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Seems to me your hold them for little reason other than that they're the opinions which you want to be seen expressing. You're a bright guy. You know well that what you're saying is absurd.

Not at all, I base any opinion I've ever expressed here upon my personal experience, although sometimes obviously for privacy reasons I'm not going to elaborate on that. I mean, I can understand then why it sounds absurd without context. I mean, I teach a class of elderly women basic IT skills, and the things they come out with would make the average person gag, seriously, because I would never have thought elderly women would be at those sort of antics, but as absurd as it sounds, they do exist -

Damned autoplay, you really don't want to watch the "Nanna Love 50 Shades Of Granny" that plays after the one above :pac:

VisibleGorilla

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well I think I know why. Different social pressures.

Boys and men have more peer pressure to be sexually active. If they decline they look like pussies.

Why people are yammering on about nightclubs and attractiveness .... Aren't we all gorgeous when the other person is drunk?

This thread is ridiculous.

But who would they look like pussies to? The video shows very simply that men want sex more than women, I would say this is a fact.

We are having a discussion here if it is easier for women to get sex than men, I would say yes it is, far easier.

So much easier in fact that an unattractive women will get sex easier than an attractive man.

VisibleGorilla

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

The video shows very simply that men want sex more than women, I would say this is a fact.

I have seen little - in the literature or my own life experience - that suggests this is a fact at all. It would appear to me that the desire for sex is essentially equally between the sexes - but that desire is mediated in different ways between the sexes socially - biologically - psychologically - and merely in terms of personal safety.

So I can see why many might have the illusion that because males are essentially more willing to indulge their impulses towards sex that they therefore "want it more" - but as powerful as the illusion is I think it remains an illusion.

zeffabelli

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

But who would they look like pussies to? The video shows very simply that men want sex more than women, I would say this is a fact.

We are having a discussion here if it is easier for women to get sex than men, I would say yes it is, far easier.

So much easier in fact that an unattractive women will get sex easier than an attractive man.

Not really. All it shows is men "performing" they want sex more than women and the other one women"performing" that they don't.

It's no reflection on authentic internal realities.

For a we know they were paid $50 to answer.

Editing too is an amazing story teller.

harry Bailey esq

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm using sex workers...

Tell the world why don't ya!I sure hope Mrs RDM 83 isn't reading this...