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?
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?
Candie wrote: » How come the female partner gets to sleep with men and women, but the male partner only gets to sleep with women? Seems a little unfair that one gets twice as many potentials as the other.
harry Bailey esq wrote: » It depends OP.On a looks scale of 1-10,would you rate you self higher than your ladyfriend?Or would she be considered the more attractive half of the union?If she is,be a man,put your foot down,voice your disgust at her lacklustre morals and put the issue to bed,for want of a better term.If,however most people would consider you to be the more attractive of you both, go and fill your boots.Your wife sounds really nice.
justchecked wrote: » she could be a wreck and he could be a model, she'd still hands down win in number of shags. sex is a casual choice for women. theres never scarcity.
newacc2015 wrote: » There is nothing wrong with open relationships. You get all the emotional support from your SO and still the thrill of sex from sleeping with other people. You cant expect to have the same adventurous sex from the same person for 30 years. It will feel repetitive and like a chore after a while. Some couples just need to mix it up The risk of STIs is minimised with condoms. So that really shouldnt be a concern. You are statistically more likely as a gay man to get HIV from an "exclusive relationship", than having a ton of one night stands. A cheating partner is most likely to give you HIV, having sex with strangers using condoms. Open relationship should have rules to cover the likes of this
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: » Overall, women can get sex more easily than men (so much nuance when you drill down though) but to say any woman who is "wrecked" would get more sex than any male model is just nonsense. If something is such a true phenomenon, it doesn't need ludicrous exaggerations to articulate it.
justchecked wrote: » No theres no real nuance about it, and I was correct in my initial post. Its not a phenomenon its fact and the explanation need not be exaggerated to prove it. Nor is it sexist. Its a general truth, sure you'll find the odd exception, but overall it stands as fact. If you don't believe me go do some basic research on mating strategies and sexual economics. Not that you should need to.
Cohen Young Trigger wrote: » There is nuance to it. At a very basic level a Melissa Mc Carthy lookalike does not have easier access to sex than someone who looks like Zayn Malik. That's just nonsense. Those are extreme examples but you can't say that any woman will definitely have easier access to sex than any man without accounting for age, appearance, personality and location. Even beyond that, evolutionary psychology is not the hard science that people are determined to present it as. I'm ok looking, and I when I was single I used to go out on the pull and could be very forward about it. Struck out, frequently.
Cold War Kid wrote: » I don't think it's sexist and I do agree it's easier for women to "acquire" sex, but no way do I believe any woman who's not visually/sexually appealing to men will get sex more easily than a male model, which is what you said.
justchecked wrote: » Thats taking the nuance thing a bit far. I mean technically we can say that a female model on an isolated island in the pacific proves that theres nuances which disproves my earlier post. But if you take away extremes the general rule will be evident. This rule exists because of physiological differences, and differences in reproductive capacity between the genders. As for appearance and personality, again extreme cases excluded, neither are really required for a woman to obtain sex.
In my humble opinion, and this is not intended to be in any way a sexist remark and I apologize 1000 times if anyone should perceive it as such, we're all equal and deserve equal treatment .... but if you have ever struck out as an adult female, and you live somewhere other than a remote deserted island and are in any way still fertile... then in my humble opinion which can be wrong .... it was through your own choice alone, granted there are exceptions, but as a general rule if you're female and legal age then sex is/was available to you on a 24/7 basis. The above paragraph is not intended to offend and I apologize if it did. Everyone is 100% equal in all ways, no exceptions, even people from Sligo.
Cohen Young Trigger wrote: » An unattractive woman is not going to have an easier time getting sex than a very attractive man! Next time you're in a club look for the best looking man and the worst looking woman, see who has more people hanging off them. Here, I'm not saying you're sexist, just wrong, and I'd trust my own experience over your opinion, no offence meant. I'm an adult female, and in my late teens and early twenties I sometimes could not get sex in a city when I went looking for it. Now probably if I had deliberately sought out young and/or very physically unattractive men I may have had better luck, but you could say the same for men, and at that point what IS the point? Better off going home and taking care of things myself. This actually came up on reddit some time back, and men were saying that women had come up to them very blatantly offering sex, but they thought there had to be some catch/had a girlfriend/weren't attracted to her, so they turned her down.
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. And if a man is attractive, his pool of available partners is going to go up. And if a woman is unattractive, her pool of available partners is going to go down. 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. 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
Old Jakey wrote: » If a woman wants the ride all she has to do is look pretty and stand at the bar.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
