Promiscuous relationships - good idea?

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?

Not going to work.
If I saw no username I'd still be sure that it was a man who wrote this question.

Women work differently - sure they like to shag, and thats groovy baby, but they don't think in the way men do, which is shag shag shag, its got tits shag it.
The idea of being able to shag around is more attractive to a male who wishes to carelessly sew his seeds hither and thither and then have a beer job done.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: »

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

Unless you're bringing non heterosexual sex into the equation then your first sentence is simply incorrect.
A heterosexual male will normally only in very rare cases be paid for sex by a woman
If you truly want to be pedantic about my initial analogy then I'll point you in the direction of male sexual performance and recovery time limitations.

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

- This I disagree with. If I was an unattractive female dropped in a random city I could get laid within an hour. (simply walk to the right street corner if nothing else).
And although this is also achievable for a very attractive male, without the advantage of celebrity/pre-approval, it remains not equally achievable*.


*for heterosexual sex.