Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Promiscuous relationships - good idea?

123457

Comments

  • #182
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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?

    Its not about their desire its an example that even though with numerous massive negatives these woman still obtain sex presumably with a fairly high degree of regularity.



    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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.

    They aren't working in a BDSM or other fringe area they are streetwalking


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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.

    Hmmm so your saying we don't have anyway of judging whats considered generally attractive.
    Go onto google scholar for a little bit, your presenting yourself as an expert on this stuff go actually read something!

    Quote:
    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.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Do they not qualify as equally legitimate sources now? Sex is sex, not just missionary, roll-on/roll-off efforts.

    Sorry to burst your bubble but no they don't they are populated by fantasists, rape is a surprisingly common female fantasy, how many woman actually get off on it though?




    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RDM_83 again View Post
    Give me real world provable evidence
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Look around you, heterosexual men and women everywhere are having sex.
    So thats a no you can't isn't it
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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.
    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    No idea what your point is here.

    Basically, He's using a fairly tired tactic that involves asserting that those that disagree with him are just bitter, ugly and not getting sex. Ironically my view on this has been reinforced since being "successful" at being single* since I've seen the amount of attention available women receive (its hard to argue when somebody shows you their inbox with literally a 100 messages a day)



    * On topic to the thread found it satisfying for the ego but mildly soul crushing so on balance I can understand the appeal but think I'm too romantic for it.


  • #183
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,103 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Oh well, we wouldn't want you racking your brains now, Jackie me lad:

    It was the thread about the two girls who when at a baseball game read a woman's text, felt she must be cheating on her boyfriend sat next to her and so informed him. You must have posted 50 times or so in the thread and so you'll have to forgive me for thinking you'd remember it. In any case, what you said on that thread (which was brought to mind when you made a quite similar comment on this thread) was the following:



    Quite similar I'll think you'll agree ;)


    Well yeah, similar, but hardly what I'd call a cop out in either case. I'm just saying I don't believe everything I see on youtube or take it at face value or whatever. Sure wasn't there the thread in the last few days about the youtube couple where the guy was apparently able to get a positive result on a pregnancy test from his wife's urine sample, and the medical community called bullshìt on the idea? Anyone in any way clued in at all didn't need even the medical community to know it was a load of crap.

    It was four weeks ago and was almost a carbon copy of what you said here. Chill.


    Four weeks might as well be four minutes to me tbh, half the time I'm doing well if I can remember how I even started a post tbh :pac:

    I see now you weren't doing it to point score, just that some posters tend to do that kinda thing and it's... well it doesn't prove a whole lot anyway is all.

    No idea what your point is here.


    My point was just how willing really would you be to take something seriously when you knew it was utter shìte talk - do you bother entertaining it, or sometimes would you just think "yeah, whatever", and just dismiss it as not worth entertaining?

    That's how I am when I see those kinds of "social experiment" youtube videos. They're simply not worth entertaining.

    Oh, I'm under no illusion of the elderly being innocent. From yesterday.


    Ahh now, that's just... not in any way related to what we were talking about here in all fairness.

    Really I'd say this thread has run it's course at this point tbh.


  • #184
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    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. 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.

    Going to fall for the oh your digging up old posts thing (having a memory and advanced search does make it extremely easy and leave this here (doing this mainly because its fcuking annoying being labeled by proxy by someone who's whiteknighting like mad)
    Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »
    Yep. Czarcasm mistook me for a woman under a different account when he was sending flirty pm's :pac:


  • #185
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Well yeah, similar, but hardly what I'd call a cop out in either case. I'm just saying I don't believe everything I see on youtube or take it at face value or whatever.

    Eh, yeah, nobody does. You don't have the monopoly on that.
    Sure wasn't there the thread in the last few days about the youtube couple where the guy was apparently able to get a positive result on a pregnancy test from his wife's urine sample, and the medical community called bullshìt on the idea? Anyone in any way clued in at all didn't need even the medical community to know it was a load of crap.

    Sigh. Like I said, if they had an agenda, they would hardly be doing the same video from the prescriptive of the opposite gender also.
    My point was just how willing really would you be to take something seriously when you knew it was utter shìte talk - do you bother entertaining it, or sometimes would you just think "yeah, whatever", and just dismiss it as not worth entertaining?

    That's how I am when I see those kinds of "social experiment" youtube videos. They're simply not worth entertaining.

    Like I said: cop out. You have no reason to dismiss those videos. None. In any case, if you are right about men having as easy access to casual sex as women, then can you tell us why there is so much prostitution in western society? I mean, surely, if your contention was correct, there should be almost none, as why would a guy pay a women who's looking at the clock while he's shagging her when he could just go and get laid elsewhere?
    Ahh now, that's just... not in any way related to what we were talking about here in all fairness.

    What in the name of Jesus are you on about? Seriously? In all my time on Boards I don't think I've ever been left open mouthed by responses than I am by many of yours. They defy belief. Did you forget posting the following?
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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

    The link was quite obviously in response to the above comment, and yet you reply by saying that's not what the thread is about? Wtf. Who are you telling.
    Really I'd say this thread has run it's course at this point tbh.

    Oh really. Well, cheers for letting us know.


  • #186
    justchecked
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 367 ✭✭justchecked


    Saw earlier on Reddit Europe that it turns out 11 million men were actively using Ashley Madison to speak with a grand total of 2400 active women by one journalists estimations. lol.

    Featured in LeFigaro.fr a national newspaper.

    link (in French) if wanted.

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/secteur/high-tech/2015/08/27/32001-20150827ARTFIG00101-sur-le-site-d-adulteres-ashley-madison-11-millions-d-hommes-parlaient-a-2400-femmes.php

    Personally I'm not that surprised. Casual choice.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    justchecked wrote: »
    Saw earlier on Reddit Europe that it turns out 11 million men were actively using Ashley Madison to speak with a grand total of 2400 active women by one journalists estimations. lol.

    Yeah, the Examiner had a response article to it earlier also:
    After consultation with experts, Newitz decided to trawl the data for email addresses @AshleyMadison.com - company email addresses. She found 10,000 accounts set up with staff email addresses.

    Then, she looked at IP addresses - and found 80,000 profiles with an IP address of 127.0.0.1 - a network’s home address. 68,709 of those were women.

    Another unusual aspect was that there were over 350 profiles with a "very unusual" last name- one of a staff member who worked there many years ago.

    The truly damning evidence, however, was that of the 5.5 million female members of the site, there was information for when they last checked their messages. And Newitz found that only 1,492 women had ever, ever checked their messages.

    To back that up, the live chat feature was only ever used by 2,409 women- compared to 11 million men.


  • #188
    justchecked
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 367 ✭✭justchecked


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Yeah, the Examiner had a response article to it earlier also:

    One guy on Reddit posted this as an analogy. Its funny because its true.

    http://i.imgur.com/sCQ4eyo.png


  • #189
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Yeah, the Examiner had a response article to it earlier also:
    Par for the course. I did some consultancy in this area about ten years ago and discovered how the industry tended to work.

    You have three broad types of dating sites. Relationship sites, marketed to people looking for long term, committed relationships, such as marriage. Casual sites, like Ashley Madison that promise NSA sex. And finally some miscellaneous ones that demographically don't fit in either.

    The first tends to have more women than men (although you'll still get men who are looking for NSA sex and using the carrot of a relationship as bait). The second overwhelmingly has more men than women. The last doesn't fit in either - for example swingers sites that would have a lot of couples and mail order bride sites will have plenty of both genders.

    All employ lots of fake accounts (you can buy these in bulk, btw). Some companies also employ full time staff to pretend to be real people and lure customers into buying into premium services and subscriptions.

    Anyhow, as a rule of thumb; women tend not to look for casual sex and instead look for committed relationships. Men will also look for committed relationships, but far less than women and make up the vast bulk of the casual sex seekers.


  • #190
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Four weeks might as well be four minutes to me tbh, half the time I'm doing well if I can remember how I even started a post tbh :pac:

    Let's face is jack, by the time we've got to the bottom of your posts even we can't remember what you started talking about, let alone what the thread is even about any more! :pac:


  • #191
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    smash wrote: »
    Let's face is jack, by the time we've got to the bottom of your posts even we can't remember what you started talking about, let alone what the thread is even about any more! :pac:
    The thread was about open relationships and it appeared early on that either not enough people knew enough to discuss them or if they did they did not feel it necessarily to share with an audience who would largely never understand them.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    The thread was about open relationships and it appeared early on that either not enough people knew enough to discuss them or if they did they did not feel it necessarily to share with an audience who would largely never understand them.

    Which is understandable given how they'd be looked down upon by a lot of people.


  • #193
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Par for the course. I did some consultancy in this area about ten years ago and discovered how the industry tended to work.

    You have three broad types of dating sites. Relationship sites, marketed to people looking for long term, committed relationships, such as marriage. Casual sites, like Ashley Madison that promise NSA sex. And finally some miscellaneous ones that demographically don't fit in either.

    The first tends to have more women than men (although you'll still get men who are looking for NSA sex and using the carrot of a relationship as bait). The second overwhelmingly has more men than women. The last doesn't fit in either - for example swingers sites that would have a lot of couples and mail order bride sites will have plenty of both genders.

    All employ lots of fake accounts (you can buy these in bulk, btw). Some companies also employ full time staff to pretend to be real people and lure customers into buying into premium services and subscriptions.

    Anyhow, as a rule of thumb; women tend not to look for casual sex and instead look for committed relationships. Men will also look for committed relationships, but far less than women and make up the vast bulk of the casual sex seekers.

    Think of all the millions paid to research this and the obvious conclusion they came too, Men are more in to casual sex that woman are... and woman are more in to committed relationships, who knew!!

    Life would be a lot easier if we stopped trying to reinvent the wheel and taking the opinion of a few outlines as gospel.

    The vast majority of people conduct their lives in the broad spectrum of middle ground in most issues from intimate relationships to parenting then you get a few outliners at either end of the spectrum.


  • #194
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Think of all the millions paid to research this and the obvious conclusion they came too, Men are more in to casual sex that woman are... and woman are more in to committed relationships, who knew!!
    Still though, tinder is very popular and it's basically just a hook up app.

    There's also the other stuff like uniformdating.com which is really just targeting women who want to f*ck firemen. Or something... It's one I don't really get the appeal of.


  • #195
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    smash wrote: »
    Still though, tinder is very popular and it's basically just a hook up app.

    There's also the other stuff like uniformdating.com which is really just targeting women who want to f*ck firemen. Or something... It's one I don't really get the appeal of.

    I know two women who are in relationships with men they met on tinder, maybe thats the geniuses of it, its what ever the person wants it to be.


  • #196
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Think of all the millions paid to research this and the obvious conclusion they came too, Men are more in to casual sex that woman are... and woman are more in to committed relationships, who knew!!
    If you read back on this thread, we've just had a good few pages of some people effectively denying that this is the case. So I wouldn't presume that it's an obvious point.


  • #197
    Autonomous Cowherd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭Autonomous Cowherd


    Have to say that Annalee Newitz's article linked back there about data analysis of the members of Ashley Madison made for pretty sad and interesting reading....20 million guys active for basically about 1000 women, that's 20,000 men per chick... It says something about sexual projection and Internet fantasy romance and perhaps the ubiquity of porn engineering dissatisfaction and how fools and their money are easily parted. Anonymous NSA fcuking seems to be a male biased preference, in essence.


  • #198
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »
    Have to say that Annalee Newitz's article linked back there about data analysis of the members of Ashley Madison made for pretty sad and interesting reading....20 million guys active for basically about 1000 women, that's 20,000 men per chick... It says something about sexual projection and Internet fantasy romance and perhaps the ubiquity of porn engineering dissatisfaction and how fools and their money are easily parted. Anonymous NSA fcuking seems to be a male biased preference, in essence.


    Its because modern society/the internet has give the illusion of endless choice, where as the reality people don't have the choices they thing they do.

    I also thing less choice make people more content.


  • #199
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Its because modern society/the internet has give the illusion of endless choice, where as the reality people don't have the choices they thing they do.

    I also thing less choice make people more content.

    Its because technology is making efficiency more preferable to intimacy.


  • #200
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I also thing less choice make people more content.

    I'm more of the opinion that people shouldn't just be content. They should be happy. There's too many couples out there in dead end relationships who are just content and so they live with it.
    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Its because technology is making efficiency more preferable to intimacy.
    It's a whole other top I guess, but men tend to be able to separate emotion and intimacy from sex a lot better than women do.


  • #201
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    smash wrote: »
    I'm more of the opinion that people shouldn't just be content. They should be happy. There's too many couples out there in dead end relationships who are just content and so they live with it.


    It's a whole other top I guess, but men tend to be able to separate emotion and intimacy from sex a lot better than women do.

    Maybe its an age issue I am middle aged and the idea that you should be happy all the time, expect endlessness happiness is a bit odd. I would consider myself very happily married but I don't view my life nor the goal of my life is to be happy its unrealistic.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Autonomous Cowherd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭Autonomous Cowherd


    smash wrote: »
    I'm more of the opinion that people shouldn't just be content. They should be happy. There's too many couples out there in dead end relationships who are just content and so they live with it.

    .
    Content and Happy are interesting words. Content is suggestive of stability, a more even line of emotions, maturity, whereas the modern notion of happiness is a state highly prone to fluctuation. Happiness quite easily leads to unhappiness when all the desired for circumstances are not met. Whereas contentment can weather storms, delay gratification, live with affectionate acceptance of imperfection.

    Contentment - Santosha (Sanskrit) - a state of inner peace or absence of craving.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santosha
    Happiness Rocks....it is just not possible to be eternally happy. Contentment on the other hand is a distinct possibility.


  • #203
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Maybe its an age issue I am middle aged and the idea that you should be happy all the time, expect endlessness happiness is a bit odd. I would consider myself very happily married but I don't view my life nor the goal of my life is to be happy its unrealistic.

    I go with the "not sufferring" approximate definition of happiness, but of course we have to be sad sometimes, we have to grieve, we have to be uncomfortable, we have to ride things out, we have to wait.... we can't be happy all the time.

    If it weren't short lived would it be so much fun?


  • #204
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    smash wrote: »
    I'm more of the opinion that people shouldn't just be content. They should be happy. There's too many couples out there in dead end relationships who are just content and so they live with it.


    It's a whole other top I guess, but men tend to be able to separate emotion and intimacy from sex a lot better than women do.

    Or women tend to be better at fusing them. Depending on your perspective.


  • #205
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Maybe its an age issue I am middle aged and the idea that you should be happy all the time, expect endlessness happiness is a bit odd. I would consider myself very happily married but I don't view my life nor the goal of my life is to be happy its unrealistic.

    No, I didn't say happy all the time. I mean't be happy in general within your relationship. A lot of people aren't truly happy within their relationships but they're content with it, or just used to it, so just live with it.
    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Or women tend to be better at fusing them. Depending on your perspective.
    Entirely depends on how you view sex. Some view it as an act of love, others view it purely as an act of pleasure.


  • #206
    Autonomous Cowherd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭Autonomous Cowherd


    smash wrote: »

    Entirely depends on how you view sex. Some view it as an act of love, others view it purely as an act of pleasure.


    Mmmmmm...a combo sandwich of the two please, for me.


  • #207
    JuliusCaesar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭JuliusCaesar


    Yep, in general men are more driven to sex, women less so. Especially NSA. Well, it makes sense in both evolutionary and biological terms. It's trying to separate out biology from culture and society that is impossible to do in humans. Baumeister has written prolifically and widely; as a colleague of mine said "Is there anything he hasn't written about?" (in the field of psychology).



    Can we return to promiscuous relationships? I was reading over here about different ways of living. Some people want to live alone, others want to live in a nuclear family, others want different combinations of individuality and communality; gay couples, couples +1; single people living together but having other relationships; older widowed people living in small or larger communities; mixed communities. There are some married couples who don't live together due to short or long-term jobs elsewhere, who may or may not have open relationships; there are swingers; stable relationships; fluctuating relationships.

    What we have less and less of, is long-term stable till-death-do-us-part couples. Mainly because we live much longer now. And we really need to accept this. We need to make legal, social and cultural changes to enable serial monogamy (what most people have/want) while protecting children and property.

    Part of this is enabling people run their relationships as they mutually choose. If they are not harming anyone, so what? Who cares?

    It's encouraging that people now see gender and sexual preferences as being on a continuum, that we aren't all locked into all-or-nothing roles. And if my daughter or son tries out a gay relationship before deciding that's not really what they're into; or a gay man has an affair with a woman - because he was into that person, but isn't generally gay; or I try out an open relationship before realising that isn't what I want (or maybe I do); or my neighbour does up his bedroom as a BDSM dungeon - so what?


    Mutual consent, freely given, not coerced is what it's about - and not harming anyone else.


  • #208
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    However that not generally what's happening, it appears to be people who want the warmth, intimacy, support and someone who has got my back that an intimate relationship and family life offers, while at the same time be free to have endless commitment free sex with other people.


  • #209
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    mariaalice wrote: »
    However that not generally what's happening, it appears to be people who want the warmth, intimacy, support and someone who has got my back that an intimate relationship and family life offers, while at the same time been free to have endless commitment free sex with other people.
    People want their cake and eat it? Who'd have thought?

    If you look carefully, you'll find that this attitude is not limited to just this case nowadays.


  • #210
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Neymar90 wrote: »
    I don't think we're actually living much longer if you don't account for terminal illness or death by accidents. Basically people who die of old age due at about the same age they did 2000 years ago.
    Fraid not.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    smash wrote: »


    Entirely depends on how you view sex. Some view it as an act of love, others view it purely as an act of pleasure.

    Which is kind of what I said, but when I said "them" I wasn't necessarily referring to love, it was referent to "emotion," and those come in all shapes and sizes.

    There are people who are more sensation oriented and those who are more feeling oriented, infinite variety of possibilities for individuals.


Advertisement