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?

1234568»

Comments

  • #212
    ToddyDoody
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,417 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    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?

    Start with a vibrator / fleshlight and see how that goes.


  • #213
    Old Jakey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 436 ✭✭Old Jakey


    Reminder that any man who agrees to an open relationship is a cuck

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html


  • #214
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    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.

    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.

    Aye, a brother of mine many moons ago was involved in setting up a sex chat line business (with three pilots) and the employed pretty much the same model. Only, because you can't really magic up women on a telephone the way you can pretend they exist online, what they did was advertise the sex chat line as a 'Dating line' in magazines which women read a gave them a 1800 number to call. Simultaneously they also advertised the line in the back of a few tabloids s a 'Sex Party Line' (you know the ones beside the horse racing cards) with only now with a 1570 number. When women called the 1800 number they would be asked to record a short message saying who they were and what they were looking for.

    Then when men called they would be told how many women were online and would they like to listen to all their messages. They could then send them a private voice message if they waned to. Made them a fortune. Was before the Internet but I think the line is still in existence. Most likely nowhere near as popular though. Apparently they used to have an average of a hundred or so women on it at peak times and a similar amount of men. Do the math. Worked it out once and with a guy paying around £75 an hour to stay on, they would have been making around £5000 an hour at peak times. Doubt even the horse tipping lines make anything close to it.

    Course, it's all just an extension of Ladies Night really.


  • #215
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Aye, a brother of mine many moons ago was involved in setting up a sex chat line business (with three pilots) and the employed pretty much the same model. Only, because you can't really magic up women on a telephone the way you can pretend they exist online, what they did was advertise the sex chat line as a 'Dating line' in magazines which women read a gave them a 1800 number to call. Simultaneously they also advertised the line in the back of a few tabloids s a 'Sex Party Line' (you know the ones beside the horse racing cards) with only now with a 1570 number. When women called the 1800 number they would be asked to record a short message saying who they were and what they were looking for.

    Then when men called they would be told how many women were online and would they like to listen to all their messages. They could then send them a private voice message if they waned to. Made them a fortune. Was before the Internet but I think the line is still in existence. Most likely nowhere near as popular though. Apparently they used to have an average of a hundred or so women on it at peak times and a similar amount of men. Do the math. Worked it out once and with a guy paying around £75 an hour to stay on, they would have been making around £5000 an hour at peak times. Doubt even the horse tipping lines make anything close to it.

    Course, it's all just an extension of Ladies Night really.

    Some times I am so glad I am a woman, I can imagine what its like to be a man that story is both sad and funny in equal measure.


  • #216
    Rym Shanley
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 94 ✭✭Rym Shanley


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    The risk of STIs is minimised with condoms.

    Condoms are passion killers. Sex is much better without one.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Raging_Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭Raging_Ninja


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Fraid not.

    Tbh that wiki article you linked kind of backs up what he says.

    The major reason average life expectancy has increased recently is that because of modern medicine, child mortality rates are no longer at the horrific levels they were back even 70 years ago, never mind back in the 13th century.

    The you linked also says that a scholar in the medieval era who had survived childhood could live well into their late 60s/early 70s - which is only about 10 years shorter than today.


  • #218
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Raging_Ninja wrote: »
    Tbh that wiki article you linked kind of backs up what he says. The major reason average life expectancy has increased recently is because of modern medicine, child mortality rates are no longer at the horrific levels they were back even 70 years ago, never mind back in the 13th century.
    Actually it doesn't back up what he said. How do you make that out?


  • #219
    Raging_Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭Raging_Ninja


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Actually it doesn't back up what he said. How do you make that out?

    I edited my post to flesh it out a bit more just as you replied.


  • #220
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Raging_Ninja wrote: »
    I edited my post to flesh it out a bit more just as you replied.
    Saw that after the fact. Thanks.
    Raging_Ninja wrote: »
    The major reason average life expectancy has increased recently is that because of modern medicine, child mortality rates are no longer at the horrific levels they were back even 70 years ago, never mind back in the 13th century.
    Yet, in classical Rome, were one to avoid the perils of infant mortality and reach ten years of age, they would still have an average life expectancy under 50, which is much lower than the modern World average.
    The you linked also says that a scholar in the medieval era who had survived childhood could live well into their late 60s - which is only about 10 years shorter than today.
    You can hardly use the life spans of a tiny minority to somehow prove that the average for everyone was just as high. Why don't we just count non smoking Japanese in our averages then when calculating our average lifespans? Do we all live to over 100?


  • #221
    Raging_Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭Raging_Ninja


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Saw that after the fact. Thanks.

    Yet, in classical Rome, were one to avoid the perils of infant mortality and reach ten years of age, they would still have an average life expectancy under 50, which is much lower than the modern World average.

    You can hardly use the life spans of a tiny minority to somehow prove that the average for everyone was just as high. Why don't we just count non smoking Japanese in our averages then when calculating our average lifespans? Do we all live to over 100?

    You're correctly pointing out lifestyle differences affecting lifespan. Some lives are harder on the body than others and cause it to fail sooner than it otherwise might.

    But the life of a scholar back in the old days would be closer to what an office worker would have today than that of a peasant worker in a field in Ancient Rome.

    There are still plenty of people dropping dead in their 50s - average life span just means that half of all people are dead by that age, with most of the rest dropping off some time after.

    Tbh this is kind of why I hate "average"/mean of anything - it's much less useful than median values.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Raging_Ninja wrote: »
    But the life of a scholar back in the old days would be closer to what an office worker would have today than that of a peasant worker in a field in Ancient Rome.
    And this makes a difference how..?
    There are still plenty of people dropping dead in their 50s - average life span just means that half of all people are dead by that age, with most of the rest dropping off shortly after.
    No, that's not what average means. You're confusing it with a median.


  • #223
    Raging_Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭Raging_Ninja


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    And this makes a difference how..?

    No, that's not what average means. You're confusing it with a median.

    No, it's exactly what average means and why it can be distorted by extreme values. Somebody dies at 10, another dies at 80, average lifespan is 45. The information isn't particularly useful without breaking it down into age brackets.


  • #224
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Raging_Ninja wrote: »
    No, it's exactly what average means.
    Actually you said:
    Raging_Ninja wrote: »
    average life span just means that half of all people are dead by that age, with most of the rest dropping off some time after.
    That's a median.

    And it does not explain what difference would outlying minorities make to the averages - even if a small number of scholars (much smaller than modern office workers) lived to 100, the vast majority would still have much shorter life spans than today. And that is what was being discussed.


  • #225
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    What's missing here is context. If the relationship from the word go is 'open' and neither party is under any illusions as to the nature of their sexual relationship then maybe it could work. There would have to be a hell of a lot of communication between parties to avoid emotional shrapnel down the line. I've known a few people over the years who started such relationships, eyes wide open so to speak, who on the whole said they were happy with their choices but even they had to grapple with jealousies etc and it took a hell of a lot of communication, boundaries and rules etc.

    It sure as hell would not work for me. I'm a one woman one man type of guy, it's how I'm built. Then again when my spouse and I were staring out we hammered out all these details. At the end of the day it comes down to communication and trust. It has to be based on parity of esteem. A joint venture so to speak. Without that I don't think any relationship can work.

    I could not deal with a situation where my spouse went off to do 'whatever' and when she came back I may or may not get the 'highlights' of her activities. That for me isn't a relationship. That is two people living in the same house, sharing bills etc., but essentially living separate lives.

    SD


Advertisement