Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Girl having sex with 10 guys in a week is same as guy having 10 girls in one week? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrey123)
    i'm not hearing any counter-arguement.
    Do you think that it's harder for girls to reach coitus with a boy than it is for a boy to with a girl?
    Seriously?
    Experience has taught me two things:

    1) Once you're no longer a teenager, pulling is basically the same for males and females:

    Unless you're a complete dork, if you're willing to settle for whatever you can get your hands on, its extremely easy to pull, whether you're male or female, straight or gay.

    If you're picky, and only willing sleep with people who you genuinely find attractive, then it takes a little work to pull, whether you're male or female, straight or gay.

    2) I've known my share of slutty girls, and I've known my share of quiet respectable girls. I can tell you now that slutty girls are **** ing boring in bed, compared to the unimaginable filth that your average "nice girl" is into.
    The reason is obvious: girls are slutty because they lack confidence and are constantly in need of affection and reassurance. A lack of confidence = rubbish in bed. Never make the mistake of thinking "Oh she's a pole dancer, she must be dirty in bed". Instead think "Oh she's a shy librarian, she must be dirty in bed".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    That's an extremely powerful argument. Unfortunately, it can be counteracted by this equally clever and subtle argument:

    Imagine a woman man as a lock, and a man woman as a key.

    When a key opens only one lock, its of limited use. When it opens many locks, its a useful master key!

    When a lock is opened by one key its normal. When its opened by many keys its a crappy lock. :awesome:
    Are you a gay guy or a girl? Why would a guy be a lock??

    He is the one screwing everyone else by nature - evolutional biology works if the males reproduce a lot and the females get pregnant and give birth.

    Plus a guy is the one with the appendage, hence the key.
    :awesome:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Biologically, no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    its the same
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yurihammo)
    Are you a gay guy or a girl? Why would a guy be a lock??

    He is the one screwing everyone else by nature - evolutional biology works if the males reproduce a lot and the females get pregnant and give birth.

    Plus a guy is the one with the appendage, hence the key.
    :awesome:
    I already answered this retarded question. An extremely vague topological similarity between penises and keys is not sufficient for this analogy to work.

    It's like saying "men are bigger than women, in the same way that a cricket bat is bigger than a cricket ball. A cricket bat is designed to hit a cricket ball. Therefore its ok for a man to hit a woman".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Experience has taught me two things:

    1) Once you're no longer a teenager, pulling is basically the same for males and females:

    Unless you're a complete dork, if you're willing to settle for whatever you can get your hands on, its extremely easy to pull, whether you're male or female, straight or gay.

    If you're picky, and only willing sleep with people who you genuinely find attractive, then it takes a little work to pull, whether you're male or female, straight or gay.
    I disagree. It's much harder for men than women.

    Much more men than women are willing to have a one night stand. Therefore the market is in the woman's favour. She has the greater power of choice.

    Men and women have different roles in the process - the man is the one that is meant to approach, deal with rejection and humiliation, display attractive character traits, deal with her friends, deal with males in her group, etc. The woman doesn't have to do anything but stand around and wait.

    Even an average woman could sleep with 10 attractive men a week. For a man to sleep with 10 different attractive women in a week he'd have to be seriously attractive and have a lot of "game."

    What "work" does it take for a woman to pull? All she has to do is look vaguely attractive and then wait around
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Honestly for me it totally depends on circumstances. Things like attractiveness and personality play into how I feel about people who sleep around. If the guy or girl was a 10 in the looks department, extremely nice, and sleeping with people of equal attractiveness I would think both sexes were legends. Now if the guy was ugly or plain and sleeping with other ugly people I would view him as just as much a slut as an unattractive female. If the girl was hot but an uber ***** I would also think she was a slut same as an arrogant hot man. If the guy or girl was attractive and nice but sleeping with trolls they would also join the slut category. I have no idea why I feel like that but I do. Its probably worse then viewing solely woman as sluts but hey I'm just being honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Post Apocalypse)
    I disagree. It's much harder for men than women.

    Much more men than women are willing to have a one night stand. Therefore the market is in the woman's favour. She has the greater power of choice.

    Men and women have different roles in the process - the man is the one that is meant to approach, deal with rejection and humiliation, display attractive character traits, deal with her friends, deal with males in her group, etc. The woman doesn't have to do anything but stand around and wait.

    Even an average woman could sleep with 10 attractive men a week. For a man to sleep with 10 different attractive women in a week he'd have to be seriously attractive and have a lot of "game."

    What "work" does it take for a woman to pull? All she has to do is look vaguely attractive and then wait around

    That's all cliche and perhaps thats your personal experience. But in my experience and the experience of most people I know, then those stereotypical "roles" are nothing but a myth. For example, I'm extremely picky about potential partners, and I still managed to pull quite often when I was single, but I've honestly never gone up and approached a girl in my life.

    You're comparing apples with oranges: you're comparing an attractive girl with an unattractive man. Attractive people of both sexes get plenty of attention and offers. Less attractive people don't, and thus have to work harder to impress, or settle for other unattractive partners.

    I honestly don't believe the market is in the woman's favour at all. I've never seen anything in over 10 years of going out that backs up that view. Without wishing to sound offensive, perhaps it only seems that way to you because you don't get approached much?

    Mostly the guys who complain most about women being frigid and unapproachable when they won't fall for their cheesy lines are the same ones that call them disgusting sluts when they sleep with someone more attractive. And then they wonder why they struggle to score. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    2) I've known my share of slutty girls, and I've known my share of quiet respectable girls. I can tell you now that slutty girls are **** ing boring in bed, compared to the unimaginable filth that your average "nice girl" is into.
    The reason is obvious: girls are slutty because they lack confidence and are constantly in need of affection and reassurance. A lack of confidence = rubbish in bed. Never make the mistake of thinking "Oh she's a pole dancer, she must be dirty in bed". Instead think "Oh she's a shy librarian, she must be dirty in bed".
    my experience with girls has been the complete oppersite. The more sexualy liberated/adventerous ones have been better in bed, and they arn't the boring/quiet type outside of bed 80% of the time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrey123)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvavPJtSIUM&fmt=34

    This sums it up, boys and girls.
    lol. this was quite funny but unfortunately a bit true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrey123)
    my experience with girls has been the complete oppersite. The more sexualy liberated/adventerous ones have been better in bed, and they arn't the boring/quiet type outside of bed 80% of the time.
    What's your sample size? :awesome:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pippa90)
    I only said that because it feels like I'm being quizzed a lot

    Yes, if a woman slept with 10 men in a week, many of whom were sleazy, then I wouldn't respect them. I'm only coming up with this because if you think of the men you see in clubs who are trying to pull girls, many of them look pretty sleazy, pervy or disgusting (in terms of their thinking of women) in my opinion. Usually when I think of someone sleeping with 10 people in a week, many of the times that they find them would be in a club, bar, or pub. Hence the sleazy men.

    Sorry, I thought of that after I posted. If a woman was in dire need of money then sleeping with 10 men in a week for cash wouldn't make me disrespect her.

    I think with the sex divide thing it's because women let men inside them, and men go inside women. It's like you (well me personally, but I don't have a choice obvs ) have to trust someone more to let them inside than to be inside someone else. Although I've seen the film Teeth :| lol But yeah, it's just how my mind works.

    If the 10 men were all that you said then I would still disrespect her. They would probably feel hurt that she'd rather sleep with 9 other men in that week than them 9 more times.
    Now that's an interesting comment, a very interesting one.

    Recently I did an essay on gendered behaviour, and in the reading one of the statements (I didn't put it in my essay) was about how in text books the sperm always did all of the work, they were the ones to penetrate into the egg. The egg doesn't do anything. Society has often looked at men as assertive, active, and women as passive.

    If a woman wasn't active during sex, if it was one-sided, I'd be very surprised if both parties loved it.

    The egg by the way helps to hold the sperm in position whilst it's being penetrated, that's why it has an outer layer.

    From an active part the vagina releases fluid for lubrication, and generally loosens up a bit. Both parties are active.

    To say that women trust more because 'they let men in' seems to be a conceptual mistake. I'm not going to have sex with a woman I don't trust (in normal everyday circumstances).
    There are risks, STI's, babies, she could be a very violent lover etc.
    At the very least part of having sex is being vulnerable. At the end of it if your (temporary) partner says "that was ****" you're going to question your abilities as a lover.
    For many young men and women there is the shameful trap of them looking older than they are.

    Another issue is women can often put the penis inside them with their hands.
    Surely that'd by your reasoning mean the man is putting the trust in the woman.
    And if you have any idea how sensitive a penis is you'll know that to be granted permission to use one is a very trusting thing.

    I can see why you think what you think, but it doesn't make very much sense when we actually look at it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Now that's an interesting comment, a very interesting one.

    Recently I did an essay on gendered behaviour, and in the reading one of the statements (I didn't put it in my essay) was about how in text books the sperm always did all of the work, they were the ones to penetrate into the egg. The egg doesn't do anything. Society has often looked at men as assertive, active, and women as passive.

    If a woman wasn't active during sex, if it was one-sided, I'd be very surprised if both parties loved it.

    The egg by the way helps to hold the sperm in position whilst it's being penetrated, that's why it has an outer layer.

    From an active part the vagina releases fluid for lubrication, and generally loosens up a bit. Both parties are active.

    To say that women trust more because 'they let men in' seems to be a conceptual mistake. I'm not going to have sex with a woman I don't trust (in normal everyday circumstances).
    There are risks, STI's, babies, she could be a very violent lover etc.
    At the very least part of having sex is being vulnerable. At the end of it if your (temporary) partner says "that was ****" you're going to question your abilities as a lover.
    For many young men and women there is the shameful trap of them looking older than they are.

    Another issue is women can often put the penis inside them with their hands.
    Surely that'd by your reasoning mean the man is putting the trust in the woman.
    And if you have any idea how sensitive a penis is you'll know that to be granted permission to use one is a very trusting thing.

    I can see why you think what you think, but it doesn't make very much sense when we actually look at it.


    I basically agree with this. It seems extremely flawed and simplistic thinking to say that simply because it is the man that enters the woman and not the other way round, then it automatically follows that it is the man that is the dominant, more active participant.

    But what about if I eat a hamburger, then it is the hamburger that enters me, not the other way round. So by this logic it must be the hamburger that is the dominant partner in our brief but joyous relationship? Somehow I think this logic falls down around this point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    That's all cliche and perhaps thats your personal experience. But in my experience and the experience of most people I know, then those stereotypical "roles" are nothing but a myth. For example, I'm extremely picky about potential partners, and I still managed to pull quite often when I was single, but I've honestly never gone up and approached a girl in my life.

    You're comparing apples with oranges: you're comparing an attractive girl with an unattractive man. Attractive people of both sexes get plenty of attention and offers. Less attractive people don't, and thus have to work harder to impress, or settle for other unattractive partners.

    I honestly don't believe the market is in the woman's favour at all. I've never seen anything in over 10 years of going out that backs up that view. Without wishing to sound offensive, perhaps it only seems that way to you because you don't get approached much?

    Mostly the guys who complain most about women being frigid and unapproachable when they won't fall for their cheesy lines are the same ones that call them disgusting sluts when they sleep with someone more attractive. And then they wonder why they struggle to score. :rolleyes:
    That is so true. Its much more about attractiveness whether someone can score or not than gender. And answer me this: I'm a female whos been trying to get an attractive guy for a while, he rejected me though. If we had of slept together would it make him the slut because I'm the one that did all the chasing? If guys still think I'm the slut then it proves all these little theories are bull.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    I basically agree with this. It seems extremely flawed and simplistic thinking to say that simply because it is the man that enters the woman and not the other way round, then it automatically follows that it is the man that is the dominant, more active participant.

    But what about if I eat a hamburger, then it is the hamburger that enters me, not the other way round. So by this logic it must be the hamburger that is the dominant partner in our brief but joyous relationship? Somehow I think this logic falls down around this point.
    Are you trolling?
    I'm fairly certain we've had it out before over animal issues, which would explain your choice of example.

    The fact that you're talking about what was part of a now no-longer existent animal in the context of a sentient being is ridiculous.

    The two situations are relevantly different, for one thing there is only one party in your example, sex needs in this instance (as rape is not applicable here) consent from all parties involved.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Are you trolling?
    I'm fairly certain we've had it out before over animal issues, which would explain your choice of example.

    The fact that you're talking about what was part of a now no-longer existent animal in the context of a sentient being is ridiculous.

    The two situations are relevantly different, for one thing there is only one party in your example, sex needs in this instance (as rape is not applicable here) consent from all parties involved.
    I think perhaps you may have missed my point by a few hundred yards. I wouldn't worry about it, I was agreeing with you anyway.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    I think perhaps you may have missed my point by a few hundred yards. I wouldn't worry about it, I was agreeing with you anyway.
    Explain it then.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    That's all cliche and perhaps thats your personal experience. But in my experience and the experience of most people I know, then those stereotypical "roles" are nothing but a myth. For example, I'm extremely picky about potential partners, and I still managed to pull quite often when I was single, but I've honestly never gone up and approached a girl in my life.
    Have you ever considered that your experience is the exception?

    Most women don't approach males. Go to any pub or club and you'll see that there's a difference. Men dont get ready for a night out and then sit around waiting for women to approach them. It just doesnt happen like that.

    You're comparing apples with oranges: you're comparing an attractive girl with an unattractive man. Attractive people of both sexes get plenty of attention and offers. Less attractive people don't, and thus have to work harder to impress, or settle for other unattractive partners.
    No - I'm saying a girl just has to look average or above, but for a man that isn't enough.


    I honestly don't believe the market is in the woman's favour at all. I've never seen anything in over 10 years of going out that backs up that view. Without wishing to sound offensive, perhaps it only seems that way to you because you don't get approached much?

    Mostly the guys who complain most about women being frigid and unapproachable when they won't fall for their cheesy lines are the same ones that call them disgusting sluts when they sleep with someone more attractive. And then they wonder why they struggle to score. :rolleyes:
    There have been multiple scientific studies to back up that the market is in the woman's favour.

    E.g.:

    "For instance, in response to the sex request, men indicated an average likelihood of 46, a whopping figure compared with women's average rating of just 4. "
    http://www.livescience.com/culture/0...ht-stands.html


    "There was also a large gender difference in attitudes toward casual sex: Males had considerably more permissive attitudes (d =.81)"
    Oliver, Mary B., and Janet S. Hyde. "Gender Differences in Sexuality: A Meta-analysis." Psychological Bulletin 114.1 (1993): 29-51. Print.



    "In every case, men preferred significantly larger numbers of sex partners than women"
    "Men were more likely than women to consent to sex after knowing a potential partner for time periods ranging from 1 hour to 2 years"
    "A diverse range of research findings lead converging support to the notion that men have a specialized psychology that leads them to consent to sex more quickly than women"
    Schmitt, D. P., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Are men really more 'oriented' toward short-term mating than women? A critical review of theory and research. Psychology, Evolution, and Gender, 3, 211-239.


    "Gender differences are strikingly large for incidences of masturbation and for attitudes about sex in a casual, uncommitted relationship."
    Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581-92.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Explain it then.

    I tell you what - read it again but with a "for example" rather than a "but" at the start of the second paragraph. That may have confused you. If you still don't get it, then nevermind. It wasn't really that important in the grand scheme of things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    QUEEN O RIVERS GET OFF Y OU



    PER i 0deee x.x.x.x.x..x cos ten whee wont meak bbs
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 12, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.