Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

the *girl=slut man=stud" question.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
i aggreee




posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
A man, on the other hand, has to work for sex, and use skill and seduction techniques to attract the woman in to bed.


False statement. If that is true, in your life, then your search is in the wrong venue. I know, because I once believed the same fallacy. In actuality, men have a greater probability of hooking up...You just got to know "where to hold 'em" and "where to fold 'em"



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
i live in the uk and ive noticed that girls as young as 13 are dressing like hookers, i thought maybe it was for male attention but surely not? when i was 13 i was playing with my barbie dolls and climbing trees. what has happened to society that these young girls and older girls feel they need to flash thier breasts and bottoms?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ShnogTrip
 


I am aginst it and i can bet you i have had better looking females come near me than you. The funny ones are the great looking i can cure a gay man routine.

Evolution traits and sex, lol, so where you peopel around with the cavemen to see them have sex.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShnogTrip
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder
 


Women are mainly attracted to a man's status. If a man has a lot of women after him then women will want to fight for that man.


So true. If you (a man) are perceived as "taken", then your chances improve 10-fold...if not more. The old saying: "Women want what they cant have" is some what false...truth is that women want what other women have already certified. Men don't need prior "certification" because they truly believe that they can judge for themselves.
edit on 8-11-2010 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder
 


Young girls are dressing the part for what society expects of them. By the time a girl reaches the age of thirteen she has been bombarded with fashion magazines, make up ads, Malibu barbie, MTV, Brittany Spears (good God). No matter the caliber of the parent kids do what the world expects of them.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
False statement. If that is true, in your life, then your search is in the wrong venue. I know, because I once believed the same fallacy. In actuality, men have a greater probability of hooking up...You just got to know "where to hold 'em" and "where to fold 'em"


Are you talking about prostitution and ''exotic dancing'' clubs ?


I haven't patronised either.


You're not seriously denying that a half-decent woman can have sex at the drop of a hat, with 99% of the men that she happens to encounter, if she wants ?!



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


well im glad its a son i have so he wont be dressing up in shorts skirts lol ....hoefully



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder
 


Following on from intrepids suggestion of an evolutionary basis...

weighting up the costs:

The cost to the male = sperm

The potential cost to the female = the biological cost of pregnancy/ risks to health etc etc....


Women get to choose .......

....... but it comes at a price.



Professor of Psychology - Steven Pinker

" In most societies, some women readily share a husband, but in no society do men readily share a wife. A woman having sex with another man is always a threat to the man`s genetic interests, because it might fool him into working for a competitor`s genes. But a man having sex with another woman is not necessarily a threat to the womans genetic interests, because his illegitimate child is another womans problem.

(extract taken from How the Mind Works/ Steven Pinker.)



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
A man can sleep with any woman and achieve his reason for having sex. Even if the woman just lays there. It may not be earth shattering sex but he can still achieve what he set out to do. However a woman is dependent on the skill of her partner and even then, there is no guarantee, but the more experienced her partner is the more likely it is that he has the skills necessary to make that happen. I think this is why it is more accepted for men to be man whores.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Aggie Man
False statement. If that is true, in your life, then your search is in the wrong venue. I know, because I once believed the same fallacy. In actuality, men have a greater probability of hooking up...You just got to know "where to hold 'em" and "where to fold 'em"


Are you talking about prostitution and ''exotic dancing'' clubs ?


I haven't patronised either.


You're not seriously denying that a half-decent woman can have sex at the drop of a hat, with 99% of the men that she happens to encounter, if she wants ?!


No prostitutes...yuck. No exotic dancers; although I have friends that are. Yes, a top 99% woman can have sex with anyone she wants, but a bottom 99% man can too. Judgment goes beyond visual perception. We are a segment of society; underground, so to speak. We have been around for 1000s of years, always under different names. In our circle we are sluts/studs, but the connotation is of equal respect, rather than disrespect. And no individual shines above any other.

To give you an idea, think of the movie Eyes Wide Shut. Although that is a gross misrepresentation of my life, it is about as close to accurate as one will find in the MSM. We are not satanic. we are not ritualistic. we only promote love. We deny hate. We are one with each other.

Please do not judge me, as I'm sure that what is in your mind is also a gross misrepresentation of our enlightenment.

edit on 8-11-2010 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder
 


Following on from intrepids suggestion of an evolutionary basis...

weighting up the costs:

The cost to the male = sperm

The potential cost to the female = the biological cost of pregnancy/ risks to health etc etc....


Women get to choose .......

....... but it comes at a price.



Professor of Psychology - Steven Pinker

" In most societies, some women readily share a husband, but in no society do men readily share a wife. A woman having sex with another man is always a threat to the man`s genetic interests, because it might fool him into working for a competitor`s genes. But a man having sex with another woman is not necessarily a threat to the womans genetic interests, because his illegitimate child is another womans problem.

(extract taken from How the Mind Works/ Steven Pinker.)



i know for a fact that if my man had sex and impregnated another woman i would feel that as a threat, purely because that woman will be in our lives permenantly, and the child, i certainly wouldnt be happy about it, and would leave my partner for betraying my trust, if i have a man, hes my man i dont want to share him with a woman who he had sex with



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Judgment goes beyond visual perception. We are a segment of society; underground, so to speak. We have been around for 1000s of years, always under different names. In our circle we are sluts/studs, but the connotation is of equal respect, rather than disrespect. And no individual shines above any other.


You're getting a bit allegorical on me, here.

Are you actually denying the fact that a half-attractive woman soliciting random men on the street, will have a probable 98-99% success rate of having instant sex ?

As opposed to a half-decent looking man doing the same, who will probably have a low percentage chance of doing the same.


Originally posted by Aggie Man
To give you an idea, think of the movie Eyes Wide Shut. Although that is a gross misrepresentation of my life, it is about as close to accurate as one will find in the MSM. We are not satanic. we are not ritualistic. we only promote love. We deny hate. We are one with each other.


I'm confused.

Was this the Kubrick film with Nicole Kidman in it ?


Originally posted by Aggie Man
Please do not judge me, as I'm sure that what is in your mind is also a gross misrepresentation of our enlightenment.


Oh, I see... You're taking the wazz...


edit on 8-11-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder
 


i'm not really sure this holds up anymore. what is a slut or a stud? there's plenty of women who are open about their sexuality, representations of them in the media, etc. and there's plenty of men who's open sexuality gets them in trouble/stains their reputation.

it goes both ways. not every man who sleeps around is a stud. not every woman who sleeps around is called a slut. are they both studs? are they both sluts? they're neither. they're whatever anyone wants to call them. its not like there's a law that categorizes these things.

i think this idea that men are applauded for sleeping around while women are put down is about half true. but i think the bigger truth is that women just dont' wnat anything said bad about them ever. some people are going to call you a slut if you're a girl who sleeps around. and people will put you down as well if you're a guy who gets around.

its all who lets it get to them more.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Are you actuallly denying the fact that a half-attractive woman soliciting random men on the street, will have a probable 98-99% success rate of having instant sex ?

As opposed to a half-decent looking man doing the same, who will probably have a low percentage chance of doing the same.


Yes I am. with 100% certainty. Perception is 100% of the game. Dress the part...that is key #1. Playing the part is secondary. Being "attached" is the 3rd (but not so important) key. To imply anything else is a cop-out used by the lazy and insecure...no offense to anyone, but it's the truth.


Was this the Kubrick film with Nicole Kidman in it?


Yes, that movie. Although I use that as a "guide-stone" ...our life is not not ritualistic.


Oh, I see... You're taking the wazz...


What is the wazz? I'm not familiar with that term.
edit on 8-11-2010 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Yes I am. with 100% certainty. Perception is 100% of the game. Dress the part...that is key #1. Playing the part is secondary. Being "attached" is the 3rd (but not so important) key. To imply anything else is a cop-out used by the lazy and insecure...no offense to anyone, but it's the truth.


That must be why I pull women when I'm dressed like ''#'' !



Originally posted by Aggie Man
Yes, that movie. Although I use that as a "guide-stone" ...our life is not not ritualistic.


LOL.


Originally posted by Aggie Man
What is the wazz? I'm not familiar with that term.


The ''humour'' is drying up here, mate.

As if you couldn't work out what ''wazz'' meant, in the context of my post !



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Yes I am. with 100% certainty. Perception is 100% of the game. Dress the part...that is key #1. Playing the part is secondary. Being "attached" is the 3rd (but not so important) key. To imply anything else is a cop-out used by the lazy and insecure...no offense to anyone, but it's the truth.


That must be why I pull women when I'm dressed like ''#'' !


LOL...my point exactly. You don't have to be GQ to get women....rather you must only dress in a manner that is consistent with the quality of woman you expect to engage with. All styles work; however, if there is a woman you want and can't seem to get. Then make adjustments to fit her desire. It's simple....Hell, cavemen had it figured out; yet, somehow, men have regressed in the last 10,000 years. If you have figured out the formula, then applause to you.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
"We don't love them hoes."

as they say


I love them, but I love all of them.
edit on 8-11-2010 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




The book is rubbish you read.

It always amazes me that people talk about evolution and cavemen, how the hell do you know how they felt?



In fairness to FlyersFan , he/she was giving you the abridged back of a postage stamp answer and suggested as much in their post.

Its not so much a commentary on how our distant ancestors "felt", but rather an observation drawn from comparisons of the cornucopia of biological strategies which evolved to maximise the propagation of genetic material.




"The book is rubbish you read"

You didn`t even get the name of it .
edit on 8-11-2010 by UmbraSumus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Its hard to answer this question without stepping on toes. Now, I must say I rarely toss insults around, and unless you blatantly screw me over, I will hardly say anything negative. With that said, it is probably because sensation for the man, tends to depend on the lack of entry the women has endured. Is that PC enough?

I didn't realize this thread had so much action. What a "S*U*"

Stop bickering, my answer is the root.
edit on 8-11-2010 by Myendica because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join