the *girl=slut man=stud" question.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
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.

There is no way in a million years, that any ''man'' should make adjustments to appease one particular woman.

The man needs to retain control of his feelings, and have some balls !

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There is no way in a million years, that any ''man'' should make adjustments to appease one particular woman.

The man needs to retain control of his feelings, and have some balls !

I'm not here to argue details. I'm only stating the method. Women don't appreciate that attitude though...I can guarantee that.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Whatever.

I like your style, though.

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
Professor of Psychology - Steven Pinker
" in no society do men readily share a wife.
(extract taken from How the Mind Works/ Steven Pinker.)

...thats misogynistic bs from a man thats on his 3rd wife, lol... polyandrous societies have been around forever and there are still many, many, many - even in the usofa...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...thats misogynistic bs from a man thats on his 3rd wife, lol... polyandrous societies have been around forever and there are still many, many, many - even in the usofa...

It's always a bad sign when someone attacks an individual, rather than the evidence or study that they present.

It sounds like emotion, rather than logic.

Although, I'm sure these little ''episodes'' are forgiveable, considering your gender.

That time of the...

"It's called the double standard, Bobby. Don't knock it — we got the long end of the stick on that one."

- Hank Hill


-TheAssoc.

Simple. It is a double standard. People are taught that whole BS about "boys will be boys" And because of that, people think that it is somehow OK for guys to pull that stuff, but as soon as a girl who is "supposed to be proper and lady like" does it, she is a whore....

It is not fair at all.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
It's always a bad sign

...born under a bad sign...
...been down since i began to crawl...
...if it wasnt for bad luck...
...i wouldnt have no luck at all...

...LOVE that song!...

...now, what were you fussin about, dear?...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
It's always a bad sign when someone attacks an individual, rather than the evidence or study that they present.

...except when YOU do it, honey... right?...

...professor pinker is an idiot... a valid example is his assertion (previously posted twice) which is absolutely positively without a doubt FALSE and that is not just my opinion... its a FACT... look it up yourself, sugar...


...and for your listening pleasure...

reply to post by NWOnoworldorder


Back to evolution theory again I think it may go back to the fact that men have potential for unlimited offspring yet women are limited to just a few. Wham bam thankyou mam opposed to the investment of 9 months pregnancy, life threatening child birth and possibly being left holding the baby without support could be why society decided to attach such a stigma to it.

reply to post by UmbraSumus


You said it better. The stakes are higher for women.

(Conceding that I only read page 2 after my reply..)

Best explanation i have ever seen:


www.dailyacid.com...-lock-enlightenment.html

It’s unfair that if a guy #s a different girl every week, he’s a legend. But if a girl #s just two guys in a year, she’s a slut

Enlightenment: If a key opens lots of locks, then it’s a master key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it’s a sh***y lock!

Originally posted by andy1033
So where you or the writer of the book there during caveman times, to tell us that it was different.... The book is rubbish you read..... , how the hell do you know how they felt?

That's an over-the-top snotty and irrational response.
The book is a college text. It was a college course. Evolutionary psychology.
Never taken any psychology classes, eh? It shows.
What was presented makes perfect sense.

Psychology and biology explain human behavior.
(except Freud. He was a sick puppy and has been pretty much discredited)
Learn before thou speakest, young grasshopper.

For those interested ... the college text is
"Evolutionary Psychology - the new science of the mind' by David M. Buss
ISBN - 0-205-37071-3
I'm sure Barnes and Nobel can get it in if you give them the ISBN #.
I think it was about $75 when I bought my copy. Don't know what it would be now.

See original sin. According to the holy books, original sin, error, and the desire for knowledge all stem from the decision of one woman. Eve. Adam was an innocent fool, content to obey and submit. When the serpent speaks, he addresses the woman and starts a dialog with her. (In the Koran the tempter is called Ibis or Shaitan. For centuries Muslims have performed a ritual stoning of the devil as part of the pilgrimage to Mecca. Seducing serpent leads to seduced woman leads to Woman the eternal temptress. It's an easy progression.Hatred of women is like a variation on the theme of hatred of intelligence. To which might be added hatred of everything women represent for men: desire, pleasure, life. Curiosity as well-many dictionaries confirm that inquisitive women are widely dismissed as daughters of Eve. They generate desire, they also generate life. Original Sin is perpetrated through women-that sin which as saint augustine assures us, is transmitted from the moment of conception, in the mothers womb, via the fathers sperm-the sexualiztion of sin!

Think about it this way... if a key opens many locks, it is a master key. If a lock is opened by many keys... well that's just not a very good lock.



Sorry, I couldn't resist. I hope I don't offend anyone, lol.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Agreed. I have read on the topic before, but forgotten much of what I read, but remember being very impressed with how many of our seemingly complex male/female interactions are well explained by nature and evolution.

Women are the ones that get pregnant as a result of "mating"..there is a great onus on them to be selective about who they mate with as opposed to men who just want to propagate.

To take that a step further...women in deciding who they will sleep with...decide which genes are best for the next generation of human beings. In times past that might have been the biggest and strongest since those were the neccessary traits for survival, but it could be argued that we have evolved to a point where women are turned on by cleverness and intelligence since those qualities are a greater indicator of success in modern times.

You could make a case that in essence a woman's "turn ons" list can be viewed as a short list of what qualities they think are important for the human race to survive.

Men? they just want offspring to continue thier dna line and if they are unable to convince a woman that they have qualities worth propaagating...well then that is evolution.

not a perfect theorey, but it explains a lot.

It's simple.

A women can easily get sex from men...it isn't a challenge...she mostly has her pick. Any decent looking women can go into a bar...and go home with almost any man in the bar if she is willing to. When a women gets a guy to sleep with her...it's not challenge...it is just a matter of being willing and picking who she wants.

A man has to work for it. Any decent looking man goes into a bar...and has to work...has to attract..to stand out...to "win". When a guy gets a women to sleep with him in...it is a victory.

So that is why some women are seen as "easy"...they are "easy" to win. By default...almost all men are easy...because they are the hunters...not the prey. Women are the prey...and so when they sleep around a lot.

I think this is right on the money.

That research about the DNA, and seed-planting business is pretty whacked. The attraction of a virgin has nothing to do with wanting to be the "first" there or anything, it's about re-experiencing the wonder of a first experience through another's eyes. (at least for me, it would be). Besides, you know it probably won't be great...give me an experienced gal anytime.

There's also an inherent difference between the way men and women take insults. Men simply don't let such terms bother them, so none really stick. It's kind of like white people and racial slurs. Terms like "cracker" or "honkey" have been attempted, but since there is no cultural history or other factor making the terms "sting" or stick...they just have never been effective...and whites simply shrug off the names. No reaction, means they just don't get used.

Like racial slurs, years ago, women "allowed" the term to stick and sting. They even used it themselves to bring other women down, so now it's sting is even more reinforced. To the contrary, men have no such term they've allowed to sting, so with no reaction...they never stuck. You simply can't exploit a group that just refuses to be bothered by such a term. (takes two to Tango, and all of that)....

reply to post by NWOnoworldorder

why if a woman sleeps around or has had many partners shes a slut but if a man has had many partners hes a stud?

SLUTS or STUDS they both will most likely carry STD's!

Seriously I think this is just a religious moral issue.
Because men can have sex without immediate repercussions and women can't, (or couldn't)
there had to be a way to keep women from going out there and acting like a bunny herself since unwed mothers have been frowned on until the past 30 years or so.
Women had to wait for birth control to be invented before we could go all crazy.

I agree 100% with your premise.
Slut. It's a bum rap.

Most men, when asked how many partners they've had will say how many partners they have had.

Most women will quote how many serious boyfriends they have had. They seem to strike the sping break orgies and they one night stands from their memory.

My source: honesty from my long time girl friends and 2 wives.

I have even caught girls lying over the time I was dating them. "Um you said 5 guys...but so far over the last year I have counted 10 names...."

girl: "oh well... that was just a one time thing."

That's girl math. It didn't bother me as I'm not one to criticize one's promiscuity....
but if you're a guy who actually believes your wife was previously with 3 guys....well...if she went to college, she is probably lying. She probably had one drunken night where 3 guys (and a girl) was just that night alone. She will conveniently forget about that when looking for marriage.

I don't have a problem with that with my current wife. She admits she was a huge slut and I admit my past slutiness to her so theres no problem there. And yes, we have both been tested many times, and just refer to ourselves as sluts by nature. I won't quote numbers but they are truely staggering.

To the person who said a woman can get it 97% time she wants it, believe it or not there are guys who can get it that much too. I know this first hand as I almost never went home empty handed in my teens, 20s and 30s. It's easy to rack up a few hundred notches on the headboard if you have the looks and social smoothness (the alternative is wealth and fame).

reply to post by NWOnoworldorder

this thought came to me again when i watch the film easy a, women dont like sluts....why is this? jealousy?

Jealousy is one.
Damn...
I wish I could be more like Samantha on Sex in the City instead of like Sally Fields in the Flying Nun
mostly because my libido is killing me!
Also Samantha seems to be getting all the attention!
Blue anything...and a puritan ethic don't go together well.
This (and Sunday sports) is why the fellas never make church. - sure the roof will fall in.
Some women are NOT hyper sexed like Sam though, of course not all women are the same.

Strategy is another reason women don't like sluts.
Libido aside...If you ever read a book called The Rules... it informs girls how to use their sexuality as a bargaining tool to ensnare a man into a legal marriage contract.
It is designed to engage a woman in matrimony and form couples.
This is part and parcel of old Christian values and I am not knocking it.
Women who put out for free...lessen these girls ability to bargain.

And then there are the hookers.
You are stepping in on their turf but
these women typically have other things to worry about
than somebody else's virtue.

Originally posted by JonInMichigan
To the person who said a woman can get it 97% time she wants it, believe it or not there are guys who can get it that much too. I know this first hand as I almost never went home empty handed in my teens, 20s and 30s. It's easy to rack up a few hundred notches on the headboard if you have the looks and social smoothness (the alternative is wealth and fame).

Yes, there are men that have a high success rate with women, but there are two important differences:

Firstly, as you mention, a man who sleeps with a lot of women, is usually good looking, has an attractive personality, or is rich.

For a woman to have sex, personality and wealth aren't factors, and even looks aren't that important for a woman to achieve sex with a man.

I've ''experienced'' some women who were no oil paintings, if they had a decent body or just because I felt like it.
You don't have to look at the mantelpiece while you're poking the fire, as they say.

Most women can get it 95%+ of the time, while most men can't.


The second big difference is that ''not going home alone over 95% of the time'' is not the same thing as being able to have instant sex with 95% of women that you meet.

For example, the last girl that I pulled at a nightclub was about the 4th or 5th that I had tried it on with.
Unbelievably, three or four women had previously rebuffed my inimitable smooth talk !

If it had been the other way around, then a woman would have been able to have sex with any four or five men that she had chatted up.


If a half-decent looking woman offers it on a plate, then just about the only heterosexual men that will refuse are those that are strongly committed to their partner.

Never mind having several hundred notches on the bedpost throughout a lifetime, if physically possible, a woman could achieve this in one day !