PDA

View Full Version : Men are playboys - women are tarts!


Kaptin M
2nd Dec 2001, 17:20
As a good mate of mine said to me a long time ago, "If men muck around, they're called playboys - if women do the same thing, they're labelled as "whores"!

And so, even with "Womens' Lib", has there REALLY been any discernible change in this opinion.
In my experience, "No"......but then again perhaps the circles I move in :D haven't really changed all that much.

And, to be quite honest, I PREFER this outlook, as opinionated as it may appear!

Steepclimb
3rd Dec 2001, 03:41
Ok lets clear this one up once and for all.
That statement represents the essential difference between male and female sexuality and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how things work in the real world.

The reason why men who play around with lots of women are admired is simple. They are the absolute exception. Most men are lucky if they get to sleep with more than 4 or 5 women in their whole life. Any man who runs up double figures must have something women want. These men must be attractive to women otherwise they couldn't do it. Women have to find them attractive. Very, very few men meet this criteria except in their own mind.

Women on the other hand can sleep with any number of men they want, unless they are particularly ugly. Imdeed they can stand on a street corner and make men pay for the privilege. Again women who do this are the exception, they are considered tarts because quite frankly they usually are.

We're comparing apples and oranges here. For most men sex without some form of relationship is desirable but hard to find. For most women the sex without some form of relationship is far less satisfyibg but easy to find.
Clear?

Men who describe women as tarts are usually the ones who can't even get a 'tart' to sleep with them.

By the way no one says 'Womens lib' any more. The seventies are long gone.

Binoculars
3rd Dec 2001, 12:45
4 or 5??

:eek:

Throtlemonkey
3rd Dec 2001, 13:40
Thanks for clearing that up for us Kaptin M there was a time in the 60's when I though I was a spotted frog then again in the 90's when I thought I was a snag. Playboy will do me just fine for now.

dingducky
3rd Dec 2001, 14:05
oh the old slut and stud thing
goes with the whole thing about how brides are supposed to be virgins on their wedding night
i think that men want women with no experience because then they have nothing to compare them too :rolleyes:

M.Mouse
3rd Dec 2001, 14:52
Steepclimb

<<They are the absolute exception. Most men are lucky if they get to sleep with more than 4 or 5 women in their whole life.>>

I have to take issue with you there. I started when I was 14 am now 48, was married for 5 years. That leaves 29 years of being single through choice. Finding a woman every 4 months would not be impossible so let me see.....well it's more than 4 or 5.

I am not particularly good looking nor do I have an outstanding figure but something I learnt long ago was if you have manners, treat a woman with respect and can make her laugh then you have made a good start.

For those of you still single ask a woman you are dating about her previous experiences of men trying to chat them up, it will make your hair curl and you will soon realise how crass and lacking in understanding men can be.

In fact I'm off to start a new thread asking just that question!

Edited for spalling.

[ 03 December 2001: Message edited by: M.Mouse ]

redsnail
4th Dec 2001, 00:35
Well,
A Prickteaser is someone that will sleep with someone else but not you.
A slut is someone who will sleep with someone else and you.....
Often said by snarly males... :)

How you are viewed usually depends on the persons perspective and security.
:D

bubba zanetti
4th Dec 2001, 00:54
Tarts and Playboys ... Studs and Trollips .. never the twain shall meet.
I have always sought the slut within in choosing female company and a meetig of the sluts as it were. Admitting my slutiness to a woman is usually the first step in devining her true carnal interests. When she raises her eyebrows and says ..."met too!" it is a sure thing. And yes this has tended to put me into double figures ...

4 or 5 ... OMG you poor, crushed cuss ... :D

Slasher
4th Dec 2001, 01:41
Ok that means by strict definition Im a text-book slut then. :cool:

Bally Heck
4th Dec 2001, 03:42
I make no moral judgement on mucky women. Just pleased to find one.

Incidentally, came across (as it were) a copy of "More" magazine down the back the other day. For those who haven't read it, it is a jazz mag for teenage girls with gems like "the postion of the month" complete with "difficulty ratings". And sordid stories about their sex lives.

I trust this sort of filth is going to breed a much more game sort of lass in the future for my dotage.

Tricky Woo
4th Dec 2001, 14:09
Hi All,

Much danger in this habit of counting yer shags: such numbers can and will be held against you; a cautionary tale follows:

Ex-army mate of mine: shagged himself stupid all over the world during his twenties. In the name of Queen and Country, you understand.

Fast forward to his early thirties, and picture him lying in bed, during the wee hours, with his first serious girlfriend in some time. Said girl had been a bit emotional all evening:

Barbara (Wheedling): "Jerry?"

Jerry (Half asleep): "Yeah?"

Barbara (whining a bit): "I've got a question for you..."

Jerry: "Yeah?"

Barbara: "Yeah... silly, really... but... how many girls have you slept with?"

Now Jerry was not born yesterday. He well knows that a truthful answer could easily destroy this relationship. He desperately tries to gauge her in order to choose a reasonably low figure that would both reassure her with his relative chasteness, and also impress her with his worldliness.

He has a brainwave:

Jerry (More awake): "Well, how many guys have you slept with?"

Barbara (Thinking): "Weeeeell..... I suppose about nineteen."

Jerry (Enthusiastically): "That's amazing! I've slept with exactly twenty two! We're well matched, huh?"

A damn good liar in a tight spot, is our Jerry.

With that, the greatly relieved couple fall asleep in each other's arms.

An hour or two later...

Barbara (Urgently): "Jerry, Jerry! Wake up!"

Jerry (Sleepy): "Huh? Whassup?"

Barbara: "I... I feel so bad... I... I... I lied to you".

Jerry (Still sleepy): "What?"

Barbara: "About how many boyfriends..."

Jerry (Thoughtlessly): "Yeah, I lied too: I've slept with over three hundred girls...

Barbara (Shocked): "What!"

Jerry: "Yeah, yeah, I had a feeling you'd had a few more than nineteen. No shame in that. Now go to sleep".

Barbara (Crying): "NO, NO, NO! YOU'RE MY SECOND LOVER, EVER!"

Er, it didn't last.

TW

Celtic Emerald
4th Dec 2001, 16:07
Any man who thinks that way can take a trip to my world famous clinic & I have just the remedy for him. Yes it's still open & business is booming :D I'm on my tenth operation today & I specialise in male chauvinists with stone age Taliban mentalities! :D Ya's all thought it had been closed down by the health board but it's not so there ha ha so you'se better all watch it :p

Emerald

Steepclimb
7th Dec 2001, 01:00
Ok ok, 4 or 5 is a bit low, I under exaggerated for effect. But lets be honest here. It's not that much higher for most men, whether they wish to admit it or not. Most men are essentially serial monogamists. Once you have a steady girlfriend you rarely play away, (or do you?) Look around and most guys have a steady girlfriend by their late teens, early twenties. So unless you get through steady girlfriends at a rate of knots then your numbers are going to be restricted. Of course you can have lots of affairs, but doesn't that make you a male slut?
There are the exceptions of course, soldiers, sailors and dare I say it, pilots who have the opportunities. But do you really count the ones you had to pay for?

I still maintain guys who run up high numbers are the exception. The rest are lying. If you wonder why look at the comments made by Bubba and Binoculars. Who wants to lose face by admitting they aren't a stud with 300 conquests?

max_cont
7th Dec 2001, 16:35
Hi all, I watched a documentary on the TV the other night called “The aim of the game” (I think). It was all about human sexuality.

Some facts quoted by the report include.

The man named on the birth certificate does not in fact sire 33% of all children born.

Around 50% of women will have an extra marital affair at some point in their marriage.

The documentaries position was that women and men are biologically programmed to stray.

Men because for every women they coupled with, they improved their chances of propagating their genes. Additionally and importantly, they could do this without the emotional investment that was required for a long-term relationship along with the instinct to protect and provide for their mate.

Women on the other hand, strayed because they were programmed to have a primary mate that would invest time and emotion and provide for her and her offspring when she was looking after the infants. She needed a partner that would stay around and perform this task Additionally she was always on the lookout for an opportunity to couple with a superior male specimen, to improve her offspring. At the same time she used deception to keep her long-term mate providing for her and her children. It also went on to say that more women would tolerate /forgive an encounter that their long term partner had, as long as there was no emotional involvement i.e., a threat to her and her offspring’s security.

I have to say that Max’s “significant other” got a strop on at this point and was all for turning this obviously flawed documentary off.

It went on about sperm counts and that a lot of women are double mated i.e. different sexual partners within a 5-day period. At this point max got a very definite vibe that things would be heading downhill domestically speaking and that if this stupid documentary was watched any bedroom activity would be restricted to Max fluffing his pillows. We watched some crap about vets from Bristol wandering around Africa like a couple of tourists.

At this point I feel it would be wise for Max to point out that the above is not necessarily Max’s personal viewpoint and the figures quoted are from memory and I was on the receiving end of a significant amount of grief from “she who must be obeyed” and she might read this post as well.

Cheers all :) :)

Biggles Flies Undone
7th Dec 2001, 17:14
You can’t stop change and evolution – just consider the accelerating trend of global warming and increasing divorce rates. These days, people are far less prepared to compromise any part of their lifestyle and always seek exactly what suits them best.

If I was a construction magnate I’d start planning a lot more single-person dwellings in the medium term because that’s the way a lot of couples are now heading.

Come to think of it, we could solve a lot of problems this way. Only couples that really want children (as opposed to those who want children as a social accessory) should live together – the rest should live alone and have ‘mates’ and ‘shagmates’. That way we solve the world’s population crisis and rising divorce rate in one easy lesson - and stop having to debate the 'faithfulness' issue.

I’m currently involved in an in-depth research project and will report back in a few years :D

M.Mouse
8th Dec 2001, 15:13
steepclimb

<<There are the exceptions of course, soldiers, sailors and dare I say it, pilots who have the opportunities.>>

Haven't really found that being a pilot has presented that many extra opportunities.

<< But do you really count the ones you had to pay for?>>

They all cost you money!

Binoculars
8th Dec 2001, 18:18
300 conquests???

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Three Bars
9th Dec 2001, 03:28
Very well put Steepclimb. Just goes to show that GOD MUST have a sense of humour!!