# Does the average woman have less trouble getting laid than the average man?



## tech-novelist

I can't believe this is even a question, but apparently there is at least one woman who thinks it is.

Go for it!


----------



## jorgegene

let me guess. your wife?


----------



## jorgegene

i (imagine) any woman if they asked enough guys would find a willing participant within anywhere from 1 - 50 asks.
depending on the technique and how good she looks.

now guys on the other hand. i imagine there are some guys that wouldn't find any willing even after 200-300 asks.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I am wondering why anyone would care about that? Does it matter?


----------



## Muse1976

Seriously? What do you think?


----------



## optimalprimus

My answer would be nuanced by exactly who you're comparing imho.

Men typically approach women (in my culture anyway), so if a man doesn't do much approaching he's going home to a pot noodle. Women just have to be receptive to approaches.

However, if the man does approach lots of women he will most likely get lucky. whats more he has actually picked a woman who presumably he likes. The woman may be receptive but get no offers from males she likes.

Have to say though, I believe that men are less selective than women, down to basic biology (limited eggs and pregnancy v unlimited sperm).

OT there was a study I vaguely remember about numbers of sexual partners. Women had a higher median figure, and men had a much higher distribution.

So men on average 'found it harder' but some men found it v v easy! The ones who just keep asking I bet!


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeager....if you are reading this, would you say you had sex with every woman who ever hit on you and would have clearly be available to you? Are you a salivating dog-man just waiting for that chance to bang any willing woman?

I get the feeling that you have been hit on dozens if not hundreds of times, yet the fact that you have a low partner count makes me think you didn't go for most of them, is that right?

So right here you have one man rejecting dozens of women. If my assumption about sam is correct.


----------



## tech-novelist

optimalprimus said:


> My answer would be nuanced by exactly who you're comparing imho.
> 
> Men typically approach women (in my culture anyway), so if a man doesn't do much approaching he's going home to a pot noodle. Women just have to be receptive to approaches.
> 
> However, if the man does approach lots of women he will most likely get lucky. whats more he has actually picked a woman who presumably he likes. The woman may be receptive but get no offers from males she likes.
> 
> Have to say though, I believe that men are less selective than women, down to basic biology (limited eggs and pregnancy v unlimited sperm).
> 
> OT there was a study I vaguely remember about numbers of sexual partners. Women had a higher median figure, and men had a much higher distribution.
> 
> So men on average 'found it harder' but some men found it v v easy! The ones who just keep asking I bet!


Yes, men have a much wider distribution. In other words, a few men find it easy, namely the ones that women are interested in, which is about 20% of men. The average man could ask from now until the end of time and would get very little in the way of results, because the average woman doesn't find the average man attractive.

The average woman, on the other hand, just has to make herself available, because most men find most women attractive.

I guess that makes me a misogynist? :scratchhead:


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> samyeager....if you are reading this, would you say you had sex with every woman who ever hit on you and would have clearly be available to you? Are you a salivating dog-man just waiting for that chance to bang any willing woman?
> 
> I get the feeling that you have been hit on dozens if not hundreds of times, yet the fact that you have a low partner count makes me think you didn't go for most of them, is that right?
> 
> So right here you have one man rejecting dozens of women. If my assumption about sam is correct.


I am reading this, and your assessment is spot on


----------



## ConanHub

If she doesn't mind getting slobbered on by mutants, sure.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

How about you Conan...have you ever rejected free sex? Or did you just sit around waiting for it like a dog and accept everything tossed your way?


----------



## dash74

technovelist said:


> Yes, men have a much wider distribution. In other words, a few men find it easy, namely the ones that women are interested in, which is about 20% of men. The average man could ask from now until the end of time and would get very little in the way of results, because the average woman doesn't find the average man attractive.
> 
> The average woman, on the other hand, just has to make herself available, because most men find most women attractive.
> 
> I guess that makes me a misogynist? :scratchhead:



Yes the whole human being vs human doing 

The average women just being who she is can attract someone

The average man has to be funny and or witty, have and spend money, work to out game other men in sports he has to prove himself in some way to reach some invisible bar 

So when some women call men dogs they are not far off when they have to jump through hoops, fetch drinks, entertain, fight off other men in sports, bury bones in the back yard for a rainy day or heaven forbid you talk to the wrong women and you get called creepy and shunned like you crapped on the carpet all on the off chance you get your belly scratched and called a good boy


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> How about you Conan...have you ever rejected free sex?


But, that wasn't the question.


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> How about you Conan...have you ever rejected free sex? Or did you just sit around waiting for it like a dog and accept everything tossed your way?


I had a little over fifty partners by the time I was 20 but lost count of how many I rejected. I was picky, believe it or not. I didn't realize my number was high until much later in life.

I turned away at least 8 times the amount I accepted.

There are female and male dogs out there who will jump nearly anything with a pulse and there is the rest of the spectrum. I'm not sure where I am on it but I had to be in the right mood and the woman had to hit me just right for me to have sex with her.

I passed on hundreds of subtle and not subtle hits.

Then I met Mrs. Conan and that part of my life was done.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> But, that wasn't the question.


But the implication is that no man will ever turn down free sex, and I'm saying, yes they most certainly DO turn it down sometimes. Men are not just indiscriminate dogs waiting to f*ck anything that moves, unlike the stereotype.


----------



## Ikaika

Explained below, got it.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> But the implication is that no man will ever turn down free sex, and I'm saying, yes they most certainly DO turn it down sometimes. Men are not just indiscriminate dogs waiting to f*ck anything that moves, unlike the stereotype.


my interpretation was...if an average man and an average woman had the sole goal of getting laid within the next six hours, the premise is that the average woman would have an easier time accomplishing that goal.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I would love to see an experiment like that (not the stupid one that has been debunked several times now).


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> my interpretation was...if an average man and an average woman had the sole goal of getting laid within the next six hours, the premise is that the average woman would have an easier time accomplishing that goal.


How do you think you would do, sam?

Say you and your wife went about such a goal, and of course, you'd have to assume for your side that you would actually try, not just sit there looking pretty.


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> I would love to see an experiment like that (not the stupid one that has been debunked several times now).


That would be a very interesting experiment.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Personal said:


> I've turned down plenty of explicit and a greater number of less explicit offers of sex from a variety of women when single, engaged and or married.
> 
> So I'm pretty sure sex doesn't always happen for women because they ask for it.


Yes women get rejected all the time. But men just don't believe us when we say we do.

Also, unless a man has actually been offered NSA sex, then he doesn't know how he would actually answer. I think many men think they'd just hit it no matter what...but most men don't. Most men aren't that desperate or indiscriminate.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> But the implication is that no man will ever turn down free sex, and I'm saying, yes they most certainly DO turn it down sometimes. Men are not just indiscriminate dogs waiting to f*ck anything that moves, unlike the stereotype.


I don't know where you got that implication, but it wasn't from my original question.

Yes, _some_ men have no trouble finding female sex partners. Those men are called "alphas", and they account for at most 20% of the male population. The other 80+% have from some to a great deal of trouble finding female sex partners.

The fact that some women think that "men" have no trouble finding female sex partners is an example of the "apex fallacy", in which the characteristics of a small subset of a population (in this case, alpha males) are attributed to all members of the population (in this case, males).


----------



## tech-novelist

As for me, I have never been offered NSA sex by any woman. I have had a fair number of sex partners, considerably more than the male median, which is about 6 (NSFG - Listing N - Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth). However, all of those cases required me to do the approach, and I have been turned down a lot more than I have been successful.

Do _some_ men have a lot of offers from women? Absolutely. Do _most_ men have ANY offers from women? Absolutely not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's a great article on this subject written by a bad girl:

Can women get sex whenever they want? | Girl on the Net | Science | The Guardian


----------



## SimplyAmorous

technovelist said:


> As for me, I have never been offered NSA sex by any woman. I have had a fair number of sex partners, considerably more than the male median, which is about 6 (NSFG - Listing N - Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth). However, all of those cases required me to do the approach, and I have been turned down a lot more than I have been successful.
> 
> Do _some_ men have a lot of offers from women? Absolutely. Do _most_ men have ANY offers from women? Absolutely not.


I think much of this has to do with the company people keep, if they hang in bars, boozing parties, places where people are UP for sex with strangers ...even the average guys chances go up higher...


----------



## Faithful Wife

This was another good article about this subject:

Who Has The Power In Dating?


----------



## Wolf1974

must be some meaning behind this question I'm not getting. Isn't this kinda a given. An average woman, a 5 who goes out determined to get laid and goes to a bar or club is going to get that I would say 95% and up. A similar man on a same scale may get laid but it's far from a guarantee more like 50-50 I would say


----------



## Faithful Wife

Another good article:

When Women Pursue Sex, Even Men Don?t Get It -- The Cut

Quoted from the article:

Think about it: Women want sex, and in particular, they want sex with people who really want them. But socially, many straight men still find it a turnoff when women are sexual aggressors. Which means that, for women, aggressively pursuing the thing they want actually leads to them not getting it. I suspect this is the source of much sexual dissatisfaction of the modern single lady, who's so horny she's running across the street to Walgreens to buy more batteries twice a week, but is unable to pick up men despite social conventions that men are "easy" to bed and women have to be coaxed into casual sex. The thing women are told they can access any time is, maddeningly, often just out of reach.


----------



## imperfectworld

Extroverted female - No problem
Introverted female - No problem
Extroverted male - No problem
Introverted male - Big problem

Speaking from my own experience, of course.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> How do you think you would do, sam?
> 
> Say you and your wife went about such a goal, and of course, you'd have to assume for your side that you would actually try, not just sit there looking pretty.


I would likely accomplish the goal faster than my wife. She agrees with my assessment.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This was really cute, and pretty close to reality.

Slutty Science: Can Women Really Have Sex Anytime They Want? | Angela on 102.1 The Edge


----------



## MountainRunner

SimplyAmorous said:


> I think much of this has to do with the company people keep, if they hang in bars, boozing parties, places where people are UP for sex with strangers ...even the average guys chances go up higher...


Well there is is that. Back in the mid eighties I worked as a bouncer in a rock n' roll night club. You'd be surprised what many under aged women would be willing to do just for an opportunity to get into one of the most popular bars in the East Bay.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Not only would my H have a MUCH easier time picking up women than I would picking up men, he wouldn't have as many risks to it. Much less trouble for him than it would be for me. 

But anyone, male or female, could find someone. A lot just depends on what you are trying to get. The average guy going for the hot girl is probably going to strike out. Same with the average girl going for the hot guy.


----------



## ConanHub

I think I agree with the first article about more men being open to the "type" of sex being offered in the experiment.

It would be interesting to narrow down a highly common female desire for a sexual encounter and run an experiment.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

SCG, I agree, it would be easy for both genders. I'm not trying to say it would always be easier for men. I'm just saying it is NOT always easy for women as some men think. And it is not as difficult for a lot more men than some men think.


----------



## EleGirl

So guys if a good looking women walks up to you and starts talking to you... do you just drop what you are doing and give her your attention?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Faithful Wife said:


> SCG, I agree, it would be easy for both genders. I'm not trying to say it would always be easier for men. I'm just saying it is NOT always easy for women as some men think. And it is not as difficult for a lot more men than some men think.


Yep. My H had honestly never tried to get a girl, they just all came to him. He's not a super model or rich and IS an introvert FTR. They just walk right up, even if I'm there. Waitresses come to sit in the booth with him 

Me, I'd have to put in some effort. I'm shy, quiet and average meaning I just don't get noticed either way. It takes some time. That's ok. 
I guess I never learned how to use my magic vagina power to render men useless.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> So guys if a good looking women walks up to you and starts talking to you... do you just drop what you are doing and give her your attention?


Would need some more context


Am I out at a local bar having a beer? Yes

Am I out directing traffic at an intersection? No


----------



## ConanHub

Awesome! I love the term "magic vagina power"!&#55357;&#56836;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Not only would my H have a MUCH easier time picking up women than I would picking up men, he wouldn't have as many risks to it. Much less trouble for him than it would be for me.
> 
> But anyone, male or female, could find someone. A lot just depends on what you are trying to get. The average guy going for the hot girl is probably going to strike out. Same with the average girl going for the hot guy.


So was that the point of the question? Hot guy being hit on by average girls and average guys hitting on hot women?

I thought the question was the average seeking to get laid. If you are going to a bar with only that to accomplish I guess you start with "hot men or women" but I. The end you either go home with average or below or you go home alone.

Average going after average or lower will favor women.

Average after hot will probably work out fairly equally


----------



## always_alone

Me neither, and I have plenty of rejection under my belt.

I mean, if I had to, I could probably dredge up some skanky drunk that would be willing to say yes, but it's not like there's any shortage of similar such women, especially if you're willing to throw a little money at the problem.

Mostly, though, I think it's a stupid test that shows nothing useful at all.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> Another good article:
> 
> When Women Pursue Sex, Even Men Don?t Get It -- The Cut
> 
> Quoted from the article:
> 
> Think about it: Women want sex, and in particular, they want sex with people who really want them. But socially, many straight men still find it a turnoff when women are sexual aggressors. Which means that, for women, aggressively pursuing the thing they want actually leads to them not getting it. I suspect this is the source of much sexual dissatisfaction of the modern single lady, who's so horny she's running across the street to Walgreens to buy more batteries twice a week, but is unable to pick up men despite social conventions that men are "easy" to bed and women have to be coaxed into casual sex. The thing women are told they can access any time is, maddeningly, often just out of reach.


 Here are a few more quotes from that article that explains some things....

_But a University of Michigan researcher found in 2011 that “gender differences are minimized when women feel that they can avoid being stigmatized for their behavior.” Women like having sex. They don’t like being socially punished for it._


and then this one....

_Even in research about appropriate dating behavior among adults today, “men and women both agree that men should actively pursue female partners and that women should be passive recipients to their advances,” says Jessica Carbino, a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at UCLA who studies online dating and relationships. “For example, women and men overwhelmingly state that men are supposed to plan dates, ask out the woman, and pick her up. Moreover, when women do not adhere to these scripts they are viewed negatively. For example, women who initiate dates are viewed by men as more promiscuous and not interested in forming a serious relationship.” If the rats are any indication, maybe they aren’t! We’ve already established that females of all species are interested in sex for pleasure. But in the human realm, that simple, fundamental motivation is all too easily labeled as “****tiness,” or some sort of deep desperation wrought by singledom._


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Would need some more context
> 
> 
> Am I out at a local bar having a beer? Yes
> 
> Am I out directing traffic at an intersection? No


Ok, sure you are directing traffic. You cannot stop doing that.

So every single time a good looking woman walks up to you in a bar you stop what you are doing (like talking to male friends) and talk to her?

What about is an average or below average looking women does this?


----------



## EleGirl

Let's face it, few women just go up to men that they do not know and ask for sex. Why? Because it's not safe and because that brands a woman as a slvt, [email protected], etc. Usually even by the very man who might take her up on it. It does not matter if she is drop dead gorgeous, average or below average in looks. 

However if a man asks a woman that he does not know for sex and she agrees, it's not as dangerous for him. He is not branded like a woman is. 

Then add to it that according to the quoted study, men do not actually like it when a woman makes the advances... regardless of what is said by some.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> Ok, sure you are directing traffic. You cannot stop doing that.
> 
> So every single time a good looking woman walks up to you in a bar you stop what you are doing (like talking to male friends) and talk to her?
> 
> What about is an average or below average looking women does this?


 yes if a woman comes up to me and showed interest, and I'm single I will talk to them. Hot women rarely do this as they don't really need to.

If we are out looking to meet women guys friends totally get that and encourage it. But if you're with a group it's generally only groups of women that approach rarely the single hot or average. 


But that is about approaching. Still not sure what that has to do with getting laid as the title says


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> Let's face it, few women just go up to men that they do not know and ask for sex. Why? Because it's not safe and because that brands a woman as a slvt, [email protected], etc. Usually even by the very man who might take her up on it. It does not matter if she is drop dead gorgeous, average or below average in looks.
> 
> However if a man asks a woman that he does not know for sex and she agrees, it's not as dangerous for him. He is not branded like a woman is.
> 
> Then add to it that according to the quoted study, men do not actually like it when a woman makes the advances... regardless of what is said by some.


Ok again how is the original question being spun here!?


The question is it easier for th average woman to get laid than average man. Not about how it appears. Not about labeling or what is thought of the guy or the girl just who can make it happen and make it happen faster. Not about who's approaching and cultural stigma about it.

1-10 scale with average 5

Man walks into a bar and shouts " looking to get laid any takers". Not likely to be take up on that

Average woman does exact same and you don't think they have a much better chance of some guy going "yep that's me"?


----------



## MountainRunner

EleGirl said:


> Let's face it, few women just go up to men that they do not know and ask for sex. Why? Because it's not safe and because that brands a woman as a slvt, [email protected], etc. Usually even by the very man who might take her up on it. It does not matter if she is drop dead gorgeous, average or below average in looks.
> 
> However if a man asks a woman that he does not know for sex and she agrees, it's not as dangerous for him. He is not branded like a woman is.
> 
> *Then add to it that according to the quoted study, men do not actually like it when a woman makes the advances... regardless of what is said by some.*


I've been approached by more than a few and have always found it refreshing (we'll conveniently disregard that one woman in that nightclub in Dallas where things got a bit too...umm..."steamy" out on the dance floor after multiple shots of Jagermeister though...LOL!). That being said, your post got me thinking. All of my long term relationships (anything lasting from one to ten years) have been with partners that I have pursued and most of my trysts (ONS to short term relationships and whatnot) have involved women who approached me initially.


----------



## Thundarr

technovelist said:


> I can't believe this is even a question, but apparently there is at least one woman who thinks it is.
> 
> Go for it!


If you mean LAID RIGHT NOW BY A RANDOM STRANGER then no she doesn't. But average men have no problems getting laid.


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yep. *My H had honestly never tried to get a girl, they just all came to him. He's not a super model or rich and IS an introvert FTR. They just walk right up, even if I'm there. Waitresses come to sit in the booth with him *
> 
> Me, I'd have to put in some effort. I'm shy, quiet and average meaning I just don't get noticed either way. It takes some time. That's ok.
> I guess I never learned how to use my magic vagina power to render men useless.


This sounds similar to my wife and I. It is surprising sometimes how brazen some women are right in front of my wife.


----------



## MountainRunner

samyeagar said:


> It is surprising sometimes how brazen some women are right in front of my wife.


There are some very bold women out there that have no problems expressing "interest" even in light of a partner right there while they're doing it. Quite disrespectful if you ask me. to be honest, we know a couple from back East. They were out on the West Coast a few years back as we were all attending a catered event. This was the first time we (my wife and I) met our friend's wife for the first time. At one point during the event, we were all listening to the music and drinking when our friend's wife began "touching" me (squeezing my arm) and saying stuff like "You work out, don't you?"

Given my past behavior, one would think that I might have jumped at that opportunity, but truth be told...It was a rather awkward and unpleasant moment. My wife and I just had a conversation about that incident because, she is still friends with her on FB and we've seen them a few times since. I told her that I'm rather surprised that she remains friends with a woman who did that to me.


----------



## tech-novelist

Thundarr said:


> If you mean LAID RIGHT NOW BY A RANDOM STRANGER then no she doesn't. But average men have no problems getting laid.


Apparently they have so few problems getting laid that there is no such thing as involuntary celibacy, at least according to wikipedia, which we know is very fair and would never worry about political correctness. Right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_celibacy

I wonder why they deleted this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Valoem/Involuntary_celibacy

Surely there must be a good reason!


----------



## Thundarr

Guys, imagine that we liked sex but being judged was a big deal for us. By being judged what I mean is that we are looked down on by women who we would like to have a relationship with. What would we do? I would probably look for someone I knew would keep quite about it. That's exactly what I think many women do because they don't want to be judged.

So if you're an average guy wanting action then kiss and DON'T tell. Ironically enough the women you kissed will tell and then poof you're the safe guy who is in high demand.


----------



## Thundarr

technovelist said:


> Apparently they have so few problems getting laid that there is no such thing as involuntary celibacy, at least according to wikipedia, which we know is very fair and would never worry about political correctness. Right?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_celibacy
> 
> I wonder why they deleted this:
> User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Surely there must be a good reason!


I like most of what I read on wikipedia but no matter. Women are judged and men are not so it's risk/reward psychology. An average looking single woman would be happy to get busy with an average looking man if we take the judgement out of it IMO.


----------



## soccermom2three

There's a coworker of my husband, he's divorced, mid 50's, overweight and has no trouble with the ladies. He's very charming. He generally dates women in their 40's to around his age. Anyway, he told my husband that he has no problems getting laid. He's said at their age everyone, men and women, are over the whole waiting for three dates or until the relationship is serious. It's like they don't have time for that. Pretty much after dinner and drinks, they just look at each other and say "your house or mine".


----------



## MountainRunner

soccermom2three said:


> There's a coworker of my husband, he's divorced, mid 50's, overweight and has no trouble with the ladies. He's very charming. He generally dates women in their 40's to around his age. Anyway, he told my husband that he has no problems getting laid. *He's said at their age everyone, men and women, are over the whole waiting for three dates or until the relationship is serious. It's like they don't have time for that. Pretty much after dinner and drinks, they just look at each other and say "your house or mine".*


LOL! My wife and I were in a long distance relationship for 6 months before we ever met. She was in SoCal and I in norCal. Our first chance to meet was when I was taking the kids on a dive trip to Bali and we had a layover in LAX, so we agreed to meet up during the 1.5 hour layover.

We humped liked bunnies in heat in the parking garage at LAX...LMAO!


----------



## tech-novelist

soccermom2three said:


> There's a coworker of my husband, he's divorced, mid 50's, overweight and has no trouble with the ladies. He's very charming. He generally dates women in their 40's to around his age. Anyway, he told my husband that he has no problems getting laid. He's said at their age everyone, men and women, are over the whole waiting for three dates or until the relationship is serious. It's like they don't have time for that. Pretty much after dinner and drinks, they just look at each other and say "your house or mine".


I don't have too much trouble believing that for men in their 50's, since by that time the women they meet (in their 40's and older) have lost the immense sexual power advantage they had earlier in life.

However, if you are an average male in your 20's or early 30's, you will have tremendous difficulty finding any woman of even average attractiveness interested in having sex with you. The reverse is not true, however; average 20-30 year old women have no problem finding sex partners of above average attractiveness.

Of course, this doesn't apply to "rebels" (i.e., thugs), who don't have any trouble attracting women. Even (especially) serial killers get thousands of "love letters" from women, whereas the average law-abiding man can't get the time of day. This means that the average male spends roughly 15-20 years in a sexual desert, while seeing thugs and some "naturals" swimming in a sea of female attention. Is it any wonder that some of the average males become bitter about women?

Again, I'm fortunate in that even though I'm of average height and no special attractiveness, I've had significantly more than the median number of sex partners, albeit with some long dry spells. But that doesn't mean I don't know how it is for most men.


----------



## Holland

technovelist said:


> I don't have too much trouble believing that for men in their 50's, since by that time the women they meet (in their 40's and older) have lost the immense sexual power advantage they had earlier in life.
> 
> .....................


Have you been out into the world lately? I have for more sexual power in my 40's than ever before. Confident, sexy women in their 40's tend to have lots of sexual power.


----------



## soccermom2three

Why do you assume they've lost sexual power? Obviously, they still have it because men still want to have sex with them. Maybe older women are just horny and over the game playing and acting coy.

ETA: Also, I think there's a misunderstanding that these women actually want to get married again. Most of the women I know do not.


----------



## gouge_away

I get approached (for sex) by more men than women, this has been the case my whole life.

I am a straight male.


----------



## RandomDude

Flower boy are ya? Ha!


----------



## gouge_away

I attract the big bear types


----------



## Wolf1974

Holland said:


> Have you been out into the world lately? I have for more sexual power in my 40's than ever before. Confident, sexy women in their 40's tend to have lots of sexual power.


Yes they do and not afraid to approach or get what they want. Ridiculous those who are saying otherwise.


----------



## EleGirl

MountainRunner said:


> I've been approached by more than a few and have always found it refreshing (we'll conveniently disregard that one woman in that nightclub in Dallas where things got a bit too...umm..."steamy" out on the dance floor after multiple shots of Jagermeister though...LOL!). That being said, your post got me thinking. All of my long term relationships (anything lasting from one to ten years) have been with partners that I have pursued and most of my trysts (ONS to short term relationships and whatnot) have involved women who approached me initially.


Note that I was saying that the study that was linked to said that.

What you are saying here about your long-term vs ONS-short-term relationships is exactly what is said in "Men Are From Mars, Women are From Venus"... when a woman makes the first move men do not see her as relationship potential. According to the book a woman can let a guy know that she's interested with a coy/come-on look (very brief look). But she needs to let the guy make the advance. I she makes the advance.


----------



## Fozzy

technovelist said:


> Yes, _some_ men have no trouble finding female sex partners. Those men are called "alphas", and they account for at most 20% of the male population. The other 80+% have from some to a great deal of trouble finding female sex partners.
> 
> *The fact that some women think that "men" have no trouble finding female sex partners is an example of the "apex fallacy", in which the characteristics of a small subset of a population (in this case, alpha males) are attributed to all members of the population (in this case, males*).


Is it possible that the apex fallacy is at work with the assumption that all women can get laid with ease? Couldn't it just as easily be said that the most attractive 20% of women are making it seem like all women can have sex willy-nilly?


----------



## RandomDude

gouge_away said:


> I attract the big bear types


:rofl:


----------



## Fozzy

gouge_away said:


> I attract the big bear types


Hey there.


----------



## Ikaika

If I've been hit on, I'm clueless, but I seriously doubt it. All my "getting laid experiences" has been me in the pursuit mode (all before I got married). My batting average was maybe 0.25. I never thought that to be a trouble or a problem. There are lots of reasons not to bat 1.000, not always me, but I'm sure *not *being born gods gift to women might have something to do with it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

soccermom2three said:


> There's a coworker of my husband, he's divorced, mid 50's, overweight and has no trouble with the ladies. He's very charming. He generally dates women in their 40's to around his age. Anyway, he told my husband that he has no problems getting laid. He's said at their age everyone, men and women, are over the whole waiting for three dates or until the relationship is serious. It's like they don't have time for that. Pretty much after dinner and drinks, they just look at each other and say "your house or mine".


Everyone can find someone to get it on with if that is their goal. 

But - you can also find someone who doesn't want that, who wants to go slow, or even not have sex at all. 

The world is full of sex if you want it, though. If that has never really been your goal, you may not have realized it. People for whom sex is a goal are on the lookout for it though, and they find each other.

This has been true all throughout history because having sex is something all animals do naturally. It will happen and has always happened. Men chasing and women as gate keepers is just one way our dynamic manifested due to the choices we made along the way. It was different than that at other times.

If women can have sex safely and free from pregnancy, disease, and being given a bad reputation, they will do so in far greater numbers than some guys assume. It is not our "nature" to be gatekeepers, it is forced upon us. Some women simply reject that role and do as they choose...which is sometimes sex a la carte.

Which reminds me of this lovely gem of a movie...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5megJgs48vI

Great date movie! Makes ya horny.


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> I don't have too much trouble believing that for men in their 50's, since by that time the women they meet (in their 40's and older) have lost the immense sexual power advantage they had earlier in life.


You just have a need to insult women, don’t you? Good grief. 


technovelist said:


> However, if you are an average male in your 20's or early 30's, you will have tremendous difficulty finding any woman of even average attractiveness interested in having sex with you. The reverse is not true, however; average 20-30 year old women have no problem finding sex partners of above average attractiveness.


Really? I have two sons and a daughter. They are now 25, 26 and 28. My house is grand central station. They can their friends hang out here constantly. I know what’s doing what because they are all open with me. Believe me my sons and their male friends are having no trouble finding absolutely beautiful women 20/30 years old women to have sexual relationships with.



technovelist said:


> Of course, this doesn't apply to "rebels" (i.e., thugs), who don't have any trouble attracting women. Even (especially) serial killers get thousands of "love letters" from women, whereas the average law-abiding man can't get the time of day. This means that the average male spends roughly 15-20 years in a sexual desert, while seeing thugs and some "naturals" swimming in a sea of female attention. Is it any wonder that some of the average males become bitter about women?


You are wrong that only “rebels” (thugs) attract women. My sons and their friends (to include my daughter’s friends) are not “rebels” and “thugs”. My son has a double BS in Physics and Applied Mathematics. He’s working on an MS in Physics now. My other son is a Vet. Their friends are in the military (some officers, some enlisted). Some are engineers, nurses, doctors, and so forth. They are not thugs, they are solid, hardworking young men. And they have no problem with finding good women.

Not sure why you have such a need to put down young men either.


technovelist said:


> Again, I'm fortunate in that even though I'm of average height and no special attractiveness, I've had significantly more than the median number of sex partners, albeit with some long dry spells. But that doesn't mean I don't know how it is for most men.



:scratchhead:


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Ok again how is the original question being spun here!?
> 
> 
> The question is it easier for th average woman to get laid than average man. Not about how it appears. Not about labeling or what is thought of the guy or the girl just who can make it happen and make it happen faster. Not about who's approaching and cultural stigma about it.
> 
> 1-10 scale with average 5
> 
> Man walks into a bar and shouts " looking to get laid any takers". Not likely to be take up on that
> 
> Average woman does exact same and you don't think they have a much better chance of some guy going "yep that's me"?


In the unreal world where either a man or a woman walks into a bar and shouts "looking to get laid any takers", your guess is as good as mine as to the outcome. If there are any takers they are probably not someone either would want sex with.

The reason I asked the question is that when I was much younger and doing more of the party scene, very often guys paid very little attention to the women.

My friends and I were more along the 8-10 range. Even if there were only 2 of us, we could be there for a long time with one approaching. So we start walking up to guys and flirting. The results were usually that the guys were too interested in drinking with their friends.

Sure there were times when some guy would try to pick up on one of us. But there were as many or more times when most of the guys in the place were not interested.

So short of standing on a table and yelling "who wants to fvck??!!" I don't get where this great advantage comes in.


----------



## AlternateUniverse

I believe there was a survey of sorts where average, decent looking people 1 Guy and 1 Girl. They each went out asking the opposite sex person on the street if they would be willinng to have sex with them. Out of 100 women the guy had a 0 out of 100 say yes. I dont remember the exact number, but the Girl had something like 98 out of 100 say yes.

I have always observed that a woman has no trouble getting a decent/average looking partner for sex any time they want and men have trouble even if their standards are low. Men are naturally aroused as women typically have to be/get aroused.

Opinions will probably differ, but I will stick by my observations.

AU


----------



## EleGirl

gouge_away said:


> I get approached (for sex) by more men than women, this has been the case my whole life.
> 
> I am a straight male.


One of my brothers had this problem. It started when he was in 9th grade and only stopped recently. He's in his 60's and in poor heath now.

He's hetero too.


----------



## Holland

technovelist said:


> I don't know where you got that implication, but it wasn't from my original question.
> 
> *Yes, some men have no trouble finding female sex partners. Those men are called "alphas", and they account for at most 20% of the male population. The other 80+% have from some to a great deal of trouble finding female sex partners.
> 
> The fact that some women think that "men" have no trouble finding female sex partners is an example of the "apex fallacy", in which the characteristics of a small subset of a population (in this case, alpha males) are attributed to all members of the population (in this case, males).*


The maths just seems wrong. Pretty much for every woman having hetro sex, there is an equivalent number of men. Unless you think that 20% of men do nothing else all day but root a variety of different women. 

This is the sort of stuff that bitter people start to spout and believe.


----------



## EleGirl

AlternateUniverse said:


> I believe there was a survey of sorts where average, decent looking people 1 Guy and 1 Girl. They each went out asking the opposite sex person on the street if they would be willinng to have sex with them. Out of 100 women the guy had a 0 out of 100 say yes. I dont remember the exact number, but the Girl had something like 98 out of 100 say yes.
> 
> I have always observed that a woman has no trouble getting a decent/average looking partner for sex any time they want and men have trouble even if their standards are low. Men are naturally aroused as women typically have to be/get aroused.
> 
> Opinions will probably differ, but I will stick by my observations.
> 
> AU


Is there a video?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Its a silly question. A man or woman could go on the internet and quickly find someone to have sex with them for money.

OK, if you don't allow money, I suspect most men or women could quickly find a partner if they have absolutely no standards about who they are looking for. 

Maybe the real question is can a man find a woman that he desires to have sex with him, more easily than a woman can do the same. I think you can argue that (for heterosexuals) these numbers must be the same......


I do understand the feeling. I remember thinking that it seemed so easy for women to get sex. What I really meant was that it would be so easy for women I found attractive to get sex by asking *ME*.


----------



## EleGirl

Asking 100 men for sex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBtF3I7fDfU

Asking 100 women for sex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxyySRgrYsU


----------



## Faithful Wife

She only got 30 out of 100...and I bet more than half of those 30 would NOT have actually gone and had sex with her, most would have still been thinking it was a joke and bailed if it got real. I didn't watch all of them (they are both long) but I loved at one point in the middle, an old man shames her for asking such a question. And it is kind of sad, because I don't blame him, he thinks she must be in some kind of danger in order to be asking him if he wants to have sex with her. Yet time and again we hear old men will jump on any young thang given the hint of an opportunity. There was an old guy toward the beginning who did kind of jump on her though, and grabbed her by the shoulders! 

Fascinating.


----------



## Ikaika

Faithful Wife said:


> She only got 30 out of 100...and I bet more than half of those 30 would NOT have actually gone and had sex with her, most would have still been thinking it was a joke and bailed if it got real. I didn't watch all of them (they are both long) but I loved at one point in the middle, an old man shames her for asking such a question. And it is kind of sad, because I don't blame him, he thinks she must be in some kind of danger in order to be asking him if he wants to have sex with her. Yet time and again we hear old men will jump on any young thang given the hint of an opportunity. There was an old guy toward the beginning who did kind of jump on her though, and grabbed her by the shoulders!
> 
> Fascinating.



I am a very suspicious person, I would have turned her down. She is beautiful, but the approach would have put me on high alert.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It did to 70% of those guys, too.


----------



## Mostlycontent

EleGirl said:


> Asking 100 men for sex
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBtF3I7fDfU
> 
> Asking 100 women for sex
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxyySRgrYsU



The problem with these videos is that the situations and circumstances aren't credible. If you took that girl and put her in any nightclub on a Friday night, her responses would have been virtually 100% positive.

You add alcohol, social atmosphere and party mindset to the equation and your answers would differ greatly. Most men in the Friday night club environment are looking to get laid but not when they're walking down the street in broad daylight, perhaps even during working hours.

I don't think it proves a thing.


----------



## optimalprimus

Thundarr said:


> Guys, imagine that we liked sex but being judged was a big deal for us. By being judged what I mean is that we are looked down on by women who we would like to have a relationship with. What would we do? I would probably look for someone I knew would keep quite about it. That's exactly what I think many women do because they don't want to be judged.
> 
> So if you're an average guy wanting action then kiss and DON'T tell. Ironically enough the women you kissed will tell and then poof you're the safe guy who is in high demand.


If this was true, the internet would be chocka with women looking to have cam or real life sex with strangers.

But I'm pretty sure there are more men who do this too, as well as more men approaching women in RL.

I know women like sex but a few false equivalencies are being forced here.


----------



## EleGirl

optimalprimus said:


> If this was true, the internet would be chocka with women looking to have cam or real life sex with strangers.


He internet is not a place of kiss and do not tell. Once videos, images and text is captured electronically it can be distributed all over the world and often is. 


optimalprimus said:


> But I'm pretty sure there are more men who do this too, as well as more men approaching women in RL.


Sure there are more men doing these thing online because it’s an extension of a sex industry that has existed since the dawn of time. While ‘good’ women were told that women do not enjoy sex, men were free to seek out all kinds sex with lower class women on the side. 

This conditioning that women who are very sexual and forward are slvts and [email protected] is still very much a part of our society. Most of the time, if a woman approaches a man she is seen as someone he can use but a ‘bad woman’. Most women are not going to put themselves in a position what allows themselves to be labeled and thus mistreated.

If men was more casual sex with women, they are going to have to accept that women who want casual sex are no different than they are. The women are not slvts/[email protected] and all that other nonsense.


optimalprimus said:


> I know women like sex but a few false equivalencies are being forced here.


Hardly. Most women love sex and want a lot of it. 

But most are careful because of the danger they put themselves into with casual sex and the social stigma that leads to slvt shaming.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> In the unreal world where either a man or a woman walks into a bar and shouts "looking to get laid any takers", your guess is as good as mine as to the outcome. If there are any takers they are probably not someone either would want sex with.
> 
> The reason I asked the question is that when I was much younger and doing more of the party scene, very often guys paid very little attention to the women.
> 
> My friends and I were more along the 8-10 range. Even if there were only 2 of us, we could be there for a long time with one approaching. So we start walking up to guys and flirting. The results were usually that the guys were too interested in drinking with their friends.
> 
> Sure there were times when some guy would try to pick up on one of us. But there were as many or more times when most of the guys in the place were not interested.
> 
> So short of standing on a table and yelling "who wants to fvck??!!" *I don't get where this great advantage comes in.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> i never stated it was an advantage I was answering the question that is a woman want to find sex randomly it's easier for her to accomplish than same guy of average caliber. I don't have a single female friend who doesn't agree with this.
> 
> This doesn't mean that women want to or that it's safe to. Or that with some people are going to be looked down for doing so. But none of that was the question. The question was only about finding sex and who can accomplish that task quicker. So again my female friends wouldn't do this for safety concerns but they at least recognize they could if they wanted to.
> 
> The discussion of how many women are successful for approaching men for dating or picking them up is a different but equally interesting topic I would love to participate in. And if that was the purpose of this thread then the question originally was worded very poorly.


----------



## always_alone

Ikaika said:


> I am a very suspicious person, I would have turned her down. She is beautiful, but the approach would have put me on high alert.





Faithful Wife said:


> It did to 70% of those guys, too.


Well, and this is both smart and normal isn't it?

I mean, I wouldn't accept a random proposition off the street, like ever. But it says nothing about how much I like or don't like sex, and everything about what sort of "crazy" I don't want to find myself tangled up with. 

I agree with FW. A lot of guys *think* they would say yes to anyone, but that's only because they are envisioning a fantasy scenario. When push comes to shove, most would be a lot smarter than all of that.


----------



## tech-novelist

Holland said:


> Have you been out into the world lately? I have for more sexual power in my 40's than ever before. Confident, sexy women in their 40's tend to have lots of sexual power.


I think you have missed a word, namely "advantage". Young women have an immense sexual power ADVANTAGE over young men, whereas older women do not have a corresponding advantage over older men.


----------



## tech-novelist

Fozzy said:


> Is it possible that the apex fallacy is at work with the assumption that all women can get laid with ease? Couldn't it just as easily be said that the most attractive 20% of women are making it seem like all women can have sex willy-nilly?


No. Most men find most women attractive, whereas most women find most men unattractive.


----------



## tech-novelist

AlternateUniverse said:


> I believe there was a survey of sorts where average, decent looking people 1 Guy and 1 Girl. They each went out asking the opposite sex person on the street if they would be willinng to have sex with them. Out of 100 women the guy had a 0 out of 100 say yes. I dont remember the exact number, but the Girl had something like 98 out of 100 say yes.
> 
> I have always observed that a woman has no trouble getting a decent/average looking partner for sex any time they want and men have trouble even if their standards are low. Men are naturally aroused as women typically have to be/get aroused.
> 
> Opinions will probably differ, but I will stick by my observations.
> 
> AU


Yes, that is correct, and is precisely what I was referring to.


----------



## tech-novelist

Holland said:


> The maths just seems wrong. Pretty much for every woman having hetro sex, there is an equivalent number of men. Unless you think that 20% of men do nothing else all day but root a variety of different women.
> 
> This is the sort of stuff that bitter people start to spout and believe.


There is no mathematical problem. About 20% of the men can easily have almost all of the sex. Let's do an example to clarify how this can be possible:

Guy A has sex with four different women every week.

Guys B through E have sex with no one.

What is the problem mathematically? I don't see it.


----------



## tech-novelist

optimalprimus said:


> If this was true, the internet would be chocka with women looking to have cam or real life sex with strangers.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure there are more men who do this too, as well as more men approaching women in RL.
> 
> I know women like sex but a few false equivalencies are being forced here.


No one has said that women don't like sex. They do.
The issue is that most women don't find most men attractive, whereas most men find most women attractive. For that reason alone, most women will have less trouble finding a partner than most men will.

This is also the reason why almost all prostitution consists of males paying females for sex.

This isn't rocket science, people.


----------



## Fozzy

Ikaika said:


> I am a very suspicious person, I would have turned her down. She is beautiful, but the approach would have put me on high alert.


Same here. Some random good looking woman walks up to me and wants to have sex--I'm going to transfer my wallet to my front pocket.

As much as I'd want to be flattered--I just can't accept that it would be for real.


----------



## Fozzy

technovelist said:


> No one has said that women don't like sex. They do.
> The issue is that most women don't find most men attractive, *whereas most men find most women attractive*. For that reason alone, most women will have less trouble finding a partner than most men will.
> 
> This is also the reason why almost all prostitution consists of males paying females for sex.
> 
> This isn't rocket science, people.


I think the bolded part is highly subjective and depends on where you live, where you work, what social circles you run in, etc.

I work with a LOT of women. I find a very small percentage of them attractive.


----------



## lifeisbetterthanalternat

I think allot of this recent phenominon is based upon the difficulty of meeting men. When I think this really means is "available" or "desirable men". The other thing to keep in mind is that there is a subset of the younger male population that cannot socially relate to women and to some extent remove themselves from the club/bar scene or pool that women would reasonable want to be with. 

When I was younger I was in hunter mode and would jump on anything as I matured/ and worked out more I found it easier to get women. After a while there was less "hunt" and enduring the painful next morning knowing that I would not want to see the women again was sadening for me. It still did not stop me from wanting to go for the "challenge" of getting another women. 

I think that we are getting responses from people who like to be different or to brag about themselves and their spouses. The only men I have seen (myself and others) that are hit on regularly the was some explain, above average for sure. Se we are not getting a true representation of the male population. We can see this point when when so many men or their wives report with statistically contradicting frequency (here on TAM) how their husband's penis is above average. 

I also would be curious to know where these men live that are having women throw themselves at them. I think that there are "male shortage" markets which can account for these. 

The other thing I would point out is that most men recognize that sex has strings. I would think in order for a no-strings offer to really hold true, that it would need to be in a vacation area where there would not be the after-sex hassle. 

I also believe (though not scientific) is that there is a subset of the female population that is wildly sexually active. I have encountered these women. This could explain the median/mean difference of # of partners.


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeisbetterthanalternat said:


> I think allot of this recent phenominon is based upon the difficulty of meeting men. When I think this really means is "available" or "desirable men". The other thing to keep in mind is that there is a subset of the younger male population that cannot socially relate to women and to some extent remove themselves from the club/bar scene or pool that women would reasonable want to be with.
> 
> When I was younger I was in hunter mode and would jump on anything as I matured/ and worked out more I found it easier to get women. After a while there was less "hunt" and enduring the painful next morning knowing that I would not want to see the women again was sadening for me. It still did not stop me from wanting to go for the "challenge" of getting another women.
> 
> I think that we are getting responses from people who like to be different or to brag about themselves and their spouses. The only men I have seen (myself and others) that are hit on regularly the was some explain, above average for sure. Se we are not getting a true representation of the male population. We can see this point when when so many men or their wives report with statistically contradicting frequency (here on TAM) how their husband's penis is above average.
> 
> I also would be curious to know where these men live that are having women throw themselves at them. I think that there are "male shortage" markets which can account for these.
> 
> The other thing I would point out is that most men recognize that sex has strings. I would think in order for a no-strings offer to really hold true, that it would need to be in a vacation area where there would not be the after-sex hassle.
> 
> I also believe (though not scientific) is that there is a subset of the female population that is wildly sexually active. I have encountered these women. This could explain the median/mean difference of # of partners.


Actually, it is the reverse, that is, the median and mean are farther apart for men than for women. It is a subset of men who have a LOT of sex partners while most men have few or none. Women have a smaller spread. 

Now get your mind out of the gutter!


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Actually, it is the reverse, that is, the median and mean are farther apart for men than for women. It is a subset of men who have a LOT of sex partners while most men have few or none. Women have a smaller spread.
> 
> Now get your mind out of the gutter!


Do you have any data to back up that assertion? Or is just what you happen to believe is true?

I personally know women who have had hundreds of partners, and women who have had but one. That seems to be a pretty big spread to me.


----------



## Tubbalard

Good question. But its really not even up for debate. Average woman can get laid faster than the average man. Anyone can go test this theory. You can catfish up a profile online, hit up a club/bar, or at a block party. Women usually have more options thus more selective.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

I think there is an apex fallacy going in both directions on this one.

Unattractive people are basically invisible to both sexes.

For men:

Do you ever take public transportation or go to the DMV to register your car or whatever? Are you seriously saying you would hit it with the average woman on the bus?

For women:

Do you honestly believe the average man can have sex whenever he wants? Have you SEEN the average man on the bus? Do you think he is drowning in p-ssy?

The truth is, in our heads, when we thinking of f-ing, we imagine f-ing ATTRACTIVE people. OF COURSE those people are going to be attractive to others as well. THEY are mystified by this assertion that having sex is something some people struggle at.

Now, if you accept this, then the next level of inquiry is whether, on average, women are more attractive than men.

Because if there is a mismatch, then you're going to have a supply/demand issue.

Personally, I don't think there is much of a mismatch these days. But then again, my views are primarily shaped by how often I take public transportation.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Do you have any data to back up that assertion? Or is just what you happen to believe is true?
> 
> I personally know women who have had hundreds of partners, and women who have had but one. That seems to be a pretty big spread to me.


Here's the data from the CDC. It shows that while only 9.2% of women have had 15 or more sex partners, 23.2% of men have had 15 or more sex partners. On the other end, while 31.1% of women have had 0 or 1 partner, 22% of men have had that number of partners. Overall, the curve seems to be flatter for women than for men, but I haven't calculated the standard deviation.

Of course, it is also known that both men and women lie about the number of sex partners they have had, with men tending to exaggerate and women tending to minimize that number. Do you need a reference for that too?

All
females
aged
15–44
years

0:
8.6
1:
22.5
2:
10.8
3-6:
32.6
7-14:
16.3
15 or more:
9.2

median: 3.3

All males aged 15-44
0:
9.6
1:
12.5
2:
8.0
3-6:
27.2
7-14:
19.5
15 or more:
23.2
median:
5.6


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon1111 said:


> I think there is an apex fallacy going in both directions on this one.
> 
> Unattractive people are basically invisible to both sexes.
> 
> For men:
> 
> Do you ever take public transportation or go to the DMV to register your car or whatever? Are you seriously saying you would hit it with the average woman on the bus?
> 
> For women:
> 
> Do you honestly believe the average man can have sex whenever he wants? Have you SEEN the average man on the bus? Do you think he is drowning in p-ssy?
> 
> The truth is, in our heads, when we thinking of f-ing, we imagine f-ing ATTRACTIVE people. OF COURSE those people are going to be attractive to others as well. THEY are mystified by this assertion that having sex is something some people struggle at.
> 
> Now, if you accept this, then the next level of inquiry is whether, on average, women are more attractive than men.
> 
> Because if there is a mismatch, then you're going to have a supply/demand issue.
> 
> Personally, I don't think there is much of a mismatch these days. But then again, my views are primarily shaped by how often I take public transportation.


The average woman on ******* rates 80% of men as below average in attractiveness: "As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium." (from Your Looks and Your Inbox Â« OkTrends)

whereas the reverse is not true: " a woman is as likely to be considered extremely ugly as extremely beautiful, and the majority of women have been rated about “medium." (from the same page).

I guess it's possible that the men on ******* really are horrible-looking on average. But it's easier to believe that women are pickier, especially since that 80% figure seems to crop up a lot in similar situations.


----------



## Ikaika

technovelist said:


> Here's the data from the CDC. It shows that while only 9.2% of women have had 15 or more sex partners, 23.2% of men have had 15 or more sex partners. On the other end, while 31.1% of women have had 0 or 1 partner, 22% of men have had that number of partners. Overall, the curve seems to be flatter for women than for men, but I haven't calculated the standard deviation.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it is also known that both men and women lie about the number of sex partners they have had, with men tending to exaggerate and women tending to minimize that number. Do you need a reference for that too?
> 
> 
> 
> All
> 
> females
> 
> aged
> 
> 15–44
> 
> years
> 
> 
> 
> 0:
> 
> 8.6
> 
> 1:
> 
> 22.5
> 
> 2:
> 
> 10.8
> 
> 3-6:
> 
> 32.6
> 
> 7-14:
> 
> 16.3
> 
> 15 or more:
> 
> 9.2
> 
> 
> 
> median: 3.3
> 
> 
> 
> All males aged 15-44
> 
> 0:
> 
> 9.6
> 
> 1:
> 
> 12.5
> 
> 2:
> 
> 8.0
> 
> 3-6:
> 
> 27.2
> 
> 7-14:
> 
> 19.5
> 
> 15 or more:
> 
> 23.2
> 
> median:
> 
> 5.6



http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf


----------



## Tubbalard

If you're living in a high dense urban area with professionals, taking the bus for commuter purposes, the averages go up. If the area is based on people riding the bus because they're unable to afford transportation then most likely the average in attraction drops.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon1111 said:


> Do you honestly believe the average man can have sex whenever he wants? Have you SEEN the average man on the bus? Do you think he is drowning in p-ssy?
> 
> The truth is, in our heads, when we thinking of f-ing, we imagine f-ing ATTRACTIVE people. OF COURSE those people are going to be attractive to others as well. THEY are mystified by this assertion that having sex is something some people struggle at.


But what you are missing is that "average" people are getting it on with each other, without complaint.

Everybody wants some.


----------



## Anon1111

technovelist said:


> The average woman on ******* rates 80% of men as below average in attractiveness: "As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium." (from Your Looks and Your Inbox Â« OkTrends)
> 
> whereas the reverse is not true: " a woman is as likely to be considered extremely ugly as extremely beautiful, and the majority of women have been rated about “medium." (from the same page).
> 
> I guess it's possible that the men on ******* really are horrible-looking on average. But it's easier to believe that women are pickier, especially since that 80% figure seems to crop up a lot in similar situations.


Here's my reaction to this. I think there are two distinct things going on.

*1. risk adjusted return issue*

There's no "scary" element of casual sex for men. The potential downside isn't nearly as bad as it is for women.

So men are more willing to "take a chance" on a woman who is borderline attractive.

*2. Soft Factors issue*

Attractiveness for women is more generally driven by "soft factors" that can't be easily identified on an internet profile (e.g., confidence).

In general, I agree with you that there is a "dominant male" phenomenon among humans, but I do not think that statistics such as this are fully explained by that.


----------



## Anon1111

Tubbalard said:


> If you're living in a high dense urban area with professionals, taking the bus for commuter purposes, the averages go up. If the area is based on people riding the bus because they're unable to afford transportation then most likely the average in attraction drops.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


the average person I see commuting in my urban area is an overweight, late middle aged zombie.

there are some hotties mixed in, but if you really add it up, they are easily less than 10% of the population.

As Seinfeld said, 95% of the population is undateable.


----------



## SamuraiJack

Ikaika said:


> I am a very suspicious person, I would have turned her down. She is beautiful, but the approach would have put me on high alert.


This is a great way to get rolled and then have your clothes, wallet and jewelry taken...


----------



## SamuraiJack

Faithful Wife said:


> But what you are missing is that "average" people are getting it on with each other, without complaint.
> 
> Everybody wants some.


I want some too...


----------



## Tubbalard

Anon1111 said:


> the average person I see commuting in my urban area is an overweight, late middle aged zombie.
> 
> there are some hotties mixed in, but if you really add it up, they are easily less than 10% of the population.
> 
> As Seinfeld said, 95% of the population is undateable.


Lol. so what do the people look like in the surrounding areas that aren't commuting?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111

Tubbalard said:


> Lol. so what do the people look like in the surrounding areas that aren't commuting?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Honestly, I think most of the hottest women don't work. Why would they?

Yes, there is the odd individual here and there that manages to derive pleasure from working the typical corporate drone existence, but most people who might have the option to skip that rationally will.

You are much more likely to see hot women at your local Whole Foods, yoga studio, mall, etc during the average weekday.


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon1111 said:


> Honestly, I think most of the hottest women don't work. Why would they?
> 
> Yes, there is the odd individual here and there that manages to derive pleasure from working the typical corporate drone existence, but most people who might have the option to skip that rationally will.
> 
> You are much more likely to see hot women at your local Whole Foods, yoga studio, mall, etc during the average weekday.


Recently I saw a pretty funny comedian on "Gotham Comedy Live" who said his favorite spectator sport was Pilates. :smthumbup:


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Anon1111 said:


> Honestly, I think most of the hottest women don't work. Why would they?
> 
> Yes, there is the odd individual here and there that manages to derive pleasure from working the typical corporate drone existence, but most people who might have the option to skip that rationally will.
> 
> You are much more likely to see hot women at your local Whole Foods, yoga studio, mall, etc during the average weekday.


Hot women work for the same reasons any woman works. 

I'm not even sure if this is more insulting to men or women at this point.....


----------



## Anon1111

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Hot women work for the same reasons any woman works.
> 
> I'm not even sure if this is more insulting to men or women at this point.....


Honestly, what is insulting about what I wrote?

Why do people generally work? For pleasure? If you stopped paying people, would the typical worker keep working?

Some people have such a high societal value that they don't need to work.

I guess that's sort of unfair, but I don't really see what is insulting about that observation.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Anon1111 said:


> Honestly, what is insulting about what I wrote?
> 
> Why do people generally work? For pleasure? If you stopped paying people, would the typical worker keep working?
> 
> Some people have such a high societal value that they don't need to work.
> 
> I guess that's sort of unfair, but I don't really see what is insulting about that observation.


Well it's insulting to assume most hot women are gold diggers who have no goals or independence outside of going to whole foods and yoga class. 

There are plenty of average looking (or worse) SAHWs and plenty of crazy hot working women. I do not see more of one than the other in either situation. 

Are there "I'm too hot to work" kinds of girls out there?- yes there are. Which is where it gets insulting to men that you think so many of them fell for it.


----------



## Marduk

Anon1111 said:


> Honestly, what is insulting about what I wrote?
> 
> Why do people generally work? For pleasure? If you stopped paying people, would the typical worker keep working?
> 
> Some people have such a high societal value that they don't need to work.
> 
> I guess that's sort of unfair, but I don't really see what is insulting about that observation.


Anon, I'm kinda with SGC on this one.

And I've had my eyes opened a bit by a hot, successful woman I work with.

I mean, everybody's got problems, but she's actually been shamed a bit by other women for a) being hot at all and b) for not letting some guy take care of her because she's hot and c) for not using her hotness to get ahead at work.

The point of the problem I think you're getting at is that we've all seen the 'trophy wife' phenomenon where hot girl marries successful guy and eats bon-bons.

Except than when you peer inside that, there's very little bon-bon eating going on. Everybody's got problems.

And lots of attractive women have ambition and desire to get ahead. And while with hot guys this seems to help them (being hot) with hot women it at times is another hill to climb. Because other women treat them differently, etc.

Hell, I've seen hot women not get hired for jobs they were the best candidate for just because they were hot and the hiring manager was a guy. And he didn't want to get fired or sued or whatever.


----------



## Marduk

Let me tell you a story.

A few years ago I roll into work. Stumble into the starbucks line for my first hit of go-juice.

In front of me is a drop dead gorgeous 40-something. Fit, classy clothing that's professional-sexy not ****ty-sexy, you know? Nice hair, good posture, all that.

Behind me are two 40-something women that let themselves go and then some. Overweight, bad hair, baggy out of date clothing.

And all these two were doing was cut down the woman ahead of me. Simply because she was in the workplace and hot. "she must be shopping for a VP husband." "I wonder if those are bought and paid for." Etc.

It got so bad I thought the woman ahead of me was going to cry. So I said something to the effect of "don't worry about these two, you should be proud of your appearance and that you know your way around a gym unlike them" or something. The two behind me shot me dirty looks because I interrupted their hot girl shame game, but the woman ahead of me brightened a bit.

It's a tough game where sometimes winning is losing for women I think.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I would love to see an experiment like that (not the stupid one that has been debunked several times now).


I find it very hard to believe that you live in the real world.

Nothing personal, but I really can't pay attention to anything you say, since we apparently live in different universes.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes women get rejected all the time. But men just don't believe us when we say we do.


So, you'd just need to hit on the next guy.


----------



## Anon1111

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well it's insulting to assume most hot women are gold diggers who have no goals or independence outside of going to whole foods and yoga class.


Not what I said.

Is it reassuring for you somehow to assume the worst possible intentions of those who don't agree with you?


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> So guys if a good looking women walks up to you and starts talking to you... do you just drop what you are doing and give her your attention?


I don't. But most other men I know would.


----------



## Buddy400

Thundarr said:


> If you mean LAID RIGHT NOW BY A RANDOM STRANGER then no she doesn't. But average men have no problems getting laid.


You need to talk to more average men.


----------



## Buddy400

soccermom2three said:


> There's a coworker of my husband, he's divorced, mid 50's, overweight and has no trouble with the ladies. He's very charming. He generally dates women in their 40's to around his age. Anyway, he told my husband that he has no problems getting laid. He's said at their age everyone, men and women, are over the whole waiting for three dates or until the relationship is serious. It's like they don't have time for that. Pretty much after dinner and drinks, they just look at each other and say "your house or mine".


That's true, in that environment. If you can get a date, you'll probably get laid. Then the problem becomes getting a date.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Anon1111 said:


> Not what I said.
> 
> Is it reassuring for you somehow to assume the worst possible intentions of those who don't agree with you?


Whatever your reason for saying that hot women don't work and you can find them at whole foods or yoga during the week, it's wrong and insulting and shows a misunderstood and stereotypical idea of women.


----------



## Marduk

I don't think this kind of thing is testable.

It's highly reliant on context, timing, and what you mean by 'average.'

Which I presume to be attractiveness.

Walking up to people on the street and propositioning sex is way, way different than in different contexts. For example, take a guy that strikes out a lot with women into a different context than normal - say a different country where his accent is cool, or in a place that allows him to be confident because he knows it well. 

Or take a girl that would never go and openly hit on a guy (or say yes to 'will you have sex with me') and send her to Vegas with a bunch of her party animal single girlfriends, and she might be more open to that, right?

So context counts for a lot. I think for women, having it be socially acceptible to openly proposition a guy without being shamed for it is huge. 

And remembering back to my junior high school dances, that's probably huge for some guys, too.

As for timing... well, are they single? Or does that matter to them? Are they 20 or are they 40? Is it broad daylight on a sunday morning or is it midnight saturday night? Etc. Timing counts for a lot.

As for 'attractiveness,' and this whole meme, for guys I've talked to that had trouble with women they always saw it as very easy for women. And it is... for hot women. Because they just pick from the potential suitors as they want.

But guess what, it's pretty much the same for hot guys. I have a happily married friend of a friend who's an ex model and he literally can't go to the pub without women lining up to talk to him. With his wife sitting right there. And I'm not joking, they line up single file.

And, if you've ever been hit on by a woman you're not attracted to and shut them down... man, it can crush them. It's hard for them, too.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> The world is full of sex if you want it, though. If that has never really been your goal, you may not have realized it. People for whom sex is a goal are on the lookout for it though, and they find each other.


Then all those Red Pill PUA guys who everybody tells me are pathetic losers that never score are actually getting all they want?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Then all those Red Pill PUA guys who everybody tells me are pathetic losers that never score are actually getting all they want?


You are the one calling them pathetic losers, which is mean. I never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that if you aren't a very sexual person, then other sexual people probably won't find you and you won't find them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Personal said:


> It's not always pubs and parties!


 Well I obviously forgot College and the ARMY...didn't I ! 



Personal said:


> During a playdate for my son who was 4 at the time, his friends mother (who I did find attractive) decided to show me her bedroom while she was rather scantily clad..., I love my wife so I turned her down.


 We've never had anything like this ever happen to us... No friend , acquaintance, ever proposition one of us like that while we were married.. It's just not something we have ever encountered...but we do hang in more conservative surroundings is all..


----------



## Mostlycontent

Tubbalard said:


> Lol. so what do the people look like in the surrounding areas that aren't commuting?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



the average people walking around day to day just aren't very attractive in my opinion. As an example, there are 65 homes in my neighborhood. There are only two women that live here that I would consider having sex with.....not date but just have sex with.

I live in a beach community too so one would think the average person would be more attractive but they just aren't. I think a lot of it is diet as I just don't find all of these young, overweight men and women to be even remotely attractive.

My wife and I are easily the most attractive people in our neighborhood and it's not even close. We're also about the median age as well. I guess my point is that most people just aren't attractive.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> You are the one calling them pathetic losers, which is mean. I never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> What I'm saying is that if you aren't a very sexual person, then other sexual people probably won't find you and you won't find them.


Well, I'll play this one out just to demonstrate how difficult it is for me to communicate with you (not saying that the ability to communicate with me is needed, desired or virtuous). 

"You are the one calling them pathetic losers, which is mean."

No, I didn't call them that. I said "....who many people say are...". I don't really have an opinion on them. I only mentioned that some people call them pathetic losers as a way of illustrating a group of men that are generally regarded as wanting sex with women but are unable to have their desires met.

For the purposes of the debate, they served as a proxy for "men that want sex". Your argument indicates that any man that wants sex can get it. So, to establish a starting point I selected a group of people known to "want sex with women". Then, addressing the question of whether members of such a group actually obtain sex with women, I referenced the generally held opinion that that this group of men, despite wanting sex with women, are not, in fact getting any.

Now, I suppose that in order to avoid giving ground, I assume that you are about to tell me that Red Pill Pickup Artists get "tons" of sex with women.....


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Let me tell you a story.
> 
> A few years ago I roll into work. Stumble into the starbucks line for my first hit of go-juice.
> 
> In front of me is a drop dead gorgeous 40-something. Fit, classy clothing that's professional-sexy not ****ty-sexy, you know? Nice hair, good posture, all that.
> 
> Behind me are two 40-something women that let themselves go and then some. Overweight, bad hair, baggy out of date clothing.
> 
> And all these two were doing was cut down the woman ahead of me. Simply because she was in the workplace and hot. "she must be shopping for a VP husband." "I wonder if those are bought and paid for." Etc.
> 
> It got so bad I thought the woman ahead of me was going to cry. So I said something to the effect of "don't worry about these two, you should be proud of your appearance and that you know your way around a gym unlike them" or something. The two behind me shot me dirty looks because I interrupted their hot girl shame game, but the woman ahead of me brightened a bit.
> 
> It's a tough game where sometimes winning is losing for women I think.


That is intrasexual competition. Women put other women in a list, and the ones ahead of them in the list are considered a threat. Obviously the higher a woman is on the list, the fewer woman are a threat to her.


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> Then all those Red Pill PUA guys who everybody tells me are pathetic losers that never score are actually getting all they want?


Obviously they must be lying! Why they would do that is a bit hard to understand though, since almost no one wants to admit failure in that department. :scratchhead:


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> That is intrasexual competition. Women put other women in a list, and the ones ahead of them in the list are considered a threat. Obviously the higher a woman is on the list, the fewer woman are a threat to her.


Oh, I get it. The female sexual hierarchy in action.

All I'm saying is to point out that this is a thing that a lot of guys don't get, and I didn't clue into until I was in my mid 30's was even a thing.

The thing is, even though these two women weren't a threat to this other woman looks-wise...

They still hurt her. And she probably takes that kind of abuse all the time.

Can you imagine being a guy, losing your gut and getting in shape, dressing sharp...

And have a significant fraction of the guys around you shame you for that?


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Oh, I get it. The female sexual hierarchy in action.
> 
> All I'm saying is to point out that this is a thing that a lot of guys don't get, and I didn't clue into until I was in my mid 30's was even a thing.
> 
> The thing is, even though these two women weren't a threat to this other woman looks-wise...
> 
> They still hurt her. And she probably takes that kind of abuse all the time.
> 
> Can you imagine being a guy, losing your gut and getting in shape, dressing sharp...
> 
> And have a significant fraction of the guys around you shame you for that?


That won't happen, though. Heterosexual males don't act that way; they are much more likely to congratulate another man for getting in shape. I think that's because the male sexual hierarchy isn't as dependent on looks as the female one is.


----------



## Anon1111

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Whatever your reason for saying that hot women don't work and you can find them at whole foods or yoga during the week, it's wrong and insulting and shows a misunderstood and stereotypical idea of women.


Again, not what I said. Your reading comprehension is lacking.


----------



## Anon1111

For the record, there are definitely hot women where I work. Both above me in rank and below me.

However, if I cruise around my local Whole Foods on a Tuesday afternoon, I am much more likely to see a higher percentage of hot women.

That's just what I see where I live and work.

That not me making some grand assessment of people's goals and values.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Buddy400 said:


> Your argument indicates that any man that wants sex can get it. So, to establish a starting point I selected a group of people known to "want sex with women". Then, addressing the question of whether members of such a group actually obtain sex with women, I referenced the generally held opinion that that this group of men, despite wanting sex with women, are not, in fact getting any.
> 
> Now, I suppose that in order to avoid giving ground, I assume that you are about to tell me that Red Pill Pickup Artists get "tons" of sex with women.....


Yes any man can "get sex", which is not the same as saying they DO get it, but they can. If a man wants to "get sex" and isn't getting any, he doesn't realize how to get it.

And the PUA crap ain't helping him, or he would be getting it, right?

Again we're talking about a man who wants it but isn't getting it.

All said man has to do is do what everyone tells women THEY would have to do to "get sex", which is, lower your standards.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Constable Odo said:


> Flipping the scenario, if a man walks into a bar with a "F*ck me, I'm Horny" t-shirt, will the women line up to provide him with a warm repository for his sword for the evening? Likely not.


My brother (who is not 6'4") and used to be quite the ladies man had a t-shirt that said "Wine me, dine me, 69 me".

He walked out of bars with women when wearing that shirt multiple times.


----------



## heartsbeating

Flight of the Conchords skit


----------



## arbitrator

*IMHO, the act of getting laid, and for both sexes, is strictly intuitional ~ it happens when it happens, and more often than not, your internal intuition about it occurring seems to be the biggest predicator!

I don't necessarily go out preemptively planning on making it an erstwhile goal to make it happen ~ I just let nature take it's course, and just act accordingly whenever it does!*


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes any man can "get sex", which is not the same as saying they DO get it, but they can. If a man wants to "get sex" and isn't getting any, he doesn't realize how to get it.
> 
> And the PUA crap ain't helping him, or he would be getting it, right?
> 
> Again we're talking about a man who wants it but isn't getting it.
> 
> All said man has to do is do what everyone tells women THEY would have to do to "get sex", which is, lower your standards.


If it were true that 'any man can "get sex"', then there would be no such thing as "PUA crap", as you refer to it.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh yeah, I need "help" from you.


----------



## Constable Odo

technovelist said:


> If it were true that 'any man can "get sex"', then there would be no such thing as "PUA crap", as you refer to it.


Game. Set. Match.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Gee it is almost as if neither of you actually read what I wrote, and then you had some kind of fantasy that you educated me about something. 

Then you patted yourselves on the back for having said fantasy.

All in the name of explaining why you can't get laid.

No need to explain it to me...it is clear why it is a problem for you.

Excuse me, my sex god is calling me and I am off to service him, ta ta!

And don't bother fantasizing about teaching me anything...if you can't even read my post there's clearly nothing for you to teach me here. But do have fun trying to figure out how to "get sex".


----------



## Holland

technovelist said:


> There is no mathematical problem. About 20% of the men can easily have almost all of the sex. Let's do an example to clarify how this can be possible:
> 
> Guy A has sex with four different women every week.
> 
> Guys B through E have sex with no one.
> 
> What is the problem mathematically? I don't see it.


Sounds like a fab way for the men that are not getting sex to justify to themselves why they aren't. Might be time to be a better, more appealing man.

It just isn't the reality or the truth. Men of all sizes, shapes, ages, wages etc are having sex, not just 20% of them.


----------



## Mostlycontent

marduk said:


> Let me tell you a story.
> 
> A few years ago I roll into work. Stumble into the starbucks line for my first hit of go-juice.
> 
> In front of me is a drop dead gorgeous 40-something. Fit, classy clothing that's professional-sexy not ****ty-sexy, you know? Nice hair, good posture, all that.
> 
> Behind me are two 40-something women that let themselves go and then some. Overweight, bad hair, baggy out of date clothing.
> 
> And all these two were doing was cut down the woman ahead of me. Simply because she was in the workplace and hot. "she must be shopping for a VP husband." "I wonder if those are bought and paid for." Etc.
> 
> It got so bad I thought the woman ahead of me was going to cry. So I said something to the effect of "don't worry about these two, you should be proud of your appearance and that you know your way around a gym unlike them" or something. The two behind me shot me dirty looks because I interrupted their hot girl shame game, but the woman ahead of me brightened a bit.
> 
> It's a tough game where sometimes winning is losing for women I think.



I've seen this in action. Women can be so caddy and juvenile. My wife would hear this when we'd take the dogs out on the beach for their daily walks.

A group of women were making all those same comments about her that you referenced in your post. I couldn't believe they would say such things where we could both hear it. They weren't bad looking women at all, which is what amazed me, but my wife was just stupid gorgeous in a bikini so I suppose I get it.

It still bothered her some though. Nobody wants to be the object of ridicule, even if it's doused in jealousy.


----------



## MountainRunner

marduk said:


> Let me tell you a story.
> 
> A few years ago I roll into work. Stumble into the starbucks line for my first hit of go-juice.
> 
> In front of me is a drop dead gorgeous 40-something. Fit, classy clothing that's professional-sexy not ****ty-sexy, you know? Nice hair, good posture, all that.
> 
> Behind me are two 40-something women that let themselves go and then some. Overweight, bad hair, baggy out of date clothing.
> 
> And all these two were doing was cut down the woman ahead of me. Simply because she was in the workplace and hot. "she must be shopping for a VP husband." "I wonder if those are bought and paid for." Etc.
> 
> It got so bad I thought the woman ahead of me was going to cry. So I said something to the effect of "don't worry about these two, you should be proud of your appearance and that you know your way around a gym unlike them" or something. The two behind me shot me dirty looks because I interrupted their hot girl shame game, but the woman ahead of me brightened a bit.
> 
> It's a tough game where sometimes winning is losing for women I think.


It happens amongst men as well. Once I got fit and began drawing attention, the derision from the out of shape males began.


----------



## EleGirl

Anon1111 said:


> Honestly, I think most of the hottest women don't work.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:




Anon1111 said:


> Why would they?


Because a good number of women are smart enough to know that relying on their looks to keep a roof over their heads is not smart.

It's like my father used to tell all 5 of his daughters. Never, ever, rely on a man for your support. Get an education. Get a career. Be independent.

Thank God we all listened to him.

And yes we were all 10's when we were younger (we are all in our 60's now)... we still are for our ages.



Anon1111 said:


> Yes, there is the odd individual here and there that manages to derive pleasure from working the typical corporate drone existence, but most people who might have the option to skip that rationally will.


You see what happens is that the woman who relies on her looks to snag a guy who will support her has to go after a man with money. Why? Because it's a career choice.

Then when she hits that wall at 40 that all you guys are talking about, he dumps her for a young thing. And guess what? She has no way of supporting herself. 




Anon1111 said:


> You are much more likely to see hot women at your local Whole Foods, yoga studio, mall, etc during the average weekday.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Gee it is almost as if neither of you actually read what I wrote, and then you had some kind of fantasy that you educated me about something.
> 
> Then you patted yourselves on the back for having said fantasy.
> 
> All in the name of explaining why you can't get laid.
> 
> No need to explain it to me...it is clear why it is a problem for you.
> 
> Excuse me, my sex god is calling me and I am off to service him, ta ta!
> 
> And don't bother fantasizing about teaching me anything...if you can't even read my post there's clearly nothing for you to teach me here. But do have fun trying to figure out how to "get sex".


Well, which is it? Can any man get laid, or can't we get laid?

Either of those is possible (but not necessarily equally likely), but both of them can't be true simultaneously.

Anyway, didn't you put me on ignore? You said you were going to, a few days ago.


----------



## Holland

Anon1111 said:


> Honestly, I think most of the hottest women don't work. Why would they?
> 
> Yes, there is the odd individual here and there that manages to derive pleasure from working the typical corporate drone existence, but most people who might have the option to skip that rationally will.
> 
> You are much more likely to see hot women at your local Whole Foods, yoga studio, mall, etc during the average weekday.


Women of all types work because they enjoy it, they have to financially, they are driven, they are free to make the choice to work, the list goes on and on. If you think women decide or have to work based on their looks then you do not know much about women or respect them as individuals.

If your daughter was beautiful would you encourage her to be educated, have a career or work for any number of reasons or to not work but go to yoga instead? Heaven help us. 

If you got onto a tram in my city you would see plenty of hot, well kept, well dressed women going about their work day. Women are not here to be judged by anyone, let alone a man that thinks her place is not in the workplace because she is beautiful. Thankfully this is not the universal truth. 

Women are not chattels that are collected simply for their looks, if that is how a man thinks he is destined to a very soul less life.


----------



## ConanHub

technovelist said:


> If it were true that 'any man can "get sex"', then there would be no such thing as "PUA crap", as you refer to it.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Not sure exactly why PUA shyt is out there except for men who otherwise couldn't get laid by a two dollar wh0re with a thousand bucks. But I think that is because they are probably just choosing to be pathetic humans.

Average guys can get sex often if they pay attention and have a little style and class. No, I am not average but most of my friends are and they all had success in the sexual arena when they applied themselves.

There really are some female horn dogs with almost no qualms if a guy is average or below.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MountainRunner

ConanHub said:


> *Average guys can get sex often if they pay attention and have a little style and class*. No, I am not average but most of my friends are and they all had success in the sexual arena when they applied themselves.


I consider myself an "average Joe" and I have never had a problem. Like you say, all it takes is a little style and class. Just be friendly, make them smile and laugh, ask them questions about their lives and family (and listen dammit!)...doesn't take a lot for a woman to start "liking" you.


----------



## RandomDude

EleGirl said:


> Asking 100 men for sex
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBtF3I7fDfU
> 
> Asking 100 women for sex
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxyySRgrYsU


:rofl:

I love the reactions! Hahaha
Oh, and I would ram her on the spot! lol

Also, LOL @ the Cox van... "I love Cox!" hahaha


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> :rofl:
> 
> I love the reactions! Hahaha
> Oh, and I would ram her on the spot! lol
> 
> Also, LOL @ the Cox van... "I love Cox!" hahaha


:rofl: Yea, that was classic.


----------



## GusPolinski

technovelist said:


> I can't believe this is even a question, but apparently there is at least one woman who thinks it is.
> 
> Go for it!


With nothing other than my own personal observations to back it up, if we're talking "average" woman vs. "average" man, w/ all other variables being equal on both sides, I'm going to say yes.


----------



## optimalprimus

to repeat something I said earlier, it is empirically true that the average woman has more sexual partners than the average man. 

If, as some posters have reasonably argued, women are socially engineered to be wary of having sex (despite wanting to), then the fact that they are having more pretty much answers the question.

But...some men can have lots of sex, that is empirical fact too. 

I would argue that even removing the social pressures on women (and we should) , they would still choose to be more selective than men on average. Its the biological differences that remain.


----------



## tech-novelist

optimalprimus said:


> to repeat something I said earlier, it is empirically true that the average woman has more sexual partners than the average man.
> 
> If, as some posters have reasonably argued, women are socially engineered to be wary of having sex (despite wanting to), then the fact that they are having more pretty much answers the question.
> 
> But...*some* men can have lots of sex, that is empirical fact too.
> 
> I would argue that even removing the social pressures on women (and we should) , they would still choose to be more selective than men on average. Its the biological differences that remain.


Yes, of course *some *men can have lots of sex.
They are called "alphas".
The average man *can't* have lots of sex, because the average woman isn't attracted to the average man.


----------



## Open up now let it all go

Uh... Yes. Not sure how significant it exactly is but in its prime essence its valid. Like the sun is the center off the solar system.


----------



## thread the needle

From what I understand, women on online dating sites get absolutely bombarded with bazillions of males asking for sex. Men do not. It seems about the same at the bar. If that is an indicator then the answer is yes. 

I find the posts here sharing personal experiences of males to be difficult to analyze as their are claims they consider themselves average but then follow that with some version of "but it's still easy because I have a reasonably reliable set of social skills" 

Is that average? I don't know. 

I have never had an issue finding an LTR quickly. I have never been interested in ONS although I have had a very few and regretted all of them. 

On the other hand, if I were to race an average female in finding a sexual partner and bedding them, I am sure I would lose unless she was below average. 

It's only a hunch based on a scientific wild ass guess.


----------



## Constable Odo

optimalprimus said:


> If, as some posters have reasonably argued, women are socially engineered to be wary of having sex (despite wanting to), then the fact that they are having more pretty much answers the question.


Until recently thanks to modern-day social engineering (welfare), women have had to be careful about having sex, because they could wind up pregnant. In historical terms, women as the child-bearers are more dependent on others (men) to provide for them in the latter-stages of pregnancy and early-stages of child-rearing when the woman's focus has had to be principally on the infant.

This is less true today, of course, since we promote illegitimacy by rewarding promiscuity. 




technovelist said:


> The average man *can't* have lots of sex, because the average woman isn't attracted to the average man.


The original intent of your question has long been morphed in this thread. You'll see the answer from many people is "yes", but then they qualify their answer by stating something like "If you're nice, blah blah blah".

Translation, you have to "work" a woman to 'convince' her to have sex with you, which means, by definition, it isn't easier.

I stand by my original assertion I have made many pages ago.

Two people, a man and a woman, who each wear a t-shirt that says "F*CK ME, I'M HORNY"... the woman walking into a bar will have an almost immediate reaction with a plethora of men willing to take her up on her offer. Whereas the man will not have hardly any reaction from the women.




thread the needle said:


> From what I understand, women on online dating sites get absolutely bombarded with bazillions of males asking for sex.


Exactly. Women are the gatekeepers to sex. We ask, they decide. That, by definition, means women are always going to easily obtain sexual partners.

(Note, I didn't say *quality* sexual partners, or put any qualifiers on them. Merely, the number of penises a woman has access to by virtue of her willing to have sex without conditional restrictions.)




> I find the posts here sharing personal experiences of males to be difficult to analyze as their are claims they consider themselves average but then follow that with some version of "but it's still easy because I have a reasonably reliable set of social skills"


Which illustrates my point: a "reliable set of social skills" would be unnecessary if men had access to sex to the same degree as women did. 

There are many men who could care less if a woman is even literate (some may even argue its better if she isn't). Men are indiscriminate. We'll pretty much bang anything.

Women are by far more discriminate. Those conditional premises they place on men they choose to copulate with, by definition, means men cannot obtain sex at the same level of ease a woman can.


----------



## thread the needle

Constable Odo said:


> Until recently thanks to modern-day social engineering (welfare), women have had to be careful about having sex, because they could wind up pregnant. In historical terms, women as the child-bearers are more dependent on others (men) to provide for them in the latter-stages of pregnancy and early-stages of child-rearing when the woman's focus has had to be principally on the infant.
> 
> This is less true today, of course, since we promote illegitimacy by rewarding promiscuity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original intent of your question has long been morphed in this thread. You'll see the answer from many people is "yes", but then they qualify their answer by stating something like "If you're nice, blah blah blah".
> 
> Translation, you have to "work" a woman to 'convince' her to have sex with you, which means, by definition, it isn't easier.
> 
> I stand by my original assertion I have made many pages ago.
> 
> Two people, a man and a woman, who each wear a t-shirt that says "F*CK ME, I'M HORNY"... the woman walking into a bar will have an almost immediate reaction with a plethora of men willing to take her up on her offer. Whereas the man will not have hardly any reaction from the women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Women are the gatekeepers to sex. We ask, they decide. That, by definition, means women are always going to easily obtain sexual partners.
> 
> (Note, I didn't say *quality* sexual partners, or put any qualifiers on them. Merely, the number of penises a woman has access to by virtue of her willing to have sex without conditional restrictions.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which illustrates my point: a "reliable set of social skills" would be unnecessary if men had access to sex to the same degree as women did.
> 
> There are many men who could care less if a woman is even literate (some may even argue its better if she isn't). Men are indiscriminate. We'll pretty much bang anything.
> 
> Women are by far more discriminate. Those conditional premises they place on men they choose to copulate with, by definition, means men cannot obtain sex at the same level of ease a woman can.


:iagree: Completely with your flawless point. 

I truly admire and enjoy your ability to articulate a point so elegantly. Take a bow brother, Bravo for the clarity with which you communicate. I'm in awe of your verbal prowess,


----------



## Constable Odo

I know. I am a God.

Was having a discussion last evening with my SO about a similar topic. 

I think I'm going to start a sub-reddit entitled "RedPillBaby", where we can share parenting tips with other RedPillers on how to instill proper Red Pill tenets into our male offspring starting at an early age. 

Just imagine, if you will, if your father had given you the power of the Red Pill at a very early age. When you were in 1st grade, you could have projected your masculinity to reinforce to your 1st grade teacher you really deserved an 'A' on that math homework rather than the B- she gave you....


----------



## ConanHub

There are always a certain type hanging out in bars. I would agree that, among a subset of the population, an average woman would be hitting the fantasy nail on the head by walking around offering her body to the first taker.

That is extremely limited in scope however. I have been, what many would refer to, as wildly successful with women. This has given me, possibly, more insight into women than the average.

I think this subject is probably more complex than can be illustrated with your bar example.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonmd

If I leave out the pre-college and career years then all my rejections were in my head. In other words, if I "got rejected" it was because I talked myself out of pursuing. 

Now, we are not talking huge numbers but it was a mix of short term things (a handful) and long term relationships (2). But every time I got up the courage to make a move of some sort I had success. I'd classify myself as fairly average, somewhat shy and introverted. But I was never one to just hit on total strangers in a bar. 

My wife on the other hand, to the extent I have knowledge , did a fair amount of dating where she would get asked out by semi-random guys, setup by girlfriends etc. at various times, it's a different situation.


----------



## Constable Odo

ConanHub said:


> I have been, what many would refer to, as wildly successful with women.


This would, assuming its true (and I'm not questioning whether or not it is, merely stating that, if it's true) then you are incapable of objectively analyzing the situation because your bulging forearms act as the proverbial "giant spot-light in the middle of an empty field at midnight" to the ladies whenever you walk into the room. Their eyes immediately wander to your groin as they assess whether or not you will rupture their spleen as they greedily accept you inside them.




> I think this subject is probably more complex than can be illustrated with your bar example.


Not really. It is quite simple, actually. I believe most men accept these things as basic facts of life... that is, it is far easier for women to obtain access to sex than it is for men.


Another demonstrable example of this fundamental truth: All one needs to do is look at the sex trafficking industry. If men had ready access to sex whenever they wanted it, would there be a market for prostitution? Comparatively speaking, how many bordellos are operated by men to provide a plethora of penises to frustrated women unable to find one to mount otherwise?

Do gigolos exist? Of course. But do they exist in the same number as female prostitutes serving men? No. Why is that? 

Simple microeconomic principles of supply and demand dictate why, of course.

If women are 51% of the world's population, and the sexes have equal access to sex, then it would be logical to conclude there would be by extension the need to have at least an equal number of male prostitutes available for women to call upon. (In fact one could argue that there would need to be more men, because most men are not multi-orgasmic and when you factor in refraction periods vs. a female prostitutes ability to service multiple men in the same time period... but I digress...)


----------



## T&T

ConanHub said:


> That is extremely limited in scope however. I have been, what many would refer to, as wildly successful with women. This has given me, possibly, more insight into women than the average


While I consider myself average and haven't been wildly successful with women (Quantities) I did okay when I was single. I've turned down more women than I've slept with. Even today, at my age, I still get hit on occasionally. 

I remember the night I met my wife and we were at a large gathering with _lots_ of drunk people. I turned down 3 women that night after meeting her and had zero intentions of even trying to sleep with her that night. My eyes were only on her and I sensed she just wanted some honest convo. I immediately went into "down boy" mode lol

I think I share you "insight" Conan without near as much experience. I think the problem with some men is they think women are some "forbidden fruit" and are shy/awkward when it comes to speaking with them. They are just like us men in a lot of ways and when speaking to them you don't need to put on some act. Speak naturally and honestly and I think most men would do far better.


----------



## Wolf1974

ConanHub said:


> There are always a certain type hanging out in bars. I would agree that, among a subset of the population, an average woman would be hitting the fantasy nail on the head by walking around offering her body to the first taker.
> 
> That is extremely limited in scope however. I have been, what many would refer to, as wildly successful with women. This has given me, possibly, more insight into women than the average.
> 
> I think this subject is probably more complex than can be illustrated with your bar example.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But that was the question posed. Which can obtain sex easier, faster. You say you're above average., no reason to doubt that. I know I am average and plenty of times in my youth I went out to "get sex " and never found it. But the one thing I do know is that If you are going to go out to get sex no better place to achieve that then where alcohol is lol. 

How this has gone on for couple days now is beyond me but people love to argue here so not that surprising. To much of twisting the origin question occurring. A far more interesting topic wouldn't be about is it easier for the average male to approach a woman or an average woman to approach a male


----------



## askari

Haven't read 11 pages but....
If a guy went up to a woman and said....'I think you are absolutely gorgeous, have a fantastic body....I want to have wild sex with you'....he would probably get slapped.

If a 'girl' went up to a guy and said the same thing the guy would think he had won the lottery! WAHAY!!!


----------



## Marduk

MountainRunner said:


> It happens amongst men as well. Once I got fit and began drawing attention, the derision from the out of shape males began.


Really?

I only got questions on "how did you do that?"

I feel for you, man.


----------



## Marduk

askari said:


> Haven't read 11 pages but....
> If a guy went up to a woman and said....'I think you are absolutely gorgeous, have a fantastic body....I want to have wild sex with you'....he would probably get slapped.
> 
> If a 'girl' went up to a guy and said the same thing the guy would think he had won the lottery! WAHAY!!!


I've had it happen.

And honestly, all I thought it was was sad.

And I didn't have sex with her.


----------



## SpinDaddy

technovelist said:


> I can't believe this is even a question, but apparently there is at least one woman who thinks it is.
> 
> Go for it!


Well yes of course but because the consequences and long term ramifications are far greater for the “average woman” than the “average man”, she must exercise greater discretion and care in “getting laid”.


----------



## tech-novelist

ConanHub said:


> There are always a certain type hanging out in bars. I would agree that, among a subset of the population, an average woman would be hitting the fantasy nail on the head by walking around offering her body to the first taker.
> 
> That is extremely limited in scope however. I have been, what many would refer to, as wildly successful with women. This has given me, possibly, more insight into women than the average.
> 
> I think this subject is probably more complex than can be illustrated with your bar example.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Your success with women may have given you more insight into women than the average, in some respects.

However, it has almost certainly given you LESS insight into how men can make themselves more attractive to women, since you have never needed to know that!

This is almost certainly why most of the Red Pill authors I've read are not alphas, but engineering-oriented betas who have reverse-engineered the specs for female sexual response.


----------



## tech-novelist

T&T said:


> While I consider myself average and haven't been wildly successful with women (Quantities) I did okay when I was single. I've turned down more women than I've slept with. Even today, at my age, I still get hit on occasionally.
> 
> I remember the night I met my wife and we were at a large gathering with _lots_ of drunk people. I turned down 3 women that night after meeting her and had zero intentions of even trying to sleep with her that night. My eyes were only on her and I sensed she just wanted some honest convo. I immediately went into "down boy" mode lol
> 
> I think I share you "insight" Conan without near as much experience. I think the problem with some men is they think women are some "forbidden fruit" and are shy/awkward when it comes to speaking with them. They are just like us men in a lot of ways and when speaking to them you don't need to put on some act. Speak naturally and honestly and I think most men would do far better.


Men who get female attention while speaking "naturally and honestly" don't look for tips on how to avoid involuntary celibacy, in or out of marriage. Unfortunately, many men are not in that category.


----------



## MountainRunner

marduk said:


> Really?
> 
> I only got questions on "how did you do that?"
> 
> I feel for you, man.


Yep...Oh, I get asked "How'd you do it?" a lot too. But I work for a company of about 120 employees and I am without a doubt the most fit employee in the company...and I'm including the 20 something year old young men on the line crew. I think they're sore because I have the best time for scaling a 220 ft monopole tower in 8 minutes flat. *grin*


----------



## Muse1976

MountainRunner said:


> Yep...Oh, I get asked "How'd you do it?" a lot too. But I work for a company of about 120 employees and I am without a doubt the most fit employee in the company...and I'm including the 20 something year old young men on the line crew. I think they're sore because I have the best time for scaling a 220 ft monopole tower in 8 minutes flat. *grin*


Congrats and much respect. If you climb everyday then you already know there is a technique to it. 

Towers are all the same . They have a system that makes the structure accessible. I have seen guys do 90 meter towers in less than 5 min and have to open hatches to do it. To the unobserved person that is super human. I climb 3 a day and my best is about 12 min. Of course im old and fat.


----------



## ConanHub

Wolf1974 said:


> But that was the question posed. Which can obtain sex easier, faster. You say you're above average., no reason to doubt that. I know I am average and plenty of times in my youth I went out to "get sex " and never found it. But the one thing I do know is that If you are going to go out to get sex no better place to achieve that then where alcohol is lol.
> 
> How this has gone on for couple days now is beyond me but people love to argue here so not that surprising. To much of twisting the origin question occurring. A far more interesting topic wouldn't be about is it easier for the average male to approach a woman or an average woman to approach a male


Actually, a very small fraction of my number were experiences in a bar/club involving alcohol.

Work environment was responsible for a good chunk, classmates and their sisters, vocational training, acquaintances of friends that I met under very ordinary circumstances, church(sorry), etc..

I was almost raped, felt pretty close to it anyway, by a cop who was a roommate of one of my friends.

I think maybe to start, many men are looking in too confined of an environment. The vast majority of my ladies would have nothing to do with the bar/club scene.
Two of the three most exotic women I was with were vocational relationships first. The other one was a Budweiser girl and I met her at a casino where she was ending a tour. Neither of us were drinking though.

I have observed confident, average guys doing pretty well in the sexual arena as well.

I think the numbers are probably skewed in favor of women in certain circumstances and environments.

Maybe a good place for Joe average to start is by learning why. If you pay attention, a man can learn a lot by being entrenched with women.

I'm definitely not saying each individual who has shared their experiences is necessarily wrong. But I do question the conclusions.

Night night.&#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## gouge_away

MountainRunner said:


> I consider myself an "average Joe" and I have never had a problem. Like you say, all it takes is a little style and class. Just be friendly, make them smile and laugh, ask them questions about their lives and family (and listen dammit!)...doesn't take a lot for a woman to start "liking" you.


Liking you?
Were talking about "liking you in her..."


----------



## arbitrator

Mostlycontent said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking 100 men for sex
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBtF3I7fDfU
> 
> Asking 100 women for sex
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxyySRgrYsU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with these videos is that the situations and circumstances aren't credible. If you took that girl and put her in any nightclub on a Friday night, her responses would have been virtually 100% positive.
> 
> You add alcohol, social atmosphere and party mindset to the equation and your answers would differ greatly. Most men in the Friday night club environment are looking to get laid but not when they're walking down the street in broad daylight, perhaps even during working hours.
> 
> I don't think it proves a thing.
Click to expand...

* Agreed!

And if you were to conversely have a woman in her 60's: or a gal who looked like a two-bit disease ridden prostitute, or one with the persona of a sting-minded police woman out there doing the "pole-ing," I honestly think that your figures would go way down, virtually to near zero!*


----------



## MountainRunner

gouge_away said:


> Liking you?
> Were talking about "liking you in her..."


Yeah, I'm funny that way...I've always insisted that the girl likes me first before I have sex with her. *giggle*


----------



## Wolf1974

ConanHub said:


> Actually, a very small fraction of my number were experiences in a bar/club involving alcohol.
> 
> Work environment was responsible for a good chunk, classmates and their sisters, vocational training, acquaintances of friends that I met under very ordinary circumstances, church(sorry), etc..
> 
> I was almost raped, felt pretty close to it anyway, by a cop who was a roommate of one of my friends.
> 
> I think maybe to start, many men are looking in too confined of an environment. The vast majority of my ladies would have nothing to do with the bar/club scene.
> Two of the three most exotic women I was with were vocational relationships first. The other one was a Budweiser girl and I met her at a casino where she was ending a tour. Neither of us were drinking though.
> 
> I have observed confident, average guys doing pretty well in the sexual arena as well.
> 
> I think the numbers are probably skewed in favor of women in certain circumstances and environments.
> 
> Maybe a good place for Joe average to start is by learning why. If you pay attention, a man can learn a lot by being entrenched with women.
> 
> I'm definitely not saying each individual who has shared their experiences is necessarily wrong. But I do question the conclusions.
> 
> Night night.��
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


All the conclusions are posted from the individual life experience. Young and dumb I would have gone anywhere I could have to get sex but was only single a few years before I got married. Then I spent about a decade working in the nightclub industry as a bar back. Very educational to see the dynamics of mens and women at play


Now dating I use online dating which is way easier to meet women, I would never date where I work and don't go to church so those would be out anyway lol. 

Also now my objective is never to just get sex. Thankfully I'm not driven by 20 year old hormones and matured. But their were days lol


----------



## Marduk

Part of the complexity and abstraction in this debate, and why it will likely never really be answered is that attraction and response to it is a cycle, not a one way gig.

I'm reflecting on conversations I've had with ex girlfriends and my wife in times past, where they swore that they hit on me first and I swore that it was the opposite.

I mean, if a girl gives you the signal and you come over and make a move, who moved first?

Or you looked at her, and then she gave you some kind of body language signal, and then you came over, who moved first?

You know what I mean?

I've had more than one girl tell me "it's about time you asked me out" when I was thinking "huh? I don't even know you, but OK!"

It's a positive feedback loop is what I'm saying. It might look from the outside like it's not... especially if you're a guy feeling frozen out and powerless in the whole thing. Or a girl that is, for that matter.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Constable Odo said:


> Women are by far more discriminate. Those conditional premises they place on men they choose to copulate with, by definition, means men cannot obtain sex at the same level of ease a woman can.


Even taking out the risk of pregnancy ... women are still more particular... 

Taken from this article .. arguing women have an EQUAL SEX DRIVE to men....

Women like casual sex just as much as men do | The University Record Online



> In situations involving strangers, women were *less likely *to accept hypothetical offers from opposite-sex strangers than men were. The gender differences, however, diminished when both men and women considered sexual offers from an attractive person or unattractive famous individual.
> 
> “Women accepted fewer casual sex offers from men than vice versa because the men who proposed the experience were perceived to have relatively poorer sexual capabilities,” Conley explains.
> 
> • Men think about sex more than women, but they also think more about their own physical needs (such as food or sleep).
> 
> • Women are “*choosier*” than men, but only because they are approached more often than men are.


----------



## chaos

A woman may want to fvck her brains out, but unless she TRUSTS the man she wants to be with, nothing is going to happen. Gain a woman's trust, and you not only gain access to her body but you gain access to her heart.


----------



## Constable Odo

Exactly. Another qualifier. A woman has to trust a man, whereas, a man doesn't care (he'll just use a fake name, address, and social security number.)

This once again means it is harder for the man to obtain sex from the woman (she has to 'trust' him) whereas she can easily obtain it from him.


----------



## EllisRedding

Well, this thread took an interesting turn given the OPs question seemed pretty straightforward. I love some of the assumptions made to sidetrack this thread, "Has a guy ever rejected free sex", what does that have to do with the OPs question? Not surprised but anyways ...

I did ask several people this exact question (both male and female) and the answer was a universal yes. Now whether or not that represents actual fact or just perception could be up for debate. 

One interesting item, when discussing the guy side I keep seeing the argument that if a guy cant go out and get laid he doesn't know what he is doing. Yes, for some guys t his all comes natural to them, but overall isn't that the point, a guy needs to be able to do x y z if he wants to increase his odds of success. From my observations I rarely see the same things being said to women, why, most likely b/c it would require less effort/work on their part if their goal was to go out and get laid.


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband

This thread reminds me of a old joke.

Little boy & girl were comparing parts. Boy says "I have a [email protected] and you don't!"

Girl says ' I have a vayjayjay, and I can get all the [email protected] I want"


----------



## Big Dude

EllisRedding said:


> Well, this thread took an interesting turn given the OPs question seemed pretty straightforward. I love some of the assumptions made to sidetrack this thread, "Has a guy ever rejected free sex", what does that have to do with the OPs question? Not surprised but anyways ...
> 
> .


I don't see those arguments as sidetracking this thread. But I agree that many of the arguments that oppose this proposition seem strained.

What interests me about this discussion is how similar it seems to debates about white or male privilege. When it is pointed out to white people that they benefit from unearned privilege they often defensively point out the election of a black president or the success of black professionals that they personally know, as if those facts somehow refute their privileged status.

For some people, ideology trumps reality.


----------



## Marduk

chaos said:


> A woman may want to fvck her brains out, but unless she TRUSTS the man she wants to be with, nothing is going to happen. Gain a woman's trust, and you not only gain access to her body but you gain access to her heart.


I'd say most women, yes.

Some women, very much no!

But I suspect that wasn't your point.


----------



## Tubbalard

Questions like this will always take a turn because on this site you have a group of 10-15 personas on this site that will always argue the opposition no matter what when it comes to gender threads. In the real world this question would be a resounding yes among women, but on this site there's a loud minority, so you have to take these things with a grain of salt.

Take any topic about men and women differences and no matter what the general theory is and you you'll have opposition. If you took a national poll, It would be a 80/20 landslide in favor of women. You wouldn't need Karl Rove to analyze it. 

A lot of it is based on an inferiority complex. The implication of this question is women don't have to work harder, therefore they have it easier, and by having it easier they are seen as less than or someone that doesn't have to work for something. So this question is not really about this question per se, It's more about how some women feel the need to assert themselves to appear that they go through the same struggles as a man. That's why I say the question is irrelevant. No matter what the question. There's always going to be an opposition.

These are the same posters that claim that guys ogle and leer at them, and they wish it would stop. That they're hot and many guys find them attractive, even in older age. Guys are hitting on them daily that they need a Ms captain america shield. Yet they offer some poor short slovenly sap hot nookie, he turns them down.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> Yes, for some guys t his all comes natural to them, but overall isn't that the point, a guy needs to be able to do x y z if he wants to increase his odds of success. From my observations I rarely see the same things being said to women, why, most likely b/c it would require less effort/work on their part if their goal was to go out and get laid.


I see a lot of women need to do x y z as well. Be thin but curvy, wear something nice but not too slvtty, use this and that beauty product but look natural, don't be agressive but don't be too passive either. Just look at any girl mag giving 'how to pick up men' tips. It's just as long a list as you guys get IMO. You may not realize everything that hot chick at the bar getting the guys actually _did _do to be that hot chick at the bar getting the guys.


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, for some guys t his all comes natural to them, but overall isn't that the point, a guy needs to be able to do x y z if he wants to increase his odds of success. From my observations I rarely see the same things being said to women, why, most likely b/c it would require less effort/work on their part if their goal was to go out and get laid.
> 
> 
> 
> I see a lot of women need to do x y z as well. Be thin but curvy, wear something nice but not too slvtty, use this and that beauty product but look natural, don't be agressive but don't be too passive either. Just look at any girl mag giving 'how to pick up men' tips. It's just as long a list as you guys get IMO. You may not realize everything that hot chick at the bar getting the guys actually _did _do to be that hot chick at the bar getting the guys.
Click to expand...

Are those articles more focused on trying to find a guy or to get laid that night (honest question, articles i have seen from my wifes magazine the end game always seemed to be landing a guy for a relationship, not for just a romp). And once again, I thought the OPs question was more towards the average person, not the hot chick.


----------



## Trickster

Being an "average" looking male, I belong to a hiking group several hundred strong. The average hike has close to 80 plus people. Man/Woman ratio is about equal. When a female, (average looks) signs up and introduces herself on the message board, many men and women respond welcoming her to the group. When men join and do the same, women nor the men respond to the new guy of average looks.

Out on the hikes, if were dealing with average looking people, the women still receive the most attention over the men. 

I'll repeat what Ellis said. We are discussing average people. Not alpha males, not PUA's, not a player, Not hot chicks or women with big breasts. Average.

I think the average women could walk into any bar and leave with somebody. It may not be the hottest alpha male there, but she wouldn't leave alone. The "average" male wouldn't turn down the "average" woman coming on to him. The average woman can still be a little picky.


----------



## tech-novelist

Trickster said:


> Being an "average" looking male, I belong to a hiking group several hundred strong. The average hike has close to 80 plus people. Man/Woman ratio is about equal. When a female, (average looks) signs up and introduces herself on the message board, many men and women respond welcoming her to the group. When men join and do the same, women nor the men respond to the new guy of average looks.
> 
> Out on the hikes, if were dealing with average looking people, the women still receive the most attention over the men.
> 
> I'll repeat what Ellis said. We are discussing average people. Not alpha males, not PUA's, not a player, Not hot chicks or women with big breasts. Average.
> 
> I think the average women could walk into any bar and leave with somebody. It may not be the hottest alpha male there, but she wouldn't leave alone. The "average" male wouldn't turn down the "average" woman coming on to him. The average woman can still be a little picky.


Hmm, I guess I should have been more specific that I was referring to the average man and average woman in my original question.

Oh, I did state that, in those exact words? :rofl:


----------



## Trickster

technovelist said:


> Yes, men have a much wider distribution. In other words, a few men find it easy, namely the ones that women are interested in, which is about 20% of men. The average man could ask from now until the end of time and would get very little in the way of results, because the average woman doesn't find the average man attractive.
> 
> The average woman, on the other hand, just has to make herself available, because most men find most women attractive.
> 
> I guess that makes me a misogynist? :scratchhead:




Just reread some of the posts. I did kind of repeat what you stated.


----------



## alexm

technovelist said:


> Of course, this doesn't apply to "rebels" (i.e., thugs), who don't have any trouble attracting women. Even (especially) serial killers get thousands of "love letters" from women, whereas the average law-abiding man can't get the time of day. This means that the average male spends roughly 15-20 years in a sexual desert, while seeing thugs and some "naturals" swimming in a sea of female attention. Is it any wonder that some of the average males become bitter about women?


Obviously one anecdote proves nothing, but the post above is what I've picked up on over the years (and there have been many many posts on TAM about this very phenomenon)

Women AND men have very different selection processes for casual relationships versus long term/marriage. It's generally more visible and obvious when it comes to women, however.

I am what you'd call a "safe" guy, and always have been. I'm either every girls friend, or somebody's husband. I am not unattractive, but I'm not a head-turner. I'm not an alpha, but I'm not a beta, either. I've never really attracted women who are looking for casual relationships or just sex, rather I've always attracted women who are looking to settle down. Even now while married (and a little older) I generate interest from women, but not THAT kind of interest.

I'm marriage material, and always have been, and guys like that generally don't get the casual action.

Women can be like this, too. There are some women you'd rather date or marry than bring home for a one-nighter. This is just the way it is. It just seems more prevalent or obvious when it's the man that's like this, imo.

If I had adopted a different vibe or persona when I was single, then I'd have had more opportunities. But for some, like me, it's just not in us.

But that's the thing. There are more men who are "bad boys" then there are women who are "bad girls" - at least visibly. Women who are out and looking have more to choose from, and can most definitely be pickier.

On a related note, I would take an educated guess and say that men rejecting women DOES happen, though far less than the other way around. Simply because, whether we like it or not, men tend to have a little less shame when it comes to this than women do. If I hit some bar in my 20's with the sole purpose of going home with some girl, I would have no problem trying my luck with anyone who I found remotely attractive. I'll get rejected many times, and I'll move on to the next one.

Women, however, tend not to take the same route for this as men do. This is because women generally just have to sit back and wait for somebody to come along. Which almost always will happen, provided they're giving off the right vibe. Women just have to be visible on the dance floor and look like they're having a good time, and somebody will approach them. Or even just make eye contact or smile at a guy.

And furthermore, over all attractiveness is generally less important for the woman as it is for the man. For us guys, simply approaching a woman shows confidence, which is a plus right off the bat. A little bit of charisma along with this confidence, and even the most average looking guy can get lucky. The same is generally not true in reverse, like it or not. We men aren't that excited over the confidence of a woman who approaches us. Confidence doesn't impress us the same way as it does for women. You still have to be attractive to us in some way, shape or form.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
try an experiment:
(assuming you are straight or bi). Next time you are standing in a line, look forward in the line to the first adult of the opposite sex you see. If they walked up to you and asked if you wanted to stop by this evening for a night of hot sex, would you say yes? Pretend you are not currently in a relationship.

My answer was "no" when I tried it today.


----------



## michzz

Trickster said:


> Being an "average" looking male, I belong to a hiking group several hundred strong. *The average hike has close to 80 plus people*.


OMG, I sure hope your group stays out of the hiking areas i visit. I've seen some of these traffic jams and on the trail and they ruin the quiet and solitutude I and others seek while hiking.

Break up those large groups!


----------



## EllisRedding

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> try an experiment:
> (assuming you are straight or bi). Next time you are standing in a line, look forward in the line to the first adult of the opposite sex you see. If they walked up to you and asked if you wanted to stop by this evening for a night of hot sex, would you say yes? Pretend you are not currently in a relationship.
> 
> My answer was "no" when I tried it today.


Well, I have been out and about twice today (not including work). First time was the gym first thing in the morning. The first female I saw there, I wouldn't even let her finish her question before saying yes  Went out to grab lunch during work. There was no one on line, so I used the female cashier as the example, and I would say if my ultimate goal was just to get laid that night without any concerns, I would say yes (not as emphatically as the female at the gym). Of course all hypothetical.

However, not sure what this would accomplish. The OPs question I don't believe assume you only have one shot. Also, if your goal was to get laid, you will most likely go to a place where you would likely find someone more to your liking (vs waiting in line at the supermarket unless the supermarket is where you do all your damage )


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I am assuming that people standing in line are "random", so its a way to judge your reaction to a random person.

Not really science, just something to get a vague idea.


----------



## Anon1111

Tubbalard said:


> Questions like this will always take a turn because on this site you have a group of 10-15 personas on this site that will always argue the opposition no matter what when it comes to gender threads. In the real world this question would be a resounding yes among women, but on this site there's a loud minority, so you have to take these things with a grain of salt.
> 
> Take any topic about men and women differences and no matter what the general theory is and you you'll have opposition. If you took a national poll, It would be a 80/20 landslide in favor of women. You wouldn't need Karl Rove to analyze it.
> 
> A lot of it is based on an inferiority complex. The implication of this question is women don't have to work harder, therefore they have it easier, and by having it easier they are seen as less than or someone that doesn't have to work for something. So this question is not really about this question per se, It's more about how some women feel the need to assert themselves to appear that they go through the same struggles as a man. That's why I say the question is irrelevant. No matter what the question. There's always going to be an opposition.
> 
> These are the same posters that claim that guys ogle and leer at them, and they wish it would stop. That they're hot and many guys find them attractive, even in older age. Guys are hitting on them daily that they need a Ms captain america shield. Yet they offer some poor short slovenly sap hot nookie, he turns them down.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The good news is that threads like these are great for identifying these one hit wonders. Then you can put them on ignore and just engage with people who aren't waging a perceived social justice war.


----------



## Trickster

michzz said:


> OMG, I sure hope your group stays out of the hiking areas i visit. I've seen some of these traffic jams and on the trail and they ruin the quiet and solitutude I and others seek while hiking.
> 
> Break up those large groups!


This is a meet-up group and started off small. The organizer had no idea it would be this large. Lots of deprived city people. The hikes are sceneic at times and for myself, I enjoy the company I am with. 


I agree with you. Too many people. However, Many times, being that everybody walks at a different pace, we are spread out over a mile. We stop for a while at the halfway mark to make sure everybody is accounted for and have a snack, then continue on. The ages range from teenagers to 70 year olds. Its a very diverse group.


----------



## jaquen

It's absurd that this is even a debate. But this is TAM afterall.

Of course the "average" female has less trouble getting laid than the "average" male. It speaks volumes that within the first two or three pages of this thread people needed to start comparing ABOVE average males with average females to even begin to provide a point of contention. There needs to be lots of straw men and other logical fallacies thrown into the mix to even make an argument against the idea that women, on the whole, can get laid much easier than men.

The reasons are varied and plentiful, but the results are the same. Ms. Average is going to have a vastly easier time getting laid by somebody (not necessarily who she'd WANT to be laid by) than Mr. Average.


----------



## always_alone

jaquen said:


> Ms. Average is going to have a vastly easier time getting laid by somebody (not necessarily who she'd WANT to be laid by) than Mr. Average.


I just want to know why, whenever this scenario is presented, Ms Average is said to have such an easy time of getting laid (even if it's someone she doesn't want), but Mr Average is expected to have such a hard time (because of course, he's not interested in sex with women he doesn't want). :scratchhead:

It's comparing apples to oranges: one group gets it "easy" by lowering standards, and the other group has it "hard" because they won't.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Right. Men could easily have sex with people they don't want to have sex with, too.


----------



## Marduk

jaquen said:


> It's absurd that this is even a debate. But this is TAM afterall.
> 
> Of course the "average" female has less trouble getting laid than the "average" male. It speaks volumes that within the first two or three pages of this thread people needed to start comparing ABOVE average males with average females to even begin to provide a point of contention. There needs to be lots of straw men and other logical fallacies thrown into the mix to even make an argument against the idea that women, on the whole, can get laid much easier than men.
> 
> The reasons are varied and plentiful, but the results are the same. Ms. Average is going to have a vastly easier time getting laid by somebody (not necessarily who she'd WANT to be laid by) than Mr. Average.


Anybody can get sex from someone if they don't care who that someone is.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Right. Men could easily have sex with people they don't want to have sex with, too.


Ok, assuming this is true, it is still true that for the average man, the level of attractiveness of a woman who would easily have sex with him would be well below his attractiveness level. 

The average woman, on the other hand, can easily have sex with someone more attractive than she is.

So here the woman has an advantage in ease of having sex with someone of average attractiveness. I'll be happy to make that amendment to my original hypothesis, but it doesn't remove the advantage women have in this area.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Ok, assuming this is true, it is still true that for the average man, the level of attractiveness of a woman who would easily have sex with him would be well below his attractiveness level.
> 
> The average woman, on the other hand, can easily have sex with someone more attractive than she is.
> 
> So here the woman has an advantage in ease of having sex with someone of average attractiveness. I'll be happy to make that amendment to my original hypothesis, but it doesn't remove the advantage women have in this area.


sigh...

I'll let the good Dr. Nerdlove reply for me:

Who Has The Power In Dating?

(quote from the article)

Let’s be honest. This complaint really translates as “the hot woman I want to f*ck but won’t give me the time of day can get sex any time she wants.”

Beyond that, the ability to get a sexual partner within a pre-set amount of time or with whatever suitable definition of “ease” might be isn’t exclusive to women. Men have equal ability to find sexual partners as women do… it just involves being willing to lower your standards to being willing to sleep with anyone who offers or shows an interest. Women who aren’t conventionally attractive, whose body types differ from the culturally accepted ideal or otherwise don’t meet one’s personal levels of sexiness are out there, hoping to get laid just as much as everybody else.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> sigh...
> 
> I'll let the good Dr. Nerdlove reply for me:
> 
> Who Has The Power In Dating?
> 
> (quote from the article)
> 
> Let’s be honest. This complaint really translates as “the hot woman I want to f*ck but won’t give me the time of day can get sex any time she wants.”
> 
> Beyond that, the ability to get a sexual partner within a pre-set amount of time or with whatever suitable definition of “ease” might be isn’t exclusive to women. Men have equal ability to find sexual partners as women do… it just involves being willing to lower your standards to being willing to sleep with anyone who offers or shows an interest. Women who aren’t conventionally attractive, whose body types differ from the culturally accepted ideal or otherwise don’t meet one’s personal levels of sexiness are out there, hoping to get laid just as much as everybody else.


I think it is interesting that, if I've been keeping track reasonably well, most of the men commenting on this thread think it is obviously true that women have less trouble getting laid, and most women think it is not true.

I guess we can chalk this one up to inherent sex differences!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Or you could comment on my excellent point, as made by Dr. Nerdlove.


----------



## optimalprimus

Faithful Wife said:


> Or you could comment on my excellent point, as made by Dr. Nerdlove.


I don't like getting diverted to links (my old phone struggles) -if the argument is coherent, precis it in the forum.

If the quote you include is typical of the article - no thanks!

Has anyone who thinks there is an equality here addressed the fact that the average woman has more sexual partners than the average man, despite all the social pressures on women to refrain from sleeping around?

because that fact unless explained kills the argument imho.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

The answer is a resounding YES! I have never had any trouble with beautiful women but have gone home with many a ten pinter (when single)


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Ok, assuming this is true, it is still true that for the average man, the level of attractiveness of a woman who would easily have sex with him would be well below his attractiveness level.
> 
> The average woman, on the other hand, can easily have sex with someone more attractive than she is.
> 
> So here the woman has an advantage in ease of having sex with someone of average attractiveness. I'll be happy to make that amendment to my original hypothesis, but it doesn't remove the advantage women have in this area.


We're arguing serious hypotheticals here with zero objective data.

So let me get specific.

Average american adult female measurements:
Height (inches): 63.8
Weight (pounds): 166.2
Waist circumference (inches): 37.5

... and that's average.

If you think that average girl hasn't spent many a night being ignored, invisible, and 'below average'... you haven't spent enough time with women.

I find it mind-blowing when I see my buddies in a funk when they can't get laid, and ignore this very woman in the corner of the pub. Because they literally don't see her.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> I find it mind-blowing when I see my buddies in a funk when they can't get laid, and ignore this very woman in the corner of the pub. Because they literally don't see her.


Based on the OPs question though, if the goal of the person is solely to get laid, wouldn't you assume they are not just sitting in the corner acting invisible waiting for someone to come up to them?


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> I think it is interesting that, if I've been keeping track reasonably well, most of the men commenting on this thread think it is obviously true that women have less trouble getting laid, and most women think it is not true.
> 
> I guess we can chalk this one up to inherent sex differences!


My point is that it's rough on both sides of the fence.

Many guys have a skewed sense of 'average' because they literally don't see the 'average' women.

They only see the hot ones. Because, they're hot. And sure the hot ones have an easy time getting laid. If they're in the mood, they just pick from an available candidate, because they're already jockeying for position.

The same is true for hot guys. They just pick from available females jockeying for position.


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> Based on the OPs question though, if the goal of the person is solely to get laid, wouldn't you assume they are not just sitting in the corner acting invisible waiting for someone to come up to them?


Cultural norms, man.

Have you ever been approached by one of those women? I have. And it's freaking heartbreaking when you turn them down.

Because if she were hot, that would never happen, right?


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> Cultural norms, man.
> 
> Have you ever been approached by one of those women? I have. And it's freaking heartbreaking when you turn them down.
> 
> Because if she were hot, that would never happen, right?


Yeah, but no one is saying the male or female has one shot and if rejected that is it.


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> Yeah, but no one is saying the male or female has one shot and if rejected that is it.


My point is simple.

If an average woman really wants to get laid and doesn't matter who the guy is, she can.

If an average guy really wants to get laid and doesn't matter who the girl is, he can.

The problem is not in getting laid. The problem is getting laid by someone we want.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> My point is simple.
> 
> If an average woman really wants to get laid and doesn't matter who the guy is, she can.
> 
> If an average guy really wants to get laid and doesn't matter who the girl is, he can.
> 
> *The problem is not in getting laid. The problem is getting laid by someone we want*.


I agree with the bolded but I think by adding the condition "by someone we want" changes the nature of the OPs question.

I don't necessarily agree with you on the other points (we can agree to disagree, not trying to say I am right and you are wrong)


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> I agree with the bolded but I think by adding the condition "by someone we want" changes the nature of the OPs question.
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with you on the other points (we can agree to disagree, not trying to say I am right and you are wrong)


But without that, the question is meaningless. And buried in it is an expectation that chicks somehow have an easier time of the mating game.

The hot ones do, of course. The 'meh' ones are invisible. So we assume what's true for the hot ones is true for the 'meh' ones, right?

I mean, being honest, I've gone out while single with just the intent to get laid. I told myself I didn't care who I was going to do it with.

Well, it turns out that I always did care, and would always rather come home unsatisfied than to try to fake it with someone that I didn't want.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> But without that, the question is meaningless. And buried in it is an expectation that chicks somehow have an easier time of the mating game.
> 
> The hot ones do, of course. The 'meh' ones are invisible. So we assume what's true for the hot ones is true for the 'meh' ones, right?
> 
> I mean, being honest, I've gone out while single with just the intent to get laid. I told myself I didn't care who I was going to do it with.
> 
> Well, it turns out that I always did care, and would always rather come home unsatisfied than to try to fake it with someone that I didn't want.


I don't see the question as meaningless. Of course there are a ton of variables if you want to break it down further that can change the response.

The "hot" person should not be brought into this equation.

I understand where you are coming from. Likewise I am going off of my own experiences/observations. Also, I find this question interesting and have asked people (both male and female) and the universal answer I have gotten so far is the woman would have an easier time.

All opinion of course.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marduk- everything you are saying is exactly my experience as an average woman.


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> I don't see the question as meaningless. Of course there are a ton of variables if you want to break it down further that can change the response.
> 
> The "hot" person should not be brought into this equation.
> 
> I understand where you are coming from. Likewise I am going off of my own experiences/observations. Also, I find this question interesting and have asked people (both male and female) and the universal answer I have gotten so far is the woman would have an easier time.
> 
> All opinion of course.


OK go back and look at the statistical average measurements I posted.

Assume she's also 'average' looking, 'average' personality, 'average' appearance, etc...

Would you honestly even see her if you walked into a pub or something? Being real honest, when I was single, I wouldn't even probably notice that she was there.

If she came up to you and said "all I want from you is sex, let's go back to my place" what would you do?

Would an 'average' women ever actually even do that?


----------



## Constable Odo

marduk said:


> If an average guy really wants to get laid and doesn't matter who the girl is, he can.


If you're including professionals which cost money, then I would agree with this statement.

In absence of that qualifier though, the number of women who are willing to sleep with any random guy is significantly smaller than the number of men who are willing to sleep with any random woman.

Women are much more discriminating; they can choose to be, as men are pu$$yhounds.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> OK go back and look at the statistical average measurements I posted.
> 
> Assume she's also 'average' looking, 'average' personality, 'average' appearance, etc...
> 
> Would you honestly even see her if you walked into a pub or something? Being real honest, when I was single, I wouldn't even probably notice that she was there.
> 
> If she came up to you and said "all I want from you is sex, let's go back to my place" what would you do?
> 
> Would an 'average' women ever actually even do that?


Depends on what I am looking for. If I was at the bar, in the mood to get laid, who knows? However, tbh, that is not my style, but I know plenty of guys who would gladly answer Yes.

And keep in mind, the question isn't just what WE would do personally, but more in general terms. Just b/c I wouldn't act/respond a certain way doesn't mean otherwise wouldn't as well.

Would an average women even do that, once again, not really part of the OPs question, although I do know average women who have done that (I am sure alcohol could claim the assist for that one ...)


----------



## Marduk

Constable Odo said:


> If you're including professionals which cost money, then I would agree with this statement.
> 
> In absence of that qualifier though, the number of women who are willing to sleep with any random guy is significantly smaller than the number of men who are willing to sleep with any random woman.
> 
> Women are much more discriminating; they can choose to be, as men are pu$$yhounds.


You and I live in completely different universes.

As soon as I discovered that women like sex and there are women everywhere, all of a sudden getting laid wasn't a problem.

Just like I find it fascinating that the average man seems to have more sex partners in his lifetime than the average woman.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> You and I live in completely different universes.
> 
> As soon as I discovered that women like sex and there are women everywhere, all of a sudden getting laid wasn't a problem.
> 
> Just like I find it fascinating that the average man seems to have more sex partners in his lifetime than the average woman.


"Average" is meaningless in this case. In fact, the average must be the same for men and women, if we limit our discussion to heterosexuals. The proof is left as an exercise for the reader. 

The median, however, is different, especially if you accept the "bogus pipeline" (Google that for information) experiments showing that women and men both lie about numbers of sex partners, but in opposite directions. Even discounting that, there is a relatively small number of men who have a LOT of sex partners, and many men who have very few. This doesn't affect the average, but it does affect the median.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Many guys have a skewed sense of 'average' because they literally don't see the 'average' women.
> 
> They only see the hot ones. Because, they're hot. And sure the hot ones have an easy time getting laid. If they're in the mood, they just pick from an available candidate, because they're already jockeying for position.
> .


Exactly! Finally someone who gets it!

Let me tell you a story: I was once visiting this resort, and was hanging out drinking and talking with a group of people: an extroverted, gregarious woman in a tight-fitting red dress, a 40ish guy on the prowl for sex, an older guy, friend of the guy on the prowl, my SO, and me.

The dynamic was interesting: guy on the prowl and woman in red dress were flirting heavily and outrageously. Older guy was also all over her. Both of them were trying to convince her to go with them on some excursion for the following couple of days. She was considering it. But as the night wore on, guy in the prowl decided she wasn't enough of a sure thing, and buggered off to find something else. Older guy stuck around, the four of us had some fun conversation, and then stumbled off to our respective rooms.

Next morning, I'm sitting alone with a quiet cup of coffee while my SO is off socializing somewhere. Older guy comes by, sees me, and asks to join me. We start talking about all kinds of things ...then, he starts telling me all about how his failed marriage, how lonely he is without his exl how hard it is to find a good woman, how badly he screwed up, how he wishes he could find a relationship again. We talk about love, dating, attraction.

At one point during this conversation, he stops, looks at me and says "you know, last night I didn't even notice you. I was so focused on the flashy red dress, I didn"t even see you."

I shrugged, "Exactly your problem. There are women like me all over the place, but we're in schlep wear instead of flashy red dresses. We're quiet, not gregarious. You have to keep your eyes open."

And I could tell just how floored he was by the idea that all along he had likely been completely *overlooking* exactly the sort of thing he had been looking for.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have tons of stories of girlfriends who actually have gone out trying to get laid multiple times...with no success. This is because you just don't always get lucky and find someone mutually attractive and consenting everywhere you go. It is not that common to find people randomly like that when you are out on that type of adventure. There's never a guarantee for the "average woman", not the way that this question was originally suggested.

It is far more common to find a FWB guy among the guys you already know, but even that isn't just a common thing.

But I don't want to bother sharing these stories here as it just won't be believed by certain guys anyway, they will just say that the individual examples don't count, yada yada.

I also know men who are propositioned by women far more often than many men here seem to be able to believe...this is in part the same phenomenon as above. Some of you guys just don't understand that there are sexually aggressive women in the world who are trying to get laid. Men who are propositioned by women are not always just the top 1% of studs, either. From the outside, it would look totally random to an observer, because what one sexually aggressive woman finds attractive isn't the same as who another one would.

These stories will also just be dismissed by the same guys.

Even when other guys come in to back up these stories with their own experience, the other guys won't believe them or will discount their experience as "unusual".

I can look around a room and know if anyone there is anyone lookin' to get laid. It is a talent I'm very grateful for. Most highly sexual people have this gift. This is how we do actually find each other. We are not necessarily the ones out "lookin' to get laid" though. Those people sometimes aren't very sexual at all, they are just using someone to validate themselves.


----------



## Fitnessfan

I'm going to say yes, the average woman has less trouble doing this.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I have tons of stories of girlfriends who actually have gone out trying to get laid multiple times...with no success. This is because you just don't always get lucky and find someone mutually attractive and consenting everywhere you go. .


Guys seem to have this idea that they would say yes anytime they are propositioned, but they actually won't. It's like they envision it always being like some porn video: some beautiful barely clad woman who he can't resist, seducing him with all the right moves, and of course he's single, free, and not at all worried about disease, or whether she's pulling a con, or will turn into crazy stalker chick, or whether she's embarrassing him in front of his friends, or any number of other reasons why he might not actually want to go there.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Right. Lots of times it is simply that a man "wasn't DTF". I mean, go figure, right? Whoever thinks all men are DTF and would F at the hint of a suggestion from a breathing woman don't think very much of men. In reality, most men are not DTF with a random woman. Even if she is hot. I got lotsa hot friends who can attest to this. They are much sl*ttier than the random man is, which I know because I've seen them trying to seduce random men. 

And it just doesn't always work. Men typically have a reason for being out in public, and it wasn't to F a random woman.

I'm not saying my friends didn't get lucky sometimes. But I've known guys who were as consistently lucky.

But straight up DTF strangers is actually, really rare. Even for highly sexual people who are looking for it.


----------



## Thundarr

I dont' know how any of us can know one way or the other. Not sure about the other guys but I've never been a woman trying to get laid. I'm guessing the women on this thread have never been a man trying to get laid. The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm saying it is green on both sides.


----------



## Wolf1974

Thundarr said:


> I dont' know how any of us can know one way or the other. Not sure about the other guys but I've never been a woman trying to get laid. I'm guessing the women on this thread have never been a man trying to get laid. The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence.



True 

Apparently many have varying experience with this. Of course it's TAM after all :rofl:

What I know from my own and my male friends experience was in our youth sex was definetly easier for women. What I find interesting is now, at age 40 and divorced, I would say it is a much much more level playing field. At this age I have, for the first time , women offering sex. My friends match the same experience. Not sure why that has changed. My guess would be with more age come more confidence for women so they approach more. 

It's a great age to be single.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> True
> 
> Apparently many have varying experience with this. Of course it's TAM after all :rofl:
> 
> What I know from my own and my male friends experience was in our youth sex was definetly easier for women. What I find interesting is now, at age 40 and divorced, I would say it is a much much more level playing field. At this age I have, for the first time , women offering sex. My friends match the same experience. Not sure why that has changed. My guess would be with more age come more confidence for women so they approach more.
> 
> It's a great age to be single.


Maybe people just hid it better in previous decades and centuries...but there's always been people getting it on everywhere through out time. And that means both men and women are getting it on. So you may not have noticed it when you were younger but you do notice it now.

I have always noticed it. I have kept my eyes and ears open for it, even if it has nothing to do with me. There are people having sex everywhere, all the time. They are hooking up, shacking up, or tying each other up...it never ends. Both men and women are in on this game. First they meet somehow. Either through school, work, friends, church, in public, whatever. Then it is either a casual thing, a dating thing, or a relationship thing...but between all this things, a whole lotta sex happens.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I've never thought about this subject much. From personal experience I've never been turned down premarriage and I have been with a lot of guys. And I have never personally known anyone who struggles to get any who wanted it regardless of gender. I have been turned down after marriage because my demand was so high and my H rightly called it what it was "addiction." He refused to enable addictive level and the manipulation that goes with it. He eventually broke that addiction in me. I was set free, thank God. So the only refusal I've ever had was "for" my own good. I experience ease with getting it, the question for me became, should I?

But now that I think about it, I take back one statement about not knowing anyone at all... I know of only ONE guy who struggles to get it and its his negative thinking that is a huge turn off.


----------



## Constable Odo

Blossom Leigh said:


> From personal experience I've never been turned down premarriage and I have been with a lot of guys.


Its a simple dynamic, actually.

Have you ever walked up to a man (pre-marriage), offered him sex, and had him refuse turn down the offer?

Likewise, have you ever had a man walk up to you, ask you for sex, and you turned him down?


The stereotype of men hitting on anything that moves exists because men need to use the "shotgun approach" to obtaining sex partners. This wouldn't be necessary if sex were readily available for men. 

Biologically, women are more discriminating then men when it comes to deciding who to have sex with (naturally, we can all point to statistical outliers on either side of the bell curve)... which was the original point of this thread, pages and pages ago.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> Maybe people just hid it better in previous decades and centuries...but there's always been people getting it on everywhere through out time. And that means both men and women are getting it on. So you may not have noticed it when you were younger but you do notice it now.
> 
> I have always noticed it. I have kept my eyes and ears open for it, even if it has nothing to do with me. There are people having sex everywhere, all the time. They are hooking up, shacking up, or tying each other up...it never ends. Both men and women are in on this game. First they meet somehow. Either through school, work, friends, church, in public, whatever. Then it is either a casual thing, a dating thing, or a relationship thing...but between all this things, a whole lotta sex happens.


Ohh I would have noticed it. I was actively pursuing it. Just wasn't there. That's not to say I never had sex cause I did but it was always within the confines of a relationship. Never had a ONS technically but in my youth would have been ok with it. And never once had a woman proposition me for sex, ask for a one night stand, ask to be FWB until I was divorced and then all these things happened. Like I said I feel the playing field is greatly leveled out now and love it :smthumbup:


----------



## Wolf1974

Constable Odo said:


> Its a simple dynamic, actually.
> 
> Have you ever walked up to a man (pre-marriage), offered him sex, and had him refuse turn down the offer?
> 
> Likewise, have you ever had a man walk up to you, ask you for sex, and you turned him down?
> 
> 
> The stereotype of men hitting on anything that moves exists because men need to use the "shotgun approach" to obtaining sex partners. This wouldn't be necessary if sex were readily available for men.
> 
> Biologically, women are more discriminating then men when it comes to deciding who to have sex with (naturally, we can all point to statistical outliers on either side of the bell curve)... which was the original point of this thread, pages and pages ago.


This is more the switch In age seen personally. When young all the guys I knew were going to to clubs, bars, parties to get laid. Not relationships, just laid. So women we constantly being hit on and I have to imagine that like online dating all the attention was probably flattering and annoying at the exact same time. Fast forward 20 years and I'm not consumed with just getting laid or finding a relationship. Just having a good time and enjoying life. And women now throw themselves at you.

So yes I had the shotgun approach but don't anymore which now works out a lot better.

I really don't know why...maybe because they came out of sexless marriages and were frustrated, maybe their higher drives have kicked in, maybe that's how they think to secure a relationship. Really don't know.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Or maybe women are just as sexual as men are.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Constable Odo said:


> Its a simple dynamic, actually.
> 
> Have you ever walked up to a man (pre-marriage), offered him sex, and had him refuse turn down the offer?
> 
> Likewise, have you ever had a man walk up to you, ask you for sex, and you turned him down?
> 
> 
> The stereotype of men hitting on anything that moves exists because men need to use the "shotgun approach" to obtaining sex partners. This wouldn't be necessary if sex were readily available for men.
> 
> Biologically, women are more discriminating then men when it comes to deciding who to have sex with (naturally, we can all point to statistical outliers on either side of the bell curve)... which was the original point of this thread, pages and pages ago.


Putting some thought to it I'm very overt and gregarious, but not that direct about sex with people I don't know. Plus, I've never had to ask in a bar. I get hit on every time I go out, married or not, skinny or not, so the thought of asking a guy doesn't have the chance to form. I'm actually having to work so I don't get noticed, (no eye contact, smiles, no egging them on, etc). Keeping guys at bay is almost impossible when I'm there to sing. I quit going out to sing after the last time. They start to hover. Kills a good time.

Now being direct about sex with my H is a whole other ball game. He doesn't like to be pushed, so I have to watch my overt desire for him. I could be on him 24/7 if he let me.

I have turned down when I'm out, yes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> Ohh I would have noticed it. I was actively pursuing it. Just wasn't there. That's not to say I never had sex cause I did but it was always within the confines of a relationship. Never had a ONS technically but in my youth would have been ok with it. And never once had a woman proposition me for sex, ask for a one night stand, ask to be FWB until I was divorced and then all these things happened. Like I said I feel the playing field is greatly leveled out now and love it :smthumbup:



What you noticed was about your own sex life. I'm talking about the sex that is going on all around us, all the time. Even back then. If you and I are approximately the same age and I noticed sex happening everywhere when I was younger (including women having sex) then the issue isn't just that these women are older now. It is simply that I was more observant and was deliberately looking for people having sex (or I was deliberately asking people about their sex lives and experiences).

Just observing your own sex life doesn't give anyone a full picture. If I just observed my own sex life, it would appear that women are far more sexual than men are.

But by watching and asking everyone else, I realized that some men are actually as sexual as I am. It was hard to believe at first.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> What you noticed was about your own sex life. I'm talking about the sex that is going on all around us, all the time. Even back then. If you and I are approximately the same age and I noticed sex happening everywhere when I was younger (including women having sex) then the issue isn't just that these women are older now. *It is simply that I was more observant and was deliberately looking for people having sex (or I was deliberately asking people about their sex lives and experiences).
> *
> Just observing your own sex life doesn't give anyone a full picture. If I just observed my own sex life, it *would appear that women are far more sexual than men are.
> *
> But by watching and asking everyone else, I realized that some men are actually as sexual as I am. It was hard to believe at first.



That isn't what I observed. At all. When younger I observed almost all non married guys trying for sex and getting shot down more times than not. I was among them. Women were having sex but were more selective about it by choice and because they could be

I was speaking from my experience and experience of my other guys fiends. That's what this thread was asking what your experience and opinion About does the average woman have less trouble getting laid than the average guy. In my opinion no doubt true but as I said before this is tam so plenty will disagree. Doesn't change what I have observed myself or the countless others who stated same on here


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> Or maybe women are just as sexual as men are.


Course they are why wouldn't they be:scratchhead:


----------



## Thundarr

Fitnessfan said:


> From my perspective, when I was younger I would never have been open to a FWB or ONS situation. However, now that I view sex more openly and no longer think that type of thing is wrong as I did when I was younger, I think I would definitely approach a man for this (more so FWB than ONS probably) if I were single. I'm more comfortable about sexuality now than I was when I was younger so I actually think it is an age thing for woman. *Perhaps I was more worried about my image then as well.*


You hit on the issue Fitness. Young girls have to worry about rumors, their rep getting trashed, and being judged if the guys kisses and tells. It doesn't matter if they are just as sexual as the guys because they don't want the likely outcome if he tells his buddies. Us guys didn't have to worry about our rep or rumors. Girls kissing and telling actually has the complete opposite effect. And then let's add that women are more vulnerable physically since they aren't as strong. But like you many girls become women they decide they don't care what anyone says or thinks.


Sure the average young girl can hook up with a *stranger* more easily than the average young man because the guy has nothing to lose but she does. It's not related to sexual interest as much as it's related to trust.


----------



## Wolf1974

Fitnessfan said:


> From my perspective, when I was younger I would never have been open to a FWB or ONS situation. However, now that I view sex more openly and no longer think that type of thing is wrong as I did when I was younger, I think I would definitely approach a man for this (more so FWB than ONS probably) if I were single. *I'm more comfortable about sexuality now than I was when I was younger so I actually think it is an age thing for woman. Perhaps I was more worried about my image then as well.*


*
*

Would cocincide what I have found. I will ask some of my female friends if their view and approach to sexuality changed with age


----------



## Wolf1974

Thundarr said:


> You hit on the issue Fitness. Young girls have to worry about rumors, their rep getting trashed, and being judged if the guys kisses and tells. It doesn't matter if they are just as sexual as the guys because they don't want the likely outcome if he tells his buddies. Us guys didn't have to worry about our rep or rumors. Girls kissing and telling actually has the complete opposite effect. And then let's add that women are more vulnerable physically since they aren't as strong. But like you many girls become women they decide they don't care what anyone says or thinks.
> 
> 
> *Sure the average young girl can hook up with a stranger more easily than the average young man because the guy has nothing to lose but she does. It's not related to sexual interest as much as it's related to trust*.


Exactly which is why I never understood the debate on this topic at all. They can more easily as the question asks. The real question is why don't they.. **** shamming, safety, rumors all play a part In that


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> That isn't what I observed. At all. When younger I observed almost all non married guys trying for sex and getting shot down more times than not. I was among them. Women were having sex but were more selective about it by choice and because they could be
> 
> I was speaking from my experience and experience of my other guys fiends. That's what this thread was asking what your experience and opinion About does the average woman have less trouble getting laid than the average guy. In my opinion no doubt true but as I said before this is tam so plenty will disagree. *Doesn't change what I have observed myself or the countless others who stated same on here*


But your experience doesn't change mine either. I personally witnessed dozens of my young friends slip off to have sex with dozens of young guys....the women being the instigators much of the time, definitely at least half. That was just a small amount of the sex going on around me, all the time, everywhere I looked. YOUR experience doesn't change mine either and I am just offering mine as the thread asked for as well. My experience is something that people should hear, just as much as yours is.

In high school and college years, this was pretty even. But later on is when I've seen female friends get shot down when man hunting randomly. It is not the same scenario as college and high school. Men got stuff to do are aren't just out lookin' to F everyone who walks by.

There is far more sex going on than most people notice, mostly because the ones who do find each other don't throw it in your face, they just slip off and do it.


----------



## len51

A woman can walk into any bar and find a guy to have sex with while a guy cannot do the same. Often, open relationships do not work out because the wife has new sex partners every week while the husband goes months before he finds a sex partner.

A wise man once told me that all women are attractive if they are a sure thing. That is so true.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sigh....


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> But your experience doesn't change mine either. I personally witnessed dozens of my young friends slip off to have sex with dozens of young guys....the women being the instigators much of the time, definitely at least half. That was just a small amount of the sex going on around me, all the time, everywhere I looked. YOUR experience doesn't change mine either and I am just offering mine as the thread asked for as well. My experience is something that people should hear, just as much as yours is.
> 
> In high school and college years, this was pretty even. But later on is when I've seen female friends get shot down when man hunting randomly. It is not the same scenario as college and high school. Men got stuff to do are aren't just out lookin' to F everyone who walks by.
> 
> There is far more sex going on than most people notice, mostly because the ones who do find each other don't throw it in your face, they just slip off and do it.


I never said it did. You pointed out in my post that your experience differed first. So what we are left with we obviously had very different experiences. Mine doesn't trump yours and never said it did. But yours doesn't trump mine either.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I agree wolf...we both shared. And both of our stories are good for the overall view of things.

Have you joined my blue pill thread yet....let's go argue there, too!


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> I agree wolf...we both shared. And both of our stories are good for the overall view of things.
> 
> Have you joined my blue pill thread yet....let's go argue there, too!


I haven't read the book mmslp yet but on my list. Can't speak much on the subject. Don't know if I agree with any of it yet


----------



## Marduk

len51 said:


> A woman can walk into any bar and find a guy to have sex with while a guy cannot do the same. Often, open relationships do not work out because the wife has new sex partners every week while the husband goes months before he finds a sex partner.
> 
> A wise man once told me that all women are attractive if they are a sure thing. That is so true.


All of what you just said has been pretty much the opposite experience as mine. As an example, one of my best friends used to be an extremely hot, and sexually aggressive bisexual female.

We'd go out all the time together. I'd go home with someone more often than she would -- and she had twice the amount of people to go for, right?

My longest running FWB relationship was a pretty equal one. We'd basically go out, and if we didn't hook up with someone else, we'd get together. So I pretty much knew how much she was getting.

And it all went wrong because I started to have feelings for her, and she didn't for me. So we tried to go back to the FWB situaition... and when I started dating someone seriously, she decided she had feelings for me. So it all went wrong timing-wise. My point is that it was pretty equal.

And I especially disagree with that last bit. Having a woman approach me or even if I start chatting her up -- if I know it's a sure thing, I'd get pretty 'meh' about it. Because what's the challenge, right? Where's the thrill of the chase? And if she's that into me without even knowing me... well... that's a turn off for me, anyway.

I've said no to at least a dozen women that I can think of. Is that odd?

So, maybe it's just me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> I haven't read the book mmslp yet but on my list. Can't speak much on the subject. Don't know if I agree with any of it yet


Oh ok...well come by anyway, I'm sure we'll find something to go round and round about. There's cocoa being served.


----------



## Wolf1974

Other thing about this some what poorly written topic question. Average is subjective. I consider myself average. On another thread about online dating profiles people were sharing pictures and dating profiles. One lady I was helping With hers I mentioned I was average and never had a problem getting getting dates... she asked to see my pic. Sent it to her and she stated I wasn't average and neither was my GF. So that's subjective. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder some will be attracted to the average and others won't if that makes sense


----------



## Thundarr

If we're speaking generalities then this isn't complicated and it's not a slam. It's just logic.

- A lot of people like sex.
- Average person 'A' is horny and see's person 'B" but knows the price could be high.
- Average person 'B' is horny and see's person 'A' but thinks there's no danger.

It's clear that a person perceiving danger and consequence will be less likely to act on the urge than the other person. Now add to the logic that women have historically taken more risk and still do. Plus men statistically are more willing to take risk and voila. When speaking in generalities as this thread topic framed then there's no other answer.

Now if we choose to speak on personal experience then there are infinite answers but they aren't the same topic any more.


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> If we're speaking generalities then this isn't complicated and it's not a slam. It's just logic.
> 
> - A lot of people like sex.
> - Average person 'A' is horny and see's person 'B" but knows the price could be high.
> - Average person 'B' is horny and see's person 'A' but thinks there's no danger.
> 
> It's clear that a person perceiving danger and consequence will be less likely to act on the urge than the other person. Now add to the logic that women have historically taken more risk and still do. Plus men statistically are more willing to take risk and voila. When speaking in generalities as this thread topic framed then there's no other answer.
> 
> Now if we choose to speak on personal experience then there are infinite answers but they aren't the same topic any more.


Ah, rationalism vs empiricism.

Because it's logical, it must be true, and trumps direct experience. Because reality is logical, right?


----------



## Thundarr

marduk said:


> Ah, rationalism vs empiricism.
> 
> Because it's logical, it must be true, and trumps direct experience. Because reality is logical, right?


I didn't say anything about your experience or mine for that matter because the thread topic is talking about 'average'-plural. If I present a logical reason why most people aren't struck by lightning will you then say "Because it's logical, it must be true"? Would your personal experience change that if you infact had been struck by lightning? No it would not change it. It would a great straw man example.

Again to the thread point. If a bunch of people like sex and 1/2 of them are afraid of consequences but the other 1/2 are not then it's obvious which ones are less likely to participate.


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> I didn't say anything about your experience or mine for that matter because the thread topic is talking about 'average'-plural. If I present a logical reason why most people aren't struck by lightning will you then say "Because it's logical, it must be true"?


I think logic is a great way to make a hypothesis.

Which you then test to see if it's true or not, right?


----------



## Thundarr

marduk said:


> I think logic is a great way to make a hypothesis.
> 
> Which you then test to see if it's true or not, right?


Yes and yes. But before going that direction, maybe our context is slightly different starting with the definition of 'easy'. If given a little time then it's really easy for most average guys to get laid repeatedly. Maybe even easier then average women. If talking about instant gratification from a random other (ONS) like I think the OP was taking about then it's no contest though.

So which context are you referring to because I might agree with you depending on that.


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> Yes and yes. But before going that direction, maybe our context is slightly different starting with the definition of 'easy'. If given a little time then it's really easy for most average guys to get laid repeatedly. Maybe even easier then average women. If talking about instant gratification from a random other (ONS) like I think the OP was taking about then it's no contest though.
> 
> So which context are you referring to because I might agree with you depending on that.


I think the question was straightforward.

Does an average human female have an easier or harder time finding sex than an average human male?

Seems testable.

Consider the following data that says that men's reported sexual frequency is higher than women's from Kinsey:
The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]

I find things like that fascinating.

One can of course argue that reporting sexual frequency can skew the data (men overreport women underreport) but then what does it tell you?

If it's true, men have more sex, on average, than women do.

If it's not true, then likely men and women have about the same amount of sex. Which you'd expect, because most men have sex with women.

And then what does that tell you?

The data simply does not support the concept that women have an 'easier' time getting laid than men do.

And even if you define 'easier' in terms of stress, or calorie output, or whatever...

Imagine how much effort women go to to be thought desirable by men.

The _right_ men, of course.

And then we're right back where we started, right?


----------



## morituri

Perhaps before the question can be answered, another question should be asked first _Does the average woman have less trouble trusting a strange man than an average man trusting a strange woman?_

Getting laid involves a degree of trust or at the very least, the perception that a stranger inspires safety. Even an above average person in the looks department, will strike out if he/she comes off as unsafe or untrustworthy to another.


----------



## Marduk

morituri said:


> Perhaps before the question can be answered, another question should be asked first _Does the average woman have less trouble trusting a strange man than an average man trusting a strange woman?_
> 
> Getting laid involves a degree of trust or at the very least, the perception that a stranger inspires safety. Even an above average person in the looks department, will strike out if he/she comes off as unsafe or untrustworthy to another.


See... maybe in a relationship. Maybe even most of the time.

But I've had women sleep with me that didn't trust me at all.

In fact, it seemed to be part of the attraction.

I mean, I was honest about it, at least. I didn't lie to them. 

But they didn't trust me not to break their heart, if that's what you're getting at.

Human sexuality is complex.


----------



## Constable Odo

morituri said:


> Getting laid involves a degree of trust or at the very least, the perception that a stranger inspires safety.


Safety is irrelevant to the issue, as is evidenced by the plethora of men arrested daily as "johns" around the USA. Clearly whatever "trust" a man must have to have sex with a woman is significantly less than the level of trust a woman must feel for a man. Just knowing the numerous body-issue hangups women have, it's usually a miraculous feat to get them naked, at least, in the daylight.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Constable Odo said:


> Safety is irrelevant to the issue, as is evidenced by the plethora of men arrested daily as "johns" around the USA. Clearly whatever "trust" a man must have to have sex with a woman is significantly less than the level of trust a woman must feel for a man. Just knowing the numerous body-issue hangups women have, it's usually a miraculous feat to get them naked, at least, in the daylight.


It ain't that hard. I've had numerous trysts in the great outdoors in broad daylight.


----------



## Thundarr

marduk said:


> I think the question was straightforward.
> 
> Does an average human female have an easier or harder time finding sex than an average human male?
> 
> Seems testable.
> 
> Consider the following data that says that men's reported sexual frequency is higher than women's from Kinsey:
> The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]


Okay your context is that 'getting laid' is the same as 'finding sex' and is backed up by sexual frequency. So wife and I got laid this morning. I would not read the intent of OP as meaning that at all. I suspect he used the term 'getting laid' to mean hooking up with someone new. So again context matters.


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> Okay your context is that 'getting laid' is the same as 'finding sex' and is backed up by sexual frequency. So wife and I got laid this morning. I would not read the intent of OP as meaning that at all. I suspect he used the term 'getting laid' to mean hooking up with someone new. So again context matters.


OK.

Want to define the parameters more?

Two people that don't know their intended sexual partners, are not in a relationship, and are just looking for no strings attached sex?

What about 'easy?' How do we define 'easy?'

Caloric output? Time? Stress?

And, by the way, we've excluded a huge swath of both male and female populations -- those that are never single, and jump from relationship to relationship. Serial monogamy.

All those human beings are filtered out of the equation, right?

Because it seems to me that the easiest way to get sex is to be in a relationship, where you're both reasonably assured to get it, and have it be good.


----------



## morituri

marduk said:


> See... maybe in a relationship. Maybe even most of the time.
> 
> But I've had women sleep with me that didn't trust me at all.
> 
> In fact, it seemed to be part of the attraction.
> 
> I mean, I was honest about it, at least. I didn't lie to them.
> 
> But they didn't trust me not to break their heart, if that's what you're getting at.


What is the "average man" and what is the "average woman"? The answers would be as vast as the people who answer it. The demographics (age and culture) also need to be factored in when choosing our representative sample.

From this reply you are putting yourself as "the average man" and you may be. But do to variation in demographics, you are not ALL average men and the women you slept with were not ALL average women. 



> Human sexuality is complex.


It is indeed and that is why loaded questions like the thread title, do very little in helping to understand it. Just the answer in and of itself is woefully deficient considering the factors that come into play.




Constable Odo said:


> Safety is irrelevant to the issue, as is evidenced by the plethora of men arrested daily as "johns" around the USA. Clearly whatever "trust" a man must have to have sex with a woman is significantly less than the level of trust a woman must feel for a man. Just knowing the numerous body-issue hangups women have, it's usually a miraculous feat to get them naked, at least, in the daylight.


I disagree, like it or not safety IS an important and relevant factor (not the only one of course) to a large number of "average women" when choosing whether or not to have sex with "average men".


----------



## Blossom Leigh

morituri said:


> What is the "average man" and what is the "average woman"? The answers would be as vast as the people who answer it. The demographics (age and culture) also need to be factored in when choosing our representative sample.
> 
> From this reply you are putting yourself as "the average man" and you may be. But do to variation in demographics, you are not ALL average men and the women you slept with were not ALL average women.
> 
> Ii
> 
> It is indeed and that is why loaded questions like the thread title, do very little in helping to understand it. Just the answer in and of itself is woefully deficient considering the factors that come into play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, like it or not safety IS an important and relevant factor (not the only one of course) with a large majority of "average women" when choosing whether or not to have sex with "average men".


The women here have vastly different taste in men and I would venture to say its the same for the men, making defining "average" as problematic.


----------



## morituri

I believe we are also having an issue with the words "trust" and "safety" so allow me to clarify. 

When I talk about them, I am referring to physical trust and safety as in no physical harm. I am not referring to the emotional trust that creates and maintains a bond between couples.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

morituri said:


> I believe we are also having an issue with the words "trust" and "safety" so allow me to clarify.
> 
> When I talk about them, I am referring to physical trust and safety as in no physical harm. I am not referring to the emotional trust that creates and maintains a bond between couples.
> 
> I hope this helps.


Important point. I know that's been an issue for me. Had a guy 6'7" that handled me like a ragdoll. Scared me bad. Its always a touch of an issue for me.


----------



## morituri

Blossom Leigh said:


> Important point. I know that's been an issue for me. Had a guy 6'7" that handled me like a ragdoll. Scared me bad. Its always a touch of an issue for me.


And THAT is what a lot of us men don't seem to get.

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of fearless women out there who are not intimidated by a men's physicality and assertiveness. Hell, some of these women can easily kick a man's butt if they were forced to. But even these women would most likely appreciate it when men attracted to them, would go out of their way to show them that they are not evil and would never lay a hand on them, ever.

Getting laid is also about allowing yourself to be physically vulnerable to another person so you can enjoy the experience of sex itself. You can't enjoy sex if you are afraid of your partner.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Average to me means average in looks, personality nothing very outgoing, no important job, doesn't do a lot of going out, isn't very athletic, isn't very computer savvy, doesn't eat fancy food, and on and on...average, but likeable, just not very outgoing or completely closed off to conversations. 

In that case, I would personally say that a woman has a leg up on a man. A woman can dress in a manner that makes her attractive to a wide range of men, but a man needs to be a little more outgoing and confident to be as attractive in this scenario of chance encounters.

That's the way I understood it. I think we can play games with justification to reach almost any conclusion.


----------



## CuddleBug

For sure.


Ladies are born sexy, beautiful, curvacious, seductive and with the hairstyle, clothing, open shoes and makeup, this just enhances them that much more.

So is it easy for an average woman to get sex? Definitely yes.

Most of us guys aren't hot and sexy and we know it and we get turned down for sex way more than ladies getting turned down for sex.

Just the way its always been and always will be.


----------



## Marduk

Mr average (using USA for ease of access):
- most likely caucasian or some variant thereof (77%)
- speaks english only
-Height (inches): 69.3
-Weight (pounds): 195.5
-Waist circumference (inches): 39.7
-makes $40k/year
- has high school and some college
-is christian
-is about 36
-lost his virginity at 17
- has had 7 partners

Ms/mrs/miss average:
- most likely caucasian or some variant thereof 
- speaks english only
- Height (inches): 63.8
- Weight (pounds): 166.2
- Waist circumference (inches): 37.5
- makes 30k/year
- has high school and some college
-is christian
-is about 37
-lost her virginity at 17
-has had 4 partners

sources: 
FastStats - Body Measurements
United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Average Joe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]

Anything else?


----------



## Marduk

'Easy' means a lack of effort. So how to define effort?

1. The use of physical or mental energy to do something; exertion.
2. A difficult exertion of strength or will: It was an effort to get up.
3. A usually earnest attempt: Make an effort to arrive promptly.
4. Something done or produced through exertion; an achievement: a play that was his finest effort.
5. Physics
a. Force applied against inertia.
b. The force needed by a machine to accomplish work on a load.

Only 1 and 5 are objectively measurable, I think. And 5 isn't what we're looking for, and that leaves definition #1?

effort - definition of effort by The Free Dictionary


----------



## Thundarr

marduk said:


> Anything else?


You're still using the number of partners as a measure without considering the effort applied. It's flawed logic that doesn't fit the argument. Simple simple truth is if two people like sex equally and one has more negative consequences than the other then that person will be less likely to jump into it. It's not complicated.


----------



## Thundarr

It really does not bother me that an average looking woman can put on the high heels and tight dress and get some strange on a whim if she's willing to go clubbing for it. I'm completely okay with that. It doesn't bother me that the average man will not succeed in the same attempt.

Yet I still can see it.


----------



## Lon

Back in the day of going to bars with my friends to pick up women, there were a heck of a lot more hot women than hot men. Usually on a given Saturday night, when the ugly lights went on, the dozen or so studs that all the women swooned over had some of the prettiest of the bunch and the rest of us slept alone that night. Then the next week, same routine but the dozen attractive guys were going home with the pretty girls that slept alone the week before and once again the rest of us guys (and I'm assuming plain girls) went home alone again frustrated, while the remaining hot women got a week off. Once in awhile one from my group of friends would go pick up a plain looking girl because all the attractive ones either had one of the studs or else wasn't interested in anything else on the menu that night. It was depressing so I stopped going with my friends to the bar.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> *It really does not bother me that an average looking woman can put on the high heels and tight dress and get some strange on a whim if she's willing to go clubbing for it*. I'm completely okay with that. *It doesn't bother me that the average man will not succeed in the same attempt*.
> 
> Yet I still can see it.


Then who did she have sex with from the club? An above average guy?


----------



## morituri

Faithful Wife said:


> Then who did she have sex with from the club? An above average guy?


The RP guy


----------



## Faithful Wife

morituri said:


> The RP guy


Ok but he's still only a 5 at best. More likely a 4.


----------



## morituri

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok but he's still only a 5 at best. More likely a 4.


On a scale from 1 to 10, isn't that very close to "average"?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

It is so easy to have a flawed attempt to test this. Take the two videos posted with the guy and girl asking for direct sex on the streets. She was way cuter than the guy and dressed provocatively. The guy was dressed terrible, was not cute, acted dorky. They needed a different guy in comparison to the girl to equal out the "test." I mean come on, the dude had on black socks against super white legs. WHO finds that attractive. He looked like he rolled out of bed and put shoes on and did nothing else. His shirt was gross.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> Back in the day of going to bars with my friends to pick up women, there were a heck of a lot more hot women than hot men. Usually on a given Saturday night, when the ugly lights went on, the dozen or so studs that all the women swooned over had some of the prettiest of the bunch and the rest of us slept alone that night. Then the next week, same routine but the dozen attractive guys were going home with the pretty girls that slept alone the week before and once again the rest of us guys (and I'm assuming plain girls) went home alone again frustrated, while the remaining hot women got a week off. Once in awhile one from my group of friends would go pick up a plain looking girl because all the attractive ones either had one of the studs or else wasn't interested in anything else on the menu that night. It was depressing so I stopped going with my friends to the bar.



Right, you were only interested in the "hot" girls, and the average ones were absolutely uninteresting to you. 

Your "hard time" was because you weren't willing to settle with something as horrible, unsatisfying, and humiliating as a plain girl.

Yet, women have it easy because we only talk about the pretty ones. Who gives a rat's a$$ about all those horrible, awful, meh, and completely uninteresting average girls.


----------



## Faithful Wife

morituri said:


> On a scale from 1 to 10, isn't that very close to "average"?


Yes, and that's what I'm getting at.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Right, you were only interested in the "hot" girls, and the average ones were absolutely uninteresting to you.
> 
> Your "hard time" was because you weren't willing to settle with something as horrible, unsatisfying, and humiliating as a plain girl.
> 
> Yet, women have it easy because we only talk about the pretty ones. Who gives a rat's a$$ about all those horrible, awful, meh, and completely uninteresting average girls.


I was watching a TV show the other day, not a full on sitcom, a little better quality (HBO's Togetherness).

There is a male regular on the show who is very unattractive, and a female who is extremely attractive, especially compared to the male. (Amanda Peet and Steve Zissis). The two are cast as friends. The female starts helping the male out with some stuff, and soon enough, he starts having feelings for her. But the female goes off with a very good looking, successful guy and it hurts the unattractive guy's feelings. As the viewer, it is obvious we are supposed to feel bad for the guy. I ended up watching the director and writer talking about the episode afterward and they said "yeah a girl like her wants to be with the alpha males, she has no interest in this guy".

sigh....

Why would we feel sorry for this guy who is sad because he has a crush on a woman who is not in his league (when based on objective physical appearances only), yet if we reversed the roles in the cast here and had Melissa McCarthy having a crush on Channing Tatum, she would be RIDICULED for having the nerve to think she could be with a hot man.

But of course the non-hot guy who doesn't get the uber hot girl? Aww.....poor guy....so sad those hot girls never give a nice guy a chance, they just want to be with the hot guys. It is so mean (snif). 

(however...I did get to see Amanda Peet's boobs in this episode, so it wasn't a total loss)


----------



## RandomDude

What we arguing about now? Oh attractiveness? Seriously? Bah!

I'm shallow actually, as I only go for females on the 8+ range, but that's because... I CAN









Besides, as I repeated myself fairly often, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A 5 could be an 9 to me, and a 9 could be a 4 to me. Tis how it is! Just physical preferences! Now even though I know I'm hot as fk, I also know I'm not everyone's cup of tea! 

One should not be bitter about not everyone finding them super hot, one should be thankful and appreciate those who wanna ride you! (or ram you!) As for "average" girls, several women I dated thought they were plain looking but to me they were fking gorgeous. Tis just different tastes.


----------



## RandomDude

Anyway as for league, there are those who take care of their physical appearance and those who don't. That's as far as it goes for me. Like, the women I noticed most men find attractive were simply the ones who kept in shape, dressed well, carried themselves well, etc. I hold myself to the same standard, especially when I demand the same of others.

Still, doesn't mean we automatically become solid 10/10s, theres still physical preferences and physical compatibility that comes into the picture.


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> You're still using the number of partners as a measure without considering the effort applied. It's flawed logic that doesn't fit the argument. Simple simple truth is if two people like sex equally and one has more negative consequences than the other then that person will be less likely to jump into it. It's not complicated.


That wasn't my intention - a commentary on effort:new sex ratio.

It was a description of mr and mrs average.


----------



## Lon

always_alone said:


> Right, you were only interested in the "hot" girls, and the average ones were absolutely uninteresting to you.
> 
> Your "hard time" was because you weren't willing to settle with something as horrible, unsatisfying, and humiliating as a plain girl.
> 
> Yet, women have it easy because we only talk about the pretty ones. Who gives a rat's a$$ about all those horrible, awful, meh, and completely uninteresting average girls.


No what I'm saying is that more than half the girls there (ie average) were what anyone there would consider hot, where only a small handful of guys there were what would be considered hot. Then a whole bunch of average or slightly better guys trying to pick up a bunch of average and better girls that were not interested at all and a very small number of below average girls that would pair off with the below average guys, or the average guy that grew desperate. Average guys looking for average girls were the ones out of luck.

What is missing from this whole discussion of casual bar encounters is the element of time... The average girls just had to wait until next week to get with one of the few studs, they mostly weren't interested in anything else.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> No what I'm saying is that more than half the girls there (ie average) were what anyone there would consider hot, where only a small handful of guys there were what would be considered hot. Then a whole bunch of average or slightly better guys trying to pick up a bunch of average and better girls that were not interested at all and a very small number of below average girls that would pair off with the below average guys, or the average guy that grew desperate. Average guys looking for average girls were the ones out of luck.
> 
> What is missing from this whole discussion of casual bar encounters is the element of time... The average girls just had to wait until next week to get with one of the few studs, they mostly weren't interested in anything else.


What you have to get Lon...

Is that women see the exact same effect. Just with gender roles reversed.

It's a 'grass is greener' thing. With a bunch of shifting cultural norms piled on top of it.

We all see what we want to see. And what we want to see is colored by being the person at the bar when the lights come up and being alone. Or not picked at the high school dance. Or didn't get the hot date for the prom. Or whatever.


----------



## 2ntnuf

marduk said:


> What you have to get Lon...
> 
> Is that women see the exact same effect. Just with gender roles reversed.
> 
> It's a 'grass is greener' thing. With a bunch of shifting cultural norms piled on top of it.
> 
> We all see what we want to see. And what we want to see is colored by being the person at the bar when the lights come up and being alone. Or not picked at the high school dance. Or didn't get the hot date for the prom. Or whatever.


How many times has someone posted, "We can't help who we are attracted to"? You guys are trying to jam a whale up the arse of a rhino. Get over yourselves. If an average woman is attracted to a better than average man, so what? The same goes for the reverse. Proving your opinion doesn't make someone else's wrong. Most of the women posting here are above average anyway. What does that tell you? Maybe that would be a more interesting conversation? .....unsubscribe...


----------



## ConanHub

An average guy can get laid anytime he wants, if he doesn't mind being had by a mutant......
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## gouge_away

Their has, from the beginnings of civilization, existed a very profitable industry where men will pay women for sex.
As far as I know the industry where women pay men for sex is almost non existing.


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> What you have to get Lon...
> 
> Is that women see the exact same effect. Just with gender roles reversed.
> 
> It's a 'grass is greener' thing. With a bunch of shifting cultural norms piled on top of it.
> 
> We all see what we want to see. And what we want to see is colored by being the person at the bar when the lights come up and being alone. Or not picked at the high school dance. Or didn't get the hot date for the prom. Or whatever.


Same effect but it's not in the same proportion by any means. There is a supply and demand for attractive sexual partners, the supply of average men and women is much closer, but the demand is not equal between the sexes. Men pursue women choose.

Many different women choose the same few guys and the same guys that got rejected last time continue getting rejected. Just as there are a few women that no guys pursue who get rejected over and over. The average number who go to bed alone any given week may be the exact same but over the course of time the 80/20 rule applies (20% of men have sex with 80% of women.)


----------



## Lon

gouge_away said:


> Their has, from the beginnings of civilization, existed a very profitable industry where men will pay women for sex.
> As far as I know the industry where women pay men for sex is almost non existing.


Yes, women are the gate keepers.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> Same effect but it's not in the same proportion by any means. There is a supply and demand for attractive sexual partners, the supply of average men and women is much closer, but the demand is not equal between the sexes. Men pursue women choose.
> 
> Many different women choose the same few guys and the same guys that got rejected last time continue getting rejected. Just as there are a few women that no guys pursue who get rejected over and over. The average number who go to bed alone any given week may be the exact same but over the course of time the 80/20 rule applies (20% of men have sex with 80% of women.)


Here's the thing.

We can't even agree on what 'average' or 'effort' means.

How can you measure pain? Rejection? Loneliness?

You can't. So you can't say that yours is greater than mine, or vice versa, or that men's is greater than women's. Or the reverse.

To try to 'prove' that men have it harder is impossible. And the whole mindset... is a collision course with being a victim.

Which, at the end of the day, is what the best parts of RP say to stop doing, right? So why do it?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

RandomDude said:


> What we arguing about now? Oh attractiveness? Seriously? Bah!
> 
> I'm shallow actually, as I only go for females on the 8+ range, but that's because... I CAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, as I repeated myself fairly often, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A 5 could be an 9 to me, and a 9 could be a 4 to me. Tis how it is! Just physical preferences! Now even though I know I'm hot as fk, I also know I'm not everyone's cup of tea!
> 
> One should not be bitter about not everyone finding them super hot, one should be thankful and appreciate those who wanna ride you! (or ram you!) As for "average" girls, several women I dated thought they were plain looking but to me they were fking gorgeous. Tis just different tastes.


I agree beauty is so subjective. FW posted the name of a guy she really finds attractive that I wouldn't be attracted to at all. She might or might not be attracted to the guys I like. Another poster posted pics of guys she likes and they were too girly for me, yet she might or might like who I like. 

I was watching some guys here post names of women they find attractive and I was shocked. Not what I expected. Then Gus came along and posted closer to what I had expected and there was a distinct difference between his taste and the other posters. It was all so interesting. 

For me it feels like a waste of energy to force it into a mold and a risk of missed opportunity as well.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> Many different women choose the same few guys and the same guys that got rejected last time continue getting rejected. Just as there are a few women that no guys pursue who get rejected over and over. The average number who go to bed alone any given week may be the exact same but over the course of time the 80/20 rule applies (20% of men have sex with 80% of women.)


marduk is right. From the other side of the fence it looks like most guys choose the same few women, and so really it's 80% of men are only interested in 20% of women. So they might be feeling pretty hard done by because they didn't go home with one of those 20%, but they kind brought it on themselves by setting themselves up to compete with every other man. 

(All that said, I'm sure the math on both sides is quite wrong, as I'm pretty sure that more than 20% of people are having sex.)


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> Here's the thing.
> 
> We can't even agree on what 'average' or 'effort' means.
> 
> How can you measure pain? Rejection? Loneliness?
> 
> You can't. So you can't say that yours is greater than mine, or vice versa, or that men's is greater than women's. Or the reverse.
> 
> To try to 'prove' that men have it harder is impossible. And the whole mindset... is a collision course with being a victim.
> 
> Which, at the end of the day, is what the best parts of RP say to stop doing, right? So why do it?


Wait a sec, I'm not trying to say "men have it harder" in general. I'm saying when it comes to getting casual sex from women they are physically attracted to they have it harder, but I don't believe that men and women have the same set of goals when it comes to approaching casual sex at all. Or of they do (ie "getting off") they have much different criteria.

When it comes to ranking, men place a woman's looks as the highest criteria, women rank men according to a slightly more complicated set of criteria (of which looks is just one factor). Each gender also has entirely different offerings when it comes to appearances of the opposite sex, because at a night club 98% of the girls are made up, wearing flashy, skimpy dresses and high heels, and all the guys are wearing t-shirts and designer jeans - I guarantee 10x more work went into the appearance of each woman at a club compared to any guy.

Men and women are different, which you surely have noticed, and this certainly applies to approaches to sex too.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> Wait a sec, I'm not trying to say "men have it harder" in general. I'm saying when it comes to getting casual sex from women they are physically attracted to they have it harder, but I don't believe that men and women have the same set of goals when it comes to approaching casual sex at all. Or of they do (ie "getting off") they have much different criteria.


OK.

Let's just unpack what you just said.

An average guy now has a harder time getting sex from women that they are physically attracted to than an average woman does from men they are physically attracted to?

Didn't you just say that 20% of men get 80% of the women? So... by your definition... those 80% of women find that 20% attractive?

And therefore get laid? Because that 20% gives it to them? Really?

Define 'harder.'

Because last time I checked, most women spend a helluva lot more time trying to be attractive than most guys.

Hell, when I put on a t-shirt and jeans that fit and go to one of my kid's things I seem to be in the top 20% of guys just for making an effort. A pretty minimal effort compared to my wife.

I don't get your logic at all, man.



> When it comes to ranking, men place a woman's looks as the highest criteria, women rank men according to a slightly more complicated set of criteria (of which looks is just one factor). Each gender also has entirely different offerings when it comes to appearances of the opposite sex, because at a night club 98% of the girls are made up, wearing flashy, skimpy dresses and high heels, and all the guys are wearing t-shirts and designer jeans - I guarantee 10x more work went into the appearance of each woman at a club compared to any guy.


Really?

So are you speaking for all men? At all stages of their life? Both of my wives were astoundingly beautiful, smart, witty. But neither of them were the most beautiful woman I had access to at the time. So why did I pick them?

And how do you know that women don't do the same? 

I mean, if 80% of women get with the top 20% of hot guys, maybe women value looks MORE?

Do you think the only reason women dress that way at the club is for men's attention?

Ladies, is this true? When you go out looking all sexy to the club, is your intention only to attract a bunch of guys?

And even if you are right, you just contradicted yourself. You said that women have it easier. Yet simultaneously you said that they put way more effort into being attractive.

So which is it, man?


> Men and women are different, which you surely have noticed, and this certainly applies to approaches to sex too.


I agree they're different.

I just no longer think that such broad brush approaches make sense after I puked up the red pill.


----------



## Lon

always_alone said:


> marduk is right. From the other side of the fence it looks like most guys choose the same few women, and so really it's 80% of men are only interested in 20% of women. So they might be feeling pretty hard done by because they didn't go home with one of those 20%, but they kind brought it on themselves by setting themselves up to compete with every other man.
> 
> (All that said, I'm sure the math on both sides is quite wrong, as I'm pretty sure that more than 20% of people are having sex.)


Close - 80% of the men are interested in 80% of the women but only 20% of either gender get it on that night. Everybody else has to settle for being alone or with someone they are not all that attracted to. Until the following weekend where the same 20% of guys get to mix it up with the selection pool of 80% of the girls. 20% of girls always settle (for alone or a guy not that attractive to them), of the remaining 80% of girls most settle occasionally where some never have to. 80% of guys are always settling, not because they aren't taking home the hottest girl there but because they are not taking home ANY girl they are attracted to, and it's not because they have their sights too high it's because they lose the competition that the game requires.

The only winning move is to not play and forgo the pickup scene entirely (unless you are a stud or an at least average looking woman).


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> Close - 80% of the men are interested in 80% of the women but only 20% of either gender get it on that night. Everybody else has to settle for being alone or with someone they are not all that attracted to. Until the following weekend where the same 20% of guys get to mix it up with the selection pool of 80% of the girls. 20% of girls always settle (for alone or a guy not that attractive to them), of the remaining 80% of girls most settle occasionally where some never have to. 80% of guys are always settling, not because they aren't taking home the hottest girl there but because they are not taking home ANY girl they are attracted to, and it's not because they have their sights too high it's because they lose the competition that the game requires.
> 
> The only winning move is to not play and forgo the pickup scene entirely (unless you are a stud or an at least average looking woman).


I call complete bull**** on everything you just said unless you can back those numbers up with evidence.


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> OK.
> 
> Let's just unpack what you just said.
> 
> An average guy now has a harder time getting sex from women that they are physically attracted to than an average woman does from men they are physically attracted to?
> 
> Didn't you just say that 20% of men get 80% of the women? So... by your definition... those 80% of women find that 20% attractive?
> 
> And therefore get laid? Because that 20% gives it to them? Really?
> 
> Define 'harder.'
> 
> Because last time I checked, most women spend a helluva lot more time trying to be attractive than most guys.
> 
> Hell, when I put on a t-shirt and jeans that fit and go to one of my kid's things I seem to be in the top 20% of guys just for making an effort. A pretty minimal effort compared to my wife.
> 
> I don't get your logic at all, man.
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So are you speaking for all men? At all stages of their life? Both of my wives were astoundingly beautiful, smart, witty. But neither of them were the most beautiful woman I had access to at the time. So why did I pick them?
> 
> And how do you know that women don't do the same?
> 
> I mean, if 80% of women get with the top 20% of hot guys, maybe women value looks MORE?
> 
> Do you think the only reason women dress that way at the club is for men's attention?
> 
> Ladies, is this true? When you go out looking all sexy to the club, is your intention only to attract a bunch of guys?
> 
> And even if you are right, you just contradicted yourself. You said that women have it easier. Yet simultaneously you said that they put way more effort into being attractive.
> 
> So which is it, man?
> 
> I agree they're different.
> 
> I just no longer think that such broad brush approaches make sense after I puked up the red pill.


When I say "easy" I don't mean the prep work that goes into their appearance (which I suspect they do as much for their own self-confidence as they do to attract male attention). I am referring to the ability to engage in a dialog that results in them actually bringing home to bed someone they find attractive.

And yes, the 80% of women can get it from the top 20% of guys (because those guys like novelty). I'm not talking about all men at all ages, and I certainly am not talking about for people actually seeking relationships - I'm talking about young adults in their reproductive prime looking to exercise their hormonal urges to copulate. Nothing contradictory about what I'm saying, it just applies to the casual pick-up scene (which inherently favours female players which is why they get in with no cover and get free drinks all night).


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> When I say "easy" I don't mean the prep work that goes into their appearance (which I suspect they do as much for their own self-confidence as they do to attract male attention). I am referring to the ability to engage in a dialog that results in them actually bringing home to bed someone they find attractive.


Ah. 

It's only easier for the stuff you think is hard. Got it. The game is to continually refine what you say until you come up with an answer that means it's harder for you and we should feel bad for guys who have it so hard, right?

Go do as much prep as the women do and then tell me how hard it is to chat up the ladies. Because it's bloody astounding how easy it got when I did that.



> And yes, the 80% of women can get it from the top 20% of guys (because those guys like novelty). I'm not talking about all men at all ages, and I certainly am not talking about for people actually seeking relationships - I'm talking about young adults in their reproductive prime looking to exercise their hormonal urges to copulate. Nothing contradictory about what I'm saying, it just applies to the casual pick-up scene (which inherently favours female players which is why they get in with no cover and get free drinks all night).


Dude, you make no sense.

If 80% of the women go only for 20% of the hot guys, they value looks MORE than guys do, not less.

Again, you refine what you mean back to a very small subset until you get the answer you want. 

What about all the women that ONLY jump from relationship to relationship. And will only have sex in a relationship, even if it's a very short one?

Are they part of your scene or not?

Or just the subset of women looking for a casual hookup?

Your definition of 'average' and 'hard' are becoming so distorted as to make no sense at all, man. Respectfully.

All this is telling me more about your worldview than anything about reality. You seem to want very much to find dating and getting women to sleep with you difficult.


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> I call complete bull**** on everything you just said unless you can back those numbers up with evidence.


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm#numberlifetime

Study shows that the number of men with more than 15 sex partners is twice as high as number of women, so the only way this is mathematically possible is if a few guys are spreading it around with many women, and the remainder of guys are getting much less than the average number.


----------



## Lon

http://blog.*******.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

Study shows that mens rating of women's attractiveness of photos on online dating site follows a normal distribution but womens rating of mens photos shows it's skewed very much to the right meaning based on looks most men (including the average) are considered unattractive.


----------



## Lon

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/News/story?id=156921

"The averages are higher because a small number of individuals -- especially men -- report a very large number of partners."


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> NSFG - Listing N - Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth
> 
> Study shows that the number of men with more than 15 sex partners is twice as high as number of women, so the only way this is mathematically possible is if a few guys are spreading it around with many women, and the remainder of guys are getting much less than the average number.


Or men are saying they have more partners than they do, and women are saying they have less partners than they do.

And the average reported for american males is 7 over their lifetime, and females is 4.

So even if those 7 women are having sex with four guys, that's 7/4, which is a 57/43 split. Which is nowhere close to 80/20.


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> ...Go do as much prep as the women do and then tell me how hard it is to chat up the ladies. Because it's bloody astounding how easy it got when I did that.


Congrats you are one of the 20%ers. Most guys still can't chat up the ladies regardless of how nicely they are groomed.



> Dude, you make no sense.
> 
> If 80% of the women go only for 20% of the hot guys, they value looks MORE than guys do, not less.


If you put it that way then yes, whatever it is that the women see in the 20% of guys they most certainly do value it a lot more than men value looks, because the average woman at a club looks delicious. I guess the average guy not so much.



> Again, you refine what you mean back to a very small subset until you get the answer you want.
> 
> What about all the women that ONLY jump from relationship to relationship. And will only have sex in a relationship, even if it's a very short one?
> 
> Are they part of your scene or not?


I'm talking about base physical attraction. I can't speak with certainty on relationship jumpers, but I do suspect that when it comes to relationship needs most women (and men too) are willing to compromise on the raw sexual attraction if someone with a compatible offer comes along. If the most urgent need a single woman is looking for is sex though, she'll seek out the 20%.



> Or just the subset of women looking for a casual hookup?
> 
> Your definition of 'average' and 'hard' are becoming so distorted as to make no sense at all, man. Respectfully.


My definition of "average" is just that - the mean, but that is just one statistical element to understand the numbers game. "hard" isn't really a term I've emphasized except when it came to the ability to keep someone engaged in a conversation that would lead to sex.



> All this is telling me more about your worldview than anything about reality. You seem to want very much to find dating and getting women to sleep with you difficult.


Yes this is a part of my world view, but just one tiny part of it. Meaningful authentic relationships are something that I feel a lot more comfortable with (though at least as rare), I just have always been fascinated by the human connection through sex that so many people seem to be able to find or atleast are out there trying to find, I personally have been baffled by it my whole life, but then I didn't have the most well-rounded childhood. When I do make a connection I tend to embrace it and nurture it, but it rarely happens spontaneously.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends
> 
> Study shows that mens rating of women's attractiveness of photos on online dating site follows a normal distribution but womens rating of mens photos shows it's skewed very much to the right meaning based on looks most men (including the average) are considered unattractive.


You realize that that page says many other things as well, right?

Including the following quote:



> "2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women."


and



> "So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten"


?

So, is your point that women are _more_ selective than guys for who they think is attractive, and men less, while simultaneously _less_ selective than men who they'll date?

Which is pretty much what it says in the following quote - again from this site:



> "*As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable.* But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.
> 
> Just to illustrate that women are operating on a very different scale, here are just a few of the many, many guys we here in the office think are totally decent-looking, but that women have rated, in their occult way, as significantly less attractive than so-called “medium”..."


(emphasis mine)

In other words...

Yes, women's thought processes are opaque to men. And they're even more judgemental than they are regarding looks. Which kinda makes sense, I guess.

Good thing they are far less judgemental about the guys that they'll get it on with.


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> Or men are saying they have more partners than they do, and women are saying they have less partners than they do.
> 
> And the average reported for american males is 7 over their lifetime, and females is 4.
> 
> So even if those 7 women are having sex with four guys, that's 7/4, which is a 57/43 split. Which is nowhere close to 80/20.


It's possible that respondents lied, it's also possible that either sex was embellishing in the other direction.

Also don't forget that there are slightly higher numbers of women and also women live longer so may be picking up extra number later in life.

You just asked me to provide numbers so I did a quick search to see what I could find out there. I'm sure there is a lot more data on this subject that could be studied.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> Congrats you are one of the 20%ers. Most guys still can't chat up the ladies regardless of how nicely they are groomed.


I most certainly think I'm more attractive and successful with the ladies than the average guy.

The difference is that there were times in my life where I was also invisible to women.

And then, again, I wasn't. Too much, so.

And then I tuned it back so it's enough to keep my wife very attracted to me, and not cause me other problems.

My point in all this is that I'm the same guy. Different fitness levels, different levels of confidence, different modes of dress and thought. 

But I'm the same dude. And I'm no model.




> If you put it that way then yes, whatever it is that the women see in the 20% of guys they most certainly do value it a lot more than men value looks, because the average woman at a club looks delicious. I guess the average guy not so much.


Again with the words like 'average.'

Are you 'average?' What does that mean to you? Why do you decide to be average?

Maybe start there.


> I'm talking about base physical attraction. I can't speak with certainty on relationship jumpers, but I do suspect that when it comes to relationship needs most women (and men too) are willing to compromise on the raw sexual attraction if someone with a compatible offer comes along. If the most urgent need a single woman is looking for is sex though, she'll seek out the 20%.


Is that all you're looking for? A ONS?

Then you're probably on the wrong forum.


> My definition of "average" is just that - the mean, but that is just one statistical element to understand the numbers game. "hard" isn't really a term I've emphasized except when it came to the ability to keep someone engaged in a conversation that would lead to sex.


I've defined the average american male stats earlier on. Do you conform roughly to that?

Because if that's the case I have a profoundly different strategy to recommend to you.




> Yes this is a part of my world view, but just one tiny part of it. Meaningful authentic relationships are something that I feel a lot more comfortable with (though at least as rare), I just have always been fascinated by the human connection through sex that so many people seem to be able to find or atleast are out there trying to find, I personally have been baffled by it my whole life, but then I didn't have the most well-rounded childhood. When I do make a connection I tend to embrace it and nurture it, but it rarely happens spontaneously.


Good. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> It's possible that respondents lied, it's also possible that either sex was embellishing in the other direction.
> 
> Also don't forget that there are slightly higher numbers of women and also women live longer so may be picking up extra number later in life.
> 
> You just asked me to provide numbers so I did a quick search to see what I could find out there. I'm sure there is a lot more data on this subject that could be studied.


At any rate, the 80/20 stat, while convenient from a pareto hook perspective, is deeply flawed.

When I look around, the chicks seem to be getting as much hookup action as the guys.


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> You realize that that page says many other things as well, right?
> 
> Including the following quote:
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> So, is your point that women are _more_ selective than guys for who they think is attractive, and men less, while simultaneously _less_ selective than men who they'll date?
> 
> Which is pretty much what it says in the following quote - again from this site:
> 
> 
> (emphasis mine)
> 
> In other words...
> 
> Yes, women's thought processes are opaque to men. And they're even more judgemental than they are regarding looks. Which kinda makes sense, I guess.
> 
> Good thing they are far less judgemental about the guys that they'll get it on with.


I think it's quite uncontroversial to say that when guys pursue they will go after their first preference first and then second preference next and so on and so forth. Whereas women will keep selecting up until the their highest preference who actually initiates with them has made his move. This process churns until the women have sorted all the men that are deemed attractive (the top 20% - or whatever the actual percentage of minority top guys is), at which point the men who did not get selected will keep trying and getting rejected by the women who didn't make a selection until they run out of attractive targets (leaving the small minority of attractive women completely neglected).

This is not about taking a red pill or blue pill, this is simply obvious by mere observation at every social/tribal event where mate selection happens.


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> At any rate, the 80/20 stat, while convenient from a pareto hook perspective, is deeply flawed.
> 
> When I look around, the chicks seem to be getting as much hookup action as the guys.


It's not flawed - it might vary depending on the size of the event and other factors, but the point is a minority of men have sex with the majority of women. It's math and sexual selection of the human species.

And yes the chicks are getting as much hookup action as the guys, by definition of the term average. It's the median that distinguishes which guys and which chicks.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> I think it's quite uncontroversial to say that when guys pursue they will go after their first preference first and then second preference next and so on and so forth. Whereas women will keep selecting up until the their highest preference who actually initiates with them has made his move.


This logic is predicated on the idea that women just wait for mr handsome to come on by and sweep them off their feet, right?

Is this really what you think? That women are just passive about it?

If you think that, you don't know how to read women's signals at all, man.


> This process churns until the women have sorted all the men that are deemed attractive (the top 20% - or whatever the actual percentage of minority top guys is), at which point the men who did not get selected will keep trying and getting rejected by the women who didn't make a selection until they run out of attractive targets (leaving the small minority of attractive women completely neglected).


Going to have to turn this one over to the ladies.

But the ones I know would be just about apoplectic over how wrong this is.


> This is not about taking a red pill or blue pill, this is simply obvious by mere observation at every social/tribal event where mate selection happens.


Obvious, huh?

Because I just don't see it. Maybe in some rockwellian view of reality.

What do you say to the quotes I pulled out from your own site that directly contradict your worldview?

Because it looks like 2/3 of guys chase 1/3 of women. While finding more women hot.

And women find 2/3 of guys (or so) "not hot" and yet seem to happily date them anyway.

Which, of course, means what?

I'm not sure, but at the end of the day for me it's approaching this:


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> It really does not bother me that an average looking woman can put on the high heels and tight dress and get some strange on a whim if she's willing to go clubbing for it. I'm completely okay with that. It doesn't bother me that the average man will not succeed in the same attempt.
> 
> Yet I still can see it.
> 
> 
> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then who did she have sex with from the club? An above average guy?
Click to expand...

Notice that I specified 'average looking' but you asked about 'average' which is a huge difference. It's why the thread topic is a flawed to begin with. So hypothetically speaking that random woman could hook up with a random guy of equal or higher physical attractiveness without much effort IMO. Now the broader term of what defines average is a different topic.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> It's not flawed - it might vary depending on the size of the event and other factors, but the point is a minority of men have sex with the majority of women. It's math and sexual selection of the human species.
> 
> And yes the chicks are getting as much hookup action as the guys, by definition of the term average. It's the median that distinguishes which guys and which chicks.


So, just to make sure I understand your point...

20% of guys have sex with 80% of women. Which means that, conversely, 80% of women have sex with 20% of guys.

When the average reported # of lifetime partners -- if people are honest -- is 57/43.

What you are saying is that men actually _underreport_ their partners, and women _overreport_ them?


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> This logic is predicated on the idea that women just wait for mr handsome to come on by and sweep them off their feet, right?
> 
> Is this really what you think? That women are just passive about it?


Not at all. My predication is that all life is not modelled after the scene in a night club on a saturday night.

But while at the club that is largely how it works. Anybody who is being passive goes home alone. And yes women expect the men to initiate, but maybe that is foreign to you since you admittedly are or have been at certain points in the past of the minority percentage of guys whom women approach and are interested in casual sex with?

Anyways, yes we are miles apart and I'm willing to agree to disagree if you want.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> Not at all. My predication is that all life is not modelled after the scene in a night club on a saturday night.
> 
> But while at the club that is largely how it works. Anybody who is being passive goes home alone. And yes women expect the men to initiate, but maybe that is foreign to you since you admittedly are or have been at certain points in the past of the minority percentage of guys whom women are interested in casual sex with?
> 
> Anyways, yes we are miles apart and I'm willing to agree to disagree if you want.


OK.

Stats aside.

Quite often, when I approached a woman (and she didn't tell me to get lost), I heard a comment before the end of the night that sounded a lot like "it's about time you took a hint."

So if a woman catches your eye and you approach her was it just because she was hot, or because she was attracting your attention?

Just because they're more subtle about the whole thing doesn't mean that they didn't pick me instead of vice versa.

In fact, both of my wives were absolutely adamant that they picked me. When I think it was the other way around.

Which one was right?

If I approach a girl, did I initiate?

If she saw me first, twirled her hair, and did that thing where they dangle one high heel from their toes to get me to come over, did I still initiate?

Does female initiation have to look just like men's?


----------



## Marduk

Oh. Something just clicked for me. 

What that website actually said is that 2/3 of women get basically ignored on dating sites. Or at least have to compete for 1/3 of the men. 

That's a tough roll of the dice.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> OK.
> 
> Stats aside.
> 
> Quite often, when I approached a woman (and she didn't tell me to get lost), I heard a comment before the end of the night that sounded a lot like "it's about time you took a hint."
> 
> So if a woman catches your eye and you approach her was it just because she was hot, or because she was attracting your attention?
> 
> Just because they're more subtle about the whole thing doesn't mean that they didn't pick me instead of vice versa.
> 
> In fact, both of my wives were absolutely adamant that they picked me. When I think it was the other way around.
> 
> Which one was right?
> 
> If I approach a girl, did I initiate?
> 
> If she saw me first, twirled her hair, and did that thing where they dangle one high heel from their toes to get me to come over, did I still initiate?
> 
> Does female initiation have to look just like men's?


Few women have ever done anything to catch my attention... like four times maybe (a couple times women that were unnattractive to me and a couple times I just chickened out). When I was younger friends would sometimes point out if a girl was checking me out behind my back, but never directly for me to see, it was usually out and about in places like the mall or what have you and I didn't have the chance to go after them. So if I was ever interested I always had to be the one to completely make my presence known, in bars and clubs this always resulted in them either just walking away from me or else telling me to go away.

Now I'm not completely oblivious, I can scan a room and see exactly which girls are sending out signals to which guys and I could easily wager when the guy is confident, astute or interested enough to make the move. I can also see when a guy is making an unwelcome move and the body language and looks she will cast are the exact same ones I always get. Just yesterday I was hanging out with a buddy who gives off the charm vibe that women go crazy for, he's about average in looks but outgoing and all women just unconsciously gravitate to him.

All of my relationship partners have always been adamant that I picked them, and they never even really noticed me until I actually made a move. I have never picked up a woman or even gotten a number. I am firmly in the average 80% camp, and I can accept that (even if most others in this camp have always had better results than I). I still believe my GF completely when she tells me she finds me incredibly attractive, just that good looking is not the key part of what it takes to get a random woman to flirt.


----------



## Marduk

How did you and your gf start dating?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> How did you and your gf start dating?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I blindsided her


----------



## Lon

Lon said:


> I blindsided her


edit: no not really, she is the cousin of one of my close friends. We had actually met like a decade before, were attracted to each other back then, and even had a date, but I second guessed myself and never put any moves on her (both of us are a little too cautious I guess) - she also had a young daugher at the time and I was a young lad that wasn't ready for that kind of serious thing (and obviously no good at making a casual thing).

Over the years we all ended up going separate paths, my friend moved away and I moved to another city, got married blah blah. But then a couple years after my divorce I was back in her city and her cousin happened to be in town for a visit... She came along and I went all stupid for her again. She was also out of a long term relationship and getting back on the market again and I wasn't gonna let someone else scoop her up first! After a couple more awkward dates and she got the hint that I actually did like her, a lot.


----------



## RandomDude

marduk said:


> I'm not sure, but at the end of the day for me it's approaching this:


:rofl:

That's kinda like half the debates on TAM though...


----------



## sapientia

technovelist said:


> I can't believe this is even a question, but apparently there is at least one woman who thinks it is.
> 
> Go for it!


If you believe in the leveling power of capitalism (supply and demand), this should make your case quite nicely:

Estimates in some larger cities found that 20-30% of prostitutes are male (3).

From the Cover: Prostitution and the sex discrepancy in reported number of sexual partners


----------



## BetrayedDad

The biggest problem with this thread is the subjectiveness. Define average? The "average" person, at least in the USA, hasn't set foot in a gym since high school and dresses like crap. If you're someone who has a normal BMI, dresses decently and is not a bum, you're already in the top 20%. If "average" is defined as the median range of size and appearance of someone waking around a Walmart or Target then you're probably not an attractive person. Sorry for the bad news.

Some people are just naturally attractive and some have to work pretty damn hard, sometimes years, at it but ANYONE can be at least a 7-8 with enough effort. Get in that range and you will careless about who the "average" man or woman is sleeping with. You'll be far too busy getting yours.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> edit: no not really, she is the cousin of one of my close friends. We had actually met like a decade before, were attracted to each other back then, and even had a date, but I second guessed myself and never put any moves on her (both of us are a little too cautious I guess) - she also had a young daugher at the time and I was a young lad that wasn't ready for that kind of serious thing (and obviously no good at making a casual thing).
> 
> Over the years we all ended up going separate paths, my friend moved away and I moved to another city, got married blah blah. But then a couple years after my divorce I was back in her city and her cousin happened to be in town for a visit... She came along and I went all stupid for her again. She was also out of a long term relationship and getting back on the market again and I wasn't gonna let someone else scoop her up first! After a couple more awkward dates and she got the hint that I actually did like her, a lot.


And you did what?

I'm trying to connect the dots here between your outlook on it being easier for women, you never getting hit on or signals from women (what AK calles 'intentions of interest'), and your dating life.


----------



## Marduk

OK, a question for the ladies. Go back to Lon's link about men and women's behaviour on dating sites.

It basically said that women find a very small group of guys hot, but seem to be happy to date outside that small group.

It also said that men find a larger group of women hot, but really only chase after the top 1/3 'hot' women.

Does this resonate with your experience?


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> And you did what?
> 
> I'm trying to connect the dots here between your outlook on it being easier for women, you never getting hit on or signals from women (what AK calles 'intentions of interest'), and your dating life.


Not sure I follow what you are asking.

1) my relationship history is not rooted in casual sex or raw sexual attraction, so my "dating life" is not useful for that comparison at all, since I am in the group of guys that gets no casual sex.

2) of the relationships I've had, they all were fairly equally matched in terms of "sex rank" between myself and my partners, never had people wondering what a "guy like me is doing with a girl like her" type attitudes. I'd say myself and my partners are firmly in the "average" category. But all of my partners have had countless propositions from men for their phone numbers, for casual sex, for a date, and even more than one marriage proposal. All of my girlfriends have many more first dates, relationships, sexual partners and options willing to throw themselves at their feet than I have.

Most of my guy friends have a very similar dating history as me (ie a couple sexual partners in their life and not very many first dates or first kisses). A small selection of my guy friends have completely different history than myself where they are getting plenty of casual sex from plenty of different very attractive (above average) women, and any relationships they've had tended to be short lived. My anecdotal example matches the view which I also happen to be touting, which is the 80/20 rule (or some approximation to the same effect).


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> Not sure I follow what you are asking.
> 
> 1) my relationship history is not rooted in casual sex or raw sexual attraction, so my "dating life" is not useful for that comparison at all, since I am in the group of guys that gets no casual sex.
> 
> 2) of the relationships I've had, they all were fairly equally matched in terms of "sex rank" between myself and my partners, never had people wondering what a "guy like me is doing with a girl like her" type attitudes. I'd say myself and my partners are firmly in the "average" category. But all of my partners have had countless propositions from men for their phone numbers, for casual sex, for a date, and even more than one marriage proposal. All of my girlfriends have many more first dates, relationships, sexual partners and options willing to throw themselves at their feet than I have.
> 
> Most of my guy friends have a very similar dating history as me (ie a couple sexual partners in their life and not very many first dates or first kisses). A small selection of my guy friends have completely different history than myself where they are getting plenty of casual sex from plenty of different very attractive (above average) women, and any relationships they've had tended to be short lived. My anecdotal example matches the view which I also happen to be touting, which is the 80/20 rule (or some approximation to the same effect).


I'm trying to understand your worldview about women and how it connects with your dating life.

What do you think makes you average?


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> I'm trying to understand your worldview about women and how it connects with your dating life.
> 
> What do you think makes you average?


My "worldview about women"? It's all part of my worldview of people in general. I find most women beautiful in one way or another, and for many of those ones they are sexually attractive to me. My dating life is such that their beauty is irrelevant to my sex life, because the only women I have sex with is ones I have a connection with, and making those connections is a two way street.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> My "worldview about women"? It's all part of my worldview of people in general. I find most women beautiful in one way or another, and for many of those ones they are sexually attractive to me. My dating life is such that their beauty is irrelevant to my sex life, because the only women I have sex with is ones I have a connection with, and making those connections is a two way street.


OK, what do you think makes you 'average?'


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> OK, what do you think makes you 'average?'


Why does this matter? What would cause you to suspect I was something other than average?


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> Why does this matter? What would cause you to suspect I was something other than average?


It matters in two ways. 

Firstly I'm trying to understand your worldview. 

Secondly I'm trying to understand your self image.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> It matters in two ways.
> 
> Firstly I'm trying to understand your worldview.
> 
> Secondly I'm trying to understand your self image.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But do you really want to understand my worldview, or are you just looking for part of me to pick apart and criticize? You seem to me like you are already of the opinion that healthy men and healthy women will have no problems connecting with each other.

My self image is one that was damaged, has healed a lot and has come to grips with my own abilities, comforts, preferences and likes. I am willing to go out of my comfort zone but do not wish to stay there. I do not like getting older whilst things I missed out on in my youth become unattainable, despite that I no longer even really want those things.

It is great for those that do not have major stumbles in life, but so much of society really is a competition, and for those who just naturally win all the time they have no realization of it. For those that get sent to loser island, there is a ton of pain, remorse, fear anxiety. I don't view myself as a loser by any means, however I was no winner either because I mostly abstained, and continue to abstain from playing the social games that underpin so much of sexual attraction, and attraction to people in general. I am true to my zodiac, the crab, I mostly want to be left alone but those times I want company I want it to be interesting and rewarding. Interestingly my GF shares the same zodiac sign and a very similar worldview, it is a fluke that we connected though.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> But do you really want to understand my worldview, or are you just looking for part of me to pick apart and criticize? You seem to me like you are already of the opinion that healthy men and healthy women will have no problems connecting with each other.


I can see why you'd think that. I'm not looking to criticize you. My gut has locked onto something here, and I'm trying to understand what it is.

That's all.


> My self image is one that was damaged, has healed a lot and has come to grips with my own abilities, comforts, preferences and likes. I am willing to go out of my comfort zone but do not wish to stay there. I do not like getting older whilst things I missed out on in my youth become unattainable, despite that I no longer even really want those things.


Can you talk more about that? In another thread or PM me if you're interested.

I feel the same way, only it was marriage that damaged my self image, not dating.


> It is great for those that do not have major stumbles in life, but so much of society really is a competition, and for those who just naturally win all the time they have no realization of it. For those that get sent to loser island, there is a ton of pain, remorse, fear anxiety. I don't view myself as a loser by any means, however I was no winner either because I mostly abstained, and continue to abstain from playing the social games that underpin so much of sexual attraction, and attraction to people in general. I am true to my zodiac, the crab, I mostly want to be left alone but those times I want company I want it to be interesting and rewarding. Interestingly my GF shares the same zodiac sign and a very similar worldview, it is a fluke that we connected though.


I hear you.

I've been on the ins and outs of life myself.

I'm particularly sensitive to the notion that you only have what you're born with. There's been a few inflections in my love life, my career, etc, that have been intentional. And very dramatic.

I think such things can be learned. The first one was my self-limiting beliefs, and setting goals that were what I thought were wildly unobtainable.

I'm not poking at you, man. I mean, I was, because I don't agree with your logic. What I guess I'm pickup up on now is how your worldview is a reflection of your pain, and if I can help with that, I will.


----------



## Constable Odo

Lon said:


> Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends
> 
> Study shows that mens rating of women's attractiveness of photos on online dating site follows a normal distribution but womens rating of mens photos shows it's skewed very much to the right meaning based on looks most men (including the average) are considered unattractive.


******* has done some interesting social engineering studies on their web site. If I recollect, they also did an experiment a while back where they made all the profiles have no photos, and (surprise) men tended to message women more who they would otherwise not have.

None of this is surprising. It is common knowledge men use visual appearance as the basis of mate selection. We have evolved that way, as the hunters in the hunter/gatherer societal paradigm. A woman's visual cues tell us about her ability to successfully bear our offspring -- clear complexion, lustrous skin, the swell of her bosom and curve of her hips.

Women likewise use visual cues, although in a different way, since their investment in the reproductive process is higher than ours.

Oddly enough, my SO and I met on ******* almost a year ago. This was the photo I used in my completely fraudulent profile:









Clearly she knew I was major red-pill alpha from my meticulously-groomed six pack abs :grin2:


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> I can see why you'd think that. I'm not looking to criticize you. My gut has locked onto something here, and I'm trying to understand what it is.
> 
> That's all.
> 
> Can you talk more about that? In another thread or PM me if you're interested.
> 
> I feel the same way, only it was marriage that damaged my self image, not dating.
> 
> I hear you.
> 
> I've been on the ins and outs of life myself.
> 
> I'm particularly sensitive to the notion that you only have what you're born with. There's been a few inflections in my love life, my career, etc, that have been intentional. And very dramatic.
> 
> I think such things can be learned. The first one was my self-limiting beliefs, and setting goals that were what I thought were wildly unobtainable.
> 
> I'm not poking at you, man. I mean, I was, because I don't agree with your logic. What I guess I'm pickup up on now is how your worldview is a reflection of your pain, and if I can help with that, I will.


Yeah we definitely seem to be hijacking this thread. I have caused deliberate inflections in my life too, but the only ones I've EVER been able to cause and have any kind of lasting effect were ones which did not depend on someone else. My current relationship is also a deliberate one that brings me reward, and also brings my GF reward, but not because either one of us is each others dream or goal, we are just two people whose paths intersected, bringing both of us happiness and we bonded because of it.

But I do think we are born who we are and while there is a lot we can learn to supplement that we can't change who we are. Like you I am sensitive to the notion of self-limiting beliefs, and I try not to embrace them, however my awareness of actual real life limitations helps me keep a level head which I use to steer my own choices and ultimately grow.

If someone is not interested in me for who I am then why should I want to change their mind? Yes I could learn lots of ways to make my value more known to people around me, but I'm not interested - even if it means more women attracted to me. Does that make me entitled?

So to bring it back into this thread, what I see around me is that before taking the second step, men have to actively demonstrate their value to attract women (which is what I'm saying I'm not bothering to do), while women mostly have to put themselves on display. I do not think that is the most healthy approach, nor entirely necessary, but it is how our society operates at the moment. Unlike most average guys, I am a somewhat deliberate non-conformer so I miss out not only on the mainstream sociosexual settings but the fringe ones also since I am not as outwardly eccentric as I am on the inside.


----------



## Marduk

As long as you're happy man, I'm cool.


----------



## EllisRedding

Wait, what was the topic again??? :BoomSmilie_anim: :smile2:


----------



## Mostlycontent

BetrayedDad said:


> The biggest problem with this thread is the subjectiveness. Define average? The "average" person, at least in the USA, hasn't set foot in a gym since high school and dresses like crap. If you're someone who has a normal BMI, dresses decently and is not a bum, you're already in the top 20%. If "average" is defined as the median range of size and appearance of someone waking around a Walmart or Target then you're probably not an attractive person. Sorry for the bad news.


I agree with you that this seems to be what folks are getting hung up on. In an effort to get this topic back on track, let's try a little exercise because I believe Marduk and Lon are both correct.

If we used the common 0 - 10 rating scale where 5 was average, then everyone can imagine what a 5 (average) is to him or her. Now imagine you are that person that you just pictured in your mind. That way we remove all the subjectivity around it.

If both an average man and woman were offered $25,000 to get laid on any given Friday or Saturday night at the Club scene, for example, who would be more successful or would both be? 

If the guy had a sex rank of 5, the first thing he would probably do is to scout out those women to whom he was attracted to and start from there. I would assume the woman with an equal sex rank would do the exact same thing. If it was imperative that he get laid in order to receive the $25,000, my bet is that the guy would quite likely have to dip down into the sex rank crowd of 3 or 4 in order to achieve success. Most guys don't want to do this but some will if the urge is strong enough. 

This is where I think men and women differ. To borrow a line from Louis C.K., people date up or across but never down, unless the person that was actually down somehow convinced them that they were across. His humor aside, he makes a good point.

If the objective was sex, I think his logic holds true for women but less so for men. I think men will absolutely screw down if they really need it whereas I don't think a woman is as likely to nor do I think she would find it necessary.

I think the average woman in this scenario is much more likely to find someone at least equal to her sex rank to bed and perhaps someone a bit higher.

So I think both could achieve sex but the woman is far more likely to have sex with someone of equal or higher sex rank or that she was even attracted to than the average man would be. I think this may be where the perception lies. Men believe that it is easier for women to get laid if they desire it but I also believe men can too. The difference may be in who you end up going home with.

If men can get laid but more than likely have to just settle, the perception could exist that the woman would have an easier time of it because they are more likely to get one of their top choices or at least a higher choice than her male counterpart. I wouldn't argue with that premise at all, by the way.


----------



## Constable Odo

Mostlycontent said:


> If the objective was sex, I think his logic holds true for women but less so for men. I think men will absolutely screw down if they really need it whereas I don't think a woman is as likely to nor do I think she would find it necessary.


The problem with your analysis is it assumes men and women are willing to "give it up" equally. This is a faulty assumption, and fundamentally the point of the OP.

Sex ranks aside (and we could have an interesting side discussion about the standard distribution curve of comparative sex ranks of men and women) women are more discriminating, biologically, then men are, when it comes to having sex, because women evolutionally-speaking have a greater stake in the reproductive process. 

Childbirth was a dangerous proposition which could kill you. Women are the ones who wake up in the morning pregnant, while the man has up and left at 3am while she was asleep, and has moved on, just as the little bumblebee spreading life and joy to all flowers wanting to be pollinated.

Granted, not so much today (abortion, morning after pill, condoms, etc.) but historically these things didn't exist, and as such, much of the reproductive instinct bred into our species comes from our historical past. 

Then, of course, there's the whole societal-moral dichotomy to deal with, where promiscuous women are thought of as sl*ts, and as such, women have again historically been less sexually expressive. Heck, even today, women have difficulty embracing their sexuality, they are taught sex is bad, sex is dirty, if you have sex you're a sl*t, etc.


----------



## EllisRedding

Not that this in any way is proof, but so far everyone I have asked (whether online on various forums or in person, both males and females) have all answered it is easier for the average female, without any hesitation in their answer. Whether or not this is true is obviously up for debate as per this thread, but at a minimum there sure seems to be the perception that it is true.


----------



## Marduk

Constable Odo said:


> The problem with your analysis is it assumes men and women are willing to "give it up" equally. This is a faulty assumption, and fundamentally the point of the OP.
> 
> Sex ranks aside (and we could have an interesting side discussion about the standard distribution curve of comparative sex ranks of men and women) women are more discriminating, biologically, then men are, when it comes to having sex, because women evolutionally-speaking have a greater stake in the reproductive process.


The dating site data linked earlier indicated that women are more discriminating in terms of who they found attractive, but about the same in terms of who they'd date. If you use 'date' as a proxy for 'might have sex with,' then it doesn't really hold up.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Constable! That photo totally cracked me up and I give TOTAL props to! Freakin hilarious....I love guys with a sense of HUMOR!


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> The dating site data linked earlier indicated that women are more discriminating in terms of who they found attractive, but about the same in terms of who they'd date. If you use 'date' as a proxy for 'might have sex with,' then it doesn't really hold up.


So women as a whole have very selective taste in what is generally considered an attractive man. Since there are far more women than there are men in the attractive category, more women ultimately have to settle by their own standards than do men.


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> So women as a whole have very selective taste in what is generally considered an attractive man. Since there are far more women than there are men in the attractive category, more women ultimately have to settle by their own standards than do men.


Does it feel like settling?

Did you settle?


----------



## samyeagar

marduk said:


> Does it feel like settling?
> 
> Did you settle?


Did I settle? Nope. I was just rephrasing the findings you cited.


----------



## Constable Odo

marduk said:


> The dating site data linked earlier indicated that women are more discriminating in terms of who they found attractive, but about the same in terms of who they'd date. If you use 'date' as a proxy for 'might have sex with,' then it doesn't really hold up.


I know a lot of women, back when I actively dated shortly after getting divorced, used online dating sites purely as a source of free meals.

So, in this respect, I think "date" would not equate with "would have sex with", while I would equate "find attractive" with "would have sex with", since I do not know many women who would sleep with a man they found unattractive.

Or, as my friend Dani puts it, "you're not going to f**k someone when the thought of him laying on top of you grunting and sweating makes you want to projectile vomit".

Despite meeting my current SO almost a year ago on OKC, I haven't actively dated off online sites for over 10 years; but based on what female friends tell me, it hasn't changed much.


----------



## Lon

Constable Odo said:


> ...So, in this respect, I think "date" would not equate with "would have sex with", while I would equate "find attractive" with "would have sex with", since I do not know many women who would sleep with a man they found unattractive.


I agree with this part - willingness to date is not willingness to have sex by any means, nor do I think it's commonly held belief or else we'd be hearing this slogan from the anti-rape culture groups that have been very vocal about issues of consent lately.

From my chats with women (both general acquaintances I'd know well enough to have such conversations, and also when I met a few women online for first dates, or even just chatting online), casual sex always seemed like something they were done with (they had plenty of experience, a few good times, but mostly disappointments). When asking what they were currently seeking they always said "a good guy for a serious relationship, with lots of hot monogamous sex" were always very forthcoming about NOT wanting casual sex, and also volunteered that getting casual sex was so easy (of course I was thinking to myself "not for me/n").

What I gleaned from those dating interactions is their choice to chat or meet with me meant that they would consider me as serious relationship material and were willing to find out if we were compatible, but they were not sexually attracted to the point where casual sex was on the table.

This is the point I've been trying to make all along, that for average guys (meaning not the few that women almost universally swoon over, nor the hopeless mouth breather that lives in parents basement) casual sex with an attractive woman is off the table, because they are reserving you for serious relationships. Average guys can have very hot and satisfying kinky sex with average and above average women, but only if they are willing to commit to an exclusive relationship where they also need to meet all her other needs as well. For guys that can come across as interesting or charming, and have a sense of hygiene, they can have their pick of most any woman whom is DTF. Those DTF girls are not looking for average good guys, they are looking for their best bet to get off quickly.


----------



## optimalprimus

Thundarr said:


> If we're speaking generalities then this isn't complicated and it's not a slam. It's just logic.
> 
> - A lot of people like sex.
> - Average person 'A' is horny and see's person 'B" but knows the price could be high.
> - Average person 'B' is horny and see's person 'A' but thinks there's no danger.
> 
> It's clear that a person perceiving danger and consequence will be less likely to act on the urge than the other person. Now add to the logic that women have historically taken more risk and still do. Plus men statistically are more willing to take risk and voila. When speaking in generalities as this thread topic framed then there's no other answer.
> 
> Now if we choose to speak on personal experience then there are infinite answers but they aren't the same topic any more.


agreed. This really isn't that complicated. Its nothing to do with who likes sex more and everything to do with biological (and social) factors that influence how that desire is acted upon.

On average that is. always going to be plenty of anecdotak experiences either way.


----------



## Marduk

Constable Odo said:


> I know a lot of women, back when I actively dated shortly after getting divorced, used online dating sites purely as a source of free meals.
> 
> So, in this respect, I think "date" would not equate with "would have sex with", while I would equate "find attractive" with "would have sex with", since I do not know many women who would sleep with a man they found unattractive.
> 
> Or, as my friend Dani puts it, "you're not going to f**k someone when the thought of him laying on top of you grunting and sweating makes you want to projectile vomit".
> 
> Despite meeting my current SO almost a year ago on OKC, I haven't actively dated off online sites for over 10 years; but based on what female friends tell me, it hasn't changed much.


Hmm.

I've never heard that. Going on a date just to get a meal.

Accepting free drinks, sure.

OK, then what does the data tell you, if anything at all?


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> I agree with this part - willingness to date is not willingness to have sex by any means, nor do I think it's commonly held belief or else we'd be hearing this slogan from the anti-rape culture groups that have been very vocal about issues of consent lately.
> 
> From my chats with women (both general acquaintances I'd know well enough to have such conversations, and also when I met a few women online for first dates, or even just chatting online), casual sex always seemed like something they were done with (they had plenty of experience, a few good times, but mostly disappointments). When asking what they were currently seeking they always said "a good guy for a serious relationship, with lots of hot monogamous sex" were always very forthcoming about NOT wanting casual sex, and also volunteered that getting casual sex was so easy (of course I was thinking to myself "not for me/n").
> 
> What I gleaned from those dating interactions is their choice to chat or meet with me meant that they would consider me as serious relationship material and were willing to find out if we were compatible, but they were not sexually attracted to the point where casual sex was on the table.
> 
> This is the point I've been trying to make all along, that for average guys (meaning not the few that women almost universally swoon over, nor the hopeless mouth breather that lives in parents basement) casual sex with an attractive woman is off the table, because they are reserving you for serious relationships. Average guys can have very hot and satisfying kinky sex with average and above average women, but only if they are willing to commit to an exclusive relationship where they also need to meet all her other needs as well. For guys that can come across as interesting or charming, and have a sense of hygiene, they can have their pick of most any woman whom is DTF. Those DTF girls are not looking for average good guys, they are looking for their best bet to get off quickly.


Wait wait wait...

Why can't you be average and learn to be charming and interesting? Or just let the charming and interesting stuff out?

And am I way off base in thinking that many women, at some point in their life, would be DTF? Or that DTF can become an LTR?

I mean, when I was dating, I basically assumed all single women everywhere would be DTF. I know that's fundamentally flawed (maybe even disrespectful) and wildly optimistic, but it's the way I approached it.


----------



## Constable Odo

Lon said:


> This is the point I've been trying to make all along, that for average guys (meaning not the few that women almost universally swoon over, nor the hopeless mouth breather that lives in parents basement) casual sex with an attractive woman is off the table, because they are reserving you for serious relationships. Average guys can have very hot and satisfying kinky sex with average and above average women, but only if they are willing to commit to an exclusive relationship where they also need to meet all her other needs as well. For guys that can come across as interesting or charming, and have a sense of hygiene, they can have their pick of most any woman whom is DTF. Those DTF girls are not looking for average good guys, they are looking for their best bet to get off quickly.


I can agree with this.



marduk said:


> I've never heard that. Going on a date just to get a meal.


Really? It was pretty common back in the early days of match.com, yahoo personals, etc. The sheer imbalance of men-to-women guarantees, in a larger metropolitan area, that a woman could have her choice of meals whenever she desired.

Heck, you could probably test it today by setting up a profile for an attractive woman and an attractive man, and see the relative number of winks or whatever-the-site-calls-it you get. I'm still willing to wager the female profile gets 10-to-1.

These days, I'm not so sure how dating sites work. My one and only "internet dating" experience (which was a date but we didn't really call it that) since 2003 was when I met my SO off OKC by completely random chance... and she was quite insistent about "going dutch" (even though my sense of chivalry prevented me from allowing this, since I was the one who suggested we meet).


----------



## Lon

marduk said:


> Wait wait wait...
> 
> Why can't you be average and learn to be charming and interesting? Or just let the charming and interesting stuff out?
> 
> And am I way off base in thinking that many women, at some point in their life, would be DTF? Or that DTF can become an LTR?
> 
> I mean, when I was dating, I basically assumed all single women everywhere would be DTF. I know that's fundamentally flawed (maybe even disrespectful) and wildly optimistic, but it's the way I approached it.


All the single ladies everywhere (generally speaking) may be DTF, but only with an eligible guy, where you and I differ is in our belief that any guy can be one of those eligible guys. And why should I have to learn to be charming or brag about things that would be interesting to others to demonstrate my value? When that is just not my personality at all. I'm happy with how I am, it's just not conducive to being an eligible guy for casual sex with a woman that is DTF. But I make for a great relationship partner for those women that are willing to actually get to know me.


----------



## EllisRedding

I believe with Tinder the big things with females was to convince a guy online to send you pizza or other food without even meeting.


----------



## Marduk

Lon said:


> All the single ladies everywhere (generally speaking) may be DTF, but only with an eligible guy, where you and I differ is in our belief that any guy can be one of those eligible guys. And why should I have to learn to be charming or brag about things that would be interesting to others to demonstrate my value? When that is just not my personality at all. I'm happy with how I am, it's just not conducive to being an eligible guy for casual sex with a woman that is DTF. But I make for a great relationship partner for those women that are willing to actually get to know me.


Gotcha.

I don't know if _any_ guy can be one of those guys, but I know I was that guy, then wasn't, then was again, and now straddles the line between is and isn't.

And I don't claim to know all the reasons why.


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> I believe with Tinder the big things with females was to convince a guy online to send you pizza or other food without even meeting.


And guys would do that?

Man, I'm glad I missed the whole internet dating thing.


----------



## EllisRedding

marduk said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe with Tinder the big things with females was to convince a guy online to send you pizza or other food without even meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> And guys would do that?
> 
> Man, I'm glad I missed the whole internet dating thing.
Click to expand...

Yup, no clue why but there would be all these stories about girls getting pizza, sushi, chinese, etc.. delivered to them. I hear ya, never even been on an online dating site (although i have been temptied to go on farmersonly.com just for some kicks  ). Actually, now that I think about it never been on what would be considered a first date lol.


----------



## Marduk

EllisRedding said:


> Yup, no clue why but there would be all these stories about girls getting pizza, sushi, chinese, etc.. delivered to them. I hear ya, never even been on an online dating site (although i have been temptied to go on farmersonly.com just for some kicks  ). Actually, now that I think about it never been on what would be considered a first date lol.


If a girl did that when I was dating, I'd probably laugh and tell her to get _me_ sushi, a six pack of beer, and show up naked.

If I didn't answer the door, leave the sushi and beer.


----------



## Mostlycontent

Constable Odo said:


> The problem with your analysis is it assumes men and women are willing to "give it up" equally. This is a faulty assumption, and fundamentally the point of the OP.


I don't think anyone would argue that women use more discretion than men. They are the gate-keepers after all.

This is precisely why I offered the financial reward in my hypothetical scenario post. It offers both the man and woman equal incentive and motivation to get laid.

It effectively removes the point that you make. No worries though. Perhaps you just missed that part.


----------



## Mostlycontent

marduk said:


> And guys would do that?
> 
> Man, I'm glad I missed the whole internet dating thing.


Yeah, I missed the whole internet dating scene as I've been with my wife for almost 30 years now. I've always been an "in-person" kind of dude and not sure I'd be into the whole thing. Hopefully, I never have to find out.

I did have a next door neighbor several years back that saw quite a bit of action using Match but never any LTRs from it. I asked him once, because he was a fairly sharp guy, why he was using it to meet girls and he said that he was just looking to get laid. 

I don't really know one internet dating site from the next but from his comment, I can only assume that he thought Match was purely a "hook-up" site. Maybe it's different now but that was about 5 years ago.


----------



## Thundarr

optimalprimus said:


> agreed. This really isn't that complicated. Its nothing to do with who likes sex more and everything to do with biological (and social) factors that influence how that desire is acted upon.
> 
> On average that is. always going to be plenty of anecdotak experiences either way.


Yea when viewing this from a 3rd person non-gender view it simply is what it is. More men would be willing to hook up with a random with little notice ahead of time. I don't know how that dynamic is debatable.


----------



## EllisRedding

Mostlycontent said:


> Yeah, I missed the whole internet dating scene as I've been with my wife for almost 30 years now. I've always been an "in-person" kind of dude and not sure I'd be into the whole thing. Hopefully, I never have to find out.
> 
> I did have a next door neighbor several years back that saw quite a bit of action using Match but never any LTRs from it. I asked him once, because he was a fairly sharp guy, why he was using it to meet girls and he said that he was just looking to get laid.
> 
> I don't really know one internet dating site from the next but from his comment, I can only assume that he thought Match was purely a "hook-up" site. Maybe it's different now but that was about 5 years ago.


From what I have heard Tinder appears to be the popular hook up site now. It even has a location component where if you travel it will try to connect you with other Tinder users in your location.

IDK though, according to some Ads that show up on some of the websites I visit, there are women in my town just waiting for a good fvck :surprise:


----------



## EllisRedding

STDs on the rise among young people, in part thanks to "dating" apps like Tinder:

Tinder and hookup apps blamed for rise in STDs - May. 26, 2015


----------

