Growing up and done with bad boys

Post Reply New Topic

They sound as fickle as the guys they are dating.

Anyways, I think there is a term for it, "Love addiction"

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



(edit)

Last edited by deltafunction on 19 Jun 2012, 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think that my valuation would be based on whether he was healthy (like, your image brings up the thoughts of STIs) and whether or not he was of the character to cheat.

But women and men do tend to face double standards. Men who have lots of sexual experience aren't looked down upon like women are--although it really depends on the region you live in.

My best friend goes to law school in NYC and the majority of girls that she knows there have had dozens (sometimes more than hundreds) of sexual partners--which seems like a lot to me. (edit--but these women are going to graduate and make triple digit salaries(double edit--what I mean is technically six digit--but sigh, as in 400K, not 400$), and have tons of time to preen and primp, and end up looking like their 20 when they're fifty--so maybe they aren't considering the idea of depending on a man very much.)

But I also don't see the association between the OP and this, because having dated a bad boy doesn't mean a woman has had "more penises inside her than a urinal," which by the way, is disgusting. I didn't even know guys stuck their penises in urinals, it sounds very unhygienic.

I've known guys who wanted to find a virginal partner, and I've known guys who wanted to find a wild partner with a super strong muscles down there...so I don't know if I can universalize rabbitss ideas.

My own neighbor just divorced her husband, she has two kids, and a guy half her age just moved in with her and built her an office...and I've known perfectly happy blended families, in which a woman with three kids found a wonderful, perfect, husband with no kids, and they did not go on to have any more together. I've had professors in great relationships with people who were morbidly obese.

All these stories violate the norm, but many of the people in them actually ended up happier than many "normally" (defined by the above idea) desirable people do.

Last edited by Zinia on 19 Jun 2012, 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

True. That's my approach as well, from what I can recall. I don't trust people like I used to. Aren't the majority of the people on WP complicated in one way or another? :p... I'm just a weirdo.

What a terrifying thing...

It's not really a double-standard, since a double standard requires a certain equivalence in the acts. For a man to have "dozens if not a hundred" sexual partners, it requires ability, knowledge, a degree of familiarity with the female sex and so on. For a woman to have dozens or hundreds of sexual partners it requires being somewhere where there are hundreds of potential partners.

If getting laid was equally easy/difficult for both genders, then it would be a double standard, now its the difference between an accomplishment and being a 24 hour Inn.

The reason I used that similie, was because its apt for the context and created the image I wanted.

I'm not, by any means, looking for a "Virginal" partner. What I am looking for is a partner who 1) hasn't had more than twice the number of sexual partners I have, and 2) isn't "Ready to settle down".. since well, I've not had my fun yet. I've been waiting years for it to start and it hasn't yet... and I'm still waiting.

The weirdo level of WP is not that far off normal for an internet forum. The reason I said that my makeup is complicated is that I had to socialize heavily from an early age, so unlike a lot of the people here, I can perfectly mimic NT and just about anything else. Think of me as sort of a blank canvas, I can become just what a person needs or what is beneficial to me at a given time.

That's a good point about the double standard.

However, couldn't you assume that if it's much harder for a man to find a female sex partner, then a larger proportion of the sexual partners a man has had would be less than first choice? And if it's easier for a woman to find a sexual partner, then she would be more likely to have had more choice partners? So maybe it's more like the difference between being a beggar and being a chooser?

(Edit: Chooser isn't as vibrant of an image as "24 hour inn"--I'm at a loss for good similes, but at least it's a play on an idiom.)

There are just less memes here. ... Ah, I see.

Not really, if we assume that we have a female and a male both willing to neglect any standards in partner what so ever and both the male and the female being identical in terms of status, the woman would be more likely to not only have more partners but more choice partners.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it, a woman could have more sexual partners in 2 weeks than a man, even if the guy went nuts with Jay Z's Amex Black at the Bunny Ranch.

However, I don't see how it makes a difference in the society standard though, it's still easier for a woman to get a partner than a male. Even if she has more "choice" partners, she still has a number of "choice" partners, that a man could only match by being a "beggar". I don't see how you're arguing against me.

Don't care. Once again I'm ashamed to be apart of the human race.

Edit: First of all if you think you are free you are delusional. Typical hipster logic.

Last edited by bizboy1 on 19 Jun 2012, 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The grammar and sentence structure seems to be better, which calms my inner grammar nazi. After all, it's hard to formulate a post when you're thinking "if this person doesn't stop using "u" I will strangle them with that "u".

The arguments tend to be better as well, with the exception being the people who demand sources for every single statement and who make you define every single word before using it.

Typical hipster. /facepalm

The best analogy I've heard for the difference between men and women in sexual morals, with men often having to work hard and women having to exist, is the lock and the key.

If you have a key that can open most locks, you have a pretty good key.
If you have a lock that can be opened by most keys, you have a pretty bad lock.

Excellent. You're learning to offend people. I've taught you well, even though I've only been going for a day. Is there any money to be made doing this? I'll look into that.
But really - "settle for a down to earth poet or musician" - that's like saying "ugh, I don't have money for this Rolls-Royce, but I'll settle for this BMW if I have to."

I'm arguing against your images.

It doesn't necessarily mean that a man with more sexual partners has more skills than a man with less, he could just have broader standards for who he sleeps with. So instead of being accomplished, he could just be more like a beggar.

If a woman has more sexual partners than a man, it might not be because she is available to anyone --which the image of the 24 hour inn suggests-- but that she has the same standards as the man who has less sexual partners--yet more opportunity.

So, if this were true then it would be a double standard. Because if a woman has the same standards and (chosen) sexual availability as a man with less sexual partners than her, then there isn't any reason to look down upon her more than a man with less sexual partners (though I know we're comparing men with more sexual partners). They should be treated equally.

I don't know if the original double standard I suggested has to do with the woman lacking sexual skills? I was talking more along the lines of women who have more sexual partners being degraded as easy. Whereas men are rarely called easy, no matter how many sexual partners they have.

I don't really know if men get the same kind of criticism for having less sexual partners then other men, if they do then that also seems unfair.

Of course there is a reason for the "double standard" if its easier for the women, but she is equally "choosy" then it's still easier for her and thus not a "double standard" so much as two different things.

Think about it like this, if I'm a man and a bottle of coca cola costs me the equivalent of 30 minutes of labor, whereas for a woman it costs her the equivalent of 5 minutes of labor. I think the analogy is clear, it's the same cola, but it was much easier for the woman to get it.

That's taking the whole active approach aspect out of it as well.

Also, please note that i use exaggeration, hyperbole and crass imagery for comedic effect and to underline my points.