How many partners in hypothetical situation

Submitted by zk on May 24, 2018 - 4:30pm
I am a man 0-1
10% (1 vote)
I am a man 2-10
50% (5 votes)
I am a man 11-29
10% (1 vote)
I am a man 30-60
0% (0 votes)
I am a man 60-90
10% (1 vote)
I am a man 91+
20% (2 votes)
I am a woman 0-1
0% (0 votes)
I am a woman 2-10
0% (0 votes)
I am a woman 11-29
0% (0 votes)
I am a woman 30-60
0% (0 votes)
I am a woman 60-90
0% (0 votes)
I am a woman 91+
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 10
Submitted by zk on May 24, 2018 - 4:48pm.

I am curious about this subject, and maybe I’m way off about my conjecture as to what the answers would be. Hopefully we’ll get enough (honest) responses to get some idea.

The question is, how many sex partners would you have had per month when you were in your 20’s in this hypothetical situation:

There is no concern about pregnancy or STDs. There are no concerns about your partners’ emotions; they’re willing partners in this unattached sex. You don’t have to chase or woo or court or buy dinner. There are no attachments necessary. There are no concerns about social judgments. There are basically no concerns whatsoever. You are able to have sex with as many people as you want. You have an unlimited number available to you with no time or effort spent getting them. These people aren’t necessarily all super-attractive, but they’re not morbidly obese or unhygienic. You’re unattached and not looking for a long-term partner.

Submitted by Ribbles on May 25, 2018 - 6:37am.

It would almost certainly vary wildly. Even with no risk or feelings involved, with those kinds of numbers you would end up finding someone with whom you share crazy good chemistry.

Submitted by zk on May 25, 2018 - 7:46am.

Ribbles wrote:
It would almost certainly vary wildly. Even with no risk or feelings involved, with those kinds of numbers you would end up finding someone with whom you share crazy good chemistry.

Well, sure, but that's not part of the hypothetical.

A hypothetical is (sometimes) used to eliminate certain parameters or possibilities for the purpose of clarifying motivations or actions. For instance, in this case, eliminating (among other things) "finding" someone. "You're unattached and not looking for a long-term partner." Maybe I should've put "You're unattached and will remain unattached" or something like that.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on May 25, 2018 - 7:47am.

i dont like new partners.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 25, 2018 - 10:21am.

zk wrote:

These people aren’t necessarily all super-attractive, but they’re not morbidly obese or unhygienic. You’re unattached and not looking for a long-term partner.

For me under 5. Afterall, there are only 4 weeks in a month. More if am allowed to out of hand reject partners with funny smell, weird complexion, weird tattoos, or any undesirable qualities.

Most of the times, quality is better than quantity. No matter how you put it, humans are weird, dirty people. It's easy to get turned off by them.

Virtual reality or sex robots will be better because they will be perfect.

Submitted by barnaby33 on May 25, 2018 - 2:55pm.

Well you got creepy fast.
Josh

Submitted by scaredyclassic on May 25, 2018 - 9:57pm.

i dont mind imagining having sex with other women, but in reality, i dont want to.deal with a strange naked woman.

im not sure id feel more comfortable with a robot. is it recording me? how do you sanitize them?

pretty sure random women wouldnt be into me initially. they need to get to know me. i think the whole affair would be pretty grim at first. im an acquired taste. only work for a few chicks....

even in my sex fantasies im usually rejected...

Submitted by zk on May 25, 2018 - 10:45pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:

even in my sex fantasies im usually rejected...

Oh my god that's funny.

Submitted by svelte on May 26, 2018 - 8:23am.

the first few weeks / months I'd likely be off the scale. but the novelty would wear off quickly. I'd probably settle into a 2-10 / mo rhythm I would expect.

Submitted by zk on May 26, 2018 - 11:31am.

svelte wrote:
the first few weeks / months I'd likely be off the scale. but the novelty would wear off quickly. I'd probably settle into a 2-10 / mo rhythm I would expect.

I've pondered whether the novelty would wear off. I guess there's really no way to tell. It's certainly possible that it would but I don't think that, for me, it would wear off.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 26, 2018 - 4:37pm.

Creator of lifelike robot thinks humans will marry droids by 2045
https://nypost.com/2018/05/24/creator-of...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 26, 2018 - 4:46pm.

So what is your theory, ZK?

Many men are angry with feminism and the #metoo movement. Women claiming equal power means that men's status is relatively going down. Women are getting more education. Once women earn the same as men, women won't need men anymore. It's a slippery slope.

Considering that women mostly want to marry up, a lot of men will be hurting like in China or Japan. Testosterone filed real Americans with guns can become dangerous, however. Silicon Valley better work on sex robots soon!

Submitted by zk on May 26, 2018 - 6:50pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
So what is your theory, ZK?

Many men are angry with feminism and the #metoo movement. Women claiming equal power means that men's status is relatively going down. Women are getting more education. Once women earn the same as men, women won't need men anymore. It's a slippery slope.

Considering that women mostly want to marry up, a lot of men will be hurting like in China or Japan. Testosterone filed real Americans with guns can become dangerous, however. Silicon Valley better work on sex robots soon!

I have no idea what you're talking about here. But none of it relates to my theory, which I'll get to later.

Submitted by zk on May 26, 2018 - 8:23pm.

I will say that so far I'm very surprised by the 2-10 answers. You're in your 20s, you can have sex with a new woman any time you want, and you're only going to have sex once every 3 days at most? Honestly, I can't fathom that.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 26, 2018 - 11:59pm.

Zk, I only meant to add that, in the future, men who want to have sex will find it harder, not easier because of social and gender role changes.

I don't think you can separate sex from emotions. Who will host? If the place is a dump, one could get easily turned off. I'm sure one is more likely to want sex at a luxury hotel than at Motel 6.

I know a guy in a developing country. He has a Mercedes with chauffeur. He jokes that he doesn't even need to spend money. A ride in the car is enough to get him what he wants.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 27, 2018 - 12:20am.

scaredyclassic wrote:

even in my sex fantasies im usually rejected...

You're too self deprecating. It can't be that bad. You're a fit guy who can bike Temecula to Oceanside and back.

Do you think that mucho dinero would make a difference to get what you want? Forget about what they want.

Submitted by svelte on May 27, 2018 - 8:19am.

zk wrote:
I will say that so far I'm very surprised by the 2-10 answers. You're in your 20s, you can have sex with a new woman any time you want, and you're only going to have sex once every 3 days at most? Honestly, I can't fathom that.

Well. A couple of thoughts about that.

There was a period long ago where I was pretty wild and lived in an area where people got around, so to speak. Not near as extreme as your hypothetical situation, but enough to give me an idea of how I would handle it.

What I found was this: many (most?) women do it differently than I like...either too rough, or they switch positions every 15 seconds which breaks my focus, or other things I won't get into that weren't optimal for me. When I found a woman I was compatible with, I was more interested in being with her again than trying someone totally new. She was a known quantity that almost guaranteed fun.

So given that and your hypothetical situation, I would guess that yeah it would be fun to experiment some each month but I'm also pretty sure I would find favorites that I would keep in a sort of inner circle.

And as for the frequency, even when I had a steady live-in gf in my 20s (which meant availability was always there) I probably averaged doing it about 3-4 times a week. It certainly wasn't daily - I gotta give the mini-me a break! And all these years later, I still average the same amount. My drive really hasn't changed much at all.

Submitted by zk on May 27, 2018 - 8:20am.

svelte wrote:
the first few weeks / months I'd likely be off the scale. but the novelty would wear off quickly. I'd probably settle into a 2-10 / mo rhythm I would expect.

I said I was surprised by the 2-10 answers. But it makes sense in this case, and it doesn't really contradict my theory/my point.

Nature didn't intend us to have 90 sex partners per month. But it did select for men who were ALWAYS ready. That might translate, in this hypothetical, to a man wanting 90 partners per month. It's possible that that interest might wane after a while, in this hypothetical. But that desire wouldn't wane in nature, because virtually no men, in nature, are getting 90 partners per month. So they're going to continue to be ready for 2 or 3 or more partners per day if those partners become available to them.

I was debating the difference in sexual desires between men and women with a woman friend. As part of the exchange, she sent me this link:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking...

This link actually uses Inuit women who marry two men as an example of "promiscuous" women. A lifetime commitment to two men. Promiscuous. Hilarious! It occurred to me when I read that that that might be what a lot of women think of when they think of promiscuous men and their sex drives. A man wants her and the woman he's cheating on her with. Well, maybe they think of something a bit less inaccurate than that - like the guys who are out in the bars every weekend and manage to have a half dozen one-night stands per month.

I don't think that most women have any idea how constantly sex is on our minds and just how many partners we would have if it weren't for the complications/lack of availability/emotional concerns/et cetera.

I think that when women say that women and men are the same in this respect, it's partly because they don't understand just how we are. And part of the reason they don't understand, is that nobody ever says (anyway, I've never heard it), "hey, in our 20's, if it weren't for all the complications and other issues, we would have sex with 2 or 3 different women every single day." At least for a while. And I don't think that women would be the same. They might want sex 2 or 3 times a day or more. But not with all different men.

This is just my theory, and I could be wrong. But it seems right to me. I'd like to hear anybody else's take, whether they agree or not.

Submitted by svelte on May 27, 2018 - 8:44am.

zk wrote:

I don't think that most women have any idea how constantly sex is on our minds ...

Agree with you here. I couldn't even venture to guess how many times in a day I think about sex or sexuality. The number would be very high. Not saying its a good or bad thing, just the way it is.

That doesn't necessarily translate into meaning I want to do it every time I think about it. I'm good with actually doing it just a few times a week.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 27, 2018 - 10:11am.

Zk, I agree with you. But take away the social enablers and you end up with Japan where young men aren’t interested in dating. They still think about sex but they turn to porn and virtual sex.

I see that happen in USA to some extent. My friends’ college bound son is not interested in driving or owning a car. His mom drives him and gf picks him up; and he’s fine with that. So he been “feminized” as some people might call it. Liberal multicultural family in the Bay Araa.

Civilization can shape our behavior. Plus we’re not entitled to satisfy our cravings and desires.

Submitted by zk on May 27, 2018 - 1:01pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Zk,

Civilization can shape our behavior. Plus we’re not entitled to satisfy our cravings and desires.

I agree with that. The problem is that we - modern societies - are denying the nature and degree of men's cravings and desires and therefore not dealing from a position of truth. And that's never a good place to be.

And that is my point.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 27, 2018 - 4:13pm.

zk wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
Zk,

Civilization can shape our behavior. Plus we’re not entitled to satisfy our cravings and desires.

I agree with that. The problem is that we - modern societies - are denying the nature and degree of men's cravings and desires and therefore not dealing from a position of truth. And that's never a good place to be.

And that is my point.

You think this way because you're a man.

Scaredy, on the other hand, is still is a man but he knows his limitation and has come to embrace them. Very healthy view. I'm not sure that if he were absolute king he would grab what he wants. Or would he be a very kind gentle king?

Try to be objective. Women are not on earth or obligated to cater to men. Men and women are not animals. We are supposed to be "advanced".

Sex is not the only thing. We need to control our food cravings. We cannot grab property that belongs to other people. We can't trespass on land because we want to walk through. It's the normal wandering instinct I am well familiar with kids cutting across property. You see that in movies and that might be tolerated in the past but now, property owner will call the police.

So because of social advancement, more and more women are now off limits and unreachable to men. Highly educated women who succeed may now reject former highschool classmates.

I believe that the current populist movement among non-college educated men is the feeling that too many things are beyond reach -- women, popular culture that is more multicultural, food they don't like, languages they don't understand, electric cars they can't work on, software and electronics beyond their grasp etc... of course there are populist women who support their men (their meal tickets, providers, fathers of their kids...)

I was talking to my Chinese friends. they say that now in order to get a date with a professional woman in China, a man needs to be professional himself and own at least condo/house fully paid off, a car and cash in the bank, and come from good family. Too many men, not enough women. Add the social/economic advances.

I think in general that women have up their game, but men have not. Many reasons for that.... but it's the way it is.

Submitted by zk on May 27, 2018 - 8:18pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:

You think this way because you're a man.

It's quite obvious from the rest of your post that you have no idea how I think.

The points you try to make are the same points that you're always trying to make. But they've got exactly zero to do with what I'm saying.

FlyerInHi wrote:

Try to be objective. Women are not on earth or obligated to cater to men.

Fuck you, Brian. Fuck you for implying that I ever said or implied such a thing.

Pull your head out of your ass and try reading what I said again. I said men are designed by nature to want many sex partners. I said women were designed to want fewer. And I said that if we ignore that, we're not dealing from truth. I didn't say anything about why women are on earth or what they're obligated to do.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 27, 2018 - 8:54pm.

zk wrote:
I said men are designed by nature to want many sex partners. I said women were designed to want fewer. And I said that if we ignore that, we're not dealing from truth. I didn't say anything about why women are on earth or what they're obligated to do.

Ok. I don’t think we are ignoring anything.

I agree with you right there: there is a mismatch in supply and demand. “Dealing from truth” means that men have to go without or they have to up their game and “pay” more, if they want more.

Or we can innovate and develop alternative such as porn, sex robots, virtual reality to bring supply and demand for the real thing into equilibrium.

Sex is a resource like anything else. If there is not enough, we just have to accept to go without. The fact it’s an innate need is irrelevant.

Submitted by zk on May 27, 2018 - 9:37pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
The fact it’s an innate need is irrelevant.

Any time you're trying to deal with something, it is essential to understand the truth of that which you're dealing with. To pretend that men's and women's desires for multiple partners are the same, or even similar, can only hinder our attempt to understand and deal with the sex-based problems that arise in society.

You say that you think "we're not ignoring anything." I disagree with that. I don't think that it's generally acknowledged (anymore) that men are designed by nature to want a very large number of partners and women aren't. I see a lot of pretending and trying say that we're basically the same. And I think a lot of that is a basic misunderstanding (by women) of just how many partners men want (and would have given the ideal opportunity).

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 27, 2018 - 11:39pm.

How do you propose we deal with the sexual desire mismatch other than telling men to suck it up?

It's also inate human nature to wander around, grab fruit off of trees and swim in lakes. But is not legal or acceptable for neighborhood kids to jump the wall, wander into my apartment building and swim in the pool.

The problem i see in society is that sexually frustrated young men should not have access to guns. The law of numbers dictates that a few will go berserk. .

I don't thing we are pretending to be the same. We just make the moral decision to treat everyone equality, regardless of individual desires.

Submitted by zk on May 28, 2018 - 6:29am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
How do you propose we deal with the sexual desire mismatch other than telling men to suck it up?

Now you're asking the right questions.

I'm not sure what the second and subsequent steps are for dealing with the mismatch. That's a very large and complicated subject that involves a lot more than just telling men to suck it up. And it's obviously a subject that badly needs addressing.

But the first step, it seems quite clear to me, should be to understand and acknowledge the truth.

We can't even begin to have a meaningful conversation about the second and subsequent steps until we at least understand and acknowledge the truth. If we don't understand and acknowledge the truth, then (and this goes for all subjects, not just sexual desire mismatch), every subsequent step will be a false and most likely ineffective and possibly destructive step.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 28, 2018 - 9:09am.

The market based approach would be to develop a mechanism for women to charge for sex. The mechanism must be fair. And how do we determine that it’s fair? Since women have what men want, then women should be, in the aggregate, proportionally richer. Obviously, the system is not fair to women now.

Remember, money is not a “natural” thing, but the desire for sex is. I believe that if men are willing to pay for sex and have the wealth go to women, then they can have the sex they want.

Submitted by zk on May 28, 2018 - 9:53am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
The market based approach would be to develop a mechanism for women to charge for sex. The mechanism must be fair. And how do we determine that it’s fair? Since women have what men want, then women should be, in the aggregate, proportionally richer. Obviously, the system is not fair to women now.

Remember, money is not a “natural” thing, but the desire for sex is. I believe that if men are willing to pay for sex and have the wealth go to women, then they can have the sex they want.

Sometimes I wonder if you're a human being, Brian.

Ignoring the vast number of other massive problems with that idea, you've completely disregarded how women feel and what they want. Or maybe you've assumed that they're all prostitutes. I can't really tell what's going on in your head (or your CPU).

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 28, 2018 - 4:51pm.

There is no disregard for women's feelings. A massive transfer of wealth to women would be compensation.

Even though prostitution exists now, women are not paid in a true economic sense. Men still hoard the wealth and power and throw a few dollars at women.

Think about a hypothetical system where women are not hookers but sex goddesses to whom you make offerings for sex. Women would run such a system and hold the power like the Amazons.

Edit: Oh, and I don’t think it fair to say I’m not a human being. Not you, but I have talked to other people about this... I don’t believe that feelings and emotions are not involved. But emotions cut both ways, positive and negative. When talking about sex, people only want to focus on love. But when you mention status, class and money, people get all bent out of shape.

I have a friend who is shy (a nerd) and has trouble dating. He has a nice house in a gated community but an old car. His gf suggested a new car many times. She even offered to pay half. I said “she’s embarrassed to be seen with you.” He was upset that I suggested he’s an embarrassment.

I try to be objective and also think of psychological motivations, concious or not. However, people only want to think love, love, love.

Anyway, I believe that if an average prostitute, with 3 customers a day, could make the same as an MD and get the same social respect, we would solve the supply and demand mismatch. Are we emotionally ready for that?

Submitted by scaredyclassic on May 28, 2018 - 5:19pm.

i try to get girls to do crazy things in my fantasies, but they say no and thats that. i think id be too embarrassed to ask a sex robot even.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on May 28, 2018 - 5:29pm.

https://www.amazon.com/Paying-Chester-Br...

i loved this book very much.

autobiographical graphic novel of a fellow,who decides to just see prostitutes. very thoughtful...

actually its my favorite graphic novel..

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 28, 2018 - 3:10pm.

Zk, i would love to hear your theory on how to solve the demand and supply mismatch for sex.
An economist would reply that the best way is to increase the price of sex until the demand diminishes.

I have the feeling that, moving forward, as an aggregate, men will get less sex than before. Maybe they should embrace celibacy and religion. Or buy sex robots which will be a good investment opportunity.

My medium term prediction is that men will continue to hold the top levers of power for a long time. But middle class women will become more educated and make more money than men. Girls are getting better grades and going to college more.

My own niece who in college says that she not interested in marriage. Interestingly, she never had dreams of a romantic wedding. she not lesbian but she says she has no patience for boys because they’re dumb. She’s going to get a PhD and move to NYC.

One of my tenants is moving out. She’s a doctor in residency. She’s married to her high school sweetheart who’s a stay at home dad taking care of a toddler. He’s a lousy homemaker at that because the place is messy with food crumbs all over. I would say they are of lower middle class background. The point is that I see more girls getting education. And with assortative mating, fewer women depend on husbands for financial wellbeing.

Anyway, interesting democraphic changes that will affect gender roles. Plus on top of that we will have to rise of the “useless class” because of automation.

Submitted by spdrun on September 28, 2018 - 3:52pm.

No one is interested in marriage at age 19 or 20. Personally, I'm philosphically against marriage but OK with long-term companionship. There's no reason why some guy in a frock (be it a judge or a priest) needs to grant permission for people in love to share a household. Plus, it's become a really predatory industry (starting with the diamond merchants and moving to "wedding planning" and "event" crapola).

She'll likely meet someone who's NOT stupid whom she wants to spend time with in grad school. Best one can hope for is cohabitation or a city-hall wedding, not a $50,000 gala to impress stupid folks. It should be about companionship, not financial dependency.

Submitted by zk on September 29, 2018 - 8:37am.

FlyerInHi wrote:

Zk, i would love to hear your theory on how to solve the demand and supply mismatch for sex.

I don't have a complete theory on that. It's a very complicated issue. And one that might have different solutions in different societies or cultures. I just get disgusted when I see people trying to solve a problem (any problem) when the problem they're trying to fix isn't even the problem that they have.

You're highly unlikely to solve a problem if the problem you're trying to solve isn't the problem you actually have. If you have water dripping from the ceiling due to a plumbing leak, and you think you have a hole in the roof, you're not going to be successful fixing the problem until you figure out the actual problem. Maybe when you can't find any holes in the roof, you'll just keep trying to stop the ceiling from leaking, putting a bunch of water proofing up there. Trying to plug the ceiling when you haven't figured out where the water is coming from sounds really stupid. And it is. But you can't fathom that there's a plumbing leak. Maybe you're in denial about that. Well, the water is going to keep coming until you figure out that the problem is a plumbing leak.

Anybody who thinks men and women have the same sexual desires hasn't taken an honest look at the problem. They have a plumbing problem and they're trying to fix a hole in the roof. I think the first step toward a solution is to stop telling ourselves and our children the lie that our sexual desires are the same. And to start taking a look at the problem (and trying to come up with a solution) from a position of truth instead of from a position of denial. An additional step would be to make sure that our boys understand that force or coercion are absolutely forbidden and that the consequences for using them will be severe (and then make sure that the consequences are severe).

FlyerInHi wrote:

An economist would reply that the best way is to increase the price of sex until the demand diminishes.

Yeah, and if you ask a meteorologist to weigh in on why people love each other, you might get an equally useful answer.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 29, 2018 - 11:48am.

zk wrote:

An additional step would be to make sure that our boys understand that force or coercion are absolutely forbidden and that the consequences for using them will be severe (and then make sure that the consequences are severe)

An economist would actually approve. It's a way to increase the social cost of sex and decrease demand.

Did you read Yanis Varoufakis' book about talking to his daughter about economics? I didn't read the book yet, but I think it's useful to think in economic terms.

Submitted by spdrun on September 29, 2018 - 12:36pm.

Sex is good. Sex is healthy. Sex releases endorphins and oxytocin. The goal should be to DECREASE the social cost and stigma of consensual sex via health education, decreasing the role of religion in public life, and education about/availability of birth control.

Much of Western Europe has it right -- there's no place for prudery and stupid stigmas in a modern society.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 29, 2018 - 1:08pm.

spdrun, I didn’t make a distinction between consensual and non consensual sex. I was just talking supply and demand.

But I agree, we should increase the supply of consensual sex by moving away from religion and improving education and access to reproductive health.

When you say “decrease cost” you’re talking about making sex more like a commodity and less like a luxury good. Religion, however, wants sex to be a luxury good to be experienced only rarely. They say the restriction builds character.

Submitted by spdrun on September 29, 2018 - 3:32pm.

No, we're designed to fuck/screw/make love like bunnies. Restricting sex just breeds resentment and irritability. Goes against human nature.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 1, 2018 - 11:33am.

Yeah, but if, as ZK surmises, men want sex more than women, then what to do?

We can either tell men "too bad, suck it up"; or we can incentivize women to have more sex. Up now, women are more often than not coerced into sex they don't want.

Submitted by SK in CV on October 1, 2018 - 5:44pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:

Up now, women are more often than not coerced into sex they don't want.

Huh? Women don't want sex? Is that what you're saying?

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 1, 2018 - 9:19pm.

the women I would consider sleeping with are pretty old. it's alittle scary.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 2, 2018 - 10:00am.

SK in CV wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:

Up now, women are more often than not coerced into sex they don't want.

Huh? Women don't want sex? Is that what you're saying?

Women want sex, of course. But not as often as men.
In the aggregate, women don’t really want sex with the men they have. It’s more duty, necessity and pragmatism, not pure sexual desire. Men are happy with any sex they can get.

Look at history and the laws that protected men from marital rape.

Submitted by spdrun on October 2, 2018 - 10:20am.

Women enjoy sex. Question is, does the guy go out of the way to make it pleasant for her? Women and men have different mechanical requirements and the enjoyable parts of intercourse often don't coincide between partners.

Submitted by zk on October 2, 2018 - 10:56am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Yeah, but if, as ZK surmises, men want sex more than women, then what to do?

That's not what I surmised, Brian.

I hypothesized that men want a higher number of different partners than women do.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 2, 2018 - 12:56pm.

zk wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
Yeah, but if, as ZK surmises, men want sex more than women, then what to do?

That's not what I surmised, Brian.

I hypothesized that men want a higher number of different partners than women do.

Ok. The 2 are not mutually exclusive and I think they go hand in hand.
It pains me to say because I’m a man, but the hypocrisy of men is that they crow about their sexual conquests, but they want women to be wholesome. Exbibit: the Kavanaugh yearbook.

I think men created their own problems because, in practice, more liberal social attitudes about women would certainly lead to more available female partners. But men want power over women that’s why sexual coercion is so prevalent. Society cannot condone “boys will be boys” while as the same time embracing religiosity and sexual modestly for women. My statement is mean to be “in the aggregate” or “in general”. Of course, not all men and women feel the same.

Submitted by SK in CV on October 2, 2018 - 6:07pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:

Women want sex, of course. But not as often as men.
In the aggregate, women don’t really want sex with the men they have.

Your conclusion is patently false. You're doing it wrong.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 3, 2018 - 11:23am.

Ok. I'm open to learning to do it right. But, believe me, believe me, i am the best at it already!

What is your take on zk's hypothesis? What are the sexual truths zk is looking for?

Submitted by gromit on October 9, 2018 - 1:23pm.

Huge WTF for this entire thread.