RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison

RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 8:40:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit its called marketing. Only by people who don't know how to actually do marketing. It's actually called deceit.

tj444 -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 9:01:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Let's get real about AM, dating sites, cheating, etc. we now live in a world with Tinder. Everyone under the age of 30 is on Tinder for one thing only, hookups. The men are thrilled because they get to fuck women with no dating, courtship, or getting to know them. The women on Tinder are on there because they claim that's where their age group goes. Even on college campuses, which is amazing. I see it as sad but no sadder than the older generation of dudes that drop a woman if she doesnt put out by the third date.. which really isnt "dating" and "getting to know" each other either.. you would need to be in your 70s/80s to have even have had to "court" a woman.. It is cuz of all that which has caused me to forget about dating anyone (at least for now)... I hope its different in other countries but they are probably changing for the worse as well..

NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 9:44:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Let's get real about AM, dating sites, cheating, etc. we now live in a world with Tinder. Everyone under the age of 30 is on Tinder for one thing only, hookups. The men are thrilled because they get to fuck women with no dating, courtship, or getting to know them. The women on Tinder are on there because they claim that's where their age group goes. Even on college campuses, which is amazing. I see it as sad but no sadder than the older generation of dudes that drop a woman if she doesnt put out by the third date.. which really isnt "dating" and "getting to know" each other either.. you would need to be in your 70s/80s to have even have had to "court" a woman.. It is cuz of all that which has caused me to forget about dating anyone (at least for now)... I hope its different in other countries but they are probably changing for the worse as well.. WOW! These are not my experiences at all. I mean, I've met wankers online, but I have never been dropped for not putting out. I am courted. I am wooed. Doors are opened for me, seats are held for me, flowers are bought for me. Perhaps it's the south? Or my screening process? I am not sure, but I think most of the men I actually meet are pretty fantastic, even if they are not right for me, and I refuse another date.

LadyPact -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 10:29:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Marriage for gay people is about getting the same rights. I know. I understand the entire gay-rights argument. That's why I know it's bigoted. They discriminate, for example, against people who feel that marriage is NOT ONLY about rights. They brush off anyone who feels, as I do, that marriage is critical for having children (and protecting them). They conveniently forget that other people have DIFFERENT feelings about marriage. In short, gay-rights activists are nothing but bigots who don't even realize how narrow-minded they are. Just to give you an idea of how "P" type "I" am, I feel that marriage consists of EVERYTHING that everyone feels it is. That includes religion. That includes family. That includes divorce-law protection. That includes the right to pull the plug. That includes hospital-visitation rights. That includes rights of survivorship. That includes estate rights. That includes health-insurance coverage. That includes citizenship rights. That includes FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES (this is the big kahuna!) etc. In short, marriage isn't JUST about the selfish attitude that it's "just" about rights; and marriage isn't just about the bigoted view that it's just about sexual orientation. Gay rights activists are the biggest bunch of bigots I've ever met because they don't see themselves for who they really are. Personally, they hate "MY" idea of marriage, which is that it is everything that it is to everyone (why else would a Kentucky clerk be in jail right now, if it wasn't for what it meant "TO HER!"). To me, marriage confers RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, and PRIVILAGES which should be offered to any number of human beings of any sexual, religious, and political orientation whatsoever, of any age (yup, any age - unless otherwise forbidden by law); and, get this, since it's inescapable, I believe that each country acts as a CERTIFYING AUTHORITY that the rules of marriage have been followed, and therefore, EVERY OTHER COUNTRY needs to ACCEPT the certificate that the CA provides (much like how we do banking security on the web where a TRUST system is set up). You see, marriage is complicated. The selfishly bigoted gay-rights activists prefer to "conveniently" simplify it down to a single component. They are the biggest bigots of all. Funny though, I'm in favor of all people getting married (my only caveat is that I wish marriage to be limited to the same species). But, I think we went a bit off topic ... Oh My Gosh! Do you really believe this? And with that, I have to remind myself that, of course you do. I've seen you before. Maybe not you as a person or individual, but I've seen the type. Kim Davis is in jail because she is trying to force her idea of marriage on other people. See, I'm completely cool with what you think marriage means to you. Your own opinion is finished where your nose ends and other people's rights begin. As you have probably guessed, I have a much different opinion on this than you. Do you know that if I was male and was in the same relationship with my husband, the military could have denied me medical benefits? That I wouldn't have the same ability to move to each of my husband's duty stations unless I did it on my own dime? That I would be disqualified to go with him on any overseas tour where spouses were allowed to accompany the active duty military member. If we were the same gender and my father died, Uncle Sam wouldn't give him bereavement leave so he could escort me to the funeral. Have you honestly comprehended what the folks that you openly call bigots are fighting for?

Lucylastic -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 10:33:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Oh My Gosh! Do you really believe this? And with that, I have to remind myself that, of course you do. I've seen you before. Maybe not you as a person or individual, but I've seen the type. Kim Davis is in jail because she is trying to force her idea of marriage on other people. See, I'm completely cool with what you think marriage means to you. Your own opinion is finished where your nose ends and other people's rights begin. As you have probably guessed, I have a much different opinion on this than you. Do you know that if I was male and was in the same relationship with my husband, the military could have denied me medical benefits? That I wouldn't have the same ability to move to each of my husband's duty stations unless I did it on my own dime? That I would be disqualified to go with him on any overseas tour where spouses were allowed to accompany the active duty military member. If we were the same gender and my father died, Uncle Sam wouldn't give him bereavement leave so he could escort me to the funeral. Have you honestly comprehended what the folks that you openly call bigots are fighting for? Standing ovation!!!!

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 10:38:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Oh My Gosh! Do you really believe this? And with that, I have to remind myself that, of course you do. I've seen you before. Maybe not you as a person or individual, but I've seen the type. Kim Davis is in jail because she is trying to force her idea of marriage on other people. See, I'm completely cool with what you think marriage means to you. Your own opinion is finished where your nose ends and other people's rights begin. As you have probably guessed, I have a much different opinion on this than you. Do you know that if I was male and was in the same relationship with my husband, the military could have denied me medical benefits? That I wouldn't have the same ability to move to each of my husband's duty stations unless I did it on my own dime? That I would be disqualified to go with him on any overseas tour where spouses were allowed to accompany the active duty military member. If we were the same gender and my father died, Uncle Sam wouldn't give him bereavement leave so he could escort me to the funeral. Have you honestly comprehended what the folks that you openly call bigots are fighting for? I'm totally with you on that being terrible, and the fact that gay people should get those exact same rights. However, I think the issue is with the fact that those are rights that we've attached to the concept of "marriage" and that "marriage" is inherently, originally, a religious institution. I think the state has no business sanctifying religious rituals, and that they shouldn't be in the market of marrying any people, under any circumstances, at all, ever... nor should they ever grant any citizens special rights because those citizens in private decided to engage in a religious ritual. If the state wants to sanction people engaging in a close registered partnership, and wants to attach rights to said partnership, so be it... and in that case that partnership should be open to any consenting adults, in any configuration (including poly), or any gender, and shouldn't be associated by name with the religious ritual of a "marriage". My issue isn't with equal rights. My issue is with the fact that the American government blurs the line between church and state by granting officially sanctioning to rituals that are inherently religious in nature. If gay people want to get "married" and find a religious officiator to conduct that ceremony, they should be able to do so. Just like straight people should be able to do so, and poly people should be able to do so... However, none of these ceremonies should have any impact on their status with the state. And if the state wants to grant people in registered partnership special rights, then every consenting adult should be able to register for such a partnership. But such partnerships shouldn't be called "marriage".

NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 10:54:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Oh My Gosh! Do you really believe this? And with that, I have to remind myself that, of course you do. I've seen you before. Maybe not you as a person or individual, but I've seen the type. Kim Davis is in jail because she is trying to force her idea of marriage on other people. See, I'm completely cool with what you think marriage means to you. Your own opinion is finished where your nose ends and other people's rights begin. As you have probably guessed, I have a much different opinion on this than you. Do you know that if I was male and was in the same relationship with my husband, the military could have denied me medical benefits? That I wouldn't have the same ability to move to each of my husband's duty stations unless I did it on my own dime? That I would be disqualified to go with him on any overseas tour where spouses were allowed to accompany the active duty military member. If we were the same gender and my father died, Uncle Sam wouldn't give him bereavement leave so he could escort me to the funeral. Have you honestly comprehended what the folks that you openly call bigots are fighting for? I'm totally with you on that being terrible, and the fact that gay people should get those exact same rights. However, I think the issue is with the fact that those are rights that we've attached to the concept of "marriage" and that "marriage" is inherently, originally, a religious institution. I think the state has no business sanctifying religious rituals, and that they shouldn't be in the market of marrying any people, under any circumstances, at all, ever... nor should they ever grant any citizens special rights because those citizens in private decided to engage in a religious ritual. If the state wants to sanction people engaging in a close registered partnership, and wants to attach rights to said partnership, so be it... and in that case that partnership should be open to any consenting adults, in any configuration (including poly), or any gender, and shouldn't be associated by name with the religious ritual of a "marriage". My issue isn't with equal rights. My issue is with the fact that the American government blurs the line between church and state by granting officially sanctioning to rituals that are inherently religious in nature. If gay people want to get "married" and find a religious officiator to conduct that ceremony, they should be able to do so. Just like straight people should be able to do so, and poly people should be able to do so... However, none of these ceremonies should have any impact on their status with the state. And if the state wants to grant people in registered partnership special rights, then every consenting adult should be able to register for such a partnership. But such partnerships shouldn't be called "marriage". I agree with this. However, NOW the word marriage means the civil agreement. I would much rather that we have civil unions with the government, and ANY two or more adults should be able to enter into them permanently or for a specified period of time (with renewals), and marriage should be entirely religious and confer no rights. That said, that's not what IS. And so, we have to fight based on what is, and leave the rest up to individuals to sort out for themselves.

tj444 -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 11:07:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Let's get real about AM, dating sites, cheating, etc. we now live in a world with Tinder. Everyone under the age of 30 is on Tinder for one thing only, hookups. The men are thrilled because they get to fuck women with no dating, courtship, or getting to know them. The women on Tinder are on there because they claim that's where their age group goes. Even on college campuses, which is amazing. I see it as sad but no sadder than the older generation of dudes that drop a woman if she doesnt put out by the third date.. which really isnt "dating" and "getting to know" each other either.. you would need to be in your 70s/80s to have even have had to "court" a woman.. It is cuz of all that which has caused me to forget about dating anyone (at least for now)... I hope its different in other countries but they are probably changing for the worse as well.. WOW! These are not my experiences at all. I mean, I've met wankers online, but I have never been dropped for not putting out. I am courted. I am wooed. Doors are opened for me, seats are held for me, flowers are bought for me. Perhaps it's the south? Or my screening process? I am not sure, but I think most of the men I actually meet are pretty fantastic, even if they are not right for me, and I refuse another date. my point was that with each new generation there is a new (worse) definition of "dating".. I dont care much for being "wooed", and all that stuff.. It takes many months to really get to know someone, anything sooner (including all the flowers, door opening, etc) is usually window dressing and a mask... of course they are trying to make a good impression.. What is the real person like? I have met dudes (not even as dates, just as acquaintances) that seemed very nice (at first) but I came to know the "real" person and that person makes me want to throw up.. seeing who they really are, I have come to despise them (cheap, misers, liars, selfish).. Maybe I am being overly critical/picky but I am not gonna waste my time on a dud dude, life is too short!.. dam it, I wish I was a lesbian..

LadyPact -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 11:17:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar I'm totally with you on that being terrible, and the fact that gay people should get those exact same rights. However, I think the issue is with the fact that those are rights that we've attached to the concept of "marriage" and that "marriage" is inherently, originally, a religious institution. I think the state has no business sanctifying religious rituals, and that they shouldn't be in the market of marrying any people, under any circumstances, at all, ever... nor should they ever grant any citizens special rights because those citizens in private decided to engage in a religious ritual. If the state wants to sanction people engaging in a close registered partnership, and wants to attach rights to said partnership, so be it... and in that case that partnership should be open to any consenting adults, in any configuration (including poly), or any gender, and shouldn't be associated by name with the religious ritual of a "marriage". My issue isn't with equal rights. My issue is with the fact that the American government blurs the line between church and state by granting officially sanctioning to rituals that are inherently religious in nature. If gay people want to get "married" and find a religious officiator to conduct that ceremony, they should be able to do so. Just like straight people should be able to do so, and poly people should be able to do so... However, none of these ceremonies should have any impact on their status with the state. And if the state wants to grant people in registered partnership special rights, then every consenting adult should be able to register for such a partnership. But such partnerships shouldn't be called "marriage". Hello Ishtar. I hope you are doing well after your trip. Unfortunately, we dug our own hole. In my opinion, we invited the state into this mess because the heavens know that we can't seem to function without it. Divorce law is such a complicated mess that we need babysitters to watch over us. Poly? Holy f^ck! If I were a divorce attorney or judge, I'd shoot myself in the head first. If that ever happens (poly marriage) I swear I'm buying stock in Tylenol and Malox. You know that stuff that you had to deal with over marriage and immigration? Do you know why? It's because other people screwed it up for you before you ever showed up and now you have to prove that you're just trying to live your life. How many hoops did you have to jump through for that?

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 11:21:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes That said, that's not what IS. And so, we have to fight based on what is, and leave the rest up to individuals to sort out for themselves. I don't believe in fighting the wrong fight. Gay marriage wasn't what IS either only a short time before. And yet that changed. No reason other wrongs that AREN'T currently either can't be fought for, just because the IS happens to be a different one at the moment. I've found that majority of the people who oppose gay marriage that I've talked to are very open to the idea of legal gay partnerships, as soon as you drop religious terminology from it. I think it's a much easier fight to convince them of what SHOULD BE, instead of of the current wrong (as defined by the state having no business blurring the line between church and state) fight of shoving an IS that's not feasible down the entire country's throat by force. This isn't one of those things where little steps will slowly lead to good results, because the little steps currently taken are going in the wrong direction. The state should be out of the marriage business. And until they are, this will forever remain a religious issue instead of being one about rights as it ought to be.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 11:38:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact In my opinion, we invited the state into this mess because the heavens know that we can't seem to function without it. Divorce law is such a complicated mess that we need babysitters to watch over us. Poly? Holy f^ck! That's exactly the issue because the state is sanctioning marriage, and marriage has come to mean "whatever you think it means". If the state stops meddling in a term that has no real legal meaning, and starts by defining what a legal partnership they'll sanction means, what the terms are, what the duties are, and what the dissolvement means, most of those issues are relegated to not being any more complex than a business partnership dissolving. Not to say that would be a walk in the park, but because the legal terms are clear there, and not driven by the emotional attachment of what means what to whom and why, has a much clearer A -> B -> C outcome. If you expect people to think about, and agree upon the terms on which they'll split prior to getting together, a vast potion of the current butthurt during divorce can be avoided. Not only that, but a vast portion of the butthurt during the marriage can be avoided as well. Ullr and I, while legally married (by force), don't hold ourselves to be husband and wife. We've got a (Gorean) Free Companionship, which means that the terms on which we're together are laid out in black and white, agreed upon, and yearly renewed. This include the terms on which we'll split if either one of us decides not to renew the next year. I can't even begin to tell you how many fights we haven't had because of that. Or how much easier it's made the fights we have had, because the foundational terms of our relationship, our rights, duties, and obligations to each other are never in question when we do have a fight. How many couples do you know sit down and run through financial planning, worst case scenarios, implications of those scenarios, and what they actually expect from the other one prior to getting married? And how many times in an ugly divorce is the issue exactly that both parties feel entitled to more than the other party thought they were agreeing to give them prior to the marriage? All stuff that can be made much easier and transparent by having legal partnerships structured far more like business partnerships. After all, it's the merging and division of assets that's really the state's business in this matter. The emotional side of things... they've got no dealings with that, and that side should rightfully be left to religious or spiritual ceremonies.

LadyPact -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 12:19:01 PM)
I can promise you that MP and I didn't do all of that fourteen years ago. I had two concerns when he proposed to me. The first was that he had to convince me that Uncle Sam had a better approach to the spousal issue than the military had prior. (The old expression was that the military didn't issue you a spouse, so you don't need one.) They turned a cold eye to a lot of stuff until spouses ended up dead and it was bad press. Worse than civilian numbers, actually. If everything was equal, I honestly wouldn't care. Marriages, civil unions, hand-fasting, or anything else. Up until the SC decision, I don't think we had it. I don't even know if we have it now. Should we? Yes.

tj444 -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 1:32:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact In my opinion, we invited the state into this mess because the heavens know that we can't seem to function without it. Divorce law is such a complicated mess that we need babysitters to watch over us. Poly? Holy f^ck! That's exactly the issue because the state is sanctioning marriage, and marriage has come to mean "whatever you think it means". If the state stops meddling in a term that has no real legal meaning, and starts by defining what a legal partnership they'll sanction means, what the terms are, what the duties are, and what the dissolvement means, most of those issues are relegated to not being any more complex than a business partnership dissolving. Not to say that would be a walk in the park, but because the legal terms are clear there, and not driven by the emotional attachment of what means what to whom and why, has a much clearer A -> B -> C outcome. If you expect people to think about, and agree upon the terms on which they'll split prior to getting together, a vast potion of the current butthurt during divorce can be avoided. Not only that, but a vast portion of the butthurt during the marriage can be avoided as well. Ullr and I, while legally married (by force), don't hold ourselves to be husband and wife. We've got a (Gorean) Free Companionship, which means that the terms on which we're together are laid out in black and white, agreed upon, and yearly renewed. This include the terms on which we'll split if either one of us decides not to renew the next year. I can't even begin to tell you how many fights we haven't had because of that. Or how much easier it's made the fights we have had, because the foundational terms of our relationship, our rights, duties, and obligations to each other are never in question when we do have a fight. How many couples do you know sit down and run through financial planning, worst case scenarios, implications of those scenarios, and what they actually expect from the other one prior to getting married? And how many times in an ugly divorce is the issue exactly that both parties feel entitled to more than the other party thought they were agreeing to give them prior to the marriage? All stuff that can be made much easier and transparent by having legal partnerships structured far more like business partnerships. After all, it's the merging and division of assets that's really the state's business in this matter. The emotional side of things... they've got no dealings with that, and that side should rightfully be left to religious or spiritual ceremonies. isnt that basically what prenups are supposed to do? I mean the prenups where the couple decide together (not those prenups put in front of the bride on her wedding day).. I know I wont ever get married again.. and if i live with someone i would have to look at the laws in the country I was living in to decide if living together was really do-able, with or without a legal co-habitation agreement.. In some places living together for even a short time gives the legal equivalency of marriage.. and an agreement may not be much protection.. [sm=hewah.gif]

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 10:02:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Well, I don't know your friends, but I'll just trust you that they HATE your idea of marriage, which is nothing I've ever experienced before from any activists, but hey, you were there. I see things most others don't see. It doesn't make them right; and it doesn't make me wrong.

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 10:43:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 No, it's YOU who does not understand women, This is quite true. Anyone who actually understands women, for example, wouldn't be here, because they'd be far busier (and happier) elsewhere. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I don't understand why you are not hearing that women are telling you that we love sex as much if not more than men. [ You make an egregious mistake with that comment. What you're saying, in effect, is that since I don't agree with YOU, then I am wrong. What I'm saying, is that your statement ignores the obvious facts. It's not that I misunderstand your statement; it's that your statement doesn't fit the facts. Mine does. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 And when we have satisfying sex partners, our horniness is off the charts. That's odd. In the prior statement, you disagreed with my argument. Yet, in the VERY NEXT sentence, you agree. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I feel bad that you never encountered a woman like that. I never said all women are frigid. You clearly missed the part about the woman's idea of "off the charts" being only a small magnitude of the man's "off the charts". quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I won't even get into your comment that there are no women on the Internet in other areas, that is insane. It's an extremely common observation of many forums. In fact, it's EXTREMELY WELL KNOWN that if you want help on a gaming forum, for example, you log in as a female. I remember the first time I was exposed to this fact, in fact. As I recall, this was in the early days of the Internet, so, there was no web. We telnetted into a site, and then joined a variety of "rooms". I came in, as a guy, and, well, predictably, everyone ignored me (as I would them). Independently, I hit upon the idea of coming in as a woman, and, in an instant, voila! Instant help. Every guy on telnet, it seemed, was willing to help me. Best yet, there were the smooth talkers who would coerce me into descending into "private rooms" where, we could telnet mano a mano (as it were). It was so EASY being a female! Everything I needed to know, tactically, about navigating the rooms was given as "advice" to me by these smooth talkers. Of course, they pestered me for my phone number, and for my name, and, the innocent little naive "girl" that I was, I provided wholly believable data (heh heh ... they thought I was so gullible - some even asked me my name, and then when I answered - they chastised me for telling them - to gain my trust - and - usually - those were the guys trash talking the other guys, again, to gain my oh-so-gullible trust). Once I knew how those telnet sessions worked, I soon tired of them, but I still, to this day, log into the car and mechanics and science and repair and construction and engineering and android and linux and (the list goes on and on) sites, purely to learn more. On all these sites, women don't exist. I'm sure if I flitted about the sites pertaining to more feminine activities, I'd find women. But, my interests lie only in those areas where women don't exist. Such is my nemesis, I guess. Maybe I should take up embroidery? quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 The men are thrilled because they get to fuck women with no dating, courtship, or getting to know them. The ONLY way that I know of where men get to fuck women sans an obligatory dating ritual, is when money is involved. In fact, money seems to replace romance at a simple rate of about five dollars a minute. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 The women on Tinder are on there because they claim that's where their age group goes. Even on college campuses, which is amazing. Unfortunately, I'm not on Tinder. Sigh. But, college campuses have something like a 6:4 ratio of women to men, which wasn't that way when I went to college (I started at an all-male school, which turned male:female during the time I was there - which meant - in an engineering class of 300 kids, there was one female - who EVERYONE KNEW by sight!). Aside: She was gorgeous, and, much to our surprise, actually very approachable, which is shocking, considering the huge amount of attention she garnered just entering the classroom auditorium. If I had been she, I would have turned my feelings off. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 it was too easy not to have to date when women so easily fucked them. Huh? Makes no sense. I mean, the men's sentiment makes tons of sense. It just doesn't jive with the women that I know. Maybe times have changed? quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 100% of women, young and old said, yes, they wanted love, a boyfriend and future marriage and commitment, but couldn't find men to actually date, so they just went with whatever happened. Huh? I guess this is simply the flip side of your previous sentence, which, makes sense. However, women just wanting to fuck because they can't get a date? Nah. Ain't happening. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I am talking about attractive, intelligent men and women here, not desperate people. Youth is beauty. Take any arbitrary group of 20 to 30 year olds, and there is enough beauty to fill a Greek theater with Adonis-like faces and bodies. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 None of these women were happy about being fucked and dumped. That's the first description of that report which not only made sense, but that I believe. However, I don't think men like being dumped, so, the only difference here between men and women is the dumping part. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Interestingly, none of them would admit that it was their fault for not valuing themselves more and making men get to know them. You know, I've heard about a LOT of relationships which went sour, from many friends and acquaintances. In general, it seems that the guy says "it just didn't work out", or, "I found someone better". In general, I find the women tend to say "he was a jerk". The difference is how the women personalize the problems more so than the men do. Of course, there are stalkers who also personalize the problem - so - this is simply an observation which requires more study. Women == he was a jerk Men == it didn't work out quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Even if the women had great sex (which most of them did not), when they wanted to see the men a second time the men refused, so the women ended up faking a bravado that masked how used they felt. Well, here's another observation that I not only agree with you on, but I also wholeheartedly agree with you. There's an old saying among all men, which goes something like "every blond bombshell is someone else's bitch". I forget the actual words, but the point is that once you fuck these gorgeous women, there's not much else left to admire. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Our society lets men and women treat each other as disposable and interchangeable. Wait until you get drafted, and then assigned to the sappers. Cannon fodder has existed since the dawn of time, so, being disposable is nothing new. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 People are lazy and don't value their relationships or respect each other. Um. OK. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 You can all argue endlessly about this, but the answer lies in the ease of technology and how it actually destroyed interpersonal relationships and mutual respect. Actually, here you're seeing something that may be worth unearthing a bit further. I have seen skits where gamers read messages off of some chat site, where the women are inundated with "wanna fuck" messages. Having watched this in mirth, I wonder how realistic these messages are. I, for one, have never sent a wanna-fuck missive here on Collarspace, so, for "some" of us, technology hasn't changed the message; it just changed the medium. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I never thought I would be so happy to be older. At least I had real dates, real relationships and a real marriage where we worked on it, and no, we didn't cheat. Just wait 'til they craft a female robot that is far more lifelike than your typical blowup doll (even if it has a a pulsating vagina!). Then, all (real) women are doomed! :)

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 10:53:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Chicks don't need an internet site to get laid!!! I think this one sentence is the clearest argument against mine, which is that chicks may be cheating just as much (or even more) than men; but they do it differently than the way the men do it. It's a perfectly valid counter argument to mine, which relies on sheer known AM numbers.

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 10:55:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Or just text random dude in my phone who's been begging for it for years. If anyone whom I knew to be a female and whom I had been begging for it for years then, out of the blue, texted me with a "wanna fuck" message, I'd be there in a heartbeat. No questions asked. I suspect most men would act similarly. Does the reverse ever occur? Do women beg men to fuck for years on end?

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/9/2015 11:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I see it as sad but no sadder than the older generation of dudes that drop a woman if she doesnt put out by the third date.. This is a good point, in which I have been guilty of myself. Basically, if she doesn't put out, we may move on, because, after all, we're focused on results, and we only have so much time, energy, and money to devote to the chase. Every hunter makes the strategic decision to let the prey go free, if it's too much trouble. It's why they tell us to wave our arms, yell, throw stuff, and, basically NOT act like prey when we confront a cougar in the wild.

LadyPact -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 2:37:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I think this one sentence is the clearest argument against mine, which is that chicks may be cheating just as much (or even more) than men; but they do it differently than the way the men do it. It's a perfectly valid counter argument to mine, which relies on sheer known AM numbers. I wouldn't have any concrete evidence to make the point valid either way. Most of what I've read over the years always seems to state that men do cheat more often than women and generally, such articles all tend to point in the direction that the genders cheat for different reasons. Men tend to cheat more for the physical and women more for the emotional. Myself being what's best described as demi sexual when it comes to vanilla sex, it's really easy for me to buy into that theory. Unfortunately, the descriptor isn't a perfect fit because like most Dominants of either gender, well, we also get off on things like power, control, authority, etc. I'm not going to say that I support Ashley Madison, because I don't. I'm not big on anything that organizes deception. (That's a whole other thread right there.) However, numbers alone, I'm really interested to know how these folks got over with this kind of racket. Looking at any of the numbers that have been reported, I have no idea how these folks were getting over on that 'guaranteed to have an affair in ninety days or your money back' thing. The only idea that's been presented to me that I can buy into was, "you've never bought a service from the net or something from tv and actually tried to get your money back, have you?" scenario. I haven't, so maybe that person was right and that's how the swindle works. Even those reporting on The List (and I capitalize it that way because, at this point, The List or The Ashley Madison List is darn near deserving of it's own trademark) have told people that, if they find a specific woman's name on it, don't even really believe it was them. AM as a site really was paying people to create/maintain many of the het f profiles, so even if there was some interaction electronically, it didn't really translate to physical world, sexual encounters. Again, what a flipping racket. Most people couldn't come up with a con nearly that good, so I guess I have to at least give them points for ingenuity.

NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 3:53:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I dont care much for being "wooed", and all that stuff.. It takes many months to really get to know someone, anything sooner (including all the flowers, door opening, etc) is usually window dressing and a mask... of course they are trying to make a good impression.. What is the real person like? I have met dudes (not even as dates, just as acquaintances) that seemed very nice (at first) but I came to know the "real" person and that person makes me want to throw up.. seeing who they really are, I have come to despise them (cheap, misers, liars, selfish).. Maybe I am being overly critical/picky but I am not gonna waste my time on a dud dude, life is too short!.. dam it, I wish I was a lesbian.. Well, I love being wooed. Forever. If they can't start off right, I'm not interested. As far as months to get to know someone, try YEARS. I don't accept ownership until usually a year or more has gone by. The shortest period is 8 months, and that felt like a whirlwind to me. But, overall, I have not had someone show me "their true colors" and had them be markedly different after a period of time, except in the case of my ex-husband, who became mentally ill. All of my other lovers are still my friends. No hate, no acrimony. Simply discovering over time that we were not fully compatible, no great reveals of assholery. But then, I spend most of my time in the first 6 weeks trying to find reasons the relationship WON'T work, and reasons to end it. Historically, once someone has made it through 6 weeks with me, they have a better than 50/50 chance of being with me longer than 2 years. So, perhaps you can see why I find your take on it surprising. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes That said, that's not what IS. And so, we have to fight based on what is, and leave the rest up to individuals to sort out for themselves. I don't believe in fighting the wrong fight. Gay marriage wasn't what IS either only a short time before. And yet that changed. No reason other wrongs that AREN'T currently either can't be fought for, just because the IS happens to be a different one at the moment. I've found that majority of the people who oppose gay marriage that I've talked to are very open to the idea of legal gay partnerships, as soon as you drop religious terminology from it. I think it's a much easier fight to convince them of what SHOULD BE, instead of of the current wrong (as defined by the state having no business blurring the line between church and state) fight of shoving an IS that's not feasible down the entire country's throat by force. This isn't one of those things where little steps will slowly lead to good results, because the little steps currently taken are going in the wrong direction. The state should be out of the marriage business. And until they are, this will forever remain a religious issue instead of being one about rights as it ought to be. You make a good point. However, it doesn't make sense fishing in the dessert. People do not use/understand civil unions. By forcing the marriage issue, there may be a better case made for civil unions. shrugs quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 No, it's YOU who does not understand women, This is quite true. Anyone who actually understands women, for example, wouldn't be here, because they'd be far busier (and happier) elsewhere. Except, i dunno, women. And men who understand their women and therefore have enough sex and love and work that when they relax, they enjoy talking about this things we all share... kink. Except that that can't be true, because you've already said it's not so. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I feel bad that you never encountered a woman like that. I never said all women are frigid. You clearly missed the part about the woman's idea of "off the charts" being only a small magnitude of the man's "off the charts". sexyred1, you clearly missed the part where he has mansplained that men get the horn so much harder than women, we couldn't possibly understand. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I won't even get into your comment that there are no women on the Internet in other areas, that is insane. It's an extremely common observation of many forums. And it's well-known to you because you completely ignore ALL evidence to the contrary, even when links are posted in direct opposition to your stated belief. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 The men are thrilled because they get to fuck women with no dating, courtship, or getting to know them. The ONLY way that I know of where men get to fuck women sans an obligatory dating ritual, is when money is involved. Do you see, sexyred1? He is unwilling to accept that experiences beyond those he has personally experienced exist. Sad, really. I wonder what he thinks of cukoldresses? Or how one-night stands happen. Or if the women at the center of gang-bangs are really men. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 You can all argue endlessly about this, but the answer lies in the ease of technology and how it actually destroyed interpersonal relationships and mutual respect. Actually, here you're seeing something that may be worth unearthing a bit further. I have seen skits where gamers read messages off of some chat site, where the women are inundated with "wanna fuck" messages. Having watched this in mirth, I wonder how realistic these messages are.[/crumpets] I'll start a new thread and post a few. I've saved some of my favorites. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Chicks don't need an internet site to get laid!!! I think this one sentence is the clearest argument against mine, which is that chicks may be cheating just as much (or even more) than men; but they do it differently than the way the men do it. It's a perfectly valid counter argument to mine, which relies on sheer known AM numbers. Which means your argument is flawed. Because AM is not the totality of the internet, either. Sheesh. quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Or just text random dude in my phone who's been begging for it for years. If anyone whom I knew to be a female and whom I had been begging for it for years then, out of the blue, texted me with a "wanna fuck" message, I'd be there in a heartbeat. No questions asked. I suspect most men would act similarly. Does the reverse ever occur? Do women beg men to fuck for years on end? Some do. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I think this one sentence is the clearest argument against mine, which is that chicks may be cheating just as much (or even more) than men; but they do it differently than the way the men do it. It's a perfectly valid counter argument to mine, which relies on sheer known AM numbers. I wouldn't have any concrete evidence to make the point valid either way. Most of what I've read over the years always seems to state that men do cheat more often than women and generally, such articles all tend to point in the direction that the genders cheat for different reasons. Men tend to cheat more for the physical and women more for the emotional. Myself being what's best described as demi sexual when it comes to vanilla sex, it's really easy for me to buy into that theory. Unfortunately, the descriptor isn't a perfect fit because like most Dominants of either gender, well, we also get off on things like power, control, authority, etc. crumpets is using the cheating to bolster his argument about who WANTS sex more, men or women. He's suggesting that men want sex more because they cheat more... or rather, because they try to cheat more. In actual studies, the numbers are about 2.7% different between men and women cheating. Men are 14.something% Women are 12.something%. The thing that should be kept in mind, is that men end relationships in far greater numbers in the under 2 years category. The numbers reverse in the over 2 years category... or about when the normally patient and loving woman gets sick of not getting enough sex and intimacy from her man, and does not want to cheat, so she ends the relationship and gets sex. One woman I know, a very good friend, had sex with 112 men in one year. Each of them thought he was her fifth, ever. EVER. Every single one, including the one she lives with after all that. She fucked her way through POF, OKCupid and Match. AFTER she dumped the first one, finally, because her daughter was old enough and she was sick of a loveless/sexless marriage. Did he cheat? You betcha. She has proof of 4 women over 12 years. Did he try to cheat more? I bet he did! LOL! Lighweight! This is ONE story I can tell you. ONE.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625