The average man can't go with out sex or masturbation for two months. I'd say this probably up to 90% of the male population (whom experienced either). While on the other hand I'd say atleast 60-70% of women could do that ie be two months without either. Difference is our 'poison' is like heroine. Please don't compare...you can't. It would be like me saying I know what it feels like to be pregnant. Men by their very nature are meant to have sex with multiple partners. Our genetic lineage (Apes and chimpanese...if you dare to compare), are this way, and so are we. The only difference is that we have acquired and accepted the emotional standards of others ie females. Our brain has been complicated with the emotional subjectivism of our 'mates'. Now personally, I think relationships are cool, but some women think that there's some special mindset in men....similiar to theirs. Nah, men are overtly designed in a way to impregnate women....many. If you ask the average guy how many women he thought of sexually, you might have him adding 10 more by the time he even concieves an estimation. This doesn't make us pigs (or less than human)....these are standards only in ones mind. We are what we are and chose to be....just the same with you. If you don't like the values and reality of the man in front of you...moveon. org. Same with men, don't bitch and moan about women...moveon. Self-esteem requires accepting reality, and flowing with it. End rant.
I don't know, maybe some woman think they feel an emotional attachment right way. or maybe younger woman do I have know a lot of woman who are just as casual in short term relationships as men in fact I would say there are a lot women who are more into careers, lives etc and if they want to just have sex they aren’t looking to get married or have a boyfriend I think its naive and sort of humorous that you girls seem to think of short term relationships as for one, negative and two not what women want. Actually some woman would be annoyed at clingy sensitive guys
It's pretty funny... most of the men posting in this thread still don't get it. I mentioned ealier that listening to a woman is a good thing yet the men posting don't seem to be listening to the women that are posting in this thread lolll Ho-hum such is life I suppose.
ferret - I think it's actually a bit the other way around. It's the younger women who tend to be more interested in casual relationships, and as they mature they tend to look more for emotional attachments. Some young girls just stupidly mistake puppy love or infatuation for love, so I suppose that's what you're referring to in that sense. As for being annoyed by sensitive guys, I'd have to disagree. I think the problem is partly that when mean hear the term "sensitive" they get some effeminate image in their minds that scares the hell out of them. Being sensitive doesn't mean being clingy, or a pushover, or that you have want to sit down and watch a tear-jerking chick flick with us. It means exactly what it says... you have to acknowledge that women are naturally more emotional beings, and you need to be sensitive to that. It doesn't mean you shouldn't be honest, but it means you should be careful how you phrase something. It doesn't mean you have to follow us around like puppy dogs, but it does mean you should recognize when we're upset and actually try to comfort us. It doesn't mean you have to shower us with gifts or attention 24-7, but it does mean that you have to make some effort and respect us. If anything, I think the sexes in general just have a huge communication lapse on that issue. Rick_Michael - LOL 60-70% is likely an extremely high estimate. Just because women don't discuss sex and their desires as openly with men (they're probably more likely to discuss it plenty w/ their female friends, believe me), it doesn't mean they don't want and need sex, and plenty of it. Women get a bad rep, where people just kind of assume we're prudes. Women probably want sex just as much (if not more sometimes) than men do... we just don't have those thoughts triggered by every guy that walks by, b/c we're trigged emotionally and not so much visually (although to some degree we are). And pulling the biology / genetics card as some kind of excuse is kind of sad. There are a lot of things we're programmed to do in that sense, but that we overcome every day (do you still hunt and gather your food, or do you hit a supermarket or drive-thru?). Anything in that regard can be overcome, and I know plenty of men who do it, so they certainly exist. But even you admit that it's a "choice" - and that in itself overrides the "nature" aspect of it.
That's a crock of something. The reason men don't catch STDs from their female partners as often isn't b/c we sleep around more. It's because we're not "injecting" them directly into you. Yes Daniel, sadly.... EDIT: Yeah... studying animals and prostitutes... that's GOT to be a scientifically sound method of branding the entire female population.
Jenn, you make some very good points. And she's right, you know -- women want sex at least as much as men do, most of the time. The difference is that, as Jenn mentioned, we don't want to jump every attractive guy's bones we see walking down the street. On the one hand, women are considered prudes if they are not open about their sexuality. On the other hand, we're branded sluts if we do talk about it. Damned if we do, damned if we don't
Wht women want... ??? A.) Regardless of what men want, women want the absolute opposite How to make a gal fall in love with you ? A.) 3 steps : a.) LIE b.) bigger LIE c.) AND MORE LIES
How to make a woman serve you your balls on a silver platter? 3 steps: a.) LIE b.) bigger LIE c.) AND MORE LIES We always find out in the end.
Well, my suggestion wasn't that women didn't want sex (as much), but they could physically go without sexual stimulation. It's an estimation, I admit...but frankly I've known far more women that could go without self-stimulation or sex, than men...we have to atleast self-stimulate. I don't single guy that said...I haven't had sex in two month nor have I wanked. Personally I deem that nearly impossible. Honestly, to each to their own on their opinions of what's 'good' or 'bad' on sexual behaviour. Women do get turned-out without emotions...but you admit that as well. I fail to find interest in judging men by their nature. Just as I fail to find interest in judging women by their nature. We either accept what's in front of us, or we move-on. To subjectively annoint ones own values as superior...well, I don't favour that sort of mentality, unless it's a matter of life or death. No ones dying because a woman or man cheats. People just learn what they want...some do.
It's not that they necessarily go without self-stimulation... they just don't talk about it or admit to it. I'm not going to get into the cheating issue any further. You're free to feel how you want to feel about it. And I'd be free to despise you for it. j/k But I'm going to spare everyone that rant.
lol I doubt there's much that pisses me off more than people who try to justify cheating. And I don't want to personally attack someone over it, so just consider yourself lucky. My posts are already usually far too long... it would be a record-breaker.
No, actually I agree. Some STD's are easier to get because they're more of an entering disease...such as AIDS....through needles, anal sex, or lastly vaginal sex. Obviously the quotes I put down are not quite solid on their own. Well, the studies are various and not subject particular. So you must realize that it's not only from animals and prostitutes. Although the significance is that many women in 'third world' nations are within that sphere ie they're more prone to prostitution....therefore any conclusive data within those nation must include that as a direct maniplator of the means.
Honestly, I'd be suprised if women didn't atleast have as much sex as men do now-a-days....especially when they're approached almost every day about it. It doesn't require many women any effort, while on the other hand, men have to work for sex...literally. I wouldn't overally worry about other people's standards...I don't, unless it really means something to me.
I didn't pull that out of thin air. That's what the report starts right off with. I just didn't see anything there that made me think it's scientifically sound research. I'm not saying some aspects couldn't be true... just that that particular site didn't look terribly reputable for that kind of information. Unfortunately there are a lot of lousy studies done regularly put out w/ completely faulty assumptions or problems with the methodology. Show me (figuratively) the same information from a reputable journal, and I'd be completely open to considering what they're saying.