Why does it seem like now a days, guys are only interested in you if you give off the impression that they have a chance to have sex with you?

[Egyptiannn]

[ScienceThumper]

What else are we going to do together when you menstruate and ovulate every fuckin month? Dogs have several times shorter life spans and only get heated about twice a year. That's why they're just loyal buddies.( ... unless you're dogpilled. Right? @d_bone_steak?)

https://www.youtube.com/embed/PeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriodsPeriods

[ScienceThumper]

@d_bone_steak coomers reported me. I got to still update that blockbuster target list. Worst guy probably doesn't belong there maybe I should remove that comment about him too.

Post: Survey: what do you think should qualify someone to be a future US president?

Your Comment removed: If he hasn't masturbated in public and used real poop for his blackface then he's an unworthy pussy regardless of IQ.

[FunkyMonkee]

Can you say, "Women's lib"? Sure, I knew you could.
It's not even entirely that. Rape culture has something to do with it. If a guy comes onto a woman and she doesn't like it, she can just claim that he raped her and, chances are, the courts will believe her!!
Back in the `90's, my brothers best friend came over with his wife to hang out, get drunk, listen to heavy metal and eat. They had a 9 year old daughter that they would sometimes leave at our house for my brother to babysit. One afternoon, I caught the wife in the kitchen with my brother and she was kissing him rather passionately and wrapping her arms around his neck. She was trying to get my brother to fall in love with her so she could fuck him behind her hubby's back! My brother refused to do that to his best friend so, that bitch claimed that my brother molested her daughter! He was carted off to jail for at least a year until the hearing came up. They found him guilty and put him in jail for another 6 years but, as he had no place to go that was okay with the court (places devoid of children within 500 ft.) when he was released, he had to stay in jail for at least another year!! About 3 years after he got out, he killed himself by jumping off a bridge! ALL because that fucking cunt accused him of something he never did because she couldn't get her way with him!!
So, it's no wonder guys are gun-shy unless they know it's a sure thing!! But, you've only got yourselves to blame for it! Mostly, people like Jane Fonda.

[AmandaYVR]

Because it's true.

Men love sex. They want their life to include sex. Women can provide that element. So, even when they're not in a sexual relationship with you, there is often some low-key desire, or association, with you being linked to that, potentially. (And I don't mean only having sex with you, but talking about it with you to learn from you, your preferences, how other women think, etc. Even that is a big draw for them.)

[Paul_in_Indy]

You should listen to her! This insight is spot on.

[AmandaYVR]

@Paul_in_Indy Thanks, Paul!

[Anonymous]

women should have more self respect. its better for us all to be single rather than be sperm buckets

[chris_987]

That makes no sense considering girls think about sex more than men

[MrOracle]

Most modern (i. e., Feminist) women have been systematically taught not to give a man anything he wants or to be the kind of woman that most men want (yes, exceptions exist), and so very often, the ONLY thing a man stands to receive in a relationship that he values is sex. Meanwhile, to even be attractive to a woman, a man has had to work for years, maybe decades, to build his looks, his career, his resources, and his status.

Many women want to enjoy the benefits of all of the man's hard work, but doesn't want to make any sacrifices to get it, and men have either experienced this themselves or have seen it happen to close friends, and they aren't interested in doing that again.

If women generally were willing and able to offer other things besides sex - as women in the past used to - men would be less anxious about getting sex, but when sex is the only benefit they get from everything they are expected to give, you can't be surprised when they make it such a big deal.

And let's be VERY clear - men weren't the ones who changed everything - that was women. Both the radical feminists who pushed for all the changes and the rest of women who went along with it.

Women who are not traditional and do not provide traditional benefits should not expect to receive traditional benefits from a man. You can't have it both ways.

[Paul_in_Indy]

Are you talking about dating? Obviously, I’m only interested in dating you yes I think I have a chance of having sex with you. That doesn’t seem weird to me.

If you mean that guys won’t even be friends without wanting to have sex…? I don’t think that’s generally true. It is true that some sexual tension is inevitable with an attractive female friend. It is also true that men have a great sexual curiosity into which they want to delve with a female friend (that’s kinda what this site is about, right?). …but I have female friends whom I am not pursuing for sex.

If I ask you to go on a date, though, it’s because I want to have sex with you.

[glennos89]

Seems to me that you are interested in the wrong type of guys most likely...
Woman are often attracted to the guys that have everything in their life settled and taking care off. But the if you give the guy who struggles a chance, you will most likely be the reason for him to get back on track again and that is a real powermove to make because he will definitely like you way way more then just wanting to have sex with you.

( good woman empower guys to a level that he can't achieve without a woman on his side )

The guys who are already thriving have plenty of options and they are most likely taking advantage of that fact

[DextroShade]

Modern women don't want to build with a man they want to move in.

[magiusX26]

you are reffering to romantic partners right? if so, and you mwan a guy expectung sex at some point, then that would indicate it is a you issue and not them. as dating intels sex at some point as a portion of the goal (not the only goal mind you) and if you are looking for a guy to date but never engage in sex, then that is called just a friend and to date only looking for friends is leading people on. now if, as at least one other mentioned, you are lamenting about guys walking away after a date or 2 because of no sex, then they are doing you a favor, also, if this is a reccuring problem, maybe look at who you have been picking. find the common traits of these guys that do that and avoid guys with those traits, then maybe you will have better results.

[systemsareyo]

For me I don't waste my time or a random woman's time or any woman's time, if she's not actually openly asking me out as a love interest. I've just grown up and learnt from my life experiences I don't bother women if they're not into me. If they're into me, and they don't ask me out, I also will then just ignore then or keep it strictly platonic/neutral/emotionless professionalism. After all, barista, waitress, bartender, they're not flirting, it's a job to be kind and friendly. Likewise I don't flirt where I'm not flirted with, and I'm wiser to the difference and contexts now at 29 then I stupidly was at 18

[systemsareyo]

And of course the world these days. A man can lose everything if a woman cries wolf, even if a man, or I a man, didn't even do anything other than smile at a woman, just smile, or accidentally daydream staring into someone and its the world these days. A woman can cry wolf, even unproven, and there goes a man's job, friends, club memberships, everything. Lol. All over a, woman. So I for one, stay single 😆😲

[blueonblack22]

Well no warm blooded straight man is going to waste his time, money, heart, resources, effort etc. pursuing a woman to just become platonic friends with him. Hell no. Why would he?

But men who want to date the woman which is full relationship with both the friendship and sex. It will never be a relationship without it the latter unless they are holding off to marriage.

[JacobJordan]

Because most modern women have absolutely nothing else to offer. Most modern women are not virgins, they are not submissive, they are argumentative, loud, dramatic, disrespectful, spiteful etc. When most modern women have nothing else to offer why would a guy look for anything else.

[LadyKitty]

So you want a woman who is a subservient virgin with no free will of her own?

[DextroShade]

@LadyKitty YES, except that she has free will and she chooses to submit.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty someone is intentionally trying to misconstrue what is being said. You're adorable for trying that. Stupid but adorable. At what point did I say anything about subservience or no free will? Child the description I listed is my wife and she is most definitely not subservient nor does she lack free will. Stop using buzz words you found online and formulate your own thoughts you will have a better life. Cheerio!

[LadyKitty]

@DextroShade Hey at least you are honest about it lol

[LadyKitty]

Hey, just trying to understand your point here. When you talk about 'modern women' like that, aren't you kinda echoing the same old complaints that mgtow influencers have? But let's break it down: why do you think being non-virgin, assertive, or outspoken are negatives? Also, what's up with the generalization about 'most' women? And flipping the script - what about the issues with modern men? Why focus only on what you think women are doing wrong? Let’s be real, everyone's got their flaws, men and women alike. Its not the 1950s anymore either and that era wasn't perfect. So, instead of pointing fingers, why not talk about how both sides can do better?

[DextroShade]

@LadyKitty here's your breakdown:

Higher body counts in women are associated with poorer outcomes in relationships and marriages as well as issues with paternity and STDs. The bodies she has the more likely she is to leave.

"Assertive and outspoken" are masculine traits that aren't attractive in women.

There is no shortage of people and outlets shaming or criticizing men, from social media influences to Hollywood to news media, but whenever a man criticizes women he is immediately labeled an incel.

[LadyKitty]

@DextroShade If you apply the high body count to women then it should be applied Men too.

Personality traits are not masculine nor feminine though, They are just personality traits.

I won't label a man an Incel unless he has earned that title because there are men that hold those beliefs.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty it does apply to men dear. Men will absolutely roast each other for being a man whore. It is only modern women that want to do it and expect to be accepted and praised for it. Guys do it knowing full well they are going to be roasted by every guy friend they have. Personality traits are definitely gender based that is why when one says act like a lady vs act like a man it implies to entirely different personalities.
Here is another common phrase used by undesirable women "I want a man that knows how to handle me" a man does not want to handle a woman. I don't know enough about mgtow (I had to look up the acronym) the reality is a high body count is bad for bother genders and that is a biological, medical, physiological, scientific fact. As for modern men from what I can see most men are leaving modern and otherwise so I don't entirely see the point you are trying to make. As for why the 'most' women? The asker phrased the question to men about why men are likely only going to be interested if a woman might sleep with him. So the question was about men and women. Hence most men and most women.
Lastly having a higher body count than the world trade center attack is not a "flaw". Have more sexual partners than isis has victims is not a "flaw" I have said it once and I will keep saying it no one man or woman should have more than 2 sexual partners there entire life. 1 fair enough you made a mistake. Hence the second. If you have to go past second you suck at picking partners as such not worth a relationship. And before you go and do the same stupid crap most people pull yes I have 1 person. My wife. And yes my wife has 1 person as well. Me. I actually live what I advise others to do.

[LadyKitty]

My advice to people live as who you are regardless if you want to be a nun or a pornstar, Its not anyones place to dictate that. You may see anyone with more than 2 partners as not worthy of a relationship but the reality is on average people have 4 to 8 sexual partners in their life time. Life is not black or white. People aren't perfect either and if someone has issues within themselves, Its up to them to work on it rather than dwell on the past. So you can keep your opinions because in the end nobody is the same and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty the reality is divorce rates skyrocket when women reach 3+ and contrary to your "most people have 4-8" most people do not have that. Most people have 1 or 2 max. With 1 or 2 partners the odds of a successful relationship is 90%. Soon as a woman gets 3 the odds of her having a successful happy relationship go from 90% to 30%. Not an opinion child factual fucking data that being a whore or a slut is bad for people and for relationships and for society. If you wish to be willfully ignorant and claim it doesn't matter than do men a favor and leave them alone no man deserves to have half his life stolen by a woman who thinks having more bodies than a terrorist is healthy or "liberating" or "empowering". Also to address your average more in depth since you clearly mistakenly assumed it applies to all. The women with 300 bodies or 150 bodies etc have drastically skewed that average. If you removed all those outliers the number would be 1-2 maybe 1-3. See a lot of frustrated women wondering why they can't find a husband after having many sexual partners and yet not understanding that the many partners is precisely why no one wants them. If we were to take 10k men and have them collectively meet 10k women of which 2k are virgins 3k have had 1 partner and the rest of ranging from 3-100 nearly all men will want the 5k that are virgins or 1 partner. Obviously not enough of them so of those that are left most will either 1 fuck one of the promiscuous women and leave her and a very small number will settle for her and then wonder why half their shit was stolen in divorce a few years later.

[LadyKitty]

Sir I spoke facts based off of actual DATA. Also you probably think calling me a child will rile me up it won't. I said the average man or woman has 4 to 8 sexual partners in their life time to be clear, Learn to actually research. You call me ignorant yet you can't even hold a civil conversation and your twisting my words to fit your beliefs. Also a FYI I have a partner so I have nothing to worry about.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty I did the same thing and the data even states that the average is high due to people with high body counts. So turns out I can research. No human worth a relationship thinks it is healthy to have a high number of partners and the issues that arise are well documented and yet here you are being the modern women people talk about. Do you really want me to outline all the negatives to having multiple partners. Negatives that have been proven time and time again. Or do you want to just accept that you done goofed and walk away with what little dignity you have left?

[LadyKitty]

Oh how cute, You really think you bother me? You really think you have some moral highground eh? Perhaps you should look at your own flaws before you judge others. If a person has had 'a lot' of partners doesn't suddenly make them unworthy of happiness. My point is that you are pretty much saying anything beyond 2 is a high body count based on your logic the majority of humans are 'unworthy'. You are only telling yourself that because it makes you feel superior. Though I haven't goofed but you have made yourself a clown though. 🤡

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty increased risk of stds beginning at 3 and increasing with more partners.
Increased likelihood of divorce starting at 3 and increasing with more partners (70% chance of failure for 3 partners. 10% for 1 or 2 partners)
Increased likelihood of sexual dissatisfaction beginning at 3 partners and increasing with more partners
Increased odds of infertility, pelvic floor issues, vaginal issues for women. Increased risk of ED and infertility for men.
Decreased ability to emotionally bond with a partner start at 3 and increasing as one has more partners
Increased risk of Infidelity starting at 3 partners and increasing with each successive partner.
Shall I go on?

[LadyKitty]

About STDs: There's no magic number of partners that suddenly ramps up your STD risk. The key thing is safe sex practices. Even with just one partner, if you're not being safe, you're at risk for STDs.

Divorce Complexity: Saying that the number of sexual partners is the be-all and end-all cause of divorce is way too simplistic. Divorce is complicated, man. There's a whole bunch of reasons why marriages don't work out, and you can't just pin it down to one single thing.

Sexual Satisfaction and Health Issues: Now, about that claim linking sexual dissatisfaction, infertility, and other health stuff like pelvic floor problems or erectile dysfunction to having more than three partners? That's not really backed up by solid research. These issues are complex and involve a lot more than just how many people you've slept with.

Emotional Bonding: Emotional bonding is a personal thing, right? It varies from person to person and doesn't just depend on how many partners you've had. There are loads of other factors that play into it.

Infidelity and Number of Partners: And about the claim that banging more than three people cranks up your chances of cheating later? There's no conclusive research backing that up. Cheating's complicated, and the reasons behind it aren't as straightforward as just the number of people you've been with.

[LadyKitty]

Though Hey, looks like we've both said our piece on this. It's been quite a chat even if I don't agree with your thoughts on the matter, but I reckon we've covered everything we can. Let's call it a day on this topic. Ta-Ta!

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty deny deny deny. All of this has ample proof sparky. Both men and women with multiple partners have all of the things I stated. Keep making excuses all you want you simply proving my point and the reason why men keep saying they don't want a woman with a high body count. Hell a woman who had parents cheat is also more likely to cheat. Same with a man raised by a single mother. I am sure you are going to deny or make excuses for that as well. 64% of women with multiple sexual partners admit to having cheated on current and past partners where as 14% of women with 1 or 2 partners have admitted to cheating on current or past partners. And yet you still trying to deny and make excuses that high body count does not matter 😂🤣😂🤣

[LadyKitty]

Everyone has different thoughts on the matter, Go ahead and think what you like nobody is stopping you. I am not proving your point though by having my own thoughts on the matter and pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Though not everyone thinks the same so have fun!

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty flaws? Which flaws have I posted. Cause everything I have posted is backed by science, medical, biological fact. Yet everything you have said on the other hand is proved false by science, medical and biological fact.

[LadyKitty]

You have not linked any actual studies, I have mentioned stuff based on my own research. STDs are straight forward anyone can catch it regardless if you don't practice safe sex.

Divorce can be associated with higher body counts but the research is also skewed because www.sciencedaily.com/.../160606082607.html It is evident that in the 80s divorces were higher but people were more likely to have a lower body count then.

As for your remaining claims there is no real research!

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty kidshealth.org/.../std-odds.html Oh look your chances of stds go up as you have more partners. Or if you get with someone who has had a lot of partners.
ifstudies.org/.../counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability
Oh look divorce is higher for women as they have more sexual partners.

Turns out there is real research like I said. Kindly be quiet when you have no clue what you are talking about.

[JacobJordan]

Continue proving my point though it is quite humorous how desperately you are to defend women and men being disgusting when people could be so much happier if they just were decent self respecting people. The difference between us is I am trying to help people have healthy fulfilling relationships while you are trying to ruin people's chances at happiness.

[LadyKitty]

Nah my point is, You consider anyone have 2 partners or more as disgusting then you must think the majority of people are disgusting at that rate is my point. You pretend like people having a high body count is tied to modernism when it isn't go look at history. I believe people are free to make their own choices regardless even if someone disagrees with it.

[LadyKitty]

I seen that link to prove my point though, Divorce was still higher in the 80s versus now and people had lower body counts then. You can't link divorce to 1 thing and be like oh you slept with a 3rd person? You are now gonna be unhappy for life.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty have you never heard of causal events? Or causal links? Of course there are numerous causes to divorce one of which is having multiple sexual partners. It may not be the singular factor but is linked to other typical reasons for divorce. Infidelity for example is one of the leading causes and THAT is also linked to higher body counts. At no stage of this discussion are you or will you ever be right in thinking that promiscuity is good for people. I have proved it with numerous facts. Sourced as well and I actually know what I am talking about it at this point you aren't even trying to prove you are right you are simply trying to find any amount of leeway to justify shitty life choices. Among other things that are linked to divorce there is partner satisfaction, emotional bonding both of which are effected by higher numbers of partners. There are of course several that are not abuse, finances, communication issues. But about half of the most common divorce causes are directly linked with issues stemming from higher body counts

[LadyKitty]

You picked out one thing and claim it is the root of all when it isn't. You are using it as a way to make yourself feel better. My point is if you are promiscious or celibate that you can have a happy life regardless. Life is not black and white. Everyone has a different view on things. If the majority of society has slept with more than 2 people on average, Your point becomes irrelavent. People cannot turn back the clock, The only thing they can do it move forward and work on their own personal growth.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty have you ever met an old woman that was promiscuous and happy? No. Do you know why? Because no one who goes through life like that ends up happy. Stop being stupid. It may make you happy getting run through in your 20s and 30s but you have about 80 years of life so that is another 40-60 years in which a promiscuous person will be alone with no one. If you met an old person who had few partners and was happy? Of course everyone has. Hell the major source of misery for an old person is losing their partner. Stop spreading shitty advice.

[LadyKitty]

Then by your logic the majority is going to be miserable! Ha! You can't stop me from saying what I believe.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty belief doesn't trump facts as you and the vast majority of like minded women always end up learning.

[JacobJordan]

Hitler believed that killing all the jews was right. The original settlers believed the Indians were stupid barbarians that served little purpose. European travelers believed Africans were little more than savages. So you and millions of other people throughout history proudly flaunted there stupid beliefs. And look where society is compared to them.

[LadyKitty]

You call others beliefs stupid because they are different than your own moral compass. You compare someone believing that life is not black and white to hitler and and the other horrific incidents in history says a lot about you! Lets put this scenario out there, If someone had say like 5 partners in their lifetime, and they were wanting to settle down. What are you gonna tell them? Are you gonna tell "Oh you dirty whore, You should be unhappy for the rest of your life and hate yourself" because you don't fit my belief system. You compare people's sexual history to horrific events or horrible people that are terrorists. The person that needs reflection here is YOU.

[LadyKitty]

Learning what? I am in a happy relationship of 9 years so far.

[EdgyBoi2002]

So, what? Does a woman *have* to be submissive? That sounds like something a guy would say in the early and mid 1900s where pretty much if you were a woman you had to be quiet and submissive.
Frankly, that sounds sexist as hell, like something one of those privileged twats. And looking at your history, that's exactly what it is. SEXISM. Take your misogynistic biases back to the time period they came from. Besides, does a relationship absolutely have to be "male dominace?"
I'm not even a woman and this gives misogynist vibes to hell and back.

[EdgyBoi2002]

Wait how is a woman's personality / bed count even relatable to terrorism or killing people? Plus isn't the point of hopping around in your 20s-30s about finding what you like? Yes there are women AND MEN out there who are hoeing around but that is NOT the majority. How do you know these previous relationships simply didn't work out? So is a woman (or guy for that matter) a hoe for leaving some relationship (s) they weren't happy in? At this point these aren't facts it's just sexism.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty and I am married and in a relationship for 16+ years. Everyone has beliefs some beliefs are quite stupid. If I said I believed the earth was flat you would likely point out the facts that prove it is not. If I denied those you would presume I am stupid or mentally challenged and rightly so. And yet here you are denying facts for a belief. So are you stupid or mentally challenged? As for my comparing high body count to terrorists. Well they kill people and the resulting number of killed people is a body count. Sluts sleep around and the resulting number of people slept with is also called a body count. No I wouldn't tell a woman or man who had that many people they deserve to be unhappy I would wish them luck finding someone while laughing at the reality of how few people would find them worth marrying. The vast majority of guys do not want a woman who has slept around. It has been proved time and time again it has been proved live, it has been proved in studies, it has been proved in videos, blogs, radio talks etc. You and everyone else are welcome to belief whatever you want including things that are completely false like the flat earthers believe the earth is flat. Belief does not validity make

[LadyKitty]

Killing People is not the same as Sex. Also like I said you can stds regardless of how many sexual partners you had, It only takes one to carry it for you to catch it. See you want to resort to laughing at them because you think you have some moral high ground just because you had sex with 1 and got married to them. Come back to reality though thats now how the majority of people in the world work. Also nah you are more likely to be a flat earther. Its funny you choose to point out women rather than men, Its obviousy you hold sexist views. If a man cares about body count then he better have the same amount otherwise its double standards. Bye boy

[EdgyBoi2002]

Funny, Kitty says something and you 'challenge' her basically. but the second I point out sexism you didn't say a word. I also have to agree with Kitty. Not every relationship works out with the first one and a good handful might not have gone well with the second one. If they had sex with them at any point but go to get another person because they weren't happy or other problems arise, that isn't them being a hoe. On the other hand, if she goes out of her way to screw different men while IN a relationship, then yes that'd be a hoe. Again why in the hell would you compare screwing to killing? They're not even remotely the same, if that was the case almost everyone would be pretty much a criminal. As for STDS.. NO DUDE- for a fact, bed count doesn't matter for that. It could be the first one, it could be the 2nd one or 3rd one. I mean good for you if your first one was who you married, but unfortunately not everyone gets married to the first person they bedded. Are you one of those religious types who thinks you shouldn't screw someone until you've gotten married? If that's the case, news flash. People do it all the time married or not. ANYONE can be a hoe. there's men out there that are submissive, quiet, etc. just like there's the opposite, and it's the same for women.
I'm surprised someone who's so dedicated to "Facts over belief" hasn't considered that factor too. But I shouldn't be surprised considering your other sexist, misogynistic comments so far. Get out of the 1900s and come back to the 2000s.
I want to also point out the part where you tried to drop facts by WOMEN who had parents who were "Hoes." The exact same thing happens to guys and there's no denying it. Why in the world do you fail to notice this.

[EdgyBoi2002]

Also, yes there are sluts out there, but that isn't the majority. Yes a woman might have 1 or 2 sexual partners but if they weren't married it's possibly not even a relationship, it's called a fling and yes those happen too. You also say the majority of guys, but as a man myself, that isn't true. Yes there's a handful out there like you. We call those misogynistic biased twats. Sure I'm not even into women (I'm gay) but I'm also not the type to treat a woman like that in the first place. Oh and guess what, a handful of guys I have met did have a "bed count." I still give that person the benefit of a doubt. Of course half of them I never slept with in the first place, but my point is: yes there are sluts, but there are just as many men and no it's not the majority of men, just you. (Yes there are guys like that, but that ain't the majority, and boy are the much better mannered too). Also you keep resorting to so called 'facts..' When and where did you get these facts because it looks like something you might hear in a 1950s-60s from a sexist old bastard who's probably bedded just as many women as said women. Again. Stop being a misogynist and get realistic.

[JacobJordan]

@EdgyBoi2002 i am being realistic and unlike you i am not a woman hiding behind a male account. Also it is medical fact that the more sexual partners one has the more likely it is they contract and std or even a uti. I also have said many times it goes for both men and women. Which contradicts your misogynist claim. Kindly fuck off with your pathetic inept attempt at defamation you are embarassing yourself. Also try studying science or medicine sometime you'd be surprised how much you can learn. Like the fact that 2 people who have not been with anyone have zero risk of getting an std from each other. The only way 2 virgins will get an std is from tainted public toilets which is exceedingly rare. But i guess you aren't smart enough to realize that. Honestly how dumb and lazy are you that you can't evem educate yourself on a topic you plan to run your mouth about. Hell you could have taken 30 damn seconds to google any of this shit and found the proof you are looking for. I have already listed several links to science and medical sites that prove it. If you planning to talk shit like an idiot at least bother to read the text chain so you don't look brain damaged. This entire ass time i have been saying it is bad for both genders and i proved it with data. While you and lady kitty keep trying to say i am talking about 1 gender because you both are too stupid to read.

[JacobJordan]

I even outlined the negatives for both genders and you still can't comprehend it. Lastly when people have multiple sexual partners and then end up alone and single and wonder what caused it morons like you and her will blame everything but the poor choices. I at least have the decency to be honest with them. Like the fact marriages with 0 and 1 partners (meaning they are each others first) have the highest chances of lasting. While marriages with 2 have the second highest and marriages at 3+ have a drastically reduced chance of lasting. And of course you are so incompetent that you have to shift the topic to "oh well there are so many causes you can't link it to one" you are right they can link it to 12 or 13 most common causes of which 4-6 of them are directly linked to one partner having numerous partners. Do us all a favor and educate yourself you have all the information you could ever need in your hand. Utilize it. There is no justification to be this stupid, brainwashed and ignorant.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty only way 2 virgins get an std is from dirty public places. No 2 virgins will ever get an std from being with each other. So once again wrong. Aldo sexist? Seriously? You really going to resort to that level of retardation? I have said numerous times it effects both men and women. Shut the hell up if you aren't even going to bother reading. I also have also said numerous times to numerous people that i personally would not ask something i myself would not do. If i want a virgin i better be a virgin. I was and my wife was. So now that i have 1 should i find myself unlucky enough to lose my wife i can not expect a virgin if i am not one. I can expect a woman with 1 as i also have 1. You are an imbecile and your attempts at defamation are childish and unbecoming. Of course i am going to laugh at people that have unrealistic expectations it is funny. If a woman has 15 sexual partners and expects a good man she is stupid. If a man has 15 sexual partners and expects a good woman he is stupid. How you have commented so many times with the stupidest trash and replied with the dumbest beliefs and yet have not managed to comprehend that i have said numerous times it applies to both men and women is astounding. I mean do you have any reading comprehension at all? I even outlined the negatived for both men AND women and you still can't get it through your thick skull. Because you would rather argue that being a slut, skank, whore is "fine" which it absolutely is PROVIDED it does not negatively impact others. I mean honestly at this point it is just embarassing how you continue to reply with the stupidest shit trying to force me to accept your shitty beliefs while also trying to showcase that i am being sexist despite having said repeatedly it effects both men AND women.

[LadyKitty]

Ha! You are the only one here getting worked up because you act like you are on some moral high horse. Virgins can have STDS dumb fuck, . There are people born with HIV that they had no choice over, genital warts etc that are passed from parent to child among other ways to catch it. You can laugh at people but you are a clown because in reality most people have more than 1 or 2 sexual partners in their life time. Your amount of sexual partners doesn't determine if you are a good man or woman.

www.stdcheck.com/.../

[LadyKitty]

Though it seems when you use an example you keep going for Women over Men rather than PEOPLE. We don't have to accept each others beliefs and leave it at that.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty you are quite right my number does not determine if i am a good person. My self respect does and my moral code and my ability to recognize how degenerate our society has become as people have become more comfortable being sluts and whores. Both men and women. It is also only the US that is on the verge of total societal collapse because the rest of the world sure as hell isn't. And once again
ifstudies.org/.../does-sexual-history-affect-marital-happiness
More evidence that sleeping around is not good. You can push the average all you want as a sign that it is "fine" but every measure of data proves otherwise. So again at no point have you or will you be correct. If the average stated 100 people that wouldn't make it right or okay. And every measure of data points proves that lower body counts lead to happier marriages and reduced risk of divorce.

[JacobJordan]

Also again with the purposely misconstruing my words to try and make yourself look intelligent. I said 2 virgins can not get stds from each other. Getting hiv or genital warts at birth negates the getting it from each other clown. You really gotta try harder i am very careful with what i say specifically so i can deal with people like you. I leave open ended statements or statements with inferred or implied requirements or statements that are not concrete (unless i have proof) just so anytime someone like you tries to twist my words i can easily call you out. At no point will you ever have a foot to stand on regarding things i have said because i know how people like you think. And it is so very easy to formulate my sentences in ways that let you walk into them to make you look foolish time and time again. Like the fact i pointed out the negatives for both men and women fully knowing you are too mad to realize that so when you try and play the sexist or misogynist card i can point out i have been talking about both genders. Just give up this is embarassing. You haven't been right at all you aren't even debating the same thing anymore lol. You are making crazy assumptions repeatedly while i am just dropping facts over and over and walking you into traps repeatedly. From the very first message you have been trying to twist what i am saying and you think you have any ground to stand on. The fact you haven't realized i am giving you just enough rope is beyond me.

[EdgyBoi2002]

lol i'm not even a woman and i never will be, so bold of you to assume (besides i stated i was gay, so for one how can i even be called a woman at that point? But clearly who's educated like you would've known that. ) its funny you jump to petty insults like a 12 year old the second someone disagrees with you, fact or not. Hell if anyone has brain damage it's you- again, jumping to petty insults over something simple as a disagreement. Instead of telling us to get an education stop acting like a child over a disagreement and act your age like the grown man you supposedly are. also i never didn't blame the poor choices, because yes there are people out there who do that (i know a few myself), clearly you didn't read what I was saying. There are also people out there who simply aren't interested in a marriage but do want sex which is why I mentioned flings earlier, another thing you clearly missed, which should be easy to spot and understand for someone who clearly knows what they're saying and talking about because some site on Google said something. Yes there are those who make poor choices and that's on them, but that isn't the damn majority, if it was there would hardly be anyone getting married at this rate.

Next thing to address, does a virgin have to specifically marry another virgin? Dang guess people who have never married but had sex are weird if they do go to marry a virgin. Again, calling people stupid, idiots or morons doesn't prove your point, all it does makes you look like a child. Also as a virgin myself, I'm not gonna call it a problem if they'd had 1 or 2 or 3 partners (Yes there is the 50/50 chance it was something on their end that was a turn off, (i never disregarded any of your statements, as you clearly seem to think.) but of course 10 or more, then yes maybe something is wrong with the person themselves or an infidel.

[EdgyBoi2002]

well really it depends the person and what they do or act like, but as long as they don't have some undesirable or trait (or are infidels.) I don't really care the bed count too much. Yes I would ask them to check if they have STDS or not, but I'm not going to call them out just on bed count.

[LadyKitty]

If you think society is full of degenerates, so what? Not everyone has to agree with you also not everyone is unhappy. According to you I would have to be unhappy in my relationship etc. I am plenty happy and I don't have any communication issues etc.

[JacobJordan]

@EdgyBoi2002 yeah I skimmed your post because most of it was pointless didn't see the gay part as it was part of the second message which I didn't read until after. What I am stating and have been stating the entire time is that that a high body count is bad for both men and women and it has been proven. Unfortunately there is not as much data on the men side of things. Same as divorce stats actually it took quite a while to even find the few divorce stats on men that I could. Point is all of the stats say the same thing. Relationships with 0-1 have the lowest divorce rate followed by 2. 3-5 is is getting close to 50/50 6-9 is bad and 10+ is basically assured failure. This is undeniable as the proof exists as I have stated numerous times. People are welcome to marry whoever they want but if 2 people want the best chance at a happy marriage it is statistically best if they are both virgins. Or have each other as their 1 person. Again backed by evidence I have linked. As for flings I addressed and moved past that point many many posts back. Including citing the negative effects that pop up for those. Nothing wrong with people wanting sex never said their was in fact I said quite the opposite they are welcome to do it provided it does not negatively impact others. That does not however change the data regarding relationships or marriage. The more partners one has the more likely it is that the relationship or marriage ends poorly again something I have linked proof to already. And please mate you jumped to insults like a child I merely responded in kind.

[JacobJordan]

Because like lady had you read my posts you have seen I am addressing both men and women promiscuity. So can't be sexist or misogynistic. I haven't even stated a belief I just keep pointing out the facts. And yet you and lady seem to think the facts are indication of some belief. No I do not have a belief. As I have said many times I do not care what people do with their lives until it negatively impacts others. At that point I will say something especially if someone is pushing a dangerous and harmful lie. Like the fact that lady is saying it is fine to sleep around. Medically it is in fact not fine. It is factually unhealthy. Again linked proof.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty purposefully twisting my words yet again.

[EdgyBoi2002]

Did I though? I said maybe 1 or 2 things prior. And when I did drop one or two I didn't specifically aim at anyone just (At what point did I actually throw names? I did say twat that's it really and furthermore you dropped insults them far sooner than i ever did, primarily towards Kitty and I was simply defending a person.) Hell that's assuming I'd use misogynist as an insult- which mind you, I wasn't because it isn't really an insult. Also the sleeping around part really depends. 1. You can use protection (if you're a guy and it's not foolproof but it works 90% of the time). 2. that assumes you kept going past that 1 or 2 people, which well then yeah you might risk something.(Again use protection if anything, nothing much can be transmitted then.)

[LadyKitty]

To Address what I have been saying

I have said from a medical standpoint that you can get stds without sex and two people could be virgins and still get them if their not practicing safe sex aka a condom etc.

What I have been saying though your numbers 1 or 2 partners only is unrealistic since most adults in society on average have had around 4 to 8 partners in their life time. You can encourage the idea of aiming to having lower amount of partners nothing wrong with that but that isn't how society is.

If you think someone with more than 2 partners are sluts and whores aka degenerates as you put it which would be the norm in society today, It does become a belief at that point or to the point of looking down on others which I was trying to address and say "People will live however they want and they can do as they please."

Your statements around modern women are rooted in traditional beliefs around virginity and submission though. It implies a Woman's worth is bound to outdated beliefs.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty what makes a murderer go from murderer to serial killer? Multiple or a pattern of repitition What turns something from a tragic accident or malicious attack to a massacre? More than 3. Also whores have sex in exchange for money. Sluts have sex for free. Since you wish to continue arguing this despite being wrong. Answer this. What do women provide that men do not? What do women provide in a relationship that men can not get by themselves today? If all women stopped working right now what would happen? If all men stopped working right now what would happen? If a man didn't want children/intimacy would there be any reason for him to be in a relationship with a woman when he could just have some guy friends and keep all of his money?

[LadyKitty]

Sex and Murder are not the same thing, Stay on topic. Your argument about 'What do women provide that men do not? What do women provide in a relationship that men can not get by themselves today?"

Everyone brings their own unique qualities to the table, regardless of gender. In relationships, it's more about the personal connection and mutual support than gender-specific roles. Plus, if either all men or all women suddenly stopped working – society would definitely feel that impact for example certain fields are dominated by women and men. And hey, relationships aren't just about kids because some people don't even want them. There's so much more to it, like companionship and shared interests though but it is up to the couple to define their own reasons. If a couple wants to do the whole dominant/submissive thing thats up to them but thats not for everyone and it doesn't have to be gender specific. If woman didn't want children or intimacy, Why would she be with a man if she earns her own money? Also friends are not limited to one gender. Also Some women may like traditional roles in a relationship thats good for them but it doesn't apply to everyone.

[DextroShade]

@LadyKitty if all women stopped working fir a day it would be an inconvenience, but if all men stopped working for a day it would be a catastrophe.

[LadyKitty]

@DextroShade Inconvenience? There are sectors where it is female dominated. If you lost 80 percent of nurses, Hospitals would be experiencing a catastrophe. The majority of school teachers are women too. More women on average are veterinarians, < Who relies on them? Farmers who raise livestock and anyone with a pet relies on them. Need I go on? So guess what the world needs both men and women even if you don't value ones work as much,

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty false. And thank you for walking into that trap. Nearly 25% of icelands female workforce went on strike a couple months ago (around 100k people) and the economy was not effected not only that but almost no one even noticed. If men went on strike for 24 hours society would collapse rapidly. If every woman on earth stopped working right now. Men would have things running perfectly fine by the end of the day. If every man on earth stopped working right now. Governments would unravel, crime would skyrocket, power would go out. All construction, engineering, technology, phone and power lines, sewage, water treatment, nuclear reactor care and many many other things would grind to a halt. Even simple things like the delivery of resources humans depend on would be decimated. You really gotta stop this you are not getting anywhere and are just getting fact checked repeatedly. You also keep trying to do the stupid thing of going "oh but exceptions" which I have addressed numerous times by using such words as 'most', 'the vast majority', "Nearly all' etc because exceptions do not make the rule. Most men get with a woman specifically to have kids or sex or both. Most men do not need a woman as a friend. Most men do not need a woman as a bestie. Most men do not want a woman with a high body count. Inversely most women do not want a broke guy. Most women do not want an abusive man. Most women want a man that makes the same money or more because she wants a provider.. not the key phrase most. Not all. Most. Because exceptions exist but exceptions do not change the rule. For example most people think it is fine to smoke. I do not. That does not change the statistic that most are fine with it. Nor does it change the reality that it is factually bad for you. Look at all the comments on this question nearly every person except what's his face are saying the same thing. If most of the people INCLUDING THE WOMEN are stating the same thing. You. Are. Wrong.

[JacobJordan]

@LadyKitty no they really wouldn't no part of society would be negatively impacted if women stopped working. Even female dominated areas. No schools? Men can homeschool for a day. It is not that hard to spend 3-4 hours teaching a child. Heck they could even take the child to THEIR job. Reduced nurses at a hospital. There are certainly enough men to cover for a day even several days. Most doctors and surgeons are are men. In fact in almost all areas of medicine men lead in numbers. Exceptions are nursing (86% women) and things related to children (nearly all fields). So factually speaking 1 day without women would be fine. 1 day without men would not be fine.

[LadyKitty]

One you have made it very clear your views are very biased. Medical care goes beyond just surgery or having a doctor.

Though to break things down

Schools and Homeschooling: Sure, men could homeschool for a day, but teaching isn't just about the time spent, it's about the quality and preparation. Teachers, many of whom are women, train for years to do their job. It's a bit more complex than just sitting down for a few hours with a textbook.

Healthcare and Gender Representation: While it's true that there are more male doctors and surgeons, healthcare isn't just about doctors. Nurses, who are predominantly women, play a crucial role in patient care. It's not just about having someone there; it's about having trained professionals. You can't just swap out a nurse with anyone and expect the same level of care.

Workplace Safety for Kids: And about taking kids to work – not every job is child-friendly or safe. Imagine bringing a kid to a construction site or a surgical ward. That's not just impractical, it's unsafe. Try again though.

Economic Impact: The idea that society wouldn’t be negatively impacted if women stopped working even for a day underestimates the complexity and interconnectedness of our workforce. Every job, whether it's a CEO or a school teacher, contributes to the larger picture not just your narrow views.

Bottom Line - The point isn't whether men or women could take over each other's roles for a day. It's about recognizing that both genders bring essential skills and contributions to the table. Society is most effective when everyone's contributions are valued, not when we're trying to one-up each other based on gender. Also Iceland has a small population compared to the the entire globe. So try that idea on a global scale and see what happens.

[DextroShade]

@LadyKitty you are forgetting about all the important infrastructure and security jobs that are almost entirely done by men (who are invisible to you because they aren't doctors or surgeons) such as keeping the lights on, the water flowing, the phones working, the toilets flushing, putting out fires, taking out the trash, and maintaining public order. These things could NOT be done without men, and they are more important than everything you mentioned including nurses and especially teachers. Men built the world and we maintain the world, without us it quickly crumbles.

[LadyKitty]

@DextroShade I was talking about Women NOT MEN. YOU say Nurses don't matter? Are you saying not education the next generation doesn't matter? If the animals you consume aren't cared for, We'd have rampant disease. If It was an argument about what men do in the world then I would mention their part. You don't acknowledge the work of what women do because you hold biased views.

[DextroShade]

@LadyKitty I am not saying women don't contribute but they aren't the ones keeping the lights on either.

[EdgyBoi2002]

Ok both sides have points but here's two cents: Either gender can handle any job, it depends less on the gender factor at this point and without either one the world crumbles: without either one crap crumbles. Bottom line it's about professionalism and whether you can actually do the job. Not what gender dominates said work field. A man can teach/nurse, just like a woman can maintain infrastructure or security, provided they have the actual training.
Also wouldn't stop working also count towards housewives at that point (Because housewives still do work, not like paying jobs) which are taking care of your kids, your house and other things (Cooking, etc). If either disappeared completely that'd be further mayhem, without women ya can't make babies and that would be CHAOS after a day. without men, you still can't make babies (without fertile sperm).
So, yes and no. by the way this whole conversation chain has ran completely off the topic. and the whole subject is down to biases at this point.
So everyone can move on with their lives (Including me, i admit this has been one of the stupider arguments I've been in and it's gone on longer than I care to live.) I'm just going to say this: No gender is more important than the other, and any gender can do any job, it all comes down to skill in that profession, not gender. Just like men can do nursing/teaching, women can handle infrastructure/security jobs: as I just said, it doesn't depend on gender at this point, it depends on skill, professionalism, and ability to work. As long as it isn't involving reproduction (in which both parties are needed), it doesn't matter who does the job. They can be done with or without the other gender at that point.

[JacobJordan]

@EdgyBoi2002 women most definitely can't handle any job that is why they don't go into the vast majority of difficult jobs. Or physically intensive jobs. Women have a role and a vital one and that role is not to be toiling away in a sewer or on an oil rig.

[EdgyBoi2002]

Okay, no. There are still women in those fields, even physically intensive jobs. Any job is difficult if you aren't skilled in it or don't understand it, woman or not. Isn't this role thing what caused the whole argument in the first place? Anyone can fulfill a role as long as they know what they are doing. Physically intensive job or not, women can do it too. Ex. The military. I've seen enough women that do go into military and I know damn well that job is physically intensive. No one needs to have a predefined role based on gender. It is based on CAN THEY DO IT OR NOT? Saying a woman 'CAN'T' handle a physically intensive job IS sexist because that isn't true at all. They very much can, just because not many do it doesn't mean they can't. Nursing IS a difficult job, the medical field itself IS a difficult job. Police force, investigators, hell law itself is difficult too.
Reproduction is indeed a vital role if that's what you mean, but that doesn't mean women can't do it. (Hell the few female friends I did have in school at least 4 went into a military career from the last time I messaged them, which is about 6 months ago)
So before you go saying women can't handle *any* job. They very much can. Yes physically we guys are more built for physical labour, but they can still do it too, pal. As long as they have a functional body, can work, and are skilled in a profession they can do it, regardless of gender.
Just because a majority of women don't do certain jobs doesn't mean they can't. It comes to a matter of do they want to. Hell IF a woman told you you couldn't handle being a house husband, would you agree? Guys normally don't, but they can do that too. So point is: No. Any gender can handle a job as long as they can work, and are skilled/trained to do so.(I'm sure you know what job training is friend, everyone has to do it when they go into any field at all)

[EdgyBoi2002]

Here are jobs that women normally are 'expected' to do but men can very much do the same.
Housewife/husband: They both can, and in fact I know real house husbands. Housework CAN be physically intensive depending on the job, and if a woman can maintain those things, she can sure as hell do another physically intensive job which brings me to the next one.. PARENTING!!!
Parenting: Just as a man is expected to work, a woman is expected to parent, yet both do the job just as well. And newsflash. RAISING A KID IS PHYSICALLY INTENSIVE IN THE LONG RUN, and it's difficult. Think about when you are a baby. You're almost completely helpless. You have to do everything for that baby because it can't otherwise well.. you know what will happen. Both genders do that job very well and while it is.. dominated by moms, guys can do the same job, just that the majority don't. If you are a father (which in recollection from other posts, you've said you are.) Then you will know taking care of a child is difficult itself. At least if you want a healthy child with a good future.
Now If someone can do those they can very much handle physically taxing jobs, like working an oil rig, or on a construction site, or other jobs with manual labor, just because the majority doesn't do it doesn't mean they *can't* and it never will
Actually funny enough on the part of difficult jobs..
tailoring. Sewing is a pain in the ass sewing machine or not and it's a job dominated by women there is very much hard manual labor with the job (Especially when you do it by hand.). But I guess someone who expects a woman to stay at home and take care of kids, cook and clean would believe a woman would never waste her time doing something with hard manual labor, right? Final thing: Never use majority to base a fact of can or can't, at least in the workplace: Just because a majority of women don't do a job doesn't mean they can't and it never will.

[EdgyBoi2002]

Hell, giving birth itself is physically intensive. If a woman can give birth she can handle physically taxing jobs, get your facts straight.

[EdgyBoi2002]

LOL 3-4 hours? I'm assuming you are not living in america then: the average school hours is actually 4-6 nowadays. and " A " child? Women teach MULTIPLE children which is already difficult. And what about the children that don't have a male figure in their lives, or children that have learning disabilities? Doctors and nurses have different duties with their jobs are both VERY different. by the way, I came back to it, because a day without either would NOT be fine. how many male doctors/surgeons are also qualified as a nurse? less than half. Think about how many people would die without the nurse there administering things. Phlebotomy next: Not just anyone is trusted to administer shots, vaccines, injections/or taking blood samples. You HAVE to have a phelobotomist, which guess what ANOTHER FIELD DOMINATED BY WOMEN!! Phlebotomists jobs are even further from what a doctor or surgeon does. With less people to administer these shots, EVEN MORE PEOPLE WOULD DIE. So um. NO. we could not last without their work because you very much need nurses and phlebotomists for a functioning hospital otherwise it just becomes one big lab where people are dying because most doctors/surgeons did not have the proper training to handle those jobs. While yes at the same time, if men did stop working it'd be hell, the same can be said for women because hospitals man. With how many people die on average in a day that would be LITERAL MAYHEM. In fact from my own research 8/10 physicians in all healthcare occupations as of 2022, were women. So if women stopped working for a day it'd be just as bad because there'd be more deaths than anything because with how few doctors and surgeons actually handle other medical fields, there would be mass death rates, especially in hospitals.

[EdgyBoi2002]

So in the end, a day without women would be hell. (I'm not even a woman and I know that very well.) Actually if you want even more insight, read this article, friend: medium.com/.../why-our-world-would-stop-working-if-women-stopped-working-for-free-d4a01eb7d2a7

[JacobJordan]

@EdgyBoi2002 you do realize that those jobs like the military, police and fire fighting have had to drastically reduce the requirements to join because women can not complete the requirements to join. They had to come up with an entirely separate system just so women could join. You are so uneducated it is unreal

[JacobJordan]

Also let's not talk about the feminist firefighters that did a female only fire retreat and started a massive forest fire by accident that they had to be rescued from by men. Or the female police officers that have to be saved by a man from a male criminal because he overpowers her with ease. Or the numerous times female military members have been absolutely decimated by their male counterparts while she is going 100% and he is putting in minimal effort. Very few women go into those types of fields or even less dangerous fields. Sure exceptions exist they wouldn't if the requirements were kept the same as men. If women are equal to men then women need to start completing the male requirements to get those jobs. There is a less than 1% number of women that could pull off the male requirements for physical work. In fact even the manual labor guide states that men should be able to carry 25kg regularly while women should be able to 16kg. If women can do any job then they can carry 25kg as well. Also hilariously biased news article mate. Go look for real sources. Even at my lab I have different standards for my female employees compared to my male employees because women literally can not pass the standards I have set for my male employees. My male employees also work longer hours by choice they complete tasks faster and more thoroughly. Bare in mind I pay my staff far better than nearly laboratories. So long as the requirements to join a given workforce are different for men and women. Women factually can not do the same jobs as men.

[EdgyBoi2002]

You realize most labor intensive jobs are less about strength and actually more about endurance. And guess what: Studies do show that women hav. e high endurance than men.
Also, no. That's not true because there were still women who COULD do what men could do prior to reducing the requirements.
Actually here's an interesting fact: when world war II was going on, they actually did have women take over many jobs men would have done so society WOULD keep running, including oil rigs, etc.. If women could not do these jobs at all shit would have gotten MUCH worse
Also this source would say otherwise: www.unitedwomenfirefighters.org/faqs

Also what are these standards you set for male employees that female employees can't pass?
And okay that article was wrote by a feminist but the point stands. And how often do these ladies actually do this because feminists ARE a different story. Feminists can be stupid.(I'd know I've encountered them.) Women are, and never will. Also you since you clearly stand by the view women are completely weak this has gone from the stupider conversations i've been in to the stupidest.

[EdgyBoi2002]

But okay, everyone's said their peace and like I said: I and likely others have better things to do than waste time arguing about this stupid matter because it's gone on for long enough and it's gotten highly off-topic. You can't say the same thing over and over to people and expect them to change their minds, end of story, not dragging me down with ya buck-o buh-bye.

[JacobJordan]

@EdgyBoi2002 believe what you want. Doesn't make it true and as always the facts remain unchanged

[andreasderjuengere]

I'm struggling with the term ''chance'' in your question.

Do I not give a ''chance'' myself? - Sex is not an achievement or a reward, but a natural activity.

Thus - giving the impression of no sex in reach makes the entire picture of a relationship incomplete and somewhat pointless.

[Sharkstealth]

Well I have never known a couple meaning male and female that don't have sex. I will say in my life that every woman I have known was having sex and saying "Why do guys want sex?" I think it would be a lot smarter to just have sex with the guy you want to date instead of the guys you hate.

[Nylife20j]

That's the point is to have sex with her. What I'm not going to wait 2 months for sex no never. I'm not wasting my time on a woman whos not for me. My woman asks me to marry her. Well I've told her before no male friends no drugs must be a believer. My woman wants kids with me and a marriage. A man should set his boundaries it's that simple. Boundaries should be met.

[Djaay]

Well let's see , what else now days are women bringing to the table ? If P is all you women are coming to the table with , then men will only expect the P. But these last 8 years of male bashing has a backlash to it evidently. Once again it's mens. fault. At some point we all got to see the irony of all this stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Men are no more interested in sex now than they ever were. The difference is the "only" part. Men are less interested in marriage today than in the past because women have made sex too cheap and marriage too costly for men. The outcome was very predictable.

[Anonymous]

It's the type of guys your chasing. A man doesn't find a wife in a whorehouse and you won't find a good man talking to those types of men. But it's OK. Not every woman learns this fast. Some it takes years. And some never learn it. So you still got time.👍

[slatyb]

Finding a sex partner is the major reason people date. I don't expect women to have sex after one date, but if she's not interested in sex, why is she dating? In my experience, after three dates, women were inviting me to bed.

[Danny_dan92]

Typically girls show sexual interest in men they like, the difference is most girls don’t make it abundantly clear, but it is true that women determine if they would have sex with a man within the first few minutes

[Egyptiannn]

Yea this is true but I feel like most women don’t make it clear because they know the guy will judge them afterwards. He wants a woman who is clear and up front about wanting sex but God forbid she has sex on the first date even though he’s not gonna turn it down, he’s gonna think differently of her.

[Danny_dan92]

Right, or take advantage of them

[Anonymous]

If you're talking about men who ghost you after a first date because you didn't put out, fair enough. But if you mean men who move on after three months because you still haven't sex with him... how long do you expect them to stick around without giving them sex?

[ProbablyClueless]

A lot of guys are just tired of having their time wasted by women who want to extract time and attention from them without ever giving anything in return.

[tzdc21]

Duh. Because that's exactly why. Now sex or relationship, if we're not convinced that we have a chance, we're not going for it. Plain and simple.

[OlderAndWiser]

Do you want a relationship with a guy who will never have sex with you?

[AviatorTom]

This is nothing new. Men and women are made to mate, to procreate and continue the species. It's been that way for millennia.

[HighValue]

I disagree. It seems more like the maj7of women just want money or sex. And the maj6have completely unacceptable morals.

[Tim2nice]

Sex is the end goal of every relationship unless you’re a nun

[Jamie05rhs]

Thank you! I don't understand why people are so weird about this.

[DarkWinterNights]

Because a lot of the guys still in the dating pool right now don’t want to settle down or get married.

[normalice]

We are in the age of instant gratification.

[DextroShade]

We already know that you probably gave it up to Chad and Tyrone on the first night and we resent that you would expect us to put in more effort than they did.

[HaveNoName]

It is natural for men to dream of and crave for sex, and that too with multiple women. If society and lack of related law make it so easy for them to get that, what else do you expect ?

[KrakenAttackin]

Because you are chasing Chad, pookie, and Ray Ray.

[HouseMoat]

Isn't that the point of a relationship, is to procreate, by having sex.

I mean, why do people think you can be "just friends" with the opposite sex

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

[Jamie05rhs]

Because that way they know that you are attracted to them. So they don't have to guess. It gives them the confidence to pursue you.

[Pterodon]

It’s not nowadays. It’s been that way since creation

[Pohjolan]

Because a gal who won't have sex with a guy is objectively less interested in him than the ones who do.

[Notherndude84]

Some guys only want to send penis pictures. I feel sorry for single women these days.

[LiamJHayden]

Because those are the types who frequent the places you go.

[jahaims]

If they aren't hideous its easy to get laid because of internet

[Yoda0334]

I am religious, I wouldn't go into that kind of relationship. I dk how things are going in your world.

[DreamLife7]

You just answered your own question

[chris_987]

I was going to say the same thing, probably around 2% of women are wife material

[In_Trance]

Must be something you're doing