Search Results: boys kissing girls

I would think most girls would prefer the more "traditional" way of dating but sometimes I wonder.

Now believe it or not I'm not a beta male virgin, but a normal enough guy that wishes romance was still a thing. Not because I'm a loser or whatever you're gonna call me but because I would prefer the traditional way.

Traditional way: Boy meets girl. She's not texting 4 other guys and he isn't really interested in other girls. He has the balls to ask her out on a date. If she thinks he's cute and nice she accepts his invitation. He picks her up and takes her out. The most he'll get is a kiss. If it goes well they continue this and then become officially together. Then they have sex and what not.

Modern way: Guy meets girl at bar/party/club/tinder. Gets her number. Texts her for a few days. She is texting 5 other dudes. He asks her to meet up. They meet up for coffee then go have sex. Usually nothing happens after that. Sometimes people fuck right after meeting someone in a bar. Eventually this will lead into a relationship but one partner will cheat and it will end.

Not saying the traditional method was always followed and that it always worked. But guys needed more balls. Girls wouldn't fuck a guy right away like they do now. They would need to be seduced. This fueled romance and guys had to bring something to the table. Back a few decades ago (not that long ago really) most girls wouldn't have sex outside of relationships. Nowadays its rare to find a girl that doesn't. I just feel like women have a lot more power and respect the old way and are better off with traditional dating.

Maybe I'm wrong. You tell me.

(for all you feminists out there, I'm not saying treating women like property, or them not allowed to work. I'm talking about dating not married life)

So apparently Katy Perry did a big no-no and robbed a young boy of his first kiss on national television.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4083421/katy-perry-kiss-american-idol-benjamin-glaze/amp/
If this was a dude doing this to a young girl, twitter would crash from the global mob after that dude's head. So, in light of #MeToo and in the name of equality, should Katy Perry be booted from American idol and her career relegated forever to the garbage bin of Hollywood? (Or has it already been relegated there because she's on American idol? 🤔)
Your thoughts.

Title.

We as guys often refer to attractive girls by a number of different adjectives: Pretty; cute; hot; sexy; lovely; gorgeous, etc. My question to you is this-- what is the real difference between any of them? I often see girls on here asking odd questions such as "Hey guys which do you prefer, cute girls or sexy girls?" And my answer generally is, "Yes."

The reason-- for the decision to not entertain a choice between the two I mean-- is that *they're the same damn thing.* Either a girl is attractive enough that you would date her or want to kiss her or have sex with her, or she's not. Period. The rest is just splitting hairs in my opinion. If she's not attractive enough that you'd want to bang her, then how on earth is she "cute, but not hot?" Cute implies physical attraction at least on some level. So if she's not attractive enough to want to get with, why are you using any of those adjectives at all? Or, conversely, if she IS attractive enough, why not use any of them interchangeably?

I'm not suggesting that all attractive girls are EQUALLY attractive, I mean there's the 10 scale for a reason ("she's a 7/10" as opposed to "she's a 9/10" or whatever), but how does saying like "She'd be hotter if only blah blah blah" have any different meaning than "She'd be sexier if only blah blah blah."

No difference from what I can see. ^ The girl above is cute AND hot AND pretty AND sexy, not one or the other. Anyway, tell me. What do you guys think?