NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious to see if you feel that way. It is generally on men to get educated and and a good job to support families and like, defend the home and women live longer on top of it. Women(theoritically) don't have to pass school. They drop out and marry a rich guy or rent themselves out of 5,000 an hour. So it would seem there is more pressure on men to succeed. Is this true?

I'm curious to see if you feel that way. It is generally on men to get educated and and a good job to support families and like, defend the home and women live longer on top of it. Women(theoritically) don't have to pass school. They drop out and marry a rich guy or rent themselves out of 5,000 an hour. So it would seem there is more pressure on men to succeed. Is this true?

1) it is on BOTH in the western world to be sucessfull
2) What theory do you proscribe to, how many rich guys do you think there are?
3) 5000 an hour where the fuck are you getting that statistic?

No it is not true

Man, this is gonna hurt...

http://www.gearsandwidgets.com/external/wherethisthreadgoing.jpg

Yes, this will hurt. A lot.

I'm curious to see if you feel that way. It is generally on men to get educated and and a good job to support families and like, defend the home and women live longer on top of it. Women(theoritically) don't have to pass school. They drop out and marry a rich guy or rent themselves out of 5,000 an hour. So it would seem there is more pressure on men to succeed. Is this true?

Even if the premise were true that women are given lower expectations, that still wouldn't amount to things being "easier."

1) it is on BOTH in the western world to be sucessfull
2) What theory do you proscribe to, how many rich guys do you think there are?
3) 5000 an hour where the fuck are you getting that statistic?

No it is not true

That's far too much of a generalisation... you don't see people like Rosie O'Donnell renting themselves out. (luckily!)

That's far too much of a generalisation... you don't see people like Rosie O'Donnell renting themselves out. (luckily!)

I'd rent myself out, but I don't have any spare rooms. :(

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No seriously. "the glass ceiling" isn't some vast conspiracy by our secret women masters. It should give us hope that society is finally recognizing the limits on women and trying to do something about it, but there's a long LONG way to go.

That's far too much of a generalisation... you don't see people like Rosie O'Donnell renting themselves out. (luckily!)

Would you want to see people like Rosie O'Donnell renting themselves out?

$5000 an hour is pretty steep Soviestan must go for the up market ones. I am sure you can get a few just as good for a lot less.

I'm curious to see if you feel that way. It is generally on men to get educated and and a good job to support families and like, defend the home and women live longer on top of it. Women(theoritically) don't have to pass school. They drop out and marry a rich guy or rent themselves out of 5,000 an hour. So it would seem there is more pressure on men to succeed. Is this true?

I call shenanigans. Srsly, you need to do some research before you spout off. Talk to a rape victim. Or a woman denied basic health care or prescriptions. Or maybe a woman who's been treated like community property because she drank too much. Or maybe one who was blamed after being assaulted because she went out late at night or wore a short skirt. How about a woman who's had an eating disorder all her life because the role models for girls are unrealistically thin? One who's worked her ass off for a company but was passed over for a promotion? A single mom who can't support her family without help, who's accused of sponging off the state and being lazy? Or the mother who is treated like shit and accused of endangering her child because she puts the kid in daycare so she can put food on the table?

Admittedly, being a man isn't always beer and skittles, but give me a fucking break!

LOL. My German teacher has this card in her room that she brought from Germany. It's got a figure of a man, with four squares, and a figure of a woman with three squares. It represents the reality that, in Germany, the average woman's salary is three-quarters of what the average man's salary (per year).

And uh, yeah. What Kbrookistan said, although I'd like to point out that not every rape victim is female, and not every rapist is male.

And uh, yeah. What Kbrookistan said, although I'd like to point out that not every rape victim is female, and not every rapist is male.

I know, and I didn't mean to imply that.

http://www.gearsandwidgets.com/external/wherethisthreadgoing.jpg

Yes, this will hurt. A lot.

Seconded.

*sits down and watches thread*

Its the Jewish women that have it easiest.

Okay, let me get this straight. The premise here is: "women have it easier than men, because even if they can't get an education or a job, they might be able to become prostitutes." Seriously?

I'm...so grateful that I'm a woman, because even if I make 70% of the income of an equivalent male coworker, even if I regularly have people assume that I'm far less intelligent than I am simply because of the nature of my genitalia, at least I can always become a whore! Yay!

:rolleyes:

Or better yet, ask me. Have you ever had to study the face of every man arrested for child pornography or assault on a minor that you see on TV, in case he's the one who tried to kidnap and rape you? In case you have to go into court and see the one who wasn't as lucky as you? Have you ever had nightmares about what might have been? Felt guilty because you almost gave in and got into the car? Scared that he'd come after you? No? Lucky you.

I call shenanigans. Srsly, you need to do some research before you spout off. Talk to a rape victim. Or a woman denied basic health care or prescriptions. Or maybe a woman who's been treated like community property because she drank too much. Or maybe one who was blamed after being assaulted because she went out late at night or wore a short skirt. How about a woman who's had an eating disorder all her life because the role models for girls are unrealistically thin? One who's worked her ass off for a company but was passed over for a promotion? A single mom who can't support her family without help, who's accused of sponging off the state and being lazy? Or the mother who is treated like shit and accused of endangering her child because she puts the kid in daycare so she can put food on the table?

Admittedly, being a man isn't always beer and skittles, but give me a fucking break!

Not to mention the women who choose to stay at home and look after their children being harassed by feminists for not working

Not to mention the women who choose to stay at home and look after their children being harassed by feminists for not working

Yes, there is that. I don't agree with either side in the 'mommy wars' (what a bullshit title), I think the choice should be up to the individual family. In a perfect world, everyone would be able to take care of their children without sacrificing careers, but this is an imperfect one. Women (and men) who would rather stay at home with their kids have to work so the kids can eat. It sucks.

Okay, let me get this straight. The premise here is: "women have it easier than men, because even if they can't get an education or a job, they might be able to become prostitutes." Seriously?

I'm...so grateful that I'm a woman, because even if I make 70% of the income of an equivalent male coworker, even if I regularly have people assume that I'm far less intelligent than I am simply because of the nature of my genitalia, at least I can always become a whore! Yay!

:rolleyes:

Since when did prostitution come up? I thought we were renting rooms out of our houses...

Since when did prostitution come up? I thought we were renting rooms out of our houses...

No, the OP was talking about prostitution. Because somehow women are to blame when men are willing enough (or dumb enough) to want to pay for sex. :rolleyes:

Okay, let me get this straight. The premise here is: "women have it easier than men, because even if they can't get an education or a job, they might be able to become prostitutes." Seriously?

I'm...so grateful that I'm a woman, because even if I make 70% of the income of an equivalent male coworker, even if I regularly have people assume that I'm far less intelligent than I am simply because of the nature of my genitalia, at least I can always become a whore! Yay!

:rolleyes:
Whats so bad about being a prostitute?
No, the OP was talking about prostitution. Because somehow women are to blame when men are willing enough (or dumb enough) to want to pay for sex. :rolleyes:
Who was blaming women for being prostitutes? If anything, he is envious that women can be a successful prostitute while men generally can't.

Who was blaming women for being prostitutes? If anything, he is envious that women can be a successful prostitute while men generally can't.

Maybe my Feminist Sense(TM) is set too high. The OP seems to equate being uneducated and dependent on men for your livelihood (either by living with one or fucking one for money - sometimes they're not all that different, now that I think about it...) to somehow be a good thing.

Maybe my Feminist Sense(TM) is set too high. The OP seems to equate being uneducated and dependent on men for your livelihood (either by living with one or fucking one for money - sometimes they're not all that different, now that I think about it...) to somehow be a good thing.

Well, I don't see it as a bad thing. I should be so lucky as to find someone who I could leech off of.

Whats so bad about being a prostitute?


You know, in a perfect world, I'd have no qualms about the occupation, because it's a service and there's a demand, and ideally, you'd go into it by choice, and not by need, the same way someone becomes a teacher, or something. I'm not an idiot though. people do it and they -don't- want to, for a thousand reasons, way more than the gov't would have you think. That lack of choice riles me enough, but you want to know what else gets me? ok, how about this. The discrimination and abuse you'll get simply because you need some way to get a lot of money quickly. The risk of rape, and when it -does- happen, the police not giving you the time of day. the beatings, because people might want to get the service, and not the pay. The criminalisation you'll encounter due to the police consistently enforcing more prostitution laws (see the UK and sweden).

There are more things.

LOL. My German teacher has this card in her room that she brought from Germany. It's got a figure of a man, with four squares, and a figure of a woman with three squares. It represents the reality that, in Germany, the average woman's salary is three-quarters of what the average man's salary (per year).

This is what is known as the man tax. For as long as its still women and children first when a ship goes down or the guy that has to jump into the burning building or carry something heavy or get into a fight over something dumb your girlfriend said or guess who gets to go check out the noise downstairs in the middle of the night etc. When that stuff stops then women should get equal pay. Its the premium men get paid for having to put up with that extra bullshit above and beyond the normal call of duty.

I'm...so grateful that I'm a woman, because even if I make 70% of the income of an equivalent male coworker....



You know that 70% statistic is a bit of a misnomer, right?

This is what is known as the man tax. For as long as its still women and children first when a ship goes down or the guy that has to jump into the burning building or carry something heavy or get into a fight over something dumb your girlfriend said or guess who gets to go check out the noise downstairs in the middle of the night etc. When that stuff stops then women should get equal pay. Its the premium men get paid for having to put up with that extra bullshit above and beyond the normal call of duty.

Bwhahahahaha! You're funny!

Oh...

Wait, you're being serious?!?!

I'm not sure if that's even funnier or just sad...

This is what is known as the man tax. For as long as its still women and children first when a ship goes down or the guy that has to jump into the burning building or carry something heavy or get into a fight over something dumb your girlfriend said or guess who gets to go check out the noise downstairs in the middle of the night etc. When that stuff stops then women should get equal pay. Its the premium men get paid for having to put up with that extra bullshit above and beyond the normal call of duty.

Pfft, you're totally right! I'm sorry. Women are the reason for all the trouble in the world. I'll just go fetch my boyfriend's shoes then so from now on, he can reply for me. Obviously, I'm only going to cause problems.

Except not, because your post is junk. I should get pay for having had to read it.

Would you rather fuck or get fucked?

In the homosexual community, there is the role of top and bottom, but women are born to be bottom's. No, they don't have it easier.

I think that sometimes they do, but I base that only on having played female characters in online games. People are much more likely to be nice and helpful to you when you're female. Also they want to cyber, and will sometimes call you nasty things when you don't want to.

I think it evens out in the end though. Not that I make a single cent more than the women at my workplace, but I at least don't have to bleed every month.

Generally I think woman have it harder.

First, there's the bit about who get's to go through labour. And then all the unpleasantness that comes with it. Any men here heard of a 'rip to the third degree'?

There this one stretch of road I have to walk down to get to the train station, takes me roughly 10 minutes to walk up this road. Yet in the small time frame, *everytime* some dickhead has to drive past and think it would be hilarious to honk and shout things at me.
There are also the dickheads who like to make comments about a girls breasts, whether they be driving past and shouting out a window, or even just in a friggin classroom.

And there's the stuff other people in this thread have already mentioned.

Of course, maybe I'm just bitter because the career I've wanted for over 10 years and worked towards doesn't look likely anymore because now I've heard they don't accept women in the job :)

Now I'm not saying men don't have it bad either, these are just generalisations. There are plenty of bitches in the female community too.

I guarantee that having a kidney stone is worse than giving birth and it can happen much more often.

I guarantee that having a kidney stone is worse than giving birth and it can happen much more often.

I dunno, passing a Kidney Stone, yea it hurts like Holy Hell, but I never experienced the pain of child birth, and until I do, I won't comment on which is worst.

I guarantee that having a kidney stone is worse than giving birth and it can happen much more often.

I can list the problems involved with the girlbits that are just as if not more painful than a kidney stone. And sometimes birth can be more painful (from what I hear).

Plus, in order to give birth we have to bleed once a month. And everything that goes with it. I've been laid out in bed for two days before because I hurt so bad from periods. Oh, and if you try to take birth control to regulate periods? It makes life more miserable sometimes. It can do a number on your mood, make periods MORE painful (I had a hard time believing that until it happened to me), and all sorts of other lovely side effects.

In addition, people tend to value looks in women more than other things. So you can be exceedingly talented at something, but will be overlooked because you're not quite pretty enough or you don't meet some stupid standard. (Yes, I'm bitter.)

Maybe my Feminist Sense(TM) is set too high. The OP seems to equate being uneducated and dependent on men for your livelihood (either by living with one or fucking one for money - sometimes they're not all that different, now that I think about it...) to somehow be a good thing.That is what I don't get about feminism. You complain about how it is a bad thing that women can do that, but it is all a man would like to do.

I guarantee that having a kidney stone is worse than giving birth and it can happen much more often.

I guarantee it's not.

what.

Just ... what.

In addition, people tend to value looks in women more than other things. So you can be exceedingly talented at something, but will be overlooked because you're not quite pretty enough or you don't meet some stupid standard. (Yes, I'm bitter.)That happens to men too. An "investigation" was done by a show like Entertainment Tonight. That probably makes it not an intellectual enough of a source for this forum, but that is not something just women have to face. Its more that it is ok to talk about it when it happens to women.

That is what I don't get about feminism. You complain about how it is a bad thing that women can do that, but it is all a man would like to do.

Do what? HAve sex? Fuck no, feminists aren't against consensual sex (there are a few whackjobs, but every movement has those). The problem many women have is with the roles they are presented with: She can marry a guy she may or may not like, much less love, and grunt out kids and have sex whenever he wants it. In return, he's supposed to Go Out and Work (preferably at a suitably Manly Occupation), provide for her and the kids, and get sex whenever he wants it. This is Good.

Now, if a woman lives on her own and has sex either for recreation of professionally, she's a slut and a whore and she Deserves What She Gets - be it an STD, raped, mutilated, etc.

Because in the end, women are just vessels. We're just here to hold you Sacred Sperm and do your chores. This is what we're taught, that women who want to have lives of their own are 'uppity' and if we point out the manifest sexism in... anything, really, we're being shrill, humorless feminists. If we assert ourselves, we're pushy... If we do anything besides conform to the man in charge stereotype, we're bad women, or not women, or lesbians, or, or, or...

So yes, women often get the fuzzy end of the lollipop. (kudos to anyone who recognizes the quote)

That happens to men too. An "investigation" was done by a show like Entertainment Tonight. That probably makes it not an intellectual enough of a source for this forum, but that is not something just women have to face. Its more that it is ok to talk about it when it happens to women.

I know it happens, but it seems that men don't have as high a standard. I'm not a 10, but I'm by no means ugly. Yet somehow, if someone wants to find things wrong with me, the first thing they go to is how I look. If someone criticizes men, they rarely go after their looks first.

Honestly, if people would criticize me about my musicianship or my ability as an engineer before my looks, I wouldn't be so annoyed. But without fail, people forget that I have other flaws that I think are a lot bigger than my refusal to wear makeup.

Do what? HAve sex? Fuck no, feminists aren't against consensual sex (there are a few whackjobs, but every movement has those). The problem many women have is with the roles they are presented with: She can marry a guy she may or may not like, much less love, and grunt out kids and have sex whenever he wants it. In return, he's supposed to Go Out and Work (preferably at a suitably Manly Occupation), provide for her and the kids, and get sex whenever he wants it. This is Good.

Now, if a woman lives on her own and has sex either for recreation of professionally, she's a slut and a whore and she Deserves What She Gets - be it an STD, raped, mutilated, etc.

Because in the end, women are just vessels. We're just here to hold you Sacred Sperm and do your chores. This is what we're taught, that women who want to have lives of their own are 'uppity' and if we point out the manifest sexism in... anything, really, we're being shrill, humorless feminists. If we assert ourselves, we're pushy... If we do anything besides conform to the man in charge stereotype, we're bad women, or not women, or lesbians, or, or, or...

So yes, women often get the fuzzy end of the lollipop. (kudos to anyone who recognizes the quote)I meant have sex and get paid for it.

I meant have sex and get paid for it.

nothing is stopping you, other than possibly legalities.

nothing is stopping you, other than possibly legalities.I find the lack of market a more limiting.

I find the lack of market a more limiting.

that's not feminism's fault. :p

that's not feminism's fault. :pIt's the masculinism's fault. We should be doing more to turn women into dirt sluts.

I find the lack of market a more limiting.

Now, Spitzer actually prove otherwise. Hell a woman can be paid $4,000 per lay. :p

Keep in mind that this was just a joke, and if you take offense to this, then I do not apologize because once again, it's a joke. Not my fault you don't have a sense of humor.

It's the masculinism's fault. We should be doing more to turn women into dirt sluts.

:( I'm too sleepy not to laugh :p

I have that tired, giddy form of insomnia tonight....today? yikes, 2 1/2 hours until time to wake up, haven't slept in 49 hours..... the badness will come soon.......

I know it happens, but it seems that men don't have as high a standard. I'm not a 10, but I'm by no means ugly. Yet somehow, if someone wants to find things wrong with me, the first thing they go to is how I look. If someone criticizes men, they rarely go after their looks first.

Honestly, if people would criticize me about my musicianship or my ability as an engineer before my looks, I wouldn't be so annoyed. But without fail, people forget that I have other flaws that I think are a lot bigger than my refusal to wear makeup.You couldn't engineer your way out of a box.

I was going to say that women have it easier in the dating circles because I was certain a woman could go out in sweats not having showered for a week and still be hit on by fifty different guys but then I realized "I'm not interested in *every* woman" and that it probably works the other way too (the appeal of Sam Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Roberts) boggles the mind...) so I'd have to join the chorus and say "no, there's no such thing as a 'more advantageous gender'".

This is what is known as the man tax. For as long as its still women and children first when a ship goes down or the guy that has to jump into the burning building or carry something heavy or get into a fight over something dumb your girlfriend said or guess who gets to go check out the noise downstairs in the middle of the night etc. When that stuff stops then women should get equal pay. Its the premium men get paid for having to put up with that extra bullshit above and beyond the normal call of duty.

Either you're in a bad relationship (because it's *clearly* not equal) or you're subscribing to every "traditional", misguided and misconceived views of the gender balance between men and women. We haven't had those views held in the mainstream for *quite some time* now.

I think it evens out in the end though. Not that I make a single cent more than the women at my workplace, but I at least don't have to bleed every month.

As far as I know, women getting kicked in the genitals hurts a lot less than it does for us...so that evens out the whole "period" thing. :D

http://www.gearsandwidgets.com/external/wherethisthreadgoing.jpg

Yes, this will hurt. A lot.

LOL! Love the picture.

Now, Spitzer actually prove otherwise. Hell a woman can be paid $4,000 per lay. :p

Keep in mind that this was just a joke, and if you take offense to this, then I do not apologize because once again, it's a joke. Not my fault you don't have a sense of humor.I think you either mis-conjugated or dropped an auxiliary somewhere. The first sentence does not sense.

Depends if you're into gender roles. Personally, I don't think so. It's your own life. It's your own job to make it easy or difficult. :)

You couldn't engineer your way out of a box.

I know signal flow better than you ever will, so there. :P

(the appeal of Sam Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Roberts) boggles the mind...)
...
As far as I know, women getting kicked in the genitals hurts a lot less than it does for us...so that evens out the whole "period" thing. :D


First, Sam Roberts is a musician. And everyone knows that musicians are always appealing. Even Kid Rock can get easy lays.

Second, unless you're getting kicked in the bits once a month, no it doesn't. :P (And if you are, I suggest you find a less aggressive bunch to hang out with.)

I know signal flow better than you ever will, so there. :P
Don't be so sure. I am on the long twisted route to become an electrical engineer...

First, Sam Roberts is a musician. And everyone knows that musicians are always appealing. Even Kid Rock can get easy lays.
This is true. This is also the reason I wish I knew how to play guitar.
Second, unless you're getting kicked in the bits once a month, no it doesn't. :P (And if you are, I suggest you find a less aggressive bunch to hang out with.)
At my highschool, punching people in the balls was a way to pass time.

depends on what context in what culture. for the most part the answer is still no. and all of humanity is still suffering from the fact that it is.

=^^=
.../\...

First, Sam Roberts is a musician. And everyone knows that musicians are always appealing. Even Kid Rock can get easy lays.

Fine. What about Ed Belfour (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed Belfour) or even this guy (http://www.nndb.com/people/305/000028221/shane70.jpg)?

Second, unless you're getting kicked in the bits once a month, no it doesn't. :P (And if you are, I suggest you find a less aggressive bunch to hang out with.)

Okay, you win...but getting kicked in the groin still hurts...:(

Don't be so sure. I am on the long twisted route to become an electrical engineer...
...
At my highschool, punching people in the balls was a way to pass time.

I'm attempting audio engineering. It's.. interesting. And confusing. (But oh so worth it.)

And the ball-tap game doesn't count, psh. Most of the time teenage guys are willing participants in that game. Neither does the A-Hole game.


Fine. What about Ed Belfour (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed Belfour) or even this guy (http://www.nndb.com/people/305/000028221/shane70.jpg)?
...
Okay, you win...but getting kicked in the groin still hurts...:(

Ed Belfour is a pro athlete. Pretty much, if you're famous, you're going to get laid. Especially if you rake in the big bucks. If you're a musician, you can get laid easier at the lower pay-grades. And the second guy was in The Pogues. Come on. What it really boils down to is, if you're famous or raking in the big bucks, you'll get laid easier (either gender). If you're a musician, you'll probably have an easier time getting laid, too (but it all depends on your genre and instrument).

I'm sure it does hurt, that's why I never find it too terribly funny when my female friends laugh at guys getting hit in the bits. I'm kinda glad I don't know what that feels like.

I'm attempting audio engineering. It's.. interesting. And confusing. (But oh so worth it.)
Ok, you know more about signal flow.
And the ball-tap game doesn't count, psh. Most of the time teenage guys are willing participants in that game. Neither does the A-Hole game.Not at my school.

I'm sure it does hurt, that's why I never find it too terribly funny when my female friends laugh at guys getting hit in the bits. I'm kinda glad I don't know what that feels like.
I've heard its a comparable feeling to a good stiff backhand to the tit, with the pain spread from your thighs to just below your ribcage.

I've heard its a comparable feeling to a good stiff backhand to the tit, with the pain spread from your thighs to just below your ribcage.

I've never been laid out because of a smack to the boob, though. I've even had some people do other more painful things to that area of the anatomy and it never really quite knocked the breath out of me as it has seemed to do to the poor guys I've witnessed get kicked in the bits.

I'm curious to see if you feel that way. It is generally on men to get educated and and a good job to support families and like, defend the home and women live longer on top of it. Women(theoritically) don't have to pass school. They drop out and marry a rich guy or rent themselves out of 5,000 an hour. So it would seem there is more pressure on men to succeed. Is this true?

Yep, women have it easier than men. After all, they're earning higher wages on average, have all sorts of control over their reproductive rights, are considered automatically superior in many countries, hold power in various nations, ect ect ect...

Oh wait...

I revise my answer. People have it hard. Get over yourself if you think having a pussy or a dick puts you at some massive disadvantage. Unless you live in the past.

I'm curious to see if you feel that way. It is generally on men to get educated and and a good job to support families and like, defend the home

Why is it "generally on men" to get educated? In Australia, males and females are both under pressure to continue their education past highschool. Men and women both have to get good jobs to support themselves. In this country, most families wouldn't survive on just one wage. And, it's not "on men" to defend the home. Where do you live? In a cave that you have to defend from the wild wolves?


and women live longer on top of it.

I believe that's genetics fault, not women's.

Women(theoritically) don't have to pass school.

Oh, don't they? All women don't have to be educated to survive in modern society in this strange little theoretic world of yours?

They drop out and marry a rich guy

And you think that at 16 every grade ten drop out is going to be able to find themselves a sugar daddy?

or rent themselves out of 5,000 an hour.

Great, now you're suggesting women are better off because they can become prostitutes? Most prostitutes don't get $5000 an hour - some of them get paid $90 to get fucked in the ass. A lot of them live in terrible conditions, are addicted to drugs and are making money the only way they can. They are selling their bodies just to live. Would you consider that a good way of life?

So it would seem there is more pressure on men to succeed. Is this true?

All of the above was to support the idea that men have more pressure to succeed?

You fail.

I call shenanigans. Srsly, you need to do some research before you spout off. Talk to a rape victim. Or a woman denied basic health care or prescriptions. Or maybe a woman who's been treated like community property because she drank too much. Or maybe one who was blamed after being assaulted because she went out late at night or wore a short skirt. How about a woman who's had an eating disorder all her life because the role models for girls are unrealistically thin? One who's worked her ass off for a company but was passed over for a promotion? A single mom who can't support her family without help, who's accused of sponging off the state and being lazy? Or the mother who is treated like shit and accused of endangering her child because she puts the kid in daycare so she can put food on the table?

Admittedly, being a man isn't always beer and skittles, but give me a fucking break!

I don't feel that much of this adds anything to the discussion. Men can be raped too. Men can be denied health care. Men can be treated like shit because they're drunks. Men can be assaulted for what they're wearing. Men can have eating disorders because of media expectation. Men can be denied promotions. Men can be single fathers. Men can be accused of sponging off the state.

I understand what you're trying to say, though. Women are definitely subject to sexual assault, rape, and unfair judgement based on their gender, and depending on the society it can be medium to severe.

Okay, let me get this straight. The premise here is: "women have it easier than men, because even if they can't get an education or a job, they might be able to become prostitutes." Seriously?

That seems to be his opinion, yes.

Or better yet, ask me. Have you ever had to study the face of every man arrested for child pornography or assault on a minor that you see on TV, in case he's the one who tried to kidnap and rape you? In case you have to go into court and see the one who wasn't as lucky as you? Have you ever had nightmares about what might have been? Felt guilty because you almost gave in and got into the car? Scared that he'd come after you? No? Lucky you.

Look, I can tell you've obviously had some experience with sexual assault, but what makes you think posing these questions is going to actual prove him wrong?

If you have to study faces, you clearly have some sort of anxiety.

Would you rather fuck or get fucked?

In the homosexual community, there is the role of top and bottom, but women are born to be bottom's. No, they don't have it easier.

Uh, I go on top.

I think that sometimes they do, but I base that only on having played female characters in online games. People are much more likely to be nice and helpful to you when you're female. Also they want to cyber, and will sometimes call you nasty things when you don't want to.

I think it evens out in the end though. Not that I make a single cent more than the women at my workplace, but I at least don't have to bleed every month.

Playing a female character in an online game isn't exactly a viable insight.

And menstruation isn't really that much of an issue. I don't exactly enjoy it, but it's natural. I hate it when people bring that into the "women/men have it easier" argument.

I guarantee that having a kidney stone is worse than giving birth and it can happen much more often.

Women can get kidney stones too.

I can list the problems involved with the girlbits that are just as if not more painful than a kidney stone. And sometimes birth can be more painful (from what I hear).

Plus, in order to give birth we have to bleed once a month. And everything that goes with it. I've been laid out in bed for two days before because I hurt so bad from periods. Oh, and if you try to take birth control to regulate periods? It makes life more miserable sometimes. It can do a number on your mood, make periods MORE painful (I had a hard time believing that until it happened to me), and all sorts of other lovely side effects.

I really don't enjoy periods, but I'm not about to bring it into a discussion about whether men or women have it better off. It's a rather trivial issue.

In addition, people tend to value looks in women more than other things. So you can be exceedingly talented at something, but will be overlooked because you're not quite pretty enough or you don't meet some stupid standard. (Yes, I'm bitter.)

This happened to me very recently: I've been bringing in a few peices into a local gallery, and I brought in two of my better photographs and after first saying "oh, is this one you? you have more weight on you now", the gallery owner said "I can't believe you're producing this sort of work. I thought you were just a cute.." I interject: "a hippy chick with boobs?" His reply? "Well yeah."

It's really irritating because almost every day women seem to have to get men to look past their damn chest.


That is what I don't get about feminism. You complain about how it is a bad thing that women can do that, but it is all a man would like to do.

Feminism is supposed to be about creating gender equality.

And most men wouldn't like to be objectified, contract STDs, risk being raped or murdered, live in terrible conditions etc.

what.

Just ... what.

Yeh.

It's the masculinism's fault. We should be doing more to turn women into dirt sluts.

:rolleyes:

Yep, women have it easier than men. After all, they're earning higher wages on average, have all sorts of control over their reproductive rights, are considered automatically superior in many countries, hold power in various nations, ect ect ect...

Oh wait...

:p

I revise my answer. People have it hard. Get over yourself if you think having a pussy or a dick puts you at some massive disadvantage. *snip*.

I agree.

I really don't enjoy periods, but I'm not about to bring it into a discussion about whether men or women have it better off. It's a rather trivial issue.

This happened to me very recently: I've been bringing in a few peices into a local gallery, and I brought in two of my better photographs and after first saying "oh, is this one you? you have more weight on you now", the gallery owner said "I can't believe you're producing this sort of work. I thought you were just a cute.." I interject: "a hippy chick with boobs?" His reply? "Well yeah."

Periods are just as trivial as kidney stones in this discussion, don't you think?

And for the second, it's pathetic that so many people think the size of a woman's chest is inversely proportional to how smart or talented she can be sometimes. :/ I'm too affected by that, thank goodness (I guess?).

this thread is funny. y'all have made me laugh.

i have one off-subject question...

when did it become a burden to go to college and get a good paying job?

when did it become a burden to go to college and get a good paying job?
It's kind of like how the right to vote is a burden. And the right to own property. And having to carry around a giant heavy penis all day long.

This thread is going places.

Either you're in a bad relationship (because it's *clearly* not equal) or you're subscribing to every "traditional", misguided and misconceived views of the gender balance between men and women. We haven't had those views held in the mainstream for *quite some time* now.

Im not sure what part of the US you live in but im pretty sure husbands in America are STILL the sex that checks out the noise downstairs in the middle of the night. Im certain thats still pretty mainstream. Im also certian that in most disaster situations its men that for better or for worse take control of the situation. Im not being sexist nor am i trying to disabuse anyones notions of what fair is or isnt, im just reporting on what are still facts. That men get paid slightly more for taking on these roles is really no suprise.

Im not sure what part of the US you live in but im pretty sure husbands in America are STILL the sex that checks out the noise downstairs in the middle of the night. Im certain thats still pretty mainstream. Im also certian that in most disaster situations its men that for better or for worse take control of the situation. Im not being sexist nor am i trying to disabuse anyones notions of what fair is or isnt, im just reporting on what are still facts. That men get paid slightly more for taking on these roles is really no suprise.

you honestly think that the reason a men tend to make more than women is because their employer decides to pay them just in case they may some day have to drown so the women can get into the lifeboats?

that really makes sense to you?

Im not sure what part of the US you live in but im pretty sure husbands in America are STILL the sex that checks out the noise downstairs in the middle of the night. Im certain thats still pretty mainstream. Im also certian that in most disaster situations its men that for better or for worse take control of the situation. Im not being sexist nor am i trying to disabuse anyones notions of what fair is or isnt, im just reporting on what are still facts. That men get paid slightly more for taking on these roles is really no suprise.

Well the second part of that is kind of an odd "argument." Men are more likely to take control of disaster situations because men are more likely to be in a position that is given authority in a disaster not just because we're men and those women-folk just don't know how to handle themselves in a disaster.

Now I don't disagree that there really are some double-standards in our culture. Men and women both get pigeon-holed in different ways. But does either gender have it "harder"? Unfortunately that's a purely subjective and nonsensical thing to try and judge. The best way to look at it is in economic and political terms; women have less political and economic weight and a harder time achieving the amount of power they do have, this is pretty well-documented (in American society...I'd be unsurprised if it was similar in most every other society, too). So while it may be easier for women to get by on physical appearance alone, that, in and of itself, almost leads one to believe that women are at a local socio-economic status relative to their male-counterparts.

But, like I said, and has been said in numerous previous replies, it is a poorly phrased question.

To me the battle of the sexes has always been the prime example of deontological ethics supremacy to utilitarianism; as long as men and women are trying to justify which sex is more worthwhile according to work ethic (and which sex is undervalued by "society") we're never going to come to a mutually acceptable answer for this. In fact, I would go so far as to say that compromise is impossible in this because men and women mutually depend upon each other given their different strengths and weaknesses.

What can be disputed though is whether one sex is more appreciated than the other. To me, appreciation for femininity is directly correlated to the sophistication of that culture because sophistication's development has been more encouraged by the promises and threats of women towards their male partners more than vice versa. The proof? In a world where work and rationality dictates our economic decision making, men don't care for sophistication since men are more able to independently support themselves (women can too, but they aren't as able). On the other hand, women entice men to support them because women are capable of uniting men while resolving conflict that avoids the long term repercussions of violence and destruction. This provides men with a more suitable environment for bringing up their offspring, and lets men have pride in their success of extending the lifespan of the species.

Therefore, the more political (and democratic) the society, the more highly it values women. Even across generations where political awareness may have changed with the generations' lifetimes, women are universally appreciated more (look at father-daughter, coach-athlete, teacher-student, superior-subordinate relationships).

This brings up an interesting point though. In free market economics, investment in political capital is deemed as a distraction (and a hindrance) to economic activity. Whether you consider the Manchester School against the Mercantilists or the Austrians against the German Historicists or the Neoclassicals against the Keynesians, advocates of free markets deem political investment to be counter-productive and effectively morally evil due to its irrationality. On the other hand, socialist thinking concedes certain points to political activity since it gives all citizens an equal voice in the allocation of resources. Again, it doesn't matter if you're considering Marx or Engels or Owen, they all believe that democratic participation is vital for the effective existence of a socialist society.

Furthermore, women are recognized as more ethical even within the business environment (http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/290000/285084/p70-kreie.pdf?key1=285084&key2=3262796021&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=22278461&CFTOKEN=49193617). In a time when the modern Theory of the Firm (http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/mpch/firm1.html) dictates that firms aim for higher sales, minimal costs, and optimal market share rather than maximal profits, it can be disputed that the intuitive properties of the feminine mystique are what provide for long term success for a firm. The question then for free marketeers is whether or not firm success is what markets should aim for. Ironically, creative destruction has been accepted for nearly a century by thinkers ranging from Schumpeter to Nietzsche to Sombart, so maybe firm survival isn't what free markets are theoretically all about.

On the flip side, Menger argues in his Theory of Price, Value, and Distribution (http://www.mises.org/about/3239) that markets provide for the search of information via imputation. For men, this means that interaction should be performed only for the sake of directly learning from other entities; and for women, this means that people should be gathered together in order for them to cooperate and synthesize their work and intellect for the optimal possible outcome. Considering rationality though, the male drive for the propagation of the species isn't equivalent to universal information acquisition while the female drive for "unity" isn't equivalent to the optimization of utility for any given individual. In other words, it's the MALE drive that results in the Paradox of Thrift (http://ingrimayne.com/econ/Keynes/Paradox.html) while it's the FEMALE drive that results in the dismissal of savings in the first place!

However, like I said in the beginning, deontology is superior to utilitarianism in that justice is more important than utility in the real world. Men and women aren't equal because it's impossible to value the sexes objectively (there's no such thing as an empirical utilitometer). What we are is different, and what we need to do is cooperate no matter how political our world becomes.

Men have it easier. Try suffering from PMS every month, and then suffering cramps from your period every month. Add to that pregnancy, child-birth, raising kids, keeping the house, dieting, and finally, when the kids are gone, menopause. Men have it too easy indeed.

Men have it easier. Try suffering from PMS every month, and then suffering cramps from your period every month. Add to that pregnancy, child-birth, raising kids, keeping the house, dieting, and finally, when the kids are gone, menopause. Men have it too easy indeed.

And yet, my fiance tells me he'd gladly take all that if he could have the kind of orgasms I get... ;)

Outside biology, though, I would say women still need to fight a bit harder and work a bit harder for the same level of recognition, both financially and socially.

And yet, my fiance tells me he'd gladly take all that if he could have the kind of orgasms I get... ;)

Outside biology, though, I would say women still need to fight a bit harder and work a bit harder for the same level of recognition, both financially and socially.

Aahhh, our orgasm... Yeah, I do understand his reasoning. We have it way better there.;)

On a side note, with your nickname, Cabra, I thought you were a guy. LOL! Cabra, in Spanish, means "goat" and being considered a goat, rofl, is kinda bad in Spain.:D

Men have it easier. Try suffering from PMS every month, and then suffering cramps from your period every month.

To be fair, not all women experience significant symptoms surrounding their menstrual cycle.

During puberty I actually was glad I was female because at least my cycle was obvious, slow, and easy to track. Males experience hormonal cycles, too, but their cycling occurs much more frequently and is less easy to track.


Add to that pregnancy, child-birth, raising kids, keeping the house, dieting,

No thanks. I won't be dealing with any of those, except possibly doing 50% of the minimum work required to keep our house from being over-run by roaches. :D


and finally, when the kids are gone, menopause. Men have it too easy indeed.
Menopause could be viewed as a bonus, in the sense that eventually we stop having to worry about fertility. Though the actual process of menopause certainly doesn't seem fun.

My mother started menopause around the time I started puberty. Ours was a fun household.

Men have it easier. Try suffering from PMS every month, and then suffering cramps from your period every month. Add to that pregnancy, child-birth, raising kids, keeping the house, dieting, and finally, when the kids are gone, menopause. Men have it too easy indeed.

Heheh and the mans side of that is living with a partner that has PMS, running a round with the hot water bottle, pills, choc, and slushy films during the cramps. Add to that holding the hair out of the way during the vomiting whilst pregnant, living with the mood swings, raiseing the kids, keeping the house, and when the kids are gone, spending all that extra money on yet another pair of shoes, or handbags, or more flippin' diamonds!


Ahhhh life, ain't it interesting!

Heheh and the mans side of that is living with a partner that has PMS, running a round with the hot water bottle, pills, choc, and slushy films during the cramps. Add to that holding the hair out of the way during the vomiting whilst pregnant, living with the mood swings, raiseing the kids, keeping the house, and when the kids are gone, spending all that extra money on yet another pair of shoes, or handbags, or more flippin' diamonds!

Not a good argument, IMO. I'd rather be holding somebody's hair while they puke then, you know, actually puking my guts out.

Also, what's with guys bitching about having to spend money on stuff women like? If you don't like giving your spouse gifts, don't. If you don't trust her to make choices about how your mutually-held assets are spent, get divorced. If you don't like her spending her own money on what she likes, piss off. In any case, quit yer bitchin.

Come now, you're suggesting that there is a purpose to women beyond bearing the children of their lawfully wedded husbands (whom they had intercourse with in missionary position, with the lights off), and making me sandwiches.

Come now, you're suggesting that there is a purpose to women beyond bearing the children of their lawfully wedded husbands (whom they had intercourse with in missionary position, with the lights off), and making me sandwiches.

Good question... is there a purpose to men? In general?

:rolleyes:



Thats all I have to say about this thread.

Not a good argument, IMO. I'd rather be holding somebody's hair while they puke then, you know, actually puking my guts out.

Also, what's with guys bitching about having to spend money on stuff women like? If you don't like giving your spouse gifts, don't. If you don't trust her to make choices about how your mutually-held assets are spent, get divorced. If you don't like her spending her own money on what she likes, piss off. In any case, quit yer bitchin.



For fuck sake Bottle, learn to reconise homour when you see it. You see that little Heheh at the very start, well that denotes I'm being funny, get it!

Ohh and for the record, my wife can have anything she wants from me, and that is in addition to staying at home and not working is she chooses. Get over yaself!

Good question... is there a purpose to men? In general?

We're good at that tire changing thing, ohh ohh and parking!:D

Good question... is there a purpose to men? In general?

Easy answer: Nope.:D

We're good at that tire changing thing, ohh ohh and parking!:D

So your purpose is to look after our cars? And here's me not even having one...

Easy answer: Nope.:D

Well, now, think about it... you can't really get a vibrator to mow the lawn, can you? ;)

Even if this were the case (it isn't, but even if it was), this is due to patriarchy.

Women(theoritically) don't have to pass school. They drop out and marry a rich guy or rent themselves out of 5,000 an hour.So could men.

I meant have sex and get paid for it.Here's $1. Bend over. ;)

Uh, I go on top.


....

Sup?


;)

Women don't have it easier. If I started bleeding out my crotch every month, I'd freak out.

Good question... is there a purpose to men? In general?

Yes; without them a large number of works of art would sound or look rather silly (i.e. "Isn't it Great to Have a Penis?", Michaelangelo's David.)

I think you guys are spending too much time on female prostitution, forgetting that there is also a healthy industry in rent-boys and male escorts...women aren't the only ones who whore themselves out :)

Nevertheless I think women have it harder. Just think those that do have jobs and a family, are also expected to be full-time mothers and wives as well as employees whereas men are statistically speaking; less inclined to chip in around the house.

Equally, nothing sucks more than spending a long time in education (maybe even getting a degree), then getting a nice job someplace before finding out that you're only qualified to work in a restaurant or a supermarket if you have kids...

Nothing shouts 'career suicide' louder than taking maternity leave...

So your purpose is to look after our cars? And here's me not even having one...

Well damn me, how are you gonna get a man, with no car....

I'd say neither sex have it easy in the western world. Look at it this way: If you are young and single you need to get an education; degrees are now two-a-penny it seems and you get into a whole load of debt; apprenticeships look pretty, but what else are you trained to do but the job you do one for? Trouble is there are plenty of jobs that no-one wants, so we give them to the poor immigrants that come over here fleeing from all sorts of horrible stuff; then there are the jobs that everyone wants so there's 100's, maybe 1000's of applicants for each post! The whole thing is ridiculous! Women also, statistically, get paid less than men, are more likely to end up as single parents supporting the kids, and have far more biological reasons to complain. Men, on the other hand, put up with being nagged, told off for not reading womens' minds when we're not specific, generally are expected to get high-powered, high-stress jobs, and generally get an ear-bashing if they forget anniversaries/birthdays, etc, which women have to remember for them cos it's inevitable that most males will! So I'd say that the pain is about equal on both sides!;)

:rolleyes:



Thats all I have to say about this thread.

oh come on, its funny.

I believe that's genetics fault, not women's.

Not so much. When they calculate life expectancy rates, a lot of factors are at play, such as alcahol abuse, smoking, drug abuse, risky behavior (guys, on average, score horribly here), STDs, and many, many more.

And since guys are more likely to engage in such acts, more of them die because of them, thus the lower average life expectancy rate. Genetics really has little to do with it... Though prostate and breast cancer aren't so hot.

Not so much. When they calculate life expectancy rates, a lot of factors are at play, such as alcahol abuse, smoking, drug abuse, risky behavior (guys, on average, score horribly here), STDs, and many, many more.

And since guys are more likely to engage in such acts, more of them die because of them, thus the lower average life expectancy rate. Genetics really has little to do with it... Though prostate and breast cancer aren't so hot.

Sadly, I believe women are catching up in this department, at least as far as risky behavior goes. When I was in college, women seemed just as likely as men to get hammered, drive 100 mph, and act like idjets. The sigma against women smoking isn't there anymore, at least not in the West, and whatever stigma there is applies to both men and women. Women use drugs and have risky sex just as much as men do...well, maybe not "as much" but it's happening more, and women can get AIDS and STDs just as easily as men can.

Couple that with many women working long hours now, and you can watch the life expectancy gap narrow.

Sadly, I believe women are catching up in this department, at least as far as risky behavior goes. When I was in college, women seemed just as likely as men to get hammered, drive 100 mph, and act like idjets. The sigma against women smoking isn't there anymore, at least not in the West, and whatever stigma there is applies to both men and women. Women use drugs and have risky sex just as much as men do...well, maybe not "as much" but it's happening more, and women can get AIDS and STDs just as easily as men can.

Couple that with many women working long hours now, and you can watch the life expectancy gap narrow.

I hear you on that... People acting like idiots (note: this is not against having fun, this is against "having fun" and not acknowledging any sense of safety or reason) never ceases to amaze me.

Well, now, think about it... you can't really get a vibrator to mow the lawn, can you? ;)

Well... I concede, you can't mow the lawn with a dildo.:D

Well... I concede, you can't mow the lawn with a dildo.:D

Oh that's a load of rubbish. Just attatch some wheels and spinning blades to it, and you've got a handy (if small) lawnmower. Well, maybe more of an edge trimmer, but still.

In a nutshell, this is why women have it easier then men. this guy would rather have sex with a table then go anywhere near his wife. No woman would ever be driven to these levels of desperation. Lmao. http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=130090&in_page_id=2

Oh that's a load of rubbish. Just attatch some wheels and spinning blades to it, and you've got a handy (if small) lawnmower. Well, maybe more of an edge trimmer, but still.And a big mess if you forget to take the blades off before using it as its original use again.

I'm curious to see if you feel that way. It is generally on men to get educated and and a good job to support families and like, defend the home and women live longer on top of it. Women(theoritically) don't have to pass school. They drop out and marry a rich guy or rent themselves out of 5,000 an hour. So it would seem there is more pressure on men to succeed. Is this true?
What the FUCK are you babbling about?

Okay, let me get this straight. The premise here is: "women have it easier than men, because even if they can't get an education or a job, they might be able to become prostitutes." Seriously?

Yes, apparently that is the premise. Ye gods.

when did it become a burden to go to college and get a good paying job?
It isn't. It's a privilege, but it does fit into a handy Burden Box (tm) that has a big label on it reading "BURDEN," which lets some people dress it up as a burden when they want to try to persuade women that they should voluntarily submit to an unequal social structure.


This is what is known as the man tax. For as long as its still women and children first when a ship goes down or the guy that has to jump into the burning building or carry something heavy or get into a fight over something dumb your girlfriend said or guess who gets to go check out the noise downstairs in the middle of the night etc. When that stuff stops then women should get equal pay. Its the premium men get paid for having to put up with that extra bullshit above and beyond the normal call of duty.

Im not sure what part of the US you live in but im pretty sure husbands in America are STILL the sex that checks out the noise downstairs in the middle of the night. Im certain thats still pretty mainstream. Im also certian that in most disaster situations its men that for better or for worse take control of the situation. Im not being sexist nor am i trying to disabuse anyones notions of what fair is or isnt, im just reporting on what are still facts. That men get paid slightly more for taking on these roles is really no suprise.
And what the fuck are YOU babbling about? I'm sorry, but these two posts really pissed me off.

1) Since when has it been the norm for men to lay down their lives for women? Male cops, EMTs and firefighters do that, but so do female cops, EMTs and firefighters, and they do it equally for men, women, and even animals sometimes, too, because it's their job. If you insist that men in general, whether they're getting paid to do it or not, are there to step up in a disaster and save the women and children, then I challenge you to offer evidence in support of that assertion. Not some idealistic propaganda from our grandparents/great-grandparents time. I mean evidence that men do this regularly in reality. And if your "evidence" starts with anything like "I think" or "I'm pretty sure" or "I'm certain that most...", that will invalidate it. You say this is so, I want to see the facts in support, or I call bullshit.

2) Is it your argument that all men deserve to get paid more than women for the same work every single day on the off chance that one day there might be a disaster and any given man might be there and might step up to save the woman? Uh-huh. I see. And you call this a "man tax," which I suppose you imagine women should pay as a premium for "man insurance" against disaster?

OK, tell me this: How many such disasters typically occur per year? See, I want to calculate whether, as a woman, I am at sufficient risk to make the "man tax" worth the money -- kind of like a home owner deciding whether to pay for flood insurance. Also, what if there is no man present or surviving to save me during a disaster, or the men present fail to step up and do what you say they are expected to? If I have to save myself from a disaster, will I get reimbursed for all the money that went to the "man tax" instead of my salary? Or if I die, can my survivors sue the state for that money on the grounds that a male savior failed to be delivered as expected? What if I end up saving a man from the disaster? Do I get a "man tax" bonus for that? Do I have to get a sex change operation to claim it, or will cross-dressing be enough?

3) I am unmistakably female. I have all the visual sex characteristics in spades, plus I'm small and have a feminine voice. And I dress to show off what nature gave me. Though I have never been in a Katrina-like disaster (thankfully), I have been in dangerous crime situations, violent situations, a couple of fire/smoke situations, and other very stressful situations in groups. Groups that included men. And yet, somehow, despite my breasts and my voice and my hair and my lipstick, etc., it was not the men who were looked to for leadership in the group. It was me. Somehow, when shit hits fan, I am the one people -- even men -- turn to and say, "What should we do?" Why is that? I don't think my sex has anything to do with it. I think it's because I'm one of those lucky people who don't panic, don't freak out until after the crisis. I see a situation, and I respond to it. I don't sit and wait for some man -- or anyone else -- to come and save me. I take care of myself, either by getting out of the situation or resolving it if I can't get out.

And if I'm the one stopping a raging drunk from strangling a guy to death on the subway (really happened), or if I'm the one getting an armed mugger to back off and run while the male victim next to me is frozen in confusion (really happened), then I am sure as hell not going to wait for some man to check out a noise in the night, or get a piece of furniture up the stairs, or open a jar, or reach something down from a high shelf.

And if I am the one who gets the goddamned job done on time and under budget (happens many, many times), then you better believe I expect to get paid at least as much as any male co-workers who may have been dragging their asses until I took over the project.

I'm not the only such independent woman I know. As you can guess from my list of situations, I lived most of my life in a very tough town (NYC), and all the women and men I ever knew all faced the exact same conditions and all dealt with it in with varying degrees of success. But rise or fall, I never knew a woman who sat and waited for a man to take care of her. That's not a way to stay alive and healthy. It never has been, not anywhere, not any time. "Man tax," my ass.

4) If you are so tired of putting up with "extra bullshit" (which I don't believe exists), then there is a simple fix for it: Don't. You don't want to save women and children, then don't. You don't want to check out the noise in the house, don't. You don't want to open jars or move furniture, don't. Keep your whining ass on the sofa where it belongs -- out of the way of people (male and female) who are getting things done without crabbing about what a big social burden it is to have one or another set of genitals.

Oh that's a load of rubbish. Just attatch some wheels and spinning blades to it, and you've got a handy (if small) lawnmower. Well, maybe more of an edge trimmer, but still.

*hilarious mental picture, rolls around the floor laughing*

And a big mess if you forget to take the blades off before using it as its original use again.

That's what we call natural selection.

1) Since when has it been the norm for men to lay down their lives for women? Male cops, EMTs and firefighters do that, but so do female cops, EMTs and firefighters, and they do it equally for men, women, and even animals sometimes, too, because it's their job. If you insist that men in general, whether they're getting paid to do it or not, are there to step up in a disaster and save the women and children, then I challenge you to offer evidence in support of that assertion. Not some idealistic propaganda from our grandparents/great-grandparents time. I mean evidence that men do this regularly in reality. And if your "evidence" starts with anything like "I think" or "I'm pretty sure" or "I'm certain that most...", that will invalidate it. You say this is so, I want to see the facts in support, or I call bullshit.

In a fire who do you honestly want top come rescue you in a burning building, a man or a woman? Have you ever actually tried to hold down a hose shooting out 400 psi before. I was a volunteer fireman for 5 years and im 6-4 and 265 lbs. Trust me there is a difference in my abilities in a fire compared to that of a smaller female. Its just a fact.

If i had to have delicate brain surgery, i would be more comfortable if a male surgeon did the operation because i believe that if everything else is equal, that a males dexterity and hand eye cordination is greater then that of a females.

2) Is it your argument that all men deserve to get paid more than women for the same work every single day on the off chance that one day there might be a disaster and any given man might be there and might step up to save the woman? Uh-huh. I see. And you call this a "man tax," which I suppose you imagine women should pay as a premium for "man insurance" against disaster?

The way to avoid man tax is simple. Hire women to do your jobs. We have already established they are wiling to work for less so you will be able to get services that you apparently feel are equal for a lesser price then if you hired a male.

3) I am unmistakably female. <-snip-> I see a situation, and I respond to it. I don't sit and wait for some man -- or anyone else -- to come and save me. I take care of myself, either by getting out of the situation or resolving it if I can't get out.

Conrats. Does nothing to change my point about the vast majority of American society.

then I am sure as hell not going to wait for some man to check out a noise in the night, or get a piece of furniture up the stairs, or open a jar, or reach something down from a high shelf.

As i mentioned im 6-4 and just yesterday i had an old lady at Walmart ask me to grab something off a high shelf for her. She wouldnt have asked a girl of average height to have done the same even if it was within her reach. And I did so gladly. Its all part of the same social contract that pays men slightly more in wages.

And if I am the one who gets the goddamned job done on time and under budget (happens many, many times), then you better believe I expect to get paid at least as much as any male co-workers who may have been dragging their asses until I took over the project.

Ok i get it, in your world women are great and men are terrible.

I'm not the only such independent woman I know. As you can guess from my list of situations, I lived most of my life in a very tough town (NYC), and all the women and men I ever knew all faced the exact same conditions and all dealt with it in with varying degrees of success. But rise or fall, I never knew a woman who sat and waited for a man to take care of her. That's not a way to stay alive and healthy. It never has been, not anywhere, not any time. "Man tax," my ass.

LMAO im also from upstate NY and if your going to claim that NYC isnt chockfilled with legions of rich husband pampered yentas then i dont know what to tell you other then ill be happy to provide you with the names of streets in Manhattan where you couldnt throw a dead cat without hitting 6 of them. NYC is the epicenter of the Yenta Hive.

4) If you are so tired of putting up with "extra bullshit" (which I don't believe exists), then there is a simple fix for it: Don't. You don't want to save women and children, then don't. You don't want to check out the noise in the house, don't. You don't want to open jars or move furniture, don't. Keep your whining ass on the sofa where it belongs -- out of the way of people (male and female) who are getting things done without crabbing about what a big social burden it is to have one or another set of genitals.

Or theres another option, men can choose to instead do these extra things and get paid a little more for our troubles, and oddly enough even the women in the country for the most part seem content enough with the status quo.

doublepost

doublepost

Good question... is there a purpose to men? In general?

Well yes. Although I will admit that women are probably smarter than men most technological advance came from men. You see men are inherently lazy and only do things for rewards (kind of like dogs). So men decided to discover things like fire and shelter to impress women. Although women could have made the discoveries themselves they simply did not have the motivation to do so. and this pattern still exist today.

This is also what creates the lust for power. Powerful men get women. Take women out of the equation and men would become a species that did nothing but the bare minimal to survive.

So as you can see men are important.

(satire)

Oh no...this thread was a bad idea, but i suppose it will be interesting to see the responses.
It could be argued either way, depending on which culture you use and which countries you use.

I just want to get this in: Women keep aiming for equality with men, and keep claiming that they're just as tough as men, yet we still teach our kids not to hit girls. Why? If girls are just as tough as men, and want equality, we should treat them equally to men.

In the western world, you'll often find that both parents work for a living. And girls are more likely to get an education than guys, because guys keep aiming for a sports career. I personally think that intelligence is more important than physical prowess, which is why I'm a geek.:D

I don't feel that much of this adds anything to the discussion. Men can be raped too. Men can be denied health care. Men can be treated like shit because they're drunks. Men can be assaulted for what they're wearing. Men can have eating disorders because of media expectation. Men can be denied promotions. Men can be single fathers. Men can be accused of sponging off the state.

I understand what you're trying to say, though. Women are definitely subject to sexual assault, rape, and unfair judgement based on their gender, and depending on the society it can be medium to severe.

The OP asked if it's easier to be a woman. I refuted, giving reasons that it's more difficult to be a woman.


Look, I can tell you've obviously had some experience with sexual assault, but what makes you think posing these questions is going to actual prove him wrong?

Well, gee, asking questions is supposed to be what this forum is about, isn't it? I was trying to demonstrate what it's like to be a survivor.

If you have to study faces, you clearly have some sort of anxiety.

Yes. Yes, I do have anxiety. In fact, I have clinical anxiety, not all of it stemming from a near miss. But everyone who's survived this kind of assault has anxiety. Period.

Based on the suicide rate and crime rate, I'd say men have a tougher life. That doesn't mean women are treated better in our society. Women are discouraged from taking risks, so they don't get as much of a chance to get stressed. Failure and the resulting unhappiness is a risk that comes with opportunity.

In a nutshell, this is why women have it easier then men. this guy would rather have sex with a table then go anywhere near his wife. No woman would ever be driven to these levels of desperation. Lmao. http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=130090&in_page_id=2

Fail. Pervy men having sex with inanimate objects has nothing to do with women. It has everything to do with, you know, pervy men. Not that there's anything wrong with pervyness...

women have to work harder than men to get in the same position, and it isn't sure that they will succeed...and if it happens, however women earn less than men

Do women have it easier than men?

Not in Saudi Arabia, and, indeed, most other countries.

I just want to get this in: Women keep aiming for equality with men, and keep claiming that they're just as tough as men, yet we still teach our kids not to hit girls. Why? If girls are just as tough as men, and want equality, we should treat them equally to men.

In the SCA, we teach kids (and everyone else who picks up a blade) not to hit anyone else unless they're armored. Man, woman, cat, dog, don't hit 'em unless they're wearing armor. And once you see the unbelted fighters in the Midrealm, you'll never say a woman can't hold her own against a man in a fight. The scariest women on the field at ValDay were, teeny, skinny little things who wear the most beautiful, demure dresses you've ever seen when they're not armored up.

Since I'm a hardcore moderate I'm going to go with the cop-out answer of: Both genders come with their own set of problems, whether physical, or socially imposed. To say being a man or being a woman is harder or easier than the other is mere speculation. Especially considering that one factor which someone may feel is insurmountable may be simply a grain of sand in the shoe to another.

Women have a much easier time finding sex partners. This is fact.

And who are they having sex with? Each other? Okay maybe, but probably men as well, which means men are having just as much sex as women.

And who are they having sex with? Each other? Okay maybe, but probably men as well, which means men are having just as much sex as women.

or one guy is having a hell of a time

And who are they having sex with? Each other? Okay maybe, but probably men as well, which means men are having just as much sex as women.

ya but the same 3 hot guys get laid over and over -- even screwing the homely girls -- whereas the geeky guys never get laid no matter how much they beg.

or something.

And who are they having sex with? Each other? Okay maybe, but probably men as well, which means men are having just as much sex as women.

No, no, no. You can't look at it that way. Of course men, as a gender of the human race, find sex as much as women, as a gender.

You have to compare the difficulty of a single male finding sex, with the difficulty of a single woman finding sex. The one is the not the same as the other. For a woman it's a lot easier, so much so that generally the problem is one of eliminating unneeded or unwanted offers.

or one guy is having a hell of a time

yes.

But I'm only one man...

No, no, no. You can't look at it that way. Of course men, as a gender of the human race, find sex as much as women, as a gender.

You have to compare the difficulty of a single male finding sex, with the difficulty of a single woman finding sex. The one is the not the same as the other. For a woman it's a lot easier, so much so that generally the problem is one of eliminating unneeded or unwanted offers.

Bah. Prove it. Otherwise take back your declaration of 'fact'.

yes.

But I'm only one man...

Slut.

Bah. Prove it. Otherwise take back your declaration of 'fact'.

I can prove it every time I go out.

ya but the same 3 hot guys get laid over and over -- even screwing the homely girls -- whereas the geeky guys never get laid no matter how much they beg.

or something.

Bah, most of the guys whining about not getting laid are the ones who don't even notice the chicks that want them, because they are so obsessed with getting the one that DOESN'T want them.

I can prove it every time I go out.

I haven't had to turn any offers down lately so :P

Slut.

only for you baby.

only for you baby.

Exclusive slut, oxymoron alert!

To be a fan of the colour pink and of shopping for shoes is a fate I would wish on no-one.

I also find it greatly amusing that people (often men it seems) try to blame their own failure at attracting women and apply it to the gender as a whole.

Neesika's point is valid, if we assume there are just about as much male on male as female on female sex in the world so that it factors out, every time a woman has sex with a guy, then there's a guy out there having sex with a woman.

Therefore there are just about as many women having sex as men having sex, which leaves men who don't get sex and women who don't get sex. So there are just as many men out there who aren't getting laid as there are women out there who aren't getting laid.

So the only way a woman can have more ability to get laid is of the pool of women not getting laid and men not getting laid there are mor women out there who are NOT having sex and don't WANT to have sex then there are men.


Which is what has to break down for that to make sense. IF women have an easier time finding sex than men do, it has to be that there are fewer women out there not having sex, and not wanting to have sex, then there are men. Which would mean there are more men looking for sex then there are women looking for sex, even though the number of women not getting sex is roughly equivalent to the number of men not getting sex.

Which has hardly been substantiated in any way

Exclusive slut, oxymoron alert!

oh quit your logic and bend over already...

So quit bitching about not getting laid and move to Alberta GT. I'll solve your problems :P

no one gender has it easier or harder than the other... granted there are some moments in life where one sex is having it harder than the other but it all balances out.

oh quit your logic and bend over already...

Okey-dey!
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/808/477536.JPG

oh quit your logic and bend over already...

Waaaay ahead of you, and getting a little cramped actually so hurry up!

Waaaay ahead of you, and getting a little cramped actually so hurry up!

nah, I'll wait a bit...after all, if it doesn't hurt you, what's the point?

And besides, most people who cry about not getting laid don't just want a random fuck (which is easy enough to get), they want a significant other. And that doesn't just fall into your lap.

To be a fan of the colour pink and of shopping for shoes is a fate I would wish on no-one.

You do realize that not all women like pink, right? And that some, like me, actively loathe shoe shopping? I loathe it because I have gunboats disguised as feet attached to the ends of my legs, and finding shoes that big that aren't fugly and don't have six inch heels is well nigh impossible. (I'm six feet tall and have a bum leg. Heels are teh ebils for me.)

Or, wait, are you being sarcastic? I'm hurting too much to be able to tell, at the moment. As a side note, have you ever had a muscle cramp so hard it actually got sprained? That's what my shoulder did last night, and it hurts like fuck right now.

Or, wait, are you being sarcastic?
Well, I was serious about not wishing that fate on anyone. I wasn't serious about it being an inherent trait of all women.

As a side note, have you ever had a muscle cramp so hard it actually got sprained?
Uh, I don't think so.

That's what my shoulder did last night, and it hurts like fuck right now.
Get well soon.

Well, I was serious about not wishing that fate on anyone. I wasn't serious about it being an inherent trait of all women.

Ah, okay. That makes more sense. I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone, either. I passed a whole lineup of Hello Kitty laptop accessories at Meijer a few weeks ago, and nearly hurled. They made a pink wireless mouse with rhinestones. Number one, gross. Number two, wouldn't the rhinestones irritate the fuck out of your palm?

Get well soon.

Thanks. I still don't have the record for oddest way of hurting yourself, at least not in my family. My sister threw her back out throwing away a paper towel. She was out of work for almost a week.

And besides, most people who cry about not getting laid don't just want a random fuck (which is easy enough to get), they want a significant other. And that doesn't just fall into your lap.Indeed. Relationships are hard, mmmkay?

In a fire who do you honestly want top come rescue you in a burning building, a man or a woman? Have you ever actually tried to hold down a hose shooting out 400 psi before. I was a volunteer fireman for 5 years and im 6-4 and 265 lbs. Trust me there is a difference in my abilities in a fire compared to that of a smaller female. Its just a fact.
You don't pay much attention to what you read, do you? Or maybe you just don't bother to read before responding at all. My previously posted statements already answered this sexist little question of yours.

As I said, I take care of myself. If, as you posit, I am the one stuck in the burning building, I am not going to wait around for anyone to carry me out. I am going to get myself out, any way I can. And if I'm trapped and can't get myself out, then I will be grateful for anyone who comes to help me, no matter what their sex. I am not going to sit in the burning building like some sexist asshole, waiting until the right kind of person shows up. And if I'm unconscious from smoke inhalation and can't either escape or choose my rescuer, then I won't really care who shows up on account of I won't know about it, will I? And if I die from not being rescued, I won't care about anything from that point forward, ever.

So not only is your argument about how much better men are at handling their hoses sexist, it is also completely irrelevant to me, as the one inside the burning building.

If i had to have delicate brain surgery, i would be more comfortable if a male surgeon did the operation because i believe that if everything else is equal, that a males dexterity and hand eye cordination is greater then that of a females.
That has got to be some of the quaintest old bullshit I've heard since my grandfather died. If you have any reason other than blind sexist bigotry to believe this, I will be happy to review your factual evidence. Until you present some, I will just leave you with your right to choose your brain surgeon based on your own prejudices rather than their skills and career histories, if that's what you really, really want. I hope that, if you ever need one, you don't end up with an incompetent male surgeon because you picked the one with the penis over the one with the skills.

The way to avoid man tax is simple. Hire women to do your jobs. We have already established they are wiling to work for less so you will be able to get services that you apparently feel are equal for a lesser price then if you hired a male.
That's adorable. So according to you, I, as a woman, should not only be happy to be underpaid for my work, but also be happy to exploit other women by also underpaying them. Of course, I notice that you completely miss the point that, in fact, men are being overpaid by your so-called little "man tax." It is unrelated to their actual work, it is a service that is almost never provided. I fail to see why they should be paid for it.

If the difference between what men get paid on average and what women get paid on average is accounted for by the value of manly heroics that you have imagined for yourself, then I say eliminate any requirement for manly heroics and eliminate the male pay rate advantage at the same time.


Conrats. Does nothing to change my point about the vast majority of American society.
You don't have a point. All you have is a personal opinion which is based in nothing but unfounded prejudice.

As i mentioned im 6-4 and just yesterday i had an old lady at Walmart ask me to grab something off a high shelf for her. She wouldnt have asked a girl of average height to have done the same even if it was within her reach. And I did so gladly. Its all part of the same social contract that pays men slightly more in wages.
Bullshit. How do you know she wouldn't have asked a girl of average height to do it? How do you know she wouldn't have asked a boy of average height to do it? How do you know she wouldn't have figured out some other way to get it if no one else was there? Again, you have absolutely no foundation for anything you said except your own prejudice.

Ok i get it, in your world women are great and men are terrible.
Strawman fallacy. I never said any such thing.

In fact, I specifically stated that in "my world," men and women face the same pressures and handle them the same way, equally. I take your failure to realize or acknowledge that as further evidence that you are not actually reading the posts you are responding to.

LMAO im also from upstate NY
"also"? Upstate NY and NYC are two different places. Don't pretend you know anything about the city from whatever little mid-city or town you may be from.

and if your going to claim that NYC isnt chockfilled with legions of rich husband pampered yentas then i dont know what to tell you other then ill be happy to provide you with the names of streets in Manhattan where you couldnt throw a dead cat without hitting 6 of them. NYC is the epicenter of the Yenta Hive.
Anti-semitic too. How charming.

Or theres another option, men can choose to instead do these extra things and get paid a little more for our troubles,
Why should women pay you for a service we neither need nor want and have to put up with your lousy attitude into the bargain? A worker who does nothing but bitch about their job is not worth keeping on the payroll. I say the job of Manly Hero should be permanently downsized, the "man tax" eliminated, women's pay rates brought up to the market value of their work, and we can use the money to pay professionals to provide what services we need -- without the whining.

and oddly enough even the women in the country for the most part seem content enough with the status quo.
Another unfounded assertion. Tell me, if the "man tax" of the male/female pay gap covers your manly heroism, how do you get paid for being a bullshit artist?

I'm curious to see if you feel that way. It is generally on men to get educated and and a good job to support families and like, defend the home and women live longer on top of it. Women(theoritically) don't have to pass school. They drop out and marry a rich guy or rent themselves out of 5,000 an hour. So it would seem there is more pressure on men to succeed. Is this true?

it could be. But keep in mind women have to give childbirth and they are the ones carrying a bunch of cells we call our future for nine months until the bunch of cells is ready to come out.

Or better yet, ask me. Have you ever had to study the face of every man arrested for child pornography or assault on a minor that you see on TV, in case he's the one who tried to kidnap and rape you? In case you have to go into court and see the one who wasn't as lucky as you? Have you ever had nightmares about what might have been? Felt guilty because you almost gave in and got into the car? Scared that he'd come after you? No? Lucky you.

Not trying to downplay that at all, that's certainly a terrible thing. But, as you said, it isn't beer and skittles for guys either.

According to traditional gender roles, it is the duty of the man to protect everyone he holds dear, and that expectation holds even when the situation is far out of the man's hands. If anything turns out less than satisfactory, there is blame shouldered on the man for not having done good enough for his gender role--perhaps not externally, but it's expected.

Also, IIRC men are less likely to report eating disorders than women. I imagine there's a connection between that and the apparent "un-manliness" of having one.

But yes, women do get screwed moreso than men. But men get fucked too.

I guarantee that having a kidney stone is worse than giving birth and it can happen much more often.

Never having experienced either, and being biologically unequipped to do the latter, I can still safely call bullshit.

I've heard its a comparable feeling to a good stiff backhand to the tit, with the pain spread from your thighs to just below your ribcage.

I've never been laid out because of a smack to the boob, though. I've even had some people do other more painful things to that area of the anatomy and it never really quite knocked the breath out of me as it has seemed to do to the poor guys I've witnessed get kicked in the bits.

It starts out painful. Then the sharp pain subsides after a few seconds, but is replaced by a dull ache that sort of echoes and lingers for a time depending on the force of the blow and the solidity of a hit.

Although from my own experience, if you're sufficiently pissed off at the person who crippled you, it's possible to use the adrenaline to push him into the wall quite forcefully first, before you eventually collapse.

Good question... is there a purpose to men? In general?

Yes. To be fucking awesome. Now make me a sammich!

ya but the same 3 hot guys get laid over and over -- even screwing the homely girls -- whereas the geeky guys never get laid no matter how much they beg.

or something.

Geeky guys do get laid, they just have to find geeky girls. redwulf is living proof of that.

Bah, most of the guys whining about not getting laid are the ones who don't even notice the chicks that want them, because they are so obsessed with getting the one that DOESN'T want them.

Trust me, I've looked. I've only just found one who's potentially interested in the past week, and I'm not holding my breath just yet.

Some of us just aren't any good with women in a romantic sense. I blame you women, you probably have my file in the Women's Network stamped with a big "Plantonic" sign on it, dont'cha?

Geeky guys do get laid, they just have to find geeky girls. redwulf is living proof of that.

Truth.


Trust me, if I can get laid by hot women, anyone, and I mean anyone can. Im such a dork it aint even funny.

Not trying to downplay that at all, that's certainly a terrible thing. But, as you said, it isn't beer and skittles for guys either.

According to traditional gender roles, it is the duty of the man to protect everyone he holds dear, and that expectation holds even when the situation is far out of the man's hands. If anything turns out less than satisfactory, there is blame shouldered on the man for not having done good enough for his gender role--perhaps not externally, but it's expected.

As someone much wiser than me said; "Patriarchy hurts men, but it oppresses women." And I'm not trying to start the Oppression Olympics here, just make a point.

Some of us just aren't any good with women in a romantic sense. I blame you women, you probably have my file in the Women's Network stamped with a big "Plantonic" sign on it, dont'cha?




What else did you think the girls in your peripheral vision are always snickering about?

I passed a whole lineup of Hello Kitty laptop accessories at Meijer a few weeks ago, and nearly hurled. They made a pink wireless mouse with rhinestones. Number one, gross. Number two, wouldn't the rhinestones irritate the fuck out of your palm?
An obviously superficial appeal.

Thanks. I still don't have the record for oddest way of hurting yourself, at least not in my family. My sister threw her back out throwing away a paper towel. She was out of work for almost a week.

I dunno, but I once really hurt my foot (a sprain? I don't really know) just by stepping down one step.

Geeky guys do get laid, they just have to find geeky girls. redwulf is living proof of that.

oh i know that, i was just joking over the silly assumption that men have a harder time getting sex than women. in the end pretty much anyone who wants a relationship gets a relationship. being smart enough to understand that geeky girls make great partners helps alot.

Geeky guys do get laid, they just have to find geeky girls. redwulf is living proof of that.

We don't need to find geeky girls. We just need to shut up about geeky stuff and be kind for once. I'm the geeky guy in my circle of friends which consists otherwise of a bunch of retards. i know how to avoid geeky stuff.

oh i know that, i was just joking over the silly assumption that men have a harder time getting sex than women. in the end pretty much anyone who wants a relationship gets a relationship. being smart enough to understand that geeky girls make great partners helps alot.

Um, yeah.


You can tell geeky girls anything you want, all your weird hobbies, inconsitancies, and such, and they will either think its cool, think its cute, or just not care.

That and theyre usually cute themselves.

We don't need to find geeky girls. We just need to shut up about geeky stuff and be kind for once. I'm the geeky guy in my circle of friends which consists otherwise of a bunch of retards. i know how to avoid geeky stuff.

But if you stopped talking about geeky things, you'd be denying your essential geekyness. That would be a lie, and basing relationships on lies is bad. redwulf and I met through the SCA, and you don't get much geekier than people dressing up in medieval clothes. And you can be both kind and geeky. They're not mutually exclusive. (tho you wouldn't know that, talking to some fanboys)

being smart enough to understand that geeky girls make great partners helps alot.

QFT.

There's a difference between appropriately geeky and no social skills. Like this guy in my French class. He mentions Internet memes in class, and it's like 'Wtf?' I understand most of these memes, but I don't go around saying them in front of random people who don't understand them. Around friends, yes.

There's a difference between appropriately geeky and no social skills. Like this guy in my French class. He mentions Internet memes in class, and it's like 'Wtf?' I understand most of these memes, but I don't go around saying them in front of random people who don't understand them. Around friends, yes.

Point. But that's where the whole compatibility thing comes into play. And maybe there's a woman out there who uses internet memes inappropriately, and they will be happy forever. Or maybe this guy needs to learn basic social skills. One or the other.

The OP asked if it's easier to be a woman. I refuted, giving reasons that it's more difficult to be a woman.



Well, gee, asking questions is supposed to be what this forum is about, isn't it? I was trying to demonstrate what it's like to be a survivor.



Yes. Yes, I do have anxiety. In fact, I have clinical anxiety, not all of it stemming from a near miss. But everyone who's survived this kind of assault has anxiety. Period.

Hey, I wasn't trying to attack you. I agree with you to an extent, but I just personally feel there's other things beside sexual assault/rape etc to bring into the conversation.

I personally do suffer from anxiety disorder and I've also personally been sexually assaulted, so I'm definitely not disagreeing with you.

Not so much. When they calculate life expectancy rates, a lot of factors are at play, such as alcahol abuse, smoking, drug abuse, risky behavior (guys, on average, score horribly here), STDs, and many, many more.

And since guys are more likely to engage in such acts, more of them die because of them, thus the lower average life expectancy rate. Genetics really has little to do with it... Though prostate and breast cancer aren't so hot.

Still, I'm pretty sure the fact that women on average live longer than men doesn't make women better off.

....

Sup?


;)

:p

Geeky guys do get laid, they just have to find geeky girls. redwulf is living proof of that.

Geeks are teh cuteness.

Still, I'm pretty sure the fact that women on average live longer than men doesn't make women better off.

I never assumed it did. :p

Point. But that's where the whole compatibility thing comes into play. And maybe there's a woman out there who uses internet memes inappropriately, and they will be happy forever. Or maybe this guy needs to learn basic social skills. One or the other.

Knowing him, I'd say basic social skills. He barely knows the difference between a compliment and an insult.

First, there's the bit about who get's to go through labour. And then all the unpleasantness that comes with it.
That doesn't apply to all women though, since if you don't want to reproduce you don't have to (and anyone saying you should does not speak for me) so I doubt that in itself means that women as a whole have it harder than men as a whole.

This is what we're taught, that women who want to have lives of their own are 'uppity' and if we point out the manifest sexism in... anything, really, we're being shrill, humorless feminists. If we assert ourselves, we're pushy... If we do anything besides conform to the man in charge stereotype, we're bad women, or not women, or lesbians, or, or, or...
Just who says that nowadays? I got the impression that saying anti-feminist things is associated with sexism... well, at least on this site...

BTW I saw a certain quote in another thread similar in style to yours...

If you work too hard ... there's never any time for her. If you don't work enough ... you're a good-for-nothing bum. If she has a boring repetitive job with low pay ... this is exploitation. If you have a boring repetitive job with low pay ... you should get off your lazy behind and find something better. If you get a promotion ahead of her ... that is favoritism. If she gets a job ahead of you ... its equal opportunity.

If you mention how nice she looks ... its sexual harassment. If you keep quiet ... its male indifference. If you cry ... you're a wimp. If you don't ... you're an insensitive bastard.

Since I'm a hardcore moderate I'm going to go with the cop-out answer of: Both genders come with their own set of problems, whether physical, or socially imposed. To say being a man or being a woman is harder or easier than the other is mere speculation. Especially considering that one factor which someone may feel is insurmountable may be simply a grain of sand in the shoe to another.
There we go, a nice moderate post. And yeah, to say that "women" have it easier than "men" (or vice versa) as a generalization is just too simplistic, especially since which aspects of sexism one minds the most varies from person to person even within genders.

Nevertheless I think women have it harder. Just think those that do have jobs and a family, are also expected to be full-time mothers and wives as well as employees
By whom?

I don't feel that much of this adds anything to the discussion. Men can be raped too. Men can be denied health care. Men can be treated like shit because they're drunks. Men can be assaulted for what they're wearing. Men can have eating disorders because of media expectation. Men can be denied promotions. Men can be single fathers. Men can be accused of sponging off the state.
*applauds*

Yeah, and I agree with (well, at least most of) the rest of that post too; pointing out examples of BS from both sides...

Ed Belfour is a pro athlete. Pretty much, if you're famous, you're going to get laid. Especially if you rake in the big bucks. If you're a musician, you can get laid easier at the lower pay-grades. And the second guy was in The Pogues. Come on. What it really boils down to is, if you're famous or raking in the big bucks, you'll get laid easier (either gender). If you're a musician, you'll probably have an easier time getting laid, too (but it all depends on your genre and instrument).

Yeah, but I figure at some point you forget the fact that "he's a musician/pro athlete/famous for being famous/etc." and just realize he's just darn ugly. I brought up Shane MacGowan in particular because I took part in a discussion on the MuchMusic forums (not sure if you know them- I left just around the time I started NS, actually) about the ugliest singers and MacGowan easily took the case (even over Lemmy Kilmeister, believe it or not). Besides, you have to admit- that picture I provided *is* ugly.

(band's not that bad though, for what that's worth)

Im not sure what part of the US

I live in Canada, so unless it's become the 51st state I don't live in the U.S. at all.

im pretty sure husbands in America are STILL the sex that checks out the noise downstairs in the middle of the night. Im certain thats still pretty mainstream. Im also certian that in most disaster situations its men that for better or for worse take control of the situation. Im not being sexist nor am i trying to disabuse anyones notions of what fair is or isnt, im just reporting on what are still facts. That men get paid slightly more for taking on these roles is really no suprise.

They're conventions, not "the mainstream". I dare you to a self-respecting woman that believes everything you just said.

You have to compare the difficulty of a single male finding sex, with the difficulty of a single woman finding sex.

This is no greater- I won't repeat the proportions argument Neo Art provided but I will ask you this- do you want to have sex with every woman? I suspect the answer is "no" (it is for me, anyway), meaning there are probably plenty of women who also get rejected (just as much as men). You seem to be confusing the "women of your desire" (none of which you've been able to seduce) with "all women" because if the inverse was true there wouldn't be a woman having difficulties finding a guy to sleep with and that's just not true.

I can prove it every time I go out.

To be blunt, the problem therefore is you. It's not the women.

Well damn me, how are you gonna get a man, with no car....

Got one sitting at home on the sofa...

Well yes. Although I will admit that women are probably smarter than men most technological advance came from men. You see men are inherently lazy and only do things for rewards (kind of like dogs). So men decided to discover things like fire and shelter to impress women. Although women could have made the discoveries themselves they simply did not have the motivation to do so. and this pattern still exist today.

This is also what creates the lust for power. Powerful men get women. Take women out of the equation and men would become a species that did nothing but the bare minimal to survive.

So as you can see men are important.

(satire)

It must be that kind of thinking that made my BF wash a bunch of plastic bags in the washing machine the other day. He had spilled motor oil on them, and didn't want to throw them out as he didn't want to buy new ones. So to save money, he packed them in the washing machine at 95 degrees...

And was completely baffled that I didn't think that this was the smartest thing he'd done all year.

*applauds*

Yeah, and I agree with (well, at least most of) the rest of that post too; pointing out examples of BS from both sides...

I think you're taking my response out of context.

I am in no way saying they're BS examples.

I just want to get this in: Women keep aiming for equality with men, and keep claiming that they're just as tough as men, yet we still teach our kids not to hit girls. Why? If girls are just as tough as men, and want equality, we should treat them equally to men.

In the western world, you'll often find that both parents work for a living. And girls are more likely to get an education than guys, because guys keep aiming for a sports career. I personally think that intelligence is more important than physical prowess, which is why I'm a geek.:D

What are you, like 13?

We should teach our kids not to hit ANYONE.

Girls and boys both do sports. I've been an athlete. About 8% of my grade during highschool (an all girls school) were very serious about sport (state/national/international-level competitions, sport scholarships, intensive training), and most of them will probably have careers in sport. One girl is going to the upcoming Olympics.

Intelligence is important, but being physically healthy is important too.

To be blunt, the problem therefore is you. It's not the women.

Exactly.

This argument by proportions is a bit crappy, really. If we do make the assumption that women have an easier time finding sex than men, this does not mean that every woman is fucking a different a man, it just means that more women fuck fewer men still leaving a disproportionate number of men un-laid. In fact, it doesn't seem too far-fetched from a really quick and dirty google search: '"We don't say men and women always opt for short-term strategies," Schmitt says. "What we are talking about is that when they go for infidelity or promiscuity, men focus on large numbers and women focus on quality."' -- http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/promiscuity-differs-by-gender

Anyway, I'm not really sure how it really does break down and I'd not be surprised either way but the "case closed" attitude some of you seem to be taking is, at best, undeserved.

Good question... is there a purpose to men? In general?
Very good question! Hehe! My answer is it depends what kind of man you got......hehe!;)

We're good at that tire changing thing, ohh ohh and parking!:D
Well some of you are anyway......lol!:D

Well, now, think about it... you can't really get a vibrator to mow the lawn, can you? ;)
Getting some blokes to do it takes so much time that a vibrator might've done it by the time they start! lol! Hehehehe I lurve being sexist sometimes!

oh come on, its funny.
Yup I'm having fun here! hehehe!:D:D

It must be that kind of thinking that made my BF wash a bunch of plastic bags in the washing machine the other day. He had spilled motor oil on them, and didn't want to throw them out as he didn't want to buy new ones. So to save money, he packed them in the washing machine at 95 degrees...

And was completely baffled that I didn't think that this was the smartest thing he'd done all year.
HAHAHAHA! Excellent! Almost shot coffee out my nose. :D

This is why women love to live around men... for the laughs. :D:D:D

Yeah, but I figure at some point you forget the fact that "he's a musician/pro athlete/famous for being famous/etc." and just realize he's just darn ugly. I brought up Shane MacGowan in particular because I took part in a discussion on the MuchMusic forums (not sure if you know them- I left just around the time I started NS, actually) about the ugliest singers and MacGowan easily took the case (even over Lemmy Kilmeister, believe it or not). Besides, you have to admit- that picture I provided *is* ugly.

(band's not that bad though, for what that's worth)


thats just a case of "fuck fame" where a woman has sex with a man so she can say she had sex with a famous man. sometimes they are living in the delusion that if they can just get the famous man to fuck them he will fall in love with them and they will get a free trip to famoustown.

You have to compare the difficulty of a single male finding sex, with the difficulty of a single woman finding sex. The one is the not the same as the other. For a woman it's a lot easier, so much so that generally the problem is one of eliminating unneeded or unwanted offers.

Translation: You have a hard time finding sex partners. Your problems are not shared by every single male around.

I mean, I could use myself to state that men are incompetent in crises, paranoid to the point of delusion, incapable of normal social interaction, and lack physical strength or stamina; thus whenever anyone attempts to argue that men are stronger than women, I could make the argument that men are not stronger than women at all because I can barely lift 15 kilograms! And that would be valid by your reasoning?

You have to compare the difficulty of a single male finding sex, with the difficulty of a single woman finding sex. The one is the not the same as the other. For a woman it's a lot easier, so much so that generally the problem is one of eliminating unneeded or unwanted offers.

You're circumscribing it to just one issue.

Holy shit, poll's even right now...

I say men. Women have periods, more time worrying about appearance, pregnancy, childbirth, discrimination, etc.

Holy shit, poll's even right now...

I say men. Women have periods, more time worrying about appearance, pregnancy, childbirth, discrimination, etc.

Amen, brother... or sister... depending on your sex.:p

Funniest thread I've seen in a while. Thanks for the laughs, everybody. :D

To be blunt, the problem therefore is you. It's not the women.

Exactly.

Neither of you have any idea what I was talking about.

I can prove it by going out... and pointing out shit.

Opening eyes. Observing. Keeping note of certain things. They are behavioral trends and totally irrespective of me or my personal involvements. Women have an easier time getting laid than men do.

Why is this fucking rocket science to you people?

As far as I know, women getting kicked in the genitals hurts a lot less than it does for us...so that evens out the whole "period" thing. :D

actually, it hurts nearly as much for women, if you do it properly ;p thank you sensei


furthermore, I would like to say right now that I HATE the 'absolute' law that 'it is not ok for a guy to hit a female'. It seems to be the one moral value that chav-dom has. Now obviously, women in general are weaker than men in general. I am not a violent person anyway, and only use physical violence if the other person has or i'm sure is going to (exceptions- if they're treating my friends or loved ones badly or being racist or otherwise discriminatory, or if i see bullying... basically i'm more tolerant of harms done to myself, than to others)- However- If a female was hitting me I would have no moral qualms about hitting her back. Ofc if she was too weak to do any damage I'm not going to knock her out. But that is far from always the case.
Yet if you hit a women you become hated by all of society, far as I can see.
may I point out that if the man/woman are in a relationship together, then it is completely differant- and is NOT ok for either of them to use violence- as they can just leave the situation that drove them to it, instead.


just some points of interest.

furthermore, I would like to say right now that I HATE the 'absolute' law that 'it is not ok for a guy to hit a female'. It seems to be the one moral value that chav-dom has. Now obviously, women in general are weaker than men in general. I am not a violent person anyway, and only use physical violence if the other person has or i'm sure is going to (exceptions- if they're treating my friends or loved ones badly or being racist or otherwise discriminatory, or if i see bullying... basically i'm more tolerant of harms done to myself, than to others)- However- If a female was hitting me I would have no moral qualms about hitting her back. Ofc if she was too weak to do any damage I'm not going to knock her out. But that is far from always the case.
Yet if you hit a women you become hated by all of society, far as I can see.
may I point out that if the man/woman are in a relationship together, then it is completely differant- and is NOT ok for either of them to use violence- as they can just leave the situation that drove them to it, instead.


just some points of interest.

This is really a generational thing, in my experience. Most everyone my age (college age) I talk to has no moral qualms about hitting a woman versus hitting a man; all else being equal, they're on equal moral footing. However, while I intellectually agree with this, I just have very strong emotional reaction to hitting women. I really can't bring myself to it, even if a woman deserves it; like I said, this is a purely irrational, emotional reaction rather than an intellectual one and, should I have children, I'm damned well going to teach them to slap the shit back out of anyone that hits them, man or woman.

I think you're taking my response out of context.
Nah, I was just only quoting my favourite part. Probably should've quoted the whole thing and bolded my favourite part but what's done is done.

I am in no way saying they're BS examples.
That's not what I meant, I was talking about how in the post I was referring to you pointed out the BS in certain things said by people on each side, that was a compliment.

However, my apologies if I gave the wrong impression...

Neither of you have any idea what I was talking about.

I can prove it by going out... and pointing out shit.

Opening eyes. Observing. Keeping note of certain things. They are behavioral trends and totally irrespective of me or my personal involvements. Women have an easier time getting laid than men do.

Why is this fucking rocket science to you people?

You're just pissed because you can't get laid. ;)

Look, if you're going out and just trying to get a fuck for a night, it's probably not going to be a particularly succesful venture. Clubs and bars aren't the only place women go, and when women are clubbing they're not always necessarily interested in having sex either. I get hit on all the time when I go clubbing, turn people down, and then get told by guy friends "oh it's so hard for me to get laid!" They (not you, because I don't know you) don't realise that the whole proccess requires a little more than buying a drink and grinding? [/rant]

Nah, I was just only quoting my favourite part. Probably should've quoted the whole thing and bolded my favourite part but what's done is done.


That's not what I meant, I was talking about how in the post I was referring to you pointed out the BS in certain things said by people on each side, that was a compliment.

However, my apologies if I gave the wrong impression...

Teh interwebz can be confuzzling. :p

Teh interwebz can be confuzzling. :p

It's the estrogen in this thread. It's causing everything to be confused and make less sense.

I mean, I could use myself to state that men are incompetent in crises, paranoid to the point of delusion, incapable of normal social interaction, and lack physical strength or stamina; thus whenever anyone attempts to argue that men are stronger than women, I could make the argument that men are not stronger than women at all because I can barely lift 15 kilograms! And that would be valid by your reasoning?

Haha, I can lift like 50kg or something. :p

It's the estrogen in this thread. It's causing everything to be confused and make less sense.

That's funny because men and women both have oestrogen. *points out obvious*

That's funny because men and women both have oestrogen. *points out obvious*

Which means there is a lot of estrogen in the thread. Which means everything is confusing and makes less sense.

That's funny because men and women both have oestrogen. *points out obvious*

Women have more.

Assertion or generalization derived from obviously flawed retelling of anecdote.

Generic newbish statement displaying a complete lack of understanding of proper debate techniques, replete with misspellings and logical fallacies.

Smiley that no self-respecting NS poster would ever employ, except ironically.

Assertion or generalization derived from obviously flawed retelling of anecdote.

Generic newbish statement displaying a complete lack of understanding of proper debate techniques, replete with misspellings and logical fallacies.

Smiley that no self-respecting NS poster would ever employ, except ironically.

I disagree!

furthermore, I would like to say right now that I HATE the 'absolute' law that 'it is not ok for a guy to hit a female'. It seems to be the one moral value that chav-dom has.
According to James Thurber:
[The split infinitive] is a piece with the sentimental and outworn notion that it is always wrong to strike a lady. Everyone will recall at least one woman of his acquaintance whom, at one time, or another, he has had to punch or slap. I have in mind a charming lady who is overcome by the unaccountable desire, at formal dinners with red and white wines, to climb up on the table and lie down. Her dinner companions used at first to pinch her, under cover of the conversation, but she pinched right back or, what is even less defensible, tickled. They finally learned that they could make her hold her seat only by fetching her a smart downward blow on the head. She would then sit quietly through the rest of the dinner, smiling dreamily and nodding at people, and looking altogether charming.

I disagree!

Comparison of you and/or your relatives to various kinds of animals and waste products!

Comparison of you and/or your relatives to various kinds of animals and waste products!

My mother is a saint! How dare you!

My mother is a saint! How dare you!

Well, I'm a former US Marine who inherited a billion dollars and is now a hot underwear model who's interested in guys/girls just like you. So therefore, I win the argument automatically. Also, Godwin's Law.



I start to get the feeling that I've been doing this for way too long.

Well, I'm a former US Marine who inherited a billion dollars and is now a hot underwear model who's interested in guys/girls just like you. So therefore, I win the argument automatically. Also, Godwin's Law.



I start to get the feeling that I've been doing this for way too long.

Dammit, I wanted to call Godwin's law! Hitler!

Oh yeah! Well I look like this! (http://www.myzine.com/upload/6390/hotgirlinshower97930543.jpg)

I win!

Oh yeah! Well I look like this! (http://www.myzine.com/upload/6390/hotgirlinshower97930543.jpg)
I win!

Pics or it didn't happen.

I'm curious to see if you feel that way. It is generally on men to get educated and and a good job to support families and like, defend the home and women live longer on top of it. Women(theoritically) don't have to pass school. They drop out and marry a rich guy or rent themselves out of 5,000 an hour. So it would seem there is more pressure on men to succeed. Is this true?

I suppose in that particular case, men have it worse, but it doesn't take into account a bunch of other things. Sure men are perceived to be the breadwinners, but women are responsible for the future of humanity, and face constant pressure to maintain their household and support their husbands. So I think both men and women face relatively equal pressures to conform to society's gender norms.

This argument by proportions is a bit crappy, really. If we do make the assumption that women have an easier time finding sex than men, this does not mean that every woman is fucking a different a man, it just means that more women fuck fewer men still leaving a disproportionate number of men un-laid. In fact, it doesn't seem too far-fetched from a really quick and dirty google search: '"We don't say men and women always opt for short-term strategies," Schmitt says. "What we are talking about is that when they go for infidelity or promiscuity, men focus on large numbers and women focus on quality."' -- http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/promiscuity-differs-by-gender

That article states simply that men are more inclined to have more sexual partners than women. It does not say that "men are more likely to have orgies" or something along those lines- seems to me (from reading the article) like most sexual encounters involve just two people so it would then follow that if a woman is getting laid then so too is a man. Whether or not the man is sleeping with a woman he actually likes is a different matter- the article states men have lower standards than women, although I don't particularly buy it- I doubt there's a disproportionate amount of "good looking men" compared to "good looking women" (especially because standards are different for each person), so if an ugly woman is having sex then, most likely, she's doing it with a comparitively ugly man.

In any case, the conclusion is still the same- if you're not getting the woman you want, there's something wrong with *you*. Either your approach is off, your social skills not working or you're targetting women you have no chance of a connection with. Turning this into some idea that there's "a conspiracy among women to withhold sex from men" is completely missing the point.

Neither of you have any idea what I was talking about.

I can prove it by going out... and pointing out shit.

Opening eyes. Observing. Keeping note of certain things. They are behavioral trends and totally irrespective of me or my personal involvements. Women have an easier time getting laid than men do.

Why is this fucking rocket science to you people?

I do. I'm a guy. I probably get sex the same amount of times that you do, and one day I thought the same very things you do. Then I did some reading (http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts956550.aspx), realized I did a lot of those things and figured the real problem was myself. I admit, I'm still shy and get too nervous at inopportunte times because I'm worried about saying "the wrong thing" and still have quite a bit of work to do, but I'm not about to blame some kind of "evil women conspiracy that MUST make sure I don't get sex".

You're just pissed because you can't get laid. ;)

Look, if you're going out and just trying to get a fuck for a night, it's probably not going to be a particularly succesful venture. Clubs and bars aren't the only place women go, and when women are clubbing they're not always necessarily interested in having sex either. I get hit on all the time when I go clubbing, turn people down, and then get told by guy friends "oh it's so hard for me to get laid!" They (not you, because I don't know you) don't realise that the whole proccess requires a little more than buying a drink and grinding? [/rant]

Maybe he's also going to the wrong clubs. I used to go to the "conventional ones" (you know, the ones with the dress codes and cost a fortune just to get in- or even have a beer), then I started going to the "alternative" ones (one's an indie/retro laid-back college pub and the other is a gothic club) and I have a much higher success rate. No sex yet but some close calls (and a few more friends :)).

Maybe he's also going to the wrong clubs. I used to go to the "conventional ones" (you know, the ones with the dress codes and cost a fortune just to get in- or even have a beer), then I started going to the "alternative" ones (one's an indie/retro laid-back college pub and the other is a gothic club) and I have a much higher success rate. No sex yet but some close calls (and a few more friends :)).

are you looking for a quick hookup?

(no im not offering)

You're just pissed because you can't get laid. ;)

No, that's not it. Enough ad hominems already.

Look, if you're going out and just trying to get a fuck for a night, it's probably not going to be a particularly succesful venture.

...unless you happen to be an average female. Your odds of success will be markedly higher than the average male.

Clubs and bars aren't the only place women go, and when women are clubbing they're not always necessarily interested in having sex either. I get hit on all the time when I go clubbing, turn people down, and then get told by guy friends "oh it's so hard for me to get laid!" They (not you, because I don't know you) don't realise that the whole proccess requires a little more than buying a drink and grinding? [/rant]

Well, they're idiots. I'm well aware of the process, that's not my argument.

I do. I'm a guy. I probably get sex the same amount of times that you do, and one day I thought the same very things you do. Then I did some reading, realized I did a lot of those things and figured the real problem was myself. I admit, I'm still shy and get too nervous at inopportunte times because I'm worried about saying "the wrong thing" and still have quite a bit of work to do, but I'm not about to blame some kind of "evil women conspiracy that MUST make sure I don't get sex".

I'm not talking about an 'evil women conspiracy,' it's simple observation. Women, most women I know anyway, generally have to fight off the offerers, and have to always worry if their male friends are going to make an offer themselves at some point. Men, most men I know anyway, don't. Even the best rarely have to fight them off like even the most average woman does. This is because men will generally pursue anything that has a hole, which is also why a woman will generally have no problem finding offers.

I never said they'd be good offers, but then this whole discussion is just about getting laid. And there's a demand disparity, such that female hookers will always find a market and male hookers have to go into specialty or gay market.

And I'm not blaming anyone for "I don't get sex." See, both of your arguments are routed in ad hominem here, whereas mine is solid economics and biology. :p

Pics or it didn't happen.

Buh...Whu...gah..meh...

I...I posted a pic...

No, that's not it. Enough ad hominems already.



...unless you happen to be an average female. Your odds of success will be markedly higher than the average male.



Well, they're idiots. I'm well aware of the process, that's not my argument.



I'm not talking about an 'evil women conspiracy,' it's simple observation. Women, most women I know anyway, generally have to fight off the offerers, and have to always worry if their male friends are going to make an offer themselves at some point. Men, most men I know anyway, don't. Even the best rarely have to fight them off like even the most average woman does. This is because men will generally pursue anything that has a hole, which is also why a woman will generally have no problem finding offers.

I never said they'd be good offers, but then this whole discussion is just about getting laid. And there's a demand disparity, such that female hookers will always find a market and male hookers have to go into specialty or gay market.

And I'm not blaming anyone for "I don't get sex." See, both of your arguments are routed in ad hominem here, whereas mine is solid economics and biology. :p

ok since no one is telling you the truth, i will

for women its not a matter of having a man stick his penis in you and you had a good time. when she is looking for quick sex (which women tend to do from time to time) she has to look for a man who knows what he is doing so that she will actually enjoy it. maybe she could have some disgusting man be willing to stick his penis in her until HE comes but she will not come herself.

in short, a man might have a harder time getting sex but a woman has a much harder time getting GOOD sex. and if the sex isnt good, its just not worth having.

ok since no one is telling you the truth, i will

for women its not a matter of having a man stick his penis in you and you had a good time. when she is looking for quick sex (which women tend to do from time to time) she has to look for a man who knows what he is doing so that she will actually enjoy it. maybe she could have some disgusting man be willing to stick his penis in her until HE comes but she will not come herself.

in short, a man might have a harder time getting sex but a woman has a much harder time getting GOOD sex. and if the sex isnt good, its just not worth having.

You think finding a girl who knows how to give a good hand job is easy?

You think finding a girl who knows how to give a good hand job is easy?

lol

ive never thought about that, men DO have it hader.

lol

ive never thought about that, men DO have it hader.

Finding a girl willing to give head is even harder.

And that's after you find a girl who's willing to put out at all.

And then there's those girls who think it's sexy to use their teeth...

Finding a girl willing to give head is even harder.

And that's after you find a girl who's willing to put out at all.

And then there's those girls who think it's sexy to use their teeth...

please stop rhyno, now youre making me cry!

are you looking for a quick hookup?

I wouldn't say I've wired myself that way...I suppose I'm in more of a "relationship" mode, because I don't think I just want a "one-night-stand"...I at least want to make a friend as well. However, I have always thought a quick hookup would be nice...

(no im not offering)

You were getting my hopes up. :p

...unless you happen to be an average female. Your odds of success will be markedly higher than the average male.

...

I'm not talking about an 'evil women conspiracy,' it's simple observation. Women, most women I know anyway, generally have to fight off the offerers, and have to always worry if their male friends are going to make an offer themselves at some point. Men, most men I know anyway, don't. Even the best rarely have to fight them off like even the most average woman does. This is because men will generally pursue anything that has a hole, which is also why a woman will generally have no problem finding offers.

I never said they'd be good offers, but then this whole discussion is just about getting laid. And there's a demand disparity, such that female hookers will always find a market and male hookers have to go into specialty or gay market.

And I'm not blaming anyone for "I don't get sex." See, both of your arguments are routed in ad hominem here, whereas mine is solid economics and biology. :p

It's not "ad hominems"- that's what it boils down to. I'm fully aware that guys do more of the approaching than girls do (and I think girls ought to approach more) but that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is the guys that *are* getting sex are getting it because they managed to approach the girls the right way- therefore, if you're not getting any, you're doing it to yourself.

please stop rhyno, now youre making me cry!

Girls with braces, girls with a nasty cootch, girls that want to tie you down naked and tickle you until you cry...

And then there's afterwards. Girls are frigging psychotic sometimes, and in my experience, more often than guys. Guys get all depressed and suicidal. Girls go fucking nuts:

No-contact order, that's all I'm gonna say about that. I don't even want to talk to her, dammit.

And I'm not blaming anyone for "I don't get sex." See, both of your arguments are routed in ad hominem here, whereas mine is solid economics and biology. :p

Source?

It's not "ad hominems"

Yes, it is. You are saying my argument is wrong because I can't get laid, or because I have personal problems, or whatever.

That's a logical fallacy, and insulting to boot. Especially your whole false comradery with you acting like you and I have some deeply meaningful weaknesses in common or something. We don't.

- that's what it boils down to. I'm fully aware that guys do more of the approaching than girls do (and I think girls ought to approach more) but that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is the guys that *are* getting sex are getting it because they managed to approach the girls the right way

The very fact that you allude to a "right way" for men to get sex - as opposed to the implication that women don't need to a "way" to get sex - is essentially conceding the point. You seem to acknowledge that women do indeed have an easier time finding sex, in general, than men.

- therefore, if you're not getting any, you're doing it to yourself.

That's a ridiculous conclusion. You might as well say this:

"The fact of the matter is that people who ARE millionaires are that way because they managed to approach finances the right way - therefore, if you're not a millionaire, you did it to yourself."

But it doesn't matter, since my point has already been made and yours doesn't contradict it.

Source?

You need a source for the concept of supply and demand?

Women have more.

No shit!

You need a source for the concept of supply and demand?

Try spelling it out.

That might possibly, maybe, get through.

No shit!

Dig deeper?

Girls with braces, girls with a nasty cootch, girls that want to tie you down naked and tickle you until you cry...

And then there's afterwards. Girls are frigging psychotic sometimes, and in my experience, more often than guys. Guys get all depressed and suicidal. Girls go fucking nuts:

No-contact order, that's all I'm gonna say about that. I don't even want to talk to her, dammit.

*wipes tears off keyboard*

its the only thing that keeps me from going gay myself, rhyno

*wipes tears off keyboard*

its the only thing that keeps me from going gay myself, rhyno

Did you know that being blue-balled actually causes physical pain?

Did you know that being blue-balled actually causes physical pain?

so ive been told.

i always thought that thats why god invented masturbation

Did you know that being blue-balled actually causes physical pain?

It feels rather similar to being kicked in the balls. That nauseating, aching, please-god-just-kill me sensation.

It feels rather similar to being kicked in the balls. That nauseating, aching, please-god-just-kill me sensation.

Almost makes me glad I'm female... Well, except for a few days out of the month, I'm usually glad I'm female. But that sounds... unpleasant. But easily cured.

It feels rather similar to being kicked in the balls. That nauseating, aching, please-god-just-kill me sensation.

What he said.

so ive been told.

i always thought that thats why god invented masturbation

See, by the time a guy actually gets the chance (IE: "I know I just made out with you for two hours and rubbed against your crotch the entire time, but I'm just not in the mood for no particular reason," drive home, find some porn, get yourself back in the mood...) it's already too late and you've already been "kicked in the balls".

Oh, while we're talking about being kicked in the balls:
You think having a period is bad? Being kicked in the balls is comparable to having your entire week of period concentrated into several minutes, and giving complete control over when it happens to everyone everywhere.

Almost makes me glad I'm female... Well, except for a few days out of the month, I'm usually glad I'm female. But that sounds... unpleasant. But easily cured.

Well yeah, you pick up the box cutters and.....


wait a minute, that wasn't what you meant, was it?

What he said.



See, by the time a guy actually gets the chance (IE: "I know I just made out with you for two hours and rubbed against your crotch the entire time, but I'm just not in the mood for no particular reason," drive home, find some porn, get yourself back in the mood...) it's already too late and you've already been "kicked in the balls".

Oh, while we're talking about being kicked in the balls:
You think having a period is bad? Being kicked in the balls is comparable to having your entire week of period concentrated into several minutes, and giving complete control over when it happens to everyone everywhere.

yes but you can avoid being kicked in the balls. if youre careful you can go years without being kicked in the balls.

its not all that wonderful to go through the entire sex act with a man who manages to get himself off but leave you unsatisfied. all the mess with none of the fun.

Oh, while we're talking about being kicked in the balls:
You think having a period is bad? Being kicked in the balls is comparable to having your entire week of period concentrated into several minutes, and giving complete control over when it happens to everyone everywhere.

Three or four days of cramps so bad I usually have to take an opiate to be anything close to functional. Sometimes accompanied by 'gastrointestinal discomfort'. It has a name, but I can never remember. My body produces too many prostglandins, which leak out of the uterus and into surrounding tissue, causing the above complaints. Anaprox, with vicodin or sometimes darvicet, work wonders.

Almost makes me glad I'm female...

Almost? Why wouldn't you be glad you're a female?

Well, except for a few days out of the month, I'm usually glad I'm female. But that sounds... unpleasant. But easily cured.

No, it isn't easily cured! By the time you get it - and I've only experienced it twice - it's there to stay. Mere orgasm won't help things, you just have to roll with it. Cry a lot.

its not all that wonderful to go through the entire sex act with a man who manages to get himself off but leave you unsatisfied. all the mess with none of the fun.

My sympathies. How bloody rude. Did he at least off some form of attention, to ensure you had as much fun as he did?

No, it isn't easily cured! By the time you get it - and I've only experienced it twice - it's there to stay. Mere orgasm won't help things, you just have to roll with it. Cry a lot.

Wow. I was under the impression the relieving the pressure on the seminal vesicles would solve the problem. That kinda sucks.

My sympathies. How bloody rude. Did he at least off some form of attention, to ensure you had as much fun as he did?

long time ago.

it was more inept than inattentive.

long time ago.

it was more inept than inattentive.

Still it's always good manners to make sure your partner is at least as happy with the outcome as you were, yes?

Almost? Why wouldn't you be glad you're a female?

Most of the time I'm quite happy being female (redwulf is also happy that I'm female). The Cramps of DOOM!!1! can be tough to deal with, along with the attitude I get from some guys, particularly in the auto service or computer industries, who give me this 'what do you know, you're a girl' attitude. Annoys the fuck out of me, because when they're doing this, I'm talking about something I know about.

Still it's always good manners to make sure your partner is at least as happy with the outcome as you were, yes?

Maybe said partner just isn't very good at it. I've never done it before, but I imagine it could be kinda tricky.

I call shenanigans. Srsly, you need to do some research before you spout off. Talk to a rape victim. Or a woman denied basic health care or prescriptions. Or maybe a woman who's been treated like community property because she drank too much. Or maybe one who was blamed after being assaulted because she went out late at night or wore a short skirt. How about a woman who's had an eating disorder all her life because the role models for girls are unrealistically thin? One who's worked her ass off for a company but was passed over for a promotion? A single mom who can't support her family without help, who's accused of sponging off the state and being lazy? Or the mother who is treated like shit and accused of endangering her child because she puts the kid in daycare so she can put food on the table?

Admittedly, being a man isn't always beer and skittles, but give me a fucking break!

lol, What i find funny is yet again another women who thinks they are the only ones who get raped. I admit more women do but atleast the police take it seriously...guess WHAT if a man gets drugged and raped they laugh him outta the station.

I dont think single mums are lazy at all and who the hell treats a women like crap if she is working hard and puts her kids in daycare? Because I have never heard about that.

Your comment about anorexia is pathetic, Girls choose not to eat it is not like adverts put a gun to your head and tell you about getting fat. Sure they are pushed into it, but in the end it's like suicide it is your choice to go ahead with it in the end.

So this arguement about who has it harder is bull, we both have our problems and people who say any different are blind to tha facts.

I'm curious to see if you feel that way. It is generally on men to get educated and and a good job to support families and like, defend the home and women live longer on top of it. Women(theoritically) don't have to pass school. They drop out and marry a rich guy or rent themselves out of 5,000 an hour. So it would seem there is more pressure on men to succeed. Is this true?

...where in the world do you live that women get rented out for $5k/hour?

I'm going to come back when I'm not as under the influence and see if this question makes sense then. Cause right now, I can't see a single way women have it easier.

I call shenanigans. Srsly, you need to do some research before you spout off. Talk to a rape victim. Or a woman denied basic health care or prescriptions. Or maybe a woman who's been treated like community property because she drank too much. Or maybe one who was blamed after being assaulted because she went out late at night or wore a short skirt. How about a woman who's had an eating disorder all her life because the role models for girls are unrealistically thin? One who's worked her ass off for a company but was passed over for a promotion? A single mom who can't support her family without help, who's accused of sponging off the state and being lazy? Or the mother who is treated like shit and accused of endangering her child because she puts the kid in daycare so she can put food on the table?

Admittedly, being a man isn't always beer and skittles, but give me a fucking break!

Dunno if anyone watched the thing on health and poverty in america, but one of the people they interviewed who lived below the poverty line brought up an excellent point about welfare---if you're a single mother on welfare who finds a job to try and support her kids, you lose all your government assisstance, health care and daycare for your children, so you can't even get to your job. Welfare itself makes it nearly impossible to leave.

Yes, it is. You are saying my argument is wrong because I can't get laid, or because I have personal problems, or whatever.

That's a logical fallacy, and insulting to boot. Especially your whole false comradery with you acting like you and I have some deeply meaningful weaknesses in common or something. We don't.

Well, all right, I admit I made a mistake in assuming you're having problems finding sex even though you've never actually said that. I apologize.

Still, the bulk of my points still apply even if they don't actually apply to you. When a man is having problems finding sex, the reason is not the woman it's the man. The man passing the blame for his problems on some wild misconception is one that isn't facing his own problems and what he can do to solve them- solutions which are much easier for him to reach than he realizes.

The very fact that you allude to a "right way" for men to get sex - as opposed to the implication that women don't need to a "way" to get sex - is essentially conceding the point. You seem to acknowledge that women do indeed have an easier time finding sex, in general, than men.

Which is not what I said. I didn't say "there is no 'way' for a woman to have sex", I said "if you see men approaching women and some get sex and others don't, those that didn't get sex did something wrong in their pursuit". You can't tell me every guy that approaches a girl does so without making any "mistakes".

You're also assuming that *every* girl gets approached, or that there aren't men who don't get approached themselves. I've seen plenty of girls that no guy approaches (or would ever dare approaching), and I've seen a lot of guys who get approached by girls (it's happened to me on on quite a few occasions, and not every time it's because I was dealing with a saleswoman). Plus, the amount of guys who actually do the approaching is significantly less than the amount of girls who do the approaching- just how not every girl approaches, not every guy does the same thing. This is because things like outgoingness and shyness are personality traits and no gender has a monopoly on these traits; and in all walks of life my experiences have shown me that the proportion of outgoing/shy types is the same in both genders.

Now, you'll probably tell me that the club is different and it is, but not for the reasons you think it is. At a club, there's two kinds of women who go to it- the women who just want to "go out, hang out and unwind by dancing" and the women who are actually there to meet guys. There's really only one kind of guy that goes to a club- the one who's there to meet women (those that aren't at the club to meet women are most likely already there with one- when's the last time you met a guy who goes to the club to unwind?). Small wonder the chances of success for men at a club aren't that great- all the men are dealing with only half of the women (if that). This isn't to say there aren't men who *don't* like "going out and unwinding"- they just don't tend to do it at clubs, probably because there's a social stigma against guys and dancing and because most bars cater to guys anyway (since they usually broadcast sports). Clubs also tend to carry the stigma of the "meat market" as well, so women tend to be a bit more guarded there as a result. The problem, to me, is that most guys who are "after sex" (I put that in quotation marks to differentiate those who "chase" as opposed to the guys who truly know what they're doing) are searching for it in the wrong areas, which is the main reason why they're failing. If they went to different venues- places like concerts, pubs, social clubs, "alternative clubs" or some other kind of "organized event" that isn't a conventional nightclub, they'd have a lot more success meeting women, because the women aren't as guarded there (since the "meat market stigma" doesn't apply) and because the men might actually be pursuing something they're interested in (thus establishing a connection with the women they meet; or, at the very least, providing entertainment if the women thing didn't work out that day) Again, it comes back to the man having the problem, not the woman.

That's a ridiculous conclusion. You might as well say this:

"The fact of the matter is that people who ARE millionaires are that way because they managed to approach finances the right way - therefore, if you're not a millionaire, you did it to yourself."

You know what, I *would* say that. Why? Those who are wealthy (as opposed to "just being rich") did so because they knew what they were doing with money. Same thing with the men who succeed at getting sex- they know what they're doing with women. Yeah, some people can "stumble" upon wealth and become rich, but then again, some men also "stumble" upon sex and get laid that night- it works both ways.

I'm not talking about an 'evil women conspiracy,' it's simple observation. Women, most women I know anyway, generally have to fight off the offerers, and have to always worry if their male friends are going to make an offer themselves at some point. Men, most men I know anyway, don't. Even the best rarely have to fight them off like even the most average woman does. This is because men will generally pursue anything that has a hole, which is also why a woman will generally have no problem finding offers.

I never said they'd be good offers, but then this whole discussion is just about getting laid. And there's a demand disparity, such that female hookers will always find a market and male hookers have to go into specialty or gay market.

The problem is that you are thinking of sex from only one perspective.

See, when a (hetero) guy is trying to "get laid," he is working with the standard definition of "laid" that is used in our culture, to whit: the insertion of a penis into a vagina until the penis achieves orgasm.

Until HE has an orgasm.

For a (hetero) man, trying to "get laid" is the same as seeking orgasms.

For a (hetero) woman, seeking orgasms requires a lot more than simply trying to "get laid," because "getting laid" in our culture is defined around the MALE sexual experience. If a woman actually wants to seek orgasms for herself, she must be a whole lot more selective about her partners, because most guys are socialized to view sex as revolving around their dicks instead of around her cooch.

Try imagining sex with the orgasmic roles reversed. Cripes, I hear guys whine about "blue balls" like it's just about the worst thing in the world. For guys, having sex without coming is a terrible horrible wrongness because OF COURSE the man gets to come if he's "getting laid." Women get no such assumption.

I'm monogamous now, but in college I was happily promiscuous, and I can tell you that the #1 reason I turned down male sexual advances was my evaluation of the guy's behavior and my conclusion that he would be either unwilling or unable to provide me with an orgasm. Why should I want to help some dude get his cock sloppy if I'm not going to get mine? Simply "getting laid" meant "providing some dude with an orgasm," and yes, there was no shortage of offers for me to provide dudes with orgasms. Offers to provide ME with orgasms, however, were much more scarce.

In my experience, especially in the military, women have much lower expectations than men.
Women can get by (especially when it is considered to be a "man's world") with much less effort. Because everyone is so focused on being politically correct these days, it becomes nearly impossible for people to give a female even a minor correction.

That article states simply that men are more inclined to have more sexual partners than women. It does not say that "men are more likely to have orgies" or something along those lines- seems to me (from reading the article) like most sexual encounters involve just two people so it would then follow that if a woman is getting laid then so too is a man. Whether or not the man is sleeping with a woman he actually likes is a different matter- the article states men have lower standards than women, although I don't particularly buy it- I doubt there's a disproportionate amount of "good looking men" compared to "good looking women" (especially because standards are different for each person), so if an ugly woman is having sex then, most likely, she's doing it with a comparitively ugly man.5 men have sex with 10 different women (not all at the same time, mind you). So now, 5 men got laid but 10 women got laid. That's what I was getting at. From saying that men go for many partners, an women go for fewer, more quality partners, it's easy to say that it is likely fewer men are having sex with more women. Though, again, I don't know if this is enough to significantly tip the scales in "ease of sex" or not; my point is simply that it isn't unfathomable and, in fact, does make sense if it were so.
The problem is that you are thinking of sex from only one perspective.

See, when a (hetero) guy is trying to "get laid," he is working with the standard definition of "laid" that is used in our culture, to whit: the insertion of a penis into a vagina until the penis achieves orgasm.
...
Cripes, I hear guys whine about "blue balls" like it's just about the worst thing in the world. For guys, having sex without coming is a terrible horrible wrongness because OF COURSE the man gets to come if he's "getting laid." Women get no such assumption.

I'm monogamous now, but in college I was happily promiscuous, and I can tell you that the #1 reason I turned down male sexual advances was my evaluation of the guy's behavior and my conclusion that he would be either unwilling or unable to provide me with an orgasm. Why should I want to help some dude get his cock sloppy if I'm not going to get mine? Simply "getting laid" meant "providing some dude with an orgasm," and yes, there was no shortage of offers for me to provide dudes with orgasms. Offers to provide ME with orgasms, however, were much more scarce.

A lot of this is simply not true. I think most men approach getting laid as vaginal penetration, whether or not orgasm is achieved. The orgasm part is generally the goal, yes, but even a "bad lay" is a lay.

You also really don't understand what, exactly, blue balls is, apparently. The reason men avoid isn't because it sucks to not come, it's avoided because it is extremely physically painful. It is not simply a psychological thing. I really can't understand how women often do not comprehend this. It's just the nature of the male anatomy and, unfortunately, being blue balled can be as bad as getting a swift kick to them multiple times over the course of some length of time.

I'm curious, though, as to how you evaluated sexual performance by social behavior? In my experience, the two don't often correlate. Is there an assumption that self-absorption denotes a likelihood of poor sexual performance? Or is it that cluelessness in social situations is likely to continue into more intimate situations? It's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually genuinely curious.

A lot of this is simply not true. I think most men approach getting laid as vaginal penetration, whether or not orgasm is achieved. The orgasm part is generally the goal, yes, but even a "bad lay" is a lay.Agreed.
You also really don't understand what, exactly, blue balls is, apparently. The reason men avoid isn't because it sucks to not come, it's avoided because it is extremely physically painful. It is not simply a psychological thing. I really can't understand how women often do not comprehend this. It's just the nature of the male anatomy and, unfortunately, being blue balled can be as bad as getting a swift kick to them multiple times over the course of some length of time.True.
I'm curious, though, as to how you evaluated sexual performance by social behavior? In my experience, the two don't often correlate. Is there an assumption that self-absorption denotes a likelihood of poor sexual performance? Or is it that cluelessness in social situations is likely to continue into more intimate situations? It's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually genuinely curious.Well, consider this: A narcissistic guy that is selfish and only looks after himself will not likely care whether the girl he is sleeping with achieves an orgasm or not. A more outgoing and forthcoming guy will likely try harder (and possibly actually know what he's doing, because he's asked).

The problem is that you are thinking of sex from only one perspective.

See, when a (hetero) guy is trying to "get laid," he is working with the standard definition of "laid" that is used in our culture, to whit: the insertion of a penis into a vagina until the penis achieves orgasm.

Until HE has an orgasm.

For a (hetero) man, trying to "get laid" is the same as seeking orgasms.

For a (hetero) woman, seeking orgasms requires a lot more than simply trying to "get laid," because "getting laid" in our culture is defined around the MALE sexual experience. If a woman actually wants to seek orgasms for herself, she must be a whole lot more selective about her partners, because most guys are socialized to view sex as revolving around their dicks instead of around her cooch.

Try imagining sex with the orgasmic roles reversed. Cripes, I hear guys whine about "blue balls" like it's just about the worst thing in the world. For guys, having sex without coming is a terrible horrible wrongness because OF COURSE the man gets to come if he's "getting laid." Women get no such assumption.

I'm monogamous now, but in college I was happily promiscuous, and I can tell you that the #1 reason I turned down male sexual advances was my evaluation of the guy's behavior and my conclusion that he would be either unwilling or unable to provide me with an orgasm. Why should I want to help some dude get his cock sloppy if I'm not going to get mine? Simply "getting laid" meant "providing some dude with an orgasm," and yes, there was no shortage of offers for me to provide dudes with orgasms. Offers to provide ME with orgasms, however, were much more scarce.

Personally, I find that anything making me think the female involved is not enjoying herself, is the #1 biggest turn off for me.
I try my hardest to make sure she achieves at least 1 orgasm ;p (and usually succeed)... and I highly doubt I'd achieve one myself if I thought she wasn't enjoying ANYTHING I did, even if she were still wanting to have sex, for whatever reason.
I HATE an attitude to sex that degrades women, or makes 'having sex with them' the most important thing about them... it's just... urgh. It disgusts me that people can be treated the way some women are treated by some men. I am aware that not all responsibility can be shouldered by the man, for instance she does not have to put up with being treated that way (in most case). But it's the man's attitude that is the problem.

Tbh you get some disgusting hoes of women, but they're rarely if ever engaging in said activities with men who think of them as anything more than a pussy... strangely enough....

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with sex, or even with casual sex. But when you're effectively using the other person engaging in said act, as a wank toy- just something to pleasure yourself on, and don't care about them or even think of them as a person... :(

Personally, I find that anything making me think the female involved is not enjoying herself, is the #1 biggest turn off for me.



In all honesty though, I think this thought is prevelant in the minds of most men over a certian age.

A lot of this is simply not true. I think most men approach getting laid as vaginal penetration, whether or not orgasm is achieved. The orgasm part is generally the goal, yes, but even a "bad lay" is a lay.

You also really don't understand what, exactly, blue balls is, apparently. The reason men avoid isn't because it sucks to not come, it's avoided because it is extremely physically painful. It is not simply a psychological thing. I really can't understand how women often do not comprehend this. It's just the nature of the male anatomy and, unfortunately, being blue balled can be as bad as getting a swift kick to them multiple times over the course of some length of time.

I'm curious, though, as to how you evaluated sexual performance by social behavior? In my experience, the two don't often correlate. Is there an assumption that self-absorption denotes a likelihood of poor sexual performance? Or is it that cluelessness in social situations is likely to continue into more intimate situations? It's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually genuinely curious.

what is TRUE is that women arent guaranteed a good time. she HAS to pass up lots of willing but obviously inept (or dangerous, or hygenically disgusting) men if she wants a good sex experience. if a woman is looking for a quick orgasm (with a man) she must use her instinct and superficial indicators to try to guarantee orgasm and safety.

obviously those instincts and indicators vary from woman to woman and even from day to day.

and, oh yeah, she has to be attracted to him. no woman wants sex so much that she is going to have it with a man shes not attracted to--barring bad psychology.

[QUOTE=MrBobby;13576929]Personally, I find that anything making me think the female involved is not enjoying herself, is the #1 biggest turn off for me.
[QUOTE]


In all honesty though, I think this thought is prevelant in the minds of most men over a certian age.

its probably very prevalent in the minds of men who get laid on a regular basis. for those who dont think of it the supply of willing women dwindles because women talk to each other about such things. (the exception being the famous man who fucks groupies. there may be an endless supply of young women who are looking for fame fucks)

Originally Posted by RhynoD
You think finding a girl who knows how to give a good hand job is easy?
lol

ive never thought about that, men DO have it hader.
No, Ashmoria, it's harder for the guy when the girl DOES know what she's doing. ;)

Men have it easier. Women age horribly.

Dang it, I should find me a Sugar Daddy.:D Then and only then would I say women have it easier than men.:p

...where in the world do you live that women get rented out for $5k/hour?

New York State. Google Elliot Spitzer. However, one of the many points on which Sovietstan fails to hit the barn door of reality (by a mile) is that there are not enough super-rich, sex-obsessed morons (like fmr Governor Spitzer) in all the world to support every woman who fails to get a good education and a good job to support herself with. (Actually, since he got outed and run out of office, I'm guessing Spitzer is having to cut down on his $5k blow job habit, too.)

No, Ashmoria, it's harder for the guy when the girl DOES know what she's doing. ;)Depends on the guy.

You also really don't understand what, exactly, blue balls is, apparently. The reason men avoid isn't because it sucks to not come, it's avoided because it is extremely physically painful. It is not simply a psychological thing. I really can't understand how women often do not comprehend this. It's just the nature of the male anatomy and, unfortunately, being blue balled can be as bad as getting a swift kick to them multiple times over the course of some length of time.


I'm a guy, but I don't have any idea what 'blue balls' is, to be honest. I'm halfway tempted to believe it's a conspiracy amongst those desperate for a shag... a sort of made-up ailment to use to guilt-trip prospective partners with.

Whatever it is - I think it's got to be your own fault. I've never encountered it.