Fuck And Run

Well maybe some women wouldn't be interested in you for doing that "sort of thing." You don't think we pay attention to who is and who isn't relationship material? I've got one guy who's been stuck on me since I slept with him 7 years ago. At the time I couldn't take him seriously though, and saw his promiscuity and cheating on a previous girlfriend as a red flag. I'd probably give him a chance now though, but we don't live in the same state, so it wouldn't make sense. My point is that your double standard is sickening. Why do you think it's okay to judge women for having casual sex, but you imply it's okay for guys? <br /> <br /> Note to all girls out there: stay away from guys with double standards.

@musicgeek86<br /> <br /> "Well maybe some women wouldn't be interested in you for doing that "sort of thing." You don't think we pay attention to who is and who isn't relationship material?"<br /> <br /> What makes a man relationship material and what makes a woman relationship material are two completely different things. The amount of casual sex that someone's had in the past says something different about them depending on their gender. The fact is that 80% of men find it very difficult to have casual sex (without paying for it), while 80% of women find it very easy to have casual sex. This is because, in general, men are fare more interested in having casual sex than women are. (One obvious consequence of this is that the top 20% of men--in terms of pure sexual attractiveness--are easily able to meet the demand from women for casual sex.) It's pointless for a woman to filter out a potential boyfriend based on his casual-sex history (assuming he has no STD's and hasn't had an absurdly high number of partners), because 99.9% of men strongly desire casual sex during long stretches of their adolescence and early adulthood. Deciding, then, that a man who has had lots of casual sex ISN'T relationship material while a man who has had very little casual sex IS relationship material is completely irrational: both men almost certainly wanted to have lots of casual sex at some point, the only difference between them being their degree of success in getting what they wanted. Women understand this, if subconsciously.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, nowhere near 99.9% of women go through long stretches during their young adulthood when they have a strong desire for casual sex. True, the majority of young women just want to get laid OCCASIONALLY, but a normal woman can easily make it to her mid-20's only having had casual sex once or twice, or perhaps not at all. A woman in her late 20's who has had casual sex many times is abnormal. Virtually any young woman could have casual sex hundreds of times by the time she hit her mid-20's if she really wanted to (indeed, some manage this feat even when charging several hundred dollars per casual encounter), but most women don't want to.<br /> <br /> Now, this bit is very important. Just because a person is abnormal in some way, that doesn't mean that they're bad. It just means that they're unlike others, no more and no less. HOWEVER, abnormal traits and behaviors very often correlate with one another, and female promiscuity correlates with a number of undesirable traits and behaviors such as low self-esteem, attention-seeking behavior, and borderline personality disorder, among others. It is perfectly possible for a promiscuous woman to be perfectly normal in every other respect, but it's not likely. On the other hand, male promiscuity is correlated with many traits and behaviors that women actually find DESIRABLE, such as assertiveness, social competence, and sexual attractiveness (see first paragraph). Admittedly, it is also somewhat correlated with, e.g., narcissism and sociopathic behavior, but that's only really applicable in extreme cases. A man who had casual sex with 1000 different women from the time he was 15 to the time he was 25 is probably-- in addition to being charming and good-looking--ruthless, manipulative, deceitful and obsessed with sex, and any sane person would do well to stay away from him. A man who had casual sex with 100 different women in that same time frame is probably an exceptionally attractive and well-socialized male who is otherwise fairly normal, if somewhat cavalier.

@musicgeek86 @BIGBOOMBA It appears my earlier comment has been misinterpreted. There is no issue of double standard here, and both men and women are free to do what (and whom and when) they want. The point is that what the narrator is doing is evidently not making her happy--to the contrary. When the sexual / romantic partner(s) you are with don't make you happy, often you need to find (a) new AND DIFFERENT one(s). But to attract ones that are substantially 'better' or even different, sometimes YOU have to become a substantially 'better' or different person. That's equally true for men and women.<br /> <br /> A person (male or female) for whom no-strings-attached sex / hookups are not providing happiness will probably do better to find a partner who is not really interested in no-strings-attached sex / hookups. Of course, people who are not really interested in no-strings-attached sex / hookups tend to prefer partners who do not engage in no-strings-attached sex / hookups. A female 'playa' (rather like the narrator in "Fuck and Run") is not as likely to attract a male who is not a 'playa' but instead is more of a "letters and sodas" guy--and a male 'playa' is not as likely to attract a female who is not a 'playa'. Agree?

@NAwlinsContrarian <br /> "A female 'playa' (rather like the narrator in "Fuck and Run") is not as likely to attract a male who is not a 'playa' but instead is more of a "letters and sodas" guy--and a male 'playa' is not as likely to attract a female who is not a 'playa'. Agree?"<br /> <br /> I agree in the first place but not in the second. I think that my previous comment explains the difference, but I'd be happy to reiterate it if it's still not clear.