FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Why Men will Fuck a Walrus whilst a Woman will consider Mick Philpot good marriage material
Why Men will Fuck a Walrus whilst a Woman will consider Mick Philpot good marriage material
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
A somewhat strange title granted and is it prone to exaggeration? Hell yes, but it's always fun to exaggerate! 
But as with the best (in fact I would say all) exaggerations there is some truth in it, no? Exaggerating is like basic multiplying algebra, you have to have a value "x" in the first place to twist about with multiplications to outlandish proportions, else if "x" is equal to zero then with multiplication alone you'll still end up with a Big Fat Fuck All.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the thread title. If you add the convenient word of SOME that a lot of forumites consider essentially missing from many posts, myself included, in front of the words "Men" and "Women" in the title then it is factually 100% correct. Mick Philpot, father of many and widely considered bonafide scumbag extraordinaire, managed to somehow live with two "concubines" minimum. And yes, somewhere out there you can bet your booties that there also exists a low-standarded chump or two that would actually fuck a walrus. They could well be on Fab, now there's a thought! 
It is also a widely given opinion that the average man's criteria to consider a woman "fuckable" are shall we say less stringent than the average lady's would be regarding men. By contrast a man would also require far more suitable qualities from a lady to consider her LTR material than a woman would a man.
When a lot younger this always bemused me somewhat. The phrase "Men will shag anything that moves/anything with a pulse/a hole in a barbershop floor" would be bandied about and whilst again it exaggerates massively it is not without basic grounds. Yet it would be used by ladies who whilst they were very selective regarding which men they allowed for whatever short-lived period between their legs to do the mattress mambo compared to their male contemporaries, were far less choosy than chaps about whom they chose as a partner to form a relationship with, a process that could feasibly last anywhere from a week or so to their whole bloody lives! Men would often tread very carefully, getting cold feet and commitment-phobia the same way a woman of a certain age would regarding a session of sexual intercourse.
With women it was considered a triumph just to get the considered average bloke in a LTR, akin to the male success being viewed as thus by his peers with many considered average women sexually? Surely I figured the female approach was complete nonsense; As who you allowed to have such a union that could be over years and such a huge portion of your life should be a far more exhaustively screening process than who you choose to get jiggy with on what could well be a one-off?
But then I WAS looking at it from my male viewpoint. And at the time hadn't completely figured out what I have now...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A somewhat strange title granted and is it prone to exaggeration? Hell yes, but it's always fun to exaggerate!
But as with the best (in fact I would say all) exaggerations there is some truth in it, no? Exaggerating is like basic multiplying algebra, you have to have a value "x" in the first place to twist about with multiplications to outlandish proportions, else if "x" is equal to zero then with multiplication alone you'll still end up with a Big Fat Fuck All.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the thread title. If you add the convenient word of SOME that a lot of forumites consider essentially missing from many posts, myself included, in front of the words "Men" and "Women" in the title then it is factually 100% correct. Mick Philpot, father of many and widely considered bonafide scumbag extraordinaire, managed to somehow live with two "concubines" minimum. And yes, somewhere out there you can bet your booties that there also exists a low-standarded chump or two that would actually fuck a walrus. They could well be on Fab, now there's a thought!
It is also a widely given opinion that the average man's criteria to consider a woman "fuckable" are shall we say less stringent than the average lady's would be regarding men. By contrast a man would also require far more suitable qualities from a lady to consider her LTR material than a woman would a man.
When a lot younger this always bemused me somewhat. The phrase "Men will shag anything that moves/anything with a pulse/a hole in a barbershop floor" would be bandied about and whilst again it exaggerates massively it is not without basic grounds. Yet it would be used by ladies who whilst they were very selective regarding which men they allowed for whatever short-lived period between their legs to do the mattress mambo compared to their male contemporaries, were far less choosy than chaps about whom they chose as a partner to form a relationship with, a process that could feasibly last anywhere from a week or so to their whole bloody lives! Men would often tread very carefully, getting cold feet and commitment-phobia the same way a woman of a certain age would regarding a session of sexual intercourse.
With women it was considered a triumph just to get the considered average bloke in a LTR, akin to the male success being viewed as thus by his peers with many considered average women sexually? Surely I figured the female approach was complete nonsense; As who you allowed to have such a union that could be over years and such a huge portion of your life should be a far more exhaustively screening process than who you choose to get jiggy with on what could well be a one-off?
But then I WAS looking at it from my male viewpoint. And at the time hadn't completely figured out what I have now...
"
Yep, you lost me after first paragraph |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do you mean an actual walrus?
I think in the case of being a male, both instances are still very much illegal"
I think it would be a pretty bad idea and I definitely wouldn't let her go on top  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What's the difference between a fab female m_mber and a walrus.
One has whiskers and stinks of fish, the other is a walrus.
There. I'm obviously what you describe.pfft |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What's the difference between a fab female m_mber and a walrus.
One has whiskers and stinks of fish, the other is a walrus.
There. I'm obviously what you describe.pfft "
Not having a great day?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What's the difference between a fab female m_mber and a walrus.
One has whiskers and stinks of fish, the other is a walrus.
There. I'm obviously what you describe.pfft "
Omg i just snorted tea out my nose reading that 
If someone could roll me back into the sea I’d be grateful
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A somewhat strange title granted and is it prone to exaggeration? Hell yes, but it's always fun to exaggerate!
But as with the best (in fact I would say all) exaggerations there is some truth in it, no? Exaggerating is like basic multiplying algebra, you have to have a value "x" in the first place to twist about with multiplications to outlandish proportions, else if "x" is equal to zero then with multiplication alone you'll still end up with a Big Fat Fuck All.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the thread title. If you add the convenient word of SOME that a lot of forumites consider essentially missing from many posts, myself included, in front of the words "Men" and "Women" in the title then it is factually 100% correct. Mick Philpot, father of many and widely considered bonafide scumbag extraordinaire, managed to somehow live with two "concubines" minimum. And yes, somewhere out there you can bet your booties that there also exists a low-standarded chump or two that would actually fuck a walrus. They could well be on Fab, now there's a thought!
It is also a widely given opinion that the average man's criteria to consider a woman "fuckable" are shall we say less stringent than the average lady's would be regarding men. By contrast a man would also require far more suitable qualities from a lady to consider her LTR material than a woman would a man.
When a lot younger this always bemused me somewhat. The phrase "Men will shag anything that moves/anything with a pulse/a hole in a barbershop floor" would be bandied about and whilst again it exaggerates massively it is not without basic grounds. Yet it would be used by ladies who whilst they were very selective regarding which men they allowed for whatever short-lived period between their legs to do the mattress mambo compared to their male contemporaries, were far less choosy than chaps about whom they chose as a partner to form a relationship with, a process that could feasibly last anywhere from a week or so to their whole bloody lives! Men would often tread very carefully, getting cold feet and commitment-phobia the same way a woman of a certain age would regarding a session of sexual intercourse.
With women it was considered a triumph just to get the considered average bloke in a LTR, akin to the male success being viewed as thus by his peers with many considered average women sexually? Surely I figured the female approach was complete nonsense; As who you allowed to have such a union that could be over years and such a huge portion of your life should be a far more exhaustively screening process than who you choose to get jiggy with on what could well be a one-off?
But then I WAS looking at it from my male viewpoint. And at the time hadn't completely figured out what I have now...
Yep, you lost me after first paragraph "
Nice copy and paste
And load of...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What's the difference between a fab female m_mber and a walrus.
One has whiskers and stinks of fish, the other is a walrus.
There. I'm obviously what you describe.pfft
Omg i just snorted tea out my nose reading that
If someone could roll me back into the sea I’d be grateful
"
I would but you keep too much blubber near the arse end!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What's the difference between a fab female m_mber and a walrus.
One has whiskers and stinks of fish, the other is a walrus.
There. I'm obviously what you describe.pfft
Not having a great day? "
Hey, I shaved my beard off, so I only stink of fish now. FAF? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So let me get this straight op , you are saying in general with alot of men any hole is a goal , and women are more fussy who they shag, but however they still seem to choose tossers to date. Well ok erm in some cases I have to agree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So let me get this straight op , you are saying in general with alot of men any hole is a goal , and women are more fussy who they shag, but however they still seem to choose tossers to date. Well ok erm in some cases I have to agree."
Well that made the whole thing a lot clearer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What's the difference between a fab female m_mber and a walrus.
One has whiskers and stinks of fish, the other is a walrus.
There. I'm obviously what you describe.pfft
Omg i just snorted tea out my nose reading that
If someone could roll me back into the sea I’d be grateful
I would but you keep too much blubber near the arse end! "
Hahaha! How’s the cat? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So let me get this straight op , you are saying in general with alot of men any hole is a goal , and women are more fussy who they shag, but however they still seem to choose tossers to date. Well ok erm in some cases I have to agree.
Well that made the whole thing a lot clearer "
Yes I can now see the porpoise of the thread (I'm not here all week, it just feels like it) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What's the difference between a fab female m_mber and a walrus.
One has whiskers and stinks of fish, the other is a walrus.
There. I'm obviously what you describe.pfft
Omg i just snorted tea out my nose reading that
If someone could roll me back into the sea I’d be grateful
I would but you keep too much blubber near the arse end!
Hahaha! How’s the cat? "
He's on his mobile...little shit has opened his own fab account.. And attracting lots of attention. Damn annoying if you ask me! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"A somewhat strange title granted and is it prone to exaggeration? Hell yes, but it's always fun to exaggerate!
But as with the best (in fact I would say all) exaggerations there is some truth in it, no? Exaggerating is like basic multiplying algebra, you have to have a value "x" in the first place to twist about with multiplications to outlandish proportions, else if "x" is equal to zero then with multiplication alone you'll still end up with a Big Fat Fuck All.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the thread title. If you add the convenient word of SOME that a lot of forumites consider essentially missing from many posts, myself included, in front of the words "Men" and "Women" in the title then it is factually 100% correct. Mick Philpot, father of many and widely considered bonafide scumbag extraordinaire, managed to somehow live with two "concubines" minimum. And yes, somewhere out there you can bet your booties that there also exists a low-standarded chump or two that would actually fuck a walrus. They could well be on Fab, now there's a thought!
It is also a widely given opinion that the average man's criteria to consider a woman "fuckable" are shall we say less stringent than the average lady's would be regarding men. By contrast a man would also require far more suitable qualities from a lady to consider her LTR material than a woman would a man.
When a lot younger this always bemused me somewhat. The phrase "Men will shag anything that moves/anything with a pulse/a hole in a barbershop floor" would be bandied about and whilst again it exaggerates massively it is not without basic grounds. Yet it would be used by ladies who whilst they were very selective regarding which men they allowed for whatever short-lived period between their legs to do the mattress mambo compared to their male contemporaries, were far less choosy than chaps about whom they chose as a partner to form a relationship with, a process that could feasibly last anywhere from a week or so to their whole bloody lives! Men would often tread very carefully, getting cold feet and commitment-phobia the same way a woman of a certain age would regarding a session of sexual intercourse.
With women it was considered a triumph just to get the considered average bloke in a LTR, akin to the male success being viewed as thus by his peers with many considered average women sexually? Surely I figured the female approach was complete nonsense; As who you allowed to have such a union that could be over years and such a huge portion of your life should be a far more exhaustively screening process than who you choose to get jiggy with on what could well be a one-off?
But then I WAS looking at it from my male viewpoint. And at the time hadn't completely figured out what I have now...
Yep, you lost me after first paragraph
Nice copy and paste
And load of...
"
Copy and paste from my head perhaps, though it is a strange place to inhabit I'd concur.
Unlike most of the contents of your inbox some of us do possess the innate ability to write. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A somewhat strange title granted and is it prone to exaggeration? Hell yes, but it's always fun to exaggerate!
But as with the best (in fact I would say all) exaggerations there is some truth in it, no? Exaggerating is like basic multiplying algebra, you have to have a value "x" in the first place to twist about with multiplications to outlandish proportions, else if "x" is equal to zero then with multiplication alone you'll still end up with a Big Fat Fuck All.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the thread title. If you add the convenient word of SOME that a lot of forumites consider essentially missing from many posts, myself included, in front of the words "Men" and "Women" in the title then it is factually 100% correct. Mick Philpot, father of many and widely considered bonafide scumbag extraordinaire, managed to somehow live with two "concubines" minimum. And yes, somewhere out there you can bet your booties that there also exists a low-standarded chump or two that would actually fuck a walrus. They could well be on Fab, now there's a thought!
It is also a widely given opinion that the average man's criteria to consider a woman "fuckable" are shall we say less stringent than the average lady's would be regarding men. By contrast a man would also require far more suitable qualities from a lady to consider her LTR material than a woman would a man.
When a lot younger this always bemused me somewhat. The phrase "Men will shag anything that moves/anything with a pulse/a hole in a barbershop floor" would be bandied about and whilst again it exaggerates massively it is not without basic grounds. Yet it would be used by ladies who whilst they were very selective regarding which men they allowed for whatever short-lived period between their legs to do the mattress mambo compared to their male contemporaries, were far less choosy than chaps about whom they chose as a partner to form a relationship with, a process that could feasibly last anywhere from a week or so to their whole bloody lives! Men would often tread very carefully, getting cold feet and commitment-phobia the same way a woman of a certain age would regarding a session of sexual intercourse.
With women it was considered a triumph just to get the considered average bloke in a LTR, akin to the male success being viewed as thus by his peers with many considered average women sexually? Surely I figured the female approach was complete nonsense; As who you allowed to have such a union that could be over years and such a huge portion of your life should be a far more exhaustively screening process than who you choose to get jiggy with on what could well be a one-off?
But then I WAS looking at it from my male viewpoint. And at the time hadn't completely figured out what I have now...
Yep, you lost me after first paragraph
Nice copy and paste
And load of...
Copy and paste from my head perhaps, though it is a strange place to inhabit I'd concur.
Unlike most of the contents of your inbox some of us do possess the innate ability to write and fuck anuses like pro."
I concur... Like pro |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What's the difference between a fab female m_mber and a walrus.
One has whiskers and stinks of fish, the other is a walrus.
There. I'm obviously what you describe.pfft
Omg i just snorted tea out my nose reading that
If someone could roll me back into the sea I’d be grateful
"
I will join you in the sea let's got hunt for moby dick  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Most men would fuck a ham sandwich"
Kathy Burke 2019
I’m glad I’m not most men. It has to be a kebab for me  "
Gotta be honest, given choice between Kathy Burke and ham sandwich I think that latter is mildly more fuckable.. Just less funny |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Most men would fuck a ham sandwich"
Kathy Burke 2019
I’m glad I’m not most men. It has to be a kebab for me
Gotta be honest, given choice between Kathy Burke and ham sandwich I think that latter is mildly more fuckable.. Just less funny "
Wasn't it a jam sandwich lol  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Most men would fuck a ham sandwich"
Kathy Burke 2019
I’m glad I’m not most men. It has to be a kebab for me
Gotta be honest, given choice between Kathy Burke and ham sandwich I think that latter is mildly more fuckable.. Just less funny
Wasn't it a jam sandwich lol "
Then I would find myself in a sticky situation! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Most men would fuck a ham sandwich"
Kathy Burke 2019
I’m glad I’m not most men. It has to be a kebab for me
Gotta be honest, given choice between Kathy Burke and ham sandwich I think that latter is mildly more fuckable.. Just less funny
Wasn't it a jam sandwich lol
Then I would find myself in a sticky situation! "
Sure that's something you can handle |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Most men would fuck a ham sandwich"
Kathy Burke 2019
I’m glad I’m not most men. It has to be a kebab for me
Gotta be honest, given choice between Kathy Burke and ham sandwich I think that latter is mildly more fuckable.. Just less funny
Wasn't it a jam sandwich lol
Then I would find myself in a sticky situation!
Sure that's something you can handle "
Wouldnt be my first rodeo |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mberWoman
over a year ago
Preston |
""Most men would fuck a ham sandwich"
Kathy Burke 2019
I’m glad I’m not most men. It has to be a kebab for me
Gotta be honest, given choice between Kathy Burke and ham sandwich I think that latter is mildly more fuckable.. Just less funny
Wasn't it a jam sandwich lol "
I once texted someone to ask if they'd ever made a jam sandwich whilst wearing a blindfold (it was a work thing) it autocorrected to man  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Most men would fuck a ham sandwich"
Kathy Burke 2019
I’m glad I’m not most men. It has to be a kebab for me
Gotta be honest, given choice between Kathy Burke and ham sandwich I think that latter is mildly more fuckable.. Just less funny
Wasn't it a jam sandwich lol
I once texted someone to ask if they'd ever made a jam sandwich whilst wearing a blindfold (it was a work thing) it autocorrected to man "
Auto correct what a cock womble it is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"What book is the walrus currently reading?"
Fuck knows. "Why don't cod fit so neatly into your paws and 100 other things you always wondered?" perhaps.
Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked!
Firstly why men seem to have less standards sexually. Now in my own opinion which as I build temporary buildings for a living carries very little weight whatsoever, the reasons for this strange difference between the sexes and their approach is entirely down to our primitive natures inbuilt to ensure the survival of the species. It's watered down by the fact that we're the only species proven to indulge in sex for merely enjoyment's sake with the desire to reproduce often removed such as using birth control methods, but that primitive urge to ensure the survival of the species IS what gives us our drives towards the opposite sex where applicable after all.
To have the best chance of populating a species as fast as possible, and ignoring the few not following this pattern such as seahorses, as a male can sire many females simultaneously the instinct in him is to inseminate or get up the duff as many females he possibly can, such increasing chances of many offspring of HIS being produced to increase the numbers that will survive. A female in most species has the biological urge to get inseminated, but has the urge to seek the strongest seed for HER offspring to stand the best chance of survival over all others.
This dormant urge would explain perfectly why the instinct, despite our now mainly civilised society, for men to seek multiple partners sexually and women to seek few partners, but those they seek to be as accomplished as possible, be it in strength, brains, or varying signs among the animal kingdom indicating fertility?
Hence women will on average have much higher standards than men as to who they will have sex with.
It makes sense to me anyway if no one else!
B |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
And finally, on to the conundrum with how each sex differs with their standards of seeking relationships; and in my twisted yet unsurprising view, it's unsurprisingly back to the animal kingdom once more!
When it comes to ensuring his offspring survive, as a male in many areas of the animal kingdom will have inseminated several females, he only has so much time to offer protection and acquiring meals etc to each one carrying his young. Therefore he will often have to prioritise, and choose only the finest of the females carrying his young to afford this too. Thus he would be far far more picky in choosing attributes such as best childbearing hips, her nurturing instinct, her perceived fertility etc to make sure of giving the one with the best chance of producing and nurturing healthy young at the expense of others.
The female in a species is different. In a lot of species females outnumber males due to fighting between males, males getting killed whilst on the hunt, etc. Plus with her when she is up against several other females in acquiring a males protection it is in her interests merely to acquire that protection. Having a male who isn't the most caring or the best huntsman is far better than the alternative to protect her young, having no protection or help at all, which a lot of females have to struggle with.
So as such acquiring the animal version of a relationship alone is something of a triumph.
With modern day humans I think as with the way that different genders look at selecting partners for sex, the way that they look for relationships is much more watered down than this by societies norms and their positions in this society. Also both genders will doubtless learn through experience. But the dormant instinct is in us all and it would explain why men are far more selective generally in choosing and being tied into relationships than women are. And like with sex only reversed why women yearn far far more for a relationship than men tend to. Whilst the numbers of men and women in modern day society (once the surplus of women after the second world war had dwindled away) are fairly similar, the fact that there's less men wanting relationships than women takes the place of there actually being less men around physically.
Could be true, could be complete codswallop, who knows! It just seems to follow logic as far as I can reckon.
B
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
It is a bit high brow and deep for your average Fab thread tbf. In my defence I can't help the crazy shit that goes through my head at times! Sharing it though...that's all down to me, soz about that.
Don't worry, if it's too much for some there's always a "Fuck,pint or pass" thread floating about to entertain you fully.
B |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is a bit high brow and deep for your average Fab thread tbf. In my defence I can't help the crazy shit that goes through my head at times! Sharing it though...that's all down to me, soz about that.
Don't worry, if it's too much for some there's always a "Fuck,pint or pass" thread floating about to entertain you fully.
B"
Fuck, pint or pass thread? There really isn't... And I've read all of this thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I havent had time to read through all of this but i think you make a very interesting point ED and im going to ponder the subject when i wake up in the night. Would be cool to do some research.
J |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
I think there is something in your basic premise and reasoning. We have different proxies for strength and protection now. We also have become more overwhelmed by choice, not just in sex and relationships, that I think that paralyses our ability to be satisfied.
That intensifies the seeking for a better hole for that goal and a desire to find more holes as that becomes the game.
Similarly, finding the long term mate may be a settling for the best of a bad bunch as you can see more examples of what you have on offer.
Just a couple of additions to your pondering:
A) Bonobos - the role of sex for recreation, peace-making and bonding is well recorded for Bonobos. We are not alone in this.
B) Competitive sperm - the female may have chosen her protector but procreation can be helped along by having sex away from the relationship, both through competitive sperm and conceiving from someone else.
Right now, I might well say yes to a walrus.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A somewhat strange title granted and is it prone to exaggeration? Hell yes, but it's always fun to exaggerate!
But as with the best (in fact I would say all) exaggerations there is some truth in it, no? Exaggerating is like basic multiplying algebra, you have to have a value "x" in the first place to twist about with multiplications to outlandish proportions, else if "x" is equal to zero then with multiplication alone you'll still end up with a Big Fat Fuck All.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the thread title. If you add the convenient word of SOME that a lot of forumites consider essentially missing from many posts, myself included, in front of the words "Men" and "Women" in the title then it is factually 100% correct. Mick Philpot, father of many and widely considered bonafide scumbag extraordinaire, managed to somehow live with two "concubines" minimum. And yes, somewhere out there you can bet your booties that there also exists a low-standarded chump or two that would actually fuck a walrus. They could well be on Fab, now there's a thought!
It is also a widely given opinion that the average man's criteria to consider a woman "fuckable" are shall we say less stringent than the average lady's would be regarding men. By contrast a man would also require far more suitable qualities from a lady to consider her LTR material than a woman would a man.
When a lot younger this always bemused me somewhat. The phrase "Men will shag anything that moves/anything with a pulse/a hole in a barbershop floor" would be bandied about and whilst again it exaggerates massively it is not without basic grounds. Yet it would be used by ladies who whilst they were very selective regarding which men they allowed for whatever short-lived period between their legs to do the mattress mambo compared to their male contemporaries, were far less choosy than chaps about whom they chose as a partner to form a relationship with, a process that could feasibly last anywhere from a week or so to their whole bloody lives! Men would often tread very carefully, getting cold feet and commitment-phobia the same way a woman of a certain age would regarding a session of sexual intercourse.
With women it was considered a triumph just to get the considered average bloke in a LTR, akin to the male success being viewed as thus by his peers with many considered average women sexually? Surely I figured the female approach was complete nonsense; As who you allowed to have such a union that could be over years and such a huge portion of your life should be a far more exhaustively screening process than who you choose to get jiggy with on what could well be a one-off?
But then I WAS looking at it from my male viewpoint. And at the time hadn't completely figured out what I have now...
Yep, you lost me after first paragraph "
Lost me too. I read the lot but I can't take it all in. I think it basically means what I said in another forum about how many gym rats are shagging Susan Boyle lookalikes on this site. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"So you put out a very long question and then answered it yourself... well done.
Where is the Secret Service when you need it?"
Did the OP get responses to a question? Did the OP start a ramble and then later rambled on to some possible answers?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A somewhat strange title granted and is it prone to exaggeration? Hell yes, but it's always fun to exaggerate!
But as with the best (in fact I would say all) exaggerations there is some truth in it, no? Exaggerating is like basic multiplying algebra, you have to have a value "x" in the first place to twist about with multiplications to outlandish proportions, else if "x" is equal to zero then with multiplication alone you'll still end up with a Big Fat Fuck All.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the thread title. If you add the convenient word of SOME that a lot of forumites consider essentially missing from many posts, myself included, in front of the words "Men" and "Women" in the title then it is factually 100% correct. Mick Philpot, father of many and widely considered bonafide scumbag extraordinaire, managed to somehow live with two "concubines" minimum. And yes, somewhere out there you can bet your booties that there also exists a low-standarded chump or two that would actually fuck a walrus. They could well be on Fab, now there's a thought!
It is also a widely given opinion that the average man's criteria to consider a woman "fuckable" are shall we say less stringent than the average lady's would be regarding men. By contrast a man would also require far more suitable qualities from a lady to consider her LTR material than a woman would a man.
When a lot younger this always bemused me somewhat. The phrase "Men will shag anything that moves/anything with a pulse/a hole in a barbershop floor" would be bandied about and whilst again it exaggerates massively it is not without basic grounds. Yet it would be used by ladies who whilst they were very selective regarding which men they allowed for whatever short-lived period between their legs to do the mattress mambo compared to their male contemporaries, were far less choosy than chaps about whom they chose as a partner to form a relationship with, a process that could feasibly last anywhere from a week or so to their whole bloody lives! Men would often tread very carefully, getting cold feet and commitment-phobia the same way a woman of a certain age would regarding a session of sexual intercourse.
With women it was considered a triumph just to get the considered average bloke in a LTR, akin to the male success being viewed as thus by his peers with many considered average women sexually? Surely I figured the female approach was complete nonsense; As who you allowed to have such a union that could be over years and such a huge portion of your life should be a far more exhaustively screening process than who you choose to get jiggy with on what could well be a one-off?
But then I WAS looking at it from my male viewpoint. And at the time hadn't completely figured out what I have now...
Yep, you lost me after first paragraph
Lost me too. I read the lot but I can't take it all in. I think it basically means what I said in another forum about how many gym rats are shagging Susan Boyle lookalikes on this site. "
Shut the front door !!!! They are ???
Woooopp - I’ll grab my coat and wait |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A somewhat strange title granted and is it prone to exaggeration? Hell yes, but it's always fun to exaggerate!
But as with the best (in fact I would say all) exaggerations there is some truth in it, no? Exaggerating is like basic multiplying algebra, you have to have a value "x" in the first place to twist about with multiplications to outlandish proportions, else if "x" is equal to zero then with multiplication alone you'll still end up with a Big Fat Fuck All.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the thread title. If you add the convenient word of SOME that a lot of forumites consider essentially missing from many posts, myself included, in front of the words "Men" and "Women" in the title then it is factually 100% correct. Mick Philpot, father of many and widely considered bonafide scumbag extraordinaire, managed to somehow live with two "concubines" minimum. And yes, somewhere out there you can bet your booties that there also exists a low-standarded chump or two that would actually fuck a walrus. They could well be on Fab, now there's a thought!
It is also a widely given opinion that the average man's criteria to consider a woman "fuckable" are shall we say less stringent than the average lady's would be regarding men. By contrast a man would also require far more suitable qualities from a lady to consider her LTR material than a woman would a man.
When a lot younger this always bemused me somewhat. The phrase "Men will shag anything that moves/anything with a pulse/a hole in a barbershop floor" would be bandied about and whilst again it exaggerates massively it is not without basic grounds. Yet it would be used by ladies who whilst they were very selective regarding which men they allowed for whatever short-lived period between their legs to do the mattress mambo compared to their male contemporaries, were far less choosy than chaps about whom they chose as a partner to form a relationship with, a process that could feasibly last anywhere from a week or so to their whole bloody lives! Men would often tread very carefully, getting cold feet and commitment-phobia the same way a woman of a certain age would regarding a session of sexual intercourse.
With women it was considered a triumph just to get the considered average bloke in a LTR, akin to the male success being viewed as thus by his peers with many considered average women sexually? Surely I figured the female approach was complete nonsense; As who you allowed to have such a union that could be over years and such a huge portion of your life should be a far more exhaustively screening process than who you choose to get jiggy with on what could well be a one-off?
But then I WAS looking at it from my male viewpoint. And at the time hadn't completely figured out what I have now...
Yep, you lost me after first paragraph
Lost me too. I read the lot but I can't take it all in. I think it basically means what I said in another forum about how many gym rats are shagging Susan Boyle lookalikes on this site.
Shut the front door !!!! They are ???
Woooopp - I’ll grab my coat and wait "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It is a bit high brow and deep for your average Fab thread tbf. In my defence I can't help the crazy shit that goes through my head at times! Sharing it though...that's all down to me, soz about that.
Don't worry, if it's too much for some there's always a "Fuck,pint or pass" thread floating about to entertain you fully.
B
Fuck, pint or pass thread? There really isn't... And I've read all of this thread. "
Oh I wasn't talking to you. Just those who think it's a bit long for whom reading it will make their heads hurt, which is understandable given the David-Attenboroughness of the thing.
B |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is a bit high brow and deep for your average Fab thread tbf. In my defence I can't help the crazy shit that goes through my head at times! Sharing it though...that's all down to me, soz about that.
Don't worry, if it's too much for some there's always a "Fuck,pint or pass" thread floating about to entertain you fully.
B
Fuck, pint or pass thread? There really isn't... And I've read all of this thread.
Oh I wasn't talking to you. Just those who think it's a bit long for whom reading it will make their heads hurt, which is understandable given the David-Attenboroughness of the thing.
B"
My head hurts. Can't you just do a faf thread Peach? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There was a bloke once tried to fuck Freddy the dolphin near Amble in the North East - nowt like a walrus but hey "
A dolphin once tried to fuck my mate Dave... thank fuck he was wearing a wetsuit!
Imagine a frisky walrus would have been much scarier than a dolphin |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"True story I know a bloke who was caught fucking the exhaust pipe of his van.
I guess it's true, for some men any hole is a goal. "
That used to be a joke about a bloke making love to a princess but you might be too young to get the joke |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"True story I know a bloke who was caught fucking the exhaust pipe of his van.
I guess it's true, for some men any hole is a goal.
That used to be a joke about a bloke making love to a princess but you might be too young to get the joke "
I'm not joking though lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"True story I know a bloke who was caught fucking the exhaust pipe of his van.
I guess it's true, for some men any hole is a goal.
That used to be a joke about a bloke making love to a princess but you might be too young to get the joke
I'm not joking though lol "
Well I hope he let the engine cool down! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"True story I know a bloke who was caught fucking the exhaust pipe of his van.
I guess it's true, for some men any hole is a goal.
I'm such a crap fuck that an ex fucked a baguette.
"
i dont believe that. Looks like you would be a pleasure to fuck |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"True story I know a bloke who was caught fucking the exhaust pipe of his van.
I guess it's true, for some men any hole is a goal.
I'm such a crap fuck that an ex fucked a baguette.
i dont believe that. Looks like you would be a pleasure to fuck "
Only once. Then it's anyone else or bread.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"True story I know a bloke who was caught fucking the exhaust pipe of his van.
I guess it's true, for some men any hole is a goal.
I'm such a crap fuck that an ex fucked a baguette.
"
love the red outfit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"True story I know a bloke who was caught fucking the exhaust pipe of his van.
I guess it's true, for some men any hole is a goal.
I'm such a crap fuck that an ex fucked a baguette.
"
A ham baguette looks like flaps. It's an easy mistake to make.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"True story I know a bloke who was caught fucking the exhaust pipe of his van.
I guess it's true, for some men any hole is a goal.
I'm such a crap fuck that an ex fucked a baguette.
i dont believe that. Looks like you would be a pleasure to fuck
Only once. Then it's anyone else or bread.
"
in that situation i think id have my hands full with you and be to occupied to think about straying |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"True story I know a bloke who was caught fucking the exhaust pipe of his van.
I guess it's true, for some men any hole is a goal.
That used to be a joke about a bloke making love to a princess but you might be too young to get the joke
I'm not joking though lol
Well I hope he let the engine cool down! "
Talk about having a stesming hot fuck otherwise. Getting hard cock oiled and boiled.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Basically.
Thread goes like this:
The average bloke doesn't need many boxes to be ticked with a woman to find her fuckable.
The average woman needs a fair few boxes ticked to find a man fuckable.
The average bloke needs loads of boxes ticked to find a woman relationship material.
The average women doesn't need that many more boxes ticking (if any) to go from man being fuckable to relationship material.
So in short .. ladies, if a bloke finds you fuckable, you may just have nice eyes.... or you have nice shoes and he likes a classy lady.
Fellas, if a woman finds you fuckable, you're not too bad at all, unless she's pissed up.
P |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Basically.
Thread goes like this:
The average bloke doesn't need many boxes to be ticked with a woman to find her fuckable.
The average woman needs a fair few boxes ticked to find a man fuckable.
The average bloke needs loads of boxes ticked to find a woman relationship material.
The average women doesn't need that many more boxes ticking (if any) to go from man being fuckable to relationship material.
So in short .. ladies, if a bloke finds you fuckable, you may just have nice eyes.... or you have nice shoes and he likes a classy lady.
Fellas, if a woman finds you fuckable, you're not too bad at all, unless she's pissed up.
P"
Your new boots have been passed on to the Meli delivery service. I hope they make you even more fuckable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Basically.
Thread goes like this:
The average bloke doesn't need many boxes to be ticked with a woman to find her fuckable.
The average woman needs a fair few boxes ticked to find a man fuckable.
The average bloke needs loads of boxes ticked to find a woman relationship material.
The average women doesn't need that many more boxes ticking (if any) to go from man being fuckable to relationship material.
So in short .. ladies, if a bloke finds you fuckable, you may just have nice eyes.... or you have nice shoes and he likes a classy lady.
Fellas, if a woman finds you fuckable, you're not too bad at all, unless she's pissed up.
P
Your new boots have been passed on to the Meli delivery service. I hope they make you even more fuckable."
Ooooo yaaaaaaay thank you Lickster. You're an absolute sweetheart and it's hugely appreciated. I'm so gonna catwalk strut in them 
P |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *reya73Woman
over a year ago
Whitley Bay |
Hohoho.. I loved reading all that! Thanks for the brain splurge, even though being lean of words escapes you!
We are in such transitional times in terms of our evolution (perhaps we always are as a race?). Our primal brains .. the mammalian and innate part of our being is still very much in existence, even though our outward reaches in current times can mask that we exactly that .. mammals.
Our very nature is still to survive and to continue the survival of our species. We are more wise in this than we give ourselves credit for.
Our culture leans towards overlooking these aspects of ourselves .. even steers us away from our natural states and impulses with schooling, medicine, consumerism, media.. we are shown how to externalise all the time.
Socially there are constant shifts in the roles and choices men and women take .. its no longer as clear cut as Man chooses woman with child bearing hips and woman selects strongest man to breed with so she can ensure they will be fed and survive.
Fight or flight mechanisms are all a bit mixed up too .. we tend to apply them to less important everyday shit than actual life or death situations.
We still have those primal elements present within us.
We are sentient, innate beings and yet also multidimensional ay .. influenced and responsive to way more of our creative selves than our minds tell us. Operating on various frequencies that are desires, personality, states of being, abilities, Clair voyance etc etc .
So it makes sense to me that men and women can seem to approach attraction differently and develop different motives at different times that we aren't always conscious of.
It also makes sense to me that like the Bonobos, we have the ability to connect in more ways than one with more than one person in the tribe .. have sex for pleasure and dont always stay with the best procreating partner. Different laws of attraction most likely to apply.
Anyway, I have no conclusion. But thanks, I liked mulling all of that!
Off to mull some more x
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What book is the walrus currently reading?
Fuck knows. "Why don't cod fit so neatly into your paws and 100 other things you always wondered?" perhaps.
Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked!
Firstly why men seem to have less standards sexually. Now in my own opinion which as I build temporary buildings for a living carries very little weight whatsoever, the reasons for this strange difference between the sexes and their approach is entirely down to our primitive natures inbuilt to ensure the survival of the species. It's watered down by the fact that we're the only species proven to indulge in sex for merely enjoyment's sake with the desire to reproduce often removed such as using birth control methods, but that primitive urge to ensure the survival of the species IS what gives us our drives towards the opposite sex where applicable after all.
To have the best chance of populating a species as fast as possible, and ignoring the few not following this pattern such as seahorses, as a male can sire many females simultaneously the instinct in him is to inseminate or get up the duff as many females he possibly can, such increasing chances of many offspring of HIS being produced to increase the numbers that will survive. A female in most species has the biological urge to get inseminated, but has the urge to seek the strongest seed for HER offspring to stand the best chance of survival over all others.
This dormant urge would explain perfectly why the instinct, despite our now mainly civilised society, for men to seek multiple partners sexually and women to seek few partners, but those they seek to be as accomplished as possible, be it in strength, brains, or varying signs among the animal kingdom indicating fertility?
Hence women will on average have much higher standards than men as to who they will have sex with.
It makes sense to me anyway if no one else!
B"
Makes sense to me. Thought I'd posted similar earlier. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Could it also be like the crap old urban myth that fat girls try harder?
So men are happy to fuck lower standard women because they think she'll try harder/ be more filthy because she's grateful of attention.
Similarly the lower standard man may try harder to keep the woman he's managed to date. Because he'll never get another woman to date him, let alone fuck him.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And finally, on to the conundrum with how each sex differs with their standards of seeking relationships; and in my twisted yet unsurprising view, it's unsurprisingly back to the animal kingdom once more!
When it comes to ensuring his offspring survive, as a male in many areas of the animal kingdom will have inseminated several females, he only has so much time to offer protection and acquiring meals etc to each one carrying his young. Therefore he will often have to prioritise, and choose only the finest of the females carrying his young to afford this too. Thus he would be far far more picky in choosing attributes such as best childbearing hips, her nurturing instinct, her perceived fertility etc to make sure of giving the one with the best chance of producing and nurturing healthy young at the expense of others.
The female in a species is different. In a lot of species females outnumber males due to fighting between males, males getting killed whilst on the hunt, etc. Plus with her when she is up against several other females in acquiring a males protection it is in her interests merely to acquire that protection. Having a male who isn't the most caring or the best huntsman is far better than the alternative to protect her young, having no protection or help at all, which a lot of females have to struggle with.
So as such acquiring the animal version of a relationship alone is something of a triumph.
With modern day humans I think as with the way that different genders look at selecting partners for sex, the way that they look for relationships is much more watered down than this by societies norms and their positions in this society. Also both genders will doubtless learn through experience. But the dormant instinct is in us all and it would explain why men are far more selective generally in choosing and being tied into relationships than women are. And like with sex only reversed why women yearn far far more for a relationship than men tend to. Whilst the numbers of men and women in modern day society (once the surplus of women after the second world war had dwindled away) are fairly similar, the fact that there's less men wanting relationships than women takes the place of there actually being less men around physically.
Could be true, could be complete codswallop, who knows! It just seems to follow logic as far as I can reckon.
B
"
I enjoyed reading it.
Will be looking forward to more such posts from yourself.
Yes I get it what you try to say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Basically.
Thread goes like this:
The average bloke doesn't need many boxes to be ticked with a woman to find her fuckable.
The average woman needs a fair few boxes ticked to find a man fuckable.
The average bloke needs loads of boxes ticked to find a woman relationship material.
The average women doesn't need that many more boxes ticking (if any) to go from man being fuckable to relationship material.
So in short .. ladies, if a bloke finds you fuckable, you may just have nice eyes.... or you have nice shoes and he likes a classy lady.
Fellas, if a woman finds you fuckable, you're not too bad at all, unless she's pissed up.
P"
I like that summary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's actually an interesting point OP but given the low quality of most of the threads on this forum you'll be hard pressed to get sensible answers.
I believe that men are more commitment phobic and women less choosy because of the inherent bias in the family court and divorce system thag favours women over men.
If you're a guy, you need to be bloody careful who you marry because if you divorce, you're likely to be financially screwed over.
Likewise there are double standards in sexual behavior too. If you're a woman, there is more pressure to be selective since society views unselective promiscuous women in a negative way. Promiscuous men are not viewed as negatively. There is perhaps also the element of biology at work. Men simply are hard wired to sleep with as many women as possible.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mberWoman
over a year ago
Preston |
"It's actually an interesting point OP but given the low quality of most of the threads on this forum you'll be hard pressed to get sensible answers.
I believe that men are more commitment phobic and women less choosy because of the inherent bias in the family court and divorce system thag favours women over men.
If you're a guy, you need to be bloody careful who you marry because if you divorce, you're likely to be financially screwed over.
Likewise there are double standards in sexual behavior too. If you're a woman, there is more pressure to be selective since society views unselective promiscuous women in a negative way. Promiscuous men are not viewed as negatively. There is perhaps also the element of biology at work. Men simply are hard wired to sleep with as many women as possible.
"
Someone wrote 'man slag' on a post earlier. But we'd never say 'woman slag' because the word is only used to describe women as a rule (and never as a compliment) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's actually an interesting point OP but given the low quality of most of the threads on this forum you'll be hard pressed to get sensible answers.
I believe that men are more commitment phobic and women less choosy because of the inherent bias in the family court and divorce system thag favours women over men.
If you're a guy, you need to be bloody careful who you marry because if you divorce, you're likely to be financially screwed over.
Likewise there are double standards in sexual behavior too. If you're a woman, there is more pressure to be selective since society views unselective promiscuous women in a negative way. Promiscuous men are not viewed as negatively. There is perhaps also the element of biology at work. Men simply are hard wired to sleep with as many women as possible.
"
Good points, especially the divorce one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Good points, especially the divorce one."
Yeah. I've been through one. The financial and personal cost was so high that it would have been cheaper to have hired a call girl for the entire duration of my marriage.
No other institution requires men to sign away so much for so little guarantee in return.
Now that I have a son I will have to seriously counsel him to ensure that he doesn't marry, or give him legal help to protect himself if he does.
The advice I give my daughter meanwhile is exactly the opposite.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mberWoman
over a year ago
Preston |
"
Good points, especially the divorce one.
Yeah. I've been through one. The financial and personal cost was so high that it would have been cheaper to have hired a call girl for the entire duration of my marriage.
No other institution requires men to sign away so much for so little guarantee in return.
Now that I have a son I will have to seriously counsel him to ensure that he doesn't marry, or give him legal help to protect himself if he does.
The advice I give my daughter meanwhile is exactly the opposite.
"
If it makes you feel any better when I spilt up with my husband I paid him what felt like lots, definitely not the other way around |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *educedWoman
over a year ago
Birmingham |
This thread has made me think of two things.
1. I must do more to stop walruses falling to their death from precarious cliff tops. #savethewalrus
2. I should definitely spend my Christmas break watching my Gimme Gimme Gimme boxset. #lindalahughes4pm |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's actually an interesting point OP but given the low quality of most of the threads on this forum you'll be hard pressed to get sensible answers.
I believe that men are more commitment phobic and women less choosy because of the inherent bias in the family court and divorce system thag favours women over men.
If you're a guy, you need to be bloody careful who you marry because if you divorce, you're likely to be financially screwed over.
Likewise there are double standards in sexual behavior too. If you're a woman, there is more pressure to be selective since society views unselective promiscuous women in a negative way. Promiscuous men are not viewed as negatively. There is perhaps also the element of biology at work. Men simply are hard wired to sleep with as many women as possible.
"
Agree here too. Ive always thought for men to marry they need to switch off a significant part of their brain tbh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmmMaybeCouple
over a year ago
West Wales |
"It's actually an interesting point OP but given the low quality of most of the threads on this forum you'll be hard pressed to get sensible answers.
I believe that men are more commitment phobic and women less choosy because of the inherent bias in the family court and divorce system thag favours women over men.
If you're a guy, you need to be bloody careful who you marry because if you divorce, you're likely to be financially screwed over.
Likewise there are double standards in sexual behavior too. If you're a woman, there is more pressure to be selective since society views unselective promiscuous women in a negative way. Promiscuous men are not viewed as negatively. There is perhaps also the element of biology at work. Men simply are hard wired to sleep with as many women as possible.
Agree here too. Ive always thought for men to marry they need to switch off a significant part of their brain tbh."
I’ve never had issues with divorce, but then I’ve only had kids with H & I’ve been attracted to women in just as good a job as I had. So when they went tits up the only wrench was to the heart not the wallet.
S |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A somewhat strange title granted and is it prone to exaggeration? Hell yes, but it's always fun to exaggerate!
But as with the best (in fact I would say all) exaggerations there is some truth in it, no? Exaggerating is like basic multiplying algebra, you have to have a value "x" in the first place to twist about with multiplications to outlandish proportions, else if "x" is equal to zero then with multiplication alone you'll still end up with a Big Fat Fuck All.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the thread title. If you add the convenient word of SOME that a lot of forumites consider essentially missing from many posts, myself included, in front of the words "Men" and "Women" in the title then it is factually 100% correct. Mick Philpot, father of many and widely considered bonafide scumbag extraordinaire, managed to somehow live with two "concubines" minimum. And yes, somewhere out there you can bet your booties that there also exists a low-standarded chump or two that would actually fuck a walrus. They could well be on Fab, now there's a thought!
It is also a widely given opinion that the average man's criteria to consider a woman "fuckable" are shall we say less stringent than the average lady's would be regarding men. By contrast a man would also require far more suitable qualities from a lady to consider her LTR material than a woman would a man.
When a lot younger this always bemused me somewhat. The phrase "Men will shag anything that moves/anything with a pulse/a hole in a barbershop floor" would be bandied about and whilst again it exaggerates massively it is not without basic grounds. Yet it would be used by ladies who whilst they were very selective regarding which men they allowed for whatever short-lived period between their legs to do the mattress mambo compared to their male contemporaries, were far less choosy than chaps about whom they chose as a partner to form a relationship with, a process that could feasibly last anywhere from a week or so to their whole bloody lives! Men would often tread very carefully, getting cold feet and commitment-phobia the same way a woman of a certain age would regarding a session of sexual intercourse.
With women it was considered a triumph just to get the considered average bloke in a LTR, akin to the male success being viewed as thus by his peers with many considered average women sexually? Surely I figured the female approach was complete nonsense; As who you allowed to have such a union that could be over years and such a huge portion of your life should be a far more exhaustively screening process than who you choose to get jiggy with on what could well be a one-off?
But then I WAS looking at it from my male viewpoint. And at the time hadn't completely figured out what I have now...
"
just like to say we are all shapes and sizes
and take humbridge in saying that you bet fab has walruses on here or the fact that people fuck them
so what
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmmMaybeCouple
over a year ago
West Wales |
As we see it the term “Punching” is used a lot here by guys not able to get meets.
Usually it’s the same guys that think sitting on a keyboard or smartphone should have the “Birds flocking” when they won’t (or can’t because they are married/in relationships sometimes) venture to area socials let alone a club.
However, Saying that the pure mathematical numbers in here mean ladies can be choosy in who they meet. Discerning whether they are able to “Punch ” because of it is easy if they were honest.
Ladies pick the fittest guy you have played with on here. Now imagine going to a popular busy bar on a Fri/Sat full of males/females of all shapes/sizes & try chatting up a guy as close to Mr Fab as possible. Are you likely to get a look in?
If you are thinking probably not, then you’re using the mathematics of Fab & probably punching...and I’d be doing exactly the same if I were in your shoes, fill ya boots ladies
So being honest there is an element of truth to what these guys say, however it’s also usually true that it’s said by the guys that make little effort other than a crap dick profile & shite one line messages.
This post was brought to you by a near empty bottle of Captain Morgan’s & severe case of idontgiveafuckitous.
S |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"A somewhat strange title granted and is it prone to exaggeration? Hell yes, but it's always fun to exaggerate!
But as with the best (in fact I would say all) exaggerations there is some truth in it, no? Exaggerating is like basic multiplying algebra, you have to have a value "x" in the first place to twist about with multiplications to outlandish proportions, else if "x" is equal to zero then with multiplication alone you'll still end up with a Big Fat Fuck All.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the thread title. If you add the convenient word of SOME that a lot of forumites consider essentially missing from many posts, myself included, in front of the words "Men" and "Women" in the title then it is factually 100% correct. Mick Philpot, father of many and widely considered bonafide scumbag extraordinaire, managed to somehow live with two "concubines" minimum. And yes, somewhere out there you can bet your booties that there also exists a low-standarded chump or two that would actually fuck a walrus. They could well be on Fab, now there's a thought!
It is also a widely given opinion that the average man's criteria to consider a woman "fuckable" are shall we say less stringent than the average lady's would be regarding men. By contrast a man would also require far more suitable qualities from a lady to consider her LTR material than a woman would a man.
When a lot younger this always bemused me somewhat. The phrase "Men will shag anything that moves/anything with a pulse/a hole in a barbershop floor" would be bandied about and whilst again it exaggerates massively it is not without basic grounds. Yet it would be used by ladies who whilst they were very selective regarding which men they allowed for whatever short-lived period between their legs to do the mattress mambo compared to their male contemporaries, were far less choosy than chaps about whom they chose as a partner to form a relationship with, a process that could feasibly last anywhere from a week or so to their whole bloody lives! Men would often tread very carefully, getting cold feet and commitment-phobia the same way a woman of a certain age would regarding a session of sexual intercourse.
With women it was considered a triumph just to get the considered average bloke in a LTR, akin to the male success being viewed as thus by his peers with many considered average women sexually? Surely I figured the female approach was complete nonsense; As who you allowed to have such a union that could be over years and such a huge portion of your life should be a far more exhaustively screening process than who you choose to get jiggy with on what could well be a one-off?
But then I WAS looking at it from my male viewpoint. And at the time hadn't completely figured out what I have now...
just like to say we are all shapes and sizes
and take humbridge in saying that you bet fab has walruses on here or the fact that people fuck them
so what
"
I would guess that you haven't read all the OP or at least not properly. As at no point did I say that "I bet Fab has walruses on here" at all, that's probably a conclusion you drew from the tongue in cheek thread title when you realised reading the actual post fully before commenting on it may be too much of an effort?
No it's safe to say that there probably aren't any actual walruses on here, also that Mick Philpot may not be on a dating site. But would SOME men fuck a walrus? Yep, the truly desperate ones... And SOME women do consider Philpot a good bet for a LTR, born out by his previous history?
So for you to take UMBRIDGE at something that I haven't even said is a bit silly really.
As for your not really reading or understanding the original post, that's fine, for some people the concentration of reading and absorbing makes their head hurt after a short while, so I wouldn't expect everyone to be equipped to digest it properly. What I would expect though is that those who don't have either the patience or ability to read and understand it properly would refrain from making accusations based on complete guesswork as to what it may mean, be they based on people's perceptions in general or existing chips on shoulders that I haven't reinforced at all.
B |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Basically i think women plan ahead and men tend to do things on a whim. Because we (women) have had responsibility thrust onto us by society and men have not.
So predatory men tend to go for very young, or vulnerable, 'women' for relationships. Older, or at least wiser, women aren't interested and probably experienced at least one predatory guy already when younger. So the Philpotts of the world end up having multiple children with idiots basically, not very smart of them but they don't plan long term. Eventually these girls wise up to the predators bullshit and learn they shoulda planned ahead also.
If a guy fucks someone he doesn'tconsider that attractive he doesn't care coz he wasn't planning long term anyway and his short term needs are fulfilled.
If a woman fucks someone she doesn't find attractive she may be lumbered with an ugly offspring that she has to care for on her own forever. Coz abortion, adoption, walking out on kids as a female, all of this is looked down on still.
If the guy makes babies with someone he doesn't fancy he can walk away and never have to bother looking at it. Also he knows it will get to breed as an adult coz the ugly woman he fucked got to.
Makes sense to me.
*Ugly is subjective. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
