FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swinging Support and Advice > The ratio of men to women....
The ratio of men to women....
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Think this goes back to year zero ! Guys just want to reproduce ! Females just want too with the best ? In the animal world it's true so why not for us ? Would explain a lot ?? "  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"But if you are getting alot more messages surely you cant reply to all. And some nice guys must just get lost in the sea of messages." This | |||
"Think this goes back to year zero ! Guys just want to reproduce ! Females just want too with the best ? In the animal world it's true so why not for us ? Would explain a lot ?? " Hit the nail on the head! | |||
"Think this goes back to year zero ! Guys just want to reproduce ! Females just want too with the best ? In the animal world it's true so why not for us ? Would explain a lot ?? " Kinda see this as being true for me. It's not necessarily about looking for the best but the best people that are right for me. A guy that wont treat me like a sex object, that I can have intelligent conversation with and who will respect my boundaries; with me reciprocating. Sadly, many single guys on here do not understand this and it's all about quick fucks. Thank god for message filters! | |||
"Think this goes back to year zero ! Guys just want to reproduce ! Females just want too with the best ? In the animal world it's true so why not for us ? Would explain a lot ?? Kinda see this as being true for me. It's not necessarily about looking for the best but the best people that are right for me. A guy that wont treat me like a sex object, that I can have intelligent conversation with and who will respect my boundaries; with me reciprocating. Sadly, many single guys on here do not understand this and it's all about quick fucks. Thank god for message filters!" Totally agree with this. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I see it so often: We women get to be very selective due to the extreme proportions of men to women on this site. To me, this sort of thinking implies that we wouldn't be choosy if the odds were the other way around. Huh. Do those who use that excuse REALLY think we'd all fuck anything if pickings were slim to none?" B likes the ratio of 7 to 1 with her being the 1 | |||
| |||
"But if you are getting alot more messages surely you cant reply to all. And some nice guys must just get lost in the sea of messages." No, that doesn't happen. The "nice" guys stand out. | |||
"We're designed to continue the species and if the selection of men was reduced I reckon our selection criteria would adapt. " If we were only doing it to reproduce, or humanity dies out, we wouldn't have a choice. | |||
| |||
"I think the same logic would apply were the ratios reversed, like it does for relationships. Women are more hard-wired to search for a relationship than men, so it's a doddle for a man to get a fulfilling relationship compared to a woman. The problems are that a lot of women when young apply the criteria that they do for sexual partners even more so when it comes to seeking a longterm mate. They want a perfect man who ticks all the _oxes; must be physically highly desirable, considerate, kind, thoughtful, sexually accomplished, well off to provide and have a job that means he still has time for her and any family wanted. Naturally men who tick ALL of these _oxes are in a lot shorter supply than the women who want them, which is why there are a lot of 30-somethings of the Bridget Jones stereotype, with all the most desirable men they know snapped up and due to their being too selective, the "next best" desirable men they previously overlooked have now been snapped up too.... And of course for those that want children, the biological clock ticking ever louder in the background... Then of course it often becomes a dating free for all, the equivalent of an everything must go sale with a lot of women rushing headlong into unsuitable relationships, for fear of being left empty-handed. One big reason divorce rates are so high. That's a big reason why dating sites are dominated by women. And also why some women move the goalposts to try and find a life partner, such as joining sites like fab, even though they're not really looking for casual sex or sex with multiple partners. Naturally it also goes the other way. I know of men that join dating sites just to get laid as the ratios game tips the odds overwhelmingly in their favour. So if somehow hypothetically the ratio shifted the other way on fab, though the individual biological needs of the sexes tell me that it never will, then logic tells me women would on average become less choosy as a result and the men much more so." Now that is pure, analytical brilliance. The logic and truth of it will be lost on many, women and 'white knights' especially so stand by for the haters! | |||
| |||
| |||
"I see it so often: We women get to be very selective due to the extreme proportions of men to women on this site. To me, this sort of thinking implies that we wouldn't be choosy if the odds were the other way around. Huh. Do those who use that excuse REALLY think we'd all fuck anything if pickings were slim to none?" Certainly not. | |||
"I do totally get it from a female point of view on here though. It must be very addictive and 'feel good' to get the number of messages they get when most would be near invisible in the 'real world' of dating. " 'Most' would be invisible in the 'real world'. Sour grapes man. The world is changing, women are just more confident, know what they want, and how to get it. There is a higher ratio of men to women on here, and recent studies show, there are more excess men in the 'real world' too (approx 6 %)some are guessing it is a lack of men lost to wars etc. I am not short of attention in the real world, far from it. But for a woman to admit she only seeks sex, is still frowned upon in this 'real world'. I use Fab for discretion, not desperation. | |||
| |||
"I see it so often: We women get to be very selective due to the extreme proportions of men to women on this site. To me, this sort of thinking implies that we wouldn't be choosy if the odds were the other way around. Huh. Do those who use that excuse REALLY think we'd all fuck anything if pickings were slim to none?" You are, in this, implying that men already do this. While there are some on the site that this is true for (and a few ladies too I would bet). Please do not tar us all with the same brush. I, for one, have lost track of the ladies I have politely turned down. Standards work both ways! | |||
"I see it so often: We women get to be very selective due to the extreme proportions of men to women on this site. To me, this sort of thinking implies that we wouldn't be choosy if the odds were the other way around. Huh. Do those who use that excuse REALLY think we'd all fuck anything if pickings were slim to none?" unforthnatly there are men (and women) out there that still think in this manor, when it Comes to sex. | |||
| |||
| |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less" I haven't yet. | |||
"Can we start a petition against the amount of men on this site ..... So we can make it 100 women vs 1 man I think this would work brilliant for us men and you women can do all the chasing , messaging , making the effort taking us guys on dates .... then we can give you a peck on the cheek and say thanks for a great night ..... my kettles broke or I'd invite you in for a brew lol " might ruin fabs business plans lol. | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less I haven't yet." I'm not talking about you? All you women can say "no i wouldnt" but deep down you know | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less I haven't yet. I'm not talking about you? All you women can say "no i wouldnt" but deep down you know" I'm a woman. If you use the phrase 'you women' then you're talking about me. I get very few messages and not much interest on here. I've still managed not to settle for less than I am looking for. | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less I haven't yet. I'm not talking about you? All you women can say "no i wouldnt" but deep down you know I'm a woman. If you use the phrase 'you women' then you're talking about me. I get very few messages and not much interest on here. I've still managed not to settle for less than I am looking for." Ok congrats but im not on about you ..... Its common sense.. if you have less choice you will settle for whats there... like most things in life | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less I haven't yet. I'm not talking about you? All you women can say "no i wouldnt" but deep down you know I'm a woman. If you use the phrase 'you women' then you're talking about me. I get very few messages and not much interest on here. I've still managed not to settle for less than I am looking for. Ok congrats but im not on about you ..... Its common sense.. if you have less choice you will settle for whats there... like most things in life" Do you? | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less I haven't yet. I'm not talking about you? All you women can say "no i wouldnt" but deep down you know I'm a woman. If you use the phrase 'you women' then you're talking about me. I get very few messages and not much interest on here. I've still managed not to settle for less than I am looking for. Ok congrats but im not on about you ..... Its common sense.. if you have less choice you will settle for whats there... like most things in life Do you?" Do i what | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less I haven't yet. I'm not talking about you? All you women can say "no i wouldnt" but deep down you know I'm a woman. If you use the phrase 'you women' then you're talking about me. I get very few messages and not much interest on here. I've still managed not to settle for less than I am looking for. Ok congrats but im not on about you ..... Its common sense.. if you have less choice you will settle for whats there... like most things in life Do you? Do i what" Settle for what's there. | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less I haven't yet. I'm not talking about you? All you women can say "no i wouldnt" but deep down you know I'm a woman. If you use the phrase 'you women' then you're talking about me. I get very few messages and not much interest on here. I've still managed not to settle for less than I am looking for. Ok congrats but im not on about you ..... Its common sense.. if you have less choice you will settle for whats there... like most things in life Do you? Do i what Settle for what's there." Depends what youre talking about... most of the time yes... if youre on about fab im on here for what i dont get in general life i.e older women as for the younger women on here of i met one yes id be settling for less compared to some younger women ive had in general life | |||
"Actually there is social and historical data in regard to situations where there has been less men than women. Those situations were two world war. From what I have read when it came to settling down women generally grabbed what they could get, likewise when it came to passion. " Only because they were less independent economically | |||
| |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less" no, we'd just get a bigger toy bag. 'touch' is important, as humans are social animals and its one of our major senses..but thats not sex, neither is it intimacy. i can get orgasms aplenty myself, as can any man, so what is it we are after really? this is fobbed off by language used on here, such as 'fucking'...thats not it at all...is it? | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for lessno, we'd just get a bigger toy bag. 'touch' is important, as humans are social animals and its one of our major senses..but thats not sex, neither is it intimacy. i can get orgasms aplenty myself, as can any man, so what is it we are after really? this is fobbed off by language used on here, such as 'fucking'...thats not it at all...is it?" So out of 10 men you pick one you fancy... if he wasnt there you would pick one of the 9 left because you wouldnt know about the 10th | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for lessno, we'd just get a bigger toy bag. 'touch' is important, as humans are social animals and its one of our major senses..but thats not sex, neither is it intimacy. i can get orgasms aplenty myself, as can any man, so what is it we are after really? this is fobbed off by language used on here, such as 'fucking'...thats not it at all...is it? So out of 10 men you pick one you fancy... if he wasnt there you would pick one of the 9 left because you wouldnt know about the 10th" you have no idea how choosy i am then..i've been celibate before for years because i don't fancy the men i come across and i dont switch on the 'do i have chemistry ' button until i know they are compatible with me, in other ways..maybe im odd but thats not the way i operate... | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for lessno, we'd just get a bigger toy bag. 'touch' is important, as humans are social animals and its one of our major senses..but thats not sex, neither is it intimacy. i can get orgasms aplenty myself, as can any man, so what is it we are after really? this is fobbed off by language used on here, such as 'fucking'...thats not it at all...is it? So out of 10 men you pick one you fancy... if he wasnt there you would pick one of the 9 left because you wouldnt know about the 10th you have no idea how choosy i am then..i've been celibate before for years because i don't fancy the men i come across and i dont switch on the 'do i have chemistry ' button until i know they are compatible with me, in other ways..maybe im odd but thats not the way i operate..." Like i told the last woman im not specifically on about you.... but i know that would happen | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for lessno, we'd just get a bigger toy bag. 'touch' is important, as humans are social animals and its one of our major senses..but thats not sex, neither is it intimacy. i can get orgasms aplenty myself, as can any man, so what is it we are after really? this is fobbed off by language used on here, such as 'fucking'...thats not it at all...is it? So out of 10 men you pick one you fancy... if he wasnt there you would pick one of the 9 left because you wouldnt know about the 10th you have no idea how choosy i am then..i've been celibate before for years because i don't fancy the men i come across and i dont switch on the 'do i have chemistry ' button until i know they are compatible with me, in other ways..maybe im odd but thats not the way i operate... Like i told the last woman im not specifically on about you.... but i know that would happen" ive lived what i said..10 men i dont fancy, single but interested... im not going to pick one because they are whats on offer..id rather go without. | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for lessno, we'd just get a bigger toy bag. 'touch' is important, as humans are social animals and its one of our major senses..but thats not sex, neither is it intimacy. i can get orgasms aplenty myself, as can any man, so what is it we are after really? this is fobbed off by language used on here, such as 'fucking'...thats not it at all...is it? So out of 10 men you pick one you fancy... if he wasnt there you would pick one of the 9 left because you wouldnt know about the 10th you have no idea how choosy i am then..i've been celibate before for years because i don't fancy the men i come across and i dont switch on the 'do i have chemistry ' button until i know they are compatible with me, in other ways..maybe im odd but thats not the way i operate... Like i told the last woman im not specifically on about you.... but i know that would happenive lived what i said..10 men i dont fancy, single but interested... im not going to pick one because they are whats on offer..id rather go without." Lol ok | |||
| |||
| |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less I haven't yet. I'm not talking about you? All you women can say "no i wouldnt" but deep down you know" no we wouldn't. and that's coming from a(n ex) sex addict. 
loads of stuff puts me off a guy, and yeah i might have dropped my standards sometimes because i was experimenting on getting the best out of this site, but i wouldn't ever fuck anyone just coz i couldn't get something better.
some of us need the guy to turn us on, but most of them easily turn us off.
| |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less I haven't yet. I'm not talking about you? All you women can say "no i wouldnt" but deep down you know no we wouldn't. and that's coming from a(n ex) sex addict.
loads of stuff puts me off a guy, and yeah i might have dropped my standards sometimes because i was experimenting on getting the best out of this site, but i wouldn't ever fuck anyone just coz i couldn't get something better.
some of us need the guy to turn us on, but most of them easily turn us off.
"L o l | |||
| |||
"some of us need the guy to turn us on, but most of them easily turn us off. " That's how I feel about most of the guys here | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less" Totally agree and honesty some women on here,if a guy on street look at them ,they would be flattered! But on here they turn him down! Some I see and I think who fucks that? Regardless they still have a big head because they have a pussy! I think works both ways guys shouldn't fuck anything who moves! | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less Totally agree and honesty some women on here,if a guy on street look at them ,they would be flattered! But on here they turn him down! Some I see and I think who fucks that? Regardless they still have a big head because they have a pussy! I think works both ways guys shouldn't fuck anything who moves!" Right on the money! | |||
"I think the same logic would apply were the ratios reversed, like it does for relationships. Women are more hard-wired to search for a relationship than men, so it's a doddle for a man to get a fulfilling relationship compared to a woman. The problems are that a lot of women when young apply the criteria that they do for sexual partners even more so when it comes to seeking a longterm mate. They want a perfect man who ticks all the _oxes; must be physically highly desirable, considerate, kind, thoughtful, sexually accomplished, well off to provide and have a job that means he still has time for her and any family wanted. Naturally men who tick ALL of these _oxes are in a lot shorter supply than the women who want them, which is why there are a lot of 30-somethings of the Bridget Jones stereotype, with all the most desirable men they know snapped up and due to their being too selective, the "next best" desirable men they previously overlooked have now been snapped up too.... And of course for those that want children, the biological clock ticking ever louder in the background... Then of course it often becomes a dating free for all, the equivalent of an everything must go sale with a lot of women rushing headlong into unsuitable relationships, for fear of being left empty-handed. One big reason divorce rates are so high. That's a big reason why dating sites are dominated by women. And also why some women move the goalposts to try and find a life partner, such as joining sites like fab, even though they're not really looking for casual sex or sex with multiple partners. Naturally it also goes the other way. I know of men that join dating sites just to get laid as the ratios game tips the odds overwhelmingly in their favour. So if somehow hypothetically the ratio shifted the other way on fab, though the individual biological needs of the sexes tell me that it never will, then logic tells me women would on average become less choosy as a result and the men much more so. Now that is pure, analytical brilliance. The logic and truth of it will be lost on many, women and 'white knights' especially so stand by for the haters!" I know that there's a few people in life who love to get offended and have a pop for having a pop's sake so that they can get the glow of feeling righteous and having the moral high ground in their own eyes, but what I've said isn't really that inflamatory really. Just my own observations on the whole sex and relationships shebang. Or perhaps there's just been posts on here that are more of a powder keg and easier to respond to ha. People, men and women, when they are mature enough to get a realistic view of what is in their reach, settle for things that tick the majority of the _oxes they want satisfying. This applies to almost everything. I'd love to own a Hennessy Venom GT. However I'm wise enough to know owning and running one is overwhelmingly likely to be beyond my budget for the foreseeable future if not for life, so I'm quite happy with my Seat Toledo under the circumstances; a mid-range car, nice to drive, has enough punch when I need it and is good enough on fuel and insurance. If I was a billionaire however I think it's a safe bet that I wouldn't own the car I have now, nice as it is to me. By the same rationale, a woman who was entirely ordinary (though I appreciate ordinary is a hard bracket to quantify), raised in a scentific colony of mainly courteous, good-looking, intelligent, gym fit men would come to view that as the norm and if a man considered average came into the colony then she probably wouldn't look twice at him. However, if you placed said woman in Tower Hamlets to grow to maturity in, amongst an immediate neighbourhood that contained nothing but feckless layabouts, heroine addicts and raging alcoholics and the same average man came on the scene then I think it's overwhelmingly likely her behaviour around him would be vastly different. Granted, there are those who will say "I'd rather go without" but that's the version of yourself speaking that has had the luxury of more choice and your standards set accordingly. It is a lot easier for the human brain to learn something from the outset than it is for it to completely scrap something it has already learnt and reached it's own conclusions for and relearn a totally different set of logic, methods or rules. That's why the average 12 year old is likely to get to grips with how to unblock a smartphone far far more easily than the average 50 year old or for that matter why I at 12 could program a brand new video recorder to record something whilst my family were out an hour after buying the model, whilst my dear old Dad would still be scratching his head over it today! You can't say what your standards would be were you conditioned for want of a better word in an environment with a reversed playing field sexually as you are not that version of yourself. Granted, there is always the option of self-pleasure and fantasy, but whether you were satisfied fully by this would depend upon 3 things; your capacity for imagination, your happiness in purely your own company and your ability to immerse yourself completely in this other option. In a sense, unless you preferred a hermit-like existence and some do to be fair, then you'd still be settling, only for a life with a lot less real intimacy instead. | |||
| |||
"I'm new to this site and the amount of guys to women is ridiculous I get so much attention from other guys . I'm a genuine straight guy that has been married for twelve years and just don't want to get into another relationship so I was recommended to join here It's a crazy site haha " Why are the hot ones always at the other end of the bloody country?! | |||
 | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less" Afraid not...for someone to be allowed to enter me. There has to be some attraction. | |||
"It is not just on this site that men give women a lot of attention. I bet if I took my clothes off on Bond Street, I would get a lot of attention there too by men; and then, I'd get arrested "How about you try it and let us know? *pics or it didn't happen!  | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less Afraid not...for someone to be allowed to enter me. There has to be some attraction. "
And in the worse case scenario, I'd simply charge up my vibrator more often. I still wouldn't let any man touch me who I don't find attractive | |||
"It is not just on this site that men give women a lot of attention. I bet if I took my clothes off on Bond Street, I would get a lot of attention there too by men; and then, I'd get arrested
How about you try it and let us know?
*pics or it didn't happen! "Gee, thanks | |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less Afraid not...for someone to be allowed to enter me. There has to be some attraction.
And in the worse case scenario, I'd simply charge up my vibrator more often. I still wouldn't let any man touch me who I don't find attractive " | |||
"Since time immamorial, men have told women that if they sleep around, they are sluts. Men have been the ones in control." Case in point: King Henry VIII His Mistresses included Mary Boleyn (sister of his second wife,) Bessie Blount (mother of Henry Fitzroy, his illegitimate son,) Mary Shelton (first cousin of his second wife.) He also began courting Anne Boleyn while still married to Catherine of Aragon; Jane Seymour while still married to Anne Boleyn; and Catherine Howard while still married to Anne of Cleves. Moreover, Anne Boleyn gave birth to Elizabeth only THREE MONTHS after marrying Henry. THIS from a man who had both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard executed for treason, on the grounds that they had committed adultery against the King. In other words, Henry, being King, could fuck whoever he wanted, no questions asked...If his wives and/or mistresses did likewise, they ended up dead. | |||
"I'm new to this site and the amount of guys to women is ridiculous I get so much attention from other guys . I'm a genuine straight guy that has been married for twelve years and just don't want to get into another relationship so I was recommended to join here It's a crazy site haha Why are the hot ones always at the other end of the bloody country?!" Haha story of my life | |||
| |||
"Think it could be the expectations of what a swinging site is all about ? For women I think it's the safe sex with who ever choose to have more than a social with ? For some guys it's loads of women all gagging for me ? These seem to be the ones who are on site a week and normally on the forum complaining that they haven't had a meet yet ? " Yeah I can see that . For me personally I'm just a genuine guy just looking for NSA fun i was married for 12 years and being military holding down a relationship is hard work and to be honest I'm quite happy being single I just miss the intimacy so I was recommended to this site I'm not the type of guy to start complaining about being rejected it is what it is. | |||
| |||
"Fingers crossed you enjoy the company of some nice ppl ? I know how hard the military life is !" Thankyou  | |||
| |||
"If women had less choice.. yes they would settle for less Totally agree and honesty some women on here,if a guy on street look at them ,they would be flattered! But on here they turn him down! Some I see and I think who fucks that? Regardless they still have a big head because they have a pussy! I think works both ways guys shouldn't fuck anything who moves!"
You don't have to be einstein to work that out but then again most people live their life through this site so know nothing else
You only have to read the female comments on this thread ...
Thanks for being honest | |||
"I do totally get it from a female point of view on here though. It must be very addictive and 'feel good' to get the number of messages they get when most would be near invisible in the 'real world' of dating. 'Most' would be invisible in the 'real world'. Sour grapes man. The world is changing, women are just more confident, know what they want, and how to get it. There is a higher ratio of men to women on here, and recent studies show, there are more excess men in the 'real world' too (approx 6 %)some are guessing it is a lack of men lost to wars etc. I am not short of attention in the real world, far from it. But for a woman to admit she only seeks sex, is still frowned upon in this 'real world'. I use Fab for discretion, not desperation." It still blows my mind that women go around preaching this absolute rubbish. I would not bother. Fab forums seem to maintain a healthy amount of delusion among the single female demographic. Its what a diet of lefty, third wave, "sex positive" rubbish and guff results in...women who really have no understanding of either themselves or even basic societal dynamics. Women here actually think that they would not become less selective if the pool of men shrunk? Are humans still this deluded? | |||
"Women here actually think that they would not become less selective if the pool of men shrunk? Are humans still this deluded?" I actually agree with this point. It just makes sense, in my opinion, that if the numbers were different, so would behaviour be. I'm sure scientists have studied this, but I can't be bothered to look up the research. By its exactly this point that makes me wonder why men are so surprised that women ARE selective on here. Men who are shocked or angry that women are choosy on here are, in my opinion, harboring a similar delusion. | |||
"Women here actually think that they would not become less selective if the pool of men shrunk? Are humans still this deluded? I actually agree with this point. It just makes sense, in my opinion, that if the numbers were different, so would behaviour be. I'm sure scientists have studied this, but I can't be bothered to look up the research. By its exactly this point that makes me wonder why men are so surprised that women ARE selective on here. Men who are shocked or angry that women are choosy on here are, in my opinion, harboring a similar delusion." | |||
"Its what a diet of lefty, third wave, "sex positive" rubbish and guff results in...women who really have no understanding of either themselves or even basic societal dynamics" You realise, of course, that a sizeable proportion of the women on Fab will have joined the site precisely BECAUSE they were exposed to Third-Wave Feminism and 'Sex-Positivism'... Oh, but of course, the women of fab are allowed to be 'sex positive' if it's on YOUR terms...otherwise, they're 'delusional' or 'ignorant.' | |||
"Women here actually think that they would not become less selective if the pool of men shrunk? Are humans still this deluded?" After the First World War there was a huge deficit of men in this country. Women didn't automatically go out and marry the first guy they could catch. A lot of them decided against marriage all together and stayed single. It doesn't mean they didn't become less selective, but it also doesn't demonstrate that women will marry just anyone if the choice is restricted. I have a feeling that this is the case when it comes to NSA sex too. In fact more so. And what is wrong with women finally realising they have the right to be sexual beings? Why do so many men have problems with this? Is it purely because they are still not getting any, when they see females they perceive as being unattractive finally being able to revel in the sexual freedoms that men have had for millennia? | |||
| |||
"The men who are tall, attractive, educated get the women and don't hang about these threads complaining of 'ratios'; it is the leftovers who do" That's pretty much what it boils down to. | |||
"The men who are tall, attractive, educated get the women and don't hang about these threads complaining of 'ratios'; it is the leftovers who do" Emphasis on the EDUCATED. I'm short, fat, and only reasonably attractive, but the people who I've met on here have been attracted by my INTELLIGENCE and ABILITY TO HOLD AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION... The problem with most of the guys on here who strut about and proclaim of their being a 'superior physical specimen' is that they have absolutely SOD ALL between their ears... | |||
"The men who are tall, attractive, educated get the women and don't hang about these threads complaining of 'ratios'; it is the leftovers who do Emphasis on the EDUCATED. I'm short, fat, and only reasonably attractive, but the people who I've met on here have been attracted by my INTELLIGENCE and ABILITY TO HOLD AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION... The problem with most of the guys on here who strut about and proclaim of their being a 'superior physical specimen' is that they have absolutely SOD ALL between their ears..." Actually the ones who strut around over here, whether proclaiming or not, are the ones not getting any Those who are don't even bother commenting on these threads; for what would their comment be? I am getting too much? | |||
"Its what a diet of lefty, third wave, "sex positive" rubbish and guff results in...women who really have no understanding of either themselves or even basic societal dynamics You realise, of course, that a sizeable proportion of the women on Fab will have joined the site precisely BECAUSE they were exposed to Third-Wave Feminism and 'Sex-Positivism'... Oh, but of course, the women of fab are allowed to be 'sex positive' if it's on YOUR terms...otherwise, they're 'delusional' or 'ignorant.' " LOL do you think swinging started when society became more lax when it came to female sexual expression? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging_(sexual_practice) Catalogued examples of swinging have been around since the 16th century and even earlier in many non-european societies. Even after the 60's sexual revolution, the population of swingers has still not seen any dramatic rise and remains a pretty niche activity. This is precisely my point and how we end up with attitudes like yours. People who think because they participate in some obscure kink, that makes them enlightened or unique. Swinging has always been a bit of deviance for those looking to expand their sex lives. Third wave feminism and postmodernism gave people the delusional idea that the general population actually desired it. Truth is, since the sexual revolution and advent of rapid communication technologies....the birth rate and the amount of people we're fucking has actually been falling: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/02/less-sex-please-were-millennials-study There is a shift happening in this site. Much of it consists of 40+ year olds who are really the sexually liberated baby boomers...as the swinging community changes, you're noticing it becoming far more targeted and looks centric. | |||
"Women here actually think that they would not become less selective if the pool of men shrunk? Are humans still this deluded? I actually agree with this point. It just makes sense, in my opinion, that if the numbers were different, so would behaviour be. I'm sure scientists have studied this, but I can't be bothered to look up the research. By its exactly this point that makes me wonder why men are so surprised that women ARE selective on here. Men who are shocked or angry that women are choosy on here are, in my opinion, harboring a similar delusion." But then who is actually complaining about women's choosiness? Women have always been the more sexually selective. The problem I have is when people here now think 1. Swinging applies to real life. 2. That men hold the power when it comes to choosing who they're willing to commit to. Hence why I speak about delusion purely in terms of those who think they can come on Fab and expect a committed relationship  | |||
| |||
"LOL do you think swinging started when society became more lax when it came to female sexual expression? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging_(sexual_practice) Catalogued examples of swinging have been around since the 16th century and even earlier in many non-european societies. Even after the 60's sexual revolution, the population of swingers has still not seen any dramatic rise and remains a pretty niche activity. This is precisely my point and how we end up with attitudes like yours. People who think because they participate in some obscure kink, that makes them enlightened or unique. Swinging has always been a bit of deviance for those looking to expand their sex lives. Third wave feminism and postmodernism gave people the delusional idea that the general population actually desired it. Truth is, since the sexual revolution and advent of rapid communication technologies....the birth rate and the amount of people we're fucking has actually been falling" First off, my point was that a lot of the women who joined fab will have done so because of their having been influenced by 'Third Wave Feminism' or 'Sex-Positivism.' I DID NOT CLAIM that swinging was an invention of 'Third Wave Feminism.' Also, I don't consider myself 'enlightened' or 'unique'...FFS, this site has AT LEAST 24,000 members...FETLIFE has 5.5 MILLION. As for your lecture about the history of swinging; surprise surprise, I'VE GOT WIKIPEDIA TOO! Again, you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as 'delusional, post-modern third-wavers,' rather than actually engaging with their arguments... The birth rate is falling largely due to a GREATER availability of birth control; the legalisation of abortion; a greater number of women remaining single for longer; lower infant mortality; and a whole host of other factors. Women are no longer typically getting married at 18 and having five, six or seven children... | |||
" The birth rate is falling largely due to a GREATER availability of birth control; the legalisation of abortion; a greater number of women remaining single for longer; lower infant mortality; and a whole host of other factors. Women are no longer typically getting married at 18 and having five, six or seven children..." Still doesnt explain why we're having less sex. Fabswingers is a population of 24,000 out of 67,000,000...do the maths. | |||
" The birth rate is falling largely due to a GREATER availability of birth control; the legalisation of abortion; a greater number of women remaining single for longer; lower infant mortality; and a whole host of other factors. Women are no longer typically getting married at 18 and having five, six or seven children... Still doesnt explain why we're having less sex. Fabswingers is a population of 24,000 out of 67,000,000...do the maths. " We're having less sex because a major part of 'sexual liberation' is being able to choose for yourself whether or not to have sex. For example, prior to 1991, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE for a wife LEGALLY to withhold consent for sex with her husband, because the marital vows were regarded as providing BLANKET CONSENT. | |||
"Women here actually think that they would not become less selective if the pool of men shrunk? Are humans still this deluded? I actually agree with this point. It just makes sense, in my opinion, that if the numbers were different, so would behaviour be. I'm sure scientists have studied this, but I can't be bothered to look up the research. By its exactly this point that makes me wonder why men are so surprised that women ARE selective on here. Men who are shocked or angry that women are choosy on here are, in my opinion, harboring a similar delusion. But then who is actually complaining about women's choosiness? Women have always been the more sexually selective. The problem I have is when people here now think 1. Swinging applies to real life. 2. That men hold the power when it comes to choosing who they're willing to commit to. Hence why I speak about delusion purely in terms of those who think they can come on Fab and expect a committed relationship "Ok. But I was talking about the general delusions of both men and women on here. Not just women who want a commit relationship...It's pervasive and it's the cause of much angst on here (from both men and women). Calling only woman delusional is missing half the equation. | |||
| |||
" The birth rate is falling largely due to a GREATER availability of birth control; the legalisation of abortion; a greater number of women remaining single for longer; lower infant mortality; and a whole host of other factors. Women are no longer typically getting married at 18 and having five, six or seven children... Still doesnt explain why we're having less sex. Fabswingers is a population of 24,000 out of 67,000,000...do the maths. We're having less sex because a major part of 'sexual liberation' is being able to choose for yourself whether or not to have sex. For example, prior to 1991, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE for a wife LEGALLY to withhold consent for sex with her husband, because the marital vows were regarded as providing BLANKET CONSENT." Riiiight...so sexual liberation leads to a reduction in sexual activity...surely you can see how ridiculous this sounds?? Even when adjusting for shifts in the law...sexual assault is still surprisingly uncommon. The idea you're trying to posit that sexual crimes form a significant part of sexual discourse is just proof in the pudding of how toxic and neurotic said attitudes are. It would be fine if people were comfortable with simply having less sex but thats not really whats happening. Men are completely forgoing their desire to commit and instead opt to come onto sites like these to entertain their cheap thrills with a willing population of women too bereft of any self esteem to opt out. These same women will then sit and complain that men on sites like these (Or Tinder/POF/OKC/whatever) dont show any respect and treat them like worthless pieces of meat. Thats what happens when a society trains a population to believe that female sexual expression is worthless. You have successfully cheapened yourself. The men will act accordingly. That is unless you're one of the many participants on here who uses swinging as a way to open up their sex lives between consenting and understanding partners. But, even then, I have met a fair few who had to "convince" their wives/girlfriends to partake in the swinging lifestyle or who simply got off on seeing their wives playing the "slutwife". I am never quite sure who this is intended to gratify. Learn to actually understand the opposite sex instead of complaining about the physical preferences some of the "shallow and insecure" ones have because they wont attend a swingers club thats open to you. | |||
"Women here actually think that they would not become less selective if the pool of men shrunk? Are humans still this deluded? I actually agree with this point. It just makes sense, in my opinion, that if the numbers were different, so would behaviour be. I'm sure scientists have studied this, but I can't be bothered to look up the research. By its exactly this point that makes me wonder why men are so surprised that women ARE selective on here. Men who are shocked or angry that women are choosy on here are, in my opinion, harboring a similar delusion. But then who is actually complaining about women's choosiness? Women have always been the more sexually selective. The problem I have is when people here now think 1. Swinging applies to real life. 2. That men hold the power when it comes to choosing who they're willing to commit to. Hence why I speak about delusion purely in terms of those who think they can come on Fab and expect a committed relationship
Ok. But I was talking about the general delusions of both men and women on here. Not just women who want a commit relationship...It's pervasive and it's the cause of much angst on here (from both men and women). Calling only woman delusional is missing half the equation."Kinda. People need to understand the dynamics of the venue where said discourse is taking place. The problem with delusional ideas is that the ratios cater to them. I also find that there are a strong contingent of "manosphere" types who hate women and have a massive sense of sexual entitlement on places like Reddit...the demographics allow them to essentially feed an echo chamber. People call out those mentalities there too. The problem with echo chambers is that, in many cases, they can end up spoiling the site altogether. The present demography eventually folds into itself and cannibalizes the audience. I would rather not participate in a forum with people one-upping each other. Hence why people already complain about things like "forum cliques". | |||
"Women here actually think that they would not become less selective if the pool of men shrunk? Are humans still this deluded? I actually agree with this point. It just makes sense, in my opinion, that if the numbers were different, so would behaviour be. I'm sure scientists have studied this, but I can't be bothered to look up the research. By its exactly this point that makes me wonder why men are so surprised that women ARE selective on here. Men who are shocked or angry that women are choosy on here are, in my opinion, harboring a similar delusion. But then who is actually complaining about women's choosiness? Women have always been the more sexually selective. The problem I have is when people here now think 1. Swinging applies to real life. 2. That men hold the power when it comes to choosing who they're willing to commit to. Hence why I speak about delusion purely in terms of those who think they can come on Fab and expect a committed relationship
Ok. But I was talking about the general delusions of both men and women on here. Not just women who want a commit relationship...It's pervasive and it's the cause of much angst on here (from both men and women). Calling only woman delusional is missing half the equation.
Kinda. People need to understand the dynamics of the venue where said discourse is taking place. The problem with delusional ideas is that the ratios cater to them. I also find that there are a strong contingent of "manosphere" types who hate women and have a massive sense of sexual entitlement on places like Reddit...the demographics allow them to essentially feed an echo chamber. People call out those mentalities there too.
The problem with echo chambers is that, in many cases, they can end up spoiling the site altogether. The present demography eventually folds into itself and cannibalizes the audience. I would rather not participate in a forum with people one-upping each other. Hence why people already complain about things like "forum cliques". "I agree with you in theory. I really do. I see the echo-chamber. And I agree. But I think people new to bring the conversation back to equilibrium - not try to offer the complete opposite of the spectrum and state things so strongly in the other camp. Not only does it just entrench people in their (often delusional) viewpoints, but it creates "anti-cliques." | |||
"Women here actually think that they would not become less selective if the pool of men shrunk? Are humans still this deluded? I actually agree with this point. It just makes sense, in my opinion, that if the numbers were different, so would behaviour be. I'm sure scientists have studied this, but I can't be bothered to look up the research. By its exactly this point that makes me wonder why men are so surprised that women ARE selective on here. Men who are shocked or angry that women are choosy on here are, in my opinion, harboring a similar delusion. But then who is actually complaining about women's choosiness? Women have always been the more sexually selective. The problem I have is when people here now think 1. Swinging applies to real life. 2. That men hold the power when it comes to choosing who they're willing to commit to. Hence why I speak about delusion purely in terms of those who think they can come on Fab and expect a committed relationship
Ok. But I was talking about the general delusions of both men and women on here. Not just women who want a commit relationship...It's pervasive and it's the cause of much angst on here (from both men and women). Calling only woman delusional is missing half the equation.
Kinda. People need to understand the dynamics of the venue where said discourse is taking place. The problem with delusional ideas is that the ratios cater to them. I also find that there are a strong contingent of "manosphere" types who hate women and have a massive sense of sexual entitlement on places like Reddit...the demographics allow them to essentially feed an echo chamber. People call out those mentalities there too.
The problem with echo chambers is that, in many cases, they can end up spoiling the site altogether. The present demography eventually folds into itself and cannibalizes the audience. I would rather not participate in a forum with people one-upping each other. Hence why people already complain about things like "forum cliques".
I agree with you in theory. I really do. I see the echo-chamber. And I agree.
But I think people new to bring the conversation back to equilibrium - not try to offer the complete opposite of the spectrum and state things so strongly in the other camp. Not only does it just entrench people in their (often delusional) viewpoints, but it creates "anti-cliques." "Me being "strongly in the other camp" would be saying that women are silly for asking for attractive qualities and some modicum of respect. It would be me expecting women to fuck every guy who smiles at them and then tell them to stop whining when they complain about men on here being disrespectful and abusive. | |||
"Me being "strongly in the other camp" would be saying that women are silly for asking for attractive qualities and some modicum of respect. It would be me expecting women to fuck every guy who smiles at them and then tell them to stop whining when they complain about men on here being disrespectful and abusive. " I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with this. (And for the record I didn't mean to be on about you specifically - I meant "other camp" in relation to people's opinions more generally). And the cycle will continue, along with the polarized rhetoric. | |||
 | |||
"Isn't it because of the natural standards that "most" women apply to their choice in partner that the ratio exists? Don't blame the ratio... Blame the game! "Games got harder to play | |||
"Isn't it because of the natural standards that "most" women apply to their choice in partner that the ratio exists? Don't blame the ratio... Blame the game!
Games got harder to play "These damn fussy women!
Making us try harder! How dare they command our respect! | |||
"Women here actually think that they would not become less selective if the pool of men shrunk? Are humans still this deluded? After the First World War there was a huge deficit of men in this country. Women didn't automatically go out and marry the first guy they could catch. A lot of them decided against marriage all together and stayed single. It doesn't mean they didn't become less selective, but it also doesn't demonstrate that women will marry just anyone if the choice is restricted. I have a feeling that this is the case when it comes to NSA sex too. In fact more so. And what is wrong with women finally realising they have the right to be sexual beings? Why do so many men have problems with this? Is it purely because they are still not getting any, when they see females they perceive as being unattractive finally being able to revel in the sexual freedoms that men have had for millennia?" You lovely are brilliant | |||
"I do totally get it from a female point of view on here though. It must be very addictive and 'feel good' to get the number of messages they get when most would be near invisible in the 'real world' of dating. " Why are you even here then? | |||
"Isn't it because of the natural standards that "most" women apply to their choice in partner that the ratio exists? Don't blame the ratio... Blame the game!
Games got harder to play
These damn fussy women!
Making us try harder! How dare they command our respect! "Respect is give at first then after that you have to earn it  | |||
