Everybody is well aware that there are double standards for girls when it comes to sexual activity. Girls are required to have fewer sexual partners than guys.

I never questioned this for so long, but recently my libido has gone into overdrive and I've found myself wanting more girls to have a fling with.

I couldn't help noticing that a good number of girls refuse to shag me unless I've told them that I'm looking for a serious relationship. At first I just assumed this was because I'm the ultimate relationship material, but on deeper thought I realized that this could be because a girl has it at the back of her mind that she'd come under fire for having flings.

Whereas a guy can keep as many fxck buddies as he wants, a girl is required to be chaste and possibly untouched (virgin). A girl is expected to stick to one guy and to ensure that she meets this requirement, a girl holds out until a guy shows seriousness.

I resent this greatly and I've started to take issue with guys who go about saying that they want to marry a virgin, or a belgium rather than fairly used girl. This is demeaning, and it reduces the number of girls available for flings, because girls will try to meet these expectations by denying you sex.

I've seen many girls who are feeling very "hot", but won't complete the act because they have become conditioned to not appreciate a fling.

I advocate for a less judgmental society, where women are not shamed for having as many sexual partners as they see fit, or at least at the same rate as the average guy. Every guy who is interested in a society with more girls that "understand" should support this. Thank you.

puberty

Sometimes I wonder if u no post u go die .haba.
I know say u go like am if ur daughter go done dey wasted and messed up b4 marriage but not me oo.
Man na Man, Woman na Woman. All those equality shit no go change am. I rest my case.

undercat:
Everybody is well aware that there are double standards for girls when it comes to sexual activity. Girls are required to have fewer sexual partners than guys.

I never questioned this for so long, but recently my libido has gone into overdrive and I've found myself wanting more girls to have a fling with.

I couldn't help noticing that a good number of girls refuse to shag me unless I've told them that I'm looking for a serious relationship. At first I just assumed this was because I'm the ultimate relationship material, but on deeper thought I realized that this could be because a girl has it at the back of her mind that she'd come under fire for having flings.

Whereas a guy can keep as many fxck buddies as he wants, a girl is required to be chaste and possibly untouched (virgin). A girl is expected to stick to one guy and to ensure that she meets this requirement, a girl holds out until a guy shows seriousness.

I resent this greatly and I've started to take issue with guys who go about saying that they want to marry a virgin, or a belgium rather than fairly used girl. This is demeaning, and it reduces the number of girls available for flings, because girls will try to meet these expectations by denying you sex.

I've seen many girls who are feeling very "hot", but won't complete the act because they have become conditioned to not appreciate a fling.

I advocate for a less judgmental society, where women are not shamed for having as many sexual partners as they see fit, or at least at the same rate as the average guy. Every guy who is interested in a society with more girls that "understand" should support this. Thank you.

Simply ask yourself if this your proposition sounds honourable... Your emotions (hormones) are meant to be controlled by you and not you being totally subject to it. Apostle Paul said if you cannot hold body, go and look for a wife.

samflexxy:
puberty

Eunuch

aristocrazzy:
Sometimes I wonder if u no post u go die .haba.
I know say u go like am if ur daughter go done dey wasted and messed up b4 marriage but not me oo.
Man na Man, Woman na Woman. All those equality shit no go change am. I rest my case.

You think women are delicate princesses abi?

Issue for the gods

jearile:

Simply ask yourself if this your proposition sounds honourable... Your emotions (hormones) are meant to be controlled by you and not you being totally subject to it. Apostle Paul said if you cannot hold body, go and look for a wife.

That's bad advice bro. Marriage is not magic. If you cannot hold body, getting married will lead you to break a vow.

ibkonekt:
Issue for the gods

Leave that one first. We need your support.

My brother money answeth all things

undercat:


That's bad advice bro. Marriage is not magic. If you cannot hold body, getting married will lead you to break a vow.

I only tried to quote a context from one of Paul's epistle. When you marry a wife you can get all the sex you need if promiscuity seems to be a daunting task.
Ps: Please nobody should marry mainly for sex

Op, when you have your own daughters, send them all out to satisfy the sexual urges of men.

Cholls:
My brother money answeth all things

Your head dey there! But it's not everybody that has money.

jearile:

I only tried to quote a context from one of Paul's epistle. When you marry a wife you can get all the sex you need if promiscuity seems to be a daunting task.
Ps: Please nobody should marry mainly for sex

True. Nobody should marry for sex. But the idea in the op will reduce pre marital heartbreak.

pacesetter939:
Op, when you have your own daughters, send them all out to satisfy the sexual urges of men.

Girls have sexuality urges too.

Ok

If a population of heterosexuals has an equal number of men and women, then the mean number of sexual partners a man has equals the mean number of partners a woman has. This is simple statistics.

Any double standard or expectation to the contrary cannot be met.

However, it makes sense in that nature has placed the main burden of sexual encounter on the woman and her family. It is the woman who carries the burden of pregnancy and would normally become the primary carer of a child. So, we have evolved principles that build on the greater vested interest of the woman.

sinequanon:
If a population of heterosexuals has an equal number of men and women, then the mean number of sexual partners a man has equals the mean number of partners a woman has. This is simple statistics.

Any double standard or expectation to the contrary cannot be met.

I don't know math, but yours seems correct. However, I think the mean number refers to the entire population and not to the individual. So while the mean has to be equal, the actual distribution does not.

If we were calculating the number of sexual partners for each gender, these statistics would be relevant. Even then, it cannot tell us anything about the double standards existing.

However, it makes sense in that nature has placed the main burden of sexual encounter on the woman and her family. It is the woman who carries the burden of pregnancy and would normally become the primary carer of a child. So, we have evolved principles that build on the greater vested interest of the woman.

This would suffice as an explanation for the status quo. Sadly, with the advent of contraception and other "stuff", not every sexual encounter has to place a burden on a woman. The foundation on which we've build our current principles have been somewhat eroded so one might expect our principles to relax a bit.

This probably doesn't sound very nice.

undercat:


I don't know math, but yours seems correct. However, I think the mean number refers to the entire population and not to the individual. So while the mean has to be equal, the actual distribution does not.

The mean actually relates to the individual, but you are still correct in that the distribution need not be equal.

The figures for men could consist of most men having a few sexual partners, while the figures for women could consist largely of some very promiscuous women having an abundance of partners. (I actually think that this tends to be the case).

undercat:
If we were calculating the number of sexual partners for each gender, these statistics would be relevant. Even then, it cannot tell us anything about the double standards existing.

The statistics do relate to the individual. And I don't really see it as a double standard. There was never really any promise of "equality" in the first instance. No standard could originally be expected to apply. I am not convinced that modern contraception and technology changes the picture that much.

undercat:
This would suffice as an explanation for the status quo. Sadly, with the advent of contraception and other "stuff", not every sexual encounter has to place a burden on a woman. The foundation on which we've build our current principles have been somewhat eroded so one might expect our principles to relax a bit.

This probably doesn't sound very nice.

Well, I agree something is awry when we describe a promiscuous man as a "stud", and a promiscuous woman as a "slut" with all the connotations.

Whatever negative impact promiscuity has on society is in equal measure due to the behaviour of both men and women.

We supposedly have the wisdom to appreciate the function of sex and be the stewards of our own destiny, rather than to truckle to the vagaries of animal lust and brutal environmental redress. But when will we get round to using that wisdom?

sinequanon:


The mean actually relates to the individual, but you are still correct in that the distribution need not be equal.

The figures for men could consist of most men having a few sexual partners, while the figures for women could consist largely of some very promiscuous women having an abundance of partners. (I actually think that this tends to be the case).

I can't imagine it any other way.

The statistics do relate to the individual. And I don't really see it as a double standard. There was never really any promise of "equality" in the first instance. No standard could originally be expected to apply. I am not convinced that modern contraception and technology changes the picture that much.

I'm not sure I follow. What do you see it as? There could be the requirement by evolution that women desire fewer sexual partners. This requirement is for women to follow. I think the standards come in when men, not evolution now, also require the same from women, even as the men want as many partners as possible.

Well, I agree something is awry when we describe a promiscuous man as a "stud", and a promiscuous woman as a "slut" with all the connotations.

Whatever negative impact promiscuity has on society is in equal measure due to the behaviour of both men and women.

True.

We supposedly have the wisdom to appreciate the function of sex and be the stewards of our own destiny, rather than to truckle to the vagaries of animal lust and brutal environmental redress. But when will we get round to using that wisdom?

Do you mean when will the double standard be removed.

undercat:
I'm not sure I follow. What do you see it as? There could be the requirement by evolution that women desire fewer sexual partners. This requirement is for women to follow. I think the standards come in when men, not evolution now, also require the same from women, even as the men want as many partners as possible.

I use double standard to refer to a situation where we expect there to be a single standard. I don't think such a single standard exists, or is necessarily meaningful. across male and female sexual behaviour. The fact that we observe or continue with two standards does not make it a double standard. "Double standard" has a particular connotation of something unjust.

Also, humans are social creatures. We are all impacted by social expectations. Men, too, are impacted by women's expectations. They may insist on a man being sexually experienced before he is married, for example.

undercat:
Do you mean when will the double standard be removed.

I think that there may be two standards -- not a double standard -- due to biological factors. I don't carry around in my head a standard for men. That is for women to do. They are the ones who are going to choose their man, and you have to accept it. Similarly, women have to accept what we choose.

sinequanon:


I use double standard to refer to a situation where we expect there to be a single standard. I don't think such a single standard exists, or is necessarily meaningful. across male and female sexual behaviour. The fact that we observe or continue with two standards does not make it a double standard. "Double standard" has a particular connotation of something unjust.

Also, humans are social creatures. We are all impacted by social expectations. Men, too, are impacted by women's expectations. They may insist on a man being sexually experienced before he is married, for example.



I think that there may be two standards -- not a double standard -- due to biological factors. I don't carry around in my head a standard for men. That is for women to do. They are the ones who are going to choose their man, and you have to accept it. Similarly, women have to accept what we choose.

Good point. Perhaps this is true. If it is then the OP is misconceived. Fortunately for the OP it doesn’t address why men have the principle they have. Thanks for the clarity you've brought.

undercat:


Leave that one first. We need your support.

And u ain't getting non. I think u r one of those who escaped Sodoms destruction and want to start a new and worse Sodom and Gomorrah.

Etetejake:


And u ain't getting non. I think u r one of those who escaped Sodoms destruction and want to start a new and worse Sodom and Gomorrah.

You have an active imagination.

undercat:


You have an active imagination.

Lol. no mind me.

Etetejake:


Lol. no mind me.

You got it.

undercat:


You got it.

A decade ago, your post would have been 100% correct. But the fact is that nowadays, the average girl has had more sexual partners(more heterosexual sex) than the average guy. Up to twice as much in fact. Girls have flings all of the time, it is simply a matter of privacy and progression. Get her alone somewhere, and it all comes down to how skilled you are at escalation. She won't make it easy for you if she suspects that you do not have much experience. THAT is the double standard. Female expectation that a man be sexually experienced, and their simultaneous refusal to deliver the experience.

Unless a chick is a virgn, if she doesn't want to sleep with you, it means she's not into you. It's that simple.

A dude can sleep with anyone but a girl has to be into you to do same.

So don't come here yapping about nothing, we don't need you advocating for us...

BoboYekini:
A decade ago, your post would have been 100% correct. But the fact is that nowadays, the average girl has had more sexual partners(more heterosexual sex) than the average guy. Up to twice as much in fact. Girls have flings all of the time, it is simply a matter of privacy and progression. Get her alone somewhere, and it all comes down to how skilled you are at escalation. She won't make it easy for you if she suspects that you do not have much experience. THAT is the double standard. Female expectation that a man be sexually experienced, and their simultaneous refusal to deliver the experience.

I get what you mean. I did mention that the only thing missing was the final act, the icing on the cake.

Adaeze003:
Unless a chick is a virgn, if she doesn't want to sleep with you, it means she's not into you. It's that simple.

A dude can sleep with anyone but a girl has to be into you to do same.

So don't come here yapping about nothing, we don't need you advocating for us...

Lol. Okay.

In a male dominated situation, when both a male and a female have lots of sex partners, the women gets
called a slut, and the man gets applauded
for his "conquests." It's similar to why
until recently, when a guy had sex with an
under age girl, she was considered a
victim of abuse, but when a woman had
sex with an under age guy, he was
considered lucky.
As far as I'm concerned, slut works for
males and females.
I don't go by the numbers, I go by the
motivation.
As far as I'm concerned, whether you
have a hundred partners, or only one, if
the reason why you have sex with them
doesn't include actually giving a crap
about the person you are with, then you
are a slut. If you aren't treating the
people you are having sex with as your
equals, you are a slut, or you are mentally
unbalanced.

Learning how to love is one of the most beautiful but challenging journey's in life...sleeping with the one you love is a totally different emotional, spiritual en sexual experience than just sleeping around. It is an investment in a unique bounding.

The more often you sleep around, the more you lose your exclusively bounding powers and the easier it becomes to be unfaithful. See it as a sticker, the first time you stick it somewhere it keeps strong, if you take it off and stick it elsewhere it sticks less well, and the more you remove that sticker around the less well it sticks and the easier it is to remove it... So what I want to say, in the end you lose the capacity to connect deeply with one person and commit to love.

I just wonder how people can be satisfied with such superficial sexual experiences. They clearly havent experienced how different it can be otherwise they would never want different and even wouldnt talk about solely self-centered needs... The fruits of people who solely focus on their self-centered needs have proven in every field of life to be everything but tasteful.

I just wish you all the magic of sharing special intimacy with one person who is the world to you. Nothing is more beautiful and powerful in a relationship than having that secret you hold among each other, the expressing of your deepest emotions only between the two of you. How sexy is it when the whole town already have seen your orgasm face?

For me, there should be no different standards between man or woman. It is about the heart, its designed according to the same concept. One thing differs...a woman is the breeding ground of life. When she exposes her body to a man, she is the one taking the biggest risk. Man should think about the question why they are not taking the biggest risk at their side? No wonder a girl asks of you a guarantee that she will not be left behind in misery after a man has used her without love. A woman is much more vulnerable to the risk of getting pregnant, getting an STD and ruining her fertility due to it. Besides, she is more vulnerable to male power, rather physical or mental, which can make it hard for her to stand up for herself in an intimate setting. It is only within a safe setting (literally and figuratively) that she can flower... Women are mums to be...we all know how mum's love is...how committed...it says something about how deeply interwoven sexuality, fertility and love for a woman are... by asking of woman to just sleep around with you...you doing something fundamentally against her nature. You ask of her to become more man-like and split herself into a sex-being and a loving-being... If you want to sleep with a real woman you should never wish that...

If you want to pick women as flowers near the road...instead of chosing one and gardening that one...realise that all those picked flowers will easily wither away...and you will keep replacing them... Why dont do people care for the traces they leave in others...every contact you have with others leaves a print...what print do you want to leave...women who are taken by men time after time...they often have a history of scars you dont know about which make them to think that they can only get love and attention by sleeping with a man...there is a whole lot complex psychology behind this... I doubt if you still would like to grab a girl after you had first studied her deepest life and heart history...

Let's work on a higher and a deeper love.
x

~ Sign of puberty: confusing sex and love or placing them in the wrong order ~