Author northern_sky Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 Huh? Says who? I don't live in Alaska. I was referring to the quality of people I spend time with. http://www.marieclaire.com/cm/marieclaire/images/FIG_13_1_The_Singles_Map.gif Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) http://www.marieclaire.com/cm/marieclaire/images/FIG_13_1_The_Singles_Map.gif So in one particular geographic area of 12.9 million, there are about 89,000 more single men than women. You think THAT is why my male friends don't get sex easy? Because there's 0.6% more men in the metro area on the west coast with the biggest difference between single men and women? Or could it be because the quality of men and women I hang out with don't engage in casual sex? That map was published by a women's magazine and designed to make the women in the most populous part of the country (NYC/NJ) feel better about being single. Edited January 6, 2011 by Star Gazer Link to post Share on other sites
somedude81 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 That being said, I also agree with zengirl that NSA sex is by no means a 'need'. If you truly 'need' sex to survive, well, why not just pay for it then? Just like how you do with food? I don't know who said that NSA sex is a need. Some men are fine with NSA sex, some are not. Sex is only a part of the puzzle. Necessary, but not all inclusive. Just like how humans need water to survive. If we had all the water we needed to drink, but no food, we'd still die. With going to a hooker, the man can get sex, but not intimacy, closeness, companionship or pride from having accomplished something. All of those things come are supposed to come from being in a fulfilling relationship. Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Yea thats a really intelligent argument. According to your logic, I can just walk a couple blocks away to find a brothel as I can do to find a McDonalds, right? Many men will go that route if its that easy and safe to do in America. Oh come on. Unless you're REALLY that dense or live in the Vatican City, it's rarely impossible to access a brothel. Link to post Share on other sites
dispatch3d Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 lol this thread is incredibly hard to read. At any rate, it only confirms my earlier speculation that women have NO IDEA where guys are coming from. Ignorance is bliss I guess. Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I don't know who said that NSA sex is a need. Some men are fine with NSA sex, some are not. Sex is only a part of the puzzle. Necessary, but not all inclusive. Just like how humans need water to survive. If we had all the water we needed to drink, but no food, we'd still die. With going to a hooker, the man can get sex, but not intimacy, closeness, companionship or pride from having accomplished something. All of those things come are supposed to come from being in a fulfilling relationship. Those men were claiming that sex, in itself, is a 'survival need', like food or water. They were not referring to intimacy or companionship or anything related to a relationship. Too lazy to search it up but it happened. Glad you're not one of them. Link to post Share on other sites
Mad Max Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 lol this thread is incredibly hard to read. At any rate, it only confirms my earlier speculation that women have NO IDEA where guys are coming from. Ignorance is bliss I guess. It's not that they don't know. They just don't care. Link to post Share on other sites
musemaj11 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Oh come on. Unless you're REALLY that dense or live in the Vatican City, it's rarely impossible to access a brothel. I know where I can find street hookers in my area. But Im not going to touch any of those druggie disgusting women. Its worse than having a one night stand with some woman from a bar, something that I even refuse to do. The only type of prostitution service I will ever consider using is the kind they have over in Nevada. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 IThey just don't care. What makes you say that? The plethora of threads on LS where women ask questions and seek answers in the hopes of understanding? Link to post Share on other sites
somedude81 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 It's a package deal, intimacy and companionship without sex, is still unfulfilling. But it is still a need. I'd wager that most men who say they need sex, actually need the whole package, they just don't know it. The sex is the only thing they think about. It's why a man can still be depressed after getting a hooker. Sure it's a nice buzz, but it fades and he feels alone again. The solution is not getting another hooker. Unless your Richard Gere. Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I know where I can find street hookers in my area. But Im not going to touch any of those druggie disgusting women. Its worse than having a one night stand with some woman from a bar, something that I even refuse to do. The only type of prostitution service I will ever consider using is the kind they have over in Nevada. Like I said, if you needed it to survive as those posters claimed, you would do it. If you were dying of starvation and the only food available was an ant-infested bun, you would pick off the ants and eat it. If you could really die of lack of sex as they claim, you would take the hookers with a condom. Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 It's a package deal, intimacy and companionship without sex, is still unfulfilling. But it is still a need. Would you then say that you need a relationship to survive? Link to post Share on other sites
dispatch3d Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 OP was genuinely curious about this LS phenomenon. This was not malicious in any way. We have discussed this issue in private and both us don't get the discrepancy of men we know in real life vs men on LS. Something doesn't add up. In all seriousness, this is easily the most offensive thread created to date on LS. Somehow it hasn't been closed and that shocks me. I could give two ****s less about your "intent". **** that. The outcome is a hatefest thread. I mean I couldn't write a thread more deragatory towards women if I tried. If you two seriously can't see what's so offensive about this thread you need to seriously have your filters checked. Link to post Share on other sites
Author northern_sky Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 In all seriousness, this is easily the most offensive thread created to date on LS. Somehow it hasn't been closed and that shocks me. I could give two ****s less about your "intent". **** that. The outcome is a hatefest thread. I mean I couldn't write a thread more deragatory towards women if I tried. If you two seriously can't see what's so offensive about this thread you need to seriously have your filters checked. What is so offensive about it? Sure, I could have been more tactful in my word choice but the content boils down to this: casual sex is relatively easy to come by for both genders, which doesn't align with some of the complaining we see on this board. Link to post Share on other sites
Mad Max Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 In all seriousness, this is easily the most offensive thread created to date on LS. Somehow it hasn't been closed and that shocks me. I could give two ****s less about your "intent". **** that. The outcome is a hatefest thread. I mean I couldn't write a thread more deragatory towards women if I tried. If you two seriously can't see what's so offensive about this thread you need to seriously have your filters checked. I don't know if it's the most offensive, but I'm losing more and more respect for the mods. A select few posters get petty infractions(I got one for saying that a poster is 40 years old), yet offensive threads don't get locked. I know Green had a few offensive threads that went for like 20-30 pages. Link to post Share on other sites
Author northern_sky Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 I don't know if it's the most offensive, but I'm losing more and more respect for the mods. A select few posters get petty infractions(I got one for saying that a poster is 40 years old), yet offensive threads don't get locked. I know Green had a few offensive threads that went for like 20-30 pages. seriously, what is so offensive about it? I'm not getting it. Link to post Share on other sites
Mad Max Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 What is so offensive about it? Sure, I could have been more tactful in my word choice but the content boils down to this: casual sex is relatively easy to come by for both genders, which doesn't align with some of the complaining we see on this board. This thread is aimed at certain posters with the intention of starting trouble. The tone is unacceptable. Link to post Share on other sites
threebyfate Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 In all seriousness, this is easily the most offensive thread created to date on LS. Somehow it hasn't been closed and that shocks me. I could give two ****s less about your "intent". **** that. The outcome is a hatefest thread. I mean I couldn't write a thread more deragatory towards women if I tried. If you two seriously can't see what's so offensive about this thread you need to seriously have your filters checked.I've seen literally hundreds of threads devoted to knocking women down on LS, way worse than this. Try not to be so sensitive about one thread. Link to post Share on other sites
dispatch3d Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (a) your daft (b) close this thread close this thread close this thread. I have no desire to engage in this sort of thing at all. I like reading the thread simply because it offends me more than I should let it. I don't believe in allowing myself to become offended, so the fact you managed to strike a chord does intrigue me. At any rate, the thread should be closed, and you should seriously take a look at how you view the other sex. I still half think your joking that you "cant see what's offensive". Link to post Share on other sites
Mad Max Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 seriously, what is so offensive about it? I'm not getting it. Why does that not surprise me? Link to post Share on other sites
Author northern_sky Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 This thread is aimed at certain posters with the intention of starting trouble. The tone is unacceptable. that i'm pointing out that sex is easy to get for most guys? why is that offensive? Link to post Share on other sites
Mad Max Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 that i'm pointing out that sex is easy to get for most guys? why is that offensive? ...about how hard it is for them to get laid. Boohoo hoo. (I am female btw.) While women as a whole are less easy than men, there are loads of sluts happy to avail their male counterparts at the local pub on a Saturday night. I live in a city with an girl's college, and you should see how aggressive some of these young ladies get. You're intentionally trying to rile up posters. The point of this thread isn't to point out that sex is easy for most guys. It's to start trouble. You know why it's offensive. Link to post Share on other sites
Author northern_sky Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 (a) your daft (b) close this thread close this thread close this thread. I have no desire to engage in this sort of thing at all. I like reading the thread simply because it offends me more than I should let it. I don't believe in allowing myself to become offended, so the fact you managed to strike a chord does intrigue me. At any rate, the thread should be closed, and you should seriously take a look at how you view the other sex. I still half think your joking that you "cant see what's offensive". I already admitted that my word choice was crass, but what am I saying that is so offensive? I honestly don't get it, and I'm curious to understand from your perspective. Link to post Share on other sites
dispatch3d Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 that i'm pointing out that sex is easy to get for most guys? why is that offensive? lol. I know maybe a handful of guys who sex comes easy to. The rest of the guys I know, including myself, have to work to get laid. The thread is so far from reality that waaiiiiit a second. Okay you got me. I'm not talking about this **** in a thread designed to start hate. Link to post Share on other sites
Author northern_sky Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 You're intentionally trying to rile up posters. The point of this thread isn't to point out that sex is easy for most guys. It's to start trouble. You know why it's offensive. First off, I started this thread because I was frustrated and annoyed by the constant posts from guys looking for casual sex who act like it is nearly impossible for men to get laid while women are having a ball. Yes, the tone was snarky because the posters I'm responded to legitimately irritate me and a number of other LSers, I'm sure. So what? That said, my intentions don't determine whether the topic I'm raising is offensive. Is it really? I don't think so. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts