So, why the hate on NTR?

[tanstaafl]

It's even recent in terms of humans. I think you're being overly pedantic, and that comes from me - Mr Pedantic

Recent only in a macro view. And yes I'm being pedantic, but I have to be when stepping to you, lol.

 

[Lupiscanis]

You didn't want anecdotes but wanted empirical evidence, well the behaviors around dating apps are just that. The double standards exist because historically birth control wasn't a thing. I am not agreeing with it, but that's that. There is a reason that most feminists applaud the invention of the pill.

You think feminists applauded the invention of the pill because of promiscuity? You don't think it had to do with the idea that maybe they didn't like their lot in life being baby-factories?

I mean please, feel free to present your evidence from dating apps, because a quick google just produces endless posts about the ratio of men to women on dating apps.

nothing is ever so simple

You must be registered to see the links

Look at prostitution - a female dominated industry, where most the men involved are also hired by men.

You do realise prostitution isn't average sexual behaviour, right?

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

You do realise prostitution isn't average sexual behaviour, right?

From that same source -
Paid-for partners
In Natsal-3, 10.8% of men reported ever having paid for opposite-sex sex, compared with 0.1% of women.

And thats not factoring in that as per previous source (also noted in this study) many men lie about prostitution.

You think feminists applauded the invention of the pill because of promiscuity? You don't think it had to do with the idea that maybe they didn't like their lot in life being baby-factories?

No, because it liberated them from their period when required, and also pregnancy when not desired. It gave CONTROL.

 

[Count Morado]

You didn't want anecdotes but wanted empirical evidence, well the behaviors around dating apps are just that. The double standards exist because historically birth control wasn't a thing. I am not agreeing with it, but that's that. There is a reason that most feminists applaud the invention of the pill.



nothing is ever so simple

You must be registered to see the links

How do you account for prostitution

Then look at prostitution - a female dominated industry, where most the men involved are also hired by men.

I'm going to go through this slowly.

You said:

Far more women have slept with 50 men than men have slept with 50 women. I am not picking a side, just stating the truth on that.

I said:

That is NOT the truth. That is a falsehood.

You must be registered to see the links

From the Abstract of the 2018 article I linked:

In the article I linked, even though men usually report more partners than women in surveys they found ways of narrowing using certain parameters - bringing it closer to equal.

This paper shows your "truth" to be false.

You then replied:

nothing is ever so simple

You must be registered to see the links

How do you account for prostitution

Then look at prostitution - a female dominated industry, where most the men involved are also hired by men.

From the Abstract of the 2000 article you linked:

In the article you linked - it looked at an alternative way to sample by attempting to better represent women who participate in prostitution. I would argue that they are then underrepresenting men who - even in anonymous surveys due to social desirability bias - would be reluctant to count their sex with prostitutes in their reporting. But even so...

The article you linked AGREES with the article I linked - that the mean may actually be more equal than we might think, with men not being more promiscuous than women when considering opposite sex partners, nor vice versa. Not just agrees with the article I linked, but the one I linked actually cites the article you linked and discusses how considering that slightly adjusts the findings.

The article you linked shows your "truth" to be false.

EDIT: to add table from my linked source:

I don't have access to the Natsal-3 data they used to build this table. However, using the table, I estimated that:
Men who reported 50+ opposite sex partners: 1.3-1.4%
Women who reported 50+ opposite sex partners: 0.4-0.5%
Natsal-3 didn't ask if any of the respondent had sex as a living. However, the paper states that based upon studies, they should see 26 of the women (about 0.3%) to have at one point earned a living as prostitutes.
If none of the women who reported 50+ opposite sex partners were the 26 expected current/former prostitutes and they all had more than 50+ opposite sex partners - that moves women to 0.7-0.8%

Still fewer women than men with 50+ opposite sex partners.

In the end, your truth is not so. Even based upon your own sourcing.

But i don't expect Morado to read his own sources.

Please see above. See what I said in reply to the person who said that it's the "truth." See what I linked. They jive.

My survey even cites the other survey:
In Natsal-3, 10.8% of men reported ever having paid for opposite-sex sex, compared with 0.1% of women (M [SD], number of paid partners reported by men was 5.94 [12.66]; among women [n = 10], 11.41 [30.14]). Among these participants, 35.2% of men and 63.1% of (the 10) women reported that they had excluded these paid partners from their total number of lifetime partners. It has been suggested that full-time sex workers are underrepresented in national surveys (Brewer et al.,

You must be registered to see the links

). Around 26 sex workers would be expected in the sample of 8,530 women, but Natsal-3 did not ask women whether they had been paid for sex.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Geigi]

with men NOT being more promiscuous than women when considering opposite sex partners.

I wonder if it's true that gay men have more sexual partners than straight women if we speak of promiscuity. I found this

You must be registered to see the links

 

[VegitoHlove]

No, it's not hate. But it is stupid to me because, in my observations, it is people who are asking because they want a story where they can make it not exist, period. Not usually to just avoid - but to have it so a story has no reference to it whatsoever. And if there is a reference, they can turn it off in the game's universe so that it never can/will happen. No whiff, no peak, no nothing.

I mean that's fine but just because someone asks about it being avoidable doesn't mean they won't engage in said content. Also like a said prior, I myself tend to prefer skill base NTR, where the NTR is a "punishment". To me it adds to the impact of NTR if it's a result of your own fuck up.

But hey you feel how you feel, And I can appreciate that.

 

[Lupiscanis]

From that same source -
Paid-for partners
In Natsal-3, 10.8% of men reported ever having paid for opposite-sex sex, compared with 0.1% of women.

And thats not factoring in that as per previous source (also noted in this study) many men lie about prostitution.

Yes, hence not average sexual behaviour. If it were a decent study of any kind, they wouldn't include paid for sexual engagements (or include them as an addendum or something) because it's clearly not expected behaviour (and no, I'm absolutely not shaming sex-workers, I'm just pointing out that the average person doesn't pay people for sex directly).

No, because it liberated them from their period when required, and also pregnancy when not desired. It gave CONTROL.

Yes, something that historically men had the majority of the time when it came to all aspects of life including sex.

 

[Lupiscanis]

yes I'm saying who guarantees you that women are being "more precise" and not straight up lying? Same goes for men E.G. it just says that they don't declare precise numbers but say "around 10 partners" instead of saying "i had 10 partners".It's a study that takes their word for it. You don't know which sex is lying,it no one is lying or if both are lying. But then it states somewhere that maybe both genders are lying because social expectations. So i assume that both are lying to feel acceptance.

So you assume out of the three possibilities they presented, the only one that agrees with your viewpoints must be true and this study must be true?

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

I'm going to go through this slowly.

Few things -
The article is called 'Why Do Men Report More Opposite-Sex Sexual Partners Than Women?'
Point I was making re my friends comment was was - men overstate, women understate.

within
Capping extreme values
Previous research suggests that men report extreme numbers of lifetime partners more often than women do (Jeannin et al.,

You must be registered to see the links

). In Natsal-3, the 99th percentile was 110 partners for men but only 50 for women.

This is the part most studies find - some men get a lot of women, many men do not. Women average out to a higher overall.

EDIT: you are getting so caught up in the details the point I was making is getting lost. Women can get it easier than men, I cant believe people are even arguing this. Obviously in order to get it on for these stats that requires a man (1+1=2), but it is repeatability found that its often a smaller group of men vs a larger group of women. The 'captain of the football team' trope exists for a reason.

I wonder if it's true that gay men have more sexual partners than straight women if we speak of promiscuity. I found this

You must be registered to see the links

"Men who have sex with men (MSM) ... MSM have longer periods of partnership acquisition, a higher prevalence of partnership concurrency, and more age-disassortative mixing than heterosexuals"

Yes, hence not average sexual behaviour.

just stop and READ this stat
'In Natsal-3, 10.8% of men reported ever having paid for opposite-sex sex, compared with 0.1% of women'

Stop and think for a second, over 1 in 10 men admit to hiring a prostitute, 1 in 1000 women do. That should give you some idea of the availability.

 

[Count Morado]

Point I was making re my friends comment was was - men overstate, women understate.

You're watering down your previous argument. You said your friend stated "double what a woman tells you, halve what a man tells you."

That is what you said. Not simply overstate / understate - but double / half.

Neither study promotes that idea.

within
Capping extreme values
Previous research suggests that men report extreme numbers of lifetime partners more often than women do (Jeannin et al.,

You must be registered to see the links

). In Natsal-3, the 99th percentile was 110 partners for men but only 50 for women.

This is the part most studies find - some men get a lot of women, many men do not. Women average out to a higher overall.

Again your "TRUTH" was " Far more women have slept with 50 men than men have slept with 50 women. "

Both your article that you cited and the article I cited (which cites your article in it) state that is not true.

Before I move on. Please consider that. You cannot deny that - not at all.

Second, I've already replied to this in my edit, but I will share that here:

EDIT: to add table from my linked source:​

I don't have access to the Natsal-3 data they used to build this table. However, using the table, I estimated that:​

Men who reported 50+ opposite sex partners: 1.3-1.4%​

Women who reported 50+ opposite sex partners: 0.4-0.5%​

Natsal-3 didn't ask if any of the respondent had sex as a living. However, the paper states that based upon studies, they should see 26 of the women (about 0.3%) to have at one point earned a living as prostitutes.​

If none of the women who reported 50+ opposite sex partners were the 26 expected current/former prostitutes and they all had more than 50+ opposite sex partners - that moves women to 0.7-0.8%​

​

Still fewer women than men with 50+ opposite sex partners.​

​

In the end, your truth is not so. Even based upon your own sourcing.​

This is the part most studies find.... Women average out to a higher overall.

No, neither study states that. Not at all.

Not in any of the text, tables, charts of either study.

 

[Lupiscanis]

just stop and READ this stat
'In Natsal-3, 10.8% of men reported ever having paid for opposite-sex sex, compared with 0.1% of women'

Stop and think for a second, over 1 in 10 men admit to hiring a prostitute, 1 in 1000 women do. That should give you some idea of the availability.

I don't know why we're still discussing this.

The basic point that I was trying to make (about two pages ago now) was that women are penalised more heavily than men for promiscuity.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Again your "TRUTH" was " Far more women have slept with 50 men than men have slept with 50 women. "

Ok I shall revise this - women have a higher average body count than men. I used 50 as that was an easy even number for an example, I never meant it as a literal fact, just something to emphasise a point (women have a higher average body count than men).

I don't know why we're still discussing this.

The basic point that I was trying to make (about two pages ago now) was that women are penalized more heavily than men for promiscuity.

I explained that historically birth control wasn't a thing and that men have a (generally) harder time getting laid than women. It is far easier for an average woman to walk into a bar and walk out with a partner than an average man.

 

[Lupiscanis]

I explained that historically birth control wasn't a thing and that men have a (generally) harder time getting laid than women. It is far easier for an average woman to walk into a bar and walk out with a partner than an average man.

So what, because women have some power when it comes to partner selection, we should punish them for it?

 

[Count Morado]

Ok I shall revise this - women have a higher average body count than men. I used 50 as that was an easy even number for an example, I never meant it as a literal fact, just something to emphasise a point (women have a higher average body count than men).

You stated clearly "I am not picking a side, just stating the truth on that."
If you were emphasizing - you should not have added that.

Also, again, neither study supports your statement, even that women "have a higher body count than men" --- which again, was not your claim.

Your claim was: Far more women have slept with 50 men than men have slept with 50 women.

And again, neither study supports your statement. Neither study states even close to that.

You have a lot more to do than revise...

I explained that historically birth control wasn't a thing and that men have a (generally) harder time getting laid than women. It is far easier for an average woman to walk into a bar and walk out with a partner than an average man.

Bullshit to both.

Birth control has been around from before written history.
And no, men have not had a (generally) harder time getting laid than women.

These are both myths.

 

[Lupiscanis]

You stated clearly "I am not picking a side, just stating the truth on that."
If you were emphasizing - you should not have added that.

Also, again, neither study supports your statement, even that women "have a higher body count than men" --- which again, was not your claim.

Your claim was: Far more women have slept with 50 men than men have slept with 50 women.

And again, neither study supports your statement. Neither study states even close to that.

You have a lot more to do than revise...

Bullshit to both.

Birth control has been around from before written history.
And no, men have not had a (generally) harder time getting laid than women.

These are both myths.

This is the thing that seems to be going unexplained here. Even if those studies were 100% accurate, they're trying to explain the disparity with a premise that body counts should be equal between the sexes, not that women should be disproportionately (or in statistically at all) higher.

Partner counts should only be roughly equal if we lived in an entirely heterosexual society that was perfectly balanced and we also didn't consider any other sexual activity than just plain old penis in vagina sex.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

So what, because women have some power when it comes to partner selection, we should punish them for it?

The double standards exist because historically birth control wasn't a thing. I am not agreeing with it, but that's that.

 

[Count Morado]

just plain old penis in vagina sex.

historically birth control wasn't a thing. I am not agreeing with it, but that's that.

Again with the "that's that" as if you are stating a truth or a fact.

When that is not that.

You really need to stop that.

We have written evidence of condoms 3000 BC --- and we know of early humans eating certain plants and using certain concoctions to induce an abortion. We know that people (women) would help other people (women) induce abortions in victorian times. And speaking of prostitutes, should we talk about their personal care process between clients pre industrial age?

 

[Lupiscanis]

~ Quotes ~

And I'm saying that historical context don't trump modern day moral inconsistency.

*edit* - 'facts' > 'context' for better reading. I hate not thinking of the right word when I want to.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

You stated clearly "I am not picking a side, just stating the truth on that."
If you were emphasizing - you should not have added that.

Also, again, neither study supports your statement, even that women "have a higher body count than men" --- which again, was not your claim.

Your claim was: Far more women have slept with 50 men than men have slept with 50 women.

If you want to fixate on the number 50 rather than the concept then have at it - your entire evidence is a study wondering why studies are so hard to do because the numbers dont add up.

Birth control has been around from before written history.

This is just some grade A WTF.
Safe reliable birth control outside of toxic abortives or hitting someone? WTF are you even getting at here, its getting into insane land. Ancient greek tribes didn't even realise that men were required to make babies, they thought the wind impregnated women...

And no, men have not had a (generally) harder time getting laid than women.

Again this is just madness - if over 1/10 men hire a prostitute vs 1/1000 women it shows that it is harder, because it requires a financial incentive.

If it were even prostitution would hardly exist.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

View attachment 4817004

Again with the "that's that" as if you are stating a truth or a fact.

When that is not that.

You really need to stop that.

We have written evidence of condoms 3000 BC --- and we know of early humans eating certain plants and using certain concoctions to induce an abortion. We know that people (women) would help other people (women) induce abortions in victorian times. And speaking of prostitutes, should we talk about their personal care process between clients pre industrial age?

Look up the side effects - infertility, heavy metal build up, death, uterual scarring. those condoms were a sheep intestine or similar with far lower success rates than modern ones, and if they did work then why the need for the abortatives in the first place.

And I'm saying that historical context don't trump modern day moral inconsistency.

*edit* - 'facts' > 'context' for better reading. I hate not thinking of the right word when I want to.

You asked, I answered. OK then, WHY is there a double standed? Its easy to just sit there and shoot down every idea offered. Offer your own.