"Slutty girl" - My definition

howsyourtusk

Robdude wrote: »

The idea that women dislike being financially dependent on men is a myth, with more choosing to “marry up” now than did so in the 1940s, according to Dr Catherine Hakim from the London School of Economics

In a 52-page report published by the Centre for Policy Studies think tank, Dr Hakim continued: “Women’s aspiration to marry up, if they can, to a man who is better-educated and higher-earning, persists in most European countries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8237298/What-women-really-want-to-marry-a-rich-man.html

Issue 1) You're sourcing the telegraph. A paper intrinsically linked to the Conservative party and the right wing.

Issue 2) That think tank that's the source, founded by Maggie Tatcher in 1974.

Pwned.

Dudess

Oh god, the "chase" - manipulating someone to make them fall for you, and then discarding them. One of the most head-wrecking games there is - and surely the preserve of teenagers only?

howsyourtusk

Dudess wrote: »

Oh god, the "chase" - manipulating someone to make them fall for you, and then discarding them. One of the most head-wrecking games there is - and surely the preserve of teenagers only?

The adult version is the awesome feeling you get when someone reciprocates and you have awesome sex with cuddles after :P I sleep at night knowing the judgmental anti-women pricks on here rarely, if ever are content.

Logical Fallacy

howsyourtusk wrote: »

The adult version is the awesome feeling you get when someone reciprocates and you have awesome sex with cuddles after :P I sleep at night knowing the judgmental anti-women pricks on here rarely, if ever are content.

To be honest, i used to wonder how I used to get laid so much being just an average guy. Threads like this always wake me up to the fact that so many blokes out there seem to be willing to completely hamstring themselves during the race to Vagina county.

considering there was a thread where someone posted "i respect my girlfriend more since i found out she's a virgin" i suppose i shouldn't be surprised at some attitudes

"i like a bit of a chase"? really? we're here for your chasing amusement?

grow up

Dudess

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

howsyourtusk wrote: »

The adult version is the awesome feeling you get when someone reciprocates and you have awesome sex with cuddles after :P I sleep at night knowing the judgmental anti-women pricks on here rarely, if ever are content.

To be honest, i used to wonder how I used to get laid so much being just an average guy. Threads like this always wake me up to the fact that so many blokes out there seem to be willing to completely hamstring themselves during the race to Vagina county.

Good personality, good in bed - infinitely more attractive than a pretty face and fuk all personality. :pac:

howsyourtusk

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

To be honest, i used to wonder how I used to get laid so much being just an average guy. Threads like this always wake me up to the fact that so many blokes out there seem to be willing to completely hamstring themselves during the race to Vagina county.

Haha, snap Some of the laddish ****e I have to endure in certain circles makes me laugh. Never met one girl who admitted liking that stuff. Brilliant thing about it is if you criticise chaps with those sort of fragile egos the responses you'll get indicate brilliantly what sort of articulate lovers these lads are. "you gay or what?"

Logical Fallacy

bluewolf wrote: »

considering there was a thread where someone posted "i respect my girlfriend more since i found out she's a virgin" i suppose i shouldn't be surprised at some attitudes

"i like a bit of a chase"? really? we're here for your chasing amusement?

grow up

In fairness, if that virgin thread is the same one i am thinking about, the chap in question was delighted because he was also a virgin and he was just happy that they were both able to understand and appreciate that aspect of the other person.

Unless it's a different thread...but i honestly don't think you'd find two virgins outside of a Star Trek convention.

howsyourtusk

Dudess wrote: »

Good personality, good in bed - infinitely more attractive than a pretty face and fuk all personality. :pac:

Oh but pretty eyes too, that's the one thing I'm a sucker for :pac:

But I do notice a correlation between pretty eyes (as in twinkling, cheeky eyes) and personality and prowess in bed.

Logical Fallacy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

In fairness, if that virgin thread is the same one i am thinking about, the chap in question was delighted because he was also a virgin and he was just happy that they were both able to understand and appreciate that aspect of the other person.

Unless it's a different thread...but i honestly don't think you'd find two virgins outside of a Star Trek convention.

I can understand him being delighted and all that, but respect her more? no
i'd ignore if i didn't think he's probably not the only one with that attitude

Logical Fallacy

bluewolf wrote: »

I can understand him being delighted and all that, but respect her more? no
i'd ignore if i didn't think he's probably not the only one with that attitude

Ah yeah, i see what you mean.

howsyourtusk

bluewolf wrote: »

I can understand him being delighted and all that, but respect her more? no
i'd ignore if i didn't think he's probably not the only one with that attitude

Was something slightly creepy about that thread. Lad was kind of saying, "if she wasn't a virgin I'd have serious issues about it as the idea of other men having touched her freaks me out". Basically possessive behaviour. Virginity is a label, means nothing and certainly only treasured by those who seek to use it as a weapon, moral or otherwise.

daisybelle2008

blindjustice wrote: »

Its all very old fashioned I know but it works for me. Plus I like a bit of a chase

I don't understand why it is more flattering to you that someone can withold sex from you until you have done or bought them enough stuff. Surely it is more flattering that they find you so incredibly sexy they can't keep their hands off you from the get go

To me your attitude looks like this: I have low self-esteem and big ego, therefore I need a girl to withold sex from me while we run around after each other in a childish charade. She will exchange sex with me when she finally feels I have given her enough emotional & material attention. I can pretend I have worked or earned some kind of prize and feel more manly for a while.

If a girl can withold sex under the above circumstances, chances are she does not really like sex or she wants a relationship more than sex. Once she has got the relationship she withheld the sex for, whats her reason for having sex with you now.

Some people don't see sex as some kind of emotional currency and don't see the point of coveting their desires in some ego driven 'chase' that really does not serve either sex in the long run.

ProfessorWeeto

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

I don't understand why it is more flattering to you that someone can withold sex from you until you have done or bought them enough stuff. Surely it is more flattering that they find you so incredibly sexy they can't keep their hands off you from the get go

I hate the whole 'making someone wait' thing.

I could meet and date a girl. She makes me wait 3 months for sex But yet she has had her share of one night stands, can have/had a f**k buddy, but I gotta wait that 3 months?

f**k that. Nothing wrong with making someone wait a few weeks as you date them, get to know them. But anything over a month is a joke in this day and age.

amacachi

Dudess wrote: »

Or a "legend" to some of his mates.

In my circle it's as you described, depends on behaviour rather than numbers.

EDIT: Also as it happens there's a difference in what a slut/dirty bastard can get away with in public. A slut can get away with rubbing against someone, dry humping their leg etc. etc., dirty bastard will be lucky to get away with a grope.

Dudess

ProfessorWeeto wrote: »

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

I don't understand why it is more flattering to you that someone can withold sex from you until you have done or bought them enough stuff. Surely it is more flattering that they find you so incredibly sexy they can't keep their hands off you from the get go

I hate the whole 'making someone wait' thing.

I could meet and date a girl. She makes me wait 3 months for sex But yet she has had her share of one night stands, can have/had a f**k buddy, but I gotta wait that 3 months?

f**k that. Nothing wrong with making someone wait a few weeks as you date them, get to know them. But anything over a month is a joke in this day and age.

Yeah if a person wants to jump someone as soon as they meet them, and the other person feels the same, why wait just for the sake of waiting?

Micky Dolenz

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah if a person wants to jump someone as soon as they meet them, and the other person feels the same, why wait just for the sake of waiting?

Go on,

what happened next?

Robdude

howsyourtusk wrote: »

Issue 1) You're sourcing the telegraph. A paper intrinsically linked to the Conservative party and the right wing.

Issue 2) That think tank that's the source, founded by Maggie Tatcher in 1974.

Pwned.

Let me get this straight....

Person A posts anecdotal evidence.
Person B posts anecdotal evidence with a single source you disagree with.

And you think Person B is pwned? Even though no evidence has been provided to support person A's claim?

That's quite the interesting interpretation of 'pwned'. And, dismissing scientific research because of who performed it is a logical fallacy called 'ad Hominem'. If you object to the methodology performed by the study, certainly, feel free to point out the flaws. But to say it's WRONG because it appeared on a particular website or because of who did it - that is logically unfounded.

You are free to offer up counter-arguments or studies that contradict this one, or like I said, point out what is actually wrong with *the study*. Those would all be valid.

But acting like a child and saying 'PWNED' because you've declared a website to be invalid is....well....childish.

howsyourtusk

Robdude wrote: »

Let me get this straight....

Person A posts anecdotal evidence.
Person B posts anecdotal evidence with a single source you disagree with.

And you think Person B is pwned? Even though no evidence has been provided to support person A's claim?

That's quite the interesting interpretation of 'pwned'. And, dismissing scientific research because of who performed it is a logical fallacy called 'ad Hominem'. If you object to the methodology performed by the study, certainly, feel free to point out the flaws. But to say it's WRONG because it appeared on a particular website or because of who did it - that is logically unfounded.

You are free to offer up counter-arguments or studies that contradict this one, or like I said, point out what is actually wrong with *the study*. Those would all be valid.

But acting like a child and saying 'PWNED' because you've declared a website to be invalid is....well....childish.

You're using the conservative party as a source on a social issue and stating it to be "scientific fact". Equivalent to me saying, "Black people are stupid, let me link you to a scientific paper on the Nazi Party website". I know what ad hominem is.

Here's some right now, you suck :pac:

Robdude

howsyourtusk wrote: »

You're using the conservative party as a source on a social issue and stating it to be "scientific fact". Equivalent to me saying, "Black people are stupid, let me link you to a scientific paper on the Nazi Party website". I know what ad hominem is.

Here's some right now, you suck :pac:

Not to be pedantic - but that's not an example of ad hominem. That's an insult. Ad hominem would be: 'You suck, therefore your argument is wrong'.

Beyond that - I never claimed it was scientific fact. I only claimed I could provide non-anecdotal evidence to support my own anecdotal story. Which, when asked, I provided.

Nobody has provided a single non-anecdotal source that refutes my claim.

To be perfectly honest; I've done a fair bit of searching online and I can't find a single study, of any kind, that suggests women prefer NOT to be taken care of, financially. Every study that even comes close to addressing the issue seems to agree with me.

Can you provide any source that contradicts me?

http://www.livescience.com/5215-perfect-mate.html

The University of Oxford collected data from personal ads and dating sites and concluded that: men want attractive young women and women want older men with resources

El_Dangeroso

howsyourtusk wrote: »

Here's some right now, you suck :pac:

That's not ad hominem.

I think anyone has the right to boink anyone else that they want to boink, but the irony of the judgemental people on here saying that anyone who would prefer to go out with a girl that has not slept with a lot of men is somehow repressed is quite funny.

I know a good few women who wouldn't want to sleep with a guy if he had slept with a lot of people. It smacks of low standards to some people.

Some people still actually think sex means something for them, and they shouldn't be judged for it.

Doc Ruby

Robdude wrote: »

The University of Oxford collected data from personal ads and dating sites and concluded that: men want attractive young women and women want older men with resources

There are probably significant cultural factors involved there rather than it being genetically hardwired.

For example I noticed in France when I visited last year that there was a very limited emphasis on youth culture, many of the big names in the media and entertainment would be "silver foxes", both male and female. The differences between that and say some parts of the US were striking.

People really are too diverse to make sweeping statements about all men or all women, large sections of either group are going to be disenfranchised if you try it. As culture changes over time, I think we're going to see a move towards much more casual relationships and fluid arrangements.

It might strike many people today as shocking that someone could sleep with three or four different people (even the same people on a rotating basis) a week, but in the not so distant past the idea of say wearing a miniskirt would have been the scandalous hallmark of a jezebel that you wouldn't want to bring home to meet mammy.

amacachi

Doc Ruby wrote: »

There are probably significant cultural factors involved there rather than it being genetically hardwired.

For example I noticed in France when I visited last year that there was a very limited emphasis on youth culture, many of the big names in the media and entertainment would be "silver foxes", both male and female. The differences between that and say some parts of the US were striking.

People really are too diverse to make sweeping statements about all men or all women, large sections of either group are going to be disenfranchised if you try it. As culture changes over time, I think we're going to see a move towards much more casual relationships and fluid arrangements.

It might strike many people today as shocking that someone could sleep with three or four different people (even the same people on a rotating basis) a week, but in the not so distant past the idea of say wearing a miniskirt would have been the scandalous hallmark of a jezebel that you wouldn't want to bring home to meet mammy.

Do you know if there's anywhere in the EU where it's baldies they like? A friend wants to know.

Mickey Dazzler

I love sluts. Love them.

elpipe

amacachi wrote: »

EDIT: Also as it happens there's a difference in what a slut/dirty bastard can get away with in public. A slut can get away with rubbing against someone, dry humping their leg etc. etc., dirty bastard will be lucky to get away with a grope.

No, dirty bastards can get away with far more than that. I for example have more than once stimulated girls G-spot on the dancefloor. You just gotta make sure she's up for some dirty action first.

haminka

elpipe wrote: »

This term is being abused and misunderstood a lot so I decided to tell the truth. The short definition would be: Slut = Natural and sexually liberated girl.

When a guy says, "she's a slut", it basically means "I want sex so bad and she has sex with everyone except me!".

When a girls says the same thing, it basically means "I have passed so many sexual opportunities just to not be too promiscuous in the eyes of the society that I can't deal with someone not following these norms and get away with it. They must be punished!"

The thing is, humans, girls and guys, are highly sexual creatures. We want sex so bad, and preferably not just with one partner. We are by nature promiscuous. Now some want to be faithful to their partner but that is just because of societies norms and superficial ideas that have been planted into your brain since early childhood. We were not made to be monogamous. Just try being married for 10 years and then come back and tell me you never felt sexual desire for anyone other than your partner.

Basically, if we were to not give a F and stop following societies norms, the whole planet would be a gigantic F-fest.

Some guys here probably go, "but girls don't want sex as much as guys". I can tell you straight away that you are very wrong. Guys and girls are just a bit different, let me explain:

Imagine that sexual partners are like chocolate. Guys love chocolate and while they prefer luxury chocolate they don't mind some low quality milk-chocolate either. Girls on the other look at milk-chocolate with distaste but luxury chocolate on the other hand, the enjoyment they get from this kind of chocolate is something I believe is beyond any guys comprehension.


With that said: Lets be a little bit more accepting of them "sluts". If they cheat on you that is bad but at least leave those who are single and free alone and do what they want to do without getting judged.

I thought you were talking about rabbits but the bit about chocolate confused me.

amacachi

elpipe wrote: »

No, dirty bastards can get away with far more than that. I for example have more than once stimulated girls G-spot on the dancefloor. You just gotta make sure she's up for some dirty action first.

I thought it was kinda a given that I meant with people who weren't interested in them.

elpipe

amacachi wrote: »

I thought it was kinda a given that I meant with people who weren't interested in them.

Oh, in that case it makes sense.

Micky Dolenz

elpipe wrote: »

No, dirty bastards can get away with far more than that. I for example have more than once stimulated girls G-spot on the dancefloor. You just gotta make sure she's up for some dirty action first.

You don't know where the G spot is, do you?

Jen Pigs Fly

tl;dr OP is a slut
And if youre a man OP is a ManSlut

elpipe

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

You don't know where the G spot is, do you?

You assume that because I wrote that I touched it? Not following the logic here. It can be reached with your fingers if you didn't know.

44leto

I think this thread should be merged with this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056593429

Logical Fallacy

elpipe wrote: »

You assume that because I wrote that I touched it? Not following the logic here. It can be reached with your fingers if you didn't know.

Science says you are a liar.

I doubt there is any such thing as a magic button with regards to arousal, different people like different things. Lads wouldn't all magically enjoy the same spot being stimulated by a girl. Certain area's of the vaginal wall will be more or less sensitive depending on the woman.

Dudess

elpipe wrote: »

amacachi wrote: »

EDIT: Also as it happens there's a difference in what a slut/dirty bastard can get away with in public. A slut can get away with rubbing against someone, dry humping their leg etc. etc., dirty bastard will be lucky to get away with a grope.

No, dirty bastards can get away with far more than that. I for example have more than once stimulated girls G-spot on the dancefloor. You just gotta make sure she's up for some dirty action first.

Meh, I don't see the need to do all that "naughty" stuff with a stranger in a public place in order to show what a sexually dynamic maaaaan you are. Trying waaaay too hard - and seems like awful hassle.

I guess maybe it's because I'd rather chew my feet than get fingered by a stranger on a dance-floor so that he can tell his mates about it.

Logical Fallacy

Dudess wrote: »

Meh, I don't see the need to do all that "naughty" stuff with a stranger in a public place in order to show what a sexually dynamic maaaaan you are.

I guess maybe it's because I'd rather chew my feet than get fingered by a stranger on a dance-floor so that he can tell his mates about it.

Teenage disco jawb.

Born to Die

These threads prove that AH is full of kids. There should be a proof of age before you can post here. For some I would also request proof of brain activity.

44leto

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Science says you are a liar.

I doubt there is any such thing as a magic button with regards to arousal, different people like different things. Lads would all magically enjoy the same spot being simulated by a girl. Certain area's of the vaginal wall will be more or less sensitive depending on the woman.

It does exist, for a woman the Gspot is her brain also the whole vaginal wall and and internal area. I seen it on this doco. But we are guys so who cares:rolleyes::D

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=why%20sex%20is%20fun&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcuriosity.discovery.com%2Ftopic%2Fneuroscience%2Fwhy-is-sex-fun-episode.htm&ei=OKl4T7m6JYyDhQeDh_itDQ&usg=AFQjCNHj9tqpwygqi66GSnIKjuVsb487Og

Logical Fallacy

44leto wrote: »

It does exist, for a woman the Gspot is her brain also the whole vaginal wall and and internal area. I seen it on this doco. But we are guys so who cares:rolleyes::D

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=why%20sex%20is%20fun&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcuriosity.discovery.com%2Ftopic%2Fneuroscience%2Fwhy-is-sex-fun-episode.htm&ei=OKl4T7m6JYyDhQeDh_itDQ&usg=AFQjCNHj9tqpwygqi66GSnIKjuVsb487Og

I'm not fingering some chick in the brain just to get her off tbh.

forfuxsake

One that refers to her bits as her vaginanus

Wompa1

The OP made my brain hurt. It sounds like she might be a slut that's trying to convince people she's not?

Guys can be sluts too...equality if beautiful

Personally, My only reason to have sex would be to do it with somebody I at least respected. One Night Stands sex is awful. Might as well do some DIY

The_Thing

I fist girls on the dance-floor.

Gummy Panda

Dudess wrote: »

I guess maybe it's because I'd rather chew my feet than get fingered by a stranger on a dance-floor so that he can tell his mates about it.

I never took you for someone with a foot fetish :pac:

Dudess

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

The truth is that, in general, women may very well enjoy sex as much as guys and crave it as much too but the things which turn a woman are more often than not, quite different - not by nature as such, but by circumstance.

Men are orgasm chasers - they wanna cum and women know it and most will be well aware of that power dynamic from their mid-teens and will inevitably learn to use it to their advantage, while their ability to attract it lasts that is.

Young teen boys and girls are about as hornier as each other but around 14 or 15 girls start to notice that boys just wanna cum and girls well, I guess they just wanna have fun, right? Wrong. Girls just wanna be provided for - even at that young age - 'tis in their DNA I tells ya.

They want boys that everyone looks up to and has affluence of one kind or another. Boys couldn't care less if the girl is a local bum's daughter that lives homeless with his family eating hamsters, they just wanna touch boobs and finger some pussy.

Hence why a couple of million teen girls are screaming their heads of about Justin Bierber and the boys are bemused as they jerk off on pics of Hannah Montana.

These girls get a few years older and then start shagging not the boys their own age, but the older lads - the ones with cars and money, things which boys their own age do not have or will be likely to have anytime soon and so sets the stage for girls selectively choosing which orgasm chaser they allow into their beds.

You see, men like dark chocolate as much as women - it's just not so readily available to men. Women can hold out for the dark stuff and snub their noses at the milk variety as they have the power too. That is until they get a little older and start to notice that most of the dark chocolate is gone now too and perhaps they were too hasty in turning down some of that milky goodness but it will be too late and other women (the ones with less of an affinity to snub their noses at what's put their way) will have devoured the best of that too and so they will have no choice but to marry the milky bar kid.

Happy Easter everybody!!

And the thanks it gets - dearie me.

A man who's confident and happy in himself just wouldn't say/agree with the above sh1t.

forfuxsake

Dudess wrote: »

Meh, I don't see the need to do all that "naughty" stuff with a stranger in a public place in order to show what a sexually dynamic maaaaan you are. Trying waaaay too hard - and seems like awful hassle.

I guess maybe it's because I'd rather chew my feet than get fingered by a stranger on a dance-floor so that he can tell his mates about it.

can you do that?:eek:

PK2008

Dudess wrote: »

And the thanks it gets - dearie me.

A man who's confident and happy in himself just wouldn't say/agree with the above sh1t.

In fairness, it was funny

Dudess

PK2008 wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

And the thanks it gets - dearie me.

A man who's confident and happy in himself just wouldn't say/agree with the above sh1t.

In fairness, it was funny

Very true, if not the intention.

Scanlas The 2nd

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

elpipe wrote: »

You assume that because I wrote that I touched it? Not following the logic here. It can be reached with your fingers if you didn't know.

Science says you are a liar.

I doubt there is any such thing as a magic button with regards to arousal, different people like different things. Lads wouldn't all magically enjoy the same spot being stimulated by a girl. Certain area's of the vaginal wall will be more or less sensitive depending on the woman.

From my experience there is a little ball about the size of a grape in every woman's vagina I've had my hand in, and when rubbed it they have always really enjoyed it. It's about three inches in on the front wall, every woman I would guess has the little ball going on my experience.

Logical Fallacy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

From my experience there is a little ball about the size of a grape in every woman's vagina I've had my hand in, and when rubbed it they have always really enjoyed it. It's about three inches in on the front wall, every woman I would guess has the little ball going on my experience.

Actually, they are all there because those girls lost to me in a game of strip Subbuteo.

Sorry about that.

Steve Johnson

howsyourtusk wrote: »

Was something slightly creepy about that thread. Lad was kind of saying, "if she wasn't a virgin I'd have serious issues about it as the idea of other men having touched her freaks me out". Basically possessive behaviour. Virginity is a label, means nothing and certainly only treasured by those who seek to use it as a weapon, moral or otherwise.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a man strongly preferring to form an indefinite relationship with a virgin rather than a non-virgin. There's also nothing wrong with a man being possesive of his woman either. We live in an age where women have been taught that traditional relationship ideals are chauvanistic and mysoginist; nothing could be further from the truth.

Sluts need to be shamed in order for the family unit to be preserved, which is far more important than self-indulgence.

Dudess

Steve Johnson wrote: »

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a man strongly preferring to form an indefinite relationship with a virgin rather than a non-virgin. There's also nothing wrong with a man being possesive of his woman either. We live in an age where women have been taught that traditional relationship ideals are chauvanistic and mysoginist; nothing could be further from the truth.

Sluts need to be shamed in order for the family unit to be preserved, which is far more important than self-indulgence.

Something very familiar about you. Tell me, what do you think of Jews?