Is my perception wrong?

[Th****]

  11 minutes ago, ace2587 said:

Sorry a lot of that was for sheep boy. I guess you are picking up what I am laying down tho by allowing my question for you to be a rhetorical one. It’s not a personal attack on you or anyone else. It’s simply to demonstrate that we DO live in a culture and society where the man courts the woman… almost never the other way around. That is all I’m trying to help everyone here understand. That and nothing more.

Expand  

The point you're missing is that women do court men and *would* do it more if there were more *viable* options.

[ac****]

You still didn’t say how many dates you’ve been on where you didn’t pay a dime. That is telling too. It tells me that you are willing to ignore anything and everything that challenges your view of reality or makes you look silly on a forum, regardless of truth.

[Th****]

  9 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

His name is Eyemblacksheep.
.
I'm not taking anything as an attack simply because this is a forum topic that has been done to death and the same arguments are put forward by men who believe they're struggling to make connections with the women here and elsewhere but who fail to consider other people's/genders perspectives. That in itself is telling. It's also because I have no interest in finding a partner for the reasons above and frankly your responses feed into that.
.
If you believe that those are the current cultural norms, I'd suggest that you review your thinking. Plenty of advice and information has been given by the women commenting on this post, which could be being used as feedback. I'm guessing most people, however, will continue to believe in the male loneliness epidemic and blame the women for it, though.

Expand  

All of this. 

[CopperKnob]

  2 minutes ago, ace2587 said:

You still didn’t say how many dates you’ve been on where you didn’t pay a dime. That is telling too. It tells me that you are willing to ignore anything and everything that challenges your view of reality or makes you look silly on a forum, regardless of truth.

Expand  

Or, a different perspective, I'm a 46yr old whose had many dates over the years, and I've not kept count because relationships aren't transactional. Go figure!
.
Stop taking the lazy option and finding other people/factors to blame, take responsibility, and accountability for yourself. Like I said before, I'm not parenting anyone.

[La****]

I don't know. Based on what I think I've seen, and the experiences of female friends, I think it's at the very least much easier for a straight woman to find a man who's sexually interested in her than it is for a man to find a woman who's sexually interested in him. That perception of mine comes from a lot of places; the overwhelming amount of likes my female friends get on dating apps as opposed to the one or two my male friends get, the disparity between how many likes women's selfies get as opposed to men (that's something I see everywhere, but on this platform it's easy to check men's profiles and see that the ratio of likes their photos get to women's is regularly around 1:20), the general perception that when a woman posts a nude selfie it has a bunch of thirsty men in the comments trying to woo her, whereas when a man does it, people consider it off-putting. Bars have specials where ladies drink for free, orgies have reduced or zero cost of entry for women, and I've had multiple women tell me straight out that they feel that "if a woman is just looking for context-less sex, she can find it without effort just by showing up at a bar." Also, I feel like the phenomenon of "incel" is exclusively a male-occupied role, but I might be wrong about that.
I don't want to give the impression that this must be a defacto privilege that women have, because they also need to *** sexual *** from thirsty men, they need to *** being sexually harassed or having their boundaries tested at bars or social gatherings, many women feel that they cannot go outside at night alone due to the physical risk they feel is present, and women have to deal with stalkers. The amount of women I've known who've personally had an obsessed guy stalk them is STUNNINGLY high. As a man, I don't have to *** any of these things, but it's a monkey's paw, because the reason I think my gender doesn't need to feel these ***s is because we feel fundamentally unwanted as a demographic. Women get cat called and approached all the time, whereas the last time a woman flirted with me unprompted was 12 years ago. I know that's just my experience, but it's an experience I've seen most other men report as well.
I think this has had a lot of social and psychological effects that we could get into, but even if I'm right and women do have an easier time soliciting sex, I don't think that necessarily translates to women having an easier time finding a kink partner. Women seen to have extremely valid, empirically proven reasons to *** men (most of which come directly from their own personal experiences and not from the way in which society frames men, as a lot of irate men seem to assume) and so while all my female friends and relatives are swarmed with online suitors who want to have sex with them, they've reported to me that the effort they need to put into vetting all those suitors is absolutely exhausting. They've become extremely keyed-in to potential red flags that might come up in a man's online profile, or in the conversations they have, or in the way he speaks, or his body language, and possibly so many more that I'm not aware of, seemingly out of necessity and for their own safety. It's an intense effort to try and parse literally hundreds of interested profiles just to see if you can find one person who might fit your needs, and I've heard many women say that the effort is just too big, and the reward so infrequent, that they want to simply give up the search altogether.
So while I think women have an infinitely easier time finding a man who is willing to be their sexual partner, I wouldn't assume that must naturally mean that they can find a long-term kink partner more easily. I mean, they might, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but I personally wouldn't come to that conclusion without more information and insight.
I'm also curious what the dynamic is between couples of non heteronormative gender pairs. My impression is that gay men also have an easier time finding casual sex, but that opinion is way less informed, so I can't really speculate. But what about non-binary people? Does presenting as one gender over another affect things? Or is it all about the demographic you're courting? I suspect it's just that men are so starved for most forms of intimacy and affection that any person of any gender would have an easier time soliciting a man for sex, but I don't have any kind of real observations to back that up, it's just the sense I get. I'm definitely curious to learn more, though.

[ey****]

  34 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

You know, at a recent family event I was asked why I was single and I blurted out the "I don't want to parent an adult man" and the room fell silent but, the faces on my mum and my aunt were priceless because they knew exactly what I meant. My mother for example wanted to be a nurse, her parents disallowed any formal further education because that's not what women do.
Even now, our conversations about worldly matters, corporate matters is difficult because she wasn't 'allowed' those experiences. Frankly, she wouldn't survive without my dad she's so reliant on him and it's actually really sad.
I would never intentionally put myself in that position.

Expand  

I think this is also the problem that some info hasn't filtered down the generations.

Because this is stuff I see all the time where men often struggle because they're tied to older attitudes, because that's what they know from parents or grandparents and a lot of traditional media.

Like traditionally, long term couples were usually from school friends, family friends, or went to same church and - that, yep, women were going to struggle if they did not have a partner so often trying to weigh up the best available

and men still often think that way.  So when they talk about numbers and potential suitors it's still with the old mindset of "she has to pick one of us" and there being too many options.    And, of course, she does not. And things that would have impressed someone (secure job, ability to provide) is less important than having stuff in common 

So now folk are less likely to wed off to high school sweethearts, or family friends, etc. and more likely to via coworkers, friends groups, and social settings relative to their interests.

And it's stuff I find interesting because guys role models, often Dads, Grandads, etc will have had a very different experience.  And that is simply, once upon a time a woman had to marry off cos she couldn't get a mortgage/rent/bank account/etc without it - then later maybe she could be she was still often expected to leave her job once married which left a choice of marrying off and keeping house, or becoming somewhat of an office spinster (Spinster itself a slur with an interesting background, that women who could spin could make so much *** they didn't actually need a partner - a rare exception) I mean, up until the 80s a bar could refuse to serve a woman if her husband wasn't there - no wonder people didn't meet in bars then! 

 

I guess perhaps it possibly is easier for women in the sense that "no" is now a bigger option.   And perhaps men would find stuff easier also if we could also accept "no" - that we do not have to settle for someone who doesn't bring us joy, that we can't do fun things together with, that we have to give up work or ambition for. Because for long as men continue to accept whatever-they-can-get, then even a relationship we say we crave isn't necessarily gonna be one that brings joy. 

[Th****]

  6 minutes ago, LanceOfAll said:

so while all my female friends and relatives are swarmed with online suitors who want to have sex with them, they've reported to me that the effort they need to put into vetting all those suitors is absolutely exhausting. They've become extremely keyed-in to potential red flags that might come up in a man's online profile, or in the conversations they have, or in the way he speaks, or his body language, and possibly so many more that I'm not aware of, seemingly out of necessity and for their own safety. It's an intense effort to try and parse literally hundreds of interested profiles just to see if you can find one person who might fit your needs, and I've heard many women say that the effort is just too big, and the reward so infrequent, that they want to simply give up the search altogether.

Expand  

This. It's refreshing to see a man actually hear and grasp this. This is the reality. 

[CopperKnob]

  8 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

I think this is also the problem that some info hasn't filtered down the generations.

Because this is stuff I see all the time where men often struggle because they're tied to older attitudes, because that's what they know from parents or grandparents and a lot of traditional media.

Like traditionally, long term couples were usually from school friends, family friends, or went to same church and - that, yep, women were going to struggle if they did not have a partner so often trying to weigh up the best available

and men still often think that way.  So when they talk about numbers and potential suitors it's still with the old mindset of "she has to pick one of us" and there being too many options.    And, of course, she does not. And things that would have impressed someone (secure job, ability to provide) is less important than having stuff in common 

So now folk are less likely to wed off to high school sweethearts, or family friends, etc. and more likely to via coworkers, friends groups, and social settings relative to their interests.

And it's stuff I find interesting because guys role models, often Dads, Grandads, etc will have had a very different experience.  And that is simply, once upon a time a woman had to marry off cos she couldn't get a mortgage/rent/bank account/etc without it - then later maybe she could be she was still often expected to leave her job once married which left a choice of marrying off and keeping house, or becoming somewhat of an office spinster (Spinster itself a slur with an interesting background, that women who could spin could make so much *** they didn't actually need a partner - a rare exception) I mean, up until the 80s a bar could refuse to serve a woman if her husband wasn't there - no wonder people didn't meet in bars then! 

 

I guess perhaps it possibly is easier for women in the sense that "no" is now a bigger option.   And perhaps men would find stuff easier also if we could also accept "no" - that we do not have to settle for someone who doesn't bring us joy, that we can't do fun things together with, that we have to give up work or ambition for. Because for long as men continue to accept whatever-they-can-get, then even a relationship we say we crave isn't necessarily gonna be one that brings joy. 

Expand  

Is it a lack of information sharing or...
.
1. A lack of evolution on the part of one gender
.
2. The social conditioning that a patriarchal society provides men with a certain viewpoint (which in truth should have been addressed through point 1on the basis that women we also raised in that same society and we managed to connect the dots)

[Th****]

  13 minutes ago, LanceOfAll said:

I'm also curious what the dynamic is between couples of non heteronormative gender pairs. My impression is that gay men also have an easier time finding casual sex,

Expand  

I'd say that impression is probably generally accurate, again because so many men aren't very discerning. Though I do have quite a few friends who are gay and bi men who have the exact same frustrations and struggles with men as women do. 

[Windwolf]

Okay here is what I think a lot of the problem is.

Women are likely to make their first message a detailed message about them.

Men on the other hand are more likely to be a dick picture and a note saying hit me up.

Like that's really going to impress any woman.

Don't believe me? Read the comments on women's pictures on this site.

It's almost like the majority of men have not accomplished anything worthwhile other than getting a hard on.

The men who are capable and willing to make their first contact a proper introduction are probably going to impress a woman quicker than, " hit me up " guy.

I can imagine a women's response to a HMU message being one word. Why?

An introduction should make someone want to know more. Eliciting more questions from her than "Why"

[ey****]

  25 minutes ago, LanceOfAll said:

I'm also curious what the dynamic is between couples of non heteronormative gender pairs. My impression is that gay men also have an easier time finding casual sex, but that opinion is way less informed, so I can't really speculate.

Expand  

from my awareness

generally; yes. The almost comical issue some gay men have is meeting someone and going home and they're both bottoms (or both tops) 

A lot of gay men are absent from a lot of online kink spaces because they don't need to be there - a lot of kink is widespread (and has a lot of history in) gay culture anyway - stuff like grindr really is used for quick hook ups and there's other assorted easy spots for cruising, between bars which differ between "you're here for a drink" and "you're here to pull" and of course sauna's, swingers clubs, etc.  even down to discretion that some swing clubs have gay sessions during the day during the week - and this is before we even get into some of the other online cruising spaces.

This said, of course, it's easier when the ambition is to go out for sex, blowjob, etc. than it is to go and get a date, relationship, etc. 

[La****]

Also, after reading through the comments, I've seen the concept bright up multiple times about the expectations that exist in society for men to be the initiators. I can't say that there aren't any communities or cultures that still have those expectations, but I personally live in a local and online culture where I don't really see any evidence of that expectation existing, yet the dynamic persists, so I'm kinda skeptical of how much influence that expectation has on the matter.
One thing I've noticed when reading erotica aimed at women as opposed to erotica aimed at men is that a lot of that aimed at the female demographic (erotic books, otome manga, etc.) often has elements of intense emotional commitment and physical obsession with the female lead. I pretty consistently see parts of the story that convey a sense of personal devotion from the male love interest, as well as his ability to physically provide protection and food for her. I get the impression (and ladies, please correct me if I'm assuming wrong) that the reason these elements are so common in female erotica is because women tend to find those things sexually arousing.
For erotica aimed at men, it's usually about depicting the physical form of the woman, showing it as much as possible and from as many angles as possible, and emphasizing her willingness to have sex with the male protagonist. Many forms of male-aimed erotica have some kind of story, but it's often little more than a loose framing device, and the most common form of male-aimed pornography that I see in places like PornHub seems to not even bother with the story at all, it's just a clip of a man and woman already going at it.
I won't assume that this is the only place this could come from, but I feel like this difference could be explained in terms of evolutionary incentives. If an early-humanity man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, what is the cost to him? Maybe an hour and 100 calories of energy. It also doesn't put any limitation on how soon he can reproduce afterwards. For a woman, being impregnated means a 9 month burden, lowered mobility, higher nutritional needs, and significantly more vulnerability to predators. And then there's the high mother mortality rate that used to come with giving birth.
To me, it would make sense that women would naturally be conditioned to be much more selective than men in terms of their sexual partners, because the danger and cost is much higher. It would make sense to me that women who chose male partners who would be willing to stay with them, provide food for them, and defend them (i.e. men who are emotionally committed to them) would have a higher chance of their offspring surviving and their genetics being propagated. In other words, I'm saying that I suspect that a woman's relative selectiveness with regards to her male sexual partner is a result of our species' sexual dimorphism rather than any kind of social expectations.

[Th****]

  26 minutes ago, LanceOfAll said:

Also, after reading through the comments, I've seen the concept bright up multiple times about the expectations that exist in society for men to be the initiators. I can't say that there aren't any communities or cultures that still have those expectations, but I personally live in a local and online culture where I don't really see any evidence of that expectation existing, yet the dynamic persists, so I'm kinda skeptical of how much influence that expectation has on the matter.
One thing I've noticed when reading erotica aimed at women as opposed to erotica aimed at men is that a lot of that aimed at the female demographic (erotic books, otome manga, etc.) often has elements of intense emotional commitment and physical obsession with the female lead. I pretty consistently see parts of the story that convey a sense of personal devotion from the male love interest, as well as his ability to physically provide protection and food for her. I get the impression (and ladies, please correct me if I'm assuming wrong) that the reason these elements are so common in female erotica is because women tend to find those things sexually arousing.
For erotica aimed at men, it's usually about depicting the physical form of the woman, showing it as much as possible and from as many angles as possible, and emphasizing her willingness to have sex with the male protagonist. Many forms of male-aimed erotica have some kind of story, but it's often little more than a loose framing device, and the most common form of male-aimed pornography that I see in places like PornHub seems to not even bother with the story at all, it's just a clip of a man and woman already going at it.
I won't assume that this is the only place this could come from, but I feel like this difference could be explained in terms of evolutionary incentives. If an early-humanity man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, what is the cost to him? Maybe an hour and 100 calories of energy. It also doesn't put any limitation on how soon he can reproduce afterwards. For a woman, being impregnated means a 9 month burden, lowered mobility, higher nutritional needs, and significantly more vulnerability to predators. And then there's the high mother mortality rate that used to come with giving birth.
To me, it would make sense that women would naturally be conditioned to be much more selective than men in terms of their sexual partners, because the danger and cost is much higher. It would make sense to me that women who chose male partners who would be willing to stay with them, provide food for them, and defend them (i.e. men who are emotionally committed to them) would have a higher chance of their offspring surviving and their genetics being propagated. In other words, I'm saying that I suspect that a woman's relative selectiveness with regards to her male sexual partner is a result of our species' sexual dimorphism rather than any kind of social expectations.

Expand  

Erotica is fiction. Fantasy. Women seem to generally be more capable of the separation of fantasy from reality than men do.

Women's selectiveness is absolutely social. We risk a 🧂, 🍇, all sorts of other cabooses when interacting with men. We can provide for ourselves now that we're allowed to do so. We know how to build community and form deep, authentic friendships so we don't have as much of the the loneliness struggles as men do. Who is it that women generally need protection *from* hmm? It's very rarely other women. 

Edited March 5 by ThaliaV
Censorship

[ac****]

  26 minutes ago, LanceOfAll said:

Also, after reading through the comments, I've seen the concept bright up multiple times about the expectations that exist in society for men to be the initiators. I can't say that there aren't any communities or cultures that still have those expectations, but I personally live in a local and online culture where I don't really see any evidence of that expectation existing, yet the dynamic persists, so I'm kinda skeptical of how much influence that expectation has on the matter.
One thing I've noticed when reading erotica aimed at women as opposed to erotica aimed at men is that a lot of that aimed at the female demographic (erotic books, otome manga, etc.) often has elements of intense emotional commitment and physical obsession with the female lead. I pretty consistently see parts of the story that convey a sense of personal devotion from the male love interest, as well as his ability to physically provide protection and food for her. I get the impression (and ladies, please correct me if I'm assuming wrong) that the reason these elements are so common in female erotica is because women tend to find those things sexually arousing.
For erotica aimed at men, it's usually about depicting the physical form of the woman, showing it as much as possible and from as many angles as possible, and emphasizing her willingness to have sex with the male protagonist. Many forms of male-aimed erotica have some kind of story, but it's often little more than a loose framing device, and the most common form of male-aimed pornography that I see in places like PornHub seems to not even bother with the story at all, it's just a clip of a man and woman already going at it.
I won't assume that this is the only place this could come from, but I feel like this difference could be explained in terms of evolutionary incentives. If an early-humanity man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, what is the cost to him? Maybe an hour and 100 calories of energy. It also doesn't put any limitation on how soon he can reproduce afterwards. For a woman, being impregnated means a 9 month burden, lowered mobility, higher nutritional needs, and significantly more vulnerability to predators. And then there's the high mother mortality rate that used to come with giving birth.
To me, it would make sense that women would naturally be conditioned to be much more selective than men in terms of their sexual partners, because the danger and cost is much higher. It would make sense to me that women who chose male partners who would be willing to stay with them, provide food for them, and defend them (i.e. men who are emotionally committed to them) would have a higher chance of their offspring surviving and their genetics being propagated. In other words, I'm saying that I suspect that a woman's relative selectiveness with regards to her male sexual partner is a result of our species' sexual dimorphism rather than any kind of social expectations.

Expand  

It sounds to me like you are conceding to most everything I have said but calling it sexual dimorphism instead of social expectation. I’m okay with that. Potato, pah tah toe. As long as we are admitting that it exists.

[ac****]

Also, crying about the safety of women while flatly ignoring the risks men face does nothing for me. Since you are all willing to make generalizations about men being savage rapists, I’m going to assume it’s safe to make one about women (jk I know it isn’t, because y’all love a good double standard and hate common sense). Women have the capacity to be manipulative, for financial gain, seeking divorce after marriage to gain financial assets, having *** the man wants nothing to do with and is powerless to stop all so she can collect child support for 18 years. Why does all of this never get brought up? Because it doesn’t support your opinion, that’s why. Let me tell you right now that I don’t believe dominant women even exist that aren’t in it for 100% financial gain. Just look at some dominant women profiles. Look and see how many explicitly say they want a generous or financial sub (even tho that is explicitly not allowed or recognized as a legitimate kink on this app for obvious legal reasons). Men face these challenges too.

[ey****]

  32 minutes ago, LanceOfAll said:

while all my female friends and relatives are swarmed with online suitors who want to have sex with them, they've reported to me that the effort they need to put into vetting all those suitors is absolutely exhausting. They've become extremely keyed-in to potential red flags that might come up in a man's online profile, or in the conversations they have, or in the way he speaks, or his body language, and possibly so many more that I'm not aware of, seemingly out of necessity and for their own safety. It's an intense effort to try and parse literally hundreds of interested profiles just to see if you can find one person who might fit your needs, and I've heard many women say that the effort is just too big, and the reward so infrequent, that they want to simply give up the search altogether.

Expand  

I'm aware of others with similar experiences.

this is something at it's simplest

let us say we as guys got a message from someone who said they were horny and available that night - what would our concerns be?  I guess that there's some form of scam, or some form catfish - someone pulling our leg.

We might be worried she doesn't look like the picture maybe.    We certainly wouldn't be thinking it might be a trap and we get beaten up and robbed, or that someone was trying to get our address from us for less than honest purposes.

Realistically speaking - most have pretty much alluded that they would not do due diligence, or feel other men would not

Chances are, of course, if someone DID reach out to us like this we can assume they've probably already done some form of diligence on us. 

But even aside from something so sudden - if we were talking to someone in general about some form of meeting, be it a coffee, date/date, play, etc.   what are our worries before both saying yes and confirming, that we can do the date, that it's in our budget, and that I guess the person looks like the photos, that we will get on, etc.

Like, no - there is no checking a friend is available for a safe phone call, there's no monitoring what we drink to make sure no one is trying to liquor us up. There's no risk if things don't work out that we're going to be followed or stalked so we don't make plans to avoid that. No worrying about how if what we order makes us look like a gold digger or not, no whether accepting the bill being paid sends the wrong impression.   

[CopperKnob]

  9 minutes ago, ace2587 said:

Also, crying about the safety of women while flatly ignoring the risks men face does nothing for me. Since you are all willing to make generalizations about men being savage rapists, I’m going to assume it’s safe to make one about women (jk I know it isn’t, because y’all love a good double standard and hate common sense). Women have the capacity to be manipulative, for financial gain, seeking divorce after marriage to gain financial assets, having *** the man wants nothing to do with and is powerless to stop all so she can collect child support for 18 years. Why does all of this never get brought up? Because it doesn’t support your opinion, that’s why. Let me tell you right now that I don’t believe dominant women even exist that aren’t in it for 100% financial gain. Just look at some dominant women profiles. Look and see how many explicitly say they want a generous or financial sub (even tho that is explicitly not allowed or recognized as a legitimate kink on this app for obvious legal reasons). Men face these challenges too.

Expand  

All the time that has been spent engaging with you on this topic and rather that sit back and take in what's being said, you've chosen to argue it all.
.
"Crying about the safety of women" newsflash, gender based *** is being termed an epidemic.
.
Your risks are being catfished by someone 150lbs heavier than they portrayed or loosing funds (two people make a baby, two people are financially responsible for it.
.
Yes there are risks to all genders but they are by no means equal.
.
Findom is a genuine kink. Just because it's not yours doesn't make it so.

[ac****]

  14 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

All the time that has been spent engaging with you on this topic and rather that sit back and take in what's being said, you've chosen to argue it all.
.
"Crying about the safety of women" newsflash, gender based *** is being termed an epidemic.
.
Your risks are being catfished by someone 150lbs heavier than they portrayed or loosing funds (two people make a baby, two people are financially responsible for it.
.
Yes there are risks to all genders but they are by no means equal.
.
Findom is a genuine kink. Just because it's not yours doesn't make it so.

Expand  

According to this app, it is not. It isn’t allowed. So who is really arguing everything rather than sitting back and taking it all in 🤔 it appears to be you. You are arguing in defense of something not allowed here. I realize you only say it to argue with me, but I want you to realize that you have tunnel vision right now. You are blinded by your emotions.

[ac****]

You are arguing for the sake of arguing, even to promote something that could get people in trouble here.

[ge****]

  25 minutes ago, ace2587 said:

Also, crying about the safety of women while flatly ignoring the risks men face does nothing for me. Since you are all willing to make generalizations about men being savage rapists, I’m going to assume it’s safe to make one about women (jk I know it isn’t, because y’all love a good double standard and hate common sense). Women have the capacity to be manipulative, for financial gain, seeking divorce after marriage to gain financial assets, having *** the man wants nothing to do with and is powerless to stop all so she can collect child support for 18 years. Why does all of this never get brought up? Because it doesn’t support your opinion, that’s why. Let me tell you right now that I don’t believe dominant women even exist that aren’t in it for 100% financial gain. Just look at some dominant women profiles. Look and see how many explicitly say they want a generous or financial sub (even tho that is explicitly not allowed or recognized as a legitimate kink on this app for obvious legal reasons). Men face these challenges too.

Expand  

Whilst we're talking about "flatly ignoring" things - your whole premise seems to be to try (and fail IMHO) to prove the point that women have it easier than men on sites like this - despite the many very valid counter points made that show that not to be the case.
.
As has been pointed out several times by people responding to this thread - no-one actually has it "easier" regardless of their gender - women face their difficulties navigating sites like this, just as men do, just as non-binaries etc do.
.
Can you not even see that just because women *may* have a plethora of choice (and even that is debatable when you take into account the quality of that choice) they still have their own difficulties and problems to face?
.
The absolute reality is that no-one, absolutely no-one has it easier in the overall picture (not just the one aspect of that picture you've chosen to focus on) - they just have it "different".

[ge****]

  2 minutes ago, ace2587 said:

You are arguing for the sake of arguing, even to promote something that could get people in trouble here.

Expand  

Pot, kettle and black spring to mind currently

[ac****]

  5 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Whilst we're talking about "flatly ignoring" things - your whole premise seems to be to try (and fail IMHO) to prove the point that women have it easier than men on sites like this - despite the many very valid counter points made that show that not to be the case.
.
As has been pointed out several times by people responding to this thread - no-one actually has it "easier" regardless of their gender - women face their difficulties navigating sites like this, just as men do, just as non-binaries etc do.
.
Can you not even see that just because women *may* have a plethora of choice (and even that is debatable when you take into account the quality of that choice) they still have their own difficulties and problems to face?
.
The absolute reality is that no-one, absolutely no-one has it easier in the overall picture (not just the one aspect of that picture you've chosen to focus on) - they just have it "different".

Expand  

There is no “may” have a plethora of choices. There is. How can you not understand the imbalance? Also how can you flatly ignore the many people that have said yes, women generally have it easier?
Again… picture a person with 100 lottery tickets… now picture a person with one… who has a better chance of getting what they want? You know well the answer.

[ac****]

  5 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Pot, kettle and black spring to mind currently

Expand  

Except I’m not telling everyone to go ahead and engage in prostitution here and risk suspension/ban/jail. You missed that little distinction

[CopperKnob]

  3 minutes ago, ace2587 said:

There is no “may” have a plethora of choices. There is. How can you not understand the imbalance? Also how can you flatly ignore the many people that have said yes, women generally have it easier?
Again… picture a person with 100 lottery tickets… now picture a person with one… who has a better chance of getting what they want? You know well the answer.

Expand  

The people who've said yes are, in the main, men who no doubt have swallowed the red pill.

[CopperKnob]

  2 minutes ago, ace2587 said:

Except I’m not telling everyone to go ahead and engage in prostitution here and risk suspension/ban/jail. You missed that little distinction

Expand  

No one has said that