Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Woman sleeps with 10,091 men over 12 years

Scepticalscribe said:
To be honest, I, too would probably have given this thread a miss were it not for the tone used by some posters when posting.

That is because the tone used here by some posters is one that goes well beyond a subliminal (and unquestioning) acceptance of the notorious double-standard whereby men are viewed as 'players' whereas women are seen in wholly negative terms. No, the tone makes it clear that what some posters feel when describing (what they may fear is rampant and uncontrolled) female sexuality is nothing other than visceral disgust.
Click to expand...

You only have to scratch the surface.
 
Woman sleeps with 10,091 men over 12 years

And she is proud of her super bitchy behavior ?!
 
XmeX said:
And she is proud of her super bitchy behavior ?!
Click to expand...

Ah, language, language language.

As it happens, as a reader of books (as an occasional writer of books), analyst, scholar, former academic, observer of life in its glorious tapestry of idiocy and idealism, and so on, I am fascinated by the use of language in relations of politics, power and identity, cultural 'stuff', and indeed gender.

Now then. Could you please explain to me - because I am genuinely at something of a loss here - why the term 'bitchy', let alone the expression 'super bitchy behaviour' has been used here?

This is because I fail to see why the word 'bitchy' (a negative word when applied to women, and it is not usually applied to anybody else, as I am sure we will all agree) is applied to a woman who has had a rather active sex life. When did the word 'bitchy' (normally used as a neutrally negative noun, rather than one with sexual connotations) get linked to someone who engages in a lot of sexual activity?

And, on that matter, is your issue with the numbers of partners or with the nature of the sexual relationship? Is is a distaste for a rampant expression of female sexuality, or for the fact that these acts were essentially a commercial transaction, whether a coercive or consensual commercial transaction?

Or is it that uncontrolled female sexuality is something which some males find unsettling, arousing that ghastly combination of desire, distaste and disgust?



Ken Kaniff said:
A key that fits many locks is a master key, but a lock that accepts many keys is a shìtty lock.

True story.
Click to expand...

Well, leaving aside the redundant non-sequiter tagged on at the end- 'true story' - really? - which detracts somewhat from the post, this is is an original defence of the old sexual double standard ('players' versus 'tarts').

Indeed, it is a bit better than the usual mumbled mangling of biological determinism and modern technological jargon that one often finds offered instead. You know, something along the lines of: "men are hard-wired to spread their seed."

However, I am intrigued by the idea of the key and the lock as applied to women. Seriously? Is this how you see women, and female sexuality? As something passive, something which has something done to it? Something entirely lacking agency or free will or utterly incapable of agency or of independent action?

XmeX said:
LoL

I agree
Click to expand...

With what do you agree? That women are locks? That chastity belts might actually have a use?
 
Last edited:
i like turtles
__________________

image.jpg
 
Scepticalscribe said:
Ah, language, language language.

As it happens, as a reader of books (as an occasional writer of books), analyst, scholar, former academic, observer of life in its glorious tapestry of idiocy and idealism, and so on, I am fascinated by the use of language in relations of politics, power and identity, cultural 'stuff', and indeed gender.

Now then. Could you please explain to me - because I am genuinely at something of a loss here - why the term 'bitchy', let alone the expression 'super bitchy behaviour' has been used here?

This is because I fail to see why the word 'bitchy' (a negative word when applied to women, and it is not usually applied to anybody else, as I am sure we will all agree) is applied to a woman who has had a rather active sex life. When did the word 'bitchy' (normally used as a neutrally negative noun, rather than one with sexual connotations) get linked to someone who engages in a lot of sexual activity?

And, on that matter, is your issue with the numbers of partners or with the nature of the sexual relationship? Is is a distaste for a rampant expression of female sexuality, or for the fact that these acts were essentially a commercial transaction, whether a coercive or consensual commercial transaction?

Or is it that uncontrolled female sexuality is something which some males find unsettling, arousing that ghastly combination of desire, distaste and disgust?

Well, leaving aside the redundant non-sequiter tagged on at the end- 'true story' - really? - which detracts somewhat from the post, this is is an original defence of the old sexual double standard ('players' versus 'tarts').

Indeed, it is a bit better than the usual mumbled mangling of biological determinism and modern technological jargon that one often finds offered instead. You know, something along the lines of: "men are hard-wired to spread their seed."

However, I am intrigued by the idea of the key and the lock as applied to women. Seriously? Is this how you see women, and female sexuality? As something passive, something which has something done to it? Something entirely lacking agency or free will or utterly incapable of agency or of independent action?



With what do you agree? That women are locks? That chastity belts might actually have a use?
Click to expand...

So well said.

I also like how the key was the "master".

Nothing to analyze there.

:rolleyes:
 
Scepticalscribe said:
Ah, language, language language.

As it happens, as a reader of books (as an occasional writer of books), analyst, scholar, former academic, observer of life in its glorious tapestry of idiocy and idealism, and so on, I am fascinated by the use of language in relations of politics, power and identity, cultural 'stuff', and indeed gender.

Now then. Could you please explain to me - because I am genuinely at something of a loss here - why the term 'bitchy', let alone the expression 'super bitchy behaviour' has been used here?

This is because I fail to see why the word 'bitchy' (a negative word when applied to women, and it is not usually applied to anybody else, as I am sure we will all agree) is applied to a woman who has had a rather active sex life. When did the word 'bitchy' (normally used as a neutrally negative noun, rather than one with sexual connotations) get linked to someone who engages in a lot of sexual activity?

And, on that matter, is your issue with the numbers of partners or with the nature of the sexual relationship? Is is a distaste for a rampant expression of female sexuality, or for the fact that these acts were essentially a commercial transaction, whether a coercive or consensual commercial transaction?

Or is it that uncontrolled female sexuality is something which some males find unsettling, arousing that ghastly combination of desire, distaste and disgust?





Well, leaving aside the redundant non-sequiter tagged on at the end- 'true story' - really? - which detracts somewhat from the post, this is is an original defence of the old sexual double standard ('players' versus 'tarts').

Indeed, it is a bit better than the usual mumbled mangling of biological determinism and modern technological jargon that one often finds offered instead. You know, something along the lines of: "men are hard-wired to spread their seed."

However, I am intrigued by the idea of the key and the lock as applied to women. Seriously? Is this how you see women, and female sexuality? As something passive, something which has something done to it? Something entirely lacking agency or free will or utterly incapable of agency or of independent action?



With what do you agree? That women are locks? That chastity belts might actually have a use?
Click to expand...

Some people have differing views on things obviously. I prefer a woman takes care of the home situation and serves her husband. Call that whatever you like, but plenty of people share my view. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, so don't talk down to me as if you're somehow superior.
 
Woman sleeps with 10,091 men over 12 years

Scepticalscribe said:
Ah, language, language language.

As it happens, as a reader of books (as an occasional writer of books), analyst, scholar, former academic, observer of life in its glorious tapestry of idiocy and idealism, and so on, I am fascinated by the use of language in relations of politics, power and identity, cultural 'stuff', and indeed gender.

Now then. Could you please explain to me - because I am genuinely at something of a loss here - why the term 'bitchy', let alone the expression 'super bitchy behaviour' has been used here?

This is because I fail to see why the word 'bitchy' (a negative word when applied to women, and it is not usually applied to anybody else, as I am sure we will all agree) is applied to a woman who has had a rather active sex life. When did the word 'bitchy' (normally used as a neutrally negative noun, rather than one with sexual connotations) get linked to someone who engages in a lot of sexual activity?

And, on that matter, is your issue with the numbers of partners or with the nature of the sexual relationship? Is is a distaste for a rampant expression of female sexuality, or for the fact that these acts were essentially a commercial transaction, whether a coercive or consensual commercial transaction?

Or is it that uncontrolled female sexuality is something which some males find unsettling, arousing that ghastly combination of desire, distaste and disgust?





Well, leaving aside the redundant non-sequiter tagged on at the end- 'true story' - really? - which detracts somewhat from the post, this is is an original defence of the old sexual double standard ('players' versus 'tarts').

Indeed, it is a bit better than the usual mumbled mangling of biological determinism and modern technological jargon that one often finds offered instead. You know, something along the lines of: "men are hard-wired to spread their seed."

However, I am intrigued by the idea of the key and the lock as applied to women. Seriously? Is this how you see women, and female sexuality? As something passive, something which has something done to it? Something entirely lacking agency or free will or utterly incapable of agency or of independent action?



With what do you agree? That women are locks? That chastity belts might actually have a use?
Click to expand...


Anyways
When the girl couldn't keep her legs closed she shouldn't look for "true love"
UNLESS she is looking for someone like you - i think you like such type of girls & I suppose you are good enough in maths so you could add value to her by providing accurate counting of her Fu$&@s (Mens)
 
When someone calls this woman a "slut" or a "whore" I don't think its any double standard here. She's a full blown hooker who screwed like 8 guys sometimes more than one at a time, five days a week for 12 years! This isn't your average woman.
 
So she has sex with 10000 men and she's a slut, but if I -as a man- say I've had sex with 10000 women, I'm a liar? That's indeed a double standard. :p

----------
XmeX said:
Anyways
When the girl couldn't keep her legs closed she shouldn't look for "true love"
UNLESS she is looking for someone like you - i think you like such type of girls & I suppose you are good enough in maths so you could add value to her by providing accurate counting of her Fu$&@s (Mens)
Click to expand...

Because looking for true love should be the purpose of every woman in the world...
 
Double standards are not unique to men

I'm willing to bet, on this tech-heavy site, men outnumber women 10-1. To those who are frothing about double standards, I'd bet that if you carried this conversation to a feminist site, you'd get the opposite: man with many partners=scum, woman with many partners=empowered.

Me, I'd call them both immoral, self-centered, and pathetic. I genuinely hope she's putting all of that behind her and has found a real purpose for her life.
 
fleabite said:
I'm willing to bet, on this tech-heavy site, men outnumber women 10-1. To those who are frothing about double standards, I'd bet that if you carried this conversation to a feminist site, you'd get the opposite: man with many partners=scum, woman with many partners=empowered.

Me, I'd call them both immoral, self-centered, and pathetic. I genuinely hope she's putting all of that behind her and has found a real purpose for her life.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is disgusting, regardless of the sex the individual. :mad:
 
Dang, hasn't anyone taught that woman its okay to cross her legs once in awhile?
 
Ken Kaniff said:
Some people have differing views on things obviously. I prefer a woman takes care of the home situation and serves her husband. Call that whatever you like, but plenty of people share my view. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, so don't talk down to me as if you're somehow superior.
Click to expand...


Your post which viewed women as passive locks (and men as an active 'master key') was crudely expressed (I believe that I read the word '******' - - ah, caught and culled by the profanity filter - surely you can find a more elegant expression than that?) - misogynistic and utterly sexist.

In my reply, I questioned your attitudes towards women, and your use of language in expressing those attitudes. In other words, I called you out, and your appalling use of language out, and - not surprisingly - your response is predictably testy.

Now again, I find myself having to address your use of language as it applies to, and is applied to, women. No human relationship should be based on, or built on, the notion of service. If it is, it is one based on inequality, such as a master and slave, or a master and servant.

You may choose to serve your country, or serve what some view as a higher calling when they opt to serve a church, but the dignity of the human condition, and the hard won human and civil rights attendant upon that, make any relationship where one person 'serves' another not a relationship between equal human beings, but one between a master and a servant or a slave. This is incompatible with the dignity of the human condition in the twenty first century.

So, yes, it is not only that I find myself in fundamental disagreement with you on gender roles, it is that I believe that anyone who seeks to build relationships underpinned by beliefs of inequality is indeed, wrong. Completely wrong in this day and age.


XmeX said:
Anyways
When the girl couldn't keep her legs closed she shouldn't look for "true love"
UNLESS she is looking for someone like you - i think you like such type of girls & I suppose you are good enough in maths so you could add value to her by providing accurate counting of her Fu$&@s (Mens)
Click to expand...

My question - which was why you agreed with the absurd and insulting post which viewed women as passive 'locks' and men as active 'master' keys - remains unanswered.

Nevertheless, I'm quite content with a well argued response should you choose to post one, even now.

Besides, the debating trick of trying to insult a person who has posted rather than attempt to address the argument or question they have posed is an old one. I have never quite worked out whether it is designed to disguise an inability to argue properly, or a preference for offering insult instead.

Mind you, the rest of the post is so ridiculous, it is actually unintentionally hilarious.

And yes, odd though it may sound, most women do not seem to need to define their lives by whether or not they have found 'true love'.
 
Last edited:
Scepticalscribe said:








My question - which was why you agreed with the absurd and insulting post which viewed women as passive 'locks' and men as active 'master' keys - remains unanswered.



Nevertheless, I'm quite content with a well argued response should you chose to post one, even now.



Besides, the debating trick of trying to insult a person who has posted rather than attempt to address the argument or question they have posed is an old one. I have never quite worked out whether it is designed to disguise an inability to argue properly, or a preference for offering insult instead.



Mind you, the rest of the post is so ridiculous, it is actually unintentionally hilarious.



And yes, odd though it may sound, most women do not seem to need to define their lives by whether or not they have found 'true love'.
Click to expand...



Why you insist to compare HER with HE ? Just to justify her bad history?

Regarding your question, I think you should ask this whore why she got 500-1000$ per person? Why she wasn't paying against making sex ??? The male should always pay -double standards-?
 
XmeX said:
Why you insist to compare HER with HE ? Just to justify her bad history?

Regarding your question, I think you should ask this whore why she got 500-1000$ per person? Why she wasn't paying against making sex ??? The male should always pay -double standards-?
Click to expand...

FYI, your posts are incomprehensible.
 
mobilehaathi said:
Oh, okay, I mistakenly assumed you had an interest in clearly communicating your thoughts. Although your anger at women shines though, so I suppose you succeeded there.
Click to expand...


By the way am not anger and i think my previous post cleared enough
.
.
The article is talking about whore experience why we should make comparisons?!!!
Additionally, i just want to be treated equally therefore her fu$&@s should pay for her to make sex, right?
 
XmeX said:
By the way am not anger and i think my previous post cleared enough
.
.
The article is talking about whore experience why we should make comparisons?!!!
Additionally, i just want to be treated equally therefore her fu$&@s should pay for her to make sex, right?
Click to expand...

Your thoughts are remarkably simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back