what do girls do when they're single?

[cool_breeze]

Can someone answer this? Serious question. What do girls do when they're single? It's very easy for girls to get sex. So if a girl is single for a long time what does she do when she wants love and sex? One night stands? Masturbate? I would like to know. Thanks.

 

[IgnoredOne]

All of the above, aided by imaginative prose.

Also, importantly, love and sex for girls should not necessarily be conflated. In my experience, girls look for the emotion of love much more; sexuality for girls is very different than for guys.

 

[cool_breeze]

That's good. Ya that's true. Almost everyone on the planet wants to get laid though. So if a girl is single for a long period of time, what is she doing about her sex drive?

 

[VanillaCreme]

It's not very easy for all females to get sex. That's a sad misconception. And all of that depends on the person. Just because we have vaginas doesn't make it any easier for us, and we do what guys would do. It's not so completely different.

 

[IgnoredOne]

It's not very easy for all females to get sex. That's a sad misconception. And all of that depends on the person. Just because we have vaginas doesn't make it any easier for us, and we do what guys would do. It's not so completely different.

I would say it is easier, to be completely fair, for most women to have sex with random strangers as compared to men. I don't believe it is as rewarding as it might be for men, at the same time.

 

[VanillaCreme]

It's not easier. It's just as easy for a man to do it. But whatever, believe what you want. I'm not going to try to convince someone that their idea is completely twisted. It's just absurd that people actually think that.

 

[IgnoredOne]

This is diverging from the original conversation, but I would postulate that the simple existence of the instution of prostitution and the fact that most of its workers are female would lend credence to my hypothesis. If it was so easy for most men, then it would be less viable and reasonable for men to exchange money for sex. From a purely logical perspective, if both sexes could at all times obtain sex with equal ease, then such a vast differential should not be observed.

It is a belief, insofar as anything is a belief, but I do feel that there is at least some objective data behind my opinion. Free feel to change my mind if you have contravening data.

I also don't see how it is "twisted" to voice an opinion, especially one with supporting evidence.

 

[VanillaCreme]

There's no evidence. Just because you happen to know more females than men who do it, doesn't make it so. Because there's so many other people out there you DON'T know. Like I said, it's absurd people think that.

 

[IgnoredOne]

There's no evidence. Just because you happen to know more females than men who do it, doesn't make it so. Because there's so many other people out there you DON'T know. Like I said, it's absurd people think that.

I admit that I am not omniscient, but I believe there's plenty of research data that supports it. Any simple research would show that all available evidence shows that the majority of sex workers tend to be female; not to mention, sexually oriented businesses tend to aim at men, not women. By sheer quantity, the number of strip clubs, etc which are aimed at men outnumber those which are aimed at women by a substantial margin.

Assuming that was, indeed true, would you believe that constitutes as valid evidence?

The "just because you don't know" argument feels essentially like an argument of an appeal to ignorance. Do pigs fly? There's no evidence for it, but do I know every single pig? No, but does that make my assertation less valid? Are there fairies in my garden that magically enchant the workings of the soil? I don't know, maybe I haven't checked under every leaf! But our current model of reality suggests otherwise, and failing any evidence to support their existence, I go with a more mundane model.

To use a less extreme example, does the earth go around the sun or vice versa? While my own visual evidence would suggest the opposite(that the sun goes around the earth), thanks to the preponderance of gathered evidence, I can safely dismiss my first obvious conclusion and decide that the earth goes around the sun.

In this case, the burden of evidence is with me for making the assertation(and I do provide the evidence); if you are to suggest a contrary assertation, I feel that logically you should either dispute the validity of my evidence or provide your own.

This is why I stated of the value of objective evidence; numbers are not subjective. You seem to suggest that I am using only experential evidence(knowledge from my own experience), but that is not true. My argument derives from overall observed patterns, supported by numerical data. While the intepretation is still subjective, I feel this gives me a more substantial position.

 

[Reggie Jected]

I'm gonna have to say no. What about the factors that cause men to be able to pay for things like sex. Higher earning average, lower stigma, the debatble notion that women find power sexy so that by paying a guy to please her, she is now the dominant one. Sure some people go in for that kind of thing, but there are so many factors that make that a coincedence, that you cannot look at these numbers two dimensionally and call the objective.

Everything.... EVERYTHING is subjective.

Also, I had a female roommate for the longest time who would not shut up about her sexual dry spells. She claimed she was bad at masturbation so she would not please herself, but she would occasionally go trolling for men and women to "fill" her "needs." Women are people too. There is no reason to believe they do not act like us humans

 

[IgnoredOne]

I'm gonna have to say no. What about the factors that cause men to be able to pay for things like sex. Higher earning average, lower stigma, the debatble notion that women find power sexy so that by paying a guy to please her, she is now the dominant one.

Well, in that case, with rising income for women and lower stigma, one should expect that the data for strip clubs, etc to reflect that. It hasn't been the case.

Rationally, I am positing this: service have value. If a sample population on a whole is more willing to pay a higher value for a service, with the assumption that individuals generally are willing to pay the least possible for the satisfaction of a certain desire, then the evidence of their overall higher rates of purchase suggests that satisfaction of said desire is more difficult for the sample.

Simplified example: both gold and diamonds have ornamental value; ornamental diamonds generally are more expensive by mass than ornamental gold, which suggests that it is more difficult to obtain ornamental diamonds than ornamental gold. Actual tonnage values from mining confirm this.

Also, I had a female roommate for the longest time who would not shut up about her sexual dry spells. She claimed she was bad at masturbation so she would not please herself, but she would occasionally go trolling for men and women to "fill" her "needs." Women are people too. There is no reason to believe they do not act like us humans

There are outliers for every sample; few rules are universal for every single individual in an entire population. I also don't see how having easier or more difficult access to sex makes one any less or more human. For that matter, I find it very disturbing to imagine that acting different somehow makes one less human - individuals differ widely, and populations have many varying tendencies in behavior, none which make them less or more human. Humanity is a matter of biological genetics, of all things.

Everything is subjective.

Philosophically speaking, yes. We could all be brains in a jar, deceived into believing that we are having a human experience. Practically speaking, such a viewpoint is not very useful and had that been adopted, few modern advances would have been possible. One could then equally argue that modern life has afforded us few advantages, since we could just ignore the objective increases in life expectancy, reduced infant mortality, and overall caloric intake.

 

[Reggie Jected]

I hope that you find the peace that you are looking for

 

[IgnoredOne]

I hope that you find the peace that you are looking for

That's random. But thank you, I have.

 

[tangerinedream]

I am a woman, and for me, it's not the sex I miss when I am single, it is the companionship and affection.

I can do the sex by myself with a kick-ass vibrator. And to be honest, the sex with the vibe is better than some of the sex I've had with a few men I've dated. Sad, but true.

The downfall is that hugging or cuddling with a vibrator is not satisfying.

I have never missed sex so badly that I felt the need to trawl bars for random, anonymous cock. EVER. There may be some women who feel the need to do that, but not me, and from what I know, not my girlfriends either. Mostly we suck it up and STFU. And buy more batteries.

When I need affection, I hug my kids, cat or pillow, occasionally crying into the pillow or cat.

 

[Limlim]

holy honeysuckle. That's the first actual reply to the OPs question in this thread isn't it?

 

[Heartwood]

I identify as asexual and don't have much need for sex (at all). I never liked the idea of it, it all just seemed carnal and gross to me. But to each their own, I guess
Anyway, since I've been single my whole life, I either don't think about never finding someone and/or be hopeful that one day I will find him.
Sometimes, though, I feel like I don't necessarily need a traditional bf/gf lovey-dovey relationship as much as I need a best friend who loves doing all the things I love and we are just, like, each other's compliment.

 

[nerdygirl]

I used to have some quality time with BOB (battery operated buddy).

Regardless of gender, there is one important factor determining how easy it is to get sex- desperation. If you are just dying to have sex, and will screw anything that will take you, and will do whatever it takes to have the sex, you will probably be able to get sex. Even sex you pay for is still sex. As stated earlier, there's a lot of female sex workers. Heterosexual men obviously have a plethora of female sex workers to choose from. Just sayin'.

 

[Callie]

I'd like to know who all these women that are going out and getting sex easily are having sex WITH? Other women, maybe? Since guys aren't getting it......

just saying.

 

[IgnoredOne]

I'd like to know who all these women that are going out and getting sex easily are having sex WITH? Other women, maybe? Since guys aren't getting it......

just saying.

Ah, that disparity is easily explained, at least hypothetically.

There are some numbers out there, which I don't have handy, but basically indicate that it seems that a minority of men have more sex than most others and thus accounts for this disparity. It may be that that segment of men are just luckier, more aggressive, less ethical or otherwise more capable of having sexual encounters.

This kind of selection is seen in many mammalian groups, including chimpanzees, the closest human relative. That is why you hear argument why its more natural, perhaps, or why men should be "more alpha" to in order to be more successfully sexually. This /is/ observed in humans at least by genetic drift: Genghis Khan had 16 million descendants, for example, far more than any other man in history, ancedotally powerful men have generally had more women overall(Spanish seraglios, polygamous systems, or even mistresses in Europe in history), and proverbially by Henry Kissenger's "{ower is the ultimate aphrodisiac."

 

[angelstain]

I call up an old trusty ex and have sex with him.... hits the spot every time