You all certainly are living in a different world.
I didn't invent the word 'slut'.
I didn't even invent the words 'slut shaming'.
You believe what you want, it's a free country and dis-regarding PC, you can say what you want.
No one should be offended.
I'm not even going to try to defend my position on the current breed of females.
Honestly, 'hand on heart' and swear on the lives of your children, you truly believe this current generation of females are the kind of people with the kind of morals and ethics of someone you would happily call the mother of your children?
How proud of your precious little angels you all must be, sitting around the 'barby' years from now, telling stories about how their mother was so drunk she passed out on the sidewalk and woke up the next day all disheveled feeling violated with this 'stuff' excreting from her vagina.
Just about now you want to call me disgusting and a myriad of other profanities.
Well hang on before you do, this a snip of what one of these wonderful little maggots of today had to say when she decided to go crying 'rape' to the authorities.
Pe-lease!
If you sorry people can't see how bad todays little angels are, then FINALLY I have found the cause of the problem with females today.
Oh and as for Mr mathematician who thinks that you need 100 guys to screw 100 maggots, it doesn't work like that.
It appears he is suffering from a lacking of the frontal lobe.
The reason there is an overarching number of men to women having sex is, wait for it, one guy can screw many women.
Oh that's right that's the way it is in nature.
DUH!

ALTRAV,

I usually don't bother reading your posts because they
are so extreme, so vague and sweeping in their scope,
so illogical and abusive. However you've crossed the line.
You know nothing about either myself or CHERFUL, or our lives
and the world's we live in. We don't use words like - "sluts"
or "slut shaming." These outmoded words are no longer
acceptable to most people.

If you want to be taken seriously on public forums such as this
one you need to try arguing in a logical manner, stop making
unreasonable generalisations, and remember that no one
supports an abusive illogical debater. Otherwise you will
simply be ignored.

//The reason there is an overarching number of men to women having sex is, wait for it, one guy can screw many women.//

Of course they can, ALTRAV. Most of them do. But if you have essentially even numbers of males to females - which most species (including us) do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle

It follows as a logical corollary that you must necessarily have women screwing multiple guys.

Perhaps a small example would help. If the thought of human women being promiscuous causes you such cognitive dissonance that you reject simple arithmetic, we can do this example with rabbits. Champion little shaggers, your rabbits, at least that's the common wisdom.

To keep things simple and save on typing, we'll work with 5 males and 5 females, so that our sample population accurately reflects the 1:1 sex ratio observed in the whole population. So now we've got our 10 little bunnies, and we'll designate the males M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 and the females F1, F2, etc. All that's left to do now is pop them in our imaginary rabbit hutch and get our imaginary lab assistant to keep a tally of who has sex with who, which I will simulate with the use a 12 sided dice and 4 sided dice. Numbers have been tweaked slightly to avoid fractions.

And now, the results. This would be easier with a spreadsheet, but here goes:
* M1 has had sex with F1 (4 times), F2 (once) F3 (thrice) and F4 (9 times). Total: 4 sexual partners, 17 sexual experiences.
* M2 has had sex with F3 (10 times) and F4 (6 times). Total: 2 sexual partners, 16 sexual experiences.
* M3 has had sex with F2 (4 times) and F5 (twice). Total: 2 sexual partners, 6 sexual experiences.
* M4 has had sex with F1 (12 times). Total: 1 sexual partner, 12 sexual experiences.
* M5 has had sex with F3 (5 times). Total: 1 sexual partner, 5 sexual experiences.
Average no. sexual partners: 2
Average no. sexual experiences: 11

And now let's look at the results for the females.

Well, actually we've already got all the results listed above, so we already know which female had sex with which male. You can go ahead and crunch the numbers yourself, but how about I do it for you and then you can have all the fun of trying to prove me wrong:
* F1 has had sex with M1 (4 times) and M4 (12 times). Total: 2 sexual partners, 16 sexual experiences.
* F2 has had sex with M1 (once) and M3 (4 times). Total: 2 sexual partners, 5 sexual experiences.
* F3 has had sex with M1 (thrice), M2 (10 times) and M5 (5 times). Total: 3 sexual partners, 18 sexual experiences.
* F4 has had sex with M1 (9 times) and M2 (6 times). Total: 2 sexual partners, 15 sexual experiencs.
* F5 has had sex with M3 (twice). Total: 1 sexual partner, 2 sexual experiences.
Average no. sexual partners: 2
Average no. sexual experiences: 11

So we can say from our results that one of the males (M1) was the only rabbit with more than sexual 3 partners, and therefore the most promiscuous. Mind you, he had one fewer sexual experience with his 4 partners than F3 had with her 3, so swings and roundabouts.

What's interesting, and what you should be paying attention to, are the averages: identical in both cases. And we can easily scale this experiment up: quite easy with a spreadsheet to try it for a hundred rabbits, and the results are the same: the average number of sexual partners and sexual experiences are the same for the males and females. As long as you have a 1:1 sex ratio - equal numbers of women to men - then those averages will always be the same for men and women whether you look at 10 rabbits, a hundred rabbits, or 7.6 billion people.

Sorry, ALTRAV. It's a matter of mathematical necessity that, on average, women and men are equally promiscuous. Feel free to rant & rave all you wish at this point; it still won't change the maths.

Toni, c'mon.
We can do all the math we want.
The 'facts', or at least one of them is that since the 'women are equal to men' campaign started, some years ago, we only need to watch TV to see how the screen is now dominated by drunken, slovenly, wasted, loud females. (You wonder why I call them maggots)
This kind of behaviour was and always has been that of the males.
Not saying it's a good look.
But from as far back as we can refer, we find the men are the drunken louts who got up to no good and in a lot of trouble.
So you can't deny that the women of previous generations were 'special', they were kind and warm and always there when you needed them.
In some ways they remind me of what I perceive Foxy to be like, from what little I can remember about her.
Women are not supposed to seduce men.
I don't care to hear that women have urges too.
There is NO justification for women succumbing to urges and ultimately sex.
A woman carries the burden of creating life.
This caveat comes with certain responsibilities which cannot/must not be obviated simply on an emotional whim or moment.
Another example which demonstrates that it's NOT a level playing field, is that a guy can only 'hope' to get laid.
A woman on the other hand can get laid at will and at any time and with anyone.
Where's the equality in that.
OK if men and women are equal, I demand that the next time a guy is out to have a good time and feeling horny, that he too can approach 'any' female and ask her for sex and she will oblige with excitement and a wisp of disbelief that she was approached by a guy to have sex with her.
The bottom line is we have allowed too many freedoms.
Had a few more parents actually been parents and not try to be friends with their children, we would see a much better kind of female today.

//we only need to watch TV to see how the screen is now dominated by drunken, slovenly, wasted, loud females.//

I don't think we're watching the same programs, ALTRAV.

//But from as far back as we can refer, we find the men are the drunken louts who got up to no good and in a lot of trouble.//

Speak for yourself, ALTRAV. You might be a deadbeat drunkard, but it doesn't follow that all men are.