SC>> And they were taught that by their fathers and their fathers were
 SC>> taught that by their grandfathers, etc. What gets me is the
 SC>> double standard. If a guy has a lot of conquests he is a super
 SC>> stud, but if a woman does she is a w***e. That still hasn't
 SC>> changed.

 DC> It's allowed in here to add the "her" in here.   Oh, what
a minute, I
 DC> think you meant to use an "o"!   (that's still allowed..)

I just don't like to use that word or the "s" one. It is just too
offensive.


 MK>> Something like that but I think it may have more to do with the
 MK>> idea that they failed somehow if it doesn't happen.

 SC>> But who considers it a failure? It is the other men. Men have
 SC>> more of a tendency to ask if another *got any* than a woman would
 SC>> another woman.

 DC> Never been in a woman's college dormitory?  The conversations I
 DC> overheard there were quite graphic.

I'm sure, but that is those college educated girls. ;-)


 MK>> For sure although that tension was probably there before the date
 MK>> even started.

 SC>> What is it that I heard? A man goes on a date wondering if he
 SC>> will get any and the woman already knows. ;-)

 DC> Thus, the "3 date rule".

I guess if they want it bad enough. I would venture to say that some don't come
back if they don't get it the first time. Then there are the guys who won't
come back if they do get. Just can't win.


 MK>> might actually be a very good thing.  Dating is a very tricky
 MK>> business.

 SC>> I just feel that isn't something you should even have as a goal
 SC>> on a first date anyway. The first date should be talking and
 SC>> seeing if that *spark* is there.

 DC> I've been on a "no date" and set off that spark.

I'm sure we all have. ;-)

Sharon

---