November 21, 2004

6:50 PM

Dating website bans seriel shagger.DatingDirect.com kissed Clive Worth buh bye after he slept with over 100 of its female ranks in 5 years and women started complaining that he "lacked commitment." Seems wrong to ban someone from a website for being good at what he does, though.
posted by onlyconnect (103 comments total)

...is he giving seminars at all?
posted by GleepGlop at 6:55 PM on November 21, 2004

Before the bashing commences, god bless the net, and is it possible to have any quality with that much quantity.
posted by sourbrew at 7:02 PM on November 21, 2004

Sounds to me like he's got plenty of committment.

Commitment to getting laid.
posted by TTIKTDA at 7:02 PM on November 21, 2004

..is he giving seminars at all?

He's given 100 of them on the topic of "Why you should get to know the person you're going to sleep with".
posted by srboisvert at 7:04 PM on November 21, 2004

100 women in 5 years?

OK, I'll admit I'm impressed. What's the old bastard's secret?
posted by jonmc at 7:05 PM on November 21, 2004

The secret is: Low standards
posted by rooftop secrets at 7:06 PM on November 21, 2004

So let me get this straight- this website basically discovers a guy who can honestly say that, because of their website, he scored with over a hundred women. And their response, instead of making him the Jared of dating sites, is to ban him from using their service.

Blah blah blah sensitivity and all that, but that's gotta be the stupidest fucking marketing decision on the face of the earth.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:08 PM on November 21, 2004

basically the service is saying that theyve had their first million dollar winner and he'll be disqualified from winning the prize again...
posted by GleepGlop at 7:14 PM on November 21, 2004

So it's an average of 1 woman per 18.25 days. I think, with the proper motivation (read: unnatural compulsion), I could snag an ugly girl every couple weeks or so. And this guy doesn't even have to go to bars or anything to find them, they're all lined up on the computer for him. Furthermore, this isn't even taking into account the fact that most the women who would sign up with one of these online dating services are probably rather desperate (generalization alert whatever it's true deal with it). So I'm not sure his feat is all that impressive after all. I do not, however, think he should be kicked off for these transgressions. Maybe they should just install a feedback rating like on eBay....

Positive Feedback: great lay! A+++++++++
Negative Feedback: didn't pay for dinner. will not see again!
posted by rooftop secrets at 7:14 PM on November 21, 2004

It kind of reminds me of that story from awhile back about the man who proposed to 50 women he had met online using a dating website. And the women said, Ohhhhhhh, but he made us feel like priiiiiiiiiincesses- that's why we said we would marry a man we never met! Ridiculous. What's with the desperation, ladies? You can't throw all your cards in the air and expect someone to suddenly want to play 52 card pickup (metaphor stolen from Carolyn Hax, advice columnist for the Washington Post).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:21 PM on November 21, 2004 [1 favorite]

Rumpy-pumpy.
posted by rushmc at 7:22 PM on November 21, 2004

" I think, with the proper motivation (read: unnatural compulsion), I could snag an ugly girl every couple weeks or so".

I think that, with no motivation at all, I could shag a beautiful girl every couple weeks or so.

I mean, if I wanted to cut back.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:31 PM on November 21, 2004

This is a great marketing move by the online dating service.

They couldn't advertise this sort of thing directly as it would obviously piss off their female clientele.

However, by making such a high profile move like this, they both reassure their female members that they're protected and they lure in prospective males with the obvious.

(Almost) Free advertising. Really a brilliant move on their part.
posted by pandaharma at 7:34 PM on November 21, 2004

The beast with a 101 backs!

What does that expose him to on the 2nd and 3rd degrees of separation level? Thousands and hundreds of thousands?

And homely does not mean easy. It might even be the other way around. I mean think about it, if you're more aesthetically pleasing, it's most likely easier to get some.
posted by loquacious at 7:35 PM on November 21, 2004

Oh Mr. Crash...you dog, you!
posted by rooftop secrets at 7:35 PM on November 21, 2004

I just hit the corner coffeeshop wearing my Mefi jersey. I'd do it more often, but the owner hates the mob scene that it causes.
posted by 4easypayments at 7:40 PM on November 21, 2004

maybe the service needs to improve its feedback rating system, instead of booting its best customers.
posted by cherry at 7:40 PM on November 21, 2004

And homely does not mean easy. It might even be the other way around. I mean think about it, if you're more aesthetically pleasing, it's most likely easier to get some.

Ummm, exactly. Therefore, since it's easier for pretty girls to get some action, they don't necessarily need to get some every time some 55 year old online-dating pimp hits on them. Live to bone another day. The homely girls are paid less attention and therefore are more susceptible to someone who does pay them some, and will be less attuned to whether the person is actually just trying to sleep with them since they do not encounter that type of interaction all that much. I was referring to the ease of attaining the girl, not the ease of the girl getting action. I think just about any girl above the "repulsive" level could get laid any night of the week if she so chose to.
posted by rooftop secrets at 7:43 PM on November 21, 2004

Bah. I get laid all the time, and all it took was a rock, a ring and a marriage certificate.
posted by Jerub at 7:57 PM on November 21, 2004

Oh, you boys, thinking that those "homely" girls are just so easy, so desperate for your esteemed attentions. If only you could all "lower your standards" enough to tolerate them, you could become a multitude of Don Juans just by deigning to turn your come-hither stares their way, I'm sure! Tee hee.
posted by hilatron at 7:59 PM on November 21, 2004

hilatron is my new favorite MeFite.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:01 PM on November 21, 2004 [1 favorite]

Oh, you boys, thinking that those "homely" girls are just so easy, so desperate for your esteemed attentions. If only you could all "lower your standards" enough to tolerate them, you could become a multitude of Don Juans just by deigning to turn your come-hither stares their way, I'm sure!

hilatron's sarcasm is spot on...I turn my come-hither eyes on *hundreds* of homely girls a day, but they are clearly too intimidated to respond...
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:28 PM on November 21, 2004

The secret is: Low standards
posted by rooftop secrets at 9:06 PM CST on November 21


Blah blah blah sensitivity and all that, but that's gotta be the stupidest fucking marketing decision on the face of the earth.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:08 PM CST on November 21

So many esteemed posters have such juvenile depth of reasoning.

This man is 55 years old. At this age, women who date 55 year old men need 1 thing: commitment. Sleeping with someone is not new, it may be one of the few intimate ways to be attractive, and to do something nice for a man who cons the women into thinking there is more he is to offer.

This is not a 23 year old breaking 19 year old hearts. It is a different dynamic entirely, and to attach yourself to "Maxim" teenager perspectives is disappointing.

And I suspect many making these comments have not really got out the gate in terms of widespread fucking and womanizing, so motivation for such poor comments is apparent. This is not a troll, and ignore it but don't sideline a viewpoint just because you disagree with it or don't want to hear it.
posted by orange clock at 8:36 PM on November 21, 2004

How did he get 100 women to sleep with him? Note his occupation: "former miner." Just saying.
posted by onlyconnect at 8:37 PM on November 21, 2004

The Tao of Clive ?

Just saying.

Also ( rushmc x2 ) "Rumpy Pumpy" ?
posted by troutfishing at 8:44 PM on November 21, 2004

haha, thats hilarious. Give the rest of the guys a chance will ya.
posted by meowchow at 8:50 PM on November 21, 2004

>>I think just about any girl above the "repulsive" level could get laid any night of the week if she so chose to.

We borderline repulsive bitches are eager to catch more of the opalescent pearls of sagacious wisdom that are tumbling out of your asshole.
posted by naxosaxur at 8:52 PM on November 21, 2004

rumpy-pumpy ?

Doesn't anyone just plain fuck any more?
posted by Wet Spot at 8:54 PM on November 21, 2004

Rumpy pumpy
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:01 PM on November 21, 2004

Errrgh, stuff like this really creeps me out. Would anyone here actually want to spend 5 years banging a new person every few days? I mean, christ, 100 people? Also, as orange clock mentioned, the dude is 55 now! Let it go, man!
posted by 235w103 at 9:06 PM on November 21, 2004

"We borderline repulsive bitches are eager to catch more of the opalescent pearls of sagacious wisdom that are tumbling out of your asshole."

This, in its own way, is a truly beautiful statement. Thank you.
posted by PossumCowboy at 9:09 PM on November 21, 2004

We borderline repulsive bitches are eager to catch more of the opalescent pearls of sagacious wisdom that are tumbling out of your asshole.

Jesus girls, calm down. If you seriously want to tell me that it's harder for a girl to get laid than for a guy, go right ahead... but you'd be lying. Guys are generally singularily after sex with much more frequency than women. If a guy throws himself at a woman, the chances are that he will not have sex that night. In fact, this is basically what guys do all the time. If a woman does the same thing, chances are that guy will not turn that girl down, esp. if she wants sex with no strings. That's all I was saying.

This man is 55 years old. At this age, women who date 55 year old men need 1 thing: commitment.

And I suspect many making these comments have not really got out the gate in terms of widespread fucking and womanizing, so motivation for such poor comments is apparent.


I'm not sure how the girls are in "Urbanopolis" (according to your profile) but I live in Los Angeles where I regularily see 55 year old men taking home 20 somethings. And these are not girls looking for commitment, they are looking for a good time.

I'm not even sure what that second comment was supposed to mean. I assume you meant that I haven't been able to have as much sex as I would please so I am saying someone who slept with 100 women must have low standards? Or something to that effect? I don't even know what to say to that. I'm definitely not of the age where commitment is the number one thing on my mind, but I'm in the second year of a relationship at the moment, if that means anything. If you read my actual original post, it made mention that I considered his action to be an act of "unnatural compulsion", implying I didn't think it was such a good thing to be running around like a horse in heat.

I make a (apparently un-)humorous observation in response to another post about the rate at which he has actually having sex, and the PC Police get all up in arms. Some people are better looking than others, and generally will have more sex as a result. Let's all deal with that fact and move on.
posted by rooftop secrets at 9:17 PM on November 21, 2004

Some people are better looking than others, and generally will have more sex as a result. Let's all deal with that fact and move on.

I'd prefer to complain. Preferably online, thanks.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:30 PM on November 21, 2004

I live in Los Angeles where I regularily see 55 year old men taking home 20 somethings. And these are not girls looking for commitment, they are looking for a good time.

No...I suspect they are looking for money. Either that, or a screen role.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:32 PM on November 21, 2004

I'm not sure how the girls are in "Urbanopolis" (according to your profile) but I live in Los Angeles where I regularily see 55 year old men taking home 20 somethings. And these are not girls looking for commitment, they are looking for a good time.

Nope. They're looking for cold, hard cash, and payment in full of the fee which they have almost certainly already negotiated.

I really don't want to get into that timework argument about men and women and Damn you girls are so lucky you can just score whenever you want to. I went through a time when I would jump into bed with anyone just out of curiosity, but, you know, I was 18, and it quickly grew old. Whatever.

*waits for more pearls of wisdom*
posted by jokeefe at 9:35 PM on November 21, 2004

That was 'timeworn argument'.
posted by jokeefe at 9:36 PM on November 21, 2004

Some people are better looking than others, and generally will have more sex as a result.

...and the better looking they are, the more boring they will tend to be in the sack, the less willing to accommodate their partner's desires, and the less motivated to please...
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:38 PM on November 21, 2004

serial.

Noone had said it yet, so I had to.
posted by rdub at 9:40 PM on November 21, 2004

Actually, the more "homely" shy girls are probably harder to get into the sack, you know. Considering the whole shy factor. I mean, it's not like the scale goes from UGLY/ROBOTOSLUT to HOT/FORTRESSOFCHASTITY.

Despite my incredible boyish charm, I don't know if I could be laying a girl once a week or anything like that. This internet man-machine must have at least a few secret skills.

So many human beings out there have so many wacky emotional issues that true blue sluts just seem few and far between. I will say, though, that had I lowered my standards in the past, I could have had tons more action. I'm not being arrogant. I'm just saying that there were girls who took off all their clothes and mounted me like frothing animals in heat, that I just didn't want to have sex with. Is it so hard to believe?

No, really, I'm serious.

I don't know if any were frothing, per se. A bit of spittle, maybe.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 10:07 PM on November 21, 2004

XQUZYPHYR

instead of making him the Jared of dating sites

making him the what of dating sites?


235w103

Would anyone here actually want to spend 5 years banging a new person every few days?

I think 100 women in 5 years is ridiculous.

I, for one, would've stopped around #62 or so.
posted by madman at 10:52 PM on November 21, 2004

Despite my incredible boyish charm, I don't know if I could be laying a girl once a week or anything like that. This internet man-machine must have at least a few secret skills.

Like, maybe, you know, lying about his intentions, saying he was in love with them, talking about marriage, that sort of thing.

I still don't get this notch on the bedpost mentality, or why men are so proud of it, or envious of those who act it out. *shrugs*
posted by jokeefe at 11:26 PM on November 21, 2004

making him the what of dating sites?

Making him the guy who used to be fat and then ate subway and now tortures us with commericals of dating sites.

Furthermore, this isn't even taking into account the fact that most the women who would sign up with one of these online dating services are probably rather desperate (generalization alert whatever it's true deal with it).

You've vaulted to the top of my least-favourite-new-mefite list, if for no other reason than your inability to use commas in parenthetical notations. But I've always had a thing against lonely, overweight, know-it-alls who spend their days making wild generalizations in the name of tired, played-out banter (sorry, generalization alert; whatever, it's true--deal with it).

Nyah.
posted by The God Complex at 11:30 PM on November 21, 2004

There's a difference between being sexist and judging on appearance. Like it or not, there's a "standard" attractiveness. I know that a link has appeared on mefi to a study where a variety of male and female faces were shown and viewers were to rate them on a 1 to 10 scale. The results were fairly uniform, but the other interesting result was that people seem to have an innate sense of where they rank on that scale. When allusions are made to "lower standards," imagine that is what's being referred to: picking up someone lower on this imaginary beauty scale.

That said, I personally like to deny this reality as much as possible. I have met many people that I don't immediately find "hot," but easily over time find them much more attractive in a personal sense. I'd like to say it's more intellectual or emotional, but who knows. Still, denying that there are "hot" people is pretty funny. Insert as much of a sexist, look-ist subtext to this as you like.
posted by mikeh at 11:32 PM on November 21, 2004

But I've always had a thing against lonely, overweight, know-it-alls who spend their days making wild generalizations in the name of tired, played-out banter

Awww. You got me so pegged! How did you know??

You've vaulted to the top of my least-favorite-old-mefite list, if for no other reason than your British spelling of "favourite" and overuse of hyphens (least-favourite-new-mefite, know-it-alls, played-out, true--deal).
posted by rooftop secrets at 11:49 PM on November 21, 2004

I went through a time when I would jump into bed with anyone just out of curiosity, but, you know, I was 18, and it quickly grew old. Whatever.

And because that was your particular path and timetable, it must and should be for everyone.

Whatever indeed.
posted by rushmc at 11:59 PM on November 21, 2004

Like, maybe, you know, lying about his intentions, saying he was in love with them, talking about marriage, that sort of thing.

Enough already. It's time for people to take responsibility for their own actions instead of acting victimized.

You suggest that these women put out because the guy promised commitment. On the face of it, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy. Yes, the guy was probably dishonest and juvenile. But he was with a girl for an average of 18 days before getting some. How can anyone expect to know anything about someone in 2-3 dates, and then base their decision to have sex with them on it?

The notch-on-the-bed-post mentality is no less inane than the my-vagina-is-a-prize mentality. Heck, when you think about it, the former may even arise from the latter.
posted by drpynchon at 12:14 AM on November 22, 2004

...or the latter from the former. you know, however you want to look at it.
posted by pikachulolita at 12:47 AM on November 22, 2004

We borderline repulsive bitches are eager to catch more of the opalescent pearls of sagacious wisdom that are tumbling out of your asshole.

*gasps at the bwahaha*

I <3 naxosaur.
posted by effugas at 1:02 AM on November 22, 2004

If you seriously want to tell me that it's harder for a girl to get laid than for a guy, go right ahead... but you'd be lying

Not to haughtily point out the obvious or anything, but it does requirea man in order for a woman to get laid, unless we're including gay folk too, at which point your argument breaks down utterly. In a nutshell, this statement just tells me that YOU can't get laid anytime you want, and you're blaming it on your gender.

In truth, any given woman may have an easier time going out and locating a willing partner. It's going to be a guy like the one in this story. The world is actually full of them. And the kicker is, you could be one of them, too, if you worked at it (and were willing to screw "any given woman). So let's just shitcan the whole "women get all the sex" moaning. Talk about lying.
posted by scarabic at 1:43 AM on November 22, 2004

Some people are better looking than others, and generally will have more sex as a result.

Wow. That's how you think it works? You really do live in LA.

You've vaulted to the top of my least-favorite-old-mefite list, if for no other reason than your British spelling of "favourite" and overuse of hyphens (least-favourite-new-mefite, know-it-alls, played-out, true--deal).

Kid, lemme give you some advice: shut up.
posted by scarabic at 1:47 AM on November 22, 2004

I know a guy who tries to get into the pants of just about every woman he talks to. Every damn woman. It is scary. Young (ok, he draws the line at underage), old, ugly, cute, drop dead gorgeous, it doesn't matter. Chances are he is going to make a move. And you know what? He gets laid. Often. Frightenly often. Of course he also gets rejected so many times and that can be amusing to watch. (Actually the whole theater can be amusing to watch, even if it does old fast.)

A key part of his getting laid so many times is low standards. Not because the uglier ones say yes more often, but because if he had standards the number of women he hit on would be drastically reduced. The man is sort of like a spammer of the dating world. Low success rate is fine if you try often enough and don't get hurt by rejection.

I suspect this guy responded to every ad in his area, maybe within an age limit. With that much practice I bet he got pretty good at the whole seduction thing. Combine that with no fear of rejection (a trait that is a plus for many people, at least at first) and 100 doesn't seem that outrageous.
posted by aspo at 2:26 AM on November 22, 2004

the_god_complex: Some people are better looking than others, and generally will have more sex as a result.

scarbic: Wow. That's how you think it works? You really do live in LA.

the_god_complex: You've vaulted to the top of my least-favorite-old-mefite list, if for no other reason than your British spelling of "favourite" and overuse of hyphens (least-favourite-new-mefite, know-it-alls, played-out, true--deal).

scarbic: Kid, lemme give you some advice: shut up.

mefi exchange recommendations:

scarbic, strong earning potential. upgrade to buy.

the_god_complex, weak quarter results, cautious outlook, downgrade to sell.
posted by three blind mice at 3:35 AM on November 22, 2004

Oh let's see ...this is a rather funny thread :)

1. 55 year old MINER (not exaclty Doctor Exquisite, one would think)
2. takes his time to contact 120 woman of unspecified age range (probably 40 and over, but I wouldn't be surprised to find 30 and 20 something as well)
3. takes no for no , yes for yes, lives happily
4. ends up in bed with said women let's say 50% of times..that's at least 60 lays with girls that, notice ,they want to get laid as well, otherwise why should they advertise ?
5. each other girl want him to lay one and only one forever

Could it be that the girls are afraid of not being able to find another 55 year old miner ? The same goes for boys who think they'll not be able to find another 55 year old she-miner :) But eventually they all did :)

In the immortal words of Bill O'Reilly, asking Jack Mehoffer "Where's the beef sir ? " ....Where's the beef in the story ?
posted by elpapacito at 4:12 AM on November 22, 2004

...and the better looking they are, the more boring they will tend to be in the sack, the less willing to accommodate their partner's desires, and the less motivated to please...

Hey, I seriously challenge that, and I ain't ugly, with excellent references.
posted by thinkpiece at 5:22 AM on November 22, 2004

"serial shagger" is a good title for ones bizcards.
posted by dabitch at 5:36 AM on November 22, 2004

If this guy were a bit younger, I'd say he had a lot in common with Boomhauer. In fact, there was an episode of King of the Hill where Bobby, eager to learn the secrets of Boomhauer's success with the ladies, followed him around for a few days and found out that he scored so often by asking pretty much every woman he met out. Ask enough people, and even a 1% success rate is going to add up after a while. Like it did for this guy, by the sound of things.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:18 AM on November 22, 2004

I still don't get this notch on the bedpost mentality, or why men are so proud of it, or envious of those who act it out. *shrugs*

Er...well, to put it succinctly: guys like sex, and guys like variety. It's not all they value, of course, which is why most guys aren't like this guy, but there's some little part of the male brain that wants sex, and wants variety, and hence the "notch on the bedpost mentality".

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but, in case you really meant "I don't get it", as opposed to "I get it but I don't like it", I figured a little explanation was in order.
posted by Bugbread at 6:43 AM on November 22, 2004

The secret is: Low standards
posted by rooftop secrets at 7:06 PM PST on November 21

Metafilter: The secret is Low standards
posted by m@ at 7:12 AM on November 22, 2004

When allusions are made to "lower standards," imagine that is what's being referred to: picking up someone lower on this imaginary beauty scale.

Lower standards can also mean things like lowering one's expectations for things like commitment, intimacy, considerate treatment, etc.
posted by orange swan at 7:38 AM on November 22, 2004

"...and the better looking they are, the more boring they will tend to be in the sack, the less willing to accommodate their partner's desires, and the less motivated to please..."


Well said, and I think, mostly true.
posted by PossumCowboy at 7:42 AM on November 22, 2004

"The notch-on-the-bed-post mentality is no less inane than the my-vagina-is-a-prize mentality. Heck, when you think about it, the former may even arise from the latter."

I admit that I had never considered this. It does make sense, though.
posted by PossumCowboy at 7:55 AM on November 22, 2004

Whoo hoo! PossumCowboy!
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:01 AM on November 22, 2004

What makes or breaks a dating site is the volume of particiaption from conventionally attractive women -- say, under 40 years and under size 12. Sufficient volume of men is a given once you've gotten the critical mass of these women -- you don't have to market to the men at all.

These target women have a pretty sure shot at finding a one night stand down at a local tavern (or one at the next town over if they don't want to run into anyone they know). They do not need, and do not participate, to find a casual fling.

The main challenge in marketing a dating website is persuading conventionally attractive women that the site's men are going to be worthwhile. Thus, the expulsion of an un-worthwhile man is probably a very nice piece of marketing for them -- and the last thing they'd want is get more men participating who have the same agenda.
posted by MattD at 8:03 AM on November 22, 2004

MrMoonPie! How are things?
posted by PossumCowboy at 8:09 AM on November 22, 2004

Sounds to me like he's got plenty of committment.

Commitment to getting laid.

funniest thing i have read in days.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:11 AM on November 22, 2004

(Thread winding down... no sign yet of the "thinking with his little head" chestnut... maybe too early to breathe easy... must remain calm, appear casual)
posted by squirrel at 8:27 AM on November 22, 2004

Has anyone considered that he might be hung like a f*cking donkey?
posted by Frasermoo at 8:33 AM on November 22, 2004

3 blind mice, pay attn - those were not the god complex's comments.

if for no other reason than your British spelling of "favourite"

wtf, he's a canadian, that's how we spell it. just because we live next door to your illiterate ass doesn't mean we have to follow suit.

"...and the better looking they are, the more boring they will tend to be in the sack, the less willing to accommodate their partner's desires, and the less motivated to please..."

this statement reveals a lack of experience.
posted by t r a c y at 8:34 AM on November 22, 2004

"...and the better looking they are, the more boring they will tend to be in the sack, the less willing to accommodate their partner's desires, and the less motivated to please..."

Man, as a hot chick who's a fucking tiger in the sack, I just gotta say...

But honestly, do you feel your sex drive (read: motivation) is connected to your physical appearance in anyway? Ugly people don't universally have a higher sex drive than beautiful people. Beautiful people aren't universally bored with sex. And vice-y verse-y, and also etc.
posted by digifox at 9:27 AM on November 22, 2004

F**K FOR FORESTS
posted by mervin_shnegwood at 10:17 AM on November 22, 2004

I still don't get this notch on the bedpost mentality, or why men are so proud of it, or envious of those who act it out. *shrugs*

A biological design interpretation says that we have a two-sex reproductive system for a couple of reasons. It leads to greater "weeding" of the gene pool, and wider propagation of superior genes. Men are essentially programmed to try to kill one another, with a winner-take-all clause on mating afterward. According to this system, the strongest male from any group will emerge and pass on his genes via ALL the women in the group. Nature is full of examples of male-to-male duel rituals. Think sea lions, rams... If you don't buy the "mating contest" picture, then just consider the countless other species that reproduce by simple rape - whereby the strongest, fastest males fertilize the most females first, securing the survival of their genes. It boils down to the same thing. Strong males get all the action.

We all have a drive to pass our genes on, but men are a bit more ambitious about numbers than women, for one very simple reason. Women can only pass their genes on to as many offspring as they, themselves can bear in 1 lifetime, but men are not limited in the same way. A successful male can hope to have many hundreds, even thousands of offspring in a single lifetime. And there is, in fact, an evolutionary advantage for the species in this. Consider the alternative. Women could simply self-fertilize, with no need for men at all. But according to that system, an individual who had a mutation which produced a highly-advantageous trait could only pass it on to subsequent generations at a trickle pace. Perhaps 20 offspring in a generation.

A male with highly advantageous traits will get around and have a much more noticeable impact on the following generation. The "weeding" of the gene pool happens almost exclusively on the male side of the fence. This speeds the adoption of advantaegous traits by the species overall, benefiting everyone. We would consider it unfortunate because of all the killing (and probably rape) involved, but it may be what got us off our paws and where we are as a species today. Other species, notably insects, take a different approach to the same problem - every female produces vast numbers of offspring. This increases the likliehood of a new genetic trait appearing in the first place.

Perhaps it's this numbers-potential difference which lies at the root of cultural differences in the way men and women approach sex. The stereotype goes that women like sex, but they're less likely to wander than men. Why should they? Women can reach their full reproductive potential with a single partner. They may cheat or shop around, but from a genetic viewpoint, the only reason to do so is to pick the most suitable mate. There isn't any reason to have more than 1. Men, on the other hand, are scattering their seed far and wide everytime you turn your back on them. It's a shotgun approach.

I don't know if I believe all this 100%, nor would I completely discount a cultural interpretation of why men feel the need to notch a bedpost, but if you believe that culture and society inherit anything at all from biology, you've got to imagine that men and women are going to differ at least a little in their approach to mating. The above makes sense to me, and it all follows from which gender has to invest 9 months being pregnant. Men don't. They move right on down the line to the next opportunity to mate.

A woman who's had 10 beautiful children can feel secure that she's performed well in passing on her genes. But does anyone remember that sperm bank doctor who swapped his own semen in for thousands of bank samples? That guy, on the evolutionary scale, is a fucking Pharoh.
posted by scarabic at 11:01 AM on November 22, 2004

It's impossible to look back at Serial Shagger's profile and see, but I suspect some of the complaints from his multitude of partners must stem from a gap between a)how he represented his motives in his dating profile (looking for a serious relationship) and b) his subsequent behavior (cutting out after getting down and dirty.)

He laments: "The agency said they received complaints because women were travelling to meet me and wanted commitment, but I didn't. But it's just that I haven't met the right woman yet."

If you claim to be looking for a serious relationship, but then after you've had sex, you end the relationship (TIME AND TIME AGAIN) it undercuts your credibility a bit and adds to the impression that sex is the real goal.

If he's truly serious, he'll learn to keep his pants on a bit longer.
posted by jfwlucy at 11:04 AM on November 22, 2004

oh, sure, post a reasoned response with logic in it. I was just getting into the sexual innuendo and dick jokes.
posted by PossumCowboy at 11:06 AM on November 22, 2004

the_god_complex: Some people are better looking than others, and generally will have more sex as a result.

Huh? Looks like you fell off the crazy wagon. I never said that.
posted by The God Complex at 11:13 AM on November 22, 2004

t r a c y, the implication that people who spell color and flavor without using the letter u are illiterate is, at best, ridiculous. Especially when Canada's literacy rate is no higher than that of the United States.
posted by oaf at 11:23 AM on November 22, 2004

The real tigers in the sack are the ones that can spell properly. COLOUR. HONOUR. SEXOUR. Oh snap.

"...and the better looking they are, the more boring they will tend to be in the sack, the less willing to accommodate their partner's desires, and the less motivated to please..."

Anyway, I never bought into this hot/boring ugly/exciting thing. You can tell what sort of experience somebody has by the way they carry themselves, usually. If they carry themselves with zero self-confidence, it could be safe to assume they haven't had that much hot monkey sex. I see a lot of unattractive, plain people carrying themselves with little self-confidence. Am I expected to believe that once naked and underneath me, that they're going to be busting out the most insane moves known to humankind?

Besides, I'd argue that for many/some/justme people sex is more about context. Going at it upside down in deep space might be pretty cool, but unless the mood and the person and the foreplay is right, it just doesn't matter. Might as well be masturbating.

Love and emotions, people! <3 <3 <3
posted by Kleptophoria! at 11:34 AM on November 22, 2004

(By my logic, there, a hot person who came across as having little self-confidence would also be fairly boring in "THE SACK".)
posted by Kleptophoria! at 11:34 AM on November 22, 2004

Not to haughtily point out the obvious or anything, but it does require a man in order for a woman to get laid...In truth, any given woman may have an easier time going out and locating a willing partner.

No, you didn't haughtily point out the obvious, you merely tried to twist the logic of my statement, and then ended up rephrasing exactly what I said. Don't tell me to shut up unless you have something substantial to say or what I'm saying is blatantly false. I am not moaning about anything, as I have as much sex as I please (see second to last paragraph).

wtf, he's a canadian, that's how we spell it. just because we live next door to your illiterate ass doesn't mean we have to follow suit.

My statement was in response to The God Complex's apparently arbitrary beef with my "inability to use commas in parenthetical notations". I was merely pointing out something equally arbitrary in his writing. I have no problem with British spelling (but I would not be surprised if TGC had a real problem with my punctuation, or lack thereof).

"...and the better looking they are, the more boring they will tend to be in the sack, the less willing to accommodate their partner's desires, and the less motivated to please..."

this statement reveals a lack of experience.

Bravo. Very true.

And TGC, I am sorry 3blndmice attributed my comments to you. That must have been awful.

on preview: what Kleptophoria! said about hot people in the sack.
posted by rooftop secrets at 11:39 AM on November 22, 2004

Well, what you are saying is a long string of broad generalizations, clearly gleaned from your own narrow view of a thoroughly plastic culture. Your locker room wisdom been repeatedly swatted down already, though, so let's move on.

I confess, that when I had told you to shut up, I hadn't seen TGC's comment, which you were mimicing in reply. His comment was unnecessarily harsh and not a little elitist.
posted by scarabic at 12:02 PM on November 22, 2004

I *like* little elitists.
posted by PossumCowboy at 12:19 PM on November 22, 2004

I agree that my problems in this thread stemmed from an overreliance on generalizations (which I attempted to point out along the way). I do not, however, think that what I said was false, demeaning, or out of line. For what it's worth, it's not that I am saying my narrow worldview represents all of humanity, merely that those trying to deny that my view has merit are equally wrong. I didn't grow up in LA (actually grew up in Hawaii... the antithesis of Los Angeles), and I don't condone its "plastic culture" by any means. But it's out there.
posted by rooftop secrets at 12:20 PM on November 22, 2004

five-year debauch which resulted in 100 notches
As far as firing a client which they did, how could the dating service say it more nicely? Look, we have a failure; 55 year old man in five years shags a 100 but no commitment could be provided.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:14 PM on November 22, 2004

...overuse of hyphens (least-favourite-new-mefite, know-it-alls, played-out, true--deal).

That's not hyphenation, you twit, that's a poor man's m-dash! Bosh!
posted by cortex at 1:15 PM on November 22, 2004

This man can sleep with who he wants to and doesn't have to commit to anyone. This idea of kicking him off the dating service is lame. Some people join these things to get laid. Period. Others to meet interesting people when they move to a new city, and others to date.

As for the comments of people who date online being desperate, this isn't the case in my experience. I've known many attractive, cool girlfriends who use these services because they're sick of guys coming up to them in bars going "hey baby". I'm currently single, and while most of the men I date I meet in person, I have a fun, admittedly "clubby" profile up for shits and giggles here and I've made some good friends because of it. I have had men tell me, however, that they usually respond to women's posts, and when women respond to their profiles they usually don't, er, fit the profile. Read "fat".

Otherwise, these services can be fun but by all means, they don't "screen" anyone for you. If you're looking for commitment, you'd better establish that before you sleep with someone, regardless of where you meet them.
posted by wicked sprite at 1:38 PM on November 22, 2004

while most of the men I date I meet in person

The first time I read this I saw "prison" not "person". I was greatly disappointed upon second reading.
posted by dness2 at 1:54 PM on November 22, 2004

(quotes self):...and the better looking they are, the more boring they will tend to be in the sack, the less willing to accommodate their partner's desires, and the less motivated to please...

(highlights stress): *tend to be*

thinkpiece & digifox: sure, you are hot. that would place you somewhere on a bell-curve. who would have guessed that?

t r a c y & rooftop secrets: dunno about this alleged lack of experience, but maybe we use different scales...just suggesting a general *tendency*, based on personal observation & discussions. if i wanted, i could dig myself further into a hole by suggesting that the same general principle can apply to other things - such as conversation - but generalisations & trends can be so clumsy, therefore:

i think kleptophoria! is pretty much on the money.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:55 PM on November 22, 2004

I'm not one to jump on someone for a generalization ;)

I just don't think that one tends to be true.
posted by rooftop secrets at 2:01 PM on November 22, 2004

This idea of kicking him off the dating service is lame. Some people join these things to get laid. Period.

I totally agree. I believe what's going through the marketing whores' minds is something like this, though: "People are still really hesitant about online dating. If the story of this uber-lothario gets around, it will hurt our rep. It would be much better for the story of our banning him to get around. We will have made an example of him and helped convince women that they are protected from predation on this site."

Online dating, at least in the commercial sphere, is still very much a high-opportunity sector where nobody has a definitive lockdown. The market forces that act on it keep it from resembling "fair" or "reality" in any way. While membership is soaring, all it will take is one high profile disaster - a murder or something - to really hurt the sector (or at least hurt their stock price or whatever).
posted by scarabic at 2:28 PM on November 22, 2004

all it will take is one high profile disaster - a murder or something - to really hurt the sector

um...like this? or these? or...?
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:03 PM on November 22, 2004

As an okay-looking, bitchy, kinda pudgy girl (with standards!), I can assure you that looks are maybe one-tenth of getting laid as a girl. When I was hotter than now, I got laid less—by lamer boys. Time to admit what every lover worth her salt has always known: the only people who care if you're uber-hot aren't worth fucking. So no, it isn't sexist to obsess over attractivness. But it sure is a sign of being boring.
posted by dame at 3:25 PM on November 22, 2004

So rooftop, I live in LA, so in theory I'll be able to date 20-year-olds again when I hit 55?

I hope it's sooner than that really... my dating life here sucks.

/facetious
posted by zoogleplex at 4:11 PM on November 22, 2004

Well, as mentioned by others, only if you have a screen role to offer ;)

My dating life here sucked for a while too. The trick is to find other who are fed up with Los Angeles for the same reasons you are. And finding decent people in LA bars is near impossible, so in my experience it's better to meet people in some other environment. I swear cool people are out there...but you may have to look hard.
posted by rooftop secrets at 4:23 PM on November 22, 2004

My statement was in response to The God Complex's apparently arbitrary beef with my "inability to use commas in parenthetical notations". I was merely pointing out something equally arbitrary in his writing. I have no problem with British spelling (but I would not be surprised if TGC had a real problem with my punctuation, or lack thereof).

An inability to properly punctuate your sentences is hardly arbitrary, especially when it makes for a clumsy read. but hey whatever it's your writing do whatever you want it's not up to me or anyone else.

But it doesn't really bother me. It was just the most childish way I could think of to make fun of your juvenile posturing; thought that much was already clear.
posted by The God Complex at 4:25 PM on November 22, 2004

And TGC, I am sorry 3blndmice attributed my comments to you. That must have been awful.

Just mildly distressing. I have a heavy investment in myself, and any unwarranted depreciation of my stock value will hinder my metanomic liquidity.
posted by The God Complex at 4:29 PM on November 22, 2004

t r a c y, the implication that people who spell color and flavor without using the letter u are illiterate is, at best, ridiculous.


no kidding. one ridiculous implication deserves another.
posted by t r a c y at 4:47 PM on November 22, 2004

I've used online dating things (Friendster and Myspace) 3 times, upon moving to a new city. One girl I met was really nice, but not someone I'd want to date; another I dated for a month, but she was kinda crazy, but the third was JUST RIGHT!
I'm not that much into the "notch" thing simply because I've found that the sex just isn't worth it. Personally, the longer I've been with someone, the better the sex; thus, a one-night stand would probably leave me pretty unsatisfied, but I'm comfortable with my SO enough where we can have a bit more fun.
But that might be because I'm self-conscious about my bitch-tits.
posted by 235w103 at 4:52 PM on November 22, 2004

one ridiculous implication deserves another.

ok: this statement reveals a lack of experience :P
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:40 PM on November 22, 2004

"The trick is to find other who are fed up with Los Angeles for the same reasons you are."

Heh, the only things I'm fed up with here are traffic, which I avoid on my motorcycle, and my sucky dating life. Everything else is going great! :D

No, seriously!
posted by zoogleplex at 5:45 PM on November 22, 2004

one ridiculous implication deserves another.

You don't live in California, so the only "we" living next door (figuratively) would be Canada, next to the U.S. It may just be that your post was poorly worded.
posted by oaf at 5:47 PM on November 22, 2004

uber-lothario

You stole that from my résumé, scarabic.
posted by squirrel at 5:49 PM on November 22, 2004

Furthermore, this isn't even taking into account the fact that most the women who would sign up with one of these online dating services are probably rather desperate (generalization alert whatever it's true deal with it).

I'm really late to this thread, rooftop secrets, but trust me on this one: you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I have met many women through personals and they are among the most intelligent, bold, beautiful people I've ever met and are hardly desperate in any definition of the word. What they've figured out that you obvously haven't is that online dating services are a tremendous way of filtering out uninteresting people.
posted by dobbs at 10:12 PM on November 22, 2004

Personality is really as important as people say it is.

I'm still in university, so I've never had to use this bizarre "internet" thing for dates. I hope I don't have to, really. Internet dating is all part of the Matrix's plan. That's right, I went there.

Also: I'm so tempted to make a Metatalk post about how grammar is killing Metafilter.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 12:39 PM on November 23, 2004

Surely you mean how grammar are killing Metafilter?
posted by trondant at 8:56 PM on November 23, 2004