The measurement of a man's manhood by the number of women he sleeps with is widespread. You, my friend are a tool to accept such definition. Furthermore, it is also widespread to define a person's *** by their genitalia. So, I guess you really don't have a problem with that either. So, what again is your problem?
I guess? But i've never encountered anyone who used the word "man" to refer only to people who have slept with at least x women. Certainly it's not uncommon for people to consider a man who has never had *** worthless, or something, but when someone just says the word "man", no one thinks they are only talking about someone who has slept with x number of women before. Maybe it's a regional thing though. So what word do you use for men who have not had *** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess? Edited, Mar 21st 2013 8:04pm by Rachel9