I have to agree with Ushgarak, women are more oriented towards stable partnerships than sex. But isn't it the matter of nature and genetics? Men can procreate with dozens of women and it is good for the species. Woman needs to find a man to protect the young ones and hunt for food( I am a bit simplistic, now it is a bit diffrent, but you see my point.)
By the way, has anyone heard of a rape comitted by woman? There was a case in my city concerning two high school girls being accused of sexual abuse of mentally handicapped boy.
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Have you ever seen how women behave for male strippers 🙂 on hen nights etc🙂
That is another simple distraction. That is like the false "I am a woman, I like sex therefore women enjoy sex as much as men" argument, which simply has no grounds.
The very fact that you mention it on hen nights shows the truth of the matter- it's something done as a special occasion. Compare the not inconsiderable amount of men who go to such shows every week, if not more. As WD says, it is a simple fact that, much as women can like this sort of thing, MANY many more men do.
Originally posted by The OmegaCan you name me a derogatory term for a man who’s VERY sexually active? How many can you name for a woman who’s very sexually active?
A man can be called a rake, but that's about the only derogatory term coined specifically for promiscuous men and not promiscuous women. It is very old school too, I wonder who uses it anymore.
BackFire> But the point is that ****, whore, etc. etc are derogatory words coined on WOMEN. They were not made to be used against men.
The words in question do NOT bring a picture of a sexually active MAN to mind, do they?
So once again: Can you name a derogatory word used for a man who is very sexually active?
Society tells women, that if they are very sexually active, it’s something negative! This is just a fact.
Men – on average – are more easily turned on by physical things than women. Hey, good hips nice breasts – a good child-bearer. Women – on average – need to know if he’s the alpha-male, so we like to at least exchange words with a would-be sexual partner first. Hey, good idea, he needs to bring the beef home.
Hence the reason why men go nuts over striptease, sit in XXX-booths and read magazines. They are aroused by mere looks, more so then women – on average (Show me Keanu in next to nothing, and I’ll need a cold shower!)
Ush> Hey, times change. Once we thought the Sun circled the Earth and that space was filled with Ether. But guess what? Times change, we learn new stuff about the world and ourselves. Once the idea that women should vote was considered absolutely out of this world. WOMEN? These emotional, irrational, frail beings??
Anyone who discards new knowledge in favour of what they WANT to believe is disturbing. What you consider as something which reflects badly on me I couldn’t care less about.
I’m merely curious as to why it is so extremely important to you to cling to an old way of thinking.
”Do people seriously believe that as many relationships become troubled because women want sex and the man doesn't, rather than the other way around?”
This is actually a fact. After five years the number of men who loose interest is ”alarmingly” higher than we were brought up to believe. I know it happens. It was one of the reasons I got a divorce.
” But this is simply the acknowledgement that Men are more constantly driven by the desire for it than Women are.”
Nature really roally screwed up there, huh? It’s like the old problem, that if SO many men committed adultery, then where were all the women they committed adultery with?
Silly nature, to give one gender a greater sexual drive than the other, isn’t it?
Finally: What do we consider as sexual options? What do we know, or what have we learned that we can derive some kind of benefit or pleasure from? The male ice-menu (let’s call it that) is infinitely larger than the female one. Girls and women are only recently begun exploring gay-porn (oh, yes, they have), porn in general and a variety of other stimulants. But we were not originally brought up to it BEING options for us.
If you’ve always only had the chance of choosing either chocolate- or strawberry icecream, that is what you eat. You don’t even consider all the other flavours, and may not even want to try them out. You have to realise that they are there, and sample them, to see if it’s something for you…
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That is another simple distraction. That is like the false "I am a woman, I like sex therefore women enjoy sex as much as men" argument, which simply has no grounds.The very fact that you mention it on hen nights shows the truth of the matter- it's something done as a special occasion. Compare the not inconsiderable amount of men who go to such shows every week, if not more. As WD says, it is a simple fact that, much as women can like this sort of thing, MANY many more men do.
lol what woman say around guys is not what they say as a group 🙂 Go to any seaside town and watch a hen night 🙂
Originally posted by The Omega
Society tells women, that if they are very sexually active, it’s something negative! This is just a fact.
Men – on average – are more easily turned on by physical things than women. Hey, good hips nice breasts – a good child-bearer. Women – on average – need to know if he’s the alpha-male, so we like to at least exchange words with a would-be sexual partner first. Hey, good idea, he needs to bring the beef home.
Hence the reason why men go nuts over striptease, sit in XXX-booths and read magazines. They are aroused by mere looks, more so then women – on average (Show me Keanu in next to nothing, and I’ll need a cold shower!)
Just to refer to this piece for a second.
I don't think the term used should be "on average". I don't think women "on average" like to know if a guy is the alpha-male. I think a better way to put it is by instinct.
By instinct, women are wired to look for a provider. That doesn't mean that it's a regular occurance. Just like men are wired to be the provider, alpha-male, macho one. It isn't always the case. That just comes down to plain and simple animal instinct which we all have. To say that women, on average, like to get to know men before they have sex with them is quite ridiculous.
Men are more easily turned on because women are genetically constructed to attract the male of the species. Men don't NEED to attract females. We don't birth the kids, you do. Because women are supposed to be the ones looking to start a family, as it is throughout the animal world, they obviously look for potential partners more than men do, granted. However, Men aren't attracted just because they're more horny or less intelligent. It's because:
A) There's more to look at in full view on a female than there is on a male.
and B) Women's bodies are designed with parts that, through time and evolution (despite it not being their purpose) have grown attractive to males. Breasts for example. They aren't there to attract men, but they are there and in the right cases, they're attractive. If women didn't have breasts, men wouldn't still be as attracted.
As for saying men look at women to see if she's a good child-bearer. Sorry, can't say that one applies to me. If I see a girl I'd love to bone, I don't think "Hmm, but would she make a good mother?" I think "Man I'd really like to put her through the headboard right now."
Men are aroused by mere looks because that's the medium in which the female of our species attracts the male. Not because we are all superficial.
Go to the island of Ibiza during the summer and then tell me that girls like to get to know guys before they sleep with them.
I'm not saying the sexual drive in females is equal to males, I'm saying that there are some girls who don't give a shit what a man is like as long as he's hot. Just like there are men who really do care what you have to say and aren't all about having it away with you.
Society tells women that being sexually active (although it is rapidly becoming more acceptable) is something negative, I agree. However that, I believe, is purely because of the psychological nature of what takes place in intercourse.
Why do you think fathers are more protective of their daughters? Because in sex, girls have to take something INTO their body. Some guys penis. Men don't have to do that, so it's not as invasive or sacred. That's why it's probably more generally accepted for men to sleep around than women.
If you met a man who said, "my penis has been in 20 girls." You wouldn't think anything as bad as if a girl said "I've had 20 penises in my vagina." Because it automatically registers as "Whoa, you let 20 guys put it in you?".
Not saying it's right, but that's, in my opinion, why things are the way they are.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
By instinct, women are wired to look for a provider. That doesn't mean that it's a regular occurance. Just like men are wired to be the provider, alpha-male, macho one. It isn't always the case. That just comes down to plain and simple animal instinct which we all have
not really, this aint 1950
As for saying men look at women to see if she's a good child-bearer. Sorry, can't say that one applies to me. If I see a girl I'd love to bone, I don't think "Hmm, but would she make a good mother?" I think "Man I'd really like to put her through the headboard right now."
😆 😆 😆
Go to the island of Ibiza during the summer and then tell me that girls like to get to know guys before they sleep with them.
agreed
Why do you think fathers are more protective of their daughters? Because in sex, girls have to take something INTO their body. Some guys penis. Men don't have to do that, so it's not as invasive or sacred. That's why it's probably more generally accepted for men to sleep around than women.
thats a good point.. its still ridiculous for society to see it that way, but a good point nonetheless
AC> The term – on average – is just a safety-measure, to avoid someone like, uhrm, JM, jumping in and telling us she knows ONE person who is COMPLETELY different.
Men and women both are wired to start families. If that was not the case, men would leave the woman after conception, and the human race would’ve died out since a pregnant woman can’t hunt beef, and not do so, either, just after giving birth.
”Getting to know” may be wrongly phrased. But why does the term “looser” bring a man to mind, and not a woman? Because we rather want the alpha in the pack, so to speak.
“A) There's more to look at in full view on a female than there is on a male.”
Uhhh… You look at what? I know we look at the ass, shoulders, hips, biceps (hmmmm, nicely toned, not too big… -faints)…
“B) If women didn't have breasts, men wouldn't still be as attracted.”
I’m not sure I understand you there. If we’d never had them, who’d care? Do you mean if women suddenly lost them, or…?
“As for saying men look at women to see if she's a good child-bearer. Sorry, can't say that one applies to me.” What happened to instincts and “wired”, AC? OF COURSE me don’t consciously think “Ah, good hunter” or “Uh, good child-bearer”, but what attracts us are basically traits you can bring back to those issues.
You’re failing the – on average – idea here. Sure you can find men, who’re attracted to women, who do NOT look like good child-bearers, there are plenty of men, who like to know the girl they sleep with, just as there are women who’re attracted to “loosers” and don’t want anyone to say a THING.
The drive is indeed the same. But what we’re turned on by is not the same – on average!
And when men think “Woaw, she let that many in”, we girls are in trouble!! I know what you mean, of course, but until that VIEW changes, we won’t be entirely free.
Allegedly alot of men are attracted to women with nice smiles when looking for someone in the capacity of a childbearer.
People who have a penchant for ne'er do wells are those who have had a childhood that has been disrupted in some way. It is natural for a subject to be attracted to someone who resembles one of their parents, but if their parents interacted like lunatics then they're at a disadvantage as they will probably be drawn to the parental conflict pattern.
Originally posted by manjaro
there is always one punk ass snitch who wants to ruin it for everybody. you know how much i wish i could get to f **** one of my friends moms?yeah there is a double standard and rightfully so. im sure that woman didnt have to force any of them to take thier clothes off. once the words LETS...HAVE..... and SEX are uttered in the same sentence thats all it takes to get teenage boys going. where as, if it were a man it would be much more difficult, usually he would have to prey on the girl with the low self esteem and tell her how she's pretty, and how sex is something you do when two ppl are in love and if you loved me you would do this, and next thing you know he says this'll be our little secret, then she becomes even more depressed and shows visible signs of it til someone catches on then boom big story!
but with a boy, the moment he climbs out of the vagina he'll be high fiving himself on the way home and brag to all his friends. he's not gonna be depressed and traumtized, and have sleepless nights, and write about how horrible it was in a diary. look at things here in the US. the beginning of 2005 almost seemed like open season for female teachers having sex with young boys, and giving them drugs, and most if not all of them got busted becuase they bragged to thier friends who told some more friends who told some parents who called the police.
so i would say that it is more sick for a man to do that, cuz he's definatley taking adnvantage of someone that age where as a woman is just fulfilling every teenage boys' fantasy. so women will alwys get my sympathy. however, they should know that teenage boys are horribly notorious for not being able to keep secrets of that nature, especially when there is ego and bragging rights at stake. if thier stupid enuff to do it then they should go to jail but not for long periods like men should be
i do believe thats discrimination based on gender
Originally posted by The Omega
AC> The term – on average – is just a safety-measure, to avoid someone like, uhrm, JM, jumping in and telling us she knows ONE person who is COMPLETELY different.
Gotcha.
Originally posted by The Omega
Men and women both are wired to start families. If that was not the case, men would leave the woman after conception, and the human race would’ve died out since a pregnant woman can’t hunt beef, and not do so, either, just after giving birth.
”Getting to know” may be wrongly phrased. But why does the term “looser” bring a man to mind, and not a woman? Because we rather want the alpha in the pack, so to speak.
Looser is probably an exaggerated term describing what would happen to a woman who's slept with way too many men. Like that woman who broke the record.
I never said men weren't totally wired, at least that's not what I meant. I mean I know ALOT more men who don't think, care about or want kids, than women.
Originally posted by The Omega
“A) There's more to look at in full view on a female than there is on a male.”
Uhhh… You look at what? I know we look at the ass, shoulders, hips, biceps (hmmmm, nicely toned, not too big… -faints)…
Because breasts, in the right case, are attractive. They're not exactly out of view are they? Haha. Well, depends on the woman. (Allow me my cheap shot, it was a joke).
Originally posted by The Omega
“B) If women didn't have breasts, men wouldn't still be as attracted.”
I’m not sure I understand you there. If we’d never had them, who’d care? Do you mean if women suddenly lost them, or…?
I mean that it wouldn't be as much of a regular occurance I believe, for men to be aroused on sight by females, if they didn't have breasts.
Originally posted by The Omega
“As for saying men look at women to see if she's a good child-bearer. Sorry, can't say that one applies to me.” What happened to instincts and “wired”, AC? OF COURSE me don’t consciously think “Ah, good hunter” or “Uh, good child-bearer”, but what attracts us are basically traits you can bring back to those issues.
You’re failing the – on average – idea here. Sure you can find men, who’re attracted to women, who do NOT look like good child-bearers, there are plenty of men, who like to know the girl they sleep with, just as there are women who’re attracted to “loosers” and don’t want anyone to say a THING.
Not really, on the first part. Because I wouldn't have children if you paid me too, nor do I want them. One of the things I look for in a potential partner is someone who doesn't want kids.
I get the on average idea, was just saying I disagree in some places where it got used.
Originally posted by The Omega
The drive is indeed the same. But what we’re turned on by is not the same – on average!
And when men think “Woaw, she let that many in”, we girls are in trouble!! I know what you mean, of course, but until that VIEW changes, we won’t be entirely free.
Yeah I agree. It's just harder to shake subconscious influences than it is conscious ones.
If I know a girl is sensible, respectable and clean (as in free of any STDs etc), I'm not too bothered how many times she's had sex. It would probably startle me if it was a mad number of different men, but if that was over time, protected and safe. I don't see the problem.
I'm all for casual sex. Just don't be a spanner, wrap your hammer.
Or in the female case...some other household instrument joke.
-AC