How can women be sexually appealing...

[rebecca702]

It's just sad, like you say. What are these guys really getting out of it?

Isn't it obvious? Do I really have to spell it out for you? OK, here it goes: S-E-X.

Of course, can't you see I meant what else. They can't possibly be learning much or using the "relationship" to enhance their understanding of reality (what Deida writes about), if they're just picking up girls and dropping them just as quick. Yeah, sex is great. Wheee!

[Cory Duchesne]

I think the majority of these men who buy Deida's books (and authors like him) are just trying to win a long term girlfriend. (what can I do and say to make her accept me?)

There's probably only a minority who are in it for the sheer sport of pick up. And for those guys, it's not just sex, but it's the ego-boost that comes with approval and acceptance. (e.g., she let me fuck her, so that must mean I am a great person, etc)

The excitement of sex is definitely a big factor, but acceptance, approval (& in extreme cases: worship) can be just as addicting and thrilling, for some men, maybe even more so.

[Animus]

I've just seen the one series called "The Mystery Method" by "Mystery". The guy has that whole "psychology of mystery" thing down pat I tell you. But, if you can see through it, he's actually kind of funny lookin'.

The method is such:

Construct a unique identity
The idea here is for a guy to make himself stand out, mohawk, pony-tail, huge ear-rings, face shrapnel, doesn't matter, anything to look different.

Approach non-chalantly
Make an approach that seems casual and uninvolved. Don't chat to the girl you are interested in, chat to her friends and make a little fun of the girl you want.

Puff yourself up
Tell a bunch of stories that make you out to be a warrior, a social butterfly and a sex-machine. Lie if you have to.

Neg

That is about the jist of it, its all pretty fake. Mystery insists that the method is not to be used for one-nighters, but is for hooking up permanently. And perhaps that works, but for myself I couldn't like a girl that liked me after I flat out lied to her face about my social/sexual prowess and systematically orchestrated an assault on her mind with the primary objective of assaulting her body.

A wise man once said to me; "The best thing that ever happened in my life, was when I lost the desire for sex."

Suffice to say I find it all kinda amusing in a way that's tragic.

You just summed up all of American culture. ;o)

You've probably heard of David Deida if you've watched those type of DVDs... he writes some supposedly-enlightened-relationship-type books which I browsed one of. His books could be found in any New Agey bookstore. Well, now he's gotten on board with the people that put out a lot of those DVDs and hold the pick-up conferences. It's basically "how to pick up women by using psychological trickery." Not to say the women don't want it. It's just sad, like you say. What are these guys really getting out of it? Besides STDs I mean?

[brokenhead]

That is about the jist of it, its all pretty fake. Mystery insists that the method is not to be used for one-nighters, but is for hooking up permanently.

The method is shallow. If it is fake, why would you want to make something like that permanent?

[Animus]

I'm pretty sure the method is about getting smokin' hot bodies in your bed.

According to Mystery and some of his disciples women often don't care when they find out they've been lied to and what-not, by that time they are already hooked.

So the point is not to meet someone who is smart or has any kind of personal dignity.

I guess the awakening for these people will be around 40ish when smokin' hot bods are rare and those formerly attractive women are as much fun as a plate.

[Ryan Rudolph]

it seems to me that we are programmed to perceive and feel the opposite sex as attractive merely as a mechanism to replicate genes to the next generation. It is evolution's way of forcing offspring through the forces of attraction. It is like when two attractive ends of a magnet are held away from each other, and suddenly there is enough force to bring them together. Sexual attraction is like that. When the casual forces are in line, humans fuck, and babies pop out of vaginas. That is the entire purpose of the process.

There is very strong biological conditioning that ensures human survival.

1. The desire to secure food, clothes and shelter.
2. And the desire to replicate ones genes to the next generation. IE: Sexual desire.

And these desires are ingrained into our biology as a means to drive cognition/action, and it is only the forces of consciousness and rationality that can attempt to keep them under control, and not dominate ones entire being.

[Shahrazad]

Rebecca,

Of course, can't you see I meant what else.

Well, there is no "what else" for most men. Some of them go to great lengths to reach positions of power, be it financial or political, so that they can impress women, so that they can get sex in greater qualities and quantities. Men are mostly driven by their sexual desires, and it is precisely this that keeps the economies moving at the fast pace they are currently moving. Remove sex from the equation and the world could move with at most 20% of people working.

[skipair]

but for myself I couldn't like a girl that liked me after I flat out lied to her face about my social/sexual prowess and systematically orchestrated an assault on her mind with the primary objective of assaulting her body.

...and seeing it work in the same way over and over again on all different types of women. I can understand the notion of not liking girls after seeing deeper into their nature. Perhaps there is something else to like about them (what's left - pure sexuality), or perhaps liking really has nothing to do with it.

I agree with what Ryan wrote, relating it to the title of the thread. As for using rationality to keep the desire in check, it's useful at time for me to remember a more objective view of women. For example, as Jason said seeing that it's just two bodies rubbing together, or seeing how monkey-like humans really are, or just getting that flash that strips reality naked of preferences.

Sometimes this is hard because the prefering and valuing of things feels good, especially if we rank a thing, a woman, whatever, as #1. Humans seem to like the process of working toward goals, giving us a purpose and focus and in turn pleasure.

A wise man once said to me; "The best thing that ever happened in my life, was when I lost the desire for sex."

I have two favorite things: having desire and getting what I want, and having no desire. Both are challenging!

You've probably heard of David Deida

I liked parts of "The way of the superior man", mostly the recognition of masculine and feminine differences, and that to be skillfull in life it's helpful to treat these differently when confronted with them. Also the idea of taking risks, and always challenging yourself so that you are close to your "edge". There's nothing more important to me than this.

[Animus]

The egotism, the self-importance felt by such women screams loud from their behaviour and that alone turns me off.

[rebecca702]

humans fuck, and babies pop out of vaginas.

That was great.

When a man ejaculates into a woman's birth canal, she becomes "infected with progeny" (Kurt Vonnegut). When you get down to brass tacks, the whole thing is pretty laughable.

[Animus]

Brass tacks are serious instruments designed to prevent a shoe from becoming too worn and for measuring out a length of fabric. That is, when you get down to the crass facts of brass tacks.

[rebecca702]

I stand informed.

[skipair]

Also, if say, a chicken's behavior was basically a psychological seduction machine, and I was in contact with chickens everyday, the thread title would be a little different.

[Animus]

I stand informed.

hehe, see this is what I do, I had no idea where "brass tacks" came from so I googled it and then made the post, which will help me remember what I had read. I often spout seemingly incoherent and irrelevant nonsense for the sole purpose of feeding that information back into my brain verbally/ocularly. But if you learn something from it too, that's great!

[Nick]

Not only different, but likely for Jason, one tastes more pleasurable than the other.

I don't think it's just external conditioning. There is an innate biological readiness, an instinctual preparedness to find certain stimuli more arousing than other stimuli. That's why some men turn out to be homosexual, because their brain has a certain preparedness (to greater or lesser degrees) to go in that homosexual direction.

Likewise, there are the same innate mechanisms in place that ensure people like sweet tasting things, rather than say, metallic.

When it comes to some thing's taste there is no conscious thought process going on, it either tastes good or bad, no decision needs to be made about this, our bodies have already decided it for us. Although even this is subject to one's exposure to different foods within their culture, where people develop a taste for certain foods that you might find disgusting. I'm sure if you travel to some parts of the world and give them a processed piece of food loaded with high fructose corn syrup they might find that unpalatable as well.

When it comes to what we choose to aim our reproductive impulses at, we first need to consciously identify it, and then decide whether its up to our standards or not. The way we go about this selection process is heavily influenced by environmental factors, much more so than genetics. Sure men might have a genetic predisposition to aim their reproductive impulses at women, but just like all things which humans have a predisposition for, they can be curbed and even eliminated by the cultures they grow up in. I'll go into this with a little more detail in my response to Jason here.

[Dan Rowden]

As Cory noted, it is quite possible that there are innate elements to sexual preference. I think perhaps this notion of projecting ideals onto women is being overplayed, especially since we're talking about sex - it's just bodies rubbing against each other and animal desire.

I don't know about that. Let's take the context of guys in a nightclub trolling for a cheap root. What percentage of them just randomly walk up to girls and ask if they want to fuck? I'd say a very small one. What they do to achieve that end is exploit the ideation. It's not just about projecting ideals onto women, it's about functioning within that ideation.

[Nick]

As Cory noted, it is quite possible that there are innate elements to sexual preference. I think perhaps this notion of projecting ideals onto women is being overplayed, especially since we're talking about sex - it's just bodies rubbing against each other and animal desire.

If that's all sex is (rubbing up against something) then why is there such strong desire to rub up against females, as opposed to a rock or a tree? Lets find out...

My guess is that modern Western society and conditioning generally tends to have more of a negative rather than positive impact on sexual preference in this sense. That is, it eliminates potential sexual avenues as opposed to cultivating specific avenues like heterosexuality. It forces limitations.

I can't disagree more. Didn't you grow up in a home where you had two heterosexual parents who took the initiative to stay with each other for the rest of their lives, even though some might say this decision goes against the innate desire of a man? Weren't you lead to believe that when you grow up it is your duty to find a girl to get married and have children with? Weren't all those disney movies and fairy tales you watched and read when you were younger about the the star male character saving or chasing after a female character, and the female character's desire to find her one true love which she could live happily ever after with? What about religions holding up then union of man and woman as one of the most sacred bonds in all of humanity? Not to mention like you said, the suppression of all other sexual avenues in order to keep every boy and girl on the straight and narrow. Combine all of this and you have yourself an individual who is primed to seek out females at all costs. It is impressed upon his mind that finding happiness in his relationships with women is the most important thing in life, it is the ideal scenario for all individuals to strive for, and god forbid you get left out. Of course this all gets so embedded in our minds that it feels like we were born to behave like this, when really it's not much more than some of the finest conditioning culture imposes on our minds. Having said this, I think if we grew up in a society that was identical to ours except for replacing the male/female relationship with that of a male/male relationship, we might all be significantly more inclined to aim our reproductive impulses at males.

[David Quinn]

For men, sex is at its most thrilling when it involves a new partner or a new situation - that is, when the male desire to conquer new sexual territories is expressed and satiated. Even though the physical aspects of sex are no different - in other words, the pheremones, the rubbing of bodies and so on, are essentially the same - the extra excitement is generated by the male's opportunity to interact with his ideation of woman at its rawest.

Without the male desire to conquer his ideation of woman, sex would become mundane and uninteresting - akin to relieving one's bladder in the toilet.

-

[Jason]

As Cory noted, it is quite possible that there are innate elements to sexual preference. I think perhaps this notion of projecting ideals onto women is being overplayed, especially since we're talking about sex - it's just bodies rubbing against each other and animal desire.

I don't know about that. Let's take the context of guys in a nightclub trolling for a cheap root. What percentage of them just randomly walk up to girls and ask if they want to fuck? I'd say a very small one. What they do to achieve that end is exploit the ideation. It's not just about projecting ideals onto women, it's about functioning within that ideation.

It's very very simple, the main reason that guys don't simply walk up to girls and ask for sex(in nightclubs or elsewhere) is that they expect such a method to fail. Also, it's a potentially dangerous move if the girl happens to have an asshole moronic boyfriend, male friend, brother etc around. Or, if you're really unlucky, the law might even end up being involved.

Saying straight out "I'd like to have sex with you, would you like to have sex with me?" makes complete sense, it is entirely reasonable, it is honest, it is respectful. Look at male homosexuals, strangers often successfully ask for sex immediately and outright, it doesn't even have to be in a nightclub, a public toilet can suffice with exactly zero prior meeting or gameplaying.

From at least the start of puberty it was obvious to me how full of shit the whole dating/mating game. What I wanted was sex, but I realized that being reasonable, honest and respectful about it simply wasn't accepted and wouldn't be successful, and that I could easily face ostracism and legal and physical threats if I tried it.

[Shahrazad]

Nick said,

If that's all sex is (rubbing up against something) then why is there such strong desire to rub up against females, as opposed to a rock or a tree? Lets find out...

I disagree with Nick. To me, sex is mainly about the "rubbing".

David said,

Without the male desire to conquer his ideation of woman, sex would become mundane and uninteresting - akin to relieving one's bladder in the toilet.

There was another quote in this thread I didn't find for lack of energy and time, but it talked about the physical aspect of penetration being the same whether it's inside a vagina or a male anus. I think it was Nick that said it.

For all I know, you guys could be right, and be describing things accurately from the male perspective. But my perspective is very different to all the text I cited above. It boils down to this: If you could give me a machine that could inflict upon me all the physical sensations (pressure, friction, thrusting, sucking, and whatever else) that the right man could, I'd go for the machine and forget about the man, if for no other reason that because the machine is cheaper, needs less maintenance and is easier to control. Cultural conditioning has nothing to do with my choosing men over women for sex -- it is just that women, or animals, or machines (toys included) are not equipped and skilled to do what a man can do sexually.

So it is not the ideation of man that makes the experience so different for me: it is the physical part itself.

Having said all this, I'd probably choose Liam Neeson over the perfect machine custom made for me. But Liam is not, and never will be a choice I will be faced with.

[David Quinn]

By God, you're dull.

-

[Jason]

It boils down to this: If you could give me a machine that could inflict upon me all the physical sensations (pressure, friction, thrusting, sucking, and whatever else) that the right man could, I'd go for the machine and forget about the man, if for no other reason that because the machine is cheaper, needs less maintenance and is easier to control.

You could probably easily get free no maintenance micromanaged sex from some random guy.

Cultural conditioning has nothing to do with my choosing men over women for sex -- it is just that women,

Ever heard of strap-ons?

or animals,

Strategically apply this to your body when your dog is around.

or machines (toys included)

Contact the makers of this website and buy one of these.

So it is not the ideation of man that makes the experience so different for me: it is the physical part itself.

Having said all this, I'd probably choose Liam Neeson over the perfect machine custom made for me. But Liam is not, and never will be a choice I will be faced with.

Having said all that just contradict yourself and admit that you would actually prefer not just the purely physical part, and not just a man, but a very specific physically attractive famous rich man.

[Jason]

My guess is that modern Western society and conditioning generally tends to have more of a negative rather than positive impact on sexual preference in this sense. That is, it eliminates potential sexual avenues as opposed to cultivating specific avenues like heterosexuality. It forces limitations.

I can't disagree more. Didn't you grow up in a home where you had two heterosexual parents who took the initiative to stay with each other for the rest of their lives, even though some might say this decision goes against the innate desire of a man?

Sure, and this restraining of the innate sexual desires of the man is an example of conditioning and society eliminating a potential sexual avenue.

Weren't you lead to believe that when you grow up it is your duty to find a girl to get married and have children with?

No I don't think so. I've been strongly against marriage and children for myself since childhood.

Weren't all those disney movies and fairy tales you watched and read when you were younger about the the star male character saving or chasing after a female character, and the female character's desire to find her one true love which she could live happily ever after with?

Those things may have conditioned me, but the idea of being at the mercy of a women's acceptance and a woman's judgment of my worth has terrified me ever since I was first attracted to them.

What about religions holding up then union of man and woman as one of the most sacred bonds in all of humanity?

No. I was raised by agnostics, I was quite rabidly anti-religion as a child - to my tolerance-espousing parent's horror and embarrassment.

Not to mention like you said, the suppression of all other sexual avenues in order to keep every boy and girl on the straight and narrow. Combine all of this and you have yourself an individual who is primed to seek out females at all costs.

You have been talking more about romantic relationships and marriage, and I agree that there is such conditioning. Remember, however, that I was specifically talking about sex, and the restricting of sexual avenues by conditioning. In this category are taboos against homosexuality, incest, inter-generational sex, bestiality etc. My hunch is that humans are innately much more sexually omnivorous - pretty much whatever gets the sexual pleasure and orgasms flowing, whether that be one's own hands, guys, girls, family members, animals, apple pies etc.

How do you explain homosexuals and bisexuals who still emerge from this hetero-centric society?

It is impressed upon his mind that finding happiness in his relationships with women is the most important thing in life, it is the ideal scenario for all individuals to strive for, and god forbid you get left out. Of course this all gets so embedded in our minds that it feels like we were born to behave like this, when really it's not much more than some of the finest conditioning culture imposes on our minds. Having said this, I think if we grew up in a society that was identical to ours except for replacing the male/female relationship with that of a male/male relationship, we might all be significantly more inclined to aim our reproductive impulses at males.

Yeah I think that all sounds reasonably plausible, but I also think it's possible that this could coexist with innate drives for heterosexual coupling in some form.

[Jason]

Without the male desire to conquer his ideation of woman, sex would become mundane and uninteresting - akin to relieving one's bladder in the toilet.

Heavenly bodily pleasure rising to an intense crescendo, sans any relation to women, would not be mundane and uninteresting.

[Leyla Shen]

For men, sex is at its most thrilling when it involves a new partner or a new situation - that is, when the male desire to conquer new sexual territories is expressed and satiated.

Well, I don't know about the "For men" qualifier but, after 6 odd years of abstinence, I once again concur absolutely. Sending him home keeps it nice and fresh. I think it's a BIG mistake to live with your lovers, though it seems the "natural" thing to do.

There was another quote in this thread I didn't find for lack of energy and time, but it talked about the physical aspect of penetration being the same whether it's inside a vagina or a male anus.

Vaginal and anal stimulated orgasms are a different experience altogether.