daybrown wrote:why would I, a normal hominid male, want to spend time with females I'm never going to fuck?
I had some respect for you, but now you have some explaining to do.
Ryan, and others,
This is exactly the attitude that spawns comments from females about wanting someone to notice what is inside our heads rather than just looking at us for T&A. I intentionally gained weight to disguise the body I'm in so to chase off the shallow jerks. If someone's got a mind, what they care about most is the mind of the other - not whether or not they can screw the body that mind is housed in. If the mind isn't "there" enough to be worth your time, the body shouldn't be worth your time either.
Daybrown, you of all people should know that you are not your body. You spend time with those that enhance you, and who you enhance, synergystically. Whether or not you get to exercise your dick should be an afterthought. Why would you want to have sex with something that was otherwise not worth your time? Then take those reasons and ask if you are better off either masturbating or doing it with an inflate-o-girlfriend rather than setting off all the harassing attachments from someone you don't want to spend your time with?
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:If the mind isn't "there" enough to be worth your time, the body shouldn't be worth your time either.
Why waste a perfectly good body?
Why would you want to have sex with something that was otherwise not worth your time?
Because it's fun?
Then take those reasons and ask if you are better off either masturbating or doing it with an inflate-o-girlfriend rather than setting off all the harassing attachments from someone you don't want to spend your time with?
Who says there has to be "harassing attachments"?
Last edited by Jason on Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<I had some respect for you, but now you have some explaining to do.>
The operative term is "never". If I am a man, by definition I have balls. And if I do, then testosterone, which has lots of effects related to my drive and productivity which women have found useful.
But why is it that I am the one who must always deny my sex drive? I dont have a problem with women that dont have one, or only wish to express it with other men. Let them stay with the men they can enjoy sex with. Why bother me? Why treat me like a fuckless eunuch?
So- I am perfectly content to stay away from women who'd never entertain the idea of having sex with me. From what I can tell of matriarchy, its usually been in communal housing, with only the men they find useful, who they then provide sexual services for. If I am not useful to them, I do not mind staying away from them. And if they want eunuchs to mentor their boys, I do not have a problem with it. Likewise, if they want mentoring done by stud muffins they enjoy sex with.
If they want my input, but not my sex drive, they are perfectly free, as here, to carry discourse on in ascii. Why should I be physically present? If it is intellectual content, this is a more effective form because you can so easily go back and parse it out line by line, entirely devoid of sexual or emotional factors.
From a sheerly physical position, since I've had my tubes tied and go in to get tested from STDs, I am, for all practical purposes a mobile dildo made of meat. The singular difference is that you cannot practice Tantric spirituality with a dildo. If people ask for my input on this, that too can be supplied in ascii. Women who do not want to deal with my sex drive can get whatever input they want from me without me being personally present. As long as I still react to women that are physically present as sexual beings, it only makes sense to prefer electronic means of communication.
Xerox: <My take on it is that the way things are going might well be rather benefical to all, as it seems to cater to peoples true natures. From my perspective, not having the responsibility of women and family, whilst being able to experience the emotional and psychological benefits of bonding with children through mentoring is ideal. When these youngens grow up, they will be there to reciprocate support of my frail aged self. Then again, maybe society will go another step and we will be able to buy over-the-counter euthenasia home kits when the rheumatoid athritis, strokes and cancers make life unbearable. Failing that, living healthy, plenty of exercise and fresh food may well mitigate that.
The ratio of males and females that go onto breed and thus form the basis of human evolution is approximately 2 females to 1 male. This introduces evolutionary variation through the matrilineal lines as well as specialisation through the patrilineal. Both are evolutionary survival mechanisms. Also, we dont yet know exactly which genes are passed on by which sex, so eventhough it makes sense, its difficult to prove the speculation that one group fosters variation and the other specialisation. In the face of this, the moral attachments to men of integrity may well be redundant. This may simply be nature at work, where all of our attempts to socialise humans into a social order that reflects our egocentric projections is mere pissing into the winds of reality.>
We have enuf from psychology, sociology, neurology, DNA, brain biochemistry, archaeology, etc to see that our "true natures" are not much like scripture or our socialization has claimed. Kings have bred warriors for goon squads the same as they've bred vicious guard dogs. Neither of which are needed any more, and both of which, while present, present problems. They've also bred airheads so that the warriors dont inherit enough brains to threaten the power elites.
But evolution has always been the survival of the fittest, and today, that favors the smart and rational. Who are beginning to see the problems Xerox refers to. The successful organization has always been the best balance between the liberty needed for innovation and the support of the social safety net. Men, in their innate struggle for dominance, have focused on the former, women- who see the burden of bearing and raising kids, on the latter. Both systems have been subject to deceit, but now science has found the means to identify that, and thus promote breeding more integrity.
Very few seem to see how fast the means of detecting abuse is evolving; cuckholdry & philandry no longer works. Monogamy wont survive without hypocrisy. Violence is on video, dishonesty is revealed following the money. All these character flaws are not sinful, but neurotic. Those who do not mend their ways will be discovered and put on meds.
Sexual contact will be put in the same class as physical contact, if for no other reason, than that a host of new pathogens is evolving that can employ any form of personal contact to spread. So now, everything I have to say is said on this screen, and it is the same message to everyone because I know that any message can be pulled up and sent to everyone anyway. There is no reason for women who dont ever want to have sex with me to ever have me physically present. Nor do I care to be exposed to any virus or bacteria they may be carrying around with them.
One of the strategies, as Xerox put it that would "be rather benefical to all, as it seems to cater to peoples true natures" would be to return to small isolated villages living in defacto quaranteen so that childhood development is not harmed by whatever bugs are going around. The women can use lie detection technologies to eliminate all the pervs and select just the men who'd be good mentors, and work out whatever moral or sexual standards they want. Yet use the net and dish to communicate with the world as well as whatever other kin and friends they have out in it. There are increasing numbers of jobs now that are entirely online, but if the village has some craft or product to market, they can be very economically competitive. The adults wont be getting sick either.
If a group wants to try monogamy, I dont have a problem with it, but I dont see in the anthro records where its ever been all that sustainable. I personally saw a lot of hippie communes founder on this issue. Too much drama. Too many say they want to be monogamous, but actually too neurotic to actually practice it very long.
I am not saying that you must always deny your sex drive. Sex is like scratching an itch. Itches are scratched, and then you don't think about itching or scratching until something causes you to itch. An itch will go away without being scratched, but it's generally much quicker to make the itch go away by scratching. If you don't scratch your itch, it will steal vast portions of your thought energy, with greater and greater intensity, until it finally goes away - and that does not mean you are done with all itches, just that particular one. Now you may want to scratch that itch with a good fingernail, but if mittens have been glued to your hands, almost any surface will suffice. You might choose the mitten, or the back of a pen, or maybe your shoe, the leg of a chair, or corner of a wall, depending on where your itch is. If all you have is broken glass, you might decide it's better to suffer through the itch than to scratch it with that. If you have a choice between scratching it with glass, a rusty nail, or a nervous poodle, well, then, you weigh your options.
From your response, I'd say you've been denying your itch, and the intensity of the itch has gotten so bad that you can't even think clearly over it.
Dude, at least go masturbate to take some of the pressure off. You go after a woman with sex as your sole desire, and she's going to run, scream, or "inadvertently" spill some scalding hot coffee on your pants, depending on how mature she is. I'd explain why, but you wouldn't understand in the condition you're in. All your blood's rushing to the head that doesn't think, and there isn't enough left over to operate the important head.
Dude, at least go masturbate to take some of the pressure off. You go after a woman with sex as your sole desire, and she's going to run, scream, or "inadvertently" spill some scalding hot coffee on your pants, depending on how mature she is. I'd explain why, but you wouldn't understand in the condition you're in. All your blood's rushing to the head that doesn't think, and there isn't enough left over to operate the important head.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I am not saying that you must always deny your sex drive. Sex is like scratching an itch. Itches are scratched, and then you don't think about itching or scratching until something causes you to itch. An itch will go away without being scratched, but it's generally much quicker to make the itch go away by scratching.
That's a pretty sad and pathetic view of sex, IMO.
Dude, at least go masturbate to take some of the pressure off. You go after a woman with sex as your sole desire, and she's going to run, scream, or "inadvertently" spill some scalding hot coffee on your pants, depending on how mature she is. I'd explain why, but you wouldn't understand in the condition you're in. All your blood's rushing to the head that doesn't think, and there isn't enough left over to operate the important head.
I agree with brokenhead here. Both heads are important. Trying to speak of the 'important' head is like talking about the 'important' organ -- heart of liver?
Sounds to me like you are the one having a problem with your sexuality.
Sher, not all males are so misogynistic as to all believe that all we are good for is sex. There are some out there who can actually look at a woman inside and out, and say to himself "Cool. Enjoyable to hang out with, intellectually stimulating, and I can have sex with it too."
Sher, not all males are so misogynistic as to all believe that all we are good for is sex.
E, they know we are good for a lot of other things, but the only reason they approach us is for sex. If that is the case, wouldn't you like a guy like daybrown to let you know?
I'm about 6 times more exposed to Latin men than to any other type, so you may want to take my opinions on men with a grain of salt.
Sher, not all males are so misogynistic as to all believe that all we are good for is sex. There are some out there who can actually look at a woman inside and out, and say to himself "Cool. Enjoyable to hang out with, intellectually stimulating, and I can have sex with it too."
It doesn’t have to be a misogynistic view. We are just expressing the way most men’s minds work. Moreover, the sole reason most men socialize with most women at all is because of the reproductive urge. It is the high testosterone and how she looks that causes him to approach her in the first place. They need their sexual desire satisfied constantly and so the institution of marriage is born, a married couple are basically saying, “we’re gonna try our best not to have sex with other people because we want to own and possess the each other’s body for ourselves. “ Sex is what brings men and women together, as they rarely share similar intellectual interests.
And what is interesting is how women will actually sacrifice their own interests to feel more connected with their husbands, as this is the MOST important thing. For instance: Most males are into shallow things like action movies, sports, fast cars, poker night, etc…and women will adapt to his interests more times than not to make herself feel more connected. Women are fairly pliable and plastic like that, if she falls in love with a man, and she is thoroughly attached, she will adapt to whatever he wants, and she will put up with all sorts of abuse. It is in her very nature to be defined by him.
Although, there are some intellectual women that do not fall into this category, but intellectual women are in the minority, as are intellectual men.
Give him credit for being honest. I wish most males were this honest. All they want from you is sex, but they'll never admit it.
Seriously, though. "All they want from you is sex." Wahhhh.
You have to be kidding. Or lying to yourself. Sex feels good to you too. You won't get much out of a relationship if you're not putting much into it.
We admit that we want sex - but since you and everybody else already knows that - society takes it as a tacit fact.
So what?
This "all they want" attitutude is an attitude of a loser.
If you are just bitching because you get hit on all the time, again, Wahhhh. Do you know how many guys there are out there who have never felt physically attractive even once in their lives? Who would kill to have somebody show desire for them? Of course you don't, because you are only interested in yourself.
Maybe we never admit it because it's not true. "All they want." Give me a break. If all your relationships are shallow and short-lived, why not ask what they all have in common? What they all have in common is you.
Seriously, though. "All they want from you is sex." Wahhhh.
Sex isn’t the only motivator, but it is the sole motivator that initially attracts women to men, mediocre men also need to vent their miserable lives to their wives/girlfriends to make living another day somewhat tolerable. Women have evolved to be empathetic probably due to child raising and listening to the plight of suffering husbands.
Men will enslave themselves to a backbreaking mind numbing career as long as they have a woman waiting for them at home who will hear his complaints, tend to his wounds, nurse him, give him a bj, bend over doggystyle, and thus giving him the proper motivation to get his ass back out into the rat raze and earn more money to buy things like diapers for their offspring..
A woman’s empathetic ear and the hopes of lottery tickets are the two primary forces that keep the masculine gears of civilization running.
You won't get much out of a relationship if you're not putting much into it.
Exactly, but why do you mention relationships? Men do not want relationships; they want sex. Duh.
Do you know how many guys there are out there who have never felt physically attractive even once in their lives?
I have not met even one. Where I live, women hit on middle-class men all the time, whether single or married.
Maybe the one-night stand routine isn't offering you what you want or need.
Let's clear things up: I don't do one-night stands, I don't want one-night stands, and I don't need one-night stands. I don't go to bars or parties and I do absolutely nothing at all to meet new people; in fact, I get out of my way to avoid it.
And quit taking your sexual frustrations out on me.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:
You’re missing the point. Daybrown has unintentionally pointed to a universal truth – Basically, the majority of men are only drawn to women because of the involuntary sexual attraction they feel towards them, take that away, and there is no reason for men to go anywhere near women.
And if men are not permitted to relieve the sexual desire they feel towards her, then staying in relationship with her is just a torture anyway.
Sexual desire for men is like an uncomfortable hunger. When the body is high in testosterone, every woman is a potential partner. When the body is low in testosterone, no woman is a potential partner.
Women say that men are the most honest after orgasm, that’s true. Little do they know, their honesty is the result of no longer desiring women, the lack of desire and sexual discomfort allows men to think more clearly and answer questions more truthfully.
Yes, I recently found my behavior altered while being around a girl I am attracted to. Seeing her as a potential girlfriend affected what I was saying and thinking (involuntarily or not??) and degraded our friendly relationship. So I asked myself was it just me or do other men too get into a somewhat different mode of being when with a woman they fell attracted to?
And I thought this might be inevitable. And if so, are we doomed to destroy every opportunity for a meaningful, truthful acquaintance with attractive women due to our, what, biological drives we can't have a say over? (I don't deny here the possibility for such relationships being combined with romantic ones, but it's very hard for men not to change their behavior in such a way that it compromises honesty for success in pursuing her if that is what helps the cause.)
And how can I know, when I am around a girl I am attracted to, that my actions are not affected by a background sexual desire?
And I thought this might be inevitable. And if so, are we doomed to destroy every opportunity for a meaningful, truthful acquaintance with attractive women due to our, what, biological drives we can't have a say over? (I don't deny here the possibility for such relationships being combined with romantic ones, but it's very hard for men not to change their behavior in such a way that it compromises honesty for success in pursuing her if that is what helps the cause.)
And how can I know, when I am around a girl I am attracted to, that my actions are not affected by a background sexual desire?
I would put it very simply; the very sight of a sexually attractive woman immediately alters hormone production in the testes, namely testosterone, which always controls cognition. When the uncomfortable urge to consume a woman is present (sexual desire), men go through drastic measures to relieve such an urge, they lie about their occupation, they suddenly become witty and charismatic, they resort to flattery, small talk, compliments, whatever is necessary, but the sole motivator for the entire conversation is to relieve the sexual desire.
It would be like waiting in a restaurant after you ordered, and the only way the waitress will give you your meal is if you make her fall in love with you…And the worst thing is – you’re starving hungry, and your meal is hanging from her skirt. Elizabeth calls it an itch, but for men, it is like a full body open sore, and this full body open sore controls a man’s cognition patterns totally if he lack self-awareness.
If women only knew, that when men talk pleasantly to her in conversation, many times it is a means to an end in his mind, he is only doing it because it could lead to sex, whereas women engage in small talk just for the sheer enjoyment of it. It is amazing what men will put up with just to keep their sexual security, they will listen to hours of mindless gibberish, and incoherent babble, they will work jobs they hate, they will get in loads of debt, make promises they can't keep, they will have many children to please her. Basically, they will sell their souls all in the name of woman, a woman’s vagina.
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Daybrown, you are thinking with the wrong head.
[snip]
Dude, at least go masturbate to take some of the pressure off. You go after a woman with sex as your sole desire, and she's going to run, scream, or "inadvertently" spill some scalding hot coffee on your pants, depending on how mature she is. I'd explain why, but you wouldn't understand in the condition you're in. All your blood's rushing to the head that doesn't think, and there isn't enough left over to operate the important head.
Your view is skewed toward your own subjectivity. Of course this is true of most people of both genders. It's not true that all men primarily want sex from women & it's not true that all women would be offended by a purely sexual approach from a man. Recently I've been reading about asexual marriages & people who are asexual in general, men as well as women. Then there is the phenomenon of 'fuck buddies' - people who hook up with a partner just for the purpose of NSA (no strings attached) sex. I've been investigating social & sexual mores by looking at craigslist. Interesting stuff.
And I thought this might be inevitable. And if so, are we doomed to destroy every opportunity for a meaningful, truthful acquaintance with attractive women due to our, what, biological drives we can't have a say over? (I don't deny here the possibility for such relationships being combined with romantic ones, but it's very hard for men not to change their behavior in such a way that it compromises honesty for success in pursuing her if that is what helps the cause.)
And how can I know, when I am around a girl I am attracted to, that my actions are not affected by a background sexual desire?
I would put it very simply; the very sight of a sexually attractive woman immediately alters hormone production in the testes, namely testosterone, which always controls cognition. When the uncomfortable urge to consume a woman is present (sexual desire), men go through drastic measures to relieve such an urge, they lie about their occupation, they suddenly become witty and charismatic, they resort to flattery, small talk, compliments, whatever is necessary, but the sole motivator for the entire conversation is to relieve the sexual desire.
It would be like waiting in a restaurant after you ordered, and the only way the waitress will give you your meal is if you make her fall in love with you…And the worst thing is – you’re starving hungry, and your meal is hanging from her skirt. Elizabeth calls it an itch, but for men, it is like a full body open sore, and this full body open sore controls a man’s cognition patterns totally if he lack self-awareness.
If women only knew, that when men talk pleasantly to her in conversation, many times it is a means to an end in his mind, he is only doing it because it could lead to sex, whereas women engage in small talk just for the sheer enjoyment of it. It is amazing what men will put up with just to keep their sexual security, they will listen to hours of mindless gibberish, and incoherent babble, they will work jobs they hate, they will get in loads of debt, make promises they can't keep, they will have many children to please her. Basically, they will sell their souls all in the name of woman, a woman’s vagina.
I thought so, but I didn't think it was that bad. We could just be honest for once, for a change, like Russell Crowe in 'Beatiful mind' when he said to that girl: I am sitting here talking to you, but the main thing I want is to have a sexual intercourse with you as soon as possible.
The operative term is to never have sex. So long as that is on the table in my interaction with a woman, I can respond to her as a woman and not an android.
Agreed that there are sexual predators and exploiters, but I dont see a way to evaluate that- people will pay enormously to support their fantasies and maintain denial. Or how they value pleasure now for paying later. The original 2 dollar whore in Honolulu made 50$/hour and fucked hundreds of virgins who later died at sea. The Navy should have given her a medal for providing the only piece of ass a lot of sailors ever had.
But later, when the country club didnt want to let her in, she used part of the fortune made in the hotel to buy the country club. What's that worth? I dont think we can sort out sexual enterprises because cost & benefit ratios change over time.
In The Genealogy of Morals, 1887, Nietzsche went on about how the Semetic Mosaic law was imposed on Europe by Christianity so extensively people didnt realize it. Chap VII:"It was the Jew who, with frightening consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good/noble/powerful/beautiful/happy/favored-of-the-gods and maintain, with all the furious hatred of the underpriveleged and impotent, that only the poor, the powerless, are good; only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed. But you noble and mighty ones of the earth will be to all eternity, the evil, the avaricious, the godless, and thus the cursed and damned!"
And it was the Mosaic law that installed the double standard of monogamy (for wives only) to replace what, for instance, Tacitus reports in the rebuttal by a Celt to the charge of wantonness:"Well, we Celts consort with the best of men in public, whereas you Roman wives do so in secret with the most vile." Nietzsche notes the revolution in morals was "lost sight of simply because it has triumphed so completely."
But now, scholarship and archaeology are revealing what our ancestors were doing before Christianity. There are already a lot of prechristian graves that had very powerful rich women buried in them. Economically empowered women are becoming aware of the misogyny of Christian values, and returning to their Celtic heritage. Right now, they do this with boy toys and stud muffins, mimicing the male power structure's habit with bimbos.
But common. It only takes 15 minutes to satisfactorily fuck. What about the rest of the evening? This has always been the diff with the geisha, shakti, or the Kuchi coo- that such women were well educated and could carry on an intelligent conversation with the worldly merchant class. I saw 15 seconds of a sitcom that had a stud muffin who was just as dumb as his airhead counterpart. Thus the Celt refers to the best of men, not the prettiest. We are watching the roles reverse, and its a very confusing situation.
But we still expect the men to not make passes, and nobody objects if the women do. That is written in our DNA because women are the ones who can prevent pregnancy from developing. If all a woman wants is a relationship, get a small dog or become a faghag. Let the men who are fully functional entertain those women who can enjoy the entire spectrum of his talents. Or leave him be to entertain himself without having to waste mental energy on repressing sexual response. If all you need is his advice, make a phone call or email. He'll be able to respond dispassionately in a more rational manner. Is that not what you want?
