Page 14 of 15 [ 234 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,490
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

10 Jun 2015, 4:58 am

rdos wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
You both completely missed gay men who grant mutual consent & F for the pure pleasure of it.


A marginal group that has no neurodiversity connection, so it's not interesting (asexuality is far more common).

goldfish21 wrote:
Also, neither of you has posted an explanation for lesbian sex. If it's not for pleasure, or for getting a man to give them something, or to make babies.. then how do you even explain it's existence??? I'm curious what you two's theory on that one is.


I could. In the case of neurodiverse lesbians, one factor might be to avoid men and sexual intercourse. Other than that, women pairing up seems to be a neurodiverse relationship trait, but then it probably typically is bisexuality, not exclusive homosexuality. It also seems like many lesbians actually do not have sex (could be wrong, but this is something I've read).


Fail. There's a lot higher LGBT rates amongst those with ASD vs. NT's. So, there is a connection.

Fail. Lesbians hookup to connect with another woman, not to avoid men. I very highly doubt that many lesbians do not have sex. That's ridiculous.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

10 Jun 2015, 9:35 am

goldfish21 wrote:
Fail. There's a lot higher LGBT rates amongst those with ASD vs. NT's. So, there is a connection.

Fail. Lesbians hookup to connect with another woman, not to avoid men. I very highly doubt that many lesbians do not have sex. That's ridiculous.


You are the one failing since you have no references for neither of your claims. Just your wishful thinking guiding you.



Gauldoth
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2015
Posts: 333

10 Jun 2015, 11:30 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
Men have been able to offer the thing I'm interested in, it's the same thing they are interested in - sex. It's really no more complicated than that. That really is sometimes all a man AND a woman want. Obviously a lot of the time one or both might want more than that as well, but mutual ONS situations really do exist.


I find that difficult to believe, considering men who have nothing to offer a woman in exchange for sex besides their own consent almost invariably are forced into a life of involuntary celibacy. I myself was a virgin until I was able to gather enough money to pay a professional escort to rid me of the burden of my virginity (which by that point was becoming quite troublesome). In other words, until I got something else besides my own consent to offer a woman in exchange for hers.

goldfish21 wrote:
Also, neither of you has posted an explanation for lesbian sex. If it's not for pleasure, or for getting a man to give them something, or to make babies.. then how do you even explain it's existence??? I'm curious what you two's theory on that one is.


Google the term "lesbian death bed". That's all that needs to be said on that subject.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

10 Jun 2015, 2:34 pm

Gauldoth wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Gauldoth wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Gauldoth wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
It obviously says something about what he's like in bed.

I will correct you: women enjoy sex with someone who isn't useless at it.


Of course, if a woman can't enjoy sex, it must be the fault of her partner. Because there's just no way the problem can be your end, is there?


Do you have a sample size of 1 & are projecting that to all women because the 1 you had sex with didn't enjoy it?


This isn't about me or my sex life. One does not need much sexual experience, or any at all for that matter, to come to the conclusions I have. One only needs to observe and analyse the reality around them, with a scientific, factually-driven mindset. And of course, ignore the social mores and dogmas that seemingly no one actually believes in yet we most all pretend are the indisputable truth for whatever reason.


Nerve endings, the g-spot, the clitoris, and the female orgasm are all social mores and dogmas that we pretend are indisputably real now?

Basic dating tip: Don't say that on a date. Ever.


Ok, first of all, yes, the g-spot is a myth. Clinical studies conducted years ago showed that.

Second of all, just because women have organs that technically allow them to orgasm doesn't mean they actually can. Look around the Internet, there are tons of articles written by and about women who either simply cannot orgasm or require a monumental of effort to do so.

And honestly, that makes a lot of sense if you ask me. The female body wasn't made to enjoy sex, the female orgasm plays no part in the reproductive process. From an evolutionary pov, it makes sense for most women to see sex as something unpleasant, to only be engaged in when necessary (that's why many women say they can't "enjoy" sex until they're trying for a baby).


I have no problem giving my girlfriend orgasms. It isn't rocket science, and I'm pretty sure she enjoys sex. She also initiates it a lot. Women not enjoying sex wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary point of view; rape rarely leads to a successful pregnancy. There are indeed women out there who do not like sex, but they're not the majority. Moreover, many women who whine about being used simply won't admit that they like sex with no strings attached.


_________________
“He who controls the spice controls the universe.”


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

10 Jun 2015, 3:31 pm

Kurgan wrote:
Women not enjoying sex wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary point of view; rape rarely leads to a successful pregnancy.


FYI, there is a difference between regular sex for bonding / fun (which serves no evolutionary purpose in the presence of contraceptives), and sex to make babies.

Kurgan wrote:
Moreover, many women who whine about being used simply won't admit that they like sex with no strings attached.


You'd wish. :roll:



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

10 Jun 2015, 4:01 pm

rdos wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Women not enjoying sex wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary point of view; rape rarely leads to a successful pregnancy.


FYI, there is a difference between regular sex for bonding / fun (which serves no evolutionary purpose in the presence of contraceptives), and sex to make babies.


No there isn't. That's why accidental pregnancies happen.

This isn't to say that I agree with Kurgan that rape rarely leads to a succesful pregnancy. There is no evidence that is true. The woman's enjoyment or utter lack of it and even disgust doesn't have any biological effect on implantation.

But I do agree with the first half of his compound sentence: "women not enjoying sex wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary point of view". When humans (and other hominids who didn't make it) were in little tribal groups, womens' enjoyment of sex could easily have led to those women becoming pregnant more frequently and bonding more with partners (to the benefit of babies). Civilization made womens' enjoyment something of a moot point by setting up social systems where women did not have choice. But those systems weren't in place when humans evolved.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

10 Jun 2015, 4:22 pm

Janissy wrote:
But I do agree with the first half of his compound sentence: "women not enjoying sex wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary point of view". When humans (and other hominids who didn't make it) were in little tribal groups, womens' enjoyment of sex could easily have led to those women becoming pregnant more frequently and bonding more with partners (to the benefit of babies). Civilization made womens' enjoyment something of a moot point by setting up social systems where women did not have choice. But those systems weren't in place when humans evolved.


Quite to the contrary. In hunter-gathers, women getting pregnant by rape or a "fling" would likely waste reproductive resources. Evolution has made men seek quantity and women quality (and this is not only the case in humans). That's why women won't just have sex with anybody even if they are on contraceptives, while many men would have sex with most women.

Free sex never worked anywhere, and it certainly didn't work in the past. Species that have sex with about anybody have mating periods, are non-monogamous and don't invest a lot in offspring.

Civilizations just wrote down rules that already existed for a reason, and always had. It's not patriarchy forcing women not to like sex, it's the opinion of many women that they aren't overly enthusiastic about sex for fun. This idea is even counterproductive as sex-hungry males would get more sex if women could be persuaded and pressured that they like sex even if they don't (which is more like what is happening today).

Also, the most successful strategy in relation to reproduction was the very one practiced in typical civilizations before contraceptives. Because it is not quantity (of sex or babies) that counts, but that they reach maturity and reproduce themselves. This is maximized if birth-intervals are sustainable with the availability of resources, and frequent sex without contraceptives simply doesn't lead to such an optimum. Rather, women nursed their babies for years, and this also "killed" their sex-drive, moving them towards the optimum. Today we are far from this optimum because almost all women use contraceptives all the time, and as a consequence get pregnant later and later because they "must" fulfill all their dreams first.



Last edited by rdos on 10 Jun 2015, 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

10 Jun 2015, 4:30 pm

rdos wrote:
Janissy wrote:
But I do agree with the first half of his compound sentence: "women not enjoying sex wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary point of view". When humans (and other hominids who didn't make it) were in little tribal groups, womens' enjoyment of sex could easily have led to those women becoming pregnant more frequently and bonding more with partners (to the benefit of babies). Civilization made womens' enjoyment something of a moot point by setting up social systems where women did not have choice. But those systems weren't in place when humans evolved.


Quite to the contrary. In hunter-gathers, women getting pregnant by rape or a "fling" would likely waste reproductive resources. Evolution has made men seek quantity and women quality (and this is not only the case in humans). That's why women won't just have sex with anybody even if they are on contraceptives, while many men would have sex with most women.

Free sex never worked anywhere, and it certainly didn't work in the past. Species that have sex with about anybody have mating periods, are non-monogamous and don't invest a lot in offspring.

Civilizations just wrote down rules that already existed for a reason, and always had. It's not patriarchy forcing women not to like sex, it's the opinion of many women that they aren't overly enthusiastic about sex for fun. This idea is even counterproductive as sex-hungry males would get more sex if women could be persuaded and pressured that they like sex even if they don't (which is more like what is happening today).


Free sex? having sex with just anybody? fling? Those are your biases that equate 'like sex' with 'will sleep with anyone'. Nothing in my post implies non-monogamy.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

10 Jun 2015, 4:36 pm

Regardless, the point that lots of sex will result in higher reproduction is simply false. It's false because a typical human won't have more than a few babies which can be created with a few cases of sexual intercourse. No need for regular sex for that. Neither today, nor in our evolutionary past.



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

10 Jun 2015, 7:40 pm

Gauldoth wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
Men have been able to offer the thing I'm interested in, it's the same thing they are interested in - sex. It's really no more complicated than that. That really is sometimes all a man AND a woman want. Obviously a lot of the time one or both might want more than that as well, but mutual ONS situations really do exist.


I find that difficult to believe, considering men who have nothing to offer a woman in exchange for sex besides their own consent almost invariably are forced into a life of involuntary celibacy. I myself was a virgin until I was able to gather enough money to pay a professional escort to rid me of the burden of my virginity (which by that point was becoming quite troublesome). In other words, until I got something else besides my own consent to offer a woman in exchange for hers.

A woman doesn't give a man sex. Two people (or more) have sex together. So a man doesn't need to offer anything in exchange for sex, he can "offer" the same sex that she is "offering" because they are having that same sex together.

This says nothing about the fact that it is more difficult for some men to find willing female participants than others. That's a whole different story, yet you seem to be using your example of undesirability (I'm basing this on what you are saying, not meaning to assume) as a generalisation, i.e. you think that if women don't want to have sex with you, they must not want to have sex at all. But since you have denied following women to their homes and looking through their bedroom windows, and instead base your assumptions on your own experience plus observing women generally in non-sexual environments, you can't possibly know how things in the bedroom really are for "nearly all women".



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

11 Jun 2015, 2:02 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
A woman doesn't give a man sex. Two people (or more) have sex together. So a man doesn't need to offer anything in exchange for sex, he can "offer" the same sex that she is "offering" because they are having that same sex together.


Yet, it is well-known that women will try to trade sex for favors. You never hear about men that try to trade sex for favors.

yellowtamarin wrote:
This says nothing about the fact that it is more difficult for some men to find willing female participants than others. That's a whole different story, yet you seem to be using your example of undesirability (I'm basing this on what you are saying, not meaning to assume) as a generalisation, i.e. you think that if women don't want to have sex with you, they must not want to have sex at all. But since you have denied following women to their homes and looking through their bedroom windows, and instead base your assumptions on your own experience plus observing women generally in non-sexual environments, you can't possibly know how things in the bedroom really are for "nearly all women".


I've researched asexuality in a huge sample (several tens of thousands people), and the result is clear: Women are far more likely to identify as asexual, and especially neurodiverse women. Same thing for LGBT and disliking sexual intercourse. These are not bedroom observations. :wink:



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

11 Jun 2015, 2:15 am

rdos wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
A woman doesn't give a man sex. Two people (or more) have sex together. So a man doesn't need to offer anything in exchange for sex, he can "offer" the same sex that she is "offering" because they are having that same sex together.


Yet, it is well-known that women will try to trade sex for favors. You never hear about men that try to trade sex for favors.

yellowtamarin wrote:
This says nothing about the fact that it is more difficult for some men to find willing female participants than others. That's a whole different story, yet you seem to be using your example of undesirability (I'm basing this on what you are saying, not meaning to assume) as a generalisation, i.e. you think that if women don't want to have sex with you, they must not want to have sex at all. But since you have denied following women to their homes and looking through their bedroom windows, and instead base your assumptions on your own experience plus observing women generally in non-sexual environments, you can't possibly know how things in the bedroom really are for "nearly all women".


I've researched asexuality in a huge sample (several tens of thousands people), and the result is clear: Women are far more likely to identify as asexual, and especially neurodiverse women. Same thing for LGBT and disliking sexual intercourse. These are not bedroom observations. :wink:

For both of those responses I will say that those things being true does not equal "almost no women enjoy sex" which is what Gauldoth is claiming. Some women trading sex for favours doesn't necessarily mean that almost no women enjoy sex. Women being significantly more likely than men to be asexual does not necessarily mean that almost no women enjoy sex.



traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,964

11 Jun 2015, 2:22 am

rdos wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
You never hear about men that try to trade sex for favors.


Nonono, men give (unsollicited) favors and turn out claiming (covered/passiveaggressif) selfimagined rights

Even, listening to their whining seems to oblige you to further tolerance of unwanted intimacy



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

11 Jun 2015, 2:26 am

^ Not my quote, in case you don't edit it.



Gauldoth
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2015
Posts: 333

11 Jun 2015, 5:15 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
A woman doesn't give a man sex. Two people (or more) have sex together. So a man doesn't need to offer anything in exchange for sex, he can "offer" the same sex that she is "offering" because they are having that same sex together.

You keep saying that; that women are willing to exchange sex for sex with men. But both empirical and scientific data seem to suggest otherwise. Do you seriously expect me to take your word over that?

yellowtamarin wrote:
This says nothing about the fact that it is more difficult for some men to find willing female participants than others. That's a whole different story, yet you seem to be using your example of undesirability (I'm basing this on what you are saying, not meaning to assume) as a generalisation, i.e. you think that if women don't want to have sex with you, they must not want to have sex at all. But since you have denied following women to their homes and looking through their bedroom windows, and instead base your assumptions on your own experience plus observing women generally in non-sexual environments, you can't possibly know how things in the bedroom really are for "nearly all women".


You keep trying to make this about me because you by now I'm sure you've realized you can't beat me in an argument. Trouble is it's not just me. There are tons of guys out there, some who are even more attractive and overall just better than me, who are in the exact same situation. You know you women don't usually like to associate with icky omega/low-status males, but just look around the Internet for a while. There are tons of sites full of guys like this; love-shy, sluthate, even this very own website. See, the real problem here is that it's not just me. There's tons of other guys in the same situation. Why? Because they're low-status males who have nothing but their own consent to exchange with women for theirs, and women will NOT exchange sex for sex. And if no men are around who have anything that actually interests them to exchange for their consent, then women will simply not have sex. This is further backed-up by studies that show that humans today are descended from twice as many females as they are from males.

So, yeah, I don't really need to see women actually having sex to know whether they enjoy it or not. The way women use sex as a means to leverage men to get other things that you're actually interested in, the way you seem to try to get away with giving out as little of it as possible even when the goods are delivered, plus the scientific and empirical data... that tells me all I need to know about how women's attitude toward sex. No matter how much you vociferously claim otherwise. :roll:



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

11 Jun 2015, 8:40 am

I think it would help you if you listened to other people's viewpoint, rather than just argue all the time.