# Sex trade, porn, strip clubs. Because women don't put out?



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

There's a lot of sex threads on here. And with all that interest you'd think there would be enough going around. But it seems that there's a shortage... what causes these large revenue sex industries?


----------



## Redwood (Apr 15, 2012)

Outside of marriage, 80% of women have sex with 20% of the guys.


----------



## sorry_neither (Mar 21, 2012)

Because most cultures have a screwed up relationship with sex. Taboos => fascination => BIG BUCKS!


----------



## Hapalo (Sep 4, 2011)

Redwood said:


> Outside of marriage, 80% of women have sex with 20% of the guys.


We are the 80%. Occupy red light district.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

I am a 22 year old, handsome, intelligent young man and I've considered seeing a prostitute (more than once) because I am starved of affection in general.
I have not gone ahead with it yet because of the financial aspect and risk of addiction.

As a male I feel like I'm not allowed to be sexual with women.


----------



## Redwood (Apr 15, 2012)

I wouldn't be a single guy in a modern Western country for a million bucks.


----------



## kikidmonkey (Nov 27, 2011)

Redwood said:


> I wouldn't be a single guy in a modern Western country for a million bucks.


I totally would! It would mean I have my current life +1 million dollars!


----------



## Jxuptosae (Apr 11, 2012)

kikidmonkey said:


> I totally would! It would mean I have my current life +1 million dollars!


AHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHhahahHAHHAHA *gasp* AHHAHAHAHhahHAHHAHAHhahHAHHAHHHAHHAHA *chokes* Heh...ha...ehehhehh...

That was not only true... but exactly what crossed my mind...

I had other input... but it's gone now. I'll come back later.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Redwood said:


> I wouldn't be a single guy in a modern Western country for a million bucks.


So where are things better and why?


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

/dry heaves


----------



## Portal (Jan 3, 2012)

intjdude said:


> There's a lot of sex threads on here. And with all that interest you'd think there would be enough going around. But it seems that there's a shortage... what causes these large revenue sex industries?


When I first saw the title, I was like "great goddamn it another fucking sex thread" then I looked at this closely and seems to be a rant.


----------



## Blackbird (Jan 14, 2010)

Cetanu said:


> As a male I feel like I'm not allowed to be sexual with women.


Why's that?


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Portal said:


> When I first saw the title, I was like "great goddamn it another fucking sex thread" then I looked at this closely and seems to be a rant.


In part it's a rant. On a serious note, all these sex threads only means one thing. There's a lot of sex deprivation.


----------



## Portal (Jan 3, 2012)

intjdude said:


> In part it's a rant. On a serious note, all these sex threads only means one thing. There's a lot of sex deprivation.


Or they're fakers.


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

intjdude said:


> There's a lot of sex threads on here. And with all that interest you'd think there would be enough going around. But it seems that there's a shortage... what causes these large revenue sex industries?


It's easier, cheaper, faster, more reliable and less risky. A lot of people build sexual relationships with porn, or they just feel unsatisfied sexually and decide to pay for it, so they won't have to get emotionally involved. In some cases, people are afraid.


----------



## Alysaria (Jul 7, 2009)

You are not entitled to a girlfriend....and she's not going to magically fall out of the sky into your lap just because you exist. You have to actually get out there and look.  

>.> And no one, male or female, puts out without compensation of some sort. You get *something* out of it - emotional connection, companionship, money, or sexual gratification.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Blackbird said:


> Why's that?


I was going to say that it's because all women seem to be offended by sex in general but I just watched this video




So I'm going to pause my opinion for 8 months and we will see what happens.


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

Alysaria said:


> You are not entitled to a girlfriend....and she's not going to magically fall out of the sky into your lap just because you exist. You have to actually get out there and look.
> 
> >.> And no one, male or female, puts out without compensation of some sort. You get *something* out of it - emotional connection, companionship, money, or sexual gratification.


Shhh shhhh you're making sense, stop that!


----------



## sorry_neither (Mar 21, 2012)

Oh god, I should have known this would turn into a "poor oppressed menfolk" type thread.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

sorry_neither said:


> Oh god, I should have known this would turn into a "poor oppressed menfolk" type thread.


What does this show you?

To me it appears that we don't have anywhere else to voice these kinds of opinions and when we do, as you imply with "Oh god, I should have known", it's an undesirable conversation. You seem to have 'made a mistake' according to yourself.
I wouldn't say that is oppression but it is certainly an attempt or hint at suppression on your behalf.


----------



## sorry_neither (Mar 21, 2012)

intjdude said:


> Does it matter much how it is worded or what it means? Would you feel better if it was changed to: Because women choose to have less sex?


The astounding sense of entitlement is still there.


----------



## SPtheGhost (Apr 26, 2010)

Redwood said:


> I wouldn't be a single guy in a modern Western country for a million bucks.




...and thats where i leave the thread for greener pastures


----------



## Melanthe (Apr 14, 2012)

zelder said:


> There is not a shortage of women willing to give sex, there is only a shortage of men willing to pay the price. For almost all women there is a price to pay. The total dipshit loosers pay for sex in terms of money.
> 
> I think most women want some type of relationship associated with sex. They want to be able to trust their lover, they want attraction, fun, affection, kindness etc etc.
> 
> In my limited experience, if you devote yourself to a woman and lover her, she will give you all the sex you can manage. You simply pay the price.


Women carry most of the risks that come with sex.

-Babies whose survival may not be contributed to by the one who provided the sperm, and usually the woman is held responsible in these cases.
-STDs (including HIV) are more easily passed from men to women. (And some are only dangerous to women - ex. HPV which can turn into cervical cancer and kill the woman, yet men bear no risks from it.)
-The possibility the man will become violent or otherwise abusive (any woman who goes somewhere dark, private, and alone with a man is putting herself at some risk - women are far, far more likely to be beaten or killed by a man than the other way around).
-The loss of one's sexual appeal to others, as the result of pregnancy.
-Physical risks of various forms of birth control.
-Physical risks and complications of pregnancy, including permanent disability and death.

Since women assume MOST of the risks involved with sex, it makes sense that we are less likely to "put out" than men are, or that we look for some sort of compensation - besides the pleasure of the moment - to offset these relatively huge risks.

I would be willing, however, to take on all these risks for nothing more than an emotionally intimate relationship with a highly intelligent, think-outside-the-box sort of guy who happens to have a great deal of integrity, and dark hair. 

Some women want a guy who drives a BMW. Some want the social status of being married to a successful man. Some want expensive jewelry. Some of us just to want to love someone who will love us back.

But a woman who takes all those risks, merely for a few hours of pleasure, nothing more, is foolish. She's putting herself in a position to possibly pay a very high price for a few hours of physical enjoyment, and it seems as stupid as doing cocaine, imo. So much risk, for no long-term survival, just for a hormonal kick that will last a few hours. Seems stupid to me, but then, I've given birth without medication, more than once, so that probably changes my pov.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Melanthe said:


> But a woman who takes all those risks, merely for a few hours of pleasure, nothing more, is foolish. She's putting herself in a position to possibly pay a very high price for a few hours of physical enjoyment, and it seems as stupid as doing cocaine, imo. So much risk, for no long-term survival, just for a hormonal kick that will last a few hours.


I think that the majority of people take these risks for pleasure. In fact, I pretty sure that if it weren't for the pleasure this would be tedious like brushing teeth.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

intjdude said:


> @hackm and @Blocklos
> 
> I don't think sex is a luxury. It is a need. You won't die without vision or hearing either but it's a need to function properly. Nature dictates that you must have sex through hormones. Without it, bad things start to happen. The definition of a need isn't whether you die.
> 
> Edit: Furthermore, on a species level it is a need.


It is not necessary for every postpubescent member of the species to have sex in order for the continuation of the species.


----------



## arishorts (Apr 1, 2012)

Women do put out, but you have to have what it takes to put it in. Not saying i have great success with women, but from my experience it's all about trial-and-error. We must bleed a little so we can grow stronger.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

arishorts said:


> Women do put out, but you have to have what it takes to put it in. Not saying i have great success with women, but from my experience it's all about trial-and-error. We must bleed a little so we can grow stronger.


So why are those industries so big?


----------



## Agni (Jan 5, 2012)

intjdude said:


> So why are those industries so big?


For the same reason that ANY market is big. There is a demand for it. There is no need for it as such (same as cosmetics) but the demand is huge and it would be daft not to cash in.


----------



## arishorts (Apr 1, 2012)

intjdude said:


> So why are those industries so big?


People enjoy sex. Name one thing that tops it.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

@Agni and @arishorts
I know people enjoy sex and obviously there's a demand for these industries. And you are also claiming women put out. But obviously there's a deficit here somewhere because lots of guys turn to porn even in relationships and plenty pay for sex. So that's the question, why?

I think that guys look for different sex than women. There's different views of sex even on this thread. You have the people claiming that sex must go with a relationship but guys who pay for it don't seem to think so. Guys in relationships who turn to porn do so perhaps because they can't get enough or it's not the same experience.


----------



## Agni (Jan 5, 2012)

intjdude said:


> @Agni and @arishorts
> I know people enjoy sex and obviously there's a demand for these industries. And you are also claiming women put out. But obviously there's a deficit here somewhere because lots of guys turn to porn even in relationships and plenty pay for sex. So that's the question, why?
> 
> I think that guys look for different sex than women. There's different views of sex even on this thread. You have the people claiming that sex must go with a relationship but guys who pay for it don't seem to think so. Guys in relationships who turn to porn do so perhaps because they can't get enough or it's not the same experience.


First I am not sure from where did you get the idea that I claim that 'women put out' as I am quite sure I never said or suggested anything like that. There was a TED talk posted by Cetanu earlier in this thread that dealt with the porn issue and why men watch it.


----------



## sanari (Aug 23, 2011)

I am female and want a man like @Blocklos. Just saying, to those of you wondering why you are not in the twenty percent.

At least one who thinks like he does. The sex would be "oh so heavenly". But I've got one... I believe. xD


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

Agni said:


> First I am not sure from where did you get the idea that I claim that 'women put out' as I am quite sure I never said or suggested anything like that.


 
That bit was in Arishorts's post.
That TED talk was actually pretty good. But it didn't discuss why men watch porn instead of having sex with women. I know guys who actually preferred to to masturbate over having sex with their partners. And I think the reason is that they find porn actresses more sexually appealing than their SO. I can't be sure though.


----------



## FatMickHead (Sep 28, 2011)

I can't remember the context, but in answer to a question of why a celebrity would pay for sex when he didn't have to, the answer was that he didn't pay for sex, he paid for her to leave AFTER the sex.

For some people, paying in cash is easier and less awkward than paying in emotional availability.


----------



## FatMickHead (Sep 28, 2011)

intjdude said:


> That bit was in Arishorts's post.
> That TED talk was actually pretty good. But it didn't discuss why men watch porn instead of having sex with women. I know guys who actually preferred to to masturbate over having sex with their partners. And I think the reason is that they find porn actresses more sexually appealing than their SO. I can't be sure though.


Not necessarily more appealing than the SO, though that could be. I think it has more to do with the lack of an emotional investment.


----------



## Coil (Mar 28, 2012)

First, I don't agree with the premise of this thread which seems to be that "men want it all the time" and "women have no sex drive". As other posters have pointed out, the picture is much more complex. There are huge variations within the sexes, and there are many reasons why it's easier (less risky and probably also more pleasurable) for men to have casual sex than women.

Then there is a second thing I disagree with, namely the claim that the sex trade grows because women "don't put out". Why? Because that just doesn't fit with with the statistics. Take prostitution. You need to ask who these men that pay for sex are. Some facts from western countries: Paying for sex is most common among men with a large number of sexual partners. Men who pay for sex have greater problems than others in maintaining regular relationships with women. Those men who most frequently use women in prostitution are most likely to have committed sexually aggressive acts against nonprostituting women. Additionally, supply, low prices and anonymity drive up the demand for prostitutes. It's too simple to just say that "demand creates the industry". The industry does also create demand. In some countries, only a few percent of the male population have bought sex, while in other countries it's closer to half of the population.

What are the reasons men wish to buy sex? Typically: curiosity, excitement, a wish to try something new. Fulfilling male fantasies of domination, women who are always available, "sleeping with a whore", sex with an experienced woman or just some other personal kink. Some men struggle with adjusting to new gender norms where they no longer have dominance over women. Some are so consumed by pornography that their expectations of sex are too high to be satisfied in normal relationships. If the ideal for men is to have a large number of sexual partners and be experienced in a wide range of techniques then this might also contribute to a growing prostitution industry.

Then there is another group of men that buy sex because they are lonely and struggle to enter relationships. They're not exactly what the OP is referring to, because they usually see themselves as too shy and unattractive to actually contact women the common way (and therefore can't blame them for their lack of interest). Some also have anxiety concerning the whole concept of a relationship.

Basically, if you want to know why the sex industry is so huge then I have only one answer: it's complex. I've covered some factors and there are many more. It seems to me though, that the people who try and fail a few times and then grow bitter (like the OP) are usually not among the buyers of sex. They just go on the internet and rant about women.


----------



## FatMickHead (Sep 28, 2011)

Citations please.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

Redwood said:


> Outside of marriage, 80% of women have sex with 20% of the guys.


This guy gets it. 


lol. do you know what the manosphere is?


----------



## arishorts (Apr 1, 2012)

intjdude said:


> @Agni and @arishorts
> I know people enjoy sex and obviously there's a demand for these industries. And you are also claiming women put out. But obviously there's a deficit here somewhere because lots of guys turn to porn even in relationships and plenty pay for sex. So that's the question, why?
> 
> I think that guys look for different sex than women. There's different views of sex even on this thread. You have the people claiming that sex must go with a relationship but guys who pay for it don't seem to think so. Guys in relationships who turn to porn do so perhaps because they can't get enough or it's not the same experience.



Majority of men lack self-control. They act on urge because that's how this day in age has raised us. That's why i don't facebook anymore (i rarely use the computer for anything besides schoolwork), i don't watch much television, and i don't drink/do drugs during the week. It's dramatically improved my life. In fact, i've started writing, playing and singing music, been able to focus more on school, which gives me more free time than i had in high-school. I suggest you do the same.

On a side note: it was a lengthy process with many "relapses," but the end result has been worth it.


----------



## Melanthe (Apr 14, 2012)

intjdude said:


> That bit was in Arishorts's post.
> That TED talk was actually pretty good. But it didn't discuss why men watch porn instead of having sex with women. I know guys who actually preferred to to masturbate over having sex with their partners. And I think the reason is that they find porn actresses more sexually appealing than their SO. I can't be sure though.


In the case of porn addicts, most of them become addicted during the ages of 10 - 14. It's a developed sexual preference. 

And the reason they use it, for addicts, is the same sort of reasons a gambling addict will gamble, or an alcoholic will drink. They do it for the high, and they do it because they can't deal with emotion normally. If you look at the discussion forums for porn addicts in recovery, you'll find this is not about the need to copulate not getting fulfilled - this is about the same kind of emotional issues that go on for other types of addicts. The drug of choice is different, but it's the same addictive personality, and the same need to hide or escape.


----------



## LimeDegree (Mar 6, 2012)

Melanthe said:


> In the case of porn addicts, most of them become addicted during the ages of 10 - 14. It's a developed sexual preference.
> *
> And the reason they use it, for addicts, is the same sort of reasons a gambling addict will gamble, *or an alcoholic will drink. They do it for the high, and they do it because they can't deal with emotion normally. If you look at the discussion forums for porn addicts in recovery, you'll find this is not about the need to copulate not getting fulfilled - this is about the same kind of emotional issues that go on for other types of addicts. The drug of choice is different, but it's the same addictive personality, and the same need to hide or escape.


I'm an outsider to gambling and to prostitution, and I've always seen them as very similar. When someone takes a bunch of risks like that, it boggles my mind. Clearly, the risk itself is a large motivator. The negative impacts (especially the damage to their personal relationships!) from these activities certainly doesn't seem to discourage people.


----------



## intjdude (Feb 21, 2011)

LimeDegree said:


> The negative impacts (especially the damage to their personal relationships!) from these activities certainly doesn't seem to discourage people.


In some cultures, you are the weird one for not being into prostitution. It's a matter of perspective.
Honestly, I don't think that prostitution itself is inherently negative. It just depends how things are run and those involved. I'm sure that there's thrilled-ass people who get paid to have sex all day long. Somehow, I don't think that low wage employees with nowhere to go are better off than well paid sex workers who really like their job. Being broke perpetually makes one wonder why live at all?


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

arishorts said:


> Majority of men lack self-control. They act on urge because that's how this day in age has raised us.


At one point, self-control was part of what it meant to be a man. A man who wasn't capable of exercising control over himself wasn't a real man. Somewhere along the way this has been lost. And societal expectations of what makes "a real man" have gotten ridiculous.


----------



## arishorts (Apr 1, 2012)

Master Mind said:


> At one point, self-control was part of what it meant to be a man. A man who wasn't capable of exercising control over himself wasn't a real man. Somewhere along the way this has been lost. And societal expectations of what makes "a real man" have gotten ridiculous.


It really doesn't matter. The laws of attraction will never change. If anything, it makes it easier for me.


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

Same reason that you go buy a hamburger instead of growing the wheat, thrashing the wheat, making bread, raising cattle, slaughtering the cow, grinding the meat, etc., it is easier and quicker.

There has always been a market for porn there just hasn't always been the technology for it. The flesh trade has been alive and powerful for a very long time and will likely always be unless as a species we suddenly stop wanting sex. Its also bias to suggest only men use it, many women do though the percentage is probably lower.

Why do men like porn as a gender specific? Well we don't all like it as far as I know. I would probably agree with those who suggest that the over sexed culture we have right now encourages it. Sexual frustration does build up and for those without a significant other to turn to, masturbating with pornography is superior to masturbating to a Sears catalog. If it weren't kids of previous generations wouldn't have assembled entire team efforts to smuggle parents porn magazines into tree houses.

As for prostitutes........ sex is a form of currency and like any other currency there will always be a place to exchange one type for another. 

Is it because women don't put out. I guess so but the opposite spectrum you're suggesting is a weird society isn't it? I suppose in a world where sex was like a handshake you wouldn't see much porn, or maybe you would and porn would be pictures of ultra conservative women hiding everything. If the internet has proven anything it is that no matter how bizarre and unusual your fetish you're not alone and someone out there will sell you what you want if you look hard enough.


----------



## GuruOfReason (Feb 4, 2009)

hackm said:


> And 95% of that twenty is black guys.
> 
> Jokes.


I guess that confirms that I am a fucking oreo.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

Honestly, I think it's a number of things, but the main one is that perhaps the human race isn't naturally monogamous? I know that's probably a pretty controversial statement, but if you think about the way we are, it makes sense. I think it's an instinct in men in order to produce the most offspring. A man can produce many more babies in his lifetime than a woman. 

Other sex related instincts: Women are catty and insult attractive women because they might feel jealous or threatened (afraid the men will be attracted to her). Married men who cheat on their Wives rarely ever leave them, as a matter of fact, they claim they LOVE their Wives and often panic and do anything it takes to keep their Wives from finding them out or leaving them. Women try to attract men and compete with other women to get the most attention from the men. Men are drawn to those women as well...how difficult is it to NOT look at a woman's cleavage? Women are more likely to forgive a cheating spouse than men. Some women have also been known to allow their Husband's to have a Mistress, either being fully aware, or pretending not to know. Of course, these things don't go for everyone, but they certainly happen a lot.

Also, men tend to be attracted to younger women...specifiically women of child bearing years...there is obviously a reason for this beyond just physical appearance, especially considering most older men claim that mature women are the best lovers because they are the most comfortable in their sexuality; Yet, men are usually drawn to younger women. 

Women often get accused of being "gold diggers" which makes sense on an animalistic level again...women are looking for a mate who can provide. They want a healthy, strong, attractive mate who will produce the best offspring. Men often times want women with curves because it tells them she is healthy and can bear children "chid bearing hips", etc. etc. Again, this isn't the rule, just the common trends; it is also subconscious. 

So anyway, I think most of it is related to instincts. However, that doesn't mean it's an excuse. We take showers, wear clothes, brush our teeth, use restrooms with doors, wear shoes, style our hair, etc...things our ancient ancestors didn't really do. In other words, we are capable of living above our animalistic ways...as Blocklos said "bigger brain".


----------



## missushoney (May 16, 2011)

Aww. I just wanna say, I support guys getting sex. Sex is one of the things needed in life. Finding someone can be a lot of work I know but keep on trying. There are some girls out there who are deprived as well so it's not just the guys. But if you make it just about sex that's all you'll get. If you want a girl who will actually like you, might wanna take your time.


----------



## missushoney (May 16, 2011)

GuruOfReason said:


> I guess that confirms that I am a fucking oreo.


eh, it's ok. I am too. Just gotta learn to accept it.


----------



## LimeDegree (Mar 6, 2012)

Enfpleasantly said:


> Honestly, I think it's a number of things, but the main one is that perhaps the human race isn't naturally monogamous? I know that's probably a pretty controversial statement, but if you think about the way we are, it makes sense. I think it's an instinct in men in order to produce the most offspring. A man can produce many more babies in his lifetime than a woman.


Some of us males believe in quality over quantity. When getting to know a woman's character, it's an instinctual urge to be sure I am bonding with a female that will protect and nurture her offspring. I'm not done with a female once she births the child. The years we will spend safeguarding and teaching the child is always in the back of my mind in the selection process. That's instinctual. Some males might be instinctively inclined for mass reproduction, but my instincts have always been to identify a single female to invest in for the sake of the offspring. Personally, I rarely focus on long term goals. But when it comes to bonding with a female, it's strictly with long term in mind.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

LimeDegree said:


> Some of us males believe in quality over quantity. When getting to know a woman's character, it's an instinctual urge to be sure I am bonding with a female that will protect and nurture her offspring. I'm not done with a female once she births the child. The years we will spend safeguarding and teaching the child is always in the back of my mind in the selection process. That's instinctual. Some males might be instinctively inclined for mass reproduction, but my instincts have always been to identify a single female to invest in for the sake of the offspring. Personally, I rarely focus on long term goals. But when it comes to bonding with a female, it's strictly with long term in mind.


To me, the more in control of instincts, the more complex the being. The simplest creatures on our planet live based on instincts alone; as the animals get more intelligent, the more in control they are. That's my opinion at least


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

LimeDegree said:


> Some of us males believe in quality over quantity. When getting to know a woman's character, it's an instinctual urge to be sure I am bonding with a female that will protect and nurture her offspring. I'm not done with a female once she births the child. The years we will spend safeguarding and teaching the child is always in the back of my mind in the selection process. That's instinctual. Some males might be instinctively inclined for mass reproduction, but my instincts have always been to identify a single female to invest in for the sake of the offspring. Personally, I rarely focus on long term goals. But when it comes to bonding with a female, it's strictly with long term in mind.


Thanks for renewing my faith in people. There needs to be more men and women who think like this.


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

Enfpleasantly said:


> To me, the more in control of instincts, the more complex the being. The simplest creatures on our planet live based on instincts alone; as the animals get more intelligent, the more in control they are. That's my opinion at least


I agree in principle.

The trouble is that we are all complex in different manners, we all think we are in control in different manners, which results in conflicts of complexity that escalate the complexity to levels where the simple purpose of all that complexity gets lost in the cloud of reactive nonsense. 

There are times when being complex gives far less control. The more parts a machine has the more opportunities for any single part to go wrong, one part working incorrectly has a wave effect on the entire machine. 


In my opinion some things should be complex and others need to be simple, nothing but complexity is just a mess.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

Mountainshepherd said:


> I agree in principle.
> 
> The trouble is that we are all complex in different manners, we all think we are in control in different manners, which results in conflicts of complexity that escalate the complexity to levels where the simple purpose of all that complexity gets lost in the cloud of reactive nonsense.
> 
> ...


Absolutely. We are complex beings and we need a lot more to maintain ourselves than other living beings on our planet. Look at how we consume our natural resources compared to other living things, for instance.


----------



## Chrysantheist (Jul 1, 2011)

It's problematic to blame women for "not putting out" when men consume porn/strip clubs/prostitutes while partnered with a willing sex partner. I had an ex who obsessively consumed porn even though we had sex multiple times a week (sometimes every day). I've known guys who've gone to strip clubs together, even though all of them have girlfriends. And while I can't speculate on the sex lives of politicians or married people... how often has prostitution or cheating come between a relationship? 

It is possible, however, that your partner (if you have one) knows of your external sex life and is turned off by it. Then when she isn't interested in having sex, you blame her for your porn/strip club/prostitute usage. Self-reinforcing loop. 

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with buying sex, but I think if you purchase it, you have to own your decision and not blame others for your behavior.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

Okay, so say that your favorite food in the world is pizza... does that mean that you want to eat nothing but pizza for the rest of your life? 

The same theory can be applied loosely to men (and women): Someone may be in a long-term committed relationship, however, that doesn't mean that men aren't going to shut off their sexual desire for other people in the process - this man may choose to look at porn/go to strip clubs as a means of letting off some of this steam without being physically unfaithful to his gf/wife. 

Personally, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if my partner watched porn in his spare time - hell, I wouldn't mind joining in sometimes. Also, I really hate the stigma that it's only men who want to watch porn; although I suppose women don't react to it the same magnitude, that still doesn't mean that we can't enjoy it. Case in point, I enjoy porn, however, not to the extent where I'm having to sterilize my hard drive free of viruses every week just to watch it. 

I suppose at the end of the day sex is just a very easily exploitable industry, hence regardless of how much women "put out" it's always going to exist - riddle me this, why has the porn industry boomed post-sexual revolution? Why do prostitutes still exist in a world where men don't have to get married to get socially-acceptable on-tap sex from a committed partner? By the OPs logic, the sex industry should have died 15 years ago.


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

Because men have sex drives and it is a hell of alot easier to gain some relief via those means, not better but easier.


----------



## topix (Apr 11, 2012)

intjdude said:


> There's a lot of sex threads on here. And with all that interest you'd think there would be enough going around. But it seems that there's a shortage... what causes these large revenue sex industries?


The simple answer: men are less emotional and have higher libidos than women, on average, leading them to seek more erotica in general, and be less discriminate about where they get satisfaction from.


----------



## topix (Apr 11, 2012)

Enfpleasantly said:


> Honestly, I think it's a number of things, but the main one is that perhaps the human race isn't naturally monogamous? [...]


Evidence of human remains allegedly suggests that monogamy and non-monogamy both took place with regularity over history. I agree with the sentiment that monogamy is put on too much of a pedestal in most social circles.



> [...] Men are drawn to those women as well...how difficult is it to NOT look at a woman's cleavage?


<3



> Women are more likely to forgive a cheating spouse than men.


I think your post smart overall, but I'm pretty sure this point is wrong. Both my personal experience and what I've read contradict your claim. I'll ask you to consider two things: one, that women seek monogamous relationships more than men, which I assume you won't argue with; two, there's a fetish, consensual cuckoldry, which I'm finding to be shared by a surprisingly decent number of men, but is practically non-existent among women.



> Also, men tend to be attracted to younger women...specifiically women of child bearing years...there is obviously a reason for this beyond just physical appearance, especially considering most older men claim that mature women are the best lovers because they are the most comfortable in their sexuality; Yet, men are usually drawn to younger women.


Hetero men are generally attracted to fairer characteristics, which younger people will tend to have more of.



> Women often get accused of being "gold diggers" which makes sense on an animalistic level again...women are looking for a mate who can provide. They want a healthy, strong, attractive mate who will produce the best offspring. Men often times want women with curves because it tells them she is healthy and can bear children "chid bearing hips", etc. etc. Again, this isn't the rule, just the common trends; it is also subconscious.


I actually don't like that women tend to be a bit discouraged from considering a man's finances. The extent that I would accept someone chasing wealth in a mate before I would label them superficial depends on their goals (e.g. wanting to be with a rich guy to use his money/power to do something helpful for the world, verses just wanting to buy expensive shit).


----------



## topix (Apr 11, 2012)

Falling Leaves said:


> Why do prostitutes still exist in a world where men don't have to get married to get socially-acceptable on-tap sex from a committed partner?


The "committed" part is a big deal to most guys. It's like saying, "If you want this food, you must commit to eating it every day, and you're not allowed to eat anything else." Well, the food better be very good! Also, according to my research, most men buying escorts/prostitutes are married.


----------



## topix (Apr 11, 2012)

hackm said:


> Think of it like alcohol, another luxury.
> 
> Do we need alcohol or sex? No. Biologically, sex is an addiction if you ever crave it beyond procreation.


Need is relative.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

topix said:


> I think your post smart overall, but I'm pretty sure this point is wrong. Both my personal experience and what I've read contradict your claim. I'll ask you to consider two things: one, that women seek monogamous relationships more than men, which I assume you won't argue with; two, there's a fetish, consensual cuckoldry, which I'm finding to be shared by a surprisingly decent number of men, but is practically non-existent among women.


The difference is, this is consensual; I am talking about cheating...affairs. Fetishes are consensual and not cheating. Men and women cheat, but women are more likely to take back a cheating spouse (hetero affair). 
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/28/men-will-forgive-cheating-as-long-as-its-with-another-woman/



topix said:


> Hetero men are generally attracted to fairer characteristics, which younger people will tend to have more of.


The reason they are attracted to these physical features is because the women who possess them are typically of child bearing age...in order to meet their instinctual pull to spread their seed for procreation. 



topix said:


> EI actually don't like that women tend to be a bit discouraged from considering a man's finances. The extent that I would accept someone chasing wealth in a mate before I would label them superficial depends on their goals (e.g. wanting to be with a rich guy to use his money/power to do something helpful for the world, verses just wanting to buy expensive shit).


The point is, on an instinctual level, a man who has money or a good job could be attractive to a woman as a potential mate because he will be a good provider for the woman and her offspring. Ancient male ancestors showed strength and aggression for protection, good hunting abilities to provide food, etc. which indicated they would be a good mate.

A lot of this is addressed in this book. It's a good read.
Wright R. — The Moral Animal


----------



## TrailMix (Apr 27, 2011)

Okay... both men and women have sex drives, its just more socially acceptable for men to show that and act upon it. However, what this comes down to is that, even though "humans may not naturally be monogamous", thats no excuse for neglecting the feelings of your partner. If your partner is not enough for you, you need a new one; not two or more at once. Or keep your desires to yourself so that you dont hurt them - if that does hurt them in some way.

Much of the sex industry thrives off of single men and men who are not satisfied with their relationships or with those who have an addiction or their girlfriends are not willing to "put out" for marriage. I have a huge issue with the "putting out" phrase. It is disgusting and demeaning. It implies that a girl must "put out" to keep a man, and if that is the case, then how sad is that? Yes, sex is a natural thing and we all want it and enjoy it. But it isnt "needed" on an individual level. Yes, its needed for reproduction, but if you only had sex to reproduce, then it fulfills its need. The rest is a luxury and should be treated as such; not as an "omg, i have to have sex, im going to die!" come on. I enjoy sex just as much as the next person, but I dont need it. That is a poor excuse


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

TrailMix said:


> Okay... both men and women have sex drives, its just more socially acceptable for men to show that and act upon it. However, what this comes down to is that, even though "humans may not naturally be monogamous", thats no excuse for neglecting the feelings of your partner. If your partner is not enough for you, you need a new one; not two or more at once. Or keep your desires to yourself so that you dont hurt them - if that does hurt them in some way.
> 
> Much of the sex industry thrives off of single men and men who are not satisfied with their relationships or with those who have an addiction or their girlfriends are not willing to "put out" for marriage. I have a huge issue with the "putting out" phrase. It is disgusting and demeaning. It implies that a girl must "put out" to keep a man, and if that is the case, then how sad is that? Yes, sex is a natural thing and we all want it and enjoy it. But it isnt "needed" on an individual level. Yes, its needed for reproduction, but if you only had sex to reproduce, then it fulfills its need. The rest is a luxury and should be treated as such; not as an "omg, i have to have sex, im going to die!" come on. I enjoy sex just as much as the next person, but I dont need it. That is a poor excuse


In my post I said that perhaps humans are not naturally monogamous, but at the end of my post I said that despite that, we can control ourselves. I just wanted to be clear on my stance on this topic


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

I'm surprised there's still people who are willing to pay for porn when it's freely and easily available online. You'd think that once that happened, the industry would shrivel up, only being able to rely on ad revenue. Or that there'd be a lot of lawsuits like what the regular music and movie industries try to do with online stuff, lol.


----------



## topix (Apr 11, 2012)

Blocklos said:


> Honestly, sex without a committed loving relationship is repulsive to me. Where is the humanity in removing love from sex?


I implied earlier in the thread that non-monogamy is suggested to have existed throughout human history. Also, what's wrong with non-monogamous erotic intimacy if openness and honesty is applied, and the proper precautions are used? Strict monogamy sounds nice to talk about at a dinner table, but lets think deeper. Don't judge, bro.



zelder said:


> The total dipshit loosers pay for sex in terms of money.


Men usually pay for dates, so.... ? :tongue:



Enfpleasantly said:


> To me, the more in control of instincts, the more complex the being. The simplest creatures on our planet live based on instincts alone; as the animals get more intelligent, the more in control they are. That's my opinion at least


I see it as intellectual complexity verses the strength of the particular emotion.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Redwood said:


> Outside of marriage, 80% of women have sex with 20% of the guys.


80% of the available women want 20% of the guys. This leads to bizarre situations where women who are in an advantageous situation will do nothing. For example, at my college, women outnumber men 2:1. Do the ladies compete for boyfriends, dates, or sex? No, they instead bitch about there being no eligible men available. The best 10% of men are always taken. That leaves the next top 15% and the entire median 50% wide open, or the better 40% of the guys are ripe for the picking and yet they do nothing. They seem to have it in their head that only certain guys can even approach them, as I have been rather cruelly shto down several times here. I'd imagine they'd be like 'single decent guy looking for a lady- jackpot!'. Instead, they are putting off dating entirely unless they can somehow attract a guy they deem good enough. Worst logic ever.


----------



## TrailMix (Apr 27, 2011)

Enfpleasantly said:


> In my post I said that perhaps humans are not naturally monogamous, but at the end of my post I said that despite that, we can control ourselves. I just wanted to be clear on my stance on this topic


Oh I know 

I've just been reading a lot of studies lately that claim that and for the most part, its a somewhat scientifically accurate statement and many studies in animal size difference between male and female seem to correlate to whether they are monogamous or not. Its shows that in animals where the male is larger (on average) than the female, the animals tend to have more sexual partners, and in animals where they are the same size regardless of gender, the animals tend to be monogamous. Humans fall into the former.

These arent where I read it, it was in some book, but these are somewhat along the same lines:

Are humans naturally monogamous? (Page 1) - Human Biology and Evolution - Ask a Biologist Q&A
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I was just read that and it reminded me of what one of my guy friends' friend said (confusing... ha) but it just pissed me off. The guy is a bit of a player and was talking about girls saying "why do they care, humans arent naturally monogamous" about how he can be with more than one girl at once. It just made me really mad haha and honestly didnt have too much to do with your post, I just saw that and it reminded me. I understand where you're coming from


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

The sex trades flourish because man's reach is longer than his grasp.

We are sex-obsessed partially because nothing else seems real to us. Most of the sensuality has been drained from life as we have gradually "advanced" to being consumer units hooked up to computers. I think if we were barefoot in the open air with rain falling on us as we walked around gathering food our appetites and interests would likely be more balanced. But we aren't.

Sex wasn't invented in 1965 nor in 1985. People in your grandparents' and great-grandparents' time got down and dirty--married or not. There were one-night-stands, cheap little dalliances, things-on-the-side, visits to whorehouses while on business trips, streetwalkers who got picked up, swinger parties in cul-de-sacs, girls hired to do things the nice wife wouldn't and everything else we know of today. They did it without contraceptives, usually. And most of them had no clue how their bodies really worked, so they likely weren't that good at it. But that didn't stop them. Nothing can stop it.

Porn is also eternal. Look for an image of the Venus of Willendorf. She's a big girl. Most "authorities" have said it's a fertility symbol. I actually think some neolithic teenagers used it to help jerk off. The "authorities" are either sexless nerdlingers who were never allowed to play with themselves, or they just don't want to admit they touched a thing that a neolithic cave dork jerked off on.

Our bodies are made for having sex. That's why we have bodies. One prime measure of one's overall health is how well the body works for sex. If men catered only towards optimizing their sexual function throughout their lives they would remain very healthy into old age. Women, too.


Oh, and . . . 


The guy complaining about how males are denied the ability to be sexual is probably British.


----------



## Credulous (Jan 5, 2012)

Hmm I don't know if this will help this thread out or not, but for some reason just the concept of paying for sex sort of turns me on. I get enough "action" in my own life (with the little frustrations here and there of course) but for some reason I still contemplate getting a prostitute because it would be fun... I've never actually done it, but something in the whole "love me for the money" thing turns me on. It must originate in some sort of desire for domination coupled with an insecurity here and there...

anyways that's why I think the sex industry is relatively independent of "putting out", maybe there are just other guys like me.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Cetanu said:


> I am a 22 year old, handsome, intelligent young man and I've considered seeing a prostitute (more than once) because I am starved of affection in general.
> I have not gone ahead with it yet because of the financial aspect and risk of addiction.
> 
> *As a male I feel like I'm not allowed to be sexual with women.*


This is sad, why do you feel this way?


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

who ever said that women whom arent whores or strippers dont put out? Women tend to not want sex with people that piss them off, so if you are pissing your woman off she might not be having sex with you. That doesnt mean that women arent having sex.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

fourtines said:


> This is sad, why do you feel this way?


Well my perspective has changed a little since I posted that.
The basis of what I said was a perception that a man being sexual towards them(women) is offensive which I probably gathered from a stack of hasty misinterpretations.
I think if I were to put it more accurately and include my own experience in the statement I could say:
It is allowed at any time however if uninvited it elicits a defensive response often in the form of being offended, a type of disgusted, disrespected or similar. On the other hand, when I personally have gauged and am certain that it is invited, desired or wanted then it is very appropriate depending on how, with what attitude and the unconscious motivation I have when I express my sexual desire.

It seems to be just a matter of paying attention and being open and receptive to the women that like me, then having the courage to take action based on what I perceive to be attraction... and if I'm wrong, then I apologize... if not, then it's good!  At least, I think so. I've yet to test it out.

Lately I feel like I have jumped over a major mental hurdle by realizing this.


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

sorry_neither said:


> I assign you to write a 500-word essay on the phrase "put out," *why it's only ever used to refer to women's sexuality*, and what it says about men who seriously use the term.
> 
> Bonus points if you work in the words "entitlement," "privilege," and "nasty."
> 
> Get on it!


You're making as much of a sexist generalization as the people you're criticizing. Straight men can also be said to "put out" or "not put out" too. Depends on who you talk to.

Do you realize how much entitlement and feminist priviledge you're exercising by condescendingly assuming the role of a teacher and "assigning" an essay on your own perspective? You probably think you're just enlightening him because he's just a pathetic backwards male chauvanist. But if the goal is truly to be "equals" in power, there should be no implied teacher-student relationship. You have your perspectives, which you are entitled to, and he has the freedom to hold a different one. Shouldn't equals coexist in a way that respects one anothers' different points of view instead of trying to forcefeed one message like a Teleevangelist? 

NOTE: Don't get me wrong. Most of this thread and a lot of male chauvanism sickens me. But so does hypocrisy. You make no positive steps towards equality by trying to assume a position of dominance instead of one of an equal.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

JohnGalt said:


> You're making as much of a sexist generalization as the people you're criticizing. Straight men can also be said to "put out" or "not put out" too. Depends on who you talk to.
> 
> Do you realize how much entitlement and feminist priviledge you're exercising by condescendingly assuming the role of a teacher and "assigning" an essay on your own perspective? You probably think you're just enlightening him because he's just a pathetic backwards male chauvanist. But if the goal is truly to be "equals" in power, there should be no implied teacher-student relationship. You have your perspectives, which you are entitled to, and he has the freedom to hold a different one. Shouldn't equals coexist in a way that respects one anothers' different points of view instead of trying to forcefeed one message like a Teleevangelist?
> 
> NOTE: Don't get me wrong. Most of this thread and a lot of male chauvanism sickens me. But so does hypocrisy. You make no positive steps towards equality by trying to assume a position of dominance instead of one of an equal.


cmon they were just being funny and throwing in a valid point.


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

Mendi the ISFJ said:


> cmon they were just being funny and throwing in a valid point.


But the point's not valid. That's the point. Not only is it inaccurate (women talk about men "putting out" and getting "snatch blocked"); it's complete hypocrisy. A woman pointing out issues with male entitlement by taking on an entitled role herself is like her saying "LOLOLOLOLOL im an idiot im just blindly regurgitating buzzwords i heard in a women's studies class. don't take me seriously". I suppose that can be funny, so I'll grant you that.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

JohnGalt said:


> But the point's not valid. That's the point. Not only is it inaccurate (women talk about men "putting out" and getting "snatch blocked"); it's complete hypocrisy. A woman pointing out issues with male entitlement by taking on an entitled role herself is like her saying "LOLOLOLOLOL im an idiot im just blindly regurgitating buzzwords i heard in a women's studies class. don't take me seriously". I suppose that can be funny, so I'll grant you that.



Ive never ever heard a woman say "snatch blocked", in fact id never say "snatch" its vulgar. Ive also never heard a woman say "that guy doesnt put out" but they may refer to "putting out" when discussing themselves having sex, or even whats expected of other women. Its more of women mocking the speech men use when they do use those phrases. Ive no idea about womens studies classes as id never waste my time on that.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

TrailMix said:


> Oh I know
> 
> I've just been reading a lot of studies lately that claim that and for the most part, its a somewhat scientifically accurate statement and many studies in animal size difference between male and female seem to correlate to whether they are monogamous or not. Its shows that in animals where the male is larger (on average) than the female, the animals tend to have more sexual partners, and in animals where they are the same size regardless of gender, the animals tend to be monogamous. Humans fall into the former.
> 
> ...


I read somewhere once that the size of a male animals testicles compared to body size, can help indicate how monogamous their species is. I'd have to find the source, and I don't know how true it is, but I thought it was interesting.


----------



## sorry_neither (Mar 21, 2012)

JohnGalt said:


> You're making as much of a sexist generalization as the people you're criticizing. Straight men can also be said to "put out" or "not put out" too. Depends on who you talk to.
> 
> Do you realize how much entitlement and feminist priviledge you're exercising by condescendingly assuming the role of a teacher and "assigning" an essay on your own perspective? You probably think you're just enlightening him because he's just a pathetic backwards male chauvanist. But if the goal is truly to be "equals" in power, there should be no implied teacher-student relationship. You have your perspectives, which you are entitled to, and he has the freedom to hold a different one. Shouldn't equals coexist in a way that respects one anothers' different points of view instead of trying to forcefeed one message like a Teleevangelist?
> 
> NOTE: Don't get me wrong. Most of this thread and a lot of male chauvanism sickens me. But so does hypocrisy. You make no positive steps towards equality by trying to assume a position of dominance instead of one of an equal.


I've never seen someone try so hard to feel butthurt.

If you honestly believe there is no pervasive cultural meme of women "putting out," and men "getting some," then you have your head in the sand, and there's no helping you.

PS. There's no such thing as "feminist privilege." We've been in a feminist backlash for many years now. I recommend Susan Faludi's book, _Backlash_. (I can already hear you rolling your eyes--you might be interested she wrote a book on men, _Stiffed_, about how society has screwed them over as well. 'Cause sexism hurts us all.)


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

Mendi the ISFJ said:


> Ive never ever heard a woman say "snatch blocked", in fact id never say "snatch" its vulgar. Ive also never heard a woman say "that guy doesnt put out" but they may refer to "putting out" when discussing themselves having sex, or even whats expected of other women. Its more of women mocking the speech men use when they do use those phrases. Ive no idea about womens studies classes as id never waste my time on that.


Just because you haven't heard women use it doesn't mean that women don't use it. Like I said, it depends on who you talked to. I'm not implying all women do, but some do. I've heard them. (cock is probably about equally vulgar as snatch... though i suppose you could say vag-blocked or something). Maybe I just know more liberal-minded, sexually-confident and empowered women? The point is, it's not ONLY a guy's expression, it's not ONLY used by men to oppress women, and it's sexist to assume women would never use it in a non-mocking way. 

When I was a teenager, my girlfriend's friends were constantly pestering me about not "putting out" for her and for giving her "blue clit" (because I wanted to wait for our first time). Since then, I've heard a lot of girls talk about their bfs not "putting out anymore" later into relationships when the sparks start to die. I think the expression is just used when one partner has a much higher sex drive than the other. In high school and college, most of the time that's going to be the guy, so maybe that's why the expression gets associated with guys, but women can be sexually frustrated by lack of sex from their bfs too... and some choose to express that frustration via such expressions.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

JohnGalt said:


> 1) Even when men and women work jobs of similar income, most women still expect the man to pick up the check on a first date. (magazine polls or a quick glance at any "who pays" thread on dating forums supports this view)
> 
> 2) Polls also reveal that even though women want equal pay, a large number of women still want to be with a man who earns more than they do. But then how are most men supposed to meet those standards? Only the top 10% of men have any chance with women?
> 
> ...


I don't want to get into the thick of this argument but I did want to address this, it makes me wonder if you're even serious about what you're talking about! I'm not sure why you find it so astounding that many women want to make equal pay as men and also want a partner that earns more than they do. You seem to be thinking these women are literally consciously thinking about how they want and expect both of these things from a partner. People can hold conflicting views, opinions, and desires, you probably do yourself. And this isn't even a conflict: Why wouldn't you want a partner who makes as much or as more as you do, regardless of gender, if you're just being asked about your ideal partner? It's not like these women are saying it's a deal breaker, it's a binary question used to generate data that can be easily analyzed and cataloged. 

That being said, most of this can be explained in a very simple way: Social cues and socialization do not go away as soon as someone learns about or adopts a belief system that challenges them. People do not suddenly stop thinking about and judging people based on class because they have adopted a leftist political ideology, people don't stop thinking about and judging people based on race just because they're educated anti-racists. Things like picking up checks or buying drinks for most people are not simple economic calculations, they carry a special sort of social currency. This is even more obvious in things like men who are expected to "go after" women. For better or worse, ideas like "he picks up the check on the first date" or whatever do not poof out of existence because of personal conviction or even social change. You're framing this sort of thing as "greedy feminists want it all!" when in reality it's more about cultural norms lagging behind evolving political and social theory. 

Now, all of THAT being said, I even question the entire premise here sort of. Among my own circle of friends and peers none of these sorts of social conventions are really that common. It's certainly not been the case in any of my own relationships, but I recognize that's anecdotal and could just be the people I associate with. I find a lot of this hysteria from men about feminism in regards to these topics, honestly, comes from a sense of confusion and distress at having their traditional social power cues undermined or changed or taken away from them. And I say this because I have experienced it, such as when I feel obliged to pay for my fiancee's drink or dinner even when she is adamant that I do not do so and that it is unnecessary. Internalized social cues go both ways, and I would say women still have the worst of it - there's certainly plenty of men who still think it's okay to hit their wives even though the polite opinion is that that is unacceptable. When you put things into perspective like that, complaining about feeling obligated to buy the occasional drink or meal for your date seems rather petty.


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

@_sleepyhead_ : Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I want to reiterate that I am not implying that these behaviours are intrinsic to feminist beliefs, nor that they are carried out by all women. In fact, I prefaced it by saying that this doesn't apply to all women! Yet I think the behaviours are common enough that most people at least know someone who acts like that. I even went on to say that the behaviours may not be intentional; most probably don't even think about it. But that's what entitlement is: it's acting in a certain way that expects certain things should happen, whether or not you're aware of it, when those things are actually unfair and not deserved. I think most entitlement (be it males, white, etc.) is not intentional malice, but rather just people not realizing that what they expect from the world is not fair for others. Would you agree?

Also note that I am not calling all feminists hypocrtical, or feminist beliefs hypocritical (which is what you seem to be arguing against). I'm merely talking about how people act and how they may be unaware their expectations are out of whack. 

I also never said this meshed with feminist philosophy. Rather, it's just that many pro-feminist empowered women act this way. I'm talking about the entitlements exhibited by a lot of women who identify themselves as pro-feminism, not entitlements that are logical consequences of feminist philosophy. (I think that's where most of your disagreement lies) 

As you both hinted at, this is probably a product of some patriarchal traditions mixing with feminist changes. But the result is there are a lot of women who want to take the best of both worlds. And why wouldn't they? It's in their self-interest. But.. it's not fair. So I think someone needs to be talking about it.

Re: 
1) I'm glad you go dutch. But that doesn't change that a majority does not...

2) If you really want equal roles in a relationship, what does it say to consider someone at your own level not "good enough"? That's my point. Although I suppose people can want anything but not necessarily live that way. But if they do, then hardworking low-income men kind of get screwed. 

3) Patriarchy has nothing to do with men getting blamed for bad sex. It's been a social trend since women have gained sexual power and openly voiced their dissatisfactions (premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, not giving her enough time, not listening, etc.). I'm glad that women feel comfortable advocating for their needs now! But when's the last time you saw a pop culture reference of a guy talking about something a girl did wrong in bed? Whereas you constantly hear about things that guys screw up... There is no way that is patriarchal in nature. 

4) Actually, some places DO hire the less-qualified candidate if they are far off the quota. Equity quotas are helpful in some areas; the workforce is not 50/50 everywhere yet. But where I work, it is 50/50. The inequality I'm talking about is not quotas in general: it's that when a balance is already reached, a company still can't revoke the quota policy because it would offend women. The fact that it would be offensive to remove the quota, even after a workforce has been balanced, really says something... Not every place is like this, but NO place should be like this. It should not be considered offensive to remove equity measures. 

8) It's not all patriarchy. This awkwardness is a mix of women recently feeling empowered to be aggressive/flirtatious in relationships mixed with men feeling compelled to not say anything due to patriarchal stereotypes. Removing those patriarchal beliefs will let the men come forward but it won't change the women's behaviour. These women need to realize that just because they have sexual power doesn't entitle them to sexually harass men. 

Perhaps my mistake was in labelling these women "feminists". Perhaps a better term is just "empowered women". The reality is, regardless of what the true feminist philosophers and advocates think, the feminist movement has ripple effects on the rest of society. Even if a true feminist does not demand many of these double standards, you have to realize that when a movement pushes for ALL women to have equal pay, including those not part of the movement, you haven't checked with those empowered women if they're willing to go dutch on dates, start marrying within their class and start asking guys out. What happens is you get a majority of women who are not directly part of the movement but are reaping all the benefits of it, while still expecting the benefits of their old way of life. This is where the unfairness comes in. And while feminists can try to wash their hands clean and say "look, that's not what we wanted, that's patriarchy", my point is they should realize the impact their changes have on the rest of women out there...


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

Shahada said:


> You seem to be thinking these women are literally consciously thinking about how they want and expect both of these things from a partner. People can hold conflicting views, opinions, and desires, you probably do yourself.


Of course. And that's why I did not call it hypocrisy. I called it "entitlement". Entitlement is usually not conscious. It's just people acting in a way that implies they should have things that they don't necessarily deserve in a fair world. 



> It's not like these women are saying it's a deal breaker


Many do. But I can't remember the stats on it offhand. It's probably not a majority, but it's not a negligible number either. 



> Social cues and socialization do not go away as soon as someone learns about or adopts a belief system that challenges them.


Of course not. But that's historically where a lot of more oppressive entitlements have come from. Just because we can rationalize them doesn't make them right. How do they go away? Over time when people become conscious of them and then make a conscious effort to adjust behaviour. How does that happen? When people start talking about... oh wait, that's what I'm doing 

I'm not saying this stuff to criticize people or lay blame. I just think it needs to get talked about, and there still seems to be a taboo about approaching such issues.




> Now, all of THAT being said, I even question the entire premise here sort of. Among my own circle of friends and peers none of these sorts of social conventions are really that common. It's certainly not been the case in any of my own relationships, but I recognize that's anecdotal and could just be the people I associate with.


You know your own peers; we don't. Would you consider them representative of the majority of North Americans? And have you not observed such behaviours portrayed as acceptable in movies, TV, etc.? 
Have you ever asked a random woman to buy you a drink at a bar and had her say yes??? 




> Internalized social cues go both ways, and I would say women still have the worst of it - there's certainly plenty of men who still think it's okay to hit their wives even though the polite opinion is that that is unacceptable. When you put things into perspective like that, complaining about feeling obligated to buy the occasional drink or meal for your date seems rather petty.


 If anyone in North America thinks it's ok to hit their wives, it is a minority because that is a felony. There are men who also believe it is ok for them to torture others, but they are also a minority because it is a felony and not socially acceptable. Obviously, no one can speak to how EVERYONE thinks - I'm just talking about mainstream Western media. It is not acceptable for men to hit wives. But the behaviours I listed are not only acceptable; they're commonplace in Western media. That is the radical difference. Also, saying something is the lesser of two evils does not make it right.


----------



## sleepyhead (Nov 14, 2011)

JohnGalt said:


> @_sleepyhead_ : Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
> 
> I want to reiterate that I am not implying that these behaviours are intrinsic to feminist beliefs, nor that they are carried out by all women. In fact, I prefaced it by saying that this doesn't apply to all women! Yet I think the behaviours are common enough that most people at least know someone who acts like that. I even went on to say that the behaviours may not be intentional; most probably don't even think about it. But that's what entitlement is: it's acting in a certain way that expects certain things should happen, whether or not you're aware of it, when those things are actually unfair and not deserved. I think most entitlement (be it males, white, etc.) is not intentional malice, but rather just people not realizing that what they expect from the world is not fair for others. Would you agree?
> 
> ...


I just wanted to be clear that most of what you cited is actually pretty mainstream societal views, and even if some people claim those are their views because of feminism, I don't think they have a very good understanding of what mainstream feminism actually is. I realize the people you're talking about are likely not the ones who are really involved in the bigger movement but more people who have seen sensationalist articles about feminism and think those articles give an accurate representation of the theory and philosophy.

I agree with almost everything you posted in your post, but I just wanted to be clear that most of the things are not really a part of the thinking and theory of feminism - it's more people using the word feminism without having a clear understanding of what they're talking about. In the actual mainstream, feminist movement, most of the things you posted are problematic and part of what feminism is trying to address. I didn't mean to imply that I didn't think some of what you said held water.



> 1) I'm glad you go dutch. But that doesn't change that a majority does not...


I just wanted it to be clear that this isn't something that came about from feminism - it's an outdated belief and something that's really not something that most feminist activists are concerned about because there's real oppressive issues going on in the world. 



> 2) If you really want equal roles in a relationship, what does it say to consider someone at your own level not "good enough"? That's my point. Although I suppose people can want anything but not necessarily live that way. But if they do, then hardworking low-income men kind of get screwed.


I'm not sure what you mean...I never said anyone wasn't good enough - can you clarify? I know lots of men who would like to NOT be the breadwinner and I know lots of women who would like to NOT be the breadwinner. Again, my point with addressing this was just to point out those aren't feminist beliefs. These are the kind of things that mainstream media writes as articles about feminism without really knowing what the movement is about - but even so, I do a lot of work on expectations of hegemonic masculinity and how it impacts men negatively so I already see a lot of really groundbreaking stuff being done to address expectations like this by feminists.

My point is not to say these expectations don't exist, just that they're not connected to feminism. Even if there are women who say they identify as feminist who do fall into this trap, they don't have a realistic understanding of feminist theory. It's not an accurate representation of the movement that I work in. 



> 3) Patriarchy has nothing to do with men getting blamed for bad sex. It's been a social trend since women have gained sexual power and openly voiced their dissatisfactions (premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, not giving her enough time, not listening, etc.). I'm glad that women feel comfortable advocating for their needs now! But when's the last time you saw a pop culture reference of a guy talking about something a girl did wrong in bed? Whereas you constantly hear about things that guys screw up... There is no way that is patriarchal in nature.


I disagree where this comes from but I don't think we're disagreeing this stuff exists. I think this kind of stuff is a problem, and feminism definitely sees these kind of representations as problematic. I do think a gain in sexual power and moving to talk about sexuality more openly has opened the door for some of these problems, but I also think it's one of the area's feminism really aims to address. 

The reason it is patriarchal in nature is because patriarchy sets men up in roles they can't possibly fulfill - must be aggressive, highly sexual, position of power, show no weakness - to be masculine is to not be feminine. This is a problem and is something that should end. I agree this stuff exists, but I just see feminists doing a lot of work to try and counter behaviour and beliefs like this. 



> 4) Actually, some places DO hire the less-qualified candidate if they are far off the quota. Equity quotas are helpful in some areas; the workforce is not 50/50 everywhere yet. But where I work, it is 50/50. The inequality I'm talking about is not quotas in general: it's that when a balance is already reached, a company still can't revoke the quota policy because it would offend women. The fact that it would be offensive to remove the quota, even after a workforce has been balanced, really says something... Not every place is like this, but NO place should be like this. It should not be considered offensive to remove equity measures.


Then those programs are being mismanaged. I know places in my province have gotten rid of quota's because they've reached an equal representation among minority groups. I never said these programs were perfect, but tried to outline the way they are intended to run. It's unfortunate it sounds like yours has outlived its usefulness. I agree, when the measure is no longer useful, it should be removed.



> 8) It's not all patriarchy. This awkwardness is a mix of women recently feeling empowered to be aggressive/flirtatious in relationships mixed with men feeling compelled to not say anything due to patriarchal stereotypes. Removing those patriarchal beliefs will let the men come forward but it won't change the women's behaviour. These women need to realize that just because they have sexual power doesn't entitle them to sexually harass men.


But I would say those beliefs from women and from men are patriarchal beliefs - we just live in a much more sexualized culture today than we did 40 years ago. I agree with the rest of your point.



> Perhaps my mistake was in labelling these women "feminists". Perhaps a better term is just "empowered women". The reality is, regardless of what the true feminist philosophers and advocates think, the feminist movement has ripple effects on the rest of society. Even if a true feminist does not demand many of these double standards, you have to realize that when a movement pushes for ALL women to have equal pay, including those not part of the movement, you haven't checked with those empowered women if they're willing to go dutch on dates, start marrying within their class and start asking guys out. What happens is you get a majority of women who are not directly part of the movement but are reaping all the benefits of it, while still expecting the benefits of their old way of life. This is where the unfairness comes in. And while feminists can try to wash their hands clean and say "look, that's not what we wanted, that's patriarchy", my point is they should realize the impact their changes have on the rest of women out there...


I think that was really it - I wasn't disagreeing with you that that stuff happened. And I think some of those women may label themselves as feminist; I just think they often co-opt that term because they've seen a media article they like but don't really understand what people who are actively working in the movement are doing. 

That was the only reason I stopped to comment though - it's frustrating working in a grassroots, feminist organization that's doing a lot of really important work and then see how twisted the wider public's view of feminism is. Most of the media articles you see sensationalized about feminism are extremely inaccurate and paint more of a caricature view. One big reason for saying that patriarchal culture still has a lot to do with these issues is because the mainstream culture in north american society still has greater power over the media and the messages that get distributed. I do a lot of work tying to publicize the great work that I do and that the organizations in my city do, but unfortunately the big news organizations who care more about getting numbers to their ridiculous articles often drown out the grassroots voices. It's hard to reach everyone, but believe me, I'm trying. Which is why I respond to threads like this - I know it's only one post in one message board on the world wide web, but I hope that I can let a few people know that when it comes to politicized movements like this, you often have to do a lot of the deeper digging on your own to get to the truth of the theory and movement. 

But I think we agree with everything you've said.

I also want to be clear that I don't think feminism is some untouchable idea that has done no wrong - I think there have been a lot of problematic parts of feminism, a lot of which was part of the 1st and 2nd wave movements - eugenics; exclusion of women of colour; exclusion of lesbian, bisexual, and trans women; lesbian separatism, heirachy of oppressions; pushing for rights of white, middle class women. I just think a lot of the stuff you're talking about comes from mainstream media's tendency to sensationalize feminism. 

I've tried to be careful to locate myself as a mainstream, third wave, Canadian/North American feminist who works in a feminist organization and does a lot of volunteer/activist work on the side.

I'm going to suggest we move this discussion to the debate forum rather than continue to derail this thread:
http://personalitycafe.com/debate-forum/89314-feminism-good-bad-29.html


----------



## topix (Apr 11, 2012)

Enfpleasantly said:


> The difference is, this is consensual; I am talking about cheating...affairs. Fetishes are consensual and not cheating. Men and women cheat, but women are more likely to take back a cheating spouse (hetero affair).
> Men Will Forgive Cheating…As Long as It’s With Another Woman | NewsFeed | TIME.com


 The part of the survey where respondents are asked of hypothetical scenarios implies that women are a little less tolerant, but the bottom says that men were less tolerant when actual experiences were discussed, so that's probably more credible. That's interesting. While fetishes are a mostly male domain, they often if not usually come about as a way one copes with a hardship, so I've wondered how the coping aspect for cheating came into play for women, considering that men cheat at least a little more, and this must be it. I would think that men are more friendly toward non-monogamous behavior overall.




> The reason they are attracted to these physical features is because the women who possess them are typically of child bearing age...in order to meet their instinctual pull to spread their seed for procreation.


I disagree about those type of speculations professionals make about prehistoric creatures, namely humanoids. First off, no man would ever think, "Ooh, she has wide hips / she's young, so she'd be good at making babies." Why wouldn't women have just evolved the capacity to bear children at later age? What's the evolutionary explanation for most men's attraction to high heels? Or women to singers? I think man's attraction to feminine traits, and woman to masculine, in a more subjective sense has a lot more to do with it.





> The point is, on an instinctual level, a man who has money or a good job could be attractive to a woman as a potential mate because he will be a good provider for the woman and her offspring. Ancient male ancestors showed strength and aggression for protection, good hunting abilities to provide food, etc. which indicated they would be a good mate.


The money and power angle make sense, but I'll go back to age except with men this time. Younger men, at least adults, will be better hunters and protectors than older men, yet women are usually more attracted to older males. It's just another reason I'm skeptical of these speculations of ancient creatures.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Don't you women realise how hard men have it? I am man, hear me whine about not getting as much sex as I want!

You know you're a member of the privileged sex when the worst "oppression" you face is that the other sex won't have sex with you. As for attempting to blame women for the sex trade, the porn industry and strip clubs because they are "not putting out" (what a disgusting phrase) is pathetic. Seriously, some of the men posting in this thread are complete and utter losers, crying about not getting sex as if they are actually being oppressed or downtrodden. Try being a woman, or homosexual, or an ethnic minority for a day and we'll see if you're still whining about the most trivial of things then.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

topix said:


> The part of the survey where respondents are asked of hypothetical scenarios implies that women are a little less tolerant, but the bottom says that men were less tolerant when actual experiences were discussed, so that's probably more credible. That's interesting. While fetishes are a mostly male domain, they often if not usually come about as a way one copes with a hardship, so I've wondered how the coping aspect for cheating came into play for women, considering that men cheat at least a little more, and this must be it. I would think that men are more friendly toward non-monogamous behavior overall.
> 
> 
> I disagree about those type of speculations professionals make about prehistoric creatures, namely humanoids. First off, no man would ever think, "Ooh, she has wide hips / she's young, so she'd be good at making babies." Why wouldn't women have just evolved the capacity to bear children at later age? What's the evolutionary explanation for most men's attraction to high heels? Or women to singers? I think man's attraction to feminine traits, and woman to masculine, in a more subjective sense has a lot more to do with it.
> ...


Wow, delayed response much?? Look, your argument is not with me, it's with science. Women are attracted to established men (young or old) which is equivalent to a skilled hunter back in early history...someone who can provide. I have a feeling you know this...you just want to troll. So like I said, argue with science.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

If women did put out, we'd just have different problems. Not necessarily higher quality problems.

For example, it might be difficult to find fathers, if guys could get it anywhere. I'm not saying that's what motivates men to stay in a relationship... just I could see it threatening stable relationships. A man goes to a friend's place for a party or something, and has a weak moment. Those sorts of things would be magnified if there were more women providing.

It is what it is, just have to deal with it.

I've recommended to a friend of mine that he should look into finding legalized prostitution, or somewhat safe prostitution. He's 27 and never had sex. He doesn't want a girlfriend either because he sees what a pain they would be. He wants to have sex because when he's around his mates they'll talk about this or that sex related which he's never experienced... it's become a pretty huge psychological confidence hurtle for him. He tried in the past to get a girlfriend when he did want one, but that was doomed to failure because of his personality. ISFJ that's extremely shy.


----------



## JackParrish (May 5, 2012)

Humans, in general, are pretty into sexuality. I mean, if you take the bell curve of the entire population over time, there's a lot of sexuality there. In almost any society, you have ways that develop for people to "live their one life in a pleasurable way". The issue is more about society, and why society makes some things taboo and not other things. 

We're humans. We like to have sex. There will always be interest, economics, societal pressures, and "bootlegging" interacting on these issues. I think we're all more than free to choose how we interact with these things--to participate or to abstain. I think it's best to make sure no one is being harmed, but it's also important not to make everyone involved sound like a victim. As with all things, there is a middle ground.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

Cetanu said:


> I am a 22 year old, handsome, intelligent young man and I've considered seeing a prostitute (more than once) because I am starved of affection in general.
> I have not gone ahead with it yet because of the financial aspect and risk of addiction.
> 
> As a male I feel like I'm not allowed to be sexual with women.


or maybe..- you've considered seeing a prostitute.. because you describe _yourself_ as a handsome intelligent young man.

think about it.

some of the responses in this forum increase my conviction in what i already know- women are much more mature than men. the response of many men to not getting enough sex is not to wander how they can better themselves further to _deserve_ more opportunities and to understand women better, but to imply women aren't generous enough with their sexual handouts.. well those selfish bitches!


----------



## Anthoric (May 31, 2012)

Eh, the reason it makes big bucks its because it's on demand sex, you know, sex on the customers terms, rather than that person having to work out a mutual agreement with another person. Combine that with people seeing sex as a need and all the social bullshit people put others through....

To qoute a qoute I don't think I'll ever forget...

"Sex is proof God has a twisted sense of humor."


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Razare said:


> I've recommended to a friend of mine that he should look into finding legalized prostitution, or somewhat safe prostitution. He's 27 and never had sex. He doesn't want a girlfriend either because he sees what a pain they would be. He wants to have sex because when he's around his mates they'll talk about this or that sex related which he's never experienced... it's become a pretty huge psychological confidence hurtle for him. He tried in the past to get a girlfriend when he did want one, but that was doomed to failure because of his personality. ISFJ that's extremely shy.


Why would a girlfriend be a pain to him? If he's shy, help him to build his confidence and self-esteem. It's quite sad that he feels pressured into wanting sex just because of peer pressure, though.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Erm... By the very nature of the sex industry; surely women do "put out" as t'were *shrugs*.


----------



## topix (Apr 11, 2012)

Enfpleasantly said:


> Wow, delayed response much?? Look, your argument is not with me, it's with science. Women are attracted to established men (young or old) which is equivalent to a skilled hunter back in early history...someone who can provide. I have a feeling you know this...you just want to troll. So like I said, argue with science.


I forgot to apologize for the late response. You're calling me a troll? Fighting words. Where does that allegation come from? I was disagreeing with certain assertions that these professionals were making, and only secondly that you implied agreement with them; I don't often blame someone for believing something an alleged expert in an area says, and here I think a fair bit of these speculations about ancient creatures take advantage of the fact that we can't unequivocally prove them wrong.

Moving on, calling the assertions about ancient humanoids in question to be "science" means that they're proven. I'm quite curious how complex thought for species long dead can be proven fact, so please cite an article explaining so. That is, specifically on the thoughts of attraction of ancient humanoid species regarding attraction.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Tridentus said:


> or maybe..- you've considered seeing a prostitute.. because you describe _yourself_ as a handsome intelligent young man.
> 
> think about it.
> 
> some of the responses in this forum increase my conviction in what i already know- women are much more mature than men. the response of many men to not getting enough sex is not to wander how they can better themselves further to _deserve_ more opportunities and to understand women better, but to imply women aren't generous enough with their sexual handouts.. well those selfish bitches!


Yes, I've considered seeing a prostitute _purely_ based on my description of myself.










WRONG.
The reason I considered seeing a prostitute was simple. I thought that based on Maslow's heirarchy of needs:








If I did not have sex or affection in general on a somewhat regular basis, I would have less of a chance at higher concepts such as self-esteem, creativity and such things as you can see in the above image.

A little slice of my personal cheesecake: I move quickly in real life. If you see a post from me that is more than 3 weeks old I have moved on from the thought, resolved it, corrected it, destroyed it or whatever other expression you want to imagine.

I've been celibant for the last couple of months on purpose. Has it been difficult? Not at all. You should try it.
Do I care about sex any more? Not really. Do I still drop a few IQ points when there's a woman with nice looks around? Haha of course! Hopefully I can correct this soon, unless it is organic.

What I can observe about sex and the world in general is that most of the time when the act occurs it is not filled with love... It is filled with lust!
My own previous experience as a man having a one night stand or sex with someone that I do not have my heart or at least commitment invested into is extremely affectionate pre-orgasm and then detached and disinterested post-orgasm.
What causes this? I do wonder but I don't know the answer and neither do you so do not assume that your initial thought is the truth.
One could speculate that it is because of a loss of vitality and sexual energy / energy in general from ejaculation / male orgasm. At least that is what is generally implied or even asserted in tantric texts. I tend to go along with this belief.
So I am actually completely disinterested in sex of the physical-only kind at this point in time. I only want to make love to a partner who loves me, understands me, cares about me, takes care of my needs and the most important thing: VICE VERSA.
Otherwise I am just wasting precious semen (this is likely an obscene thing to say however may I say that I believe it is relevant because in eastern cultures it is said or speculated that 1 drop of semen is equivalent to 10 drops of blood in terms of vitality) on someone that I don't really care about, who is going to feel bad about themselves even if unconsciously for sleeping with someone that either they do not care about or does not care about them at least not in the abstract sense and what is really the point in that?
At some point we all really need to stop before every desire and choice we have and really ask... Why? Really, why?
If the reason is not good enough... Go find something else worth putting your heart into.

Don't reply to this post, I hate this subforum... PM me if you wish to continue discussion.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Why would a girlfriend be a pain to him?



Because relationships ARE a pain.
You get a girlfriend and she spends the whole time trying to get you to change, and if you do change they dump you because you're too boring, now. If you don't change, the relationship lasts longer, but she's bitching at you to change the whole fucking time.

Keeping a girlfriend is a lot of fucking work for the average guy. I don't think enough women realize just how much work it is. I'm not asking for a fucking medal, here, but a little more appreciation for those good guys who keep working at it would be nice. They've got my respect, as little as that matters, because it's just far too much work imo.

It's like watching someone push a boulder up a hill.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

@Cetanu

WOW. just wow. on second thoughts, don't bother thinking about it, that would clearly be wasted time on you, just continue down the path you're going and you'll do just fine. you sure did prove _me_ wrong with your insightful intelligence and keen logical mind! way to go buddy!

what's that expression.. about the point flying over someone's head or something like that?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Cheveyo said:


> Because relationships ARE a pain.
> You get a girlfriend and she spends the whole time trying to get you to change, and if you do change they dump you because you're too boring, now. If you don't change, the relationship lasts longer, but she's bitching at you to change the whole fucking time.
> 
> Keeping a girlfriend is a lot of fucking work for the average guy. I don't think enough women realize just how much work it is. I'm not asking for a fucking medal, here, but a little more appreciation for those good guys who keep working at it would be nice. They've got my respect, as little as that matters, because it's just far too much work imo.
> ...


You're just generalising and assuming that all women are the same.


----------



## armika_armika (Nov 11, 2011)

intjdude said:


> He was talking about it in reference to porn where seeing many naked bodies has that effect. ie. releases dopamine each time


And porn has the same physical effect on women as on men.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Tridentus said:


> @Cetanu
> 
> WOW. just wow. on second thoughts, don't bother thinking about it, that would clearly be wasted time on you, just continue down the path you're going and you'll do just fine. you sure did prove _me_ wrong with your insightful intelligence and keen logical mind! way to go buddy!
> 
> what's that expression.. about the point flying over someone's head or something like that?


I'm pretty sure you didn't read my post. See the last sentence.

If you respond to this within this thread you will land directly onto my ignore list.

Oh and also, your failure to express a point is not at all my problem.
Don't quote my post in future unless you're going to speak about things you yourself understand.


----------

