# How do you react to women who are very sexual?



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Of course you're the OP Kalei lol (I clicked on bottom from another thread and was wondering who was asking).



Reality Check said:


> That said, if they are talking about actual sex, what they enjoy etc, no probs. But if they are continually talking about say a person, lets say an ex and how much she enjoyed the ex. I'm not really interested.





Purple Skies said:


> You can be a very sexual person without displaying it. I think it depends on when they display it, whether it makes sense or not, given the context. If a dirty song comes on in a party, it's not weird to me to see a women being sexual... I'd see it as her having fun actually but if it's random, I'm quite confused by it. I had a friend once who, after I mentioned another friend of mine was seeing a guy who happened to be Asian, she said 'Aw, that's a shame, she's gonna be dissatisfied in the bedroom' and I remember thinking why the hell would that be the first thing you think of, like are you sexually frustrated or something? I don't like to be around people like that cause it's hard to have a normal conversation with them without it turning sexual.





Tropes said:


> I like and respect it as long as it's mature, by which I mean that you have made peace with the possible social consequences and have made a conscious choice that you are willing to navigate a life that will have those.
> 
> That means that if you are open in showing interest, you might get openly rejected.
> If you enjoy playful flirting, people might interpret it as interest, signal the differences.
> ...


Agree with all of the above. But really I find it too broad of a question, because it is very contextual. Something I thought of with @Tropes' post is women who are exaggerating how sxual they are either to appeal to men or try to compete with them to prove a point (maybe more to themselves) that they are "equals" or something. Usually this is based on a superficial idea of gender-based behaviors, such as assuming that they're acting more 'like a man' and will therefore be respected more or something if only they weren't seen as a woman. So it can backfire and then you have this immaturity of "geez everyone judges me, I just can't win" and those types of responses Tropes described. Then they go into a cycle of internalized sexism and projection, and are clearly overly obsessed with their image, which is pretty off-putting along with the contrived sexuality. 

Now that that's out of the way... if it's in an honest and mature way I usually appreciate it, where I agree with Reality Check is I don't like to hear about other men and like, "you know what this guy did with me in bed?" in great sexual detail, especially when I know both of them. *cringes* But I'd much rather be exposed to more open opinions or thoughts from different women than have to resort to mind reading, which tends to just lead to ignorance. There are enough myths, overgeneralizations and misconceptions out there as it is (pretty sure I've made it apparent in other threads that those things irritate me :tongue

So... yeah, prefer openness as long as it's handled in an adult way. I don't really encounter strangers who just out of nowhere start discussing sex lol, so dunno how to address that (I'd imagine that'd have to be creepy?). I'm thinking more friends/acquaintances (PerC and online sources count too). If it's someone I'm actually attracted to, it's very attractive. Intimidating? Not really, unless she seems to be doing it to test the waters because she likes me and I don't like her back. I guess in that case it's equivalent to that post earlier about being asexual and not being sure how to interpret it.. lol.


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

kaleidoscope said:


> Is it off-putting? Intriguing? Intimidating? Attractive?
> 
> I've had people react to my being a really sexual person differently - especially on here - but the primary thing that is expressed is how _intimidating_ it is. What's intimidating about it? Help me understand.
> 
> _(Not necessarily making this a personal thread, though that's fine as well)_


Intriguing and if they're attractive, it's attractive.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Fuck 'em (literally)


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

I'm fine with it among friends as long as the boundaries with myself are pretty clear.
@*kaleidoscope* 

I always have this concern that if I get close to female friends they will want to try something sexual with me (since it has happened a lot, and spoiled a lot of nice memories), which completely destroys my presumption of what the friendship was, which will be a big loss to me (this is a stereotypical concern for women, not men I know). This goes back throughout my life since I was around 15.

Thing is, I've always been attracted to the more introverted type since I can remember, and I am completely decisive about what my type is, and I've always really enjoyed friendships with girls/women without needing sexual attraction (I can appreciate a good looking girl, but I always need intimacy), they felt more natural to me lots of the time, especially during my teen years when guys are egotistical as fuck around other guys. However, if I develop any sort of connection with a girl, they tend to often want more... And in my experiences sexually open girls are the most likely of them all, but it's even more confusing because they're more likely just to be ok with a one-off thing, which is not _my_ thing, I just want to enjoy the joy of a human connection and have that makes me feel more connected and fulfilled with life.

It gets to the point where I keep my distance a little from girls that I develop a friendship with sometimes, and especially girls who are very open that I get along with. It really pisses me off tbh, because I wish I could just enjoy the connection as-is, but it just happens all too often where there's a moment where I realise what she's thinking, and the connection just wobbles away in quiet disappointment.

I mean, it is a bit of a "1st world problem", but I'm not kidding- it's a genuinely deep-seated frustration in my life that limits my social life from what it could be.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

It is offputting, unless their personality seems to be the opposite of their direct behavior. My best girl friend is like the sweetest, most girl next door pure type person you'll meet, but she is very affectionate, and sexual affection and more traditional affection aren't really separated in the way she works. It is very fluid and natural with her.

Overdirectness as a personality trait is more what would be offputting, I suppose.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Ashie said:


> With skepticism.
> 
> Same reaction for very sexual men, if it matters.
> 
> Being very sexual, like in private, is one thing but if it is brought to my attention it's like, why do I need to know this? Why do you want me (and whoever else is around) to hear or see this? Why do you want people you aren't going to have sex with to think of you as _very_ sexual?


I suppose context seems to matter - if it's off topic, forced, or deliberately brought to people's attention for no reason, it's off-putting, right? I totally hear you on that, and I think I could replace "sexual" with any quality if that is the case, like people who choose to rub their wealthiness in your face, for example. 



Sensational said:


> Ok so all that said of course there are lines. I mean I have seen some very tacky women who throw themselves at men but I would not even say its always women with sexual presence sometimes its just women with no shame. But in the cases of the women who abuse the sexual presence I think having sexual presence does come with power. With power does come responsibility. At least if one wants to be a decent person. Meaning knowing how to bloackade attention in certain instances. I feel a resposnibility for example to tone down any sexual presence I may have in environment which is solely couples and I am a guest. Why because I like to think I have class in that way at least. I have seen women with alot of sexual presence abuse that power to garner attention where it is unwarranted and cause like relationship tension with people and stuff. Thats just not very nice.
> 
> If you got it flaunt it. But also know when to play the game and when to turn it off. All about appropriation in this case.


Great post Sensational! I relate to you so much, and I'm wondering if part of this - women's jealousy or insecurity - is why I don't tend to have as many female friends, but that's another topic. I do think there is a time and a place, and context definitely matters. Question for you, if you are able to answer: how do you tone down your sexuality? I know a big part of this for me is body language, and I don't really have as much control over that as I'd like to. 



drmiller100 said:


> I'm attracted to power, to confidence, to assertive.
> 
> If you are sexual, and own it, and have the depth to carry it when pushed on a bit, OMFG.
> 
> ...


I like your style!

What does "depth" mean? Do you mean their personality?


----------



## Ashie (Sep 4, 2016)

Yeah, if your body language is automatically sexual and you _can't seem to turn it off_, I will find it off-putting. It wasn't always, but then I made close friends with a girl who was like this and now I see it as a thin veneer over a pit of absolute despair.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

They tend to only want coitus - sexual favors (or) to play _psychological mental_ *mind-games * (&) waste time. I could've been elsewhere.

-- That has been my experience with female-sacs w/ _high-functioning _sexuality early on + flaunting it all over bi-romantic / bisexual women. Strip right in front of me like a deprived non-neutred K9 (&) invites the boyfriend to watch. Never lasts too long in term(s) of substance (&) poor conversationalists + lacking in intellectual substance; nothing lasts -- as I expect -- unless she is a Lesbian. You can always count on them to be at least _bi-romantics_. They are like male(s) with low-self drives. The rest of 'em -- _Nothing to see here_ [best to be cautious] + look out for psychological sadists.


----------



## mangodelic psycho (Jan 12, 2015)

I go bar hopping with them.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Of course you're the OP Kalei lol (I clicked on bottom from another thread and was wondering who was asking).


:laughing: That alone should be enough to explain to people why I'm making this thread, lol. 



> Agree with all of the above. But really I find it too broad of a question, because it is very contextual. Something I thought of with @*Tropes*' post is women who are exaggerating how sxual they are either to appeal to men or try to compete with them to prove a point (maybe more to themselves) that they are "equals" or something. Usually this is based on a superficial idea of gender-based behaviors, such as assuming that they're acting more 'like a man' and will therefore be respected more or something if only they weren't seen as a woman. So it can backfire and then you have this immaturity of "geez everyone judges me, I just can't win" and those types of responses Tropes described. Then they go into a cycle of internalized sexism and projection, and are clearly overly obsessed with their image, which is pretty off-putting along with the contrived sexuality.


This is a good observation, I've never thought of it as a competition, but it could very well be the motivation behind some people's expression of sexuality. I personally don't relate, but it might resonate with some. 



> So... yeah, prefer openness as long as it's handled in an adult way. I don't really encounter strangers who just out of nowhere start discussing sex lol, so dunno how to address that (I'd imagine that'd have to be creepy?). I'm thinking more friends/acquaintances (PerC and online sources count too). If it's someone I'm actually attracted to, it's very attractive. Intimidating? Not really, unless she seems to be doing it to test the waters because she likes me and I don't like her back. I guess in that case it's equivalent to that post earlier about being asexual and not being sure how to interpret it.. lol.


Makes sense. Now I wonder what the difference is between people who do and don't find it intimidating. @*DAPHNE LXIV* and I were discussing this - when she wasn't trolling me - and she mentioned the idea of some men being insecure about a sexual woman if they're looking at all the competition they would have to deal with, and getting discouraged.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Tridentus said:


> I'm fine with it among friends as long as the boundaries with myself are pretty clear.
> @*kaleidoscope*
> 
> I always have this concern that if I get close to female friends they will want to try something sexual with me (since it has happened a lot, and spoiled a lot of nice memories), which completely destroys my presumption of what the friendship was, which will be a big loss to me (this is a stereotypical concern for women, not men I know). This goes back throughout my life since I was around 15.
> ...


I relate so much to these parts of your post, wow. So Im not a unicorn :laughing: 

Maybe it depends on the woman...? So maybe you (we) have to pursue friendships with women who have high standards and/or are already taken, so your odds of them being into you are lowered. (I'm serious). 



kaleidoscope said:


> :laughing: That alone should be enough to explain to people why I'm making this thread, lol.


What do you mean? Because you want to know why some people click when they see the title? :tongue:


> Makes sense. Now I wonder what the difference is between people who do and don't find it intimidating. @*DAPHNE LXIV* and I were discussing this - when she wasn't trolling me - and she mentioned the idea of some men being insecure about a sexual woman if they're looking at all the competition they would have to deal with, and getting discouraged.


I don't know, if I'm insecure it's very internal. Not like "she's intimidating" it'd be more like "I can't compete, I'm so lame" (or whatever adjective is appropriate). Maybe that's the difference, if it's externalized or not?

Intimidation (in this context) is something I associate more with boundaries being violated. Like if someone is being too open or 'friendly'. And then I don't know how to react and mostly want to run away...lol.


----------



## Ashie (Sep 4, 2016)

Tridentus said:


> Thing is, I've always been attracted to the more introverted type since I can remember, and I am completely decisive about what my type is, and I've always really enjoyed friendships with girls/women without needing sexual attraction (I can appreciate a good looking girl, but I always need intimacy), they felt more natural to me lots of the time, especially during my teen years when guys are egotistical as fuck around other guys. However, if I develop any sort of connection with a girl, they tend to often want more... And in my experiences sexually open girls are the most likely of them all, but it's even more confusing because they're more likely just to be ok with a one-off thing, which is not _my_ thing, I just want to enjoy the joy of a human connection and have that makes me feel more connected and fulfilled with life.


I avoided friendships with men I find attractive because I always ended up wanting more. So then I tried being friends with men I didn't find attractive, and they wanted more from me. My most solid friendships have been with other women, faithfully married men, or men where there is a mutual and absolute lack of attraction. Anything else is asking for trouble.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

kaleidoscope said:


> Great post Sensational! Question for you, if you are able to answer: how do you tone down your sexuality? I know a big part of this for me is body language, and I don't really have as much control over that as I'd like to.


TY

I would say it is alot in body language. Um I do not think you have the same solution for turning it down tho as me. Just thinking like the ENFPs I know well ENFPS are kind of so so just naturally attractive in that way. I could tell you what I do but I doubt that works for you. Does not apply any makeup which highlights positive features, might not bother to even brush hair, puts on ball cap, possibly wears baggy pant, does not make eye contact with any males in room aside from basic greeting. Stays by the women. 

So you could dress like an unrefined trucker and be antisocial :tongue:


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

ninjahitsawall said:


> What do you mean? Because you want to know why some people click when they see the title? :tongue:


LOL no, but that people would guess I was OP because of the title. :ninja:



> I don't know, if I'm insecure it's very internal. Not like "she's intimidating" it'd be more like "I can't compete, I'm so lame" (or whatever adjective is appropriate). Maybe that's the difference, if it's externalized or not?


Right, and I suppose what's more intimidating is the competition and feeling like you can't stand out enough to impress someone like that? It's less a negative feeling associated with a sexual woman, and more with the excessive attention she may get. 



Sensational said:


> TY
> 
> I would say it is alot in body language. Um I do not think you have the same solution for turning it down tho as me. Just thinking like the ENFPs I know well ENFPS are kind of so so just naturally attractive in that way. I could tell you what I do but I doubt that works for you. Does not apply any makeup which highlights positive features, might not bother to even brush hair, puts on ball cap, possibly wears baggy pant, does not make eye contact with any males in room aside from basic greeting. Stays by the women.
> 
> So you could dress like an unrefined trucker and be antisocial :tongue:


LOL! Honestly, my hair is naturally messy and I only wear eyeliner, with the _occasional_ lipstick if I'm going out. My clothes also aren't really what you'd consider provocative.. I would say body language for me is how friendly/warm I can come across when I'm intrigued by someone, and the intense focus that results from my interest in them. I give them undivided attention, I'm fascinated and playful, and I think people misconstrue that as romantic interest. Does that make sense?

I should probably make a thread about this..


----------



## Perso Uno (Sep 9, 2016)

It depends on context. 

If friends are sitting around and talking then sex is more than likely going to become the focal point of a discussion. That's normal and can be illuminating sometimes. 

If it's a male stranger that starts getting into it the only thing I can think of is "Look at me! I'm talking about sex because I want to prove that I have a big, usable dick!". 

Female strangers that start talking about sex makes me think:
1) Are you a prostitute? 
2) She doesn't seem like a prostitute. God damn I'm a sexy beast. 


Lol all jokes aside: I don't react very strongly to it. It does perk me up a little bit though, except when guys start talking about it. Then it's weird for me. I can only see it as try-hard when another guy that I don't know starts talking to me about women. 


On the other hand, I tend to go cold on women that refuse to talk about sex or are even the least bit sexual. Always pass on a prude. Always. 
The next woman of my dreams is at peace with her sexuality.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

my reaction would depend on the situation, my relationship to the woman, my feelings, and her appearance, so I can't give you a simple answer, except to say her behavior must be _appropriate _or else it will be off-putting...so a woman who comes on too strong, too early will turn me off; in fact, she will get friends-with-benefits-zoned...most women don't come on too strong, but they do come on too early to try to create attraction, and I find their efforts are usually quite clumsy and exaggerated, which defeats their intended purpose because they are _forced _and _unnatural_

for me, the right time to express your sexuality is when you're ready to be sexual--then, it's natural...but until then, you are only using it to manipulate me, and that's not nice 

which is why I never respond to attempts to _manufacture _attraction...I refuse to think with anything except the head on my shoulders


----------



## Acrylic (Dec 14, 2015)

Ashie said:


> With skepticism.
> 
> Same reaction for very sexual men, if it matters.
> 
> Being very sexual, like in private, is one thing but if it is brought to my attention it's like, why do I need to know this? Why do you want me (and whoever else is around) to hear or see this? Why do you want people you aren't going to have sex with to think of you as _very_ sexual?


If someone is anarchistic, should they mold their speech to fit better with societal norms? If someone is pessimistic or somber, should they never wear goth clothing? If someone is funny, should they never kid around?

Those are traits inherent to the makeup of a person, and if they were being true to themselves, they can't help but show that in some way, shape or form. Sex is no different. To some, it's a routine thing that's only thought about when it comes up. To others, it's a window in human psychology that they are enamored with and like to explore... and that interest in it is inherent enough to their person that it seeps through as an immediately recognizable 'aura' they give off.

Why should sex be any different from any other trait? 

The reason it is, is because of the puritanical past America has which has deeply embedded in society that sex is 'naughty' and even so much as acknowledging anything to do with it in public is 'uncouth'. This is a notion that Europe has completely shedded, but in America, is still largely there due to half of the country still being very religious. So this notion of repressing natural aspects of humanity, a relic of times before the Age of Enlightenment, remains.



Ashie said:


> Yeah, if your body language is automatically sexual and you _can't seem to turn it off_, I will find it off-putting. It wasn't always, but then I made close friends with a girl who was like this and now I see it as a thin veneer over a pit of absolute despair.


Is one girl a good representative sample size for hundreds of millions of people? 

I know a lot of sexual people, and they're just about the most intelligent, enlightened people I know.


----------



## Acrylic (Dec 14, 2015)

Ashie said:


> With skepticism.
> 
> Same reaction for very sexual men, if it matters.
> 
> Being very sexual, like in private, is one thing but if it is brought to my attention it's like, why do I need to know this? Why do you want me (and whoever else is around) to hear or see this? Why do you want people you aren't going to have sex with to think of you as _very_ sexual?


I want to add a quote from one of America's most quoted philosophers.

__________________________


Express yourself, don't repress yourself

You wouldn't let me say the words I longed to say
You didn't want to see life through my eyes
You tried to shove me back inside your narrow room
And silence me with bitterness and lies
You punished me for telling you my fantasies
I'm breakin' all the rules I didn't make
You took my words and made a trap for silly fools
You held me down and tried to make me break

Did I say something wrong?
Oops, I didn't know I couldn't talk about sex (musta been crazy)
Did I say something true?
Oops, I didn't know I couldn't speak my mind (what was I thinking)

And I'm not sorry (I'm not apologizing)
It's human nature (would it sound better if I were a man?)
And I'm not sorry (you're the one with the problem)
It's human nature (I have no regrets)
And I'm not sorry (we all feel the same way)
It's human nature (I don't have to justify anything)
I'm not your bitch don't hang your shit on me (deal with it)

Express yourself, don't repress yourself


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> ...so a woman who comes on too strong, too early will turn me off; in fact, she will get friends-with-benefits-zoned...


Lol at friends-with-benefits-zoned. Never heard that one before but you'd think it would be more popular.



kaleidoscope said:


> LOL no, but that people would guess I was OP because of the title. :ninja:


Haha... I actually didn't think of you specifically. For some reason I was picturing a noob member and an introvert (maybe an INFP) asking for advice about why they're getting negative responses from men. But then I came here and was like "oh duh".



> Right, and I suppose what's more intimidating is the competition and feeling like you can't stand out enough to impress someone like that? It's less a negative feeling associated with a sexual woman, and more with the excessive attention she may get.


Yeah, assuming I wanted to pursue anything. What I'm more likely to do is not bother 'competing' at all if it seems like I have to compete that hard (even if my competition is largely sleazebags lol). Also, if I put romance prospects to the side and can't have a good conversation and there's no significant chemistry, I attribute it to (inconvenient) lust/infatuation and don't bother. xD

I don't feel the need to impress someone just because of the fact they are being sexual, though, since a woman being sexual doesn't automatically make me sexually attracted to her. But I'd say it's possible that is the case sometimes.. which would explain men who find it intimidating in a more general sense (if they then feel the need to compete for attention).

It doesn't factor much into platonic situations, I think there are more relevant things there...unless she's overly prudish or overly sexual (sometimes those coincide :shocked. Because that kinda looks like insecurity and I don't care for having insecure friends either.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Maybe it depends on the woman...? So maybe you (we) have to pursue friendships with women who have high standards and/or are already taken, so your odds of them being into you are lowered. (I'm serious).


Yeah, this is something I actually do- I'm more likely to feel comfortable in friendships with girls who are taken, or girls I clearly sense have a very different type, or if that girl knows I'm dating someone or pursuing someone. I'm also not saying that I just avoid friendship connections with girls now, it's just that it gets tricky sometimes to navigate.

Actually, I forgot about it, but the one good thing about sexually confident girls is that if you get through that initial stage where either she clearly isn't going to show interest, or even if she does and you have to shut it down and she has the confidence to shake it off and not care so much, then you become truly platonic and the boundaries are all set so it's often easier to be free around the person because you understand each other. Less sexual girls take longer to reach that "zone", if at all.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Despotic Ocelot said:


> If that's not meant facetiously then that's pretty sad.
> 
> Crazy how absolutely farfetched assumptions like this actually take hold among people of other stances. It's like how right wingers and conservatives think that because liberals are pro choice, it's because they do abortions 'for fun'. Like it's a recreational activity. They extrapolate to something that asinine and ridiculous, because they start from "they are for killing lives, so that's probably because they think it's fun"
> 
> ...


I actually cant relate what you said about being sexual in front of your friends what so ever. And cant think of any situation from my own life it would be appropriate.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

I'm sort of surprised still how often public displays of affections are taken uncomfortably.


----------



## Aquiline (Oct 19, 2016)

Attracted, possibly intimidated depending on circumstances. While it's up to us to choose what to do about physical attraction, that attraction itself just happens. It also carries a lot of energy if you know how to use it.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> I'm sort of surprised still how often public displays of affections are taken uncomfortably.


Because it's not linked to times or culture or anything like that. It's still involving people in a sexual/intimate scene without their consent.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> I'm sort of surprised still how often public displays of affections are taken uncomfortably.





Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar said:


> Because it's not linked to times or culture or anything like that. It's still involving people in a sexual/intimate scene without their consent.


Yeah PDAs tend to make me cringe, that's an entirely different thing from a "woman who is very sexual", though (in terms of open discussions etc, to keep with the intended definition).


----------



## Ashie (Sep 4, 2016)

Despotic Ocelot said:


> Your claim is based on the notion of being at 'full bore', like if you had the speedometer on the car at the highest mph it can possibly go 24/7.
> 
> That is not how "pushing one's boundaries" is meant lol. This kind of dovetails with Reality Check's statement I replied to in my previous post... where he thinks people who express sexuality "beat off in front of each other" and "if that's what you want to do, it's your business". These jumping to extreme conclusions is not what is being implied in my posts lololol.


You are the one that said going to Burning Man is 



> kind of equivalent to 'hanging out with friends'


You didn't _imply_ anything. There was nothing to "read into". The extreme conclusion/comparison is all yours.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

I just meant public displays of affection as in like, flirting and stuff


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> I just meant public displays of affection as in like, flirting and stuff


Personally I wouldn't class flirting as a PDA.

I would of classed hugging, kissing and shagging in public as PDA.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

I'm not easily intimidated by anyone or weirded out by them.

It wouldn't bother me at all lol.

People are who they are.


----------



## Acrylic (Dec 14, 2015)

Reality Check said:


> I actually cant relate what you said about being sexual in front of your friends what so ever. And cant think of any situation from my own life it would be appropriate.


That's fine. I'm just saying I hope the previous post you made was facetious. Cause it sounded pretty crazy, so one would assume it was facetious... but the whole post sounded like it was being serious, so there's a chance it was meant seriously. 

So it's like when Bill O'Reilly said "you can have 3 guys get married, you can marry a turtle" and just jumping to extreme, farfetched conclusions like that. He's conservative, but he's so disapproving of liberals that to him, it makes sense to extrapolate to ridiculous stuff like that because that's probably what they do anyway. That's unrealistic and myopic.



Reality Check said:


> I actually cant relate what you said about being sexual in front of your friends what so ever. And cant think of any situation from my own life it would be appropriate.


If you want a point of reference, look through this forum we're in... and anytime someone is joking with another person on something they said... there you go. Since the topic of this forum is Sex & Relationships... that is inevitably going to happen. Just look in the sexual confessions thread for starters.


----------



## Acrylic (Dec 14, 2015)

Ashie said:


> You are the one that said going to Burning Man is
> 
> You didn't _imply_ anything. There was nothing to "read into". The extreme conclusion/comparison is all yours.


Ok, there's misconstruing here. This is what I meant by that... 



Reality Check said:


> But if you hang round with your friends and start beating one off in front of each other or whatever it is you do (Its your business at the end of the day) then cool each to their own.


That's ridiculous. That's the jumping to extreme conclusions I was talk about. So when you said this...



Ashie said:


> It's nice to take a break once in awhile, let loose, but everything gets old and tired if you do it too much. Even pushing boundaries.


That's kind of in the same 'vein' as his quote... in that you're looking at it this like 'frat boy', 'drunk and crazy every minute of every day' etc kind of way.

So I said "you guys are looking at what I said completely incorrectly" lol. I said one thing... and because of the inherent stigma attached to it, you are taking what I said, and starting from the most extreme and farfetched possible extrapolation of it. So an example would be is, if people are talking about marriage rights for gays... Bill O'Reilly, since he's conservative, and very wary of the liberal viewpoint that stems from, he takes that claim... and extrapolates to the extreme assumption of "so your ulterior motive is you want to be able to have 3 men get married, is that right? you want to marry turtles, right?"

That's the tone you guys have in your replies lol. So in my reply to you, I tried to clarify what I meant by what I said... and to separate it from the extrapolation you guys are making. I tried to make a clear distinction between them. 

If the distinction wasn't understood yet... for example, going off of Reality Check's last post, it looks like the distinction wasn't clarified well enough for him, and he's still hung up on 'buzzwords' I used in my post... I don't really want to try to clarify it any further. I'll just chalk it up to people from very different societies, and one of them is at an impasse in trying to comprehend the other. I was reminded in posting in this thread that half of the country is very conservative lol... it's easy to forget that one is in a 'bubble'.

But your post (Ashie) seemed like you just misconstrued what my post was replying to. You seemed to think I was talking about the part that said "hanging out with friend", which I wasn't. That's completely unrelated to what I'm even talking about lol. I was talking about the tone you and Reality Check had in your replies to me. But if you want a reply to that part... yea, it's the same, since it is like hanging out with friends, that's kind of the point of the thing lol. But again... it has nothing to do what I was saying in my last post.

I was trying to make a distinction between things... you're kind of thinking of this 'frat boy', 'drunk and crazy' kind of thing when I talk... and you're not familiar with the thing I'm talking about... so I was trying to convey that, and make the distinction between the two.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

It depends upon mode of presentation. 

People who act in a seductive fashion tend to get tagged as weak and manipulative when I meet them. Seduction as a behavior pattern is one I find quite objectionable. I just don't like the "taste" of it, and see it as an affront to my cold iron rational grip on things. I don't like it when guys do it either, for the record. If I see a smooth-talking ladies man looking to get laid all the time, I assume he has problems gratifying his own ego, and is thus a weakling. Seduction is a weak person trying for power over someone else. If what a female really wants is the sex, then just go up to 10 attractive males and say, calmly but cheerfully, "You look great, wanna fuck?" Probably won't get to 4 or 5.

The other main pattern of highly sexual people I see are the hippies. The party boys and girls. I don't tag them as dishonest or manipulative; they'd be pretty likely to stroll up one day and casually ask a stranger for a poke in the bathroom. I just see them as somewhat... Bestial? Or basic, perhaps? When I see that person, I chuckle and think to myself "that apple didn't fall far from the primate tree."

Obviously there are exceptions, but I think these 2 categories adequately sum up my experience. 

Tl;Dr: I don't get intimidated by very sexual people. I do, however, sometimes have to try to contain some spontaneous disgust, or to not be a condescending ass to them. This is why I'm introverted; I'm secretly a huge buzzkill. Lol


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

I tend to like it, but I don't really show it or react to it. I usually just pretend to ignore it actually.


----------



## Acrylic (Dec 14, 2015)

Sovereign said:


> It depends upon mode of presentation.


Every 'mode' you presented was scolded strongly, so actually it doesn't depend on it since every one is disliked lol.

It would depend on it if you felt differently about them depending on which it was.



Sovereign said:


> People who act in a seductive fashion tend to get tagged as weak and manipulative when I meet them. Seduction as a behavior pattern is one I find quite objectionable. I just don't like the "taste" of it, and see it as an affront to my cold iron rational grip on things.


What if it's possible for you to be 'cold', and the other to be seductive... and for that to simply mark how two human beings operate and nothing more?

As opposed to... "I operate in way 'a', and this person operates in way 'b', therefore they are by definition manipulative and weak"

For you to say that, would be to attribute a 'universal standard' among all human beings, that states "you're either cold iron rational about things... or you are manipulative and weak"

So, if I could apply some of that 'rationality' to you... why should every one of the 7 billion human beings on Earth operate the exact same way you do? Should we do away with all of the MBTI types, and make only yours legal?



Sovereign said:


> Seduction is a weak person trying for power over someone else. If what a female really wants is the sex, then just go up to 10 attractive males and say, calmly but cheerfully, "You look great, wanna fuck?" Probably won't get to 4 or 5.


That sounds like an unbelievably drab and dismal world. Fuck everything else about life... all that matters is the the mere 'practical function' of a thing. 

Fuck the array of different foods out there, with the sweet and the ripe and the aromatic and the encrusted and the flavorful and the gingery and the honeyed and the nectarous and the satiny chocolaty tuxedo cake and the crisp splashes of sparkling white wine and the bucket full of a dizzying array of treats acquired while adventuring through Halloween......

No, fuck aaaaall of that, completely useless... all that matters is... am I hungry (click here for yes, click here for no) 

(clicks yes) 
(receives pile of gray generic tasteless mystery substance)
(removal of hunger... complete)
Time for the re-energizing period (goes to sleep without dreams)



Sovereign said:


> The other main pattern of highly sexual people I see are the hippies. The party boys and girls. I don't tag them as dishonest or manipulative; they'd be pretty likely to stroll up one day and casually ask a stranger for a poke in the bathroom. I just see them as somewhat... Bestial? Or basic, perhaps? When I see that person, I chuckle and think to myself "that apple didn't fall far from the primate tree."


In the spirit of being 'cold and rational' and all... can we see if this 'theory' holds up under scrutiny?

I volunteer myself for experiment lol. Please, pick a topic you like discussing, we'll have a debate on some aspect of it... and let's see how close or far from the tree I fell.

Oooh, oooh, wait, before we do that, let me state my own theory to be tested by this experiment as well... I think people who prescribe to an exceedingly minuscule 'swath' of human traits and abilities, pigeonhole and neuter themselves to such a drastic degree so as to be at an extreme disadvantage to a person who falls under a wider swath.

Ok... let's have an experiment and see which theory is right! In the name of cold rationality!  (I hope you're not feeling too manipulated)



Sovereign said:


> Tl;Dr: I don't get intimidated by very sexual people. I do, however, sometimes have to try to contain some spontaneous disgust, or to not be a condescending ass to them.


You're a drab one, Mr. Sovereign
Your heart's an empty hole
Your brain is full of spiders
You've got garlic in your soul
Mr. Sovereeeiiiign

I wouldn't touch you with a
................. thirty-nine-and-a-half foot poooooooooooooole

You're a rotter, Mr. Sovereign
You're the king of sinful sots
Your heart's a dead tomato splotched
With moldy purple spots
Mr. Sovereeeiiiign

Your soul is an appalling dump heap overflowing with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable rubbish imaginable
Mangled up in..... tangled up knooooooooooots

You're a foul one, Mr. Sovereign
You're a sour, sullen skunk
Your heart is full of unwashed socks
Your soul is full of gunk
Mr. Sovereeeeiiiign

The three words that best describe you are as follows, AND I QUOTE

GLUM
GRUMP
*SULK*


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Despotic Ocelot said:


> Every 'mode' you presented was scolded strongly, so actually it doesn't depend on it since every one is disliked lol.
> 
> It would depend on it if you felt differently about them depending on which it was.
> 
> ...


Why would you eat if it wasn't that you were hungry?

Also in order to stay fit and healthy, one needs to learn to stop giving into all these dopamine hits from food. It is not natural, it is manuafactured. I have never had one of those chocolate cakes you mentioned, but they are full of chemicals to keep people buying them and eating them, however as much of a chemical rush that it gives, to me personally, it isn't good for me. So I like to stick with my Lentil Burgers, Salads and superfood smoothies. Which I personally eat, a so I don't die of starvation and because of the health benefits. I can easily go a day or two without eating, however I know it isn't healthy (not looked into benefits of fasting tbh), but due to my gym routine, not eating can cause me to crash.

As for the wine, it tastes nice and alchohol does create that fuzzy feeling that feels good. That's as far as I personally look into it.

Again cant relate to what your saying. However I have done my mindfulness course which included focussing on food when eating it and noticing the textures and tastes, etc. But that's more to do with staying present in the moment than the food itself. Its so I don't get stuck in my head.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Despotic Ocelot said:


> Ok, there's misconstruing here. This is what I meant by that...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You could of just given an example instead of going on about how many babies you murder in your hand every time you jerk off.

You seem to be giving long pointless irrelevant answers, instead of just sticking to the point so people can understand what ever it is you ramble on about.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

Despotic Ocelot said:


> Every 'mode' you presented was scolded strongly, so actually it doesn't depend on it since every one is disliked lol.
> 
> It would depend on it if you felt differently about them depending on which it was.


That's your opinion. Which is strangely inconsistent with your other expressed opinions here. One state of dislike can be different from another. For the two I listed, one's a bristling wariness with a fleeting hint of disgust, and the other is a slightly condescending dismissiveness. The taste notes here are important to a connoisseur such as yourself, yes? 



> What if it's possible for you to be 'cold', and the other to be seductive... and for that to simply mark how two human beings operate and nothing more?
> 
> As opposed to... "I operate in way 'a', and this person operates in way 'b', therefore they are by definition manipulative and weak"
> 
> ...


Yeah, this is all bunk. You decided that you didn't like my response, and decided to spew some goo here about it. That's fine, but do try to make some sense. I never precluded other modes of operation as being legitimate. I simply expressed my distaste for one. Because of that, I am somehow advocating.... all those extremes you to which you leaped? Your fallacies of false choice? Give me a break. I'll give you one, and spare further criticism. Moving on... 




> That sounds like an unbelievably drab and dismal world. Fuck everything else about life... all that matters is the the mere 'practical function' of a thing.
> 
> Fuck the array of different foods out there, with the sweet and the ripe and the aromatic and the encrusted and the flavorful and the gingery and the honeyed and the nectarous and the satiny chocolaty tuxedo cake and the crisp splashes of sparkling white wine and the bucket full of a dizzying array of treats acquired while adventuring through Halloween......
> 
> ...


Haha. This one was pretty good. And you're right. I wasn't actually advocating someone really doing that, I was using that hypothetical as an example of how seduction is about more than sex. 

I'm a foodie, a wine-o, a single malt enthusiast. I fear you may have gotten the wrong impression based on this part. 



> In the spirit of being 'cold and rational' and all... can we see if this 'theory' holds up under scrutiny?
> 
> I volunteer myself for experiment lol. Please, pick a topic you like discussing, we'll have a debate on some aspect of it... and let's see how close or far from the tree I fell.
> 
> ...


That would be off-topic, unfortunately. However, I think you're simply highlighting the differences between the way our heads work. Mine is hyper-active, and yours is..... in all appearances, decidedly not. My method usually involves a very fast perception, a fast head-centric judgment, a (preferably) long period of further perception to test the judgment, and then a more reasoned, more balanced, and more final judgment is made when necessary, after all that. 

What I'm giving here is an answer to the titular question; namely, how I react to highly sexual people. I judge them quickly in my internal way, as I do all people, and the judgments are not usually favorable to them. They usually (though not always, just usually) fall into one of the two groups I mentioned. Provided I allow them the period of extended observation -which being highly sexual doesn't automatically preclude them from-, I may change my mind. In fact, I hope to. However, it is a rarity that I flip 180 on someone. Usually it's just a refining process. But figuring out I was wrong about someone is my favorite, unless of course it results to my detriment. So I usually start off as negative as is reasonable so as to prevent that outcome. 

They pretty much never know my judgments of them, so it's not like it matters to anyone but me. I always maintain a poker face. People really, seriously, think I'm a nice guy (lol). I just have to make sure that I'm exhausting my limited social resources on people that might be worth it to me. Or, in a more competitive sphere, I have to make sure I know where someone's jugular is, in case I need to strike for it or use it to manipulate their behavior. Judgment is part of the process. For someone with a greater wealth of social energy, it might not be as necessary. I accept that, and see no problem either way. I'm a judgmental person, but only I know that. And now you do too. Congratulations. 

This could be valuable because I am a person who generally reacts negatively to highly sexual people, but not for the same old "blah blah sexual immorality" slut shaming religion hooey reasons. If anyone has questions for the likes of me about the topic, I'd be happy to answer from that perspective. 



> You're a drab one, Mr. Sovereign
> Your heart's an empty hole
> Your brain is full of spiders
> You've got garlic in your soul
> ...


That's.... adorable.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Sovereign said:


> I'm secretly a huge buzzkill. Lol


Are you sure it's a secret? :crazy:

I thought your superior brain was always a-buzz though.

Minds can also hum in music and fantasy and entertaining thoughts you know.


----------



## Kirby (May 30, 2015)

It's cool, I guess. I don't ever expect them to want to do anything sexual with _me_, so the most I will do is observe from afar.


----------



## Lilsnowy (Sep 9, 2009)

Sensational said:


> You make me think of my enfp friend. Lol she makes eye contact with everyone when we are out and just draws them in. She stops and smiles and makes eye contact. Suddenly we are trapped in a dreadful conversation. Her all like what. Me like ok you tease, and for the love of gawd why. (Me...wtf are you doing stop making eye contact). She just genuinely likes talking to everyone. (Eh me not so much lol). Anyways I dont know not sure, can enfps turn that off or down.


That's the story of my life as an ENFP. We make eye-contact and we get into in-depth conversations with strangers and are also are misread as "interested" all the time. My husband notices that men are drawn to me. If he says something about it, I say, "You don't have to tell me how lucky you are."


----------



## AddictiveMuse (Nov 14, 2013)

As an SX dom myself it's probably not surprising that I think it's hot. The type of woman you're describing appears to be a woman who throws conventional ideals of submission and whatnot out the door. They are comfortable with their sexuality and are highly passionate. I understand how that can be intimidating, not just to romantic partners but other women too. It_ is_ intimidating. 

I find it quite attractive.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

fleur du mal said:


> Is it off-putting? Intriguing? Intimidating? Attractive?
> 
> I've had people react to my being a really sexual person differently - especially on here - but the primary thing that is expressed is how _intimidating_ it is. What's intimidating about it? Help me understand.
> 
> _(Not necessarily making this a personal thread, though that's fine as well)_


The question is more how my _wife _reacts to them. :exterminate:


----------



## Roman Empire (Oct 22, 2014)

I usually react by getting a boner.


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

Desthro said:


> Sounds like you need cognitive behavioral therapy.


Whats that? I need help but, honestly, I can't find a logical reason to justify paying a random stranger 60+ dollars an hour just to listen to me complain about life when I already know what the solution is. 

The real problem is I can't fake being human. There's something very wrong with me on a primal level.

What if I spend a lot of money and find out the psychiatrist is only out to sell me meds? 
Or worse, that they're no better than talking to myself.

But that's all off topic.
So, in the interest of staying on point:

Yes, a woman that knows she wants me and will pursue me would be a God-send. 
I don't think they exist though. Sorry, I've never met any.


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

Vast Silence said:


> Whats that? I need help but, honestly, I can't find a logical reason to justify paying a random stranger 60+ dollars an hour just to listen to me complain about life when I already know what the solution is.
> 
> The real problem is I can't fake being human. There's something very wrong with me on a primal level.
> 
> ...


In-Depth: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy | Psych Central
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy

Basically your viewpoints (while valid from an individual perspective), are frankly fucked up and you might need some help getting them changed.

Also, if you know the solution and do nothing about it, then you really just don't give a shit. <3


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Usually the first word that comes to mind is "Desperate". I don't see why confidence has to equal broadcasting. In such cases I may delve deeper to see if there's more to them, give them a fair chance.

If it turns out that's really all they ever think and talk about I start tuning them out .


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Nell said:


> Usually the first word that comes to mind is "Desperate". Then I may delve deeper to see if there's more to them, give them a fair chance.
> 
> If it turns out that's really all they ever think and talk about I start tuning them out .


I'm SO OFFENDED RN. How dare you. I thought we were friends, Nell!


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

kaleidoscope said:


> I'm SO OFFENDED RN. How dare you. I thought we were friends, Nell!


Kalei, read again:

"*If it turns out that's really all they ever think and talk about *I start tuning them out"

This is not you.
Also recall, sex didn't sneak its' way into conversations until a while after we met.


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

I'm not that sexual, so I'd just say "good for you" and keep walking.


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

Nell said:


> Usually the first word that comes to mind is "Desperate". I don't see why confidence has to equal broadcasting. In such cases I may delve deeper to see if there's more to them, give them a fair chance.
> If it turns out that's really all they ever think and talk about I start tuning them out .


I died laughing when I read her response to that:



kaleidoscope said:


> I'm SO OFFENDED RN. How dare you. I thought we were friends, Nell!


(Usually you're offended because it's true )



Nell said:


> Kalei, read again:
> 
> "*If it turns out that's really all they ever think and talk about *I start tuning them out"
> 
> ...


Also, no need to defend yourself. She loves you.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Desthro said:


> Also, no need to defend yourself. She loves you.



=_= Yeah she had herself a giggle as she told me on Skype. Called me goofus, can you believe it?


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

Nell said:


> =_= Yeah she had herself a giggle as she told me on Skype. Called me goofus, can you believe it?


If the shoe fits. . .  LoL


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

Usually, I freak them out because I take their sexual talk seriously, and they are not necessarily expecting that. If you talk sex with me, you gotta be prepared to get talked back to. But I get the feeling that many overtly sexual women would rather fluster people with their sexuality than go to the end with what they are insinuating. I, on the other hand, am always prepared to go to the end if and when I "am sexual", otherwise I just do not respond. So, usually I scare them off because I just take it way farther than they think I'll take it. (This is odd, since they initiate it. But, again, I tend to interpret them as caring more about the shock value of what they are doing than about what they are doing itself.)

In short, how do I respond to very sexual women? I call their bluff.


----------



## Lorde (Nov 17, 2016)

kaleidoscope said:


> Is it off-putting? Intriguing? Intimidating? Attractive?
> 
> I've had people react to my being a really sexual person differently - especially on here - but the primary thing that is expressed is how _intimidating_ it is. What's intimidating about it? Help me understand.
> 
> _(Not necessarily making this a personal thread, though that's fine as well)_


I think the difficult thing is that sex is not always about mutual gratification. It can often be a butting or insertion of ego on both sides. That can be kind of stressful just in general for not really understanding why the feeling is there. If I don't have any common ground or understanding about the other person, the opportunity of being used feels like it might come into play. I would want to put my energy into exploring and getting the most of the interaction, but its really hard to do that if the person is just in it for a quick fling. I have insecurity issues that I don't often flaunt around so might think you may be delusional for an attraction if you haven't seen their crazy. That has nothing to do with self-image, its more I can be a hassle and know people just get tired of me and leave. At a certain point, people may either be afraid of putting themselves out there too much for something that may only be too short or one sided. Sexual attraction is a hard thing to be open to on its own merits.


----------



## Kalix (Nov 9, 2015)

Roman Empire said:


> I usually react by getting a boner.


Yo, we can be homies, right?


Oh, me? I love sexually active females. I love giving people pleasure, and they're usually the easiest to give it to. 

So I give them a lot.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Super high sex drive = mega turn on

Super high sex partner count = mega turn off


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

kaleidoscope said:


> Is it off-putting? Intriguing? Intimidating? Attractive?


That's a very open question without context. Depends on the relation, where, work? friend? lover? GF? Wife? etc. I see it like _what would you do if someone shoots you, or what if you find a bag of full of money?. _Depending on several factors it could be something you want to avoid (the situation, because of the factors, don't mean not wanting the person).



kaleidoscope said:


> I've had people react to my being a really sexual person differently


Derived from the above as in what context and relation, it also depends on lifestyle. The most sexual GF I had was proud of it, and yes sometimes it was difficult because the day only has so many hours (and one still has to work, sleep, etc). But she was in the university, not working, etc. When things changed (for her), having to work... things were totally different, she lacked a lot of energy (while I still had, so you could say I ended up being more sexual than her, more than she was proud of herself in first place).



kaleidoscope said:


> I've had people react to my being a really sexual person differently - * especially on here *- but the primary thing that is expressed is how _intimidating_ it is. What's intimidating about it? Help me understand.
> 
> _(Not necessarily making this a personal thread, though that's fine as well)_


Forum? would not be intimidating to me, I'm curious about many things so I think I'm just fine discussing several topics with anyone if there is good communication or good will.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

I've never met any. lol


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

kaleidoscope said:


> Is it off-putting? Intriguing? Intimidating? Attractive?


My reaction would largely depend on whether I found them attractive or not. If yes, it's excellent, as overt sexual energy makes everything so seamless and natural. 

If not...eh, kind of awkward...


----------



## AddictiveMuse (Nov 14, 2013)

I send them to a nunnery where they can talk over their sin with Jesus


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

I think, from reading most of the responses on this thread, I've concluded that most people, regardless of gender, find it unattractive for a person they've just met that they have interest in, to immediately jump on the sex wagon and come off extremely sexual. In men and women, if the other person is interested in forming a relationship and sex is clearly on the forefront of the other person's mind, then that could be a possible turn off.

however, a woman generally being open to sex, and wanting to talk about it in circumstances that aren't inappropriate, I don't see why that would be a turn off for anybody that just isn't insecure in themselves or sex itself. Or someone who has a deterrence toward sex. 

There are, of course, stigmas toward women who enjoy sex, are open about it and sleep around. All things that are typically considered fine for men (most of the time), which I find pretty stupid. If it's normal or okay for one sex to do, it should be fine for both, imo.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

AddictiveMuse said:


> I send them to a nunnery where they can talk over their sin with Jesus


That sounds hot. And kinda kinky..I hear Jesus is into voyeurism.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

it depends on my relationship to the woman...in a relationship, it's a big plus...outside of a relationship, it can also be a plus if I have _no _interest in her (nor she in me) and the sexual energy is channeled into playful flirtation for good fun...the op does this with members here....if I am interested in her, however, and she opened by showing her sexual self, I would be wary of her because that is something I don't do and I would take her gambit as an early sign we are not compatible...it would also concern me because sex clouds my brain and impairs my judgment and isn't something I want to have on my mind when I am trying to learn who this woman is and decide if she is right for me...tits and ass are not good reasons to get into serious relationships...women know this, of course, and use T&A to "overpower" men...unfortunately, it is precisely in the beginning of a relationship, when a man needs a clear head and good judgment most, that he is most susceptible to a woman's charms

pity the man who leads with the head between his legs and not the one on his shoulders


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> it depends on my relationship to the woman...in a relationship, it's a big plus...outside of a relationship, it can also be a plus if I have _no _interest in her (nor she in me) and the sexual energy is channeled into playful flirtation for good fun...the op does this with members here....


Damn, what a way to be rejected, and so early in the morning too  



> if I am interested in her, however, and she opened by showing her sexual self, I would be wary of her because that is something I don't do and I would take her gambit as an early sign we are not compatible...it would also concern me because sex clouds my brain and impairs my judgment and isn't something I want to have on my mind when I am trying to learn who this woman is and decide if she is right for me...tits and ass are not good reasons to get into serious relationships...women know this, of course, and use T&A to "overpower" men...unfortunately, it is precisely in the beginning of a relationship, when a man needs a clear head and good judgment most, that he is most susceptible to a woman's charms
> 
> pity the man who leads with the head between his legs and not the one his parents put on his shoulders


I've heard this explanation before. An ex of mine talked about how he often got lost in lust early in the relationship, and that clouded his judgment about the woman who interested him. He used that as an explanation for him having had bad partners. I honestly don't know if I buy this explanation. It tends to place too much emphasis on the woman's power, and not enough emphasis on men's self-control. It kinda reeks of mentalities similar to 'women must dress conservatively in order to avoid tempting men', lol.

Kinda wishing I made a poll for this thread though, seems like the majority of the answers have been more negative than positive.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

kaleidoscope said:


> Damn, what a way to be rejected, and so early in the morning too


so you _are _trying to seduce the whole board?!






:wink:



> I've heard this explanation before. An ex of mine talked about how he often got lost in lust early in the relationship, and that clouded his judgment about the woman who interested him. He used that as an explanation for him having had bad partners. I honestly don't know if I buy this explanation. It tends to place too much emphasis on the woman's power, and not enough emphasis on men's self-control. It kinda reeks of mentalities similar to 'women must dress conservatively in order to avoid tempting men', lol.
> 
> Kinda wishing I made a poll for this thread though, seems like the majority of the answers have been more negative than positive.


that's the power you have over us, kalei 

the woman can do whatever she wants...she's not holding a gun to the man's heads (just pointing her T&A in his direction ...I'm just saying he has to be aware of where his heads are at in that situation and make the best choice for himself--ie, he has to use _his _power, _especially _when she uses hers, as she has the right to do


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

kaleidoscope said:


> I've heard this explanation before. An ex of mine talked about how he often got lost in lust early in the relationship, and that clouded his judgment about the woman who interested him. He used that as an explanation for him having had bad partners. I honestly don't know if I buy this explanation. It tends to place too much emphasis on the woman's power, and *not enough emphasis on men's self-control*. It kinda reeks of mentalities similar to 'women must dress conservatively in order to avoid tempting men', lol..


what do you think of men you can easily seduce, kalei?...men who come on to you with their guns ablazing?

do you think less of them because they lack self-control?...or more of them because they went after what they wanted?


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> so you _are _trying to seduce the whole board?!
> 
> :wink:


I thought I already did.. until I saw your post </3 :crying:



> that's the power you have over us, kalei
> 
> the woman can do whatever she wants...she's not holding a gun to the man's heads (just pointing her T&A in his direction ...I'm just saying he has to be aware of where his heads are at in that situation and make the best choice for himself--ie, he has to use _his _power, _especially _when she uses hers, as she has the right to do


Kalei effect? hahaha

I think you're right, but I don't think you should attribute a man's inability to keep his head clear to the woman's sexuality. I think someone should be weary of their *OWN *reaction to someone's overt sexuality, but not necessarily be suspicious of the woman, or her intentions. For me personally, it comes out in my body language and my inherent playfulness, but it's not because I have any intention to manipulate or seduce. 



ae1905 said:


> what do you think of men you can easily seduce, kalei?...men who come on to you with their guns ablazing?
> 
> do you think less of them because they lack self-control?...or more of them because they went after what they wanted?


That's a really good question, actually. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'seduce', because that implies some kind of manipulation, or pretense, which I see as different from flirting, which is an honest expression of interest and/or arousal. I don't see them as lacking self-control if they flirt back, or having poor judgment or anything. If they like me, I really like it when they show me and respond to my flirting. If they want me, I really like it when they respond positively to my sexuality.


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

kaleidoscope said:


> That's a really good question, actually. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'seduce', because that implies some kind of manipulation, or pretense, which I see as different from flirting, which is an honest expression of interest and/or arousal. I don't see them as lacking self-control if they flirt back, or having poor judgment or anything. If they like me, I really like it when they show me and respond to my flirting. If they want me, I really like it when they respond positively to my sexuality.


Not even going to cite your source I see.  <3 LOL


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

kaleidoscope said:


> I thought I already did.. until I saw your post </3 :crying:


memo to self: don't be hard to get; just get hard, instead!

fixed it for ya





> Kalei effect? hahaha


more like hahahahard!, no?



> I think you're right, but I don't think you should attribute a man's inability to keep his head clear to the woman's sexuality. I think someone should be weary of their *OWN *reaction to someone's overt sexuality, but not necessarily be suspicious of the woman, or her intentions. For me personally, it comes out in my body language and my inherent playfulness, but it's not because I have any intention to manipulate or seduce.
> 
> That's a really good question, actually. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'seduce', because that implies some kind of manipulation, or pretense, which I see as different from flirting, which is an honest expression of interest and/or arousal.


it can but it doesn't have to...a woman who is genuinely attracted to a man will use her sexuality to _win _him over because that is the singular power nature gave her to do that very job...so intentionally using your sexuality can be perfectly natural and doesn't imply any deviousness or connivance on your part


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

> An ex of mine talked about how* he often got lost in lust early in the relationship*, and that clouded his judgment about the woman who interested him. He used that as an explanation for him having had bad partners. I honestly don't know if I buy this explanation. *It tends to place too much emphasis on the woman's power, and not enough emphasis on men's self-control.*





kaleidoscope said:


> I don't see them as lacking self-control if *they flirt back*, or having poor judgment or anything. If they like me, I really like it when they show me and respond to my flirting. If they want me, I really like it when they respond positively to my sexuality.


did your bf flirt with his exes in overtly sexual ways?...if he did, we can put the emphasis on his lack of self-control, instead, right?...then we can say more self-control would have reduced his lust and improved his judgement, no?


----------



## Miss Bingley (Jun 28, 2013)

I don't particularly care. Someone else's sexuality and sex life is none of my business, and is of no determinant of someone's else worth/whether I like them or not. 

I guess it could be intimidating in that I wish I was that confident.


----------



## Starry Eyed (Jan 15, 2016)

I prefer someone who is sensual not sexual. The latter is sometimes overbearing and seems to be over compensating. Not always though. Context is important. Oh and this goes for men as well, not just women.


----------



## Draco Solaris (Apr 8, 2013)

I find it extremely attractive. I'm a very passive person myself, and with the social norm being women don't initiate sex (or anything else) someone who goes against that catches my attention and I might actually feel like putting some effort in.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Starry Eyed said:


> I prefer someone who is sensual not sexual. The latter is sometimes overbearing and seems to be over compensating. Not always though. Context is important. Oh and this goes for men as well, not just women.


How do you differentiate the two?

* *




I made a thread about this once. http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/857162-how-do-you-differentiate-sexual-vs-sensual.html 

I think maybe sensual is more like 'erotic' and sexual is more like 'pornographic'? Trying to imagine how the distinction would manifest behaviorally.


----------



## CHLOELILI (May 25, 2016)

Do you think that men who are very sexual are asking the question ?


----------



## Starry Eyed (Jan 15, 2016)

ninjahitsawall said:


> How do you differentiate the two?
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


Oh how did I miss that thread -___-


Haha that's actually a pretty good way to put it!
Well sexual to me refers to action towards something or someone, like you wouldn't just look at someone who is literally just standing there and say they are a sexual person.
You could say that they were sensual though. Maybe it's the way they are standing and their hands are caressing their hair; they're slowing shifting side-to-side shaking their hips. It can be a picture. It doesn't have to involve real people; I think it can also be an idea. I think sensual is a bit more subjective.

Sexual on the other hand really isn't. It's the butt grabbing, kissing, and touching, generally very overt. ​


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

I love women who are very sexual. I am to. That DOES NOT mean casually sexual, and that turns me off. I place great seriousness into my sexuality and its expression. I find that attractive in a woman as well. Flirting and talking is exactly the same. There is a way to be overt and yet express quality and stay morally strong. All acts of self debasement are not morally strong. Play-acting self-debasement for sexual fun is wonderful. Promiscuity in general is not advisable, but healthy sexual appetite and interests are. I will not say that intuition cannot work pretty quickly to vette a sexual partner, but, in general it takes a fairly long time to properly earn a full on come on and acceptance. Like every other action in life, sex is a scared thing and treating it without moral restraint is damaging to all parties involved and branches out from there. I fully believe people could walk around naked and even act quite sexually enticing without being immoral. I think that it is risky and sad that some cannot control their reactions to this wonderful display. Issues governing such behavior are about order, not morality. But, these activities often lead to immoral behavior in the unwise or immature and then when someone points this out the immoral actor gets all defensive and such. Sleeping with someone to spite a potential mate or enkindle jealousy is an immoral act. Doing it just for pleasure and with no real connection and assessment of the other's character is both dangerous and immoral.


----------



## Starry Eyed (Jan 15, 2016)

series0 said:


> I love women who are very sexual. I am to. That DOES NOT mean casually sexual, and that turns me off. I place great seriousness into my sexuality and its expression. I find that attractive in a woman as well. Flirting and talking is exactly the same. There is a way to be overt and yet express quality and stay morally strong. All acts of self debasement are not morally strong. Play-acting self-debasement for sexual fun is wonderful. Promiscuity in general is not advisable, but healthy sexual appetite and interests are. I will not say that intuition cannot work pretty quickly to vette a sexual partner, but, in general it takes a fairly long time to properly earn a full on come on and acceptance. Like every other action in life, sex is a scared thing and treating it without moral restraint is damaging to all parties involved and branches out from there. I fully believe people could walk around naked and even act quite sexually enticing without being immoral. I think that it is risky and sad that some cannot control their reactions to this wonderful display. Issues governing such behavior are about order, not morality. But, these activities often lead to immoral behavior in the unwise or immature and then when someone points this out the immoral actor gets all defensive and such. Sleeping with someone to spite a potential mate or enkindle jealousy is an immoral act. Doing it just for pleasure and with no real connection and assessment of the other's character is both dangerous and immoral.



Hmmm...
I find that controversial. It's more than just people can't control their reactions. It's nasty. Not their nakedness but for example someone taking public transportation and since they are nude their fluids will for sure hit the seat. Also what about underage people? What about when people take a class photo, free pedo porn.
I find that idea dangerous.
I also wonder why expressing sexuality must involve the 'freedom of nudity.'

I agree with the rest, I love a little bit of debasement play. I've yet to find someone as interested as me though. A lot of people think of shit like '50 Shades of Gray,' not fun, not sexy...


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Starry Eyed said:


> Hmmm...
> I find that controversial. It's more than just people can't control their reactions. It's nasty. Not their nakedness but for example someone taking public transportation and since they are nude their fluids will for sure hit the seat.


They do anyway. They seep through the clothes. It's a little. And I didn't say that they should not in general wear some clothing. But I do think it should not be required. Keeping clean is important. 



Starry Eyed said:


> Also what about underage people? What about when people take a class photo, free pedo porn.


I do not find the human body dangerous to expose to children, or vice versa. Adults and children alike must learn to restrain their urges and such. Exposure makes this MORE likely and easily done, not less. Secrets cause obsession much more than honesty does. Revelation is a good word. Again, all such activities would need to be done with moral restraint.



Starry Eyed said:


> I find that idea dangerous.


I just don't.



Starry Eyed said:


> I also wonder why expressing sexuality must involve the 'freedom of nudity.'


I didn't say it MUST. I said it could and that there is no moral reason why it shouldn't. It is a kind of restraint test. 

I find seats that force people to touch because of closeness much more offensive than nudity. Someone else's gluttony or sloth oozes over onto your seat, your body and you cannot really move. The same is true for flatulence or simply not bathing. By comparison to me, nudity is mostly beauty when it is healthy.



Starry Eyed said:


> I agree with the rest, I love a little bit of debasement play. I've yet to find someone as interested as me though. A lot of people think of shit like '50 Shades of Gray,' not fun, not sexy...


Roleplay is amazing. But I do require competence with it. I'd rather just go primal in most cases. Some women can really pull off the roles though and that is just amazing fun.


----------



## Starry Eyed (Jan 15, 2016)

series0 said:


> They do anyway. They seep through the clothes. It's a little. And I didn't say that they should not in general wear some clothing. But I do think it should not be required. Keeping clean is important.
> 
> 
> I do not find the human body dangerous to expose to children, or vice versa. Adults and children alike must learn to restrain their urges and such. Exposure makes this MORE likely and easily done, not less. Secrets cause obsession much more than honesty does. Revelation is a good word. Again, all such activities would need to be done with moral restraint.
> ...


*shudder
Thanks that's an awesome thought.

I still don't think it's appropriate for children, especially once they start really becoming aware of other students. And it's cruel to teach them discipline that way. It's not like drinking where it's 'forbidden' until a certain age. It's not a secret and I'm certain it would cause bullying to rise. I see students making fun of bodies with clothes and in the changing room it's worse, I can't imagine if they were just naked. I'm a special education teacher and this is selfish but I could not deal with my students nude, not to mention they'd pee or shit on the floor. Or instead of getting a booger on my sleeve it's on my skin :')

But if you're talking about a theoretical world where we were just nude and had never had clothing, I'd imagine it'd be a normality. However I can't see that working in current society where body shame, harassment, sexual assault, pedophilia, etc exists.
It's nice that you don't have any shame in your body and want to share it but I think it just makes sense in our current society to have the 'nudists' be the ones to practice self-restraint.

I would also agree odor is offensive but that's because as humans it actually does affect us, the olfactory system is very strong and can affect our moods and sometimes cognition.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Starry Eyed said:


> Oh how did I miss that thread -___-
> 
> 
> Haha that's actually a pretty good way to put it!
> ...


Okay, in that case I agree with you. Sensual is more enticing. Seems counterintuitive since it's more subtle. But the subtlety is why it's more enticing... what does overt look like? (sexual gives away the answer too soon, I guess).


----------



## psykosi (Dec 4, 2016)

It depends on the volume and circumstances. 

I wouldn't say it's intimidating, but it can be uncomfortable. 

I knew someone who seemed to enjoy making me uncomfortable whenever we spent evenings together with a small group of friends. After having a few drinks, she would ask me very personal, suggestive questions. It always felt like she was trying to provoke me for a visible reaction, evidence for arousal. It's intriguing, definitely. 

That sort of attention can be flattering briefly, but in the long run it makes me question her motives.
Whether if it's something she does routinely to entertain herself or if she's showing genuine interest.

A female stranger being openly sexual and flirty with anyone is a turn-off. 
A female friend being exclusively sexual and flirty with me is overwhelming.

If it's general talk about sexual subjects with friends, then there's no strong reactions for me either way.


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

I'm biased against people like that. It comes from having a low sex drive myself. I often wonder why people make such a big fuss over sex. I feel like people who think about sex a lot have their priorities in life wrong, no matter the gender. I had a brief fling with a guy once, and his grandiose sex fantasies seemed childish and naive to me. 

To me, sex is like buying a box of candy from a store. It tastes really good and it's a nice treat, but not something I'd want to talk about all the time and make a major part of my life. There's just... more interesting things imo. 

I've also gotten burned a lot, so I'm afraid of people only being interested in me for sex. I'm afraid of being used in general, so hearing stories about women getting used for sex puts a lot of fear in me.

It's probably not a good thing for me to be biased in this way, but oh well. The intensely sexual people can find someone else.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Nabbit said:


> I'm biased against people like that. It comes from having a low sex drive myself. I often wonder why people make such a big fuss over sex. I feel like people who think about sex a lot have their priorities in life wrong, no matter the gender. I had a brief fling with a guy once, and his grandiose sex fantasies seemed childish and naive to me.
> 
> To me, sex is like buying a box of candy from a store. It tastes really good and it's a nice treat, but not something I'd want to talk about all the time and make a major part of my life. There's just... more interesting things imo.


What an interesting perspective. I (honestly) wish I knew what that was like :laughing:


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

kaleidoscope said:


> What an interesting perspective. I (honestly) wish I knew what that was like :laughing:


I don't even know how I would start to think that way. . .


----------



## peachmilk (Dec 8, 2016)

I don't find it intimidating at all. Actually, it's quite inspiring & attractive personally, but most importantly REALISTIC! 
I can go on forever with my theory on why people may find it intimidating, maybe it roots in some sort of envy? I know many people try to appear much more conservative regardless of if that reflects how they feel internally. Or, it could be seen in a more primal light as "competition" of sorts. Straight men, on the other hand, might be intimidated because it's a bit of change of pace from what they're expecting. Possibly possibly, but I'm no expert. :wink:


----------



## wums (Nov 25, 2013)

Doesn't really bother me, but doesn't appeal to me either. I don't really like the idea of being with someone who's had lots of sexual partners. It's not make or break, but, I'd rather be with people who have had less partners. Sex to me is too linked to intimacy and love and I invariably feel that someone who has had lots of sexual partners has probably compartmentalized sex from true intimacy and true love. Since true intimacy and true love are hard to find and take a lot out of a person, they are not something that can be offered casually. 

And in terms of specifically women... I don't feel any different about hypersexual women or men. I have the same opinion in both cases.

Though I feel like often women specifically who are hypersexual do so as a rebellion against gendered expectations. In that case, I find that unappealing. Not because women should be gender-normative, but because rebelling against something is just another way of being controlled by it, and to me it's a sign of immaturity.


Oh, but if we're talking hypersexual just in terms of high sex drive, not necessarily having lots of partners, then I don't know. I've never been with such a person. I probably would enjoy it.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

wums said:


> Though I feel like often women specifically who are hypersexual do so as a rebellion against gendered expectations. In that case, I find that unappealing. Not because women should be gender-normative, but because rebelling against something is just another way of being controlled by it, and to me it's a sign of immaturity.





psykosi said:


> I knew someone who seemed to enjoy making me uncomfortable whenever we spent evenings together with a small group of friends. After having a few drinks, she would ask me very personal, suggestive questions. It always felt like she was trying to provoke me for a visible reaction, evidence for arousal. It's intriguing, definitely.
> 
> That sort of attention can be flattering briefly, but in the long run it makes me question her motives.


Yes, thank you. It's ulterior motives that are unappealing.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Sexual in a way that they are making sexual advances to you? (Depends on who it is, let's assume its someone you just met or someone you know in a casual sense, not being close friends.) In a way, yes that would be a turn off. If she is attractive however, i would be more curious and a little shocked as to why she finds me sexually attractive and a little skeptical. 

Sexual in a way that they can openly talk about sex and be respectable to other people's tastes? No not all 

Sexual in a way that she has a good sense of humor and we can exchange funny sexual references with eachother? Great. Where could I find her?


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

Disgusted. No one needs to hear all that. I hear some things coming out of their mouths I want to puke. 
I also assume they have nothing better to do or are empty-headed.
But mostly I look at them like they can be easily manipulated.
Hey, that's probably what they put me off so much. : /

When I come across sexual people I immediately see them something akin to animals. What they say or how they behave causes me to feel dreadful and nauseous. :crying:


----------



## MetaphysicalOne (Dec 12, 2016)

People can be privately very sexual. People who know me well get to enjoy my erotic humor. People who don't know me well, and who I don't entirely trust, don't get to see that side of me. 

I think people can be sexual and it can be public or private. And I think it's all fine as long as it doesn't intrude on others or force them to experience something they don't want to. For example one could say public nudity is "sexual" but in a court of law it is a form of sexual assault (really). Because it forces others to experience something sexual they didn't (or couldn't) opt into.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Enthusiastically? A sexually expressive woman doesn't intimidate me. I'm flexible. In point-of-fact, a sexually aggressive woman is refreshing.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I don't understand why so many people are intimidated by a sexually intense woman. do that many men walk around thinking "omg....I need to restrain myself so I don't rape that sexy bitch!" every time they see an attractive or flirty woman? do that many women walk around feeling that much jealousy, pettiness and internalized hatred for their own sexuality? 

#PeepsAintRightInTheHead


----------



## TheJ (Aug 3, 2015)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I don't understand why so many people are intimidated by a sexually intense woman. do that many men walk around thinking "omg....I need to restrain myself so I don't rape that sexy bitch!" every time they see an attractive or flirty woman? do that many women walk around feeling that much jealousy, pettiness and internalized hatred for their own sexuality?
> 
> #PeepsAintRightInTheHead


I actually have noticed that's the case with some men. 
A woman who's attractive and flirty but only teases and you can never actually "have" her, actually garners plenty of hate and resentment from men, in my experience. I think it sends the message "Look, I'm slutty, but your value is still less than what I'm willing to stoop down to".

Women also dislike it because it's like "playing dirty" to them, the "slut" gets a lot of male attention simply for offering them something you're too "dignified" to give. What I don't get is- if you as a woman aren't happy with your own self-enforced laws of what is proper behavior, why not remove them? Instead you opt to hate on that which has broken your laws, a person who isn't aware or should care for them.


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

I avoid these situations, so it doesn't bother me. But when I end up in a place where I have to sit here and stomach your behavior when I'm not comfortable around it and you don't accept that and keep trying me, I'm gonna cry. Not because I'm a little wimpy INFP who can't "grow up" and "accept these things like adult" but because it triggers something that I don't ever want to remember and it sets me off. My inner Te comes out and I become almost aggressive and have to hold bashing in your head back. I will walk away if I can but if you keep trying my patience I'll attack with my teeth if need be.

Experienced this today. I thought I could try and stomach it but can't. I'm still shaking because of it.


----------



## MetaphysicalOne (Dec 12, 2016)

TheJ said:


> I actually have noticed that's the case with some men.
> A woman who's attractive and flirty but only teases and you can never actually "have" her, actually garners plenty of hate and resentment from men, in my experience. I think it sends the message "Look, I'm slutty, but your value is still less than what I'm willing to stoop down to".
> 
> Women also dislike it because it's like "playing dirty" to them, the "slut" gets a lot of male attention simply for offering them something you're too "dignified" to give. What I don't get is- if you as a woman aren't happy with your own self-enforced laws of what is proper behavior, why not remove them? Instead you opt to hate on that which has broken your laws, a person who isn't aware or should care for them.


I appreciate your thoughts on this for the most part, but just to offer up another thread of discussion: Why is it that women must be the ones to uphold or let down the sexual boundaries? It's so interesting to me. It assumes men always want sex in any form, and that women are in charge of whether sex happens and men will resent them for not giving it. It's archaic to me, because I think men and women are sexual creatures of different hues and having a sexual relationship of any kind should be a mutual decision. If there is resentment or hate, that clues me in that one person believes sex is "owed" somehow. Otherwise, what is there to resent/hate? If you want to have sex with someone, but you know they have the right to say yes or no, if they say "no" wouldn't the healthy emotional response be disappointment? (not resentment....) 

A further thought: the idea that women are to withhold or give up sex perpetuates that they are sexual objects. I think this is where the feelings of resentment may be coming from, because if women are objects and not people its easy to resent them (rather than, I don't know, having compassion for them that they feel the need to "tease" men for attention--perhaps they had a terrible father figure or were sexually abused or just have low self-esteem and have bought into archaic ideas of what it means to be female?).

I'd feel bad for and be worried about a girl or woman who behaved this way. I'd also be concerned about a man who resents or hates a woman for not saying "yes" to sex. That is scary.


----------



## MetaphysicalOne (Dec 12, 2016)

TheJ said:


> What I don't get is- if you as a woman aren't happy with your own self-enforced laws of what is proper behavior, why not remove them? Instead you opt to hate on that which has broken your laws, a person who isn't aware or should care for them.


I just re-read this and I absolutely agree. I think other women like to "hate on" women who are overtly sexual because they feel uncomfortable, and they may feel uncomfortable because they haven't come clean with themselves about their own sexuality. I think what complicates it further is the double standard society still places on women. You're either a prude/saint or a slut/nympho. When there are plenty of shades of gray available in between the two.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

I have experience with those women, doesn't turn out well for me.


----------



## TheJ (Aug 3, 2015)

MetaphysicalOne said:


> I appreciate your thoughts on this for the most part, but just to offer up another thread of discussion: Why is it that women must be the ones to uphold or let down the sexual boundaries? It's so interesting to me. It assumes men always want sex in any form, and that women are in charge of whether sex happens and men will resent them for not giving it. It's archaic to me, because I think men and women are sexual creatures of different hues and having a sexual relationship of any kind should be a mutual decision. If there is resentment or hate, that clues me in that one person believes sex is "owed" somehow. Otherwise, what is there to resent/hate? If you want to have sex with someone, but you know they have the right to say yes or no, if they say "no" wouldn't the healthy emotional response be disappointment? (not resentment....)
> 
> A further thought: the idea that women are to withhold or give up sex perpetuates that they are sexual objects. I think this is where the feelings of resentment may be coming from, because if women are objects and not people its easy to resent them (rather than, I don't know, having compassion for them that they feel the need to "tease" men for attention--perhaps they had a terrible father figure or were sexually abused or just have low self-esteem and have bought into archaic ideas of what it means to be female?).
> 
> I'd feel bad for and be worried about a girl or woman who behaved this way. I'd also be concerned about a man who resents or hates a woman for not saying "yes" to sex. That is scary.


If a women acts in a way that is inviting and teasingly sexual with a lot of people, I believe she invites others to treat her as a sexual object- that is what they know of her- she's a person who they associate with sexual feelings she inspires in them first and foremost, a person with other attributes-second. 
I don't think being sexually objectified is necessarily a problem. If a person wants to behave in a way they know is going to sexually objectify them- who am i to judge? A hot guy at a club, surrounded by girls who all want a piece of him- is sexually objectifying himself just as much as any "slut", but he's happy to be seen as a sexual object by them. 
The problem begins when you act in a way that you know is going to cause sexual objectification of you, but then withholding sex- you're acting alluring, purposely, essentially creating expectations of sex with you for that person, but then not fulfilling them.
You're blaming it on poor mental health of the girl in question- but I doubt the guy buying into this whole situation is thinking about this- he's not out to fix random girls, he's out to get laid.

Now imagine being a kid and you've been told you'd be getting a candy at the store. You reach out to grab the candy and your mom slaps your hand and says "no". You feel duped. You feel disappointed for not getting the candy yes, but also resentment- towards the person who didn't fulfill their end of the bargain- why'd you promise me candy then not give it to me?

It's the same thing here, but the flirty woman is both the candy and the mother. And so resentment occurs towards her.

Also, people can withhold or give up sex without being sexual objects. A sexual object is defined thus:
"a person viewed as being of little interest or merit beyond the potential for providing sexual gratification. "
You might hold a lot more merit than just that and still withhold or "give up" sex to the person requesting it. 

Also I've yet to see a situation occurring in real life in which the male is the one to withhold or give up sex, and while that can happen, it is still the case that a man's traditional role is to be the approacher, therefore approaching the girl with the intent of convincing her he is worthwhile for her to eventually "give up" sex to him. Is she only a sex object to him in that case? that depends on the people involved and the nature of their connection. But without the sexual motivation, men wouldn't be so willing to take the risk of approaching.


----------



## 6007 (Feb 12, 2010)

I see all people who are not asexual as sexual. Period.
There is no "very" sexual in my mental landscape. 
People are MADE of fuck. Most people are a walking orgasm.

Some people are prudish, shy, private with it. Some are open and chatty with it. Some people fuck from ego, as if they can fuck out their insecurities. Some fuck out of a need to create art or communicate. It is all whatever to me. 

I have a good sex life, know what I like, so I am not trippin' off anyone else's sex life or attitude. Have fun fucking your picnic table, and I will go do things to my boyfriend's butt. We are all happy.


----------

