a continued discussion from hallowmass
Yeti
Individuat wrote in message
<19991102230831...@ng-xb1.aol.com>...
>JV, Casper, and I were discussing the differences between some men and
women
>when it came to sex.
>
>So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
>
>What do you think?
>
Neither. It happens to be a scenario brought on by biology. It is
instinctual to have the desire to breed in both sexes.
However, the male of our species has only one function in that role.
That is to provide a male gametes for the female to combine with her own.
There is no other function in this relationship that is required. However,
due to natural selection, mates are chosen by their ability to assist the
female in raising the offspring as well as provide the best possible genes
for the recipient to draw from. A mate that will be able to provide the
comforts in life that will make it easier, one that might be able to afford
protection, and one that will be able to stick around gives the highest
chances for survival in the progeny. Therefore, these traits are passed on
to subsequent generations. Those females that tend to chose mates poorly
have a lesser chance that their genes will be passed along due to lower
survival rates.
Conversely, males that are more aggressive and tend to be more active
in their mating habits have a higher likely hood of producing more
offspring. This means they have their traits passed on more frequently as
well. This can be coupled with the female instinct as long and allow
polygamy. It is functional as long as the male can provide for his mates
and offspring. It is a very viable situation. The animal kingdom has many
models of such behavior, as do humans in history.
So, in a nut shell, males try to inject their seed into anything that
will breed with them and women try to hold out for the right guy to come
along.
Yeti
Individuat
when it came to sex.
They were both of the impression that being male is like having PMS year
round[1] due to the high testosterone levels...and that sex was something that
men really HAD to do. They were both complaining that sleeping with some
women, however, is emotionally a pain in the ass... They just wanted women who
they could be straight forward with about just wanting to fuck.
This was hypothetical.....just to remind you all.
I said that it was due to socialization. They stuck to the hormone argument.
I said that women are raised to think sex and love go hand and hand...and sex
is only something you do when you are in love. (That's what we're told...) So
even when women get past that...it still lingers for some. They like the idea
of sex without emotion....but something holds on.
So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
What do you think?
Eileen
[1] which of course we women know is bullshit..
---
Indiv...@aol.com
"That's I before E, except if you're me." -D.G
Stuart Lin
Individuat <indiv...@aol.communist> wrote:
>
>round[1] due to the high testosterone levels...and that sex was something that
>men really HAD to do. They were both complaining that sleeping with some
Some men? Sure. All men? Most definitely not. Sure, some
religious recluses may secretly, guiltily, whack off, but I
suspect that many of the pious hold to their own. Or not,
as might be more appropriate to say.
(I remember a medical study of erectile dysfunction where
researchers noted that the absence of an occasional erection
would result in physiological impotence. So guys, morning
wood's just the body's way of pampering the penis. Getting
your wheaties, so to speak. But anyway, monks were one of
the test groups. Needless to say, no erections, much less
sex, for these saintly fellows.)
>women, however, is emotionally a pain in the ass... They just
>wanted women who
>they could be straight forward with about just wanting to fuck.
Some women are. And there's always masturbation and sex toys.
http://www.goodvibes.com/toys/boytoys.html
A person's reaction to whether s/he'd fuck a virgin, a slut,
or a hooker might clarify exactly what one gets out of sex.
>This was hypothetical.....just to remind you all.
Important reminder!
>I said that it was due to socialization. They stuck to the hormone argument.
>I said that women are raised to think sex and love go hand and hand...and sex
>is only something you do when you are in love. (That's what we're told...)
And some particularly goopy men might have picked up on the
same. Wuv, Twoo Wuv. Too muc _Princess Bride_, maybe.
>even when women get past that...it still lingers for some. They like the idea
>of sex without emotion....but something holds on.
>
>So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
>
>What do you think?
Sad to say, I don't think this lends itself to a tidy, clear,
answer. Especially since I'm not a sociologist and I haven't
done any research on the topic, I have to couch my observations
and beliefs on personal experience.
Personally, sex means something to me. Even if it's just an
expression of mutual admiration. Sex with a beautiful stranger
confuses the hell out of me. Sex with a new friend, well,
that's probably unwise for the unknown potential consequences
but still meaningful. To me.
I believe that an emotionally healthy person will desire, even
need, meaningful relationships. Whether a war buddy, a true
love, a trusted penpal, a guiding mentor, or someone to nurture.
Sex can be just another way to relate to another human being.
As to whether it's hormonal or learned, I don't know. Hormones
vs. socialization treads close to nature vs. nurture. How much
of our sexual ethics are due to natural selection and how much
to socialization?
The biological mating imperative describes the sexual impulse,
but does free-will, or at least self-awareness, grant us veto
power over our urges? I'd argue yes. It's terribly easy to
argue yes, sitting at home, though. I suppose sending a
net.goth.vixen to conduct a survey might also be educational.
Cheers,
-Stuart, spouting.
Ryan M Gill
cents US to it though...
There is more to the Big promiscuous male that does little to assist the
mate vs helping out a lot concept. Anthropologically speaking, the whole
small jaw - big brain - erect posture - different pelvis shape - smaller
birth canal - longer child dependacy period thing is quite significant in
reqiring a male mate that will stick around for a while to help mom raise
a baby that will take 15 years to get out of the nest. Hence the fact
that human females are sexually receptive out side of estrus. (ie if they
aren't ovulating they still like sex). Only chimps (very much like us)
are in this category.
This sexual receptivity renforces the pair bond between the couple. Pure
and simple, take that away and one of the facets of the relationship is
less there and the relationship as a whole is less stable.
--
- Ryan Montieth Gill DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan...@turner.com I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmg...@mindspring.com www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S - '72 Honda CB750K - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo -
GothAngel
sl...@threeoftwo.com (Stuart Lin) wrote:
> I believe that an emotionally healthy person will desire, even
> need, meaningful relationships.
Agreed. Sex for sex's sake gets real old real fast. But it sure can
pacify the hormones :P
> The biological mating imperative describes the sexual impulse,
> but does free-will, or at least self-awareness, grant us veto
> power over our urges? I'd argue yes.
I don't think there is much argument. Those people (both male and
female) who use the 'I couldn't stop myself' excuse to cheat on their
loved ones are full of shite. We all make choices. Certainly the
sexual impulse is *very* strong, but it is controllable.
Whew!
Too early for such serious fare
--GothAngel
www.gothangel.com
||Death is for the meek||
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Alain
wrote:
>So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
>
>What do you think?
Well, socialization is just an hormonal thang.
Alain.
50 Ft Queenie
>
> JV, Casper, and I were discussing the differences between some men and women
> when it came to sex.
>
> They were both of the impression that being male is like having PMS year
> men really HAD to do.
<snip>
>
> I said that it was due to socialization. They stuck to the hormone argument.
> I said that women are raised to think sex and love go hand and hand...and sex
> is only something you do when you are in love. (That's what we're told...) So
> even when women get past that...it still lingers for some. They like the idea
> of sex without emotion....but something holds on.
>
> So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
Personally, I'm wary of making this a male/female
issue. Call me cynical, but saying that men are
driven by hormones and _have_ to have sex makes it
far too easy for men to cheat on their partners
and them claim that "they couldn't help it".
Bullshit. We're humans, not animals, and we have
the ability to make choices.
My ex cheated on me while I was away on vacation,
and acquired a new partner before breaking up with
me. He defended himself by saying that "I'm young
and I'm male. I don't want to commit, and I really
like having random sex."
The idea that men _need_ sex while women don't
also plays too much into the "virgin/whore" double
standard for my liking. It denies the very real
sex drive that all of the women I know have. ;)
That being said, women are taught that "good
girls" don't want or like sex, and that sex is
okay only if you're in love and hopefully going to
get married. Personally, I think a lot more women
would like to be able to have straight-forward,
uncomplicated sex, to lose themselves in lust
instead of getting tangled up in emotion. It's
hard to shake a lifetime's worth of conditioning.
Getting back to the point, I have known women
who've had flings and casual sex with the best of
them, and men who've fallen hopelessly for every
woman they kiss, so I think it's more of an
individual personality trait than anything else.
Steph
--
The goths are beautiful, a vast depth of
subcultural, aesthetic and poetic ideas,
and we would identify with that as we
did back in 1979. But not the post modern
distortion...the costume without the brain.
- Peter Murphy
The Evil Chemist
indiv...@aol.communist (Individuat) wrote:
> They were both complaining that sleeping with
> some women, however, is emotionally a pain in the ass...
We weren't complaining.
We were having a discussion.
I don't know why you feel the need to portray us in such a light.
It does fucking piss me off though.
As I said, I don't like having to deal with the aftermath which is more
than just an "emotional pain in the ass". Alot of it also has to do
with the incestual aspect of the goth scene and all the bullshit of
everyone sticking their nose into everyone elses business, especially
the people with big fucking mouths.
> They just wanted women who
> they could be straight forward with about just wanting to fuck.
I want someone I can trust.
And there are very few people I can.
If I simply ommitted trust as a prerequisite,
I'd be having sex weekly.
jv
Cavalorn
>So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
>
>What do you think?
I think that fretting over such concerns is going to delay the C6 orgy,
and that I am not prepared to allow.
Cav
*giggle*
--
And I get the urge for going
When the meadowgrass is turning brown
& the summertime is falling down
& winter's closing in
Lady Bathory
read a.g, & to Ron Carrier, because i always cc him when i get verbose
like this]
Individuat <indiv...@aol.communist> said:
>JV, Casper, and I were discussing the differences between some men and
>women when it came to sex.
Mmm. Strange coincidence. I had a *VERY* similar discussion with Raphrat
on IRC Monday night, Cavalorn in a DCC chat today, & another general
discussion on the same topic in #agf. &, since the #agf discussion & the
one w/Cavalorn were FTMP spawned by my observation that i have a
(stereotypically) "masculine" view of sex/pursuit/chat-ups, etc[1], i'll
give it a go on this thread....
>They were both of the impression that being male is like having PMS
>year round[1] due to the high testosterone levels...and that sex was
>something that men really HAD to do. They were both complaining that
>sleeping with some women, however, is emotionally a pain in the ass...
>They just wanted women who they could be straight forward with about
>just wanting to fuck.
Gee, they must be counting the days til C6. ;)
No, seriously, i agree with the last bit (Dunno about that testosterone
stuff; i get the pining horns yet have no facial hair, so...?). Or,
rather, i agree not in those gender-specific terms, but definitely in
situational ones.
The last time i had a long period of being "unattached" (i.e., not
involved in a monogamous relationship), it used to piss me off to no end
when i'd invariably hook up w/these guys who'd moon around & call me
every day for the next month & want an instant girlfriend simply because
my boots wound up by their bed one night. I always thought, "Excuse me,
but what part of 'I have a condom' led you to believe i wanted
monogamous lurve?"
So i guess i'm agreeing somewhat, because while i sympathize with JV's &
Casper's point of view, i am one of the exceptions to the
gender-specific terms in which it's couched[3].
>I said that it was due to socialization. They stuck to the hormone
>argument. I said that women are raised to think sex and love go hand
>and hand...and sex is only something you do when you are in love.
>(That's what we're told...) So even when women get past that...it
>still lingers for some. They like the idea of sex without
>emotion....but something holds on.
So then said hypothetical women *haven't* "gotten past it", really.
I agree with your point that women are handed a lot of baggage by
society, family, religion, media, etc regarding sexual choices &
freedom, & that it is difficult for most women to just drop the
suitcases & hop in the sack, as it were[4].
However, i fail to see an actual disagreement in the two points...moreso
just evidence of a cosmic laugh at humanity's expense: "men want sex &
women want love</gross generalization>, har de har har, & just pass the
scotch this-a-ways because life sucks & then ya die".
It isn't one or the other--"hormones or socialization"--it's both. & it
goes both ways, too. Women are susceptible to their own set of
hormonal/biological influences (what's this infernal "biological clock"
i keep hearing so much about, the ticking of which is supposed to make
me want to crap out some progeny?), & men are overtly & covertly
encouraged to be mad sex fiends by society, family, religion, media,
etc. We all get the short end of the stick, as it were...& even when we
luck out & get the long end of the stick, ultimately, we're still just
getting the stick. :)
As long as one only does what one really honestly can cope with doing
(i.e., if casual sex really isn't cope-withable, don't compromise that
boundary; if relationships aren't general-your bag, then don't enter
into one with some poor sot just so general-you can have regular sex w/o
the exertion of the chase), then one maximizes one's chances of at least
getting the long end of the metaphorical stick more often than the
short.
& that'd be my $0.02 CDN[5] on the matter, w/some pocket lint & a gum
wrapper thrown in for good measure.
[1] Well, I *am* infamous for having said (years ago, mind you), in the
midst of conversation with a Chicago quarry, "so, would you like to go
home & fuck after this club closes?"[2]
[2] Hey, it worked.
[3] Yes, intentional pun. If you must throw tomatoes, please aim for my
midsection or lower. Thanks.
[4] This would be a reference to the baggage metaphor, & any parallels
between this comment & any person's activities surrounding the Hallowmas
weekend are purely coincidental. *coff*
[5] Gotta get rid of this frigging Canadian money somehow. *shrug*
--
Rachel E. Pollock.....<lad...@tartblossom.com>.....DJ Lady Bathory
The.Raphrat
> Individuat <indiv...@aol.communist> said:
> >JV, Casper, and I were discussing the differences between some
> men and
> >women when it came to sex.
>
> Mmm. Strange coincidence. I had a *VERY* similar discussion with
> Raphrat
> on IRC Monday night,
hmmm... i don't really see how said conversation really ties in w/ this
thread, but hey i'll go along with it. i dig being in bibliographies ;)
<snip additional footnoting, since i'm special)
> >They were both of the impression that being male is like having
> PMS
> >year round[1] due to the high testosterone levels...and that sex
> was
> >something that men really HAD to do. They were both complaining
> that
> >sleeping with some women, however, is emotionally a pain in the
> ass...
> >They just wanted women who they could be straight forward with
> about
> >just wanting to fuck.
> Gee, they must be counting the days til C6. ;)
i never really understood the Convergence Nookie syndrome. Having
never taken part in it myself, my only experience with it has been thru
others and never once have i seen it occur w/o sensationalistic drama
and/or spilling over into the gossip column. Of course a good many of
the gossip column entries end up as relationships to some extent after
the fact. I'm not condemming it, i'm just saying that
Convergence-related thingys aren't the elysian wonder bubble that
everyone makes them out to be. Strangely, i seem to have said something
to this effect before and after every one of these deals for the last 4
years....
YOU PEOPLE NEVER LISTEN TO ME.
I AM THE VOICE OF REASON.
NOW GIVE ME THE ICE CREAM.
> The last time i had a long period of being "unattached" (i.e., not
> involved in a monogamous relationship), it used to piss me off to
> no end
> when i'd invariably hook up w/these guys who'd moon around & call
> me
> every day for the next month & want an instant girlfriend simply
> because
> my boots wound up by their bed one night. I always thought,
> "Excuse me,
> but what part of 'I have a condom' led you to believe i wanted
> monogamous lurve?"
i used to be a slut. then 'something' happened (still not sure what). i
realized that when dealing with two individuals there's a smaller
chance that both ppl with have the same intentions in mind than you
might think, even if simply by degrees of difference. maybe i burned
myself out, but i'm no longer interested in sex outside of a
relationship - causes too many problems and repercussions, and i have a
limited amount of sanity and patience with which to deal wth such
things. i've decided that for myself, sex without deep emotional
attatchment is an unfulfilling waste of time which leaves me feeling
incredibly guilty for days afterward. I'm a hopeless romantic and an
even worse lay ;)
> So i guess i'm agreeing somewhat, because while i sympathize with
> JV's &
> Casper's point of view, i am one of the exceptions to the
> gender-specific terms in which it's couched[3].
so basically then yeah, i'm not much of a stereotypical male when it
comes to this b00fing thing.
> >I said that it was due to socialization. They stuck to the
> hormone
> >argument. I said that women are raised to think sex and love go
> hand
> >and hand...and sex is only something you do when you are in love.
> >(That's what we're told...) So even when women get past that...it
> >still lingers for some. They like the idea of sex without
> >emotion....but something holds on.
> So then said hypothetical women *haven't* "gotten past it",
> really.
see, i don't see why it's necessarily a good thing to "get past it".
to play devil's advocate, what if there were no social mores imposed
upon the genders for such things - would the whole 'pair-bond' concept
fall by the wayside?
('pair-bond'... science yet again sucks all emotion out of something)
> It isn't one or the other--"hormones or socialization"--it's both.
> & it
> goes both ways, too. Women are susceptible to their own set of
> hormonal/biological influences (what's this infernal "biological
> clock"
> i keep hearing so much about, the ticking of which is supposed to
> make
> me want to crap out some progeny?),
"crap out some progeny"
i'd like to reitterate that for those of you who missed it the first
time around....
"CRAP OUT SOME PROGENY"
> & men are overtly & covertly
> encouraged to be mad sex fiends by society, family, religion,
> media,
> etc. We all get the short end of the stick, as it were...& even
> when we
> luck out & get the long end of the stick, ultimately, we're still
> just
> getting the stick. :)
if men are supposed to be such mad sex fiends, why are so many of us so
bad at it? why are we given all this stimulation and encouragement
thru all the noted sources (society, media, the locker room, etc.) but
no instruction manual? i don't think it's much of a wonder that the
female orgasm is the most mysterious thing in the world.... how's that
for yet another great cosmic joke? i guess that's part of "still
getting the stick".
> As long as one only does what one really honestly can cope with
> doing
> (i.e., if casual sex really isn't cope-withable, don't compromise
> that
> boundary; if relationships aren't general-your bag, then don't
> enter
> into one with some poor sot just so general-you can have regular
> sex w/o
> the exertion of the chase), then one maximizes one's chances of at
> least
> getting the long end of the metaphorical stick more often than the
> short.
*clap* *clap*
- The Raphrat
http://ww.tyranny.com/~raphrat
who resisted the temptation to comment on a footnote...;)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jennie Kermode
>I said that women are raised to think sex and love go hand and hand...and sex
>is only something you do when you are in love. (That's what we're told...) So
>even when women get past that...it still lingers for some. They like the idea
>of sex without emotion....but something holds on.
I doubt it's all hormonal, as I know too many people who break
the gender stereotypes to be convinced by that - ime, the evidence just
doesn't support it. So I'd tend to go with the socialisation theory, with
the proviso that there will always be individuals who escape conditioning
that way, too, just as there will always be goths growing up in 'mundane'
families, etc., etc.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/jennie jen...@innocent.com
Jennie Kermode
>A person's reaction to whether s/he'd fuck a virgin, a slut,
>or a hooker might clarify exactly what one gets out of sex.
I fuck people - all of the above are subsets of that group, but
they're things I'd consider only after I'd considered the person as an
individual. I find it somewhat distasteful when people put those things
first, as if virgins, sluts and hookers all have the same personalities
and motivations.
>Personally, sex means something to me. Even if it's just an
>expression of mutual admiration. Sex with a beautiful stranger
>confuses the hell out of me. Sex with a new friend, well,
>that's probably unwise for the unknown potential consequences
>but still meaningful. To me.
See, for me, sex with a beautiful stranger can be meaningful
too, though it has to be with someone I feel respect for - I'm not
somebody who can let lust overrule being annoyed by someone, for instance.
I'm interested in discovering people, in getting to know the ways that
they think and feel, exploring, learning, communicating, and sex, to me,
is as valid a way of doing that as any other.
>I believe that an emotionally healthy person will desire, even
>need, meaningful relationships. Whether a war buddy, a true
>love, a trusted penpal, a guiding mentor, or someone to nurture.
Yes, I agree with this. These relationships are not necessarily
sexual themselves, however, and I think that some people can happily keep
their committed relationships quite separate from their sexual activity.
That is, I've known people with no interest in sex beyond one night stands
who have had very deep, lasting emotional relationships with friends which
were central to their lives.
Jennie Kermode
>due to natural selection, mates are chosen by their ability to assist the
>female in raising the offspring as well as provide the best possible genes
>for the recipient to draw from. A mate that will be able to provide the
Biologically speaking, it's a good idea for a female to find a
relationship partner who will be good at helping her raise her offspring,
but that doesn't mean she'll necessarily conceive her offspring by that
partner - it might be in her interests to find a different father for her
children and then convince the partner that they're his, if that's
necessary in order to keep him around. It's also in her interests to
ensure that each of her children has a different father.
Edvamp
>pacify the hormones :P
Hey, as I said in my rant, an empty meanlingless relationship consisting of
nothing but sex sounds pretty damn good right about now.
Ever and Always
Edvamp
Edvamp
>and that I am not prepared to allow.
Ah, an unofficial Convergence event I might actually attend.
Ever and Always
Edvamp
Individuat
>i never really understood the Convergence Nookie syndrome.
*cough* C2 *cough*
>Having
>never taken part in it myself,
I repeat...*cough* C2 *cough*
>see, i don't see why it's necessarily a good thing to "get past it".
I didn't place judgement on it....hrm...though i guess i did phrase it like I
had. My bad. Personally, I'm the kind that can get past it
occasionally....but then feels crappy about it and stays celibate for a few
years.
>would the whole 'pair-bond' concept
>fall by the wayside?
I have no idea. It's a good question and an interesting concept.
>if men are supposed to be such mad sex fiends, why are so many of us so
>bad at it?
small wee-wee :)
>no instruction manual?
_Joy_of_Sex_ pocket book edition.
>female orgasm is the most mysterious thing in the world....
you said it buster.
Eileen
Individuat
> Hey, as I said in my rant, an empty meanlingless relationship consisting
>of
>nothing but sex sounds pretty damn good right about now.
This from the man who told me, as an innocent 18 year old, "Show your tits to
the doormen at Aftermath and they'll let you in."
ah
memories.
Individuat
>I think that fretting over such concerns is going to delay the C6 orgy,
>and that I am not prepared to allow.
>
oh sure...
and i'm going to probably miss C6.
great.
Eileen (misses most of the good stuff)
Individuat
>From: The Evil Chemist jver...@suba.com
>We weren't complaining.
>We were having a discussion.
>I don't know why you feel the need to portray us in such a light.
>It does fucking piss me off though.
I'm sorry John...I didn't mean to portray you in any "light". The intention to
offend was not part of this post. I'm sorry you took it that way.
Eileen (truely is sorry...)
the Gruamach
<Cava...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> mumbled:
>In article <19991102230831...@ng-xb1.aol.com>, Individuat
><indiv...@aol.communist> writes
>
>>So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
>>
>>What do you think?
>
>I think that fretting over such concerns is going to delay the C6 orgy,
>and that I am not prepared to allow.
He's got MY vote on that!
(So, can I room with you, then?)
Charles (aka: the Gruamach) http://home.stlnet.com/~gothcop
alt.gothic's own Garibaldi,Daddygoff and Jedi Footrubmaster
"It is not enough to conquer,
One must know how to seduce." (Voltaire, 1743)
the Gruamach
(Individuat) mumbled:
>>From: edv...@aol.comKILLKILL (Edvamp)
>
>> Hey, as I said in my rant, an empty meanlingless relationship consisting
>>of
>>nothing but sex sounds pretty damn good right about now.
>
>This from the man who told me, as an innocent 18 year old, "Show your tits to
>the doormen at Aftermath and they'll let you in."
>
>ah
>memories.
But did you?
And did they?
Edvamp
>the doormen at Aftermath and they'll let you in."
Hey, as I recall I did not write the sign, merely pointed it out as
effective marketing. :)
Ever and Always
Edvamp
Lady Bathory
> rpol...@ici.net (Lady Bathory) wrote:
> > Individuat <indiv...@aol.communist> said:
> >
> > Mmm. Strange coincidence. I had a *VERY* similar discussion with
> > Raphrat
> > on IRC Monday night,
>
> hmmm... i don't really see how said conversation really ties in w/ this
> thread, but hey i'll go along with it. i dig being in bibliographies ;)
There was the discussion regarding your being adverse to the prospect of
a blunt pickup line & my observations on gauging receptivity to
bluntness.
...or am i perhaps blurring the line between the public conversation in
the channel & the private-msg one?
Enh. Should've never taken the brown acid. <shrug>
> i never really understood the Convergence Nookie syndrome. Having
> never taken part in it myself, my only experience with it has been thru
> others and never once have i seen it occur w/o sensationalistic drama
> and/or spilling over into the gossip column. Of course a good many of
> the gossip column entries end up as relationships to some extent after
> the fact. I'm not condemming it, i'm just saying that
> Convergence-related thingys aren't the elysian wonder bubble that
> everyone makes them out to be.
Of course, you are discounting all the Convergence Nookie which never
makes it into the gossip column, because the participants don't flap
their yaps about it overmuch, or go out the mext morning in sporting "I
Fucked <whomever> at Convergence & All I Got Was This Lousy Teeshirt"s.
That "CN" you wouldn't have seen occur, of course, tho', & thus wouldn't
have tabulated it as data with which to formulate the above opinion, as
it was obviously discreet. (I speak in general terms here, & lay no
specific personal claim to either nookie or discretion. So nyah. :)
> Strangely, i seem to have said something
> to this effect before and after every one of these deals for the last 4
> years....
>
> YOU PEOPLE NEVER LISTEN TO ME.
> I AM THE VOICE OF REASON.
> NOW GIVE ME THE ICE CREAM.
Ugh, take it. I despise ice cream. I'll sit over here with my bag of
chex mix, if you don't mind. :)
> i used to be a slut. then 'something' happened (still not sure what). i
> realized that when dealing with two individuals there's a smaller
> chance that both ppl with have the same intentions in mind than you
> might think, even if simply by degrees of difference.
Hmm. I guess then, in the immortal words of Paula Abdul, i'm a
coldhearted snake. I figure that since i never proposition someone i
don't respect, then if something comes of it, fine. If not, fine too.
But then, this all started out as a hypothetical discussion & has
quickly degenerated into "here's what I think about fucking & my
experiences therewith", & i don't really want to hold the candle that
close to my bedpost.
> maybe i burned
> myself out, but i'm no longer interested in sex outside of a
> relationship - causes too many problems and repercussions, and i have a
> limited amount of sanity and patience with which to deal wth such
> things. i've decided that for myself, sex without deep emotional
> attatchment is an unfulfilling waste of time which leaves me feeling
> incredibly guilty for days afterward. I'm a hopeless romantic and an
> even worse lay ;)
Ugh, Boo. & you wanted to know which list you were on? Geez. :p :)
> > >I said that it was due to socialization. They stuck to the
> > hormone
> > >argument. I said that women are raised to think sex and love go
> > hand
> > >and hand...and sex is only something you do when you are in love.
> > >(That's what we're told...) So even when women get past that...it
> > >still lingers for some. They like the idea of sex without
> > >emotion....but something holds on.
> > So then said hypothetical women *haven't* "gotten past it",
> > really.
>
> see, i don't see why it's necessarily a good thing to "get past it".
Who says it is? I was just saying, one either gets past it, doesn't even
try to get past it, or compromises onesself & feels like shit about it.
> to play devil's advocate, what if there were no social mores imposed
> upon the genders for such things - would the whole 'pair-bond' concept
> fall by the wayside?
I don't think so. Plenty of ppl fall madly in love. Plenty of ppl raise
children together. It mightn't be so structured, & it might evolve to
polyfidelity without a societal & religious pushing of monogamy, but i
think you'd always have ppl together in love-relationships. It's the
"forever" bullshit that irks me, but again, this is starting to cut into
the tangible instead of remaining in the hypothetical realm, so allow me
my therapeutic promiscuity, i'll allow you your gooshy love-eyes &
prominent hickeys, & let's be on about it. :)
[...]
> > (what's this infernal "biological
> > clock"
> > i keep hearing so much about, the ticking of which is supposed to
> > make
> > me want to crap out some progeny?),
>
> "crap out some progeny"
>
> i'd like to reitterate that for those of you who missed it the first
> time around....
>
> "CRAP OUT SOME PROGENY"
Kids. Ugh, nice enough if you chop them thin & serve them on ryetoast.
Well, except for all the netgoth babies. But then, i can just look at
their pictures from afar, send nice gifts, & be on with the drinking too
much & staying out too late.
> > & men are overtly & covertly
> > encouraged to be mad sex fiends by society, family, religion,
> > media,
> > etc. We all get the short end of the stick, as it were...& even
> > when we
> > luck out & get the long end of the stick, ultimately, we're still
> > just
> > getting the stick. :)
>
> if men are supposed to be such mad sex fiends,
No, not *supposed* to be, are *perceived* to be &/or *encouraged* to be.
> why are so many of us so
> bad at it? why are we given all this stimulation and encouragement
> thru all the noted sources (society, media, the locker room, etc.) but
> no instruction manual?
You are your own instruction manual.
Seriously, could you really generalize how to be a good lover to *every*
woman into a rote form? "Stick Tab A into Slot B while pressing Tab C.
Repeat as necessary." Hell no. Everyone likes different things. You
don't need an instruction manual if you have a woman who talks to you.
Of course, many women feel uncomfortable w/that, & some may not even
know what they like...but that might just cycle back round to the
"socialization" bit.
> i don't think it's much of a wonder that the
> female orgasm is the most mysterious thing in the world.... how's that
> for yet another great cosmic joke? i guess that's part of "still
> getting the stick".
Getting the stick is fine with me, because no matter what, a manual
stick beats a battery-operated one. It's better to show the
stick-wielder which buttons to push, than to push one yourself alone in
a cold dark room.
--
Rachel E. Pollock.....<lad...@tartblossom.com>.....DJ Lady Bathory
Cartoon Hair for Real People: http:www.tartblossom.com
Sleepycat
indiv...@aol.communist (Individuat) wrote:
> They were both of the impression that being male is like having PMS year
> round[1] due to the high testosterone levels...and that sex was something that
> men really HAD to do.
I don't find the idea that there is any kind of reliable gender difference
in this whole issue even 1% convincing.
----///---- Kevin J. Bonham (Sleepycat) ----///----
Sleepycat's partner says: "As for 'goth as a way of life', I wonder if the
people who say this even have one."
The.Raphrat
> >The.Raphrat raphrat...@tyranny.com.invalid
> >
> >i never really understood the Convergence Nookie syndrome.
much different circumstances, you gotta admit.
besides that led to a well-documented part of a.g history,
or something.
> >Having
> >never taken part in it myself,
> I repeat...*cough* C2 *cough*
much different circumstances, you gotta admit.
yadda yadda yadda...
frankly, i'm ecstatically happy right now. it's quite sickening really.
my reputation is ka-put.
> >see, i don't see why it's necessarily a good thing to "get past
> it".
> I didn't place judgement on it....hrm...though i guess i did
> phrase it like I
> had. My bad. Personally, I'm the kind that can get past it
> occasionally....but then feels crappy about it and stays celibate
> for a few
> years.
hence my infamous "No Sex in 99" pledge, and the resulting
secret betting pool that developed amongst my "friends".
friends suck. especially when they refuse to split the loot
with the butt of their joke.....
> >would the whole 'pair-bond' concept
> >fall by the wayside?
> I have no idea. It's a good question and an interesting concept.
dammit! i was TRYING to stay away from thought-provoking stuff.
let's go back to talking about my willy...
> >if men are supposed to be such mad sex fiends, why are so many of
> us so
> >bad at it?
> small wee-wee :)
let's not get personal here...
> >no instruction manual?
> _Joy_of_Sex_ pocket book edition.
i was hoping for the "books on tape" edition, but that's the LAST thing
i want my mom accidentally popping into the car stereo on the way to
church...
> >female orgasm is the most mysterious thing in the world....
> you said it buster.
*grin*
- The Raphrat
http://www.tyranny.com/~raphrat
not insinuating a damn thing....
Zoe
> > involved in a monogamous relationship), it used to piss me off to
> > no end
> > when i'd invariably hook up w/these guys who'd moon around & call
> > me
> > every day for the next month & want an instant girlfriend simply
> > because
> > my boots wound up by their bed one night. I always thought,
> > "Excuse me,
> > but what part of 'I have a condom' led you to believe i wanted
> > monogamous lurve?"
>
> i used to be a slut. then 'something' happened (still not sure what). i
> realized that when dealing with two individuals there's a smaller
> chance that both ppl with have the same intentions in mind than you
> might think, even if simply by degrees of difference. maybe i burned
> myself out, but i'm no longer interested in sex outside of a
> relationship - causes too many problems and repercussions, and i have a
> limited amount of sanity and patience with which to deal wth such
> things. i've decided that for myself, sex without deep emotional
> attatchment is an unfulfilling waste of time which leaves me feeling
> incredibly guilty for days afterward. I'm a hopeless romantic and an
> even worse lay ;)
I may be a Turbo Tramp but one thing I've never been is a slut. I don't
do one-night stands, I don't fuck strangers just to fuck. This isn't
because, as a woman, I'm unable to have sex without love or some
emotional involvement. In that respect I have the more stereotypical guy
approach in that it's "just" sex. I'm perfectly capable of casual sex
without guilt or shame or awkwardness. But I won't do anything with
someone I wouldn't consider a friend. And my elitist attitude is not
checked at the bedroom door. I'm picky.
Like I said, I think I've got a healthy attitude towards sex. No nasty
guilt complexes, no shame over enjoying myself, no inhibitions born of
body issues (tho i probably should be better about shaving my legs when
i'm gonna get some.) But I still tend to stay away from casual sex
unless there's something more to it because it does usually get weird.
And it's just not worth it. Sure, it's still fun but when I'm not really
attached to the person I could have just as good a time playing Tetris
and with less mess. Call me a romantic but I think sex is better when
it's not just about getting in, getting off and getting out.
> > >I said that it was due to socialization. They stuck to the
> > hormone
> > >argument. I said that women are raised to think sex and love go
> > hand
> > >and hand...and sex is only something you do when you are in love.
> > >(That's what we're told...) So even when women get past that...it
> > >still lingers for some. They like the idea of sex without
> > >emotion....but something holds on.
> > So then said hypothetical women *haven't* "gotten past it",
> > really.
>
> see, i don't see why it's necessarily a good thing to "get past it".
> to play devil's advocate, what if there were no social mores imposed
> upon the genders for such things - would the whole 'pair-bond' concept
> fall by the wayside?
Getting over it isn't necessarily a good thing. But neither is being
unable to enjoy a good boink because you're crippled by the thought that
you shouldn't do it unless you're in Love and even then Sex is Dirty and
Good Girls Don't Do It Unless Their Husbands Want It.
> ('pair-bond'... science yet again sucks all emotion out of something)
Science may suck out the emotion but Data was capable of functioning ...
fully.
Data.
Yum.
> > & men are overtly & covertly
> > encouraged to be mad sex fiends by society, family, religion,
> > media,
> > etc. We all get the short end of the stick, as it were...& even
> > when we
> > luck out & get the long end of the stick, ultimately, we're still
> > just
> > getting the stick. :)
>
> if men are supposed to be such mad sex fiends, why are so many of us so
> bad at it? why are we given all this stimulation and encouragement
> thru all the noted sources (society, media, the locker room, etc.) but
> no instruction manual? i don't think it's much of a wonder that the
> female orgasm is the most mysterious thing in the world.... how's that
> for yet another great cosmic joke? i guess that's part of "still
> getting the stick".
They're bad at it because they just care about getting off. No one's
told them that getting there is half the fun. You know, starting in a
different room and eventually making your way to the bed (or futon, or
air mattress or mirrored coffee table or whatever) leaving behind a
trail of clothes and gouges in the plaster, the occasional pillow fight,
accessories like my brand-spankin' new Floggerella which is almost too
cute to be used.
Female orgasms are mysterious things. Lots of fun tho. Yep. Definitely
lots of fun. Hmm, maybe if more women orgasmed during sex more often
we'd be big sex fiends too.
> > As long as one only does what one really honestly can cope with
> > doing
> > (i.e., if casual sex really isn't cope-withable, don't compromise
> > that
> > boundary; if relationships aren't general-your bag, then don't
> > enter
> > into one with some poor sot just so general-you can have regular
> > sex w/o
> > the exertion of the chase), then one maximizes one's chances of at
> > least
> > getting the long end of the metaphorical stick more often than the
> > short.
Yeah, what she said.
Zoe
Kest
> The last time i had a long period of being "unattached" (i.e., not
> involved in a monogamous relationship), it used to piss me off to no end
> when i'd invariably hook up w/these guys who'd moon around & call me
> every day for the next month & want an instant girlfriend simply because
> my boots wound up by their bed one night. I always thought, "Excuse me,
> but what part of 'I have a condom' led you to believe i wanted
> monogamous lurve?"
'Cause you're female, or course. I think those socialization-created
assumptions have some weird effects. Girls who, when a guy turns down
their offer of sex, think something must obviously be _wrong_ with them,
'cause all guys want sex all the time, right? And meanwhile, we (the
estrogen enhanced) are supposed to be the eternal purveyors of love and
affection.
Of course, the stereotypes are a load of bullcrap. From my experience
men, while tending to be more into casual sex ('cause _they_ don't have
to worry about the vague possibility of getting pregnant), seem to 'fall
in love' more quickly and easily than women and are in general more
attached to the relationship. (You don't think marriage was invented by
a _woman_, do you?) I think the whole 'evolution' thing needed to
create a reason in men's minds to stick around to help raise the baby,
not to mention be sure it was his (see also irrational male jealousy).
Personally, I'm not real fond of casual sex, but I'm not really very
fond of committed sex either. My dream world has a a bunch of really
good male friends, some of which are like brothers (who was it that was
saying that men can't be just friends with women, they always want sex?)
and some of which I can sleep with without commitment (and without
affecting our relationship, even if I decide _not_ to sleep with them.
I'm always bickering with boyfriends that I wouldn't fight with in a
million years as just friends). And the ability to consciously control
my ovaries.
Not really hormones or socialization, just the annoying confusion of one
individual dealing with another individual.
k
Cavalorn
<rpol...@ici.net> writes
>Mmm. Strange coincidence. I had a *VERY* similar discussion with Raphrat
>discussion on the same topic in #agf.
Must be something in the air, I guess. ;)
>As long as one only does what one really honestly can cope with doing
...
>then one maximizes one's chances of at least
>getting the long end of the metaphorical stick more often than the
>short.
There's another factor which comes into play here. It's really not
enough (for my part) for the other party simply to be honest about not
wanting more than a tumble in the furs. There has to be a cameraderie of
soul there, too. A mutual sense of rage, rage against the dying of the
light, or something not too far away from that; but merry, rather than
desperate. Sa-ha, my goodly wench, etc.
Without soul contact (NOT necessarily 'love', my dears) the process is
just flesh banging against flesh, and about as fulfilling and worthwhile
as mid-eighties made-on-video pornography. Yechh.
Any person can be honest about just wanting to fuck. But there's the
dead-end honesty that speaks from the bottom of a bottle of JD, and then
there's the honesty of a laughing heart.
The former smacks of desperation, and there's not much which is as
unattractive as desperation.
The latter is what illuminates my best nights (speaking personally for a
moment), when my Wanton Goth Shield of Total Invulnerability is up and
flaring. People tend to think that sincere lust, if expressed, will
frighten people off or creep them out. It doesn't, if you do it with
humour, respect and good grace, and you're prepared to bounce back from
the occasional rejection. :) Let your eyes be bright and your underwear
freshly laundered, and don't be afraid to land smack on your ass.
In that mode and in that mood, I can hunt without result all night and
not care, or go from starting pistol to snog with someone I've never met
in 60 seconds. Snogging is usually quite enough to completely exilerate,
btw, and sex if it occurs is just the icing on the cake. Inbetween
bouts, when coming up for breath, you just laugh. And Goatboy's fire
flickers in your veins. [1]
But what about reputation? Well, yes, that is a factor. At first, people
can't tell the difference between rampant (a good old word which some of
us here in Manchester have been rehabilitating) and indiscriminate. They
assume that you'll go with anyone, just because you like the general
practice of going. Well, them's the breaks. If you aren't prepared to
weather the lopsided projections of the morally stunted, then hang up
the nice boots and grow out the hair dye, says I.
>& that'd be my $0.02 CDN[5] on the matter, w/some pocket lint & a gum
>wrapper thrown in for good measure.
Dig deeper. There may be a condom in there somewhere. ;)
Cav
[1] Those who do not understand the Goatboy reference should watch more
Bill Hicks. Those who do should watch him again.
siobhan
<raphrat...@tyranny.com.invalid> wrote:
>hence my infamous "No Sex in 99" pledge, and the resulting
>secret betting pool that developed amongst my "friends".
>
>friends suck. especially when they refuse to split the loot
>with the butt of their joke.....
Damn. That reminds me, I still owe Jealousy 20 bucks.
Siobhan
....Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
{http://www.interlog.com/~siobhan} sio...@interlog.com
"The pen is mightier than the sword. The neat thing
about a keyboard though is that it weighs more and
you can get a much better batting grip."~TSM
Endymion
> indiv...@aol.communist (Individuat) wrote:
>
> > They were both of the impression that being male is like having PMS
year
> > round[1] due to the high testosterone levels...and that sex was
something that
> > men really HAD to do.
>
> I don't find the idea that there is any kind of reliable gender
difference
> in this whole issue even 1% convincing.
Testosterone is a powerful hormone known to affect sex drive and many other
aspects of behavior in some proportion to its concentration.
It is present in the average man at levels 50-60 times higher than those
found in the average woman.
How could this conceivably *not* lead to some amount of difference?
Women's reproductive systems are designed solely for the act of
child-bearing [1] and men's are not. How could that make no difference?
(That being said, the differences are subtle, complex, and not well
understood, as well as being distorted almost beyond recognition by
socialization, with the result possibly varying as much between individuals
as between sexes, and probably having little to do with popular stereotypes
- but none of that is the same as saying there is no difference to start
with.)
I have never understood the power of political correctness [2] to make
people pretend to be unable to see differences as clear as night and day.
[1] This is not to say that it is an individual woman's biological
imperative to bear a child, or that the only proper use of the system is to
"shit out progeny", or any such thing - simply that the hardware was
originally designed for this function, and that even if the individual is
running non-childbearing software, the hardware configuration surely must
have *some* impact on how the software runs in that particular area in
comparison with an alternative system that may be running the same software
but has hardware designed for a different function.
[2] And despite its frequent abuse I find this a useful term to designate
the use of backwards logic to conclude that if you can't prove or disprove
a syllogism, but don't like the implications of its conclusion, the
premises must be false.
--
Endymion Bruce.Tuc...@lexis-nexis.com
Defensor Vini et Tabaci et Vitae Nimii
"Here lies one whose name was writ in water."
_Casper
>
> JV, Casper, and I were discussing the differences between some
> men and women when it came to sex.
>
> PMS year round[1] due to the high testosterone levels...
Huh?
I Don't Get The PMs Reference.
As Far As I Know, Being Male Doesn't Make One Bitchy.
*Ducks*
> and that sex was something that men really HAD to do.
Actually, My Point Was That Sex Is Something That *Both*
Women And Men Want.
Before Being A Emotional Thing, On A Much Baser Level,
It Is A Physical Urge.
No One *Has* To Do It. There's No Overwhelming Need To Get Laid.
> They were both complaining that sleeping with some women, however,
> is emotionally a pain in the ass... They just wanted women who
> they could be straight forward with about just wanting to fuck.
Well, This Is Out Of Context.
The Complaint Was About The Amazing Rarity Of Women Accepting
The Facts Of Just Wanting A One Night Stand Without Any
Emotional Involvement More Profound Than "Damn, You're Hot.
Let's Fuck Like Minks".
> This was hypothetical.....just to remind you all.
>
> I said that it was due to socialization. They stuck to the
> hormone argument.
Actually, My Argument Was More Along the Lines Of "Women
Are Nuts, They Make No Sense"...
Obviously, A Very Intellectual And Scientific Argument, I Know.
> I said that women are raised to think sex and love go hand and
> hand...and sex is only something you do when you are in love.
> (That's what we're told...) So even when women get past that...
> it still lingers for some. They like the idea of sex without
> emotion....but something holds on.
>
> So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
>
> What do you think?
As I Said At Hallowmas, The Only Conclusion I Can Come To
Is That I Don't Understand Sweet FuckAll About These Things.
Hormones Or Socialization, It Shouldn't Matter.
We're Sentient Creatures. We Can Make Conscious Decisions.
If We Can Suppress The Impulses Our Hormones Send Us, Should
We Not Also Be Able To Suppress Our Socialized Impulses?
I Can And Do Stop Myself From Acting On Any Number Of Visceral
Impulses On A Daily Basis.
And I Most Certainly Stop Myself Daily From Reacting In
A Manner Of Socialized Ways.
Why? Because I Can Think.
Therefore, I Find It Somewhat Ridiculous To Say That
Women Will React A Certain Way Because Of Their Upbringing
Or What Society Expects From Them.
That Akin To Saying That They Have No Real Control On Their
Actions, Isn't It?
...
Hopefully, This Made Sense. I'm Not Sure Now Because I'm
Much Too Tired To Think Straight...
_Casper Von B.
No Sleep Going On 24 Hours Now
siobhan
wrote:
> As Far As I Know, Being Male Doesn't Make One Bitchy.
*snort*
> The Complaint Was About The Amazing Rarity Of Women Accepting
> The Facts Of Just Wanting A One Night Stand Without Any
> Emotional Involvement More Profound Than "Damn, You're Hot.
> Let's Fuck Like Minks".
"Accepting the fact"?
You mean you can't find women who accept that all a man might want
at that moment is to have a one-night stand or you can't find women
who themselves want one? (And more importantly who want to have one
with you.)
> Actually, My Argument Was More Along the Lines Of "Women
> Are Nuts, They Make No Sense"...
>
> Obviously, A Very Intellectual And Scientific Argument, I Know.
I, on the other hand, have been collecting data for years, and can
speak with some authority on this matter.
And it is my opinion that women make no sense.[1]
Siobhan
[2] Not that any of the other genders do.
Rafe
> i never really understood the Convergence Nookie syndrome.
take hundreds of gothies. stick in close proximity.
add alcohol.
stir.
many will have sex with one another at some point.
This is the expectation based on the stereotypical image of young adults,
especially kinky young adults, and doubly especially on kinky young adults who
share a particular lifestyle. i could go on, but everyone gets the point (i
think).
> Having never taken part in it myself
just for clarification (and because i'm nosy and miss everyone already), was
this by your choice or the judgement of the masses (ie: you wanted to but
weren't able to partner up. . . i fall into this latter category for reasons
unknown to the author)
> I'm not condemming it, i'm just saying that
> Convergence-related thingys aren't the elysian wonder bubble that
> everyone makes them out to be.
that must be the crux of my post-partum (post-party) depression after
hallowmas. . . no nookie. hmm. i'd built it up to be this tremendous thing and
when it didn't meet that expectation (have oodles of fun, drink self silly, find
orgasm facilitator), i got bummed out.
> YOU PEOPLE NEVER LISTEN TO ME.
> I AM THE VOICE OF REASON.
> NOW GIVE ME THE ICE CREAM.
sir, drop the chalupa.
> to play devil's advocate, what if there were no social mores imposed
> upon the genders for such things - would the whole 'pair-bond' concept
> fall by the wayside?
no, because some people are just wired to pair up long-term, IMHO. i know i
am (other than small fits of slut-ism, which are all years past now *sigh*).
would i have sex all the time if possible (and if the fatigue wouldn't kill
me)? oh, probably. but doing it with the same person, whom feelings are shared
with, is rather niftier than some anonymous (or not-wholly-anonymous) one-timer.
*shrug*
> if men are supposed to be such mad sex fiends, why are so many of us so
> bad at it?
because we're inattentive and suffer from short attention spans?
i mean, really, is it that challenging to remember "in, out, repeat"????
> but no instruction manual?
see above for the refresher course. ;-)
> female orgasm is the most mysterious thing in the world.... how's that
> for yet another great cosmic joke? i guess that's part of "still
> getting the stick".
or 'not getting the stick in quite the right spot.' anyways. . . .
-Rafe
V^^^^V
## See no evil, hear no evil, date no evil. ##
Endymion
> Of course, the stereotypes are a load of bullcrap. From my experience
> men, while tending to be more into casual sex ('cause _they_ don't have
> to worry about the vague possibility of getting pregnant), seem to 'fall
> in love' more quickly and easily than women and are in general more
> attached to the relationship.
That's a pretty unsupportable statement.
In terms of genuine, long-term commitment, I haven't seen enough consistent
difference between sexes to say its significant. I know lots of bitter
divorced people of either sex who swear the problem is the other sex - men
leaving for trophy wives, women being inherently fickle, whatever. The fact
is every working marriage requires two committed people, and there are
plenty of divorces initiated by each sex, so I don't think one can say men
or women tend to be more attached to relationships.
In the short term, the complaint about one's cheap fuck following one
around expecting a relationship is certainly a lot more common among men -
you really don't hear women making the chewing off the arm joke, or saying
"you don't pay a hooker for sex, you pay her to leave afterwards". Of
course we're back to stereotypes without much factual backing, but I think
it's important to distinguish the lack of evidence for the "men are more
casual" stereotype from a mistaken assumption that the lack of evidence for
a stereotype means its opposite must be true.
> (You don't think marriage was invented by a _woman_, do you?)
I doubt very much it was "invented" by anyone. I certainly don't for a
second believe the radical feminist hogwash about it being institutional
slavery imposed on women.
> I think the whole 'evolution' thing needed to
> create a reason in men's minds to stick around to help raise the baby,
> not to mention be sure it was his
True enough. Each side gets something out of the pairing -the woman, an
extra set of hands to provide for and raise the kids, the man a guarantee
that his offspring are provided for (and his efforts go only to his). Alas,
each is also provided with a biological motive to cheat as well (the man to
hedge his bets by spreading his progeny far and wide, the woman to optimize
her offspring's chances by catching the best possible provider and the best
possible genetic material provider, which may not be the same man).
But how much of a role does functional biological determinism really play
in sex behavior? Probably some - but whether it's one minor factor or the
major factor is, I think, still undetermined.
And of course jumping from biological determinism to any sort of
conclusions on morality and proper expectations of anyone's behavior is
another thing entirely (not that you've done that, but others have brought
it up).
> (see also irrational male jealousy).
Irrational? From an evolutionary point of view it was highly rational.
> Personally, I'm not real fond of casual sex, but I'm not really very
> fond of committed sex either.
This is one difference I still see between sex behaviors. I see very few
unselective women compared to the high numbers of men who are either
unselective or do nothing but weed out a minority of physically
unattractive partners. Men seem to range from highly monogamous to "if it's
a hole, I'll fuck it", while women tend to range from highly monogamous to
promiscuous among a selected set of qualified (and usually respected,
whatever that entails) potential partners.
How many women are there who frequently just want a fuck, any fuck, even a
substandard and unemotional fuck with someone they don't know, don't like,
and probably have mutual contempt for, as long as the provider isn't
horrendously unattractive? The majority of men don't want that either, but
enough do to support a thriving sex industry.
Or, to take a line from The Man Show (never thought I'd be doing that...):
"Just look at the prostitution industry - female prostitutes serve male
customers. Male prostitutes serve... male customers. You draw your own
conclusions."
Endymion
> Individuat <indiv...@aol.communist> said:
> >They just wanted women who they could be straight forward with about
> >just wanting to fuck.
Personally, I'd be more happy to find a higher percentage of men OR women
who were *willing* to be straightforward with their partners and themselves
about just wanting to fuck.
One of the most annoying, and sometimes deeply painful, things that can
happen is this area is not misjudging mutuality of intentions, but being
deliberately deceived about them. There's absolutely nothing wrong with
just wanting a casual bounce around the bedroom and being honest about it;
it's hardly wicked to simply ignore or forget about the subject and not
realize the other person may want more; it's getting nasty to realize the
other person wants more and not tell them you don't for fear of losing the
chance at the casual sex you want, and downright evil to take the lead,
even before the other person expresses an interest, in declaring eternal
love, deep compatibility, a powerful and irresistible psychic and emotional
bond, etc., when none of that really exists. Yet people do this all the
time, either because they think it's what the other person wants and what
they have to do to get the casual lay, or because the person making the
promises is so out of touch with his or her own feelings that s/he can't
allow him/herself to enjoy the sex without going through the motions of
commitment.
What's even worse is that I've been victimized by these people in a couple
of instances where casual sex would have been fine, but, being open to
going either way with it, their opening the door to a deeper bond made me
desire and attempt to establish it a lot more than I would have otherwise -
only to be burned by finding out it was all an act.
I don't think that's any more or less painful for anyone of either sex.
> I agree with your point that women are handed a lot of baggage by
> society, family, religion, media, etc regarding sexual choices &
> freedom, & that it is difficult for most women to just drop the
> suitcases & hop in the sack, as it were[4].
Don't think men don't get handed a lot of different, but equally damaging
baggage, too - and not just the "you should want sex because the more of it
you get the happier you'll be" bit either. I think both sexes get handed
baggage that makes it difficult to have fulfilling sex lives. Both are told
to be competitive and use sex as a way of measuring success rather than
simply a way to enjoy themselves.
Of course the scoring methods society dictates differ, and I think that's
responsible for a lot of the differences in sexual behavior. Women score
points by getting men to want them - with a bonus if they can withhold the
prize and still keep the interest up. Men score points by getting women to
screw them. To the extent this is true, it could mean that women and men
both want sex for its own sake just as badly, but men have an additional
socialized motivation to have sex, while women have one not to.
(Another point on the thread in general: I wouldn't use the goth scene or
its members of indicators of general trends in sexual behavior, whether
"natural" or due to social influences. Goths as a group exhibit VERY
different sexual behaviors from much of society; how many fratboys or
sorority chicks are as likely to cross sexual boundaries in even the
indirect ways goths commonly do? There are a lot of factors at work there
but it's probably safe to say that the goth scene both attracts existing
exceptions to norms and further socializes them differently from other
young adults.)
Ron Cecchini
_Casper <casp...@total.net> wrote:
> Actually, My Argument Was More Along the Lines Of "Women
> Are Nuts, They Make No Sense"...
>
> Obviously, A Very Intellectual And Scientific Argument, I Know.
Yes, but when one is inundated w/ so much supporting evidence,
eventually the hypothesis goes from "theory" to "law"...
<ducks>
> As I Said At Hallowmas, The Only Conclusion I Can Come To
> Is That I Don't Understand Sweet FuckAll About These Things.
i believe i had a similar conversation w/ Thom & Olivia over sushi,
something about "When it comes to humans & sex, all bets are off ...
there are no rules ... it's the most incomprehensible thing to try
to understand." (something like that.)
(& for you former Northern Exposure fans, i believe Ruth Ann gave
a similar speech to Ed or Joel.)
> Hormones Or Socialization, It Shouldn't Matter.
>
> We're Sentient Creatures. We Can Make Conscious Decisions.
>
> If We Can Suppress The Impulses Our Hormones Send Us, Should
> We Not Also Be Able To Suppress Our Socialized Impulses?
>
> I Can And Do Stop Myself From Acting On Any Number Of Visceral
> Impulses On A Daily Basis.
My life can be accurately characterized & summarized by the phrase:
A daily battle against my testicles
][
WorLord
>_Casper <casp...@total.net> wrote:
>My life can be accurately characterized & summarized by the phrase:
> A daily battle against my testicles
>][
*spits mocha on monitor*
*gets funny looks from cow-workers*
Ron, I needed that.
--WorLord
"You could spend an hour counting the petals in a flower
It might take you a year to count the veins in each petal
If you spent ten lifetimes, maybe you could count its cells...
...but you'd have completely missed the point
You fuckhead."
Sabrina
> Individuat wrote:
> >
> > JV, Casper, and I were discussing the differences between some
> > men and women when it came to sex.
> >
> > They were both of the impression that being male is like having
> > PMS year round[1] due to the high testosterone levels...
>
> Huh?
>
> I Don't Get The PMs Reference.
>
> As Far As I Know, Being Male Doesn't Make One Bitchy.
>
> *Ducks*
>
> > and that sex was something that men really HAD to do.
>
> Actually, My Point Was That Sex Is Something That *Both*
> Women And Men Want.
Ugh. I can't read it! Ick, ick, ick!
Sabrina
"But it is myself," Sara cried. "This is how I am, scared and tired all
the time, you've no idea." -'Nellie Without Hugo', Janet Hobhouse.
Rafe
> Quoth the Ron.Ce...@GD-CS.Com (Ron Cecchini), nevermore:
> > A daily battle against my testicles
> Ron, I needed that.
am i the only one terrified that warlord wants to battle ron's
testicles every day?
Rafe
V^^^^V
There are two perfect men; one dead, the other unborn. - Chinese proverb
Not all people are annoying. Some are dead. - Unknown
WorLord
>WorLord wrote:
>> Quoth the Ron.Ce...@GD-CS.Com (Ron Cecchini), nevermore:
> am i the only one terrified that warlord wants to battle ron's
>testicles every day?
>Rafe
> V^^^^V
Never underestimate the cinematic appeal of a well-telivised Battle Of
The Balls (c).
The.Raphrat
rpol...@ici.net (Lady Bathory) wrote:
> The.Raphrat <raphrat...@tyranny.com.invalid> wrote:
> > rpol...@ici.net (Lady Bathory) wrote:
> > > Individuat <indiv...@aol.communist> said:
> > >
> > > Mmm. Strange coincidence. I had a *VERY* similar discussion with
> > > Raphrat on IRC Monday night,
> >
> > hmmm... i don't really see how said conversation really ties in w/
this
> > thread, but hey i'll go along with it. i dig being in
bibliographies ;)
> There was the discussion regarding your being adverse to the prospect
of
> a blunt pickup line & my observations on gauging receptivity to
bluntness.
oh yeah. now i feel like a drip for blowing the whole hypothetical
nature of the thread. then again, i steer away from spouting
hypotheticals unless it involves me weaseling an expense account out of
our billing department....
i think the point of my views on the users of pick-up lines kinda
supports the idea that the gap is narrowing a bit between the sexes.
maybe it's sort of a second-but-twisted sexual revolution, but i notice
more 'aggressive' women and more men taking 'traditional' female
outlooks on hooking up. yeah i'm generalizing since it's yet another
individualXindividual issue, but to admit that every argument comes
down to that would negate all discussions we have on here, and we can't
have that ;)
however i agree that people looking to 'hook up' will search each other
out if they have good homing devices. it's when the aim is off or one
just doesnt care about the desired target that Shit Happens. and in
cases like that the jerks get what they deserve when the fallout hits.
hmmm... i'm sounding like an asshole again.
> ....or am i perhaps blurring the line between the public conversation
in
> the channel & the private-msg one?
> Enh. Should've never taken the brown acid. <shrug>
i blame my memory on the caffeine and the sleep dep. my co-workers
blame it on me sitting too close to particle accelerator, but to each
their own...
> > i never really understood the Convergence Nookie syndrome. Having
> > never taken part in it myself, my only experience with it has been
thru
> > others and never once have i seen it occur w/o sensationalistic
drama
> > and/or spilling over into the gossip column. Of course a good many
of
> > the gossip column entries end up as relationships to some extent
after
> > the fact. I'm not condemming it, i'm just saying that
> > Convergence-related thingys aren't the elysian wonder bubble that
> > everyone makes them out to be.
> Of course, you are discounting all the Convergence Nookie which never
> makes it into the gossip column, because the participants don't flap
> their yaps about it overmuch, or go out the mext morning in sporting
"I
> Fucked <whomever> at Convergence & All I Got Was This Lousy
Teeshirt"s.
> That "CN" you wouldn't have seen occur, of course, tho', & thus
wouldn't
> have tabulated it as data with which to formulate the above opinion,
as
> it was obviously discreet. (I speak in general terms here, & lay no
> specific personal claim to either nookie or discretion. So nyah. :)
touche'. however sensationalizing my little Kinsey Report could do
wonders for damage control at Convergences. so nyah :)
> > Strangely, i seem to have said something
> > to this effect before and after every one of these deals for the
last 4
> > years....
> >
> > YOU PEOPLE NEVER LISTEN TO ME.
> > I AM THE VOICE OF REASON.
> > NOW GIVE ME THE ICE CREAM.
> Ugh, take it. I despise ice cream. I'll sit over here with my bag of
> chex mix, if you don't mind. :)
hippie.
> > i used to be a slut. then 'something' happened (still not sure
what). i
> > realized that when dealing with two individuals there's a smaller
> > chance that both ppl with have the same intentions in mind than you
> > might think, even if simply by degrees of difference.
> Hmm. I guess then, in the immortal words of Paula Abdul, i'm a
> coldhearted snake. I figure that since i never proposition someone i
> don't respect, then if something comes of it, fine. If not, fine too.
> But then, this all started out as a hypothetical discussion & has
> quickly degenerated into "here's what I think about fucking & my
> experiences therewith", & i don't really want to hold the candle that
> close to my bedpost.
hmm... yet again i inadvertantly ruin a discussion;) i misread the
posts, i admit. but in my defense, i relate everything to personal
experience... that whole Randian "I" thing. it's my way of cutting out
the responders who would blindly blast me for making sweeping
generalizations, since a simple "i" turns all words into an opionion.
how about this: to support said mores to the letter leads to little
more than social stagnation and an abbreviated definition of "deviant".
at the same time, to say that these "close your eyes and think of the
Queen" ideals should be destroyed and we should all just "get over it"
would likely end up hurting more people in the long run. However, we
tend to run in subcultures where these stereotypes have less of an
impact, so i don't see why said stereotypes should be of more concern
than a observational conversation topic.
yes, i'm a Cancer, i waffle. it's what i do.
> > maybe i burned
> > myself out, but i'm no longer interested in sex outside of a
> > relationship - causes too many problems and repercussions, and i
have a
> > limited amount of sanity and patience with which to deal wth such
> > things. i've decided that for myself, sex without deep emotional
> > attatchment is an unfulfilling waste of time which leaves me feeling
> > incredibly guilty for days afterward. I'm a hopeless romantic and an
> > even worse lay ;)
> Ugh, Boo. & you wanted to know which list you were on? Geez. :p :)
damage control, Oh Fahbulous One ;) i perfer to disarm my opponents.
kinda like a possum playing dead.
(i told you i was Trash material ;)
> > > >I said that it was due to socialization. They stuck to the
hormone
> > > >argument. I said that women are raised to think sex and love go
hand
> > > >and hand...and sex is only something you do when you are in love.
> > > >(That's what we're told...) So even when women get past
that...it
> > > >still lingers for some. They like the idea of sex without
> > > >emotion....but something holds on.
> > > So then said hypothetical women *haven't* "gotten past it",
> > > really.
> >
> > see, i don't see why it's necessarily a good thing to "get past it".
> Who says it is? I was just saying, one either gets past it, doesn't
even
> try to get past it, or compromises onesself & feels like shit about
it.
hmmm... i could easily veer this into a favorite discussion topic on
the necessity of "experience." my my my once bitten twice shy....
> > to play devil's advocate, what if there were no social mores imposed
> > upon the genders for such things - would the whole 'pair-bond'
concept
> > fall by the wayside?
> I don't think so. Plenty of ppl fall madly in love. Plenty of ppl
raise
> children together. It mightn't be so structured, & it might evolve to
> polyfidelity without a societal & religious pushing of monogamy, but i
would this be a good time to note that we're really discussing a modern
Western conception of monogamous fidelity? prolly not.
> think you'd always have ppl together in love-relationships. It's the
> "forever" bullshit that irks me, but again, this is starting to cut
into
> the tangible instead of remaining in the hypothetical realm, so allow
me
> my therapeutic promiscuity, i'll allow you your gooshy love-eyes &
> prominent hickeys, & let's be on about it. :)
> [...]
OUCH. look, i TRIED to be DISCREET about them.... =P
> > > (what's this infernal "biological clock"
> > > i keep hearing so much about, the ticking of which is supposed to
> > > make me want to crap out some progeny?),
> >
> > "crap out some progeny"
> >
> > i'd like to reitterate that for those of you who missed it the first
> > time around....
> >
> > "CRAP OUT SOME PROGENY"
> Kids. Ugh, nice enough if you chop them thin & serve them on ryetoast.
> Well, except for all the netgoth babies. But then, i can just look at
> their pictures from afar, send nice gifts, & be on with the drinking
too
> much & staying out too late.
i wasn't looking for a justification for your wording. i just didn't
want such a wonderful phrase to go unappreciated by the casual
readers;) but i've told you that you rawk on many occasions, so i'll
suppress the "three cheers" urges this time around.
once again, that was "CRAP OUT SOME PROGENY."
> > > & men are overtly & covertly
> > > encouraged to be mad sex fiends by society, family, religion,
> > > media, etc. We all get the short end of the stick, as it were...&
even
> > > when we luck out & get the long end of the stick, ultimately,
we're still
> > > just getting the stick. :)
> >
> > if men are supposed to be such mad sex fiends,
> No, not *supposed* to be, are *perceived* to be &/or *encouraged* to
be.
once again, i think that tide is turning a bit with GenX and GenY and
GenO(cide). maybe we are making some progress. i wanna note again that
i think these stereotypes are really only applicable in broad instances
when dealing with mainstream society, not subcultures. But i'm wrong
pretty often.
> > why are so many of us so
> > bad at it? why are we given all this stimulation and encouragement
> > thru all the noted sources (society, media, the locker room, etc.)
but
> > no instruction manual?
> You are your own instruction manual.
> Seriously, could you really generalize how to be a good lover to
*every*
> woman into a rote form? "Stick Tab A into Slot B while pressing Tab C.
> Repeat as necessary." Hell no. Everyone likes different things.
This goes back to self-serving agendas. Most people need to get past
that whole "mememememe" thing - it's not just a male thing. I think
women are discovering that contrary to popular belief that there exists
a counterpart to your "tabAslotB" which involves "insert someplace warm
and preferably moist, remove, lather-rinse-repeat". (Thank you Kevin
Smith.) ie. it's not a done deal.
oh look at me, i'm whining on behalf of the sensitive and wronged male
gender. please shoot me now.
> You
> don't need an instruction manual if you have a woman who talks to you.
> Of course, many women feel uncomfortable w/that, & some may not even
> know what they like...but that might just cycle back round to the
"socialization" bit.
*cough* pet peeve *cough* and yes, i think it does cycle back around,
but i also think too many years of sleeping with sexually self-centered
partners will achieve the same results...
> > i don't think it's much of a wonder that the
> > female orgasm is the most mysterious thing in the world.... how's
that
> > for yet another great cosmic joke? i guess that's part of "still
> > getting the stick".
> Getting the stick is fine with me, because no matter what, a manual
> stick beats a battery-operated one. It's better to show the
> stick-wielder which buttons to push, than to push one yourself
> alone in a cold dark room.
why do i get the feeling that this thread might well end in detente
with both sides saying that "clear communication conquers all?"
damn ADD never allows me to stay on a coherant topic. apologies.
- The Raphrat
http://www.tyranny.com/~raphrat
(who doesn't "grin like a rake")
Quemaqua
These conversations are so lost to me.
Peace,
Que
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I need sex. Failing that, gonna' get coffee. Excuse me."
- Michael Riser
K.M.S.
<Quem...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Damn I hate being a virgin.
> These conversations are so lost to me.
>
Maybe you can get a ritual deflowering to be inluded on the event list at
Convergence. Keap the dream alive!
Koko "There was a young man at woodstok '99 with a sign saying he was
coming here a virgin but didn't wan to leave that way, at last reprt he
was still being passed around by a group of bikers" Martin Sama
Tetsab
> Women's reproductive systems are designed solely for the act of
> child-bearing and men's are not. How could that make no difference?
::blink::
::blink:: ::blink:: ::blink::
[It's like morse code.. It's trying to communicate!]
(let's give it another shot..)
> Women's reproductive systems are designed solely for the act of
> child-bearing and men's are not.
Uhhhhh.. ::blink::
Alright. I give up. I don't understand.
Let me in on the secret.. what else do men's do? Is this *really* going
to stir up penis envy in me?
Not to mention the fact that you said woman's "reproductive systems",
by the very words that indicates that this is all they do.
Mayhaps somebody isn't telling me something but what does my clit have
to do with child-bearing? I'm going to be Rather Miffed if I find out
button bopping has to do with babies popping.
Tetsab.
>^..^<
--
"I slept with a woman once... and I thought, 'Am I gay? Am I straight?'
Then I realized... I'm just slutty! Where's *my* parade?"
- Margaret Cho.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tetsab
> A daily battle against my testicles
*ding* *ding* *ding*
Cum one, come all. Step Riiiiiiiiight up for _The_ _Battle_ of the
_Century_.
We expect this one to go schlong folks, a real hands on attack. You have
to be Nuts to miss it!
And what's at stake is worth far more than the family jewels.. this is
the real teste. We've scrotinized each of our contesteants to narrow it
to only the best.. and let me tell you, it could get hairy down there.
We're going to sock it to the sack and give 'em a beating. After that
sort of punishment they're going to dish out they'll be raging, I
wouldn't wanna be near anything as nad as they're going to get.
Don't be left danging sign up for ring sides seats today... it'll be a
balls.
Tetsab
>^..^<
--
"I slept with a woman once... and I thought, 'Am I gay? Am I straight?'
Then I realized... I'm just slutty! Where's *my* parade?"
-Margaret Cho.
Endymion
> Biologically speaking, it's a good idea for a female to find a
> relationship partner who will be good at helping her raise her offspring,
> but that doesn't mean she'll necessarily conceive her offspring by that
> partner - it might be in her interests to find a different father for her
> children and then convince the partner that they're his, if that's
> necessary in order to keep him around.
As you probably know, this sort of strategy varies tremendously between
species, even otherwise closely related ones, and while scientists can make
educated guesses about humans based on behaviors in other species which are
similar in various ways, no one really knows for sure what the "natural"
(in quotes thinking of prior discussions on nature vs. nurture, and whether
there really is a difference) strategy of human males or human females
would be.
> It's also in her interests to
> ensure that each of her children has a different father.
Depends on a lot of factors; it boils down to whether to put all your money
on the favorite or put some on longer shots to spread the risk around -
keeping in mind that, given the somewhat limited capacity of males to
reproduce, any sexual attention you're getting from the alpha male is
attention some other potential mother isn't, and thus that many fewer of
his possibly genetically advantaged offspring around to compete with yours.
Endymion
> >So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
>
> I doubt it's all hormonal, as I know too many people who break
> the gender stereotypes to be convinced by that - ime, the evidence just
> doesn't support it. So I'd tend to go with the socialisation theory
(snip)
Showing that it isn't all one cause doesn't show that it's all the other -
couldn't it be 40% hormonal, 60% socialization?
Could it be a natural hormonal variation between the sexes, with great
differences in socialization causing an otherwise "unnatural" variation?
And the hormones vary quite a bit too.
I don't think such a simple overview of behavior can provide us with much
insight, except that the number of people and cultures who quite happily
engage in wildly varying lifestyles shows that, whatever the cause, it is
obviously something that can be altered through socialization without
impairing function or happiness, in order to satisfy needs which are now
more important than outdated biological or social programming.
Lady Bathory
> In article <1e0p2s7.16z...@d-gnaps-242.ici.net>, Lady Bathory
> <rpol...@ici.net> writes
> >discussion on the same topic in #agf.
>
> Must be something in the air, I guess. ;)
Pheromones? Clovesmoke? Ball lightning?
> >As long as one only does what one really honestly can cope with doing
> ...
> >then one maximizes one's chances of at least
> >getting the long end of the metaphorical stick more often than the
> >short.
>
> There's another factor which comes into play here. It's really not
> enough (for my part) for the other party simply to be honest about not
> wanting more than a tumble in the furs. There has to be a cameraderie of
> soul there, too. A mutual sense of rage, rage against the dying of the
> light, or something not too far away from that; but merry, rather than
> desperate. Sa-ha, my goodly wench, etc.
Agreed. Yes, i hope i didn't give the impression i go round
indescriminately fucking anything with 2 legs & lipstick on.
But then, that's one of the good things about the information age. You
can know someone for years online, have read of their elated moments &
dirtscrabble badtimes, cherished a single eloquent post, or traded
flames & dirty jokes. Makes that pool of kindred souls into a lake.
> Without soul contact (NOT necessarily 'love', my dears) the process is
> just flesh banging against flesh, and about as fulfilling and worthwhile
> as mid-eighties made-on-video pornography. Yechh.
That was my thought during my groupie years. You can know someone
through music, & recognize a commonality of experience... But i digress,
in a manner of speaking.
> Any person can be honest about just wanting to fuck. But there's the
> dead-end honesty that speaks from the bottom of a bottle of JD, and then
> there's the honesty of a laughing heart.
True. To paraphrase Hedwig, "My heart laughs, because if it does not, it
will cry....my heart cries, because, if it does not, it will laugh."
& while i personally do seem to be shooting myself thru the back end of
a bottle of Scotch more often than no these days, i see no *dead* end in
sight[1]. This is what makes me feel like, even tho' i've come
full-circle back to "Lady B at 22" (i.e., jaded, overindulging in vices,
& back on a.g for chrissake), i feel like i've progressed...now even
when i'm crawling in the gutter, i *do* see the stars, & i do even
appreciate the taste of the gutter, because it's better than oblivion.
Gah. Schmaltz.
> The former smacks of desperation, and there's not much which is as
> unattractive as desperation.
>
> The latter is what illuminates my best nights (speaking personally for a
> moment), when my Wanton Goth Shield of Total Invulnerability is up and
> flaring. People tend to think that sincere lust, if expressed, will
> frighten people off or creep them out. It doesn't, if you do it with
> humour, respect and good grace, and you're prepared to bounce back from
> the occasional rejection. :) Let your eyes be bright and your underwear
> freshly laundered, and don't be afraid to land smack on your ass.
Ah, Cav, i'm glad to know that we seriously *aren't* sprung from the
same womb, because sometimes it's too uncanny.
> In that mode and in that mood, I can hunt without result all night and
> not care, or go from starting pistol to snog with someone I've never met
> in 60 seconds. Snogging is usually quite enough to completely exilerate,
> btw, and sex if it occurs is just the icing on the cake. Inbetween
> bouts, when coming up for breath, you just laugh. And Goatboy's fire
> flickers in your veins. [1]
This (meaning, the above-quoted text) is 110% my thought exactly. Get
out of my head... & before you start singing, i don't even *own* a car.
> But what about reputation? Well, yes, that is a factor. At first, people
> can't tell the difference between rampant (a good old word which some of
> us here in Manchester have been rehabilitating) and indiscriminate. They
> assume that you'll go with anyone, just because you like the general
> practice of going. Well, them's the breaks. If you aren't prepared to
> weather the lopsided projections of the morally stunted, then hang up
> the nice boots and grow out the hair dye, says I.
Well, & then, how can one be construed as desperate if everyone one
sleeps with is as fab as onesself?
<pokes Cav in the ribs>
Desperate is beergoggling at one-legged gigolos. & while Moral Midgets
are cute, they're bad conversationalists.
[1] It is at this point that i wonder if i should just reply-by-mail,
but, enh. Who needs the illusion of privacy? :)
Individuat
>On 04 Nov 1999 03:04:47 GMT, indiv...@aol.communist
>(Individuat) mumbled:
>
>>This from the man who told me, as an innocent 18 year old, "Show your tits
>to
>>the doormen at Aftermath and they'll let you in."
>>
>>ah
>>memories.
>
>But did you?
>And did they?
>
>
No I did not! I had some random chigoth email me and tell me he was a dj...and
to send him a breif description and he'd get me a fake ID out of the box of
confiscated IDs.
Which is just what he did.
I have no idea if you're still out there cause I don't remember who you
were...but thanks.
Eileen (who kept her tits covered...well mostly)
---
Indiv...@aol.com
"That's I before E, except if you're me." -D.G
Individuat
> I'm going to be Rather Miffed if I find out
>button bopping has to do with babies popping.
NOW THAT IS QUOTEABLE!!!
*grin*
Eileen
Individuat
>Huh?
>
> I Don't Get The PMs Reference.
>
> As Far As I Know, Being Male Doesn't Make One Bitchy.
>
> *Ducks*
I beg to differ. :P You're a complete bitch...but that's why i adore you.
>Actually, My Point Was That Sex Is Something That *Both*
> Women And Men Want.
>
Really? I was under the impression we agreed that everyone wants it...but
there's different reasoning behind it....
Or wait...not different reasons for wanting it...but different ways of going
about it.
>> They were both complaining that sleeping with some women, however,
>> is emotionally a pain in the ass... They just wanted women who
>> they could be straight forward with about just wanting to fuck.
>
> Well, This Is Out Of Context.
appologies...
it's not too far from context... but one should not post on the sleep i've been
getting.
I shouldn't be posting now either really.
> The Complaint Was About The Amazing Rarity Of Women Accepting
> The Facts Of Just Wanting A One Night Stand Without Any
> Emotional Involvement More Profound Than "Damn, You're Hot.
> Let's Fuck Like Minks".
isn't that what i said?
>Actually, My Argument Was More Along the Lines Of "Women
> Are Nuts, They Make No Sense"...
I believe this is true for both sexes.
>Obviously, A Very Intellectual And Scientific Argument, I Know.
come on etienne...you of all people (fucked her brains out did ya?) should know
that it's scientifically based.
> If We Can Suppress The Impulses Our Hormones Send Us, Should
> We Not Also Be Able To Suppress Our Socialized Impulses?
The difference is that the socialization is largely the hegemony of our
culture. I mean...the message to women does not just come from parents....it
comes from TV and movies and film...and little children's rhymes... it's
everywhere. Good girls sit with their legs crossed....bad girls don't.
And even when you're a self proclaimed bad girl.... well...no one is all bad.
>And I Most Certainly Stop Myself Daily From Reacting In
> A Manner Of Socialized Ways.
>
> Why? Because I Can Think.
I think that women can choose to have sex and go against their societal
upbringing....but the hegemony is something that is just ingrained (hence the
definition of the word)....and it's not so easy to push THAT aside.
>Therefore, I Find It Somewhat Ridiculous To Say That
> Women Will React A Certain Way Because Of Their Upbringing
> Or What Society Expects From Them
it definately is ridiculous....but also true for many.
> That Akin To Saying That They Have No Real Control On Their
> Actions, Isn't It?
Actions yes. Emotions...not entirely.
What I was saying is that women are brought up to feel guilty for their sexual
feelings.... so they can go have sex with a random guy.. and for some...no
big deal. See ya. But for others....they think "ugh...why did i do that?"
And there's no real reason to think that way....it's just there.
Individuat
> am i the only one terrified that warlord wants to battle ron's
>testicles every day?
*snort*
okay...and i reallllly needed to laugh like I just did to that.
danke rafe
Ron Cecchini
indiv...@aol.communist (Individuat) wrote:
> >From: Rafe ra...@digitaldiscipline.com
>
> > am i the only one terrified that warlord wants to battle
> > ron's testicles every day?
>
> *snort*
> okay...and i reallllly needed to laugh like I just did to that.
i will have you all know that the Battle Against My Testicles
is mine & mine alone.
i appreciate any & all offers of help, but this is something a
man must do alone ... otherwise i will feel ... emasculated.
i must Fight the Good Fight ... alone.
...& if i don't win, i must die trying.
The epitaph on my headstone will read:
Here Lies A Man
Who Faced Many Rises And Falls
And Fought The Good Fight
Against His Angry Balls
][
p.s. you're all a bunch of sick individuals & should be punished.
p.p.s. stop encouraging me.
the Gruamach
(Individuat) mumbled:
>>But did you?
>>And did they?
>>
>No I did not! I had some random chigoth email me and tell me he was a dj...and
>to send him a breif description and he'd get me a fake ID out of the box of
>confiscated IDs.
>Which is just what he did.
>I have no idea if you're still out there cause I don't remember who you
>were...but thanks.
Of course, the fact that you're telling a cop that you
engaged in illegal activities is completely beside the
point...
(Just mildly funny to me, personally, having just
gotten off of work...)
>Eileen (who kept her tits covered...well mostly)
Damn.
*pout*
;P
Charles (aka: the Gruamach) http://home.stlnet.com/~gothcop
alt.gothic's own Garibaldi,Daddygoff and Jedi Footrubmaster
"It is not enough to conquer,
One must know how to seduce." (Voltaire, 1743)
Lady Bathory
> "I slept with a woman once... and I thought, 'Am I gay? Am I straight?'
> Then I realized... I'm just slutty! Where's *my* parade?"
> - Margaret Cho.
I love you.
H Duffy
Jennie Kermode wrote in message ...
>On 03 Nov 1999 04:08:31 GMT, Individuat <indiv...@aol.communist> wrote:
>>I said that women are raised to think sex and love go hand and hand...and
sex
>>is only something you do when you are in love. (That's what we're
told...) So
>>even when women get past that...it still lingers for some. They like the
idea
>>of sex without emotion....but something holds on.
>
> I doubt it's all hormonal, as I know too many people who break
>the gender stereotypes to be convinced by that - ime, the evidence just
>the proviso that there will always be individuals who escape conditioning
>that way, too, just as there will always be goths growing up in 'mundane'
>families, etc., etc.
There was some interesting research done a while back which may throw some
light on this. Apparently in many creatures which pair-bond, including
humans, a few other mammals (can't remember which ones, off-hand) and
various species of birds, females have an interesting way of ensuring good
genes and good parenting for their offspring. See, there's two types of
males, which can be classified as "dads" and "cads". The cads are the one
with the good genes, excellent fighting skills, big pensies... whatever;
They have no trouble finding willing females, so rather than pair bonding,
their reproductive tactic is to mate with as many different females as
possible. The dads are the nice guys, the ones with the woollen sweaters who
go to church on Sundays, play softball or soccer with the kids on Saturdays
and care for their wives. They pair-bond because, although it limits the
number of females to whom they have access, in increases the amount of
access they have to the one female with whom they have pair-bonded, and thus
they increase their chance of making _her_ pregnant. By sticking around and
helping to raise the kids, they increase the chance of their offspring
surviving.
However, they may not have the best set of genes in the world ('cos after
all, if they did, they'd be spreading them around!) so the females pair-bond
with a dad, and then have a secret fling with a cad, get pregnant, and
pursuade the dad that it;s his kid, so that he will care for it.
This is apparently very common in pair-bonding birds, and recent research
has shown that a woman is something like 70% more likely to become pregnant
through having an illicit affair than through sex with her husband, assuming
they're using similar methods of contraception. This suggests that humans
use the same sort of tactics as birds.
I think it also suggests that the idea that women are only supposed to want
sex within a loving, committed relationship is socialised rather than
hormonal, although it may be that the fact that women only want to be _seen_
to want sex within a loving committed relationship may be in our genes.
Personally though, I've done the loving committed relationship thing for a
while, and now I want to try something different... ;-)
H
So what, you think this is beautiful?
RazorJAK
>Mayhaps somebody isn't telling me something but what does my clit have
>to do with child-bearing? I'm going to be Rather Miffed if I find out
>button bopping has to do with babies popping.
Gahhh!!!
I'm looking at those words and HEARING your voice saying them.
This isn't a bad thing ... it's just odd. That is one of the weird
after-effects of meeting net people. I hear them wording their posts.
Anyone else getting that after-effect?
Or do I just need to up my dosage?
RazorJAK
Remove "MY CODPIECE" to email
~~~<~<@ Lair of the Dust Ferrets @>~>~~~
---
Are you still here? The message is over. Shoo! Go away!
---
http://home.earthlink.net/~razorjak/
razorjak@my_codpiece.earthlink.net
AIM: The Grackleflint ICQ: 5300005
NGB
>
> Individuat wrote:
> >
> > JV, Casper, and I were discussing the differences between some
> > men and women when it came to sex.
> >
> > They were both of the impression that being male is like having
> > PMS year round[1] due to the high testosterone levels...
I've personally never had a mood swing due to being horny....
> Huh?
>
> I Don't Get The PMs Reference.
>
> As Far As I Know, Being Male Doesn't Make One Bitchy.
>
> *Ducks*
>
> > and that sex was something that men really HAD to do.
>
> Actually, My Point Was That Sex Is Something That *Both*
> Women And Men Want.
Very true. Everyone likes good sex.
>
> Before Being A Emotional Thing, On A Much Baser Level,
> It Is A Physical Urge.
>
> No One *Has* To Do It. There's No Overwhelming Need To Get Laid.
Well....that depends how long it's been `;]
> > They were both complaining that sleeping with some women, however,
> > is emotionally a pain in the ass... They just wanted women who
> > they could be straight forward with about just wanting to fuck.
>
> Well, This Is Out Of Context.
>
> The Complaint Was About The Amazing Rarity Of Women Accepting
> The Facts Of Just Wanting A One Night Stand Without Any
> Emotional Involvement More Profound Than "Damn, You're Hot.
> Let's Fuck Like Minks".
>
Actually, they're not that rare. A lot women I've gotten to know don't
mind cheap meaningless sex now and again, as long as it's safe, and
there's no pretensions of the possibility of a relationship. The issue
at hand is telling the difference between a woman wanting casual sex,
and a co-dependant psycotic with serious issues who will stalk you for
months after a one night stand.
This is tricky.
> > This was hypothetical.....just to remind you all.
> >
> > I said that it was due to socialization. They stuck to the
> > hormone argument.
>
> Actually, My Argument Was More Along the Lines Of "Women
> Are Nuts, They Make No Sense"...
>
> Obviously, A Very Intellectual And Scientific Argument, I Know.
>
I concur wholeheartedly. But on the flip side, men are morons.
> > I said that women are raised to think sex and love go hand and
> > hand...and sex is only something you do when you are in love.
> > (That's what we're told...) So even when women get past that...
> > it still lingers for some. They like the idea of sex without
> > emotion....but something holds on.
> >
> > So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> As I Said At Hallowmas, The Only Conclusion I Can Come To
> Is That I Don't Understand Sweet FuckAll About These Things.
>
> Hormones Or Socialization, It Shouldn't Matter.
But to some extent it does. I don't feel that if it was merely
socialization it would ammount to much more than fondling and making
out.
Hormones kick in and it's wham, bam, thank you ma'am.
> We're Sentient Creatures. We Can Make Conscious Decisions.
>
> If We Can Suppress The Impulses Our Hormones Send Us, Should
> We Not Also Be Able To Suppress Our Socialized Impulses?
I'll believe that once you can also stop drinking, smoking as well.
These are things we enjoy doing, we can do, in most circumstances with
little, if any, repercussion if done responsibly, and it's FUN.
> I Can And Do Stop Myself From Acting On Any Number Of Visceral
> Impulses On A Daily Basis.
But homicide et al. have severe consequenses, i.e. prison, death...
With a little forethought, sex will lead to a wet spot and little else.
> And I Most Certainly Stop Myself Daily From Reacting In
> A Manner Of Socialized Ways.
>
> Why? Because I Can Think.
Which is why you aren't raping women, sheep, etc..
> Therefore, I Find It Somewhat Ridiculous To Say That
> Women Will React A Certain Way Because Of Their Upbringing
> Or What Society Expects From Them.
No, but they will react in a way that their morals and personal nature
allows. Just as men will.
> That Akin To Saying That They Have No Real Control On Their
> Actions, Isn't It?
The way I see it, the gender shouldn't matter.
Men like sex.
Women like sex.
It's the issues that come up after sex that's the problem.
> ...
>
> Hopefully, This Made Sense. I'm Not Sure Now Because I'm
> Much Too Tired To Think Straight...
Close enough.
> _Casper Von B.
> No Sleep Going On 24 Hours Now
NGB
Spider
>"Quemaqua"wrote:
>
>> Damn I hate being a virgin.
>> These conversations are so lost to me.
It could be worse. You could know exactly what your missing. [1]
>>
>Maybe you can get a ritual deflowering to be inluded on the event list at
>Convergence. Keap the dream alive!
HA!!! If you do so, never let Ren, Pollex Xi, or Zoe run it. Ren botched up
my sacrifice to Ratty and Pollex and Zoe have yet to get married.
>Koko "There was a young man at woodstok '99 with a sign saying he was
>coming here a virgin but didn't wan to leave that way, at last reprt he
>was still being passed around by a group of bikers" Martin Sama
[1] %#$(*^#@% love interest is celebate still
Spider, TurboTramp
"What the heck's wrong with a little celebration of a little flesh once in a
while?"--Clive Barker
Rafe
> (Individuat) mumbled:
> >Eileen (who kept her tits covered...well mostly)
> Damn.
> *pout*
Seconded.
*rummages around to set up www.individuatcam.com*
-Rafe
V^^^^V
Rafe
> Tetsab wrote:
> ::blink::
>
> ::blink:: ::blink:: ::blink::
>
> [It's like morse code.. It's trying to communicate!]
You know, this actually made some sense to me after meeting you at
Hallowmass. EEEEEP!!
Of course, it doesn't communicate worth a whit to me in terms of
content, but I can -see- it perfectly now. *grins*
> >Mayhaps somebody isn't telling me something but what does my clit have
> >to do with child-bearing? I'm going to be Rather Miffed if I find out
> >button bopping has to do with babies popping.
>
> Gahhh!!!
>
> I'm looking at those words and HEARING your voice saying them.
Wunnerful, innit?
Personally, I'm just amused by the visuals of people like JAK beating
on a keyboard and somehow not shattering the damn thing. . . .
> Anyone else getting that after-effect?
> Or do I just need to up my dosage?
Yes to both.
> Remove "MY CODPIECE" to email
That Is *Just* *Wrong.*
-Rafe
"He suffered death and was buried. On the 3rd day He rose again."
- The Lord's Prayer
"See?!? Even God needed to reboot!" - Gates' Prayer
Stuart Lin
Jennie Kermode <jen...@skinner.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:26:07 +0000, Stuart Lin <sl...@threeoftwo.com> wrote:
>>A person's reaction to whether s/he'd fuck a virgin, a slut,
>>or a hooker might clarify exactly what one gets out of sex.
>
> I fuck people - all of the above are subsets of that group, but
>they're things I'd consider only after I'd considered the person as an
>individual. I find it somewhat distasteful when people put those things
>first, as if virgins, sluts and hookers all have the same personalities
>and motivations.
Agreed. I offer this thought experiment to challenge the
premise that "everyone wants it" where 'it' seems to be
the nebulous fuck. People want sex for different reasons,
some healthy, some not, some societally sanctioned, some
not, and sex is far too complicated a matter to make perfect
sense to everyone all of the time.
Your response is the best possible answer to this scenario
in that I happen to agree that sex is something shared between
two individuals. Using sex to keep score is about as silly as
bragging about how many birthday cards one sends out compared
to how many one receives.
Sex is a way for two people to relate to each other. It is
always deeply personal even if it isn't necessarily deeply
meaningful. If it were truly purely hormonal, the Andrew
Dice Clay's allegorical "two tits, a hole, and a heartbeat"
should fit the bill.
If there are any kind of standards involved, no matter what
sort, it says to me: I want this, I don't want that, I fuck
what I think I deserve. That is, standards of beauty in
deciding who to fuck implies a desire to be worthy, or at
least dominant, over such beauty. I disbelieve the purely
hormonal motivations. There is too much body ego tied up
with the sex act and sexual appeal, IMO.
>>Personally, sex means something to me. Even if it's just an
>>expression of mutual admiration. Sex with a beautiful stranger
>>confuses the hell out of me. Sex with a new friend, well,
>>that's probably unwise for the unknown potential consequences
>>but still meaningful. To me.
>
> See, for me, sex with a beautiful stranger can be meaningful
>too, though it has to be with someone I feel respect for - I'm not
>somebody who can let lust overrule being annoyed by someone, for instance.
Sure, it can be meaningful if, <Angel> There Is A Connection
</Angel>. I have met women who so qualify after mere moments of
conversation. But a gorgeous somebody appearing out of nowhere
without a word proceeding to get it on, well, I don't see it
happening and I sure as hell wouldn't know what to make of it.
>I'm interested in discovering people, in getting to know the ways that
>they think and feel, exploring, learning, communicating, and sex, to me,
>is as valid a way of doing that as any other.
Keep talking like that and you might have to add another tally
to the list of people who admire, respect, and want to sleep
with you. =)
>>I believe that an emotionally healthy person will desire, even
>>need, meaningful relationships. Whether a war buddy, a true
>>love, a trusted penpal, a guiding mentor, or someone to nurture.
>
> Yes, I agree with this. These relationships are not necessarily
>sexual themselves, however, and I think that some people can happily keep
>their committed relationships quite separate from their sexual activity.
Sure. Sex is just another way to relate to people. I don't
personally see sex as the sole demense of the committed,
monogamous, romantic relationship. Being in a traditional
committed, monogamous, marriage, however, I can limit this
particular aspect of my other relationships.
>That is, I've known people with no interest in sex beyond one night stands
>who have had very deep, lasting emotional relationships with friends which
>were central to their lives.
Oh, same here. A roommate of mine in college had the self-
described sexual ethics of a male. (Again, the perceived,
stereotypically male fuck-the-pretty-things attitude.)
She was sure to remind me on multiple occasions: "If we
have sex, it will only be for fun." (Which was why we
never did much more besides fooling around -- I think
that sex with her would have meant different things to
each of us, and that wouldn't have been fair to either
of us.)
Still, I wouldn't say that one-night-stands are purely
about the sex. At the very least, I would expect a
measure of mutual admiration, if only on the level of
physical attraction.
Rambling,
-Stuart
the Gruamach
(Lady Bathory) mumbled:
>Tetsab <Tet...@antisocial.com> wrote:
>
>> "I slept with a woman once... and I thought, 'Am I gay? Am I straight?'
>> Then I realized... I'm just slutty! Where's *my* parade?"
>> - Margaret Cho.
>
>I love you.
I still need to find the best place to put mys sticker
that says:
I'm not popular, I'm a slut.
the Gruamach
<johnny...@darkside.of.the.moon> mumbled:
>Tetsab wrote:
>
>>Mayhaps somebody isn't telling me something but what does my clit have
>>to do with child-bearing? I'm going to be Rather Miffed if I find out
>>button bopping has to do with babies popping.
>
>Gahhh!!!
>
>I'm looking at those words and HEARING your voice saying them.
>
>This isn't a bad thing ... it's just odd. That is one of the weird
>after-effects of meeting net people. I hear them wording their posts.
>
>Anyone else getting that after-effect?
Indeed.
And when it's someone like her, saying something like
that, it *is* rather disconcerting.
>Or do I just need to up my dosage?
...I noticed you're not stuttering anymore....
ivy...@my-deja.com
<19991104220316...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
indiv...@aol.communist (Individuat) wrote:
<...>
> What I was saying is that women are brought up
to feel guilty for their sexual
> feelings.... so they can go have sex with a
random guy.. and for some...no
> big deal. See ya. But for others....they think
"ugh...why did i do that?"
> And there's no real reason to think that
way....it's just there.
not a response, not quite on-topic; only sleepy
rambling:
i've always been very aware that i am (or have
been, at least -- whatever physical appeal i may
have now has magically appeared in the last two or
three years) less than attractive. sex was always
something that other people could have -- a sort
of privelege for the beautiful people, and
something far beyond my reach. whenever i've felt
physical attraction, or even emotional attraction
to anyone, i have in the past (and still do) feel
an intense amount of.. maybe guilt. a feeling
like 'i shouldn't be doing this', because it
degrades the other person to think of them and me
engaging in any sort of closeness. as if i dirty
other people by thinking kindly or lustfully of
them. that has everything to do with
socialization, with my upbringing as a dumpy,
boyish-looking girl, as an outcast, in mostly
small towns, with the constant affirmation from
parents, teachers, and peers, that i was
completely without worth.
back to the topic, sort of:
sex without emotion is not something that appeals
to me, unless it's fantasy, but even then, they
are negative emotions rather than a lack of them.
i don't speak for women everywhere; i wouldn't
want to even if i could. one-night stands -- as
in: meeting a stranger, having sex, and never
seeing them again -- doesn't appeal to me. i'm
rather vain in that if i felt that someone were
only attracted to me for my body, and not my mind
or my personality, i wouldn't want anything to do
with that person. sex can very rarely be
emotionless for me. if i don't feel something
emotionally, i can't feel anything physically. i
tend to think this is biological more than social
(though i don't disagree that there may be
social elements).
summary:
if i had sex with someone who couldn't care less
about me as a person, i would most certainly think
'ugh.. why did i do that?', and for me there would
be a reason. if my body is all there is about me
that's interesting or worthy (as if), what the
heck am i even doing being alive?
--
i mock you with my monkey pants
http://members.tripod.com/ivy___/
ivy...@my-deja.com
the Gruamach
<Quem...@pacbell.net> mumbled:
>Damn I hate being a virgin.
>These conversations are so lost to me.
There's a rather simple way of solving this problem....
oonh
> Tetsab wrote:
>>Mayhaps somebody isn't telling me something but what does my clit have
>>to do with child-bearing? I'm going to be Rather Miffed if I find out
>>button bopping has to do with babies popping.
> Gahhh!!!
> I'm looking at those words and HEARING your voice saying them.
> This isn't a bad thing ... it's just odd. That is one of the weird
> after-effects of meeting net people. I hear them wording their posts.
> Anyone else getting that after-effect?
> Or do I just need to up my dosage?
I admit being sponged by this effect. There is a dog named Quiggly in the
office.
oonh
benton, UberPoseur
the Gruamach wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 22:03:49 -0800, "Quemaqua"
> <Quem...@pacbell.net> mumbled:
>
> >Damn I hate being a virgin.
> >These conversations are so lost to me.
>
> There's a rather simple way of solving this problem....
....benton!
May the One shine on us all, even if we are not a sex dwarf.
benton.
(( long black leads & porno mags ))
Endymion
> > Women's reproductive systems are designed solely for the act of
> > child-bearing and men's are not.
>
> Uhhhhh.. ::blink::
>
> Alright. I give up. I don't understand.
>
> Let me in on the secret.. what else do men's do? Is this *really*
> going to stir up penis envy in me?
Men's reproductive systems are designed solely for the act of ensuring that
the child someone else bears is the genetic progeny of that system's owner.
Men don't bear children, so their reproductive systems are useless for the
act of childbearing itself, so if they're going to reproduce - and remember
that while not everyone wants to do so, we all carry the genetic heritage
of only those individuals who were somehow motivated to do so - they must
do so by a different strategy than women.
Certain parts are also quite useful for writing one's name in the snow, but
that might just be an unintended bonus.
> Not to mention the fact that you said woman's "reproductive systems",
> by the very words that indicates that this is all they do.
It's not all they do. It's what they're primarily designed to do. The rest
is a bonus. Ain't being human grand?
Please don't read anything between the lines of what I'm saying that I
didn't put there. I am NOT trying to insinuate that women, or women's
bodies, are "meant" [1] purely for reproduction, much less make any moral
and/or metaphysical conclusions from any of this. All I'm saying is that
this particular set of equipment has a design function very different from
its counterpart in men (even if the ultimate goal - passing the possessor's
DNA on to new generations - is the same) and that, given the close
relationship between mind and body, that can't help but have a serious
impact - whatever that may be - on behavior related to that function.
> Mayhaps somebody isn't telling me something but what does my clit have
> to do with child-bearing? I'm going to be Rather Miffed if I find out
> button bopping has to do with babies popping.
I don't think anyone understands it terribly well, but there are two
obvious relationships: one, the pleasure produced by stimulating it gives
the owner a powerful and direct motivation to engage in activities some of
which inevitably (at least in a state of nature) lead to reproduction; two,
it stimulates the physical process of orgasm, which, in addition to the
above pleasure, is thought to have a number of beneficial effects on the
process of fertilization.
Sorry if this makes you miffed. I don't see any reason it should.
And again, please don't think I'm trying to make some Gary Bauer-esque
point with all this and say that button bopping should only be used to
facilitate baby popping. The *act* of button bopping can be separated from
the *act* of baby popping quite easily - all the more so with modern
medicine, but that's hardly necessary, even animals masturbate. The point
is that the equipment used for button bopping - well, the biological
equipment, I won't speak for any accessories - was developed because it
facilitates baby popping.
I see a parallel to taste buds. They're there because they motivate you to
eat foods that your body - or rather, the body of a primitive human who
was unlikely to be obese or have high triglycerides - needs more of and to
avoid some foods that might kill you - and thus primitive animals with
taste buds tended to survive to reproduce more often than ones without
taste buds. The fact that we perceive the sensations they produce as
pleasure, and in modern society have managed to divorce the pleasure-giving
function from the nutrition-motivating function to a large degree (by
inventing foods that taste great but are awful for you), does not change
the original design function. The design function is not the sole
determinant of eating-related behavior, but it is a powerful influence. And
the use of the equipment for a different function from that for which it
was designed does not necessarily give rise to any moral issues other than
the question of whether it is immoral to fail to take reasonable
precautions to use the equipment wisely in a way that is not damaging to
one's health.
[1] I'm assuming in all this discussion that our bodies were unconsciously
designed by a complex process[es?] of evolution and not by a capricious
divine or extraterrestrial biological engineer - and thus that any feature
either carries an advantage for survival of the individual or his/her
descendants, or is a by-product of another feature that carries such an
advantage.
benton, UberPoseur
Edvamp wrote:
>
> >Agreed. Sex for sex's sake gets real old real fast. But it sure can
> >pacify the hormones :P
>
> Hey, as I said in my rant, an empty meanlingless relationship consisting of
> nothing but sex sounds pretty damn good right about now.
Promises.... promises...
Y'know I'd drop me panties for you, Edvamp.
But you have to go and have *taste* and *class*.
Sheesh.
May the One shine on us all, even if the key to having lots of sex0r is to
lower your standards.
benton.
(( standards? Wazzat? ))
benton, UberPoseur
Jennie Kermode wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:26:07 +0000, Stuart Lin <sl...@threeoftwo.com> wrote:
> >A person's reaction to whether s/he'd fuck a virgin, a slut,
> >or a hooker might clarify exactly what one gets out of sex.
>
> I fuck people - all of the above are subsets of that group, but
> they're things I'd consider only after I'd considered the person as an
> individual.
I'll second that.
I'm not so attractive (( unlike the luciously hot Jennie ~* grin *~ )) that I
can make anyone and everyone swoon, and want to shag me simply because I'm
physically attractive.
I can go out any day of the week and get laid. It isn't difficult. I don't,
though, becuase I'm unlikely to like X random person that might want to have
sex.
> I find it somewhat distasteful when people put those things
> first, as if virgins, sluts and hookers all have the same personalities
> and motivations.
Hm. I have to think about that.
I certainly have a good amount of sex, usually with the same couple of people
on an on-again off-again basis fairly reguarly. I'm not virgin. Am I slut
becuase I like to have sex, and don't have a problem with having a casual
throwdown?
I guess.
> >Personally, sex means something to me. Even if it's just an
> >expression of mutual admiration. Sex with a beautiful stranger
> >confuses the hell out of me. Sex with a new friend, well,
> >that's probably unwise for the unknown potential consequences
> >but still meaningful. To me.
>
> See, for me, sex with a beautiful stranger can be meaningful
> too, though it has to be with someone I feel respect for - I'm not
> somebody who can let lust overrule being annoyed by someone, for instance.
Usually when I focus on the faults and unpleasant traits of someone that I
can't have that I'm lusting for, the lust goes away pretty quickly.
> I'm interested in discovering people, in getting to know the ways that
> they think and feel, exploring, learning, communicating, and sex, to me,
> is as valid a way of doing that as any other.
As I have said before:
Sex is sometimes like a game of tennis, which is fun and gets you sweaty.
Sex is sometimes like that which moves mountains and shifts oceans from their
basin.
Confusing one for the other is a recipie for disaster.
I've had truly meaningful sex before, and I've had sex where I would have
rather have been reading a book. But all of that has made me the sexual being
that I am.
> >I believe that an emotionally healthy person will desire, even
> >need, meaningful relationships. Whether a war buddy, a true
> >love, a trusted penpal, a guiding mentor, or someone to nurture.
>
> Yes, I agree with this. These relationships are not necessarily
> sexual themselves, however, and I think that some people can happily keep
> their committed relationships quite separate from their sexual activity.
I should say that most people need relationships.
I do.
> That is, I've known people with no interest in sex beyond one night stands
> who have had very deep, lasting emotional relationships with friends which
> were central to their lives.
I'm quite capable of taking care of my own sexual needs. Sometimes you like
people better once you've slept together.
May the One shine on us all, even if NVR SAY NVR.
(( twitchy today ))
Endymion
> Apparently in many creatures which pair-bond, including
> humans, a few other mammals (can't remember which ones, off-hand) and
> various species of birds, females have an interesting way of ensuring
good
> genes and good parenting for their offspring.
(snip interesting theory)
> This is apparently very common in pair-bonding birds, and recent research
> has shown that a woman is something like 70% more likely to become
pregnant
> through having an illicit affair than through sex with her husband,
assuming
> they're using similar methods of contraception.
On thing it's important to note is that these behaviors and strategies vary
quite a bit between species, even ones that are otherwise similar. For
instance, among our relatives, chimps display a very high incidence of
female infidelity, while gorillas do not. The jury is still out on where
humans fit on this scale, but the likely answer based on structural and
functional study of our reproductive systems is somewhere in between.
> This suggests that humans use the same sort of tactics as birds.
Which would then mean it's "only natural" for a pair-bonded guy to beat the
living shit out of any sexual rivals and possibly his mate if she
encourages them. Any more evidence needed that biologically determined
behaviors are not always the best or most moral ones in the modern world,
and that socialization to repress them is not always a bad thing?
Rafe
> i will have you all know that the Battle Against My Testicles
> is mine & mine alone.
you selfish git, you just don't want hundreds of strangers groping
for your crotch each morning. . .
> i appreciate any & all offers of help, but this is something a
> man must do alone ... otherwise i will feel ... emasculated.
hey, if you win the Battle of the Balls, you'll end up that way
anyhow. . . might as well have some fun while you're at it, eh?
> i must Fight the Good Fight ... alone.
*hums "One(-Eyed Trouser Trout) of the Tiger"*
> The epitaph on my headstone will read:
>
> Here Lies A Man
> Who Faced Many Rises And Falls
> And Fought The Good Fight
> Against His Angry Balls
Rage, Rage, against the wanking every night. Old men at their end
know which hand was right.
Rage, Rage, against the lamer's pr0n site.
> p.s. you're all a bunch of sick individuals & should be punished.
tease. can we pick who does it?
> p.p.s. stop encouraging me.
fat chance of that. . . . *grins*
(TGI frickin' F)
-Rafe
V^^^^V
(She speaks with audible semicolons. She's that kind of smart.)
- from Geek Fantasia, www.monkeybagel.com
"I'm synthetic, not stupid." - Bishop
<master> lordbiran </master>
in reply to Endymion:
>> Women's reproductive systems are designed solely for the act of
>> child-bearing and men's are not.
>
>Uhhhhh.. ::blink::
>
>Alright. I give up. I don't understand.
I think I'm just as mystified as you are Louise. Reproductive systems
are created to reproduce. Hence the name, reproductive system. There
are many wild and wonderful functions to the genitals, the basics are
the same whether you are male or female.
>Let me in on the secret.. what else do men's do? Is this *really* going
>to stir up penis envy in me?
Of course girl friend! They're the worlds greatest fashion accessory.
The penis already comes with the bags to match.
>Not to mention the fact that you said woman's "reproductive systems",
>by the very words that indicates that this is all they do.
I have a feeling this poster (a male) is exhibiting a bit of egotism.
Just because he doesn't have to worry about a bun growing in his oven,
he is simply assuming that his penis is nothing more than a hat rack.
Perhaps he is shooting blanks?
So many theories. So little time.
>Mayhaps somebody isn't telling me something but what does my clit have
>to do with child-bearing? I'm going to be Rather Miffed if I find out
>button bopping has to do with babies popping.
That's the pleasure part again.
That's the egotism again. I keep seeing this video we saw on male's
reactions to Kinsey's study on women in my 1950's class. The reaction
was sheer horror to find out that women find the same pleasure in sex
that men do.
Surprise.
> "I slept with a woman once... and I thought, 'Am I gay? Am I straight?'
> Then I realized... I'm just slutty! Where's *my* parade?"
- Margaret Cho.
Just because you eat fish once on a friday doesn't make you a lesbian?
Louise.. I totally adore you for this quote. Ever since I saw Maggie
Cho on stage saying "ass master", I have worshiped her for the comedic
diva that she is.
I've got horseshoes up my ass,
Brian Daniel LeGume
http://www.velvet.net/~lereine lordbiran@IRC #agf
card carrying member of the Diva Posse Go Diva! Go Diva!
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt.
He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
-Albert Einstein
_Casper
> _Casper wrote:
> > Individuat wrote:
<Snip!>
> > Before Being A Emotional Thing, On A Much Baser Level,
> > It Is A Physical Urge.
> >
> > No One *Has* To Do It. There's No Overwhelming Need To
> > Get Laid.
>
> Well....that depends how long it's been `;]
Har. Har. Har. :p
<Snip!>
> > The Complaint Was About The Amazing Rarity Of Women Accepting
> > The Facts Of Just Wanting A One Night Stand Without Any
> > Emotional Involvement More Profound Than "Damn, You're Hot.
> > Let's Fuck Like Minks".
>
> Actually, they're not that rare. A lot women I've gotten to know
> don't mind cheap meaningless sex now and again, as long as it's
> safe, and there's no pretensions of the possibility of a
> relationship.
Well, That's What Originally Started This Entire Debate.
I Explained That, The Way I See It, If Everything Is Made
Perfectly Clear Beforehand ("You Do Understand That This Is
Just Meaningless Sex With No Emotional Strings Attached,
Right?"), Then, In Theory, There Shouldn't Be Any Sort Of
Problem Afterwards.
But, Of Course, That's Theory. In Practice, Things Are
Much More Complex.
In My Experience, Even If Things Are Cleared Up Before The
Deed Is Done, Women Very Often Expect More Of A One-Night
Stand Than Men Do.
> The issue at hand is telling the difference between a woman
> wanting casual sex, and a co-dependant psycotic with serious
> issues who will stalk you for months after a one night stand.
> This is tricky.
With My Track Record, I Can Safely Say That I Haven't Yet
Figured Out How To Tell The Two Apart.
> > > This was hypothetical.....just to remind you all.
> > >
> > > I said that it was due to socialization. They stuck to the
> > > hormone argument.
> >
> > Actually, My Argument Was More Along the Lines Of "Women
> > Are Nuts, They Make No Sense"...
> >
> > Obviously, A Very Intellectual And Scientific Argument, I Know.
>
> I concur wholeheartedly. But on the flip side, men are morons.
Agreed.
> > > I said that women are raised to think sex and love go hand
> > > and hand...and sex is only something you do when you are in
> > > love. (That's what we're told...) So even when women get past
> > > that...it still lingers for some. They like the idea of sex
> > > without emotion....but something holds on.
> > >
> > > So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > As I Said At Hallowmas, The Only Conclusion I Can Come To
> > Is That I Don't Understand Sweet FuckAll About These Things.
> >
> > Hormones Or Socialization, It Shouldn't Matter.
>
> But to some extent it does. I don't feel that if it was merely
> socialization it would ammount to much more than fondling and
> making out.
> Hormones kick in and it's wham, bam, thank you ma'am.
That's Besides The Point.
I Don't Believe That Hormones Or Socialization Decide Our
Actions For Us And That We Have No Real Conscious Choice.
If Anything, I Think That They're Scapegoats. When People
Feel That They've Fucked Up, Then They Look For Something
To Blame.
"I Can't Believe I Slept With Him. Must've Been My Hormones."
> > We're Sentient Creatures. We Can Make Conscious Decisions.
> >
> > If We Can Suppress The Impulses Our Hormones Send Us, Should
> > We Not Also Be Able To Suppress Our Socialized Impulses?
>
> I'll believe that once you can also stop drinking, smoking as
> well.
Big Difference.
Smoking And Drinking Are Addictions.
(Well, These Days, Drinking Isn't So Much Of An Addiction
But For The Sake Of The Argument...)
I've Been Smoking For... Well, I Don't Really Know. About
Nine Years, I Guess.
As Such, My Body Has Grown To Expect And Require Nicotine
To Function Normally. That's The Nature Of Addiction.
If Society And Uprbringing Tell Me That, For Instance, Having
Sex With Someone Whom I Do Not Love Is Wrong, I Can Still,
Thru Conscious Thought, Get Over It And It Won't Have Any
Negative Physical Impact On Me.
> These are things we enjoy doing, we can do, in most circumstances
> with little, if any, repercussion if done responsibly, and it's
> FUN.
???
I Fail To See How That Disproves My Point.
> > I Can And Do Stop Myself From Acting On Any Number Of Visceral
> > Impulses On A Daily Basis.
>
> But homicide et al. have severe consequenses, i.e. prison, death...
>
> With a little forethought, sex will lead to a wet spot and little
> else.
Same Thing Can Be Said About Homicide.
With A Little Forethought, It Will Lead To A Wet Spot And
Little Else...
<Snip!>
> > Therefore, I Find It Somewhat Ridiculous To Say That
> > Women Will React A Certain Way Because Of Their Upbringing
> > Or What Society Expects From Them.
>
> No, but they will react in a way that their morals and personal
> nature allows. Just as men will.
Therefore Hormones And Socialization Should Have Little To
No Impact...
> > That Akin To Saying That They Have No Real Control On Their
> > Actions, Isn't It?
>
> The way I see it, the gender shouldn't matter.
> Men like sex.
> Women like sex.
> It's the issues that come up after sex that's the problem.
Exactly.
_Casper Von B.
siobhan
wrote:
> I Explained That, The Way I See It, If Everything Is Made
> Perfectly Clear Beforehand ("You Do Understand That This Is
> Just Meaningless Sex With No Emotional Strings Attached,
> Right?"), Then, In Theory, There Shouldn't Be Any Sort Of
> Problem Afterwards.
>
> But, Of Course, That's Theory. In Practice, Things Are
> Much More Complex.
>
> In My Experience, Even If Things Are Cleared Up Before The
> Deed Is Done, Women Very Often Expect More Of A One-Night
> Stand Than Men Do.
You only say that because you haven't made a habit of sleeping with
men. Your sample is skewed.
Trust me, the tendancy to develop all the negative qualities of a
cling-on the morning after supposedly non-commital sex shows up just
as often in the male of the species as it does in the female.[1]
Siobhan
[1] The other reaction that I can't figure out is the guys/girls who
won't talk to you at all afterwards -- what just because I fucked you,
now you can't say hello to me in a club?[2]
[2] Neither has happened in a long time. My asshole detector has
gotten a lot better.
Siobhan
....Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
{http://www.interlog.com/~siobhan} sio...@interlog.com
"The pen is mightier than the sword. The neat thing
about a keyboard though is that it weighs more and
you can get a much better batting grip."~TSM
Aidan Skinner
> *rummages around to set up www.individuatcam.com*
You get the funding and set up the cameras and I'll run it for you.
- Aidan (I warned you)
--
"I say we just bury him and eat dessert"
http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/aidan/
OpenPGP Key Fingerprint: 9858 33E6 C755 7D34 B5C5 316D 9274 1343 FBE6 99D9
NGB
and the whole 'go into the breach one more time' deal....
>
> ][
Quemaqua
the Gruamach <gothcoph...@stlnet.com> wrote in message
news:38230a2d...@news.stlnet.com...
> >Damn I hate being a virgin.
> >These conversations are so lost to me.
>
> There's a rather simple way of solving this problem....
You'd think, wouldn't you?
*Sighs deeply, grumbles something incoherent*
Peace,
Que
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Once upon a time I could love myself."
- Pearl Jam
Rafe
> *ding* *ding* *ding*
>
> Cum one, come all. Step Riiiiiiiiight up for _The_ _Battle_ of the
> _Century_.
((Snip of something which left my jaw hanging open))
Oh. My. God.
And you seemed like such a nice, quiet, innocent little thing in person.
. . .
*kicks self for not flirting (more?) at hallowmass*
-Rafe
## See no evil, hear no evil, date no evil. ##
Ron Cecchini
Rafe <ra...@digitaldiscipline.com> wrote:
> Tetsab wrote:
> And you seemed like such a nice, quiet, innocent
> little thing in person.
David Copperfield's got nothing on Louise.
][
Ron Cecchini
Ron Cecchini
indiv...@aol.communist (Individuat) wrote:
> They were both of the impression [...] that sex was
> something that men really HAD to do.
...
> I said that it was due to socialization.
> They stuck to the hormone argument.
...
> So what is it? Hormones or socialization?
>
> What do you think?
i think you've never had Blue Balls...
][
Edvamp
>
Being Male makes women bitchy.
Ever and Always
Edvamp
Edvamp
>
>> *ding* *ding* *ding*
>>
>> Cum one, come all. Step Riiiiiiiiight up for _The_ _Battle_ of the
>> _Century_.
Who are you and what have you done with the Tetsab I met???
Ever and Always
Edvamp
Edvamp
>
>But you have to go and have *taste* and *class*.
I got sophistication coming out of my ass.
Ever and Always
Edvamp
Individuat
<<i think you've never had Blue Balls...>>
I think you don't know me very well.
Eileen (does not have balls....but is not without rampant desire)
---
Indiv...@aol.com
"That's I before E, except if you're me." -D.G
Individuat
<<Of course, the fact that you're telling a cop that you
engaged in illegal activities is completely beside the
point...
(Just mildly funny to me, personally, having just
gotten off of work...)
>>
That *might* bother me if I thought you gave a shit about what some 23 year old
chick in chicago did about 5 years ago with a fake id.... or if I was
confessing to murdering someone.
Eileen
Individuat
<< Seconded.
*rummages around to set up www.individuatcam.com*>>
www.individuation.com was taken by a friend of mine (which kinda pissed me off)
for his computer services company that he named after me. At least it's a
friend right?
And let me tell you...woo boy...when I email boy do I look sexy. Sweat pants
*drool* oversized tshirts *pant*....and sometimes....just sometimes....i'm
without a stich of makeup...wearing glasses and have my hair piled up on top of
my head.
I think we have a real money maker on our hands.
silentq
>_Casper wrote:
>> No One *Has* To Do It. There's No Overwhelming Need To Get Laid.
>
>Well....that depends how long it's been `;]
Okay, here's a question: is there any conclusive evidence that males or
females have a harder time dealing with celibacy?
Religious orders that swear members to celibacy have the reputation of
looking the other way when same sex pairings occur, though one tends to
hear more often of the monks than the nuns. Discretion on the part of the
females? But why do males, in general, tend to complain about it more?
Socialisation? If you're not getting laid on a regular basis, you're
somehow less of a man? *shakes head*
>Actually, they're not that rare. A lot women I've gotten to know don't
>mind cheap meaningless sex now and again, as long as it's safe, and
>there's no pretensions of the possibility of a relationship. The issue
>at hand is telling the difference between a woman wanting casual sex,
>and a co-dependant psycotic with serious issues who will stalk you for
>months after a one night stand.
>This is tricky.
Or between the man who wants casual sex and the one that will bother you
for years, refusing to believe that you don't want anything to do with
him, since he insists that you're meant for each other, even though you
merely made out once. Psychoses of that sort aren't really limited by
gender.
>> Actually, My Argument Was More Along the Lines Of "Women
>> Are Nuts, They Make No Sense"...
>>
>> Obviously, A Very Intellectual And Scientific Argument, I Know.
>
>I concur wholeheartedly. But on the flip side, men are morons.
Never under-estimate the stupidity of humans.
>> Hormones Or Socialization, It Shouldn't Matter.
>
>But to some extent it does. I don't feel that if it was merely
>socialization it would ammount to much more than fondling and making
>out.
>Hormones kick in and it's wham, bam, thank you ma'am.
I found it interesting to read an essay or two from a female to male
transexual, about dealing with the new levels of testosterone[1] and how
they influenced his behaviour. Growing up not used to those hormonally
driven urges, it was difficult for him to learn to control certain
emotions and the reactions prompted by them, especially due to rage.
[snip]
>> Therefore, I Find It Somewhat Ridiculous To Say That
>> Women Will React A Certain Way Because Of Their Upbringing
>> Or What Society Expects From Them.
>
>No, but they will react in a way that their morals and personal nature
>allows. Just as men will.
And those morals and nature are shaped by their upbringing. :)
>The way I see it, the gender shouldn't matter.
>Men like sex.
>Women like sex.
>It's the issues that come up after sex that's the problem.
Or before sex, when one's deciding whether or not to sleep with someone.
silentq
[1] since my spell checker sucks, I was double checking some words in the
dictionary and learned that testosterone is a hydroxy steroid ketone
C19H28O2. I'm easily amused.
Greylock: Numb
dance the two-step and proclaim:
>
>www.individuation.com was taken by a friend of mine (which kinda pissed me off)
>for his computer services company that he named after me. At least it's a
>friend right?
Well I'll be.
>And let me tell you...woo boy...when I email boy do I look sexy. Sweat pants
>*drool* oversized tshirts *pant*....and sometimes....just sometimes....i'm
>without a stich of makeup...wearing glasses and have my hair piled up on top of
>my head.
Works for me.
So, where's this webcam.
H*ydn: Not hard up.
----
H*ydn
http://www.goth.org.au
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/daniken/67/index2.html
There is no joy in life. There is no salvation in death.
Individuat
<snip description of me in my PJs>
>Works for me.
>
>So, where's this webcam.
>H*ydn: Not hard up.
tsk tsk tsk
*pat pat pat*
poor lad.
The Man-Like Madness
_Casper wrote in message <38235E5D...@total.net>...
> But, Of Course, That's Theory. In Practice, Things Are
> Much More Complex.
Is there any particular reason you capitalize the first letter of each
sentance?
You do realize that doing that makes has a tendancy to make your puncutation
dissappear, creating the appearance of ridiculous run-on sentances?
I mean, if you want to, go ahead. But it looks really weird, and it's a
pain in the ass to read.
Grammar isn't something somebody made up to annoy others. It actually makes
communication easier, both in terms of intelligbility and legibility.
GOBLIN
==================================
DISCLAIMER: I rework entire sections of my belief system on the fly while
talking about them. If I am discussing an opinion of mine with you, you can
bet I am actively reconsidering it, and it is likely to have changed
significantly between posts in the thread. Any conclusions you might draw
about my beliefs from this post are incorrect.
Spider
>
>
>i think you've never had Blue Balls...
Women have Blue Cooch. And yes, it hurts quite a bit.
Spider, TurboTramp
"What the heck's wrong with a little celebration of a little flesh once in a
while?"--Clive Barker
Spider
>Okay, here's a question: is there any conclusive evidence that males or
>females have a harder time dealing with celibacy?
I don't really think it has all that much to do with physical gender. I'm a
raging walking hormone and I managed to get through my term of celibacy [1]
rather well.
I think it depends on the person's view of sex, their history in regards to
it, and the dedication they have to their vow.
>Religious orders that swear members to celibacy have the reputation of
>looking the other way when same sex pairings occur, though one tends to
>hear more often of the monks than the nuns. Discretion on the part of the
>females?
Perhaps. But also, there are a number more religous _male_ orders than
womens. It might all very well be proportionate. And I'm fairly sure that the
female orders do the same thing as the men.
But why do males, in general, tend to complain about it more?
>Socialisation? If you're not getting laid on a regular basis, you're
>somehow less of a man? *shakes head*
In my experience, it's about even on the complaint level. Yes, sometimes
women do complain in slightly more discreet (?) ways than men, but we still do
so.
>>Actually, they're not that rare. A lot women I've gotten to know don't
>>mind cheap meaningless sex now and again, as long as it's safe, and
>>there's no pretensions of the possibility of a relationship. The issue
>>at hand is telling the difference between a woman wanting casual sex,
>>and a co-dependant psycotic with serious issues who will stalk you for
>>months after a one night stand.
>>This is tricky.
>
>Or between the man who wants casual sex and the one that will bother you
>for years, refusing to believe that you don't want anything to do with
>him, since he insists that you're meant for each other, even though you
>merely made out once. Psychoses of that sort aren't really limited by
>gender.
I don't think along those lines is limited by gender. Women are bitches, men
are bastards, people suck dead bunnies through a straw. Generalisations are
always faulty because individuals refuse to co-operate with quanitifcation. :)
>>> Actually, My Argument Was More Along the Lines Of "Women
>>> Are Nuts, They Make No Sense"...
>>>
>>> Obviously, A Very Intellectual And Scientific Argument, I Know.
>>
>>I concur wholeheartedly. But on the flip side, men are morons.
>
>Never under-estimate the stupidity of humans.
"There are two things infinate: The Universe and human stupidity. I'm not
sure about the former." --Einstein.
Individuals can usually be reasoned with. Individuals usually aren't to bad
or can at least be tolerated.
Its when you begin to gather numbers that it gets stupid and dangerous. I
heard somewhere that to determine a mobs IQ one takes the 3 highest IQ's,
averages them and then divides that number by the number of people in the mob.
IIRC
>>> Hormones Or Socialization, It Shouldn't Matter.
>>
>>But to some extent it does. I don't feel that if it was merely
>>socialization it would ammount to much more than fondling and making
>>out.
>>Hormones kick in and it's wham, bam, thank you ma'am.
>
>I found it interesting to read an essay or two from a female to male
>transexual, about dealing with the new levels of testosterone[1] and how
>they influenced his behaviour. Growing up not used to those hormonally
>driven urges, it was difficult for him to learn to control certain
>emotions and the reactions prompted by them, especially due to rage.
Damn nifty. Do you happen to know where I can find this article?
>[snip]
>
>>> Therefore, I Find It Somewhat Ridiculous To Say That
>>> Women Will React A Certain Way Because Of Their Upbringing
>>> Or What Society Expects From Them.
>>
>>No, but they will react in a way that their morals and personal nature
>>allows. Just as men will.
>
>And those morals and nature are shaped by their upbringing. :)
<g> Yuppers. I'm a firm believer in genetics gives one a predispostion
towards certain things (Lung Cancer, Hormonal things, sexuality) and Enviroment
is the varible that completes and solves that equation.
>>The way I see it, the gender shouldn't matter.
>>Men like sex.
>>Women like sex.
>>It's the issues that come up after sex that's the problem.
>
>Or before sex, when one's deciding whether or not to sleep with someone.
>
>silentq
>
>[1] since my spell checker sucks, I was double checking some words in the
>dictionary and learned that testosterone is a hydroxy steroid ketone
>C19H28O2. I'm easily amused.
<g> Nifty. I learn something new every day.
Spider
>>Y'know I'd drop me panties for you, Edvamp.
>>
>>But you have to go and have *taste* and *class*.
>
> I got sophistication coming out of my ass.
>Ever and Always
>Edvamp
Spider, TurboTramp
Sophisticated in a Southern kinda way
benton, UberPosuer
<mka...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>_Casper wrote in message <38235E5D...@total.net>...
>> But, Of Course, That's Theory. In Practice, Things Are
>> Much More Complex.
>
>
>Is there any particular reason you capitalize the first letter of each
>sentance?
It is Casper's stylistic conceit.
>You do realize that doing that makes has a tendancy to make your puncutation
>dissappear, creating the appearance of ridiculous run-on sentances?
But truly, he is worth reading.
Many people here us funny posting styles. As long as their content is high,
and they shit brilliance, it is permitted.
You will note that I do not shit brilliance, so I keep to a much more
standard format.
>I mean, if you want to, go ahead. But it looks really weird, and it's a
>pain in the ass to read.
You get used to it. Some people are even more baroque.
>Grammar isn't something somebody made up to annoy others. It actually makes
>communication easier, both in terms of intelligbility and legibility.
Oh hush. You're just in a twist because you didn't do it first. ;)
May the One shine on us all, even if whitespace is our conceit.
--
benton -- bento...@mediaone.net -- ICQ: 32861590
love will
tear us apart
siobhan
<bento...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:10:42 -0800, "The Man-Like Madness"
><mka...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>You do realize that doing that makes has a tendancy to make your puncutation
>>dissappear, creating the appearance of ridiculous run-on sentances?
>
>But truly, he is worth reading.
>
>Many people here us funny posting styles. As long as their content is high,
>and they shit brilliance, it is permitted.
Just wait'll he gets a load of Cusraque.