The root of sexual tension
Andrew Usher
their willingness to engage in sex. Most men would willingly have sex
with an absolute stranger rather than go without(assuming no one would
know and there would be no other consequences), and those that would
not would likely cite moral or philosophical objections. On the other
hand, essentially no sane women would do the same, and many, I know,
would not be able to cite any coherent objection at all.
A second observation is that men and women have similar physical
libidos, and get roughly the same sort of enjoyment from sex. One
would expect this to contradict the first, yet it does not. Most
people do realise this paradox, of course, and will explain it by
citing biological reasons or 'instinct'. While that is true, the
reality is somewhat more complicated, and that will be the subject of
this post.
Consider that while women normally have a very high resistance to sex
with strangers, it drops very much with a regular partner. While
everyone knows of sexless marriages, they are recognised as the
exception and not the rule. A very important clue to this is found in
the fact that women are unable to explain what they really look for in
a male partner. For example, most women will cite personality
characteristic near the top if asked specifically about their
preferences; but studying the men actually picked by women shows that
personality seems to be rather unimportant, and to the extent that
women actually do choose based on character, their choices seem to be
more often bad.
It is easily seen (and often remarked on) that men with money, power,
and status or fame attract more female attention; indeed, this
sometimes seems to reverse the normal pattern in that the women may be
willing to have sex and the man not. This effect is much smaller for
women, and again this is correctly believed to be an instinctual
difference. Some may say that this effect can be explained by the
women's greater ability to get financial benefit this way. That no
doubt exists, and I know there are even some women that would (though
they might lie to themselves about the reason) attempt to conceive a
child with a weathly man to extract child support, but the strength
and universality of the effect argue against its being the sole
explanation, and I do not regard that as credible.
Further, women's willingness appears to be a strong function of
environment. I will turn my attention to those cases that are _not_
determined by social norms, as they are revealing of true pscychology.
In 'confined' environments of all sorts, persons become more likely to
engage in sexual activity with any of their peers of the opposite sex
or even, sometimes, of the same sex. (I am _not_ denying that prison
rape is a serious problem! It's just not the topic here.) This is not
because they are bored. If that were the case, we should expect it to
hold in the normal world also, and it does not: many single women
don't seem to have much productive to do with their time, but this
does not normally make their thoughts turn to sex with a male
acquaintance. Similar examples can be found. Married women, when
afforded discretion, sometimes are found having sex with men that
would be obviously considered unsuitable were they single, and
especially, it is well known that among the traditional aristocracy,
extramarital liaisons between married partners were very common (why
this was tolerated tacitly and not openly is a different question,
though I'm convinced that explanation involves women, too); yet that
is the exact opposite of a confined environment. This is the main
evidence that inspired this essay, and I give it last because of its
importance.
There are two conclusions to be drawn here. The first is that where
men's and women's sexual behavior differs in important ways, men's
reasoning is conscious while women's is unconscious. The second, and
the principal one, is this: women's unwillingness to have sex, where
men would be willing, is a function of their perception of the
benefits to be obtained from withholding it. This process is largely
unconscious and instinctual, whereas men's rejection of sex is
normally conscious and based on coherent (if not always correct)
reasoning.
Therefore, we can say that if we desire men to have greater access to
sex through 'normal' channels, it would do to make it less beneficial
for women to deny it. Though it might seem that prostitution serves
that goal, we must remember that at times in the past when it was more
prevlent, ordinary men had _less_ access to 'normal' sex, so perhaps
we should doubt it. I do think that it would be desirable to move in
this direction somewhat, but not completely: too 'casual' sex damages
both men and women I think, and I'm not just talking about VD.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> It is a very common observation that men and women differ very much in
> their willingness to engage in sex. Most men would willingly have sex
> with an absolute stranger rather than go without(assuming no one would
> know and there would be no other consequences), and those that would
> not would likely cite moral or philosophical objections. On the other
> hand, essentially no sane women would do the same, and many, I know,
> would not be able to cite any coherent objection at all.
>
> A second observation is that men and women have similar physical
> libidos, and get roughly the same sort of enjoyment from sex.
Men's drive is much greater and their satisfaction is as well. Women
have to work to get men to satisfy them and it often doesn't work.
Fortuneately their sex drive is less and so is the frustration.
I think this is an important area in understanding the sexes, but of
course the feminists in the academy make sure we don't know the
truth. The best insights I see coming from evolutionists and
evolutionary psychology. "Our Inner Ape" and "Before the Dawn" I
recommend for reading about this area. There's probably alot more
good books, but I'm doing audible and those are recent audiobooks.
Tom
Tom
Andrew Usher
> > It is a very common observation that men and women differ very much in
> > their willingness to engage in sex. Most men would willingly have sex
> > with an absolute stranger rather than go without(assuming no one would
> > know and there would be no other consequences), and those that would
> > not would likely cite moral or philosophical objections. On the other
> > hand, essentially no sane women would do the same, and many, I know,
> > would not be able to cite any coherent objection at all.
>
> > A second observation is that men and women have similar physical
> > libidos, and get roughly the same sort of enjoyment from sex.
>
> Men's drive is much greater and their satisfaction is as well. Women
> have to work to get men to satisfy them and it often doesn't work.
> Fortuneately their sex drive is less and so is the frustration.
Well, I guess you didn't read the whole post, and decided to drag
me into a side issue. Well -
Men and women use the same brain circuits in this department, so
it should be similar - note that I didn't say exactly the same. Men
probably are somewhat greater on average, but there are
exceptions to that. In any case, my point there was that the reason
for women being unwilling to have sex with strangers is not that
they do not obtain pleasure from sex. This should be obvious.
> I think this is an important area in understanding the sexes, but of
> course the feminists in the academy make sure we don't know the
> truth.
Feminists definitely don't tell the truth about sex. But to the extent
that they distort the magnitude of women's sex drive, it is to
minimise it, so as to claim that sex is something men impose upon
women, which is nonsense.
> The best insights I see coming from evolutionists and
> evolutionary psychology. "Our Inner Ape" and "Before the Dawn" I
> recommend for reading about this area. There's probably alot more
> good books, but I'm doing audible and those are recent audiobooks.
Honestly I wouldn't trust anything from scientists on this as I fear
their views will be distorted by liberal ideology.
And I don't use audiobooks either, they're a waste of time since
reading is so much faster than speech.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> On Aug 8, 12:25 pm, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It is a very common observation that men and women differ very much in
> > > their willingness to engage in sex. Most men would willingly have sex
> > > with an absolute stranger rather than go without(assuming no one would
> > > know and there would be no other consequences), and those that would
> > > not would likely cite moral or philosophical objections. On the other
> > > hand, essentially no sane women would do the same, and many, I know,
> > > would not be able to cite any coherent objection at all.
>
> > > A second observation is that men and women have similar physical
> > > libidos, and get roughly the same sort of enjoyment from sex.
>
> > Men's drive is much greater and their satisfaction is as well. Women
> > have to work to get men to satisfy them and it often doesn't work.
> > Fortuneately their sex drive is less and so is the frustration.
>
> Well, I guess you didn't read the whole post, and decided to drag
> me into a side issue. Well -
I read most of it Andrew but it wasn't up to your usual erudition. It
confused the hell out of me plus was too speculative without any
interesting or helpful science
> Men and women use the same brain circuits in this department,
Huh? How about hormones or brain function differences?
> so
> it should be similar - note that I didn't say exactly the same. Men
> probably are somewhat greater on average, but there are
> exceptions to that. In any case, my point there was that the reason
> for women being unwilling to have sex with strangers is not that
> they do not obtain pleasure from sex. This should be obvious.
This is where science can help and there is some good stuff. Start
reading audiobooks <smile>
> > I think this is an important area in understanding the sexes, but of
> > course the feminists in the academy make sure we don't know the
> > truth.
>
> Feminists definitely don't tell the truth about sex.
Or anything else for that matter.
> But to the extent
> that they distort the magnitude of women's sex drive, it is to
> minimise it, so as to claim that sex is something men impose upon
> women, which is nonsense.
I don't know what feminists you have been talking to, but the dogmatic
ones deny any sex differences in any area and have for 40 fucking
years!
> > The best insights I see coming from evolutionists and
> > evolutionary psychology. "Our Inner Ape" and "Before the Dawn" I
> > recommend for reading about this area. There's probably alot more
> > good books, but I'm doing audible and those are recent audiobooks.
>
> Honestly I wouldn't trust anything from scientists on this as I fear
> their views will be distorted by liberal ideology.
You bet that's a problem. There's not much out there for sure in the
category of truth in regards to sex differences, the feminists have
made sure of that!
> And I don't use audiobooks either, they're a waste of time since
> reading is so much faster than speech.
You'd be surprised at how fast one can digest an audiobook.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > Men's drive is much greater and their satisfaction is as well. Women
> > > have to work to get men to satisfy them and it often doesn't work.
> > > Fortuneately their sex drive is less and so is the frustration.
>
> > Well, I guess you didn't read the whole post, and decided to drag
> > me into a side issue. Well -
>
> I read most of it Andrew but it wasn't up to your usual erudition. It
> confused the hell out of me plus was too speculative without any
> interesting or helpful science
Well, I really started with my conclusion, which I have thought for
a long time, and I consider interesting and - to me - novel.
Do you disagree with either of the conclusions?
> > Men and women use the same brain circuits in this department,
>
> Huh? How about hormones or brain function differences?
I don't think there are significant brain differences at the purely
physical-response level; it's known at least that orgasm is the same.
Hormones are part of the difference, yes, but it seems strange to
think that female hormones prevent sexual pleasure. I think
testosterone controls libido but not the physical sensations
experiences. In any case, my big idea is that much of this
difference isn't best modeled as general sexual desire but as
this specific mechanism.
> > so
> > it should be similar - note that I didn't say exactly the same. Men
> > probably are somewhat greater on average, but there are
> > exceptions to that. In any case, my point there was that the reason
> > for women being unwilling to have sex with strangers is not that
> > they do not obtain pleasure from sex. This should be obvious.
>
> This is where science can help and there is some good stuff. Start
> reading audiobooks <smile>
Do you really doubt my last statement?
> > But to the extent
> > that they distort the magnitude of women's sex drive, it is to
> > minimise it, so as to claim that sex is something men impose upon
> > women, which is nonsense.
>
> I don't know what feminists you have been talking to, but the dogmatic
> ones deny any sex differences in any area and have for 40 fucking
> years!
I'm not terribly familiar with feminists' actual arguments, as I tend
to
ignore them. But it seems to me that mainstream feminism is pretty
negative on heterosexual sex, isn't it?
> > > The best insights I see coming from evolutionists and
> > > evolutionary psychology. "Our Inner Ape" and "Before the Dawn" I
> > > recommend for reading about this area. There's probably alot more
> > > good books, but I'm doing audible and those are recent audiobooks.
>
> > Honestly I wouldn't trust anything from scientists on this as I fear
> > their views will be distorted by liberal ideology.
>
> You bet that's a problem. There's not much out there for sure in the
> category of truth in regards to sex differences, the feminists have
> made sure of that!
Yeah. But I also mean that this topic is inherently harder to talk
about than most scientific issues.
> > And I don't use audiobooks either, they're a waste of time since
> > reading is so much faster than speech.
>
> You'd be surprised at how fast one can digest an audiobook.
Huh? How can you speed it up? As far as I know, you're limited
to the speed that the presenter speaks at. That's very slow
compared to a printed book, especially if one skims over the
less interesting parts.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> On Aug 8, 1:37 pm, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Men's drive is much greater and their satisfaction is as well. Women
> > > > have to work to get men to satisfy them and it often doesn't work.
> > > > Fortuneately their sex drive is less and so is the frustration.
>
> > > Well, I guess you didn't read the whole post, and decided to drag
> > > me into a side issue. Well -
>
> > I read most of it Andrew but it wasn't up to your usual erudition. It
> > confused the hell out of me plus was too speculative without any
> > interesting or helpful science
>
> Well, I really started with my conclusion, which I have thought for
> a long time, and I consider interesting and - to me - novel.
>
> Do you disagree with either of the conclusions?
Alright, here are the conclusions at the end of your email...
"Therefore, we can say that if we desire men to have greater access to
sex through 'normal' channels, it would do to make it less beneficial
for women to deny it."
Yeah, that is what the marxist-feminists thought too. They not only
wanted more sex, but to use the possibility of more sex to sell their
political bullshit.
We don't have to worry about men getting more sex, they sure will do
it on their own, and as through the centuries, women will provide.
"Though it might seem that prostitution serves
that goal, we must remember that at times in the past when it was more
prevlent, ordinary men had _less_ access to 'normal' sex, so perhaps
we should doubt it. I do think that it would be desirable to move in
this direction somewhat, but not completely: too 'casual' sex damages
both men and women I think, and I'm not just talking about VD."
Yes, there are psychological consequences to anything done in bad
faith and casual sex is about as bad of faith as you can come up
against. There are behavior constellations around sex that are rooted
in our evolution and have positive functions. Our attachment and
bonding, also known as love, to the opposite sex functioned to
stabilize a long nurturing period for human children. We can ignore
these ingrained behaviors and override them, but there are
consequences of which we are only vaguely aware and which have little
scientific study.
> > > Men and women use the same brain circuits in this department,
>
> > Huh? How about hormones or brain function differences?
>
> I don't think there are significant brain differences at the purely
> physical-response level; it's known at least that orgasm is the same.
There's evidence that is contrary to your conclusions here. It's not
strong evidence, but enough to give one pause until we know more.
> Hormones are part of the difference, yes, but it seems strange to
> think that female hormones prevent sexual pleasure.
Well, their anatomy sure helps.
> I think
> testosterone controls libido but not the physical sensations
> experiences. In any case, my big idea is that much of this
> difference isn't best modeled as general sexual desire but as
> this specific mechanism.
>
> > > so
> > > it should be similar - note that I didn't say exactly the same. Men
> > > probably are somewhat greater on average, but there are
> > > exceptions to that. In any case, my point there was that the reason
> > > for women being unwilling to have sex with strangers is not that
> > > they do not obtain pleasure from sex. This should be obvious.
>
> > This is where science can help and there is some good stuff. Start
> > reading audiobooks <smile>
>
> Do you really doubt my last statement?
>
> > > But to the extent
> > > that they distort the magnitude of women's sex drive, it is to
> > > minimise it, so as to claim that sex is something men impose upon
> > > women, which is nonsense.
>
> > I don't know what feminists you have been talking to, but the dogmatic
> > ones deny any sex differences in any area and have for 40 fucking
> > years!
>
> I'm not terribly familiar with feminists' actual arguments, as I tend
> to
> ignore them.
Good on you, it shows a tendency to love the truth of which feminism
hates.
> But it seems to me that mainstream feminism is pretty
> negative on heterosexual sex, isn't it?
Can you say Madonna? The early second wavers looked like truck
drivers but fucked like bunnies and they did it for the same reason
all feminists have since time in memoriam...POWER! Feminists are the
Whore of Babylon.
> > > > The best insights I see coming from evolutionists and
> > > > evolutionary psychology. "Our Inner Ape" and "Before the Dawn" I
> > > > recommend for reading about this area. There's probably alot more
> > > > good books, but I'm doing audible and those are recent audiobooks.
>
> > > Honestly I wouldn't trust anything from scientists on this as I fear
> > > their views will be distorted by liberal ideology.
>
> > You bet that's a problem. There's not much out there for sure in the
> > category of truth in regards to sex differences, the feminists have
> > made sure of that!
>
> Yeah. But I also mean that this topic is inherently harder to talk
> about than most scientific issues.
Maybe thrity or more years ago, but now you can't get the masses to
shut up about sex. Even sex talk is used by feminists to ensnare
their political prey.
> > > And I don't use audiobooks either, they're a waste of time since
> > > reading is so much faster than speech.
>
> > You'd be surprised at how fast one can digest an audiobook.
>
> Huh? How can you speed it up? As far as I know, you're limited
> to the speed that the presenter speaks at.
That's not what I meant but the truth is there is an adjustment where
you can speed up the narrators words and shorten the book that way. I
like listening to the narrators and actively chose books by good
narrators. Those two books I recommended are done by my favorite
narrator.
> That's very slow
> compared to a printed book, especially if one skims over the
> less interesting parts.
Skimming is too active for me, I like to read at my own speed and
enjoy the book. I do skimming for research and such, not enjoyment
reading.
The point I was making is that it might even be faster reading by
audio than visual. Visual reading is lots of work and one takes
breaks frequently whereas with audio you can be doing anything while
reading and not working at it.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Avenger
"Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:461319d6-3cb9-4104...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Actually, sexless is the rule the longer you're married. Another good reason
to never marry.
A very important clue to this is found in
>> the fact that women are unable to explain what they really look for in
>> a male partner. For example, most women will cite personality
>> characteristic near the top if asked specifically about their
>> preferences; but studying the men actually picked by women shows that
>> personality seems to be rather unimportant, and to the extent that
>> women actually do choose based on character, their choices seem to be
>> more often bad.
Exactly. Never believe anything a female says. If you want the answer just
look at what they choose and do because after all, we don't really care
about their silly constant babbling.
>>
>> It is easily seen (and often remarked on) that men with money, power,
>> and status or fame attract more female attention; indeed, this
>> sometimes seems to reverse the normal pattern in that the women may be
>> willing to have sex and the man not.
Don't believe anything a female says, they just talk to make themselves look
better than they are. It would be a rare female indeed regardless of whether
she's married or not, who would resisr having sex with some handsome wealthy
actor, and most of these guys are dull and have no personality at all in
real life. So it's really about the money. You'd be surprised at how good
looking and what a great personality you have when they know you have some
money :o)
This effect is much smaller for
>> women, and again this is correctly believed to be an instinctual
>> difference. Some may say that this effect can be explained by the
>> women's greater ability to get financial benefit this way. That no
>> doubt exists, and I know there are even some women that would (though
>> they might lie to themselves about the reason) attempt to conceive a
>> child with a weathly man to extract child support,
They'd all do that. They all want a baby anyway so why not do it with a man
of means. The only reason that 99% of them don't do it is because they
can't. Wealthy men only want the best young slim females and those are in
limited supply. Average looking girls have to settle for what they can get.
And fat girls have to beg a guy and get him drunk to shag them. Ever wonder
why you see the fat ones getting knocked up by some illegal alien, Negro or
stumblebum loser?
Don't take my word for it, just look around and observe. It's a market with
the females on sale. If you have money your choice of the goods you want to
buy is wide while if you're poor you get to shop at Walmart.
Masculist
> "Masculist" <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ain't that the truth. I had to shop at Walmart for the last one. Got
a good deal though for that sort of thing. Thank God for Walmart.
Tom
Andrew Usher
> > Well, I really started with my conclusion, which I have thought for
> > a long time, and I consider interesting and - to me - novel.
>
> > Do you disagree with either of the conclusions?
>
> Alright, here are the conclusions at the end of your email...
>
> "Therefore, we can say that if we desire men to have greater access to
> sex through 'normal' channels, it would do to make it less beneficial
> for women to deny it."
Actually the main conclusion was this:
' ...women's unwillingness to have sex, where
men would be willing, is a function of their perception of the
benefits to be obtained from withholding it. This process is largely
unconscious and instinctual ...'
> Yeah, that is what the marxist-feminists thought too. They not only
> wanted more sex, but to use the possibility of more sex to sell their
> political bullshit.
I'm not selling any bullshit. And I'm not necessarily arguing for more
sex
to be good in itself, just that many men act as if that it were.
That's
one of the reasons why we fail !
> We don't have to worry about men getting more sex, they sure will do
> it on their own, and as through the centuries, women will provide.
But how? That's really the question, and it makes a difference. I
wouldn't
be so sure that there's a natural equilibrium in the amount of sex, as
you are asserting, either.
> Yes, there are psychological consequences to anything done in bad
> faith and casual sex is about as bad of faith as you can come up
> against.
I don't think casual sex is necessarily bad-faith. Yes, men aren't
entirely honest when pursuing it, but that's the case in any sexual
relationship with a woman.
> > > > Men and women use the same brain circuits in this department,
>
> > > Huh? How about hormones or brain function differences?
>
> > I don't think there are significant brain differences at the purely
> > physical-response level; it's known at least that orgasm is the same.
>
> There's evidence that is contrary to your conclusions here. It's not
> strong evidence, but enough to give one pause until we know more.
Cite? If the evidence is weak, I wouldn't put much trust in it.
> > Hormones are part of the difference, yes, but it seems strange to
> > think that female hormones prevent sexual pleasure.
>
> Well, their anatomy sure helps.
While I don't think we need to be talking about anatomical details,
I admit I can't understand this.
> > > > so
> > > > it should be similar - note that I didn't say exactly the same. Men
> > > > probably are somewhat greater on average, but there are
> > > > exceptions to that. In any case, my point there was that the reason
> > > > for women being unwilling to have sex with strangers is not that
> > > > they do not obtain pleasure from sex. This should be obvious.
>
> > > This is where science can help and there is some good stuff. Start
> > > reading audiobooks <smile>
>
> > Do you really doubt my last statement?
Apparently you do!
> > > > But to the extent
> > > > that they distort the magnitude of women's sex drive, it is to
> > > > minimise it, so as to claim that sex is something men impose upon
> > > > women, which is nonsense.
>
> > > I don't know what feminists you have been talking to, but the dogmatic
> > > ones deny any sex differences in any area and have for 40 fucking
> > > years!
> > But it seems to me that mainstream feminism is pretty
> > negative on heterosexual sex, isn't it?
>
> Can you say Madonna? The early second wavers looked like truck
> drivers but fucked like bunnies and they did it for the same reason
> all feminists have since time in memoriam...POWER! Feminists are the
> Whore of Babylon.
Now that doesn't contradict me at all. Here I'm looking at what women
say, not what they do. And it's always seemed to me that feminist
ideology is virtually built on a distaste for heterosexual
relationships.
> > > You bet that's a problem. There's not much out there for sure in the
> > > category of truth in regards to sex differences, the feminists have
> > > made sure of that!
>
> > Yeah. But I also mean that this topic is inherently harder to talk
> > about than most scientific issues.
>
> Maybe thrity or more years ago, but now you can't get the masses to
> shut up about sex. Even sex talk is used by feminists to ensnare
> their political prey.
Not what I meant. I was saying that it's hard to talk about it as a
scientific matter.
> > > > And I don't use audiobooks either, they're a waste of time since
> > > > reading is so much faster than speech.
>
> > > You'd be surprised at how fast one can digest an audiobook.
>
> > Huh? How can you speed it up? As far as I know, you're limited
> > to the speed that the presenter speaks at.
>
> That's not what I meant but the truth is there is an adjustment where
> you can speed up the narrators words and shorten the book that way. I
> like listening to the narrators and actively chose books by good
> narrators. Those two books I recommended are done by my favorite
> narrator.
>
> > That's very slow
> > compared to a printed book, especially if one skims over the
> > less interesting parts.
>
> Skimming is too active for me, I like to read at my own speed and
> enjoy the book. I do skimming for research and such, not enjoyment
> reading.
I don't really read non-fiction for enjoyment in that sense. That's
probably explains my slower reading speed for fiction: I judge that
I read a good novel as slowly as 250 words per minute; while for
non-fiction I probably average 500-600, when I'm not deliberately
skimming.
Speaking speeds are about 100-150, with a prepared text. So
written communication really is more efficient.
> The point I was making is that it might even be faster reading by
> audio than visual. Visual reading is lots of work and one takes
> breaks frequently whereas with audio you can be doing anything while
> reading and not working at it.
I have no idea how this can be true. It's certainly not my experience!
In fact, I can't really listen to audio and do something else at the
same time.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> >> Consider that while women normally have a very high resistance to sex
> >> with strangers, it drops very much with a regular partner. While
> >> everyone knows of sexless marriages, they are recognised as the
> >> exception and not the rule.
>
> Actually, sexless is the rule the longer you're married. Another good reason
> to never marry.
That doesn't really make sense. Anyway, the majority of married
couples do have sex, and everyone knows that sex is supposed to
be a part of marriage. This is basically what I said the first time.
> >> A very important clue to this is found in
> >> the fact that women are unable to explain what they really look for in
> >> a male partner. For example, most women will cite personality
> >> characteristic near the top if asked specifically about their
> >> preferences; but studying the men actually picked by women shows that
> >> personality seems to be rather unimportant, and to the extent that
> >> women actually do choose based on character, their choices seem to be
> >> more often bad.
>
> Exactly. Never believe anything a female says. If you want the answer just
> look at what they choose and do because after all, we don't really care
> about their silly constant babbling.
Yes. There are two kinds of people for which this is true -
women and politicians!
> >> It is easily seen (and often remarked on) that men with money, power,
> >> and status or fame attract more female attention; indeed, this
> >> sometimes seems to reverse the normal pattern in that the women may be
> >> willing to have sex and the man not.
>
> Don't believe anything a female says, they just talk to make themselves look
> better than they are. It would be a rare female indeed regardless of whether
> she's married or not, who would resisr having sex with some handsome wealthy
> actor, and most of these guys are dull and have no personality at all in
> real life. So it's really about the money. You'd be surprised at how good
> looking and what a great personality you have when they know you have some
> money :o)
>
> >> This effect is much smaller for
> >> women, and again this is correctly believed to be an instinctual
> >> difference. Some may say that this effect can be explained by the
> >> women's greater ability to get financial benefit this way. That no
> >> doubt exists, and I know there are even some women that would (though
> >> they might lie to themselves about the reason) attempt to conceive a
> >> child with a weathly man to extract child support,
>
> They'd all do that. They all want a baby anyway so why not do it with a man
> of means.
You over-estimate the rationality of women. Most of them can't or
won't acknowledge to themselves what they want. We're lucky
that they don't, in this case!
> The only reason that 99% of them don't do it is because they
> can't. Wealthy men only want the best young slim females and those are in
> limited supply. Average looking girls have to settle for what they can get.
> And fat girls have to beg a guy and get him drunk to shag them. Ever wonder
> why you see the fat ones getting knocked up by some illegal alien, Negro or
> stumblebum loser?
Your obsession with 'fat girls' again - usually a sign of
homosexuality.
Andrew Usher
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-Aug-2008, Andrew Usher <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 1:32 am, "Avenger" <aven...@avengers.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> Consider that while women normally have a very high resistance to sex
> > >> with strangers, it drops very much with a regular partner. While
> > >> everyone knows of sexless marriages, they are recognised as the
> > >> exception and not the rule.
> >
> > Actually, sexless is the rule the longer you're married. Another good
> > reason
> > to never marry.
>
> That doesn't really make sense.
It does for him - it explains alot, in fact.
> Anyway, the majority of married
> couples do have sex, and everyone knows that sex is supposed to
> be a part of marriage. This is basically what I said the first time.
Yes, but you have to understand: you are probably someone
with whom sex would not be repugnant. HE is NOT.
Susan
mom0f4boys
men would be willing, is a function of their perception of the
benefits to be obtained from withholding it. "
I can only agree with this as applied to certain
situations, such as a new relationship, or 'making
up' after a fight.
Otherwise, a woman not wanting to have sex is
probably not a calculated maneuver. Probably, she is
just not interested,
And before you rail against the monstrosity of
'withholding', sometimes it is the ONLY thing a girl
has to counter the vulnerability of being madly in love,
and a girl is pretty smart to wonder if his interest will
suddenly dry up if she gives in to her urges.
Sex, attraction..... dangerous stuff for BOTH
sexes. No one wants to get hurt.
Avenger
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:yOsok.858$xv.332@trnddc02...
>>
>> > >> Consider that while women normally have a very high resistance to
>> > >> sex
>> > >> with strangers, it drops very much with a regular partner. While
>> > >> everyone knows of sexless marriages, they are recognised as the
>> > >> exception and not the rule.
>> >
>> > Actually, sexless is the rule the longer you're married. Another good
>> > reason
>> > to never marry.
>>
>> That doesn't really make sense.
>
>
>> couples do have sex, and everyone knows that sex is supposed to
>> be a part of marriage. This is basically what I said the first time.
>
> with whom sex would not be repugnant. HE is NOT.
Andrew? Our resident virgin? He's still hoping to use that condom he bought
back in 1995. I told him there are expiration dates on those things. He
couldn't get laid in a monkey whorehouse with a fistful of bananas.
And for you my obese boghopper, if it weren't for that fudgepacker loser
Gary going "hogging" every sabbath you'd have nothing.
>
> Susan
The Master
> That doesn't really make sense. Anyway, the majority of married
> couples do have sex, and everyone knows that sex is supposed to
> be a part of marriage. This is basically what I said the first time.
You have obviously never been married...
Andrew Usher
> "women's unwillingness to have sex, where
> men would be willing, is a function of their perception of the
> benefits to be obtained from withholding it. "
>
> I can only agree with this as applied to certain
> situations, such as a new relationship, or 'making
> up' after a fight.
You don't understand, being female. This is largely an unconscious
process; women don't understand that they're doing it. On the other
hand men might withhold sex in such situations as you mentioned,
but they'd be fully aware of why.
> Otherwise, a woman not wanting to have sex is
> probably not a calculated maneuver. Probably, she is
> just not interested,
Just my point. A woman thinks she's 'just not interested',
but I look for the deeper reason.
> And before you rail against the monstrosity of
> 'withholding', sometimes it is the ONLY thing a girl
> has to counter the vulnerability of being madly in love,
> and a girl is pretty smart to wonder if his interest will
> suddenly dry up if she gives in to her urges.
That's a myth, one that women have likely created to
rationalise not having sex when their bodies want to.
> Sex, attraction..... dangerous stuff for BOTH
> sexes. No one wants to get hurt.
Yes. But you can't understand how it is for men.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
wrote:
Are you another sock of Avenger?
Andrew Usher
Ragnar
way distain for women in general oozes from his posts.
But that’s okay because if the Avenger is a rump wrangler; then that’s
his deal and who are we to judge just because he secretly prefers
hairy man ass. It’s his denial of the obvious truth, his misogynistic
tendencies and bloviating that most find truly annoying and
disturbing.
Ragnar
fla...@verizon.net
It's a strongly established pattern, really....
Susan
an old fired friend
"Ragnar" <Ragnar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d88bd0bc-ceb4-43c2...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> That's because he is a closet butt fucking homo. You can tell by the
> way distain for women in general oozes from his posts.
But that’s okay because if the Avenger is a rump >wrangler; then that’s
his deal and who are we to judge just because he secretly > prefers
hairy man ass. It’s his denial of the obvious truth, his >misogynistic
tendencies and bloviating that most find truly annoying and
> disturbing.
> Ragnar
>
INDEED!!!
an old friend
Miguel
>On Aug 12, 8:07 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Your obsession with 'fat girls' again - usually a sign of
>> homosexuality.
>>
>That's because he is a closet butt fucking homo.
That explains the circle jerk that you and TM have going on. TM is married
to a morbidly obese woman, and you are married to a woman who refers to
herself as a "SSBBW", meaning the fattest of the fat.
According to your logic, you and TM are closet butt fucking homos. Did TM
give you a Dirty Sanchez?