Why are women so hung up on penis size?
Jack Cregan
miguel
> WOMEN ARE FUCKING SHALLOW CUNTS!!!
It's an atrocity!
lava girl
Jack Cregan wrote:
> WOMEN ARE FUCKING SHALLOW CUNTS!!!
I take it from this post that you have a 'little' todger!!
BrentAr...@hotmail.com
Jack Cregan wrote:
> WOMEN ARE FUCKING SHALLOW CUNTS!!!
You're probably short in stature as well, right?
Sherman Owens
Is cock size related to height? Kinsey says not. Pygmies, apparently,
have cocks as large as tall Watusi warriors.
the Danimal
> Is cock size related to height? Kinsey says not. Pygmies, apparently,
> have cocks as large as tall Watusi warriors.
Wow, I've never seen a cock that is two meters tall. Maybe
you were looking at ostriches, although I wasn't aware the
Pygmies had managed to domesticate them.
I have to say however, anyone with a cock as large as a tall
Watusi warrior would probably win a lot of cockfights. Imagine
the spurs on that thing.
-- the Danimal
the Danimal
If so, then he had best find a woman with a shallow cunt.
-- the Danimal
Lava Girl
LOL! Notice how Jack Creegan hasn't been back to defend himself?! ;o)
Lava Girl
Or maybe, he is stating that women only fuck shallow cunts? Perhaps,
he is not one of the above and is upset that he isn't getting any?....
Nah!
Society
"the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
news:1152848077.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> lava girl sniggled...
>>
>> Jack Cregan wrote:
>> > WOMEN ARE FUCKING SHALLOW CUNTS!!!
>>
>> I take it from this post that you have a 'little' todger!!
>
> If so, then he had best find a woman with a shallow cunt.
Knowing that "Lava Girl" is worng* again (what else is
new?) we can conclude that Jack Cregan is complaining
that he hasn't yet found a woman in whom his johnson
doesn't strike bottom.
"Lava Girl" is only hissing at Jack because she's angry.
Being unable to meet a man's standards does that to a "girl"
of any age.
* "not even wrong" --Wolfgang Pauli
lava girl
High, Society!!
Looks like I might have made mine already! LOL
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
> > lava girl wrote:
> > > Jack Cregan wrote:
> > > > WOMEN ARE FUCKING SHALLOW CUNTS!!!
> > >
> > > I take it from this post that you have a 'little' todger!!
> >
> > If so, then he had best find a woman with a shallow cunt.
> >
> > -- the Danimal
>
> Or maybe, he is stating that women only fuck shallow cunts?
Good point, except that I don't see where you get
the "only" part.
> Perhaps,
> he is not one of the above and is upset that he isn't getting any?....
Men want sex with women more than women want sex with
men. It is perfectly sensible for men to get upset by this, at
least until men get smart enough to build superior replacements
for women.
> Nah!
John Fereira
@anonymous.poster:
> WOMEN ARE FUCKING SHALLOW CUNTS!!!
>
That doesn't follow. If they are indeed shallow, one would assume a
preference for a short cock.
In any case, while I can't produce a lit search on the topic, it is my
understanding that it's not length that's an issue as much as it is girth.
In other words, if women invented condoms they would be padded.
the Danimal
Instead of a lit search, I recommend a clit search. When women
design tools for sexual stimulation, they often build in appendages
to properly engage the clitoris, which even the largest penis
misses when making the plunge.
John Fereira
@corp.supernews.com:
>
> "the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> news:1152848077.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> lava girl sniggled...
>>>
>>> Jack Cregan wrote:
>>> > WOMEN ARE FUCKING SHALLOW CUNTS!!!
>>>
>>> I take it from this post that you have a 'little' todger!!
>>
>> If so, then he had best find a woman with a shallow cunt.
>
> Knowing that "Lava Girl" is worng* again (what else is
> new?)
I got a new pair of sunglasses.
> we can conclude that Jack Cregan is complaining
> that he hasn't yet found a woman in whom his johnson
> doesn't strike bottom.
I think we can more likely presume that Jack Cregan is a regular in the
infamous faux newsgroup called
alt.I.hate.women.but.desparately.want.to.bone.them
>
> "Lava Girl" is only hissing at Jack because she's angry.
Lave girl doesn't sound angry. She sounds like she's getting into the
spirit along with several men in giving Jack Cregan's post the kind of
response it deserves.
> Being unable to meet a man's standards does that to a "girl"
> of any age.
I haven't received the latest Men's ISO manual on women genetalia. What's
the current standard these days?
John Fereira
So what you're saying is that Jack Cregans complaint could easily addressed
wit a littl costmetic surgery. Would that be like getting a haircut and
pointing at a picture and saying "I'd like the Masai warrior 2000 please".
catbr...@yahoo.com
Jack Cregan wrote:
> WOMEN ARE FUCKING SHALLOW CUNTS!!!
Oh goody, a penis thread!
LOL!
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
the Danimal wrote:
> Men want sex with women more than women want sex with
> men.
Correction: women want to have sex with some men a lot more than with
others.
> It is perfectly sensible for men to get upset by this,
Blame "god".
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
Girth is good, length is good too. (As long as it's not too long.)
Cat
catbr...@yahoo.com
Not entirely. Some positions bring the penis into closer contact with
the clit. Technique matters.
Cat
Liz
I have found the majority of men lose their sex drive after the age of
50! There are a few exceptions but I have been very disappointed
recently from a woman's point of view.
Liz
the Danimal
> I have found the majority of men lose their sex drive after the age of
> 50!
Well, yes, sometime after the age of 50, every human eventually
loses everything. Some don't even last that long.
> There are a few exceptions but I have been very disappointed
> recently from a woman's point of view.
> Liz
Perhaps one way for you to avoid disappointment
would be to pursue younger men.
-- the Danimal
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
>
> > Men want sex with women more than women want sex with
> > men.
>
> Correction: women want to have sex with some men a lot more than with
> others.
Your statement is true, but I fail to see what your statement
corrects. One could also say "Correction: Israel is engaged
in military conflict with Hezbollah forces Lebanon." A true
statement, but it doesn't "correct" my statement.
It is perfectly apparent that women want to have sex with some
men a lot more than with others, but the converse is also just
as apparent: men want to have sex with some women a lot
more than with others.
When I say "Men want sex with women more than women want
sex with men," I could also be saying the set of "some women"
men want to have sex with a lot more than others is
*considerably* larger than the set of "some men" women
want to sex with a lot more than others.
All you have to do is go hang around with any group of
ordinary people. Odds are, there is at least one attractive
woman that most of the men want to have sex with.
It would be unusual for the group to have one man that
most of the women want to have sex with.
In other words, men actually know the women they want
to have sex with more than others.
> > It is perfectly sensible for men to get upset by this,
>
> Blame "god".
It's more rational to blame our evolutionary history, namely
the operating condition that sperm is cheap and eggs are
precious. That's what creates the imbalance in desire.
-- the Danimal
Pale.Pink.
Payrut wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2006 12:24:57 -0700, "Liz" <kinggeor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >I have found the majority of men lose their sex drive after the age of
> >50! There are a few exceptions but I have been very disappointed
> >recently from a woman's point of view.
>
> who are over the age of 50. There are a few exceptions, but it's very
> disappointing, from a man's point of view.
I like pretty penises. They're adorable. I can't resist petting and
hugging and kissing pretty penises.
catbr...@yahoo.com
the Danimal wrote:
> catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > the Danimal wrote:
> >
> > > Men want sex with women more than women want sex with
> > > men.
> >
> > Correction: women want to have sex with some men a lot more than with
> > others.
>
> Your statement is true, but I fail to see what your statement
> corrects. One could also say "Correction: Israel is engaged
> in military conflict with Hezbollah forces Lebanon." A true
> statement, but it doesn't "correct" my statement.
Your general statement above was incorrect. Women want sex with me -
but not all men equally.
> It is perfectly apparent that women want to have sex with some
> men a lot more than with others, but the converse is also just
> as apparent: men want to have sex with some women a lot
> more than with others.
Exactly.
> When I say "Men want sex with women more than women want
> sex with men," I could also be saying the set of "some women"
> men want to have sex with a lot more than others is
> *considerably* larger than the set of "some men" women
> want to sex with a lot more than others.
That might be true. Let's see the research.
> All you have to do is go hang around with any group of
> ordinary people.
I try to avoid that as much as possible.
> Odds are, there is at least one attractive
> woman that most of the men want to have sex with.
> It would be unusual for the group to have one man that
> most of the women want to have sex with.
Speculation.
> In other words, men actually know the women they want
> to have sex with more than others.
What makes you think the women don't know too?
> > > It is perfectly sensible for men to get upset by this,
> >
> > Blame "god".
>
> It's more rational to blame our evolutionary history, namely
> the operating condition that sperm is cheap and eggs are
> precious. That's what creates the imbalance in desire.
>
> -- the Danimal
Have you noticed how one man squirts a tiny amount of sperm and
another's got like a quart in there?
Cat
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
> > catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > the Danimal wrote:
> > >
> > > > Men want sex with women more than women want sex with
> > > > men.
> > >
> > > Correction: women want to have sex with some men a lot more than with
> > > others.
> >
> > Your statement is true, but I fail to see what your statement
> > corrects. One could also say "Correction: Israel is engaged
> > in military conflict with Hezbollah forces Lebanon." A true
> > statement, but it doesn't "correct" my statement.
>
> Your general statement above was incorrect. Women want sex with me -
> but not all men equally.
Once again, your second statement has nothing to do with
your first. I did not claim that women do not want sex with
men. Of course they do, to some extent. I merely claim that
extent is less then the extent to which men want sex with
women.
> > It is perfectly apparent that women want to have sex with some
> > men a lot more than with others, but the converse is also just
> > as apparent: men want to have sex with some women a lot
> > more than with others.
>
> Exactly.
Which means your "correction" sheds no light on my original
claim, either way. At best you might be making an argument
from ignorance here (what is not known is, therefore true (or
false, depending on what you want to prove)).
> > When I say "Men want sex with women more than women want
> > sex with men," I could also be saying the set of "some women"
> > men want to have sex with a lot more than others is
> > *considerably* larger than the set of "some men" women
> > want to sex with a lot more than others.
>
> That might be true. Let's see the research.
Better yet, let's DO the research. You and I can each go
out and ask 50 members of the opposite sex to have sex
with us. I bet you will get about 50 more takers than I do.
We don't have to go out, we can do it right here if you like.
Ladies, how many of you want to have sex with me? Please
answer yes or no, and we can stop when I get 50 responses.
That may not work because the vast majority of uninterested
women would not respond, and I'm sure not going to get 50
yes responses. I can start by assuming you're saying no.
Actually this kind of research has been done. Not only do
women get a lot more yes answers than men, but even the
men who say no to women who ask them for sex tend to
be polite or even apologetic about it. In contrast, most women
react with shock, dismay, or outright hostility when men ask
them to have sex. Some women escalate immediately to
physical violence by slapping men who ask them for sex.
That's according to the research I read. I don't have a cite. A
cite hardly seems necessary for anyone who has spent maybe
a week in the real world.
Can you imagine asking a man for sex and having him slap
you, or act in any offended even if he did say no? He might
faint from shock, but not because he felt offended.
> > All you have to do is go hang around with any group of
> > ordinary people.
>
> I try to avoid that as much as possible.
Even if you hang around with unusual people, it would quite
a challenge to assemble a group of men and women such
that the women wanted sex with the men in the group more
than the men wanted sex with the women in the group.
I'm assuming these are all heterosexuals, which isn't
very limiting given that the percentage of homosexuals
is fairly low.
> > Odds are, there is at least one attractive
> > woman that most of the men want to have sex with.
> > It would be unusual for the group to have one man that
> > most of the women want to have sex with.
>
> Speculation.
I'm just reporting what I have observed. When I go to the
gym, for example, almost invariably there is some woman
who is attractive and therefore is desired sexually by the
vast majority of men who are there.
If there is some man who is similarly desired by the women,
then he's actually having sex with lots of them.
> > In other words, men actually know the women they want
> > to have sex with more than others.
>
> What makes you think the women don't know too?
What makes you think "more than" implies the lesser
quantity is zero?
Women can be less horny than men and still be pretty
horny.
Have you ever had the slightest difficulty finding some
man who was willing to have sex with you, whenever you
were in the mood for sex?
A woman with any looks at all can get laid in a heartbeat,
whereas for a man it is not so easy unless he is extraordinarily
attractive to women.
I've found that even when women find me interesting enough
to go on several dates with, it's still a complete tossup as
to whether they want to have sex with me. I usually have
no idea how they might respond if that topic comes up.
If you met a man who was willing to go on several dates
with you, do you think you would have any difficulty seducing
him if you felt like it?
Come on, when a man says no to sex with a woman, she's
likely to think he is gay. A lot of women don't seem to have
a concept that a man would be sexually unavailable to them.
Women needed to have a special book written for them:
"He's Just Not That Into You" because they are so used to
sex being pretty much automatic when they want it that
when it isn't automatic they tend to conclude something
is wrong with the man.
But don't take my word for it. The next time you effortlessly
seduce a man, ask him if he always gets laid that easily.
Just use your common sense. Do you think if men could
get laid with women as easily as you can get laid with men,
that any man would get married?
-- the Danimal
pandora
<Payrut Yurserv> wrote in message
news:gm4nb2p2aklhecpcs...@4ax.com...
> >50! There are a few exceptions but I have been very disappointed
> >recently from a woman's point of view.
>
> who are over the age of 50. There are a few exceptions, but it's very
> disappointing, from a man's point of view.
Since most of *sex* is in the brain, all I can say is that you must be
lacking in that area. I'm terribly sorry for you.
Marg
DS
Jessica81
> > >
> > >I have found the majority of men lose their sex drive after the age of
> > >50!
-- Is there anyway to speed this loss of sexual desire up. I'm a
little tired of having sex everyday. lol
catbr...@yahoo.com
the Danimal wrote:
> catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Your general statement above was incorrect. Women want sex with me -
> > but not all men equally.
>
> Once again, your second statement has nothing to do with
> your first. I did not claim that women do not want sex with
> men. Of course they do, to some extent. I merely claim that
> extent is less then the extent to which men want sex with
> women.
Maybe I am just an extremely horny woman? And it is true that several
of my lovers have commented, not unflatteringly, that my sexual
behavior was "like that of a man."
My favorite was: "You're deliciously evil!"
But I am not alone in this - my female friends can be pretty randy at
times.
And then, not all men have strong libidos either.
I don't see your initial statement to be of much real-world value.
> > > It is perfectly apparent that women want to have sex with some
> > > men a lot more than with others, but the converse is also just
> > > as apparent: men want to have sex with some women a lot
> > > more than with others.
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> Which means your "correction" sheds no light on my original
> claim, either way. At best you might be making an argument
> from ignorance here (what is not known is, therefore true (or
> false, depending on what you want to prove)).
You have not "proved" the contrary. Your statement was made without
documentation so I am assuming you are speaking entirely from personal
experience, as am I.
> > > When I say "Men want sex with women more than women want
> > > sex with men," I could also be saying the set of "some women"
> > > men want to have sex with a lot more than others is
> > > *considerably* larger than the set of "some men" women
> > > want to sex with a lot more than others.
> >
> > That might be true. Let's see the research.
>
> Better yet, let's DO the research. You and I can each go
> out and ask 50 members of the opposite sex to have sex
> with us. I bet you will get about 50 more takers than I do.
Oh that will prove nothing...what a silly idea. I get hit on almost
everyday. If I'm out that is. Grocery boys trip over each other to
carry my bags out to the SUV.
:P
You're not accounting for differences in physical attraction and lots
of other things.
> We don't have to go out, we can do it right here if you like.
> Ladies, how many of you want to have sex with me? Please
> answer yes or no, and we can stop when I get 50 responses.
> That may not work because the vast majority of uninterested
> women would not respond, and I'm sure not going to get 50
> yes responses. I can start by assuming you're saying no.
Cute ... but you know that I am now in a monogamous relationship. And I
am determined that I will not cheat on this man.
> Actually this kind of research has been done. Not only do
> women get a lot more yes answers than men, but even the
> men who say no to women who ask them for sex tend to
> be polite or even apologetic about it. In contrast, most women
> react with shock, dismay, or outright hostility when men ask
> them to have sex. Some women escalate immediately to
> physical violence by slapping men who ask them for sex.
You don't say? I've never reacted violently to a man who has been
obvious about his intentions. I rather expect it.
> That's according to the research I read. I don't have a cite. A
> cite hardly seems necessary for anyone who has spent maybe
> a week in the real world.
That's an interesting way of getting around providing the necessary
research to substantiate your claim - but I won't hold you to it -
let's just agree that it is at best and arguable hypothesis.
Let's imagine that Matt Damon is the guy doing the asking...or better
yet, George Clooney! Yumm!
> Can you imagine asking a man for sex and having him slap
> you, or act in any offended even if he did say no? He might
> faint from shock, but not because he felt offended.
Again, wrong girl to ask. I've walked into a bar, picked out my latest
victim, and simply taken him away, without asking. I liked to size them
up first, however. In the past, I seldom waited to be asked. I found it
- inconvenient.
> > > All you have to do is go hang around with any group of
> > > ordinary people.
> >
> > I try to avoid that as much as possible.
>
> Even if you hang around with unusual people, it would quite
> a challenge to assemble a group of men and women such
> that the women wanted sex with the men in the group more
> than the men wanted sex with the women in the group.
We need little gauges that indicate levels of arousal. But silly me -
men have one of those, don't they?
> I'm assuming these are all heterosexuals, which isn't
> very limiting given that the percentage of homosexuals
> is fairly low.
Wait now - gay men might prove your point! Except that the two gay men
that are close friends of mine are just like an old married couple.
Damn! I don't know any younger single gay men. Yes - that's what you
need to do, Dan sweety - you need to go to a gay bar and ask a lot of
men for sex.
My best friend is a fem lesbian and I go to lesbian bars with her
occasionally and yes - I get hit on there too. And those dike bitches
get very angry when you tell them you're straight.
> > > Odds are, there is at least one attractive
> > > woman that most of the men want to have sex with.
> > > It would be unusual for the group to have one man that
> > > most of the women want to have sex with.
> >
> > Speculation.
>
> I'm just reporting what I have observed. When I go to the
> gym, for example, almost invariably there is some woman
> who is attractive and therefore is desired sexually by the
> vast majority of men who are there.
>
> If there is some man who is similarly desired by the women,
> then he's actually having sex with lots of them.
I quit going to the gym and work out at home. Remind me to tell you
some time about the guy that spotted me on the bench press a few years
back!
I do yoga out on my deck in complete privacy and without looking up and
seeing a giant set of balls dangling over my face.
> > > In other words, men actually know the women they want
> > > to have sex with more than others.
> >
> > What makes you think the women don't know too?
>
> What makes you think "more than" implies the lesser
> quantity is zero?
Too early for convoluted questions...I'm only on my first cup.
> Women can be less horny than men and still be pretty
> horny.
Back to the "gauge".
> Have you ever had the slightest difficulty finding some
> man who was willing to have sex with you, whenever you
> were in the mood for sex?
No! My problem has always been the opposite. My most recent
difficulties in that quarter have been with 18 to 20 (?) year olds. The
nephew of a friend, at a BBQ gathering, I step away to grab a quick
smoke, yes 2 or 3 a day at most, and this squirt sidles up to me
leering like a baboon, obviously intoxicated, and after the preliminary
small talk, reminds me, very confidentially, that he and I are in our
"sexual prime."
No...no I did not laugh at him. I'm not that type. Nor was I so much
offended as amazed.
I was polite - and said "Oh no honey, it would take me weeks to
recover."
> A woman with any looks at all can get laid in a heartbeat,
> whereas for a man it is not so easy unless he is extraordinarily
> attractive to women.
Which is basically saying the same. How hard do you think it is for
Denzel Washington to get laid?
> I've found that even when women find me interesting enough
> to go on several dates with, it's still a complete tossup as
> to whether they want to have sex with me. I usually have
> no idea how they might respond if that topic comes up.
> If you met a man who was willing to go on several dates
> with you, do you think you would have any difficulty seducing
> him if you felt like it?
Dates? Oh, that's completely different. A man had to be very
interesting for me to want to talk to for any length of time. I thought
you were talking about a one-nighter with a cowboy stud at the Motel 6!
> Come on, when a man says no to sex with a woman, she's
> likely to think he is gay. A lot of women don't seem to have
> a concept that a man would be sexually unavailable to them.
> Women needed to have a special book written for them:
> "He's Just Not That Into You" because they are so used to
> sex being pretty much automatic when they want it that
> when it isn't automatic they tend to conclude something
> is wrong with the man.
Or married. I was turned down once by a man who was married. My only
time!
I apologized...but he wasn't wearing a wedding ring.
> But don't take my word for it. The next time you effortlessly
> seduce a man, ask him if he always gets laid that easily.
I'm done with that - at least so it seems. I feel very bonded with the
my guy and content with this relationship. I've hung up my spurs.
> Just use your common sense. Do you think if men could
> get laid with women as easily as you can get laid with men,
> that any man would get married?
>
> -- the Danimal
Marriage is a whole different animal!
Cat
Tobin
Liz wrote:
> the Danimal wrote:
> > Sherman Owens wrote:
> > > Is cock size related to height? Kinsey says not. Pygmies, apparently,
> > > have cocks as large as tall Watusi warriors.
> >
> > Wow, I've never seen a cock that is two meters tall. Maybe
> > you were looking at ostriches, although I wasn't aware the
> > Pygmies had managed to domesticate them.
> >
> > I have to say however, anyone with a cock as large as a tall
> > Watusi warrior would probably win a lot of cockfights. Imagine
> > the spurs on that thing.
> >
> > -- the Danimal
>
> I have found the majority of men lose their sex drive after the age of
> 50!
As opposed to most women, who don't have a sex drive at all.
> There are a few exceptions but I have been very disappointed
> recently from a woman's point of view.
> Liz
And from a man's point of view women have to bribed and wooed and
promised the moon before they will lower themselves to having sex.
Dick
wrote:
>> I have found the majority of men lose their sex drive after the age of
>> 50!
>
>
> As opposed to most women, who don't have a sex drive at all.
>
Am I the only one who looks forward to impotence. Stopping the almost
constant distraction of ants dancing in my pants would be wonderful.
Maybe I'm just really weird.
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
> > catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Your general statement above was incorrect. Women want sex with me -
> > > but not all men equally.
> >
> > Once again, your second statement has nothing to do with
> > your first. I did not claim that women do not want sex with
> > men. Of course they do, to some extent. I merely claim that
> > extent is less then the extent to which men want sex with
> > women.
>
> Maybe I am just an extremely horny woman?
A small percentage of women are. But not even the horniest
women need to use force to get all the sex they want from men.
There are lots of men who want sex so much, and find it
so difficult to obtain, that they end up going to jail
for it. Aside from a few highly-publicized elementary school
teachers who have sex with their adolescent male students
(which, by the way, is so easy for these women that they
never need to think about using force), how many women will
take such risks to get laid?
> And it is true that several
> of my lovers have commented, not unflatteringly, that my sexual
> behavior was "like that of a man."
Which implies they agree with my claim.
> My favorite was: "You're deliciously evil!"
> But I am not alone in this - my female friends can be pretty randy at
> times.
At times. But a larger percentage of men are horny at ALL times.
Otherwise, people would say your behavior was "like that of
a woman."
Like, DUH.
> And then, not all men have strong libidos either.
My statement does not require all men to have strong
libidos. My statement only requires there to be a larger
number of men with strong libidos than the corresponding
number of lusty women. Anyone with a lick of sense can
see this is indeed the case. Just go out to a night club and
ask people why they are there.
> I don't see your initial statement to be of much real-world value.
It's of value for explaining why most rapists are men, why most
men don't even consider the possibility of being raped by a
woman, and why most women have to think carefully about
whether and when to spend time alone with a man they just
met.
If you're not curious about the massive sexual asymmetry
between men and women in most human societies, including
the one we inhabit, then I suppose my statement would not be
of much real-world value.
> > > > It is perfectly apparent that women want to have sex with some
> > > > men a lot more than with others, but the converse is also just
> > > > as apparent: men want to have sex with some women a lot
> > > > more than with others.
> > >
> > > Exactly.
> >
> > Which means your "correction" sheds no light on my original
> > claim, either way. At best you might be making an argument
> > from ignorance here (what is not known is, therefore true (or
> > false, depending on what you want to prove)).
>
> You have not "proved" the contrary. Your statement was made without
> documentation so I am assuming you are speaking entirely from personal
> experience, as am I.
In your personal experience, does it seem most of the cowboys
hanging around your local bar are looking to meet women and
have sex with them?
If so, ask those cowboys if they are finding lots of women at
the bar who are looking to meet men and have sex with them.
Here's another way to look at it. Suppose a woman goes out
with her friends for a night on the town. If she does not meet
a man and get laid, is she likely to think the night was worthwhile
anyway? In most cases, yes. In fact she might have gone out
with absolutely no intention to meet a man and get laid.
In contrast, most men would probably feel something is missing
if they go out on the town, but don't meet a woman and get laid.
Very few men would say "I'm here to spend time with my friends,
and I have no interest in getting laid tonight" if a moderately
attractive woman such as, say, you were to hit on them. (I presume
you are attractive, but not so attractive as to be getting paid to
work as a model or something similar. Correct me if I am wrong.)
> > > > When I say "Men want sex with women more than women want
> > > > sex with men," I could also be saying the set of "some women"
> > > > men want to have sex with a lot more than others is
> > > > *considerably* larger than the set of "some men" women
> > > > want to sex with a lot more than others.
> > >
> > > That might be true. Let's see the research.
> >
> > Better yet, let's DO the research. You and I can each go
> > out and ask 50 members of the opposite sex to have sex
> > with us. I bet you will get about 50 more takers than I do.
>
> Oh that will prove nothing...what a silly idea. I get hit on almost
> everyday. If I'm out that is. Grocery boys trip over each other to
> carry my bags out to the SUV.
> :P
It proves there are lots of guys around who need to hit on
women. Why is that? For starters, it might indicate that
women aren't hitting on them. That in turn might indicate
women are less interested in sex than they are.
I'm speaking of course of sex between real people, the
kind who interact with each other every day. Men don't need
a woman to be a superstar before they want to bang her
instantly.
> You're not accounting for differences in physical attraction and lots
> of other things.
So do the experiment with your boyfriend. You probably
selected him to be about as attractive (for a man) as you
are (for a woman). Because you would have trouble attracting
a man much above your level of attractiveness, and you probably
wouldn't want a man much below.
I would bet $50 that if you ask 50 men to have sex with you,
and your boyfriend asks 50 women to have sex with him,
under the same circumstances of just going out to a bar
or a festival or whatever and asking the first 50 MOTAS
you each see, you will get at least twice as many yes answers
as he does.
The most accurate way to run the experiment is to pick 50
men and 50 women. Let them all talk to each other for a few
minutes as in speed dating, then ask each one to indicate
who they would like to have sex with immediately.
> > We don't have to go out, we can do it right here if you like.
> > Ladies, how many of you want to have sex with me? Please
> > answer yes or no, and we can stop when I get 50 responses.
> > That may not work because the vast majority of uninterested
> > women would not respond, and I'm sure not going to get 50
> > yes responses. I can start by assuming you're saying no.
>
> Cute ... but you know that I am now in a monogamous relationship.
Of course, but that only matters because you are a woman.
When you go out and get hit on by men every day, do you
think all those guys are celibate right now?
I bet lots of them are trying to trade up, or merely sideways,
or even down in some cases---what the heck.
> And I
> am determined that I will not cheat on this man.
How many men do you think could say no to cheating if
they had as many opportunities as you get?
Is your boyfriend similarly "determined" not to cheat on
you? Odds are, he doesn't need the same amount of
determination. All he has to do to stay faithfil is to refrain from
putting so much energy into the pursuit of other women.
To cheat, he might have to go out of his way and make
a serious effort. (Some men do this, of course.)
> > Actually this kind of research has been done. Not only do
> > women get a lot more yes answers than men, but even the
> > men who say no to women who ask them for sex tend to
> > be polite or even apologetic about it. In contrast, most women
> > react with shock, dismay, or outright hostility when men ask
> > them to have sex. Some women escalate immediately to
> > physical violence by slapping men who ask them for sex.
>
> You don't say? I've never reacted violently to a man who has been
> obvious about his intentions. I rather expect it.
Evidently you are as aware of the variation among women's
responses to men's advances as I am aware of the variation
in the various male traits you have mentioned (as if I would
be aware of them).
I can tell you stories about women scolding men
merely for looking at them a little too much.
> > That's according to the research I read. I don't have a cite. A
> > cite hardly seems necessary for anyone who has spent maybe
> > a week in the real world.
>
> That's an interesting way of getting around providing the necessary
> research to substantiate your claim - but I won't hold you to it -
> let's just agree that it is at best and arguable hypothesis.
>
> Let's imagine that Matt Damon is the guy doing the asking...or better
> yet, George Clooney! Yumm!
These examples support my point. Only a tiny fraction of men
are this attractive to women, whereas almost any group of
young women will have a few who drive men to similar levels
of distraction.
In other words, a woman who merely is at the 90th centile
of attractiveness generates a response in men comparable
to what a man like Matt Damon or George Clooney (who are
at the 99.9th centile of attractiveness to women, at least)
generates in women.
In other words, a woman who is usually the most attractive
woman in a group of 10, is about as exciting to men as
a man who is usually the most attractive man in a group of 100
(or more) is exciting to women. The numbers may be slightly off
but you get the idea. To come up with men you would do in a
heartbeat, you probably have to think about extremely rare celebrities.
To come up with women I would do in a heartbeat, I only have
to take a stroll around the neighborhood.
> > Can you imagine asking a man for sex and having him slap
> > you, or act in any offended even if he did say no? He might
> > faint from shock, but not because he felt offended.
>
> Again, wrong girl to ask. I've walked into a bar, picked out my latest
> victim, and simply taken him away, without asking. I liked to size them
> up first, however. In the past, I seldom waited to be asked. I found it
> - inconvenient.
You're just proving my point, repeatedly.
The fraction of women who are "the wrong girl to ask" is high,
which supports my claim that men want sex with women more
than women want sex with men.
Do you think you are special? Come on, just
about any young-ish non-deformed non-obese woman can walk
into a bar and score immediately with her choice of men. You
don't have to have supermodel looks, such that you get paid
millions of dollars to smile at the camera. Women who are
nowhere near attractive enough to get rich off their looks can
easily get laid off their looks.
For a man to score so easily with women, he practically has
to be a superstar: either good-looking enough to get paid to
be photographed, or a rock star, sports star, movie star, etc.
> > > > All you have to do is go hang around with any group of
> > > > ordinary people.
> > >
> > > I try to avoid that as much as possible.
> >
> > Even if you hang around with unusual people, it would quite
> > a challenge to assemble a group of men and women such
> > that the women wanted sex with the men in the group more
> > than the men wanted sex with the women in the group.
>
> We need little gauges that indicate levels of arousal. But silly me -
> men have one of those, don't they?
Hopefully it's not too "little," but yes.
With women, it's not so difficult to detect arousal (after all,
a man can tell when he is getting laid with a woman), but
when they are "done." Women should come with something
like those turkey thermometers that pop up after so much time
in the oven.
> > I'm assuming these are all heterosexuals, which isn't
> > very limiting given that the percentage of homosexuals
> > is fairly low.
>
> Wait now - gay men might prove your point! Except that the two gay men
> that are close friends of mine are just like an old married couple.
> Damn! I don't know any younger single gay men. Yes - that's what you
> need to do, Dan sweety - you need to go to a gay bar and ask a lot of
> men for sex.
Actually, gay men do prove my point, and sociobiologists cite
this as evidence for WHO WANTS IT MORE.
Why do you think AIDS wiped out so many gay men? Because
it's as easy for a gay man to get laid as it is for women like you.
If women were as horny as men are, the human race would be
practically extinct by now, probably. Tens of millions of heterosexuals
would have been wiped out during the early stages of the AIDS
epidemic. If women wanted sex as much as men do, the average
person would have hundreds or thousands of sex partners, instead
of the current average which is something like seven. (I read that
somewhere, and it does seem dubiously low. But most people
really aren't sluts; the women because they don't want to be; and
the men because the women don't want to be.)
> My best friend is a fem lesbian and I go to lesbian bars with her
Whatever for?
> occasionally and yes - I get hit on there too. And those dike bitches
> get very angry when you tell them you're straight.
At least they can tell themselves that's the reason, and
maybe believe it, unlike all the men you reject.
> > > > Odds are, there is at least one attractive
> > > > woman that most of the men want to have sex with.
> > > > It would be unusual for the group to have one man that
> > > > most of the women want to have sex with.
> > >
> > > Speculation.
> >
> > I'm just reporting what I have observed. When I go to the
> > gym, for example, almost invariably there is some woman
> > who is attractive and therefore is desired sexually by the
> > vast majority of men who are there.
> >
> > If there is some man who is similarly desired by the women,
> > then he's actually having sex with lots of them.
>
> I quit going to the gym and work out at home. Remind me to tell you
> some time about the guy that spotted me on the bench press a few years
> back!
> I do yoga out on my deck in complete privacy and without looking up and
> seeing a giant set of balls dangling over my face.
See, if you were a guy, you might think it was cool to bench
press with a set of mudflaps dangling over your face.
I'm kind of wondering how long it will take the latest fitness
craze for women---pole dancing---to migrate from California to
Ohio.
> > > > In other words, men actually know the women they want
> > > > to have sex with more than others.
> > >
> > > What makes you think the women don't know too?
> >
> > What makes you think "more than" implies the lesser
> > quantity is zero?
>
> Too early for convoluted questions...I'm only on my first cup.
I'm pretty sure every man knows some woman, right now, who
he isn't having sex with, but would like to.
I'm pretty sure there are some women in the corresponding
situation, but it's probably not as common as for men.
> > Have you ever had the slightest difficulty finding some
> > man who was willing to have sex with you, whenever you
> > were in the mood for sex?
>
> No! My problem has always been the opposite. My most recent
> difficulties in that quarter have been with 18 to 20 (?) year olds. The
> nephew of a friend, at a BBQ gathering, I step away to grab a quick
> smoke, yes 2 or 3 a day at most, and this squirt sidles up to me
> leering like a baboon, obviously intoxicated, and after the preliminary
> small talk, reminds me, very confidentially, that he and I are in our
> "sexual prime."
Which is close to true.
> No...no I did not laugh at him. I'm not that type. Nor was I so much
> offended as amazed.
Talk about convoluted---why would you laugh at him? If a
30-something woman would have hit on me when I was
18 and climbing the walls, and she used the same line,
I'd have said "you're absolutely right."
> I was polite - and said "Oh no honey, it would take me weeks to
> recover."
So, why did this squirt need to hit on you? Why weren't you
instead hitting on him, as the 30-something men at a BBQ
would be doing with 18 to 20 year old women?
Suppose you are a horny woman, doing your fair share of
draining off deadly sperm buildup. Obviously, if you are getting
hit on so much, there must be a lot of other women not
pulling their weight. Ergo, men want it more.
> > A woman with any looks at all can get laid in a heartbeat,
> > whereas for a man it is not so easy unless he is extraordinarily
> > attractive to women.
>
> Which is basically saying the same. How hard do you think it is for
> Denzel Washington to get laid?
Probably not very. But Denzel is probably at the
99.99th centile of attractiveness to women, maybe the
99.999th.
For a woman to get laid with men with similar ease, she
only needs to be maybe at the 70th or 80th centile
of attractiveness to men. In other words, there are probably
hundreds of times as many women as men who can get
laid easily. Maybe thousands of times as many.
One of the most successful "playa" types I have actually
known (50 claimed conquests in two years, which seemed
realistic from the shorter time I observed), got rejected by
women A LOT. He scored a lot because he hit on women
a lot more.
> > I've found that even when women find me interesting enough
> > to go on several dates with, it's still a complete tossup as
> > to whether they want to have sex with me. I usually have
> > no idea how they might respond if that topic comes up.
> > If you met a man who was willing to go on several dates
> > with you, do you think you would have any difficulty seducing
> > him if you felt like it?
>
> Dates? Oh, that's completely different. A man had to be very
> interesting for me to want to talk to for any length of time.
Should I feel honored that you correspond with me at such
length? Am I more "interesting" than all those guys you had
sex with?
Does that mean I am a NICE GUY?
I laugh whenever I hear a woman lament that she can't find any
men who value her for her mind. I tell her, "Honey, being valued
for your mind is WAY overrated."
> I thought
> you were talking about a one-nighter with a cowboy stud at the Motel 6!
As a woman you have that option. For a man, dating is
usually necessary first.
> > Come on, when a man says no to sex with a woman, she's
> > likely to think he is gay. A lot of women don't seem to have
> > a concept that a man would be sexually unavailable to them.
> > Women needed to have a special book written for them:
> > "He's Just Not That Into You" because they are so used to
> > sex being pretty much automatic when they want it that
> > when it isn't automatic they tend to conclude something
> > is wrong with the man.
>
> Or married. I was turned down once by a man who was married. My only
> time!
> I apologized...but he wasn't wearing a wedding ring.
Do you know for a fact he was married?
You question many things I say. Do I seem less trustworthy
than the random married guy who goes around without his
wedding ring on?
> > But don't take my word for it. The next time you effortlessly
> > seduce a man, ask him if he always gets laid that easily.
>
> I'm done with that - at least so it seems. I feel very bonded with the
> my guy and content with this relationship. I've hung up my spurs.
Further evidence. Most men, if they could score with
women as easily as you can score with men, would keep
the spurs on longer.
And incidentally, if women were as horny as men, do you
think you'd have so many men hanging around as such easy
pickings? Why do you think every bar is loaded with
lonesome cowboys hoping to hook up? Because the
corresponding number of cowgirls who aren't getting laid
are less dissatisfied with that setup at the moment.
> > Just use your common sense. Do you think if men could
> > get laid with women as easily as you can get laid with men,
> > that any man would get married?
> >
> > -- the Danimal
>
> Marriage is a whole different animal!
For you, yes, because you don't need to get married to have
sex.
But for a lot of men, getting married looks like a better
deal than continuing to hit on women and be rejected by
the vast majority of them.
-- the Danimal
catbr...@yahoo.com
Liz wrote:
> I have found the majority of men lose their sex drive after the age of
> 50! There are a few exceptions but I have been very disappointed
> recently from a woman's point of view.
> Liz
In my mid-twenties I had "relations" with a couple (?) of guys who were
over 50 and one in particular was a very good lover. In fact, he was a
stud!
Cat
Sherman Owens
>Sherman Owens wrote:
>> Is cock size related to height? Kinsey says not. Pygmies, apparently,
>> have cocks as large as tall Watusi warriors.
>
>Wow, I've never seen a cock that is two meters tall. Maybe
>you were looking at ostriches, although I wasn't aware the
>Pygmies had managed to domesticate them.
>
>I have to say however, anyone with a cock as large as a tall
>Watusi warrior would probably win a lot of cockfights. Imagine
>the spurs on that thing.
>
>-- the Danimal
I could have worded the post better, but you and everyone else knew
what was meant.
the Danimal
How about: "Next time, I will word the post better.
Thank you for helping me learn a valuable lesson
that may improve my odds of success in
situations that matter. And thanks for the
laugh."
A person who could write the above is well on
the way to kicking ass.
> but you and everyone else knew what was meant.
That's what makes my response funny (or at least
potentially funny)---the fact that your sentence allows
for a grammatically correct interpretation that probably
is not what you intended.
Are you secure enough to laugh at your mistakes,
and learn from them?
Incidentally, one key to clear writing is to be able to
recognize when your writing allows more than one
grammatically plausible interpretation. Most people
cannot do this well, because their minds tend to ignore
other interpretations their grammar allows, and
they focus exclusively on what they know they mean.
But everybody else doesn't always know what they
mean. Work in technical support and you
will see examples every day.
-- the Danimal
catbr...@yahoo.com
the Danimal wrote:
(Doing the Reader's Digest version of a post to big to handle.)
Oooo...it's so big!
> It proves there are lots of guys around who need to hit on
> women. Why is that? For starters, it might indicate that
> women aren't hitting on them. That in turn might indicate
> women are less interested in sex than they are.
I've never quite understood that reluctance myself. Like I said, my
habit was to choose my victim and unerringly hit the mark.
> > You're not accounting for differences in physical attraction and lots
> > of other things.
>
> So do the experiment with your boyfriend. You probably
> selected him to be about as attractive (for a man) as you
> are (for a woman). Because you would have trouble attracting
> a man much above your level of attractiveness, and you probably
> wouldn't want a man much below.
I think my boyfriend is gorgeous. He's tall and athletic. But would he
be considered "handsome" in the classic sense? I don't know. He has a
wonderful and guiless smile, like an overgrown boy. Though he's very
mature, there is something youthful, even boy-like in him. He's
relentlessly obtimistic. He's kind of goofy. He loves me to distraction
and I am enchanted by him.
And me? I've gotten enough feedback to know what I look like even if
there were no mirrors around. I am objective enough, and even cynical
enough, to see for myself, comparatively, how nature has blessed me.
Does he love me for my looks alone? (Or because I am such a skilled
partner?) I honestly think that was his first attraction. But remember,
he knew me years and years ago - when I was just a leggy jock farmgirl
from Minnesota.
I believe he loves me for the person that I am - despite myself.
> > Cute ... but you know that I am now in a monogamous relationship.
>
> Of course, but that only matters because you are a woman.
>
> When you go out and get hit on by men every day, do you
> think all those guys are celibate right now?
I honestly don't give it much thought.
> I bet lots of them are trying to trade up, or merely sideways,
> or even down in some cases---what the heck.
Now that's truly cynical.
> > And I
> > am determined that I will not cheat on this man.
>
> How many men do you think could say no to cheating if
> they had as many opportunities as you get?
I don't know - perhaps you will tell me.
> Is your boyfriend similarly "determined" not to cheat on
> you? Odds are, he doesn't need the same amount of
> determination. All he has to do to stay faithfil is to refrain from
> putting so much energy into the pursuit of other women.
> To cheat, he might have to go out of his way and make
> a serious effort. (Some men do this, of course.)
He says he is as determined and I choose to believe and trust him. If
it turns out that I am wrong - so be it. But I don't think I have
misjudged him. He's not really the "lady's man" type. I've had many
more partners than he has. Nor am I naive - I can tell when a man's
principle interest is getting laid.
> > You don't say? I've never reacted violently to a man who has been
> > obvious about his intentions. I rather expect it.
>
> Evidently you are as aware of the variation among women's
> responses to men's advances as I am aware of the variation
> in the various male traits you have mentioned (as if I would
> be aware of them).
I don't appreciate rude or arrogant men. But I've always been gracious
to men who are politely and clevery displaying their interest. After
all - I like men.
> I can tell you stories about women scolding men
> merely for looking at them a little too much.
I hate that! That really upsets me. Truly...it's so obnoxious and
unnecessary. It's not my style at all.
> Do you think you are special?
LOL! No sweety - I don't "think". I know!
Cat
LeRoyLinux
catbr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I think my boyfriend is gorgeous. He's tall and athletic. But would he
> be considered "handsome" in the classic sense? I don't know. He has a
> wonderful and guiless smile, like an overgrown boy. Though he's very
> mature, there is something youthful, even boy-like in him. He's
> relentlessly obtimistic. He's kind of goofy. He loves me to distraction
> and I am enchanted by him.
So what do you want, a medal??
> Does he love me for my looks alone? (Or because I am such a skilled
> partner?) I honestly think that was his first attraction. But remember,
> he knew me years and years ago - when I was just a leggy jock farmgirl
> from Minnesota.
Another one of those "good Americans." Spare me.