soc.singles Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ); monthly posting
Anonymous
>In article <0e0cc1581d01db08...@drule.org>,
>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>>ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) wrote:
>>>In article <00e5f9dd12c58178...@drule.org>,
>>>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>>>>The FAQ, if you want anyone who it is supposed to bludgeon into conformity
>>>>to read it, needs heavy editing. It is far too long winded. I believe even
>>>>Mocsny has only attained the 1000 line level a couple of times and hardly
>>>>anyone read that.
>>>>Like many things about this group the FAQ is bad human factors engineering,
>>>
>>> Yer prolly right. Haven't read it, myself. But is this
>>>trivia really the cause of the current holy jihad?
>>
>>That is the pretext.
>
> Thank you for your honesty.
Any sacred sow would do.
>>The real issue is demonstrating the existence of the hive and the hate
>>machine.
>>It seems to be working nicely.
>
> So you keep saying. Sounds paranoid to me, with all your talk
>about people "calling in the reserves".
They came out of the woodwork.
How do you explain it?
> It's surprising in one who writes as much for effect as you
>do, that you have trouble recognizing when others are doing the same
>thing.
I write for effect.
And sometimes the effect I'm after is to cause pain.
That's why I can tell when other people are doing the same thing.
If they then pretend to be good liberal humanists I am gonna call them out
on thier shit.
>I suspect it's that, rhetoric aside, you have a certain
>seriousness of purpose; your idealism is certainly obvious to me.
>Perhaps you don't notice when others lack all seriousness of purpose,
>and assign one.
What is better:
To hurt for a serious purpose or to hurt for no good reason at all?
> Speaking for myself, the less emotional I sound, the more
>engaged I'm likely to be in the conversation. A little bit of putdown
>banter is a pleasant spice when used sparingly, but real heat is for
>when a conversation fails to remain interesting on its own merits, or
>because one is frustrated by a complete inability to communicate with
>the other party.
Are you with the thought police?
>You, by contrast, seem to swear by the
>made-you-react standard of success. I find that too easy for serious
>writing.
Why would I want to be serious? (in the sense you mean it here)
>>>>which is no surprise as the original kultur of the group was created to a
>>>>great extent by those professionals most indifferent to user friendliness
>>>>issues - oldskool unix dorks.
>>>
>>> Hey, it kept out the riffraff.
>>
>>They are the riffraff.
>
> Mind your manners.
Bite me dorkboy.
>In the context of Usenet, "riffraff" are
>those who insist on posting despite being functionally illiterate.
In the context of tokeman riffraff are those who insist on posting despite
being functionally celibate.
>Having been here when the net was 90% UNIX dorks, I can assure you
>that most did not meet that definition of riffraff.
All the remnants do.
Well, except maybe Spock, and even he suffers from the stickuptheass
sydrome to some extent.
>For all I know
>the majority of UNIX dorks are terrible writers, but if so, they have
>the good sense not to write for public consumption.
Names.
> The historical pattern is clear: the easier it gets to
>post, the more people who lack basic literacy decide to give it a
>try.
And the easier it gets to post the more people who have something clueful
to say about something other than computers decide to give it a try.
>If the audience points and giggles that's not a conspiracy, it's
>a predictable outcome, like a river reaching the sea. A man's got to
>know his limitations.
My point is not that there is a conspiracy, my point is that the emergent
culture is composed of people not much better than those they mock.
>>Is tree a good writer?
>>or: define good
>
> Trygve is a good writer.
Then why do I find him unreadable?
>I'm a debate junkie, myself, so I
>pay relatively little attention to fluff and personal anecdotes, but
>I've seen Trygve debate, and I think he's masterful.
His technique is based on relativism.
>He makes his
>points very clearly, he's extremely disarming
He never disarmed me.
See through him I can.
>(a technique I think
>you underrate), and he never lets an opponent control the terms of
>the debate.
In other words he talks past them endlessly.
> I can see why this might not appeal to you. Your favorite
>technique is to find a hot button and push, push, push. It's not your
>only technique, but you always get there if nothing else is working.
>And if it doesn't work, either, you're out of ammo.
I have laid waste to entire newsgroups using my techniques.
And this is not a self declared victory but the post mortem of my victims.
> The most difficult sort of debate to make entertaining is one
>that avoids personalities, and relies entirely on the writers'
>abilities to make the basic subject matter interesting. It's worth
>trying, though, just _because_ it's hard, if one is ambitious.
What's harder: Suppressing all emotion or being funny?
> Define good? Good writing is writing that entertains me,
>makes me glad I took the time to read. More broadly, it's writing
>that does this for a significant number of readers. You're a good
>writer, though an indifferent philosopher,
No regular here dares engage me in battle over thier preposterous
combination of moral nihilism and biatching about violations of the rules.
Not one of them can address the question of why they are against rape if
they reject all moral standards.
As philosophers go, well, in the kingdom of the blind...
>because you think of
>debate as a boxing match rather than a dance.
You just don't read me carefully enough. I am well versed in all the customs.
That's why I, unlike so many other trolls that have plagued this group,
have staying power.
> And as long as I'm on the subject of what makes for
>entertainment on the net, one more point: volume. It's impossible to
>post as much as you and some others do without becoming excessively
>repetitious - _nobody_ is that good a writer.
I find several people here endlessly diverting.
I'd name names but they'd be way too pleased with themselves.
>Trygve has also made
>this mistake in the past;
Fortunately he's been spanked off the group.
>so have I. It certainly will get one
>noticed, but if attention is all one craves, why not make waves in a
>bigger puddle than Usenet?
You could say the same about every possible purpose for posting.
>There's even money to be made in
>notoriety, but not here, not here.
It isn't about money.
It's about luv.
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
cbianco
jacko
>Then why do I find him unreadable?
trygve is a good writer in the sense that Ter Borch (a hack dutch
painter from the mid 1600's) was a good painter. i rather rembrandt.
perhaps he is the guidance counselor who goes home and cries to la
traviata. perhaps he is possessed of a boundless aquifer, a sub-planet
of volcanic feeling, but i would guess that he only taps that liquid
as an audient, not as a writer.
tree's writing is regulated. his poetry is rationed. any stab at the
construction of poetry occurs during an alotted time alotted toward
the construction of a sufficient quantity the Personal Poetry
Alotment. i find his yardasle rhapsodies as drearily Rockwellian as
his arguments are mechanically accomodative. he is positive. he is
kind. but he is h.a.l. and he is keeper of the f.a.q. and a proponent
of logical decency and thus, as we say in the bizness, a pill.
the only trygve-bit i can remember enjoying is his response to chaney
about tree's current investment in a comic book title. it was a
soulcrusher made of muzak, and seemed the magic deadener to steves
abandon-yer-dreams speech. and then there's tree's claim to commonly
achieve 8 or so o-gasms across the span of a nine hour boner. that
was a tantric beaut.
>>I'm a debate junkie, myself, so I
>>pay relatively little attention to fluff and personal anecdotes, but
>>I've seen Trygve debate, and I think he's masterful.
>
>His technique is based on relativism.
which is a smart guy's way of seeming nice.
even if he is.
>> The most difficult sort of debate to make entertaining is one
>>that avoids personalities, and relies entirely on the writers'
>>abilities to make the basic subject matter interesting. It's worth
>>trying, though, just _because_ it's hard, if one is ambitious.
>
>What's harder: Suppressing all emotion or being funny?
ask dan.
cbianco
i'm bummed that you and kenn didnt laugh at the "daisy" bit
Anonymous
>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>>m...@news.pe.net (lsmv bitch) bzzzd:
>>>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>>>>If you want to look like a fool you'll keep assuming that's what anyone who
>>>>does not respond according to your robotic template is.
>>>
>>>What is my robotic template?
>>
>>My cuntry right or wrong.
>
>I wouldn't put money on that.
Attack an assimilant and prove me wrong.
>What makes you assume I have a side, here.
Your messages.
>> Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
>>
>>or: you must respect mah communitaaaaaaaaaah!
>
>So what do you think my community is, hmmm? If you answer, "The hive," I
>would ask how you define it.
What do you think of posting personals on soc.singles?
>If'n ya ain't fer me, yer agin' me?
It isn't about me.
>And if
>that's the case, is RJ now part of the hive?
No, he's an enemy of the hive.
You can tell by the way they attack him in formation.
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
Anonymous
>cb wrote:
>>jackie's biggest phantom-obstacle is that he believes that he cant
>>tell specific stories about his life experience. i dont know whether
>>this is cuz of the anonymity issue, or rather cuz he lacks the
>>practice.
>
> The former, definitely. I'll be deconstructing Jackie some
>more soon, in the "19 year old virgin" thread - stay tuned.
If you want to hurt me - and that is what 'deconstruction' is liberal
evasionspeak for (just ask any frog on the dissecting tray how it feels
about it) - then telegraphing your punches is not the smart play.
Re: why I dis tree
Tree is an archetype of a dying luzenet culture I have always found dreary
and tiresome.
By giving him a few swift kicks I kick a world entire.
hth
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
p.s. go lube something
Anonymous
>Tokeman wrote:
>> Thier lies met across a crowded room.
>
>Except for the fact that all the old stories I told
>you about myself were true, you got a point there.
Hello Layo.
Jackie 'Nosferatu' Tokeman
Anonymous
>>>that's the case, is RJ now part of the hive?
>>
>>No, he's an enemy of the hive.
>>You can tell by the way they attack him in formation.
>
Why am I imagining Ben Stein saying that to Ferris Beuller?
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
Anonymous
>In article <375E7F41...@miserables.net>,
>M. Madeleine <Val...@miserables.net> wrote:
>>Anonymous wrote:
>>> se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>> >In article <375B5765...@miserables.com>,
>>> >Brock Hannibal <Val...@miserables.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>What makes you think I 'm missing out on something? A lot of men
>>> >>would like to trade social lives with me, I can tell you that much.
>>> >How many of them are out of prison?
>>> Have you ever fucked a woman sexy enough to pose in Playboy?
>>> Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
>>You askin' Seth or me?
>
>He must be asking you, because I killfiled his broken articles a while
>ago. (Ah, well, when we get the new RFC for Usenet written, perhaps
>the transports will get better at dropping broken articles and you
>won't have to see his any more.)
'we'?
(how many years have these dorks been planning the great reconstruction of
luzenet in thier pathetic geek image to somehow roll back time to before
the commercialization of the net? memo to netcop sysadmin types: it's over
johnny)
(i still want to know how many newsreaders qualify as 'unbroken' in
bitchbart's fantasy world)
>> Oh thou of little faith, if yer askin' me,
>>that is, of course I have. At least I thought so. My male friends
>>thought so, too.
>
>Playboy's standards are pretty good, but not really all that high.
>They once did a pictorial on a bunch of schools, including the one I
>was at; I could see more better-looking women in a half hour any
>morning in the campus Post Office than they featured.
>
>So the positive answer I give that question isn't all that
>meaningful. Besides, I'm more interested in personality, brains, and
>sense of humor.
That's something ugly people say.
or: that's a no.
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
gattarossa
> Re: why I dis tree
> Tree is an archetype of a dying luzenet culture I have always found dreary
> and tiresome.
> By giving him a few swift kicks I kick a world entire.
> hth
> Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
??? huh ???
I know I'm gonna regret asking... but, mind explaining your comments?
What "culture" and "world" are you talking about here? From what I've
seen, limited thought it may be, I haven't seen much to complain about....
Anonymous
>In article <7ju9bk$jf5$1...@victoria.pe.net>, Michael K. Lerch
><m...@news.pe.net> wr
>ote:
>>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>Why am I imagining Ben Stein saying that to Ferris Beuller?
>>
>>video porn, and fat chicks on usenet?
>
>Doh!
Don't you have some Sailor Moon tapes to watch?
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
Anonymous
>In article <f4117933531b9b2f...@drule.org>,
I guess you're just completely forgettable then.
Or a construct.
Probably the latter.
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
or lying...
Anonymous
(the swarm)
> How do you explain it, Jackie? Do you envision some kind of
>mailing list, where the Old Guard post security alerts?
You don't need central command and control to coordinate clones.
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
crash street kidd
that one really hurt you didn't it. we feel your pain.
crash street kidd
Anonymous
> But more than one person here has written you off as
>an incompetent writer. Some even feel the same about Jeem.
>You can't please everybody, guy. Trygve is expository, not
>poetic. His virtues are clarity even when traversing deep
>waters, an excellent command of English, and a nice touch
>of self-deprecating humor which is enough to convince most
>people (not Jackie) that he's not talking down to them.
He doesn't find most people as truly repellent as he finds me.
That is why he attempted to dekonstrukt me.
You know, the way you're trying to do.
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
coincidence?
Anonymous
>In article <a5c285e55f536b64...@drule.org>,
>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>>ba...@netcom.com eeped:
>>(the swarm)
>>> How do you explain it, Jackie? Do you envision some kind of
>>>mailing list, where the Old Guard post security alerts?
>>
>>You don't need central command and control to coordinate clones.
>
You misspelled emergent order.
Ya moron.
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
kulturkamph in full f-x
Anonymous
Replace 'movie scripts' and 'video porn' with 'flaming personals' and... well, you can guess the rest.
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
or: do you think that tired old shoepee metatack is gonna soulfuck the soulkiller?
Anonymous
>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>
>> Re: why I dis tree
>> Tree is an archetype of a dying luzenet culture I have always found dreary
>> and tiresome.
>> By giving him a few swift kicks I kick a world entire.
>> hth
>> Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
>
>??? huh ???
>
>I know I'm gonna regret asking...
Heh heh heh.
>but, mind explaining your comments?
Questions...
>What "culture" and "world" are you talking about here?
You're soc.ing in it.
>From what I've
>seen, limited thought it may be, I haven't seen much to complain about....
Read tree's faq. If you find it entertaining... you are the problem.
or: the average webtver has more understanding of sex and romance than the average eunuchs system engineer
considerably more
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
or: celibates should join monastaries not write singles faqs
Portia
>He doesn't find most people as truly repellent as he finds me.
repellant? I don't know that he has ever described anyone as repellant.
Certainly not you. The last comment I think he made about you was
"Jackie *is* a caricature."
--
"Voici mon secret. Il est tres simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur.
L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux," dit le renard. Le Petit Prince,
Antoine de Saint Exupery
Portia
>or: the average webtver has more understanding of sex and romance
RTFL
Portia
>or: celibates should join monastaries not write singles faqs
Oh, and I don't think he was at the time he wrote it. Not that it
matters.
Anonymous
>In article <e461c87e0520098f...@drule.org>,
>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>>[Trygve]
>>He doesn't find most people as truly repellent as he finds me.
>
He doesn't think of me at all.
So long as he doesn't read the group he used to luv.
You know, the one I helped to destroy.
>>That is why he attempted to dekonstrukt me.
>>You know, the way you're trying to do.
>
> Wrong tense.
Prove it.
>>coincidence?
>
> Only now do you realize the truth...
That you're a boring drone?
Nah, I've known that all along.
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
Anonymous
>In article <9968e560b1161dfa...@drule.org>,
>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>>ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) wrote:
>>>I'll be deconstructing Jackie some
>>>more soon, in the "19 year old virgin" thread - stay tuned.
>>
>>If you want to hurt me - and that is what 'deconstruction' is liberal
>>evasionspeak for (just ask any frog on the dissecting tray how it feels
>>about it) - then telegraphing your punches is not the smart play.
>
>people on the net; certainly not you. "Deconstruction" is
>something one does to text. It's a good word because, from out
>here, you are a purely textual creature. I just enjoy the
>intellectual exercise.
Do you think that if you can make everyone else believe they are as weak and meaningless and helpless as you believe yourself to be it will justify your swift surrender?
jest askin
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
Anonymous
>In article <37653197...@mfm.com>, Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>>Anonymous wrote:
>>> The problem with your strategy is that on the net no one knows if you're an
>>> ugly dog.
>
>Only if you are afraid to meet anyone else that posts here.
It's interesting how much it bothers you and a few of the other
boinkbiatches that I snubbed your invites. That I have chosen to interact
here in the realm of pure darwinian hatewar. That I do not desire any of
the tepid gruel that you have to offer. That I prefer fucking wit you to
being your friend.
Calling my approach fearful is akin to the way Dan calls people who use
cars wimps.
>Who's "we". I've seen a lot of the womens bodies that post here,
>and their faces, and their smiles...and they've seen mine.
How many of them have you fucked?
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
Anonymous
>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>>krash [...] sniped [about a token jab at Chaney over what mkl wrote]:
>>>> >>Because you live your anonymous life vicariously through movies scripts,
>>>> >>video porn, and fat chicks on usenet?
>>>
>>
>>Replace 'movie scripts' and 'video porn' with 'flaming personals' and...
>>well, you can guess the rest.
>> Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
>>
>>or: do you think that tired old shoepee metatack is gonna soulfuck the
>>soulkiller?
>
We know what you think of me.
What about other voluminous posters?
Jeem? Crash? Jet? Mocsny? Kenn?
What about some of the oldskool types back in the day? You know the ones
who were driven off?
Do they (or did they) live thier lives vicariously through usenet?
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
Anonymous
>In article <c473316df50fe0df...@drule.org>, Kenny
><nob...@drule.org
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Because you live your anonymous life vicariously through movies scripts,
>>>>video porn, and fat chicks on usenet?
>>>
>>
>>Don't you have some Sailor Moon tapes to watch?
>
>Do you still think you're Sean Connery?
The name's Tokeman. Jackie Tokeman.
How long are you gonna suck sniggler ass?
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
answer: for as long as they let him stick his porcine face into thier saggy
buttcracks
Anonymous
>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Kenn Barry wrote:
>> Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>> >So long as he doesn't read the group he used to luv.
>> >You know, the one I helped to destroy.
>
>soul.
When is Dawn going to defend fat acceptance again? Hmmmmm?
I deedn't theenk so...
As to the group the effete attenuated sad tree party that certain
celibatedorks lurved has passed away. It's feeble has gone out of the
universe.
Do you really think this group would have so many interesting new members
if it had remained the Shemale's Chaney/Ross/personalposters Haters Klub it
was when I arrived?
My storm transformed the face of Arrakis whether you're willing to admit it
or not baybee.
I know cuz I did it to you on purpose.
Jackie 'Viper' Tokeman
gattarossa
> or: celibates should join monastaries not write singles faqs
Rhetorical question: are not celibates, by definition, "single"?
Anonymous
Lepers are by definition diseased but they don't necessarily have the cure
for what ails ya.
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
metadeth in full fx
John Fereira
>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>>>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>>>> Re: why I dis tree
>
> <snipped>
>
>> or: celibates should join monastaries not write singles faqs
>
>Rhetorical question: are not celibates, by definition, "single"?
>
John Fereira
ja...@cornell.edu
Anonymous
>In article <5953d9abd93b4d9d...@drule.org>,
> Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>> gattarossa <agri...@nyx.net> wrote:
>> >Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>> >>>Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> wrote:
>> >>>> Re: why I dis tree
>> >
>> > <snipped>
>> >
>> >> or: celibates should join monastaries not write singles faqs
>> >
>> > Rhetorical question: are not celibates, by definition, "single"?
>>
>> cure for what ails ya.
>
>disease, are you?
Single celibates are metalepers.
Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
i pity them
as long as i and a few of my buddies hang out here it is our
little piece of usenet you bitterboy loser.
- krashgeekfeeb claims soc.singles in the name of the hive
messageid: <37634374...@earthling.net>
Portia
>Single celibates are metalepers.
> Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
>i pity them
You just can't understand that not everyone is ruled by their crotch.
Some people like to sometimes prove that the grey cells at the other end
are in charge.
Daniel Mocsny
>
> Anonymous <nob...@drule.org> writes:
>
> >Single celibates are metalepers.
> > Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
>
> >i pity them
>
> You just can't understand that not everyone is ruled by their crotch.
> Some people like to sometimes prove that the grey cells at the other end
> are in charge.
Have you ever been in a relationship with someone who really
turned you on and who was just as turned on by you?
Did you ever rebuff his advances by saying,
"You know, darling, we've been having all this great sex,
and every cell in my body wants to give it up to you
again tonight, but how about we try something different?
Let's prove that the gray cells at the other end are
in charge."
If you have never done anything like that, and you would
never do anything like that, then what you wrote above
has a distinctive sour grapes aroma.
In reality, the people who don't mind being celibate are
not proving that any particular clump of gray cells is
"in charge" (whatever that means). They are simply proving
that at the moment, for whatever reason, they aren't very
horny.
From what I understand this describes the way a lot of women
seem to be wired. When they aren't in relationships, it seems
a large fraction of women don't really miss the sex all that
much. Only when they meet a man they find interesting do they
start becoming sexual again. I've read this, and I've listened
to a number of women telling me this is how they feel. There are
a few exceptions, of course---some women have sex drives that
stay on all the time. (I have tremendous empathy and heartfelt
concern for frustrated nymphomaniacs, and I'm always happy to
do what I can to help out. That is, I would if I ever got a
chance.)
In contrast, I have never met a man who claimed that he forgets
about sex when he doesn't get any. The only man I've ever heard
of who claims to feel little in the way of sexual desire when
he isn't in a relationship is Trygve.
For most men it seems to work the opposite way. The less sex we
have, the more urgently we want it. If those urgent needs go
unmet for a sufficiently long time, the result is almost always
mental damage.
Ask a 30-year-old male virgin to describe his pain sometime.
To a first approximation all men are sex addicts. The addiction
is all the more annoying because 95% of men would most like to
shag the same 5%--10% of women.
--
--- Daniel J. Mocsny
Portia
>Portia wrote:
>> You just can't understand that not everyone is ruled by their crotch.
>> Some people like to sometimes prove that the grey cells at the other end
>> are in charge.
>If you have never done anything like that, and you would
>never do anything like that, then what you wrote above
>has a distinctive sour grapes aroma.
I'm not talking any grapes here, sorry. I might say that but whether I
would or not is irrelevant to what I say since I was not talking about me.
>In reality, the people who don't mind being celibate are
>not proving that any particular clump of gray cells is
>"in charge" (whatever that means). They are simply proving
>that at the moment, for whatever reason, they aren't very
>horny.
Oh, so you have been inside their bodies and minds and know it better than
themselves, eh?
Hogwash. Courage is not lack of fear but acting in spite of fear; Control
is not lack of horniness but not acting in spite of it.
>From what I understand this describes the way a lot of women
>seem to be wired. When they aren't in relationships, it seems
>a large fraction of women don't really miss the sex all that
>much.
I don't know about your mythical "a lot of women" but that's not the way
*I* amd wired.
Only when they meet a man they find interesting do they
>start becoming sexual again. I've read this, and I've listened
>to a number of women telling me this is how they feel.
Congratulations. On the other hand, I have actually been a woman for
quite number of years now.
>In contrast, I have never met a man who claimed that he forgets
>about sex when he doesn't get any.
I didn't say anything about anyone claiming that. Just because one thinks
about sex does not mean one has to go screw something.
The only man I've ever heard
>of who claims to feel little in the way of sexual desire when
>he isn't in a relationship is Trygve.
I never heard him say that.
>For most men it seems to work the opposite way. The less sex we
>have, the more urgently we want it. If those urgent needs go
>unmet for a sufficiently long time, the result is almost always
>mental damage.
Hahaha. You are funny.
>Ask a 30-year-old male virgin to describe his pain sometime.
Oh, I understand the urge. But haven't you ever fasted? Gone without
food despite hunger?
>To a first approximation all men are sex addicts.
Speak for yourself.
Dawn O' The Dead
wrote:
>Portia wrote:
>> You just can't understand that not everyone is ruled by their crotch.
>> Some people like to sometimes prove that the grey cells at the other end
>> are in charge.
>
>Have you ever been in a relationship with someone who really
>turned you on and who was just as turned on by you?
>
>Did you ever rebuff his advances by saying,
>
>"You know, darling, we've been having all this great sex,
>and every cell in my body wants to give it up to you
>again tonight, but how about we try something different?
>Let's prove that the gray cells at the other end are
>in charge."
Me, I've said something to that effect, yes. I've had a couple of
relationships that were primarily about the sex and I started to miss
intellectual stimulation.
>If you have never done anything like that, and you would
>never do anything like that, then what you wrote above
>has a distinctive sour grapes aroma.
I find it hard to believe that she _hasn't_ experienced that, given
her comment.
>In reality, the people who don't mind being celibate are
>not proving that any particular clump of gray cells is
>"in charge" (whatever that means). They are simply proving
>that at the moment, for whatever reason, they aren't very
>horny.
That's not my understanding. I've known people who chose celibacy for
various reasons, most having more to do with "channelling sexual
energy" into what they perceived as more productive areas.
Not my cup of tea, personally, but definitely about more than not
being very horny.
>From what I understand this describes the way a lot of women
>seem to be wired.
Dan, what you misunderstand about women could fill the Indian Ocean.
>When they aren't in relationships, it seems
>a large fraction of women don't really miss the sex all that
>much.
Uh huh.
>Only when they meet a man they find interesting do they
>start becoming sexual again.
Do tell.
>I've read this, and I've listened
>to a number of women telling me this is how they feel.
Perhaps they were just trying to get out of sleeping with _you_, Dan.
>There are
>a few exceptions, of course---some women have sex drives that
>stay on all the time. (I have tremendous empathy and heartfelt
>concern for frustrated nymphomaniacs, and I'm always happy to
>do what I can to help out. That is, I would if I ever got a
>chance.)
The mating of Spock and Sil comes to mind. I somehow doubt either
would be pleased with the outcome.
>In contrast, I have never met a man who claimed that he forgets
>about sex when he doesn't get any. The only man I've ever heard
>of who claims to feel little in the way of sexual desire when
>he isn't in a relationship is Trygve.
How men talk amongst themselves about sex is not necessarily a good
measure of actual behavior.
>For most men it seems to work the opposite way. The less sex we
>have, the more urgently we want it. If those urgent needs go
>unmet for a sufficiently long time, the result is almost always
>mental damage.
Oh jeeez. Spare me.
>Ask a 30-year-old male virgin to describe his pain sometime.
Oh the horror ... the horror.
>To a first approximation all men are sex addicts. The addiction
>is all the more annoying because 95% of men would most like to
>shag the same 5%--10% of women.
The sad thing is that you actually believe all this nonsense you spew.
Dawn
-------------------
It is absurd to divide people into good or bad. People are
either charming or tedious. -Oscar Wilde
cbianco
>>From what I understand this describes the way a lot of women
>>seem to be wired.
dawn o dead
>Dan, what you misunderstand about women could fill the Indian Ocean.
with what?
cbianco
Daniel Mocsny
>
> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:03:18 -0400, Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com>
> wrote:
> >Portia wrote:
> >> You just can't understand that not everyone is ruled by their crotch.
> >> Some people like to sometimes prove that the grey cells at the other end
> >> are in charge.
> >
> >Have you ever been in a relationship with someone who really
> >turned you on and who was just as turned on by you?
> >
> >Did you ever rebuff his advances by saying,
> >
> >"You know, darling, we've been having all this great sex,
> >and every cell in my body wants to give it up to you
> >again tonight, but how about we try something different?
> >Let's prove that the gray cells at the other end are
> >in charge."
>
> Me, I've said something to that effect, yes. I've had a couple of
> relationships that were primarily about the sex and I started to miss
> intellectual stimulation.
How is it possible to exist at the present time and find a way
to have insufficient intellectual stimulation?
And how does having a relationship that is primarily about
sex interfere with obtaining intellectual stimulation, either from
the person you're fucking or from an infinite number of other
sources?
What can be more intellectually stimulating than trying to
understand another person, especially a member of the *OPPOSITE*
sex?
(Remember, the word "opposite" does not describe things that
are similar to each other.)
Of course, given that you (Dawn) have never attempted to understand
a man, I can see how you could miss such an opportunity for
inexhaustible intellectual stimulation.
> >In reality, the people who don't mind being celibate are
> >not proving that any particular clump of gray cells is
> >"in charge" (whatever that means). They are simply proving
> >that at the moment, for whatever reason, they aren't very
> >horny.
>
> That's not my understanding. I've known people who chose celibacy for
> various reasons, most having more to do with "channelling sexual
> energy" into what they perceived as more productive areas.
And you believed them?
Objackie: I couldn't make this stuff up.
> Not my cup of tea, personally, but definitely about more than not
> being very horny.
If it is hard for you to believe men could get laid by pointing
at their crotches and saying "below-me" how could you swallow
this "channelling sexual energy" bunk?
> >From what I understand this describes the way a lot of women
> >seem to be wired.
>
> Dan, what you misunderstand about women could fill the Indian Ocean.
There are very few women who have any idea what it's like to be horny.
How often do you go to a party and wish you could fuck every
at-least-halfway presentable member of the appropriate sex there?
Or worded differently, what is the largest number of men you have
seen in the course of one evening out that you wanted to fuck?
And I mean that if you could do so safely you would do as many
of them as you could as soon as possible and enjoy them all tremendously.
If I don't see a dozen women I would like to fuck it's a slow day.
How often do you get sexually aroused at the sight of an attractive
stranger?
How many times per day do you think about sex?
If the average woman had the same libido as the average man, we'd
be living in a very different world. It would resemble the gay male
world with its bathhouses, routine anonymous sex, rampant promiscuity,
and perhaps the extermination of the human race due to STDs.
And "date rape" would be an absurd oxymoron. Only people who aren't
very interested in sex could cook up that concept.
> >When they aren't in relationships, it seems
> >a large fraction of women don't really miss the sex all that
> >much.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> >Only when they meet a man they find interesting do they
> >start becoming sexual again.
>
> Do tell.
>
> >I've read this, and I've listened
> >to a number of women telling me this is how they feel.
>
> Perhaps they were just trying to get out of sleeping with _you_, Dan.
I'm not quite sure how this applies to the sex researchers whose
work I read. I also can't quite see how it applies to the women
who told me this before and after fucking my brains out. I'm curious:
how many women out there are comfortable discussing the details of
their sex drives with men they don't want to fuck? Generally by the
time I'm having these kinds of discussions with a woman, we're already
corrupting each other's morals or on the verge of it.
I also don't understand how a woman needs to "try to get out
of sleeping with" me. I wasn't aware they were under some sort
of obligation. Since the only thing a woman would have to overcome
to get out of sleeping with me is her attraction for me, it appears
you gave me a possibly unintended compliment.
> >There are
> >a few exceptions, of course---some women have sex drives that
> >stay on all the time.
For example, if Clarice's net.persona reflects a real person
then it would seem Clarice is like this.
Perhaps you could address my ignorance about women by arguing
that Clarice is somehow representative of most women. This should
be good.
> The mating of Spock and Sil comes to mind. I somehow doubt either
> would be pleased with the outcome.
If Natasha Henstridge plays the part of Sil again, I'm definitely
good to go. Being aware, of course, that the blood and gore was
all FX but Sil's human-form body was 100% Natasha. It's interesting
that the movie industry can use computers to simulate ugly alien
monsters but they still pay big bucks to hire real women to play
the sexy parts.
> >In contrast, I have never met a man who claimed that he forgets
> >about sex when he doesn't get any. The only man I've ever heard
> >of who claims to feel little in the way of sexual desire when
> >he isn't in a relationship is Trygve.
>
> How men talk amongst themselves about sex is not necessarily a good
> measure of actual behavior.
Ever see a lion at the zoo? It looks at you through the cage
knowing that it has tested those bars enough to realize it
can't break out and have you for lunch.
Actual behavior reflects real-world constraints. The vast majority
of men learn very quickly that women don't want sex as much as they
do, so they learn to suppress their sexual hunger most of the time.
Men who don't learn how uninterested in sex women are
become date rapists.
If you succeed in your amazingly misguided efforts to convince
men that women want sex as much as men do, the result will be
millions of men who no longer believe the word "no."
Men also learn that women like Dawn are so determined to misunderstand
them that it is unproductive for a man to share his emotions with
women.
> >For most men it seems to work the opposite way. The less sex we
> >have, the more urgently we want it. If those urgent needs go
> >unmet for a sufficiently long time, the result is almost always
> >mental damage.
>
> Oh jeeez. Spare me.
If you believe celibacy does not harm men, why did you write
this:
> Perhaps they were just trying to get out of sleeping with _you_, Dan.
What reality were you trying to exploit with that sentence?
What effect on my emotional state were you trying to trigger?
Did you hope to influence the opinion others have of me,
and if so, in what way?
> >Ask a 30-year-old male virgin to describe his pain sometime.
>
> Oh the horror ... the horror.
Part of the pain---certainly the most interesting part---is that
he is surrounded by women (if we can call them that) such as
yourself who deny that he can possibly feel pain even as they
strive to inflict more pain on him by mocking his sexual torment.
There was a time when I thought Jackie was perhaps being a bit
too hard on you. Now I realize that your special brand of evil
strains even Jackie's considerable powers of description.
> >To a first approximation all men are sex addicts. The addiction
> >is all the more annoying because 95% of men would most like to
> >shag the same 5%--10% of women.
>
> The sad thing is that you actually believe all this nonsense you spew.
The sad thing for you is that none of it is nonsense.
Do you think you have ever slept with a man who would have spent
another five minutes with you if, say, Natasha Henstridge showed
up at his door and made a concerted effort to seduce him and then
monopolize him?
I guarantee that if Natasha Henstridge or any other world-class
beauty dropped into the average neighborhood and decided
to see how many homes she could wreck, the damage would be
considerable. And even among the men who managed to resist her
charms, most would have found themselves *severely* tempted.
When Jet says she would fuck Harrison Ford instantly I don't see
any reason to stick my fingers in my ears and yell "Nyah nyah
nyah I can't hear you!" or write hateful disses of her sexual
market value in an attempt to shame her into silence. I am
certain that in the unlikely event Jet and I were to
meet and hit it off there is no way I could prevent her
from dumping me for Harrison Ford in the even more unlikely
event that he suddenly became available and decided to pursue
Jet intently.
Only the people who are in the top 1% or so of sexual market
value can argue persuasively that they did not have to settle, or
that we have a total lock on the hearts, minds, and gonads of
our partners. The vast majority of us have to choose between
celibacy or a partner who is less attractive to us than the
partner we would select if we had a perfectly free choice. And
we have to admit that there are plenty of other people in the
world who are more attractive to our partners than we are.
That would include virtually every man who enjoys looking at
the pictures in _Playboy_ and had to settle for a woman who
looks nothing like the women in _Playboy_.
That would probably also include virtually every woman who
buys tickets to see a movie primarily because it stars Brad Pitt.
What is the point in denying this? People can have stable,
reasonably satisfying relationships even if they have to settle.
Granted, only an emotionally secure person is capable of facing
the hard reality that few of us have any hope of ever being at the
very top of the wish lists of the people at the top of our own wish
lists. But in practice this doesn't matter as much as being at
the top of the actual list of people another person can attract.
I remember once when a woman apologized to me for not being as
beautiful as some particular supermodel. I just laughed and informed
her that if she had been that beautiful she would never have selected
me. She thought for a moment, smiled, and said "You're absolutely
right."
Note to Dawn: before you jump gleefully on that last sentence,
be aware that giving into the temptation to dis me at all costs
will further undermine your already nonexistent argument.
See Dawn mock celibate men even as she laughs off the possibility
that they could be feeling pain or that her own efforts to enhance
that pain could be having the effect she intends.
Dawn O' The Dead
wrote:
>Dawn O' The Dead wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:03:18 -0400, Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com>
>> wrote:
>> >"You know, darling, we've been having all this great sex,
>> >and every cell in my body wants to give it up to you
>> >again tonight, but how about we try something different?
>> >Let's prove that the gray cells at the other end are
>> >in charge."
>>
>> Me, I've said something to that effect, yes. I've had a couple of
>> relationships that were primarily about the sex and I started to miss
>> intellectual stimulation.
>
>How is it possible to exist at the present time and find a way
>to have insufficient intellectual stimulation?
>
>And how does having a relationship that is primarily about
>sex interfere with obtaining intellectual stimulation, either from
>the person you're fucking or from an infinite number of other
>sources?
Simple, Dan. Either: A) The man I was fucking wasn't all that smart or
B) We were sepnding so much time fucking that we weren't spending a
lot of time *talking* to each other.
>What can be more intellectually stimulating than trying to
>understand another person, especially a member of the *OPPOSITE*
>sex?
I could probably come up with a couple of things but you're not really
asking that.
Yes, trying to get to know another person is intellectually
stimulating. Fucking them is certainly *one* of many ways of getting
to know them but, IMO, not necessarily on the same scale of
"intellecual stimulation" as sitting down and debating current events
or discussing our pasts or visiting a museum or any of a number of
activities that employ the brain more than the mouth, fingers, tongue
and genitalia.
>(Remember, the word "opposite" does not describe things that
>are similar to each other.)
>
>Of course, given that you (Dawn) have never attempted to understand
>a man, I can see how you could miss such an opportunity for
>inexhaustible intellectual stimulation.
ROFL! Oh, that's rich. Sometimes when I read you, Dan, I think I must
understand men better than *you* do and you are one. Supposedly.
One thing I definitely *do* understand is that you have a lower
opinion of men than even the worst man-hating female I've ever met.
You view 'em all as constantly horny, single-minded boneheads who
value women for their sexual worth and nothing else.
I may "have never attempted to understand a man" <snork> but I sure
as hell think that men are more diverse, interesting and, overall,
simply better people than you do.
>> >In reality, the people who don't mind being celibate are
>> >not proving that any particular clump of gray cells is
>> >"in charge" (whatever that means). They are simply proving
>> >that at the moment, for whatever reason, they aren't very
>> >horny.
>>
>> That's not my understanding. I've known people who chose celibacy for
>> various reasons, most having more to do with "channelling sexual
>> energy" into what they perceived as more productive areas.
>
>And you believed them?
>
>Objackie: I couldn't make this stuff up.
There is more in heaven and earth, yada yada yada, Dan. Believe it or
not, there are men who have different motivations, feelings and
desires than you do.
>> Not my cup of tea, personally, but definitely about more than not
>> being very horny.
>
>If it is hard for you to believe men could get laid by pointing
>at their crotches and saying "below-me" how could you swallow
>this "channelling sexual energy" bunk?
Hey, people preach at me about Christianity all the time and I accept
that *they* believe it. All that stuff sounds wacky to me, too. C'est
la guerre.
>> >From what I understand this describes the way a lot of women
>> >seem to be wired.
>>
>> Dan, what you misunderstand about women could fill the Indian Ocean.
>
>There are very few women who have any idea what it's like to be horny.
Uh huh.
>How often do you go to a party and wish you could fuck every
>at-least-halfway presentable member of the appropriate sex there?
>Or worded differently, what is the largest number of men you have
>seen in the course of one evening out that you wanted to fuck?
>And I mean that if you could do so safely you would do as many
>of them as you could as soon as possible and enjoy them all tremendously.
Horny and promiscuous ain't the same thing.
>If I don't see a dozen women I would like to fuck it's a slow day.
Well, good for you.
>How often do you get sexually aroused at the sight of an attractive
>stranger?
Depends on the day and if I'm working at home.
>How many times per day do you think about sex?
Ahhhh. That's incalculable. But it would blow your theory right out of
the water.
>If the average woman had the same libido as the average man, we'd
>be living in a very different world. It would resemble the gay male
>world with its bathhouses, routine anonymous sex, rampant promiscuity,
>and perhaps the extermination of the human race due to STDs.
I can't argue with you on that. It doesn't mean I agree, but it's such
a wacky statement that I can't argue with it.
I can argue, though, with your basic premise. Just because women are
aroused by different stimuli and perhaps, overall, don't think about
sex as often as men do does NOT mean that women "don't know what it's
like to be truly horny". The Dan Model is not the only correct way to
experience sexuality. And, despite the fantasy you've constructed for
yourself, men AND women vary from person-to-person as to libido.
In Dan World all (hetero) men walk around all day with raging
hard-ons, ready to fuck any woman who has a BMI that meets that
Tokeman scale, while 95% of the women are uninterested in sex but the
5% who do like it happen to be nymphomaniacs.
Ummm ... no. It doesn't work like that.
>And "date rape" would be an absurd oxymoron. Only people who aren't
>very interested in sex could cook up that concept.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
>> >When they aren't in relationships, it seems
>> >a large fraction of women don't really miss the sex all that
>> >much.
>>
>> Uh huh.
>>
>> >Only when they meet a man they find interesting do they
>> >start becoming sexual again.
>>
>> Do tell.
>>
>> >I've read this, and I've listened
>> >to a number of women telling me this is how they feel.
>>
>> Perhaps they were just trying to get out of sleeping with _you_, Dan.
>
>I'm not quite sure how this applies to the sex researchers whose
>work I read. I also can't quite see how it applies to the women
>who told me this before and after fucking my brains out.
I have no idea either. I just goes to show that perhaps anything is
possible in Mocsnyland.
>I'm curious:
>how many women out there are comfortable discussing the details of
>their sex drives with men they don't want to fuck?
Most of the women I know, I actually. But then, I know women who have
healthy sex drives. You, apparently, only seem to talk to women you
sleep with, and only sleep with women who have sluggish libidos.
Perhaps you should examine why this is.
>Generally by the
>time I'm having these kinds of discussions with a woman, we're already
>corrupting each other's morals or on the verge of it.
I'm not surprised, since you've made it clear that you don't see any
reason for women to exist in your universe except as sex partners. Why
_would_ you make women friends and talk to them about stuff?
>I also don't understand how a woman needs to "try to get out
>of sleeping with" me. I wasn't aware they were under some sort
>of obligation. Since the only thing a woman would have to overcome
>to get out of sleeping with me is her attraction for me, it appears
>you gave me a possibly unintended compliment.
Yeah, when they make up an excuse as to why you don't turn them on
it's a *compliment*.
Dan answers his own comment:
>> >There are
>> >a few exceptions, of course---some women have sex drives that
>> >stay on all the time.
>
>For example, if Clarice's net.persona reflects a real person
>then it would seem Clarice is like this.
And the odds of that are slim to none.
>Perhaps you could address my ignorance about women by arguing
>that Clarice is somehow representative of most women. This should
>be good.
I don't think that Clarice is representative of anything other than a
moderately creative Usenet invention.
>> The mating of Spock and Sil comes to mind. I somehow doubt either
>> would be pleased with the outcome.
>
>If Natasha Henstridge plays the part of Sil again, I'm definitely
>good to go. Being aware, of course, that the blood and gore was
>all FX but Sil's human-form body was 100% Natasha. It's interesting
>that the movie industry can use computers to simulate ugly alien
>monsters but they still pay big bucks to hire real women to play
>the sexy parts.
Yeah, that was my point exactly. Uh huh.
>> >In contrast, I have never met a man who claimed that he forgets
>> >about sex when he doesn't get any. The only man I've ever heard
>> >of who claims to feel little in the way of sexual desire when
>> >he isn't in a relationship is Trygve.
>>
>> How men talk amongst themselves about sex is not necessarily a good
>> measure of actual behavior.
>
>Ever see a lion at the zoo? It looks at you through the cage
>knowing that it has tested those bars enough to realize it
>can't break out and have you for lunch.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand.
>Actual behavior reflects real-world constraints. The vast majority
>of men learn very quickly that women don't want sex as much as they
>do, so they learn to suppress their sexual hunger most of the time.
And the vast majority of women learn that most men aren't going to
find _them_ attractive either and so they learn to suppress their
sexual interest, too. Your point is so not made.
>Men who don't learn how uninterested in sex women are
>become date rapists.
Yeah, that's why they do it. They're normal guys that just don't
understand the bitches be frigid.
Jesus.
>If you succeed in your amazingly misguided efforts to convince
>men that women want sex as much as men do, the result will be
>millions of men who no longer believe the word "no."
And I will rule ... the WORLD!!!!! BWAH hahahahahahahaha!!!!
<koff>
Interest is sex does not mean the immediate need to gratify the urge -
not even for men, Dan. Your mistake is in stating that because women
view sex and intimacy *differently* that means that they want it
*less*. That's simply untrue. Different is _different_, not less.
>Men also learn that women like Dawn are so determined to misunderstand
>them that it is unproductive for a man to share his emotions with
>women.
Considering I have more male friends than female, and have had all my
life, I find that an interesting statement. How many woman friends do
*you* have, Dan? Genuine friends, not just acquaintances or
co-workers?
>> >For most men it seems to work the opposite way. The less sex we
>> >have, the more urgently we want it. If those urgent needs go
>> >unmet for a sufficiently long time, the result is almost always
>> >mental damage.
>>
>> Oh jeeez. Spare me.
>
>If you believe celibacy does not harm men, why did you write
>this:
>
>> Perhaps they were just trying to get out of sleeping with _you_, Dan.
>
>What reality were you trying to exploit with that sentence?
>What effect on my emotional state were you trying to trigger?
>Did you hope to influence the opinion others have of me,
>and if so, in what way?
I was trying to get you, just for a brief moment, to understand that
when a woman behaves a certain way towards YOU it says a great deal
about you, the woman and the dynamic between you .... and very, very
little about What All Women Everywhere Are Like.
And it was opinion. From the way you write I imagine you are very
frustrated and unhappy about your sex life. Only a man who has been
turned down over and over again for sex and refuses to examine what
he's doing wrong could write the way you do. You're a BitterBoy who
writes well. But the fact that you write well doesn't mean that you
haven't gone through the same mental gymnastics as they have to
convince yourself that it's All Women's Fault.
>> >Ask a 30-year-old male virgin to describe his pain sometime.
>>
>> Oh the horror ... the horror.
>
>Part of the pain---certainly the most interesting part---is that
>he is surrounded by women (if we can call them that) such as
>yourself who deny that he can possibly feel pain even as they
>strive to inflict more pain on him by mocking his sexual torment.
I don't know any men who live in constant sexual torment, sorry. The
men I know - unlike you, apparently - have lives that demand they
concentrate on other things besides their dicks.
And I reserve "inflicting pain on men" for eediots on Usenet.
>There was a time when I thought Jackie was perhaps being a bit
>too hard on you. Now I realize that your special brand of evil
>strains even Jackie's considerable powers of description.
Wow, I really get to you, don't I? Am I threatening your carefully
constructed Mocsny World that much? Maybe that's where you should
start to re-examine, then.
>> >To a first approximation all men are sex addicts. The addiction
>> >is all the more annoying because 95% of men would most like to
>> >shag the same 5%--10% of women.
>>
>> The sad thing is that you actually believe all this nonsense you spew.
>
>The sad thing for you is that none of it is nonsense.
Dan, almost all of what you say is nonsense. Well-articulated
nonsense, I grant you. But nonsense.
>Do you think you have ever slept with a man who would have spent
>another five minutes with you if, say, Natasha Henstridge showed
>up at his door and made a concerted effort to seduce him and then
>monopolize him?
Yup.
>I guarantee that if Natasha Henstridge or any other world-class
>beauty dropped into the average neighborhood and decided
>to see how many homes she could wreck, the damage would be
>considerable. And even among the men who managed to resist her
>charms, most would have found themselves *severely* tempted.
I agree, the damage would be considerable. But not 100%, and the
majority of that damage would be due to shaky relationships and poor
communication, NOT because all men are dogs who'll drop their mate for
the first whiff of high-class pussy.
God, you have an unbelieveably low opinion of men.
>When Jet says she would fuck Harrison Ford instantly I don't see
>any reason to stick my fingers in my ears and yell "Nyah nyah
>nyah I can't hear you!" or write hateful disses of her sexual
>market value in an attempt to shame her into silence.
Nah, you save that sort of behavior for me.
>I am
>certain that in the unlikely event Jet and I were to
>meet and hit it off there is no way I could prevent her
>from dumping me for Harrison Ford in the even more unlikely
>event that he suddenly became available and decided to pursue
>Jet intently.
I don't doubt that either. :-)
>Only the people who are in the top 1% or so of sexual market
>value can argue persuasively that they did not have to settle, or
>that we have a total lock on the hearts, minds, and gonads of
>our partners.
Total lock? I doubt even the top 1% have that. Everyone fantasizes and
pretty much everyone looks at attractive people with a small modicum
of lust.
>The vast majority of us have to choose between
>celibacy or a partner who is less attractive to us than the
>partner we would select if we had a perfectly free choice. And
>we have to admit that there are plenty of other people in the
>world who are more attractive to our partners than we are.
There's a world of difference between "more attractive" and "better
looking". And there are reasons that couple pair-bond above and beyond
how they look.
Ooops. I forgot who I was talking to.
>That would include virtually every man who enjoys looking at
>the pictures in _Playboy_ and had to settle for a woman who
>looks nothing like the women in _Playboy_.
I enjoy looking at Ferraris but I wouldn't want to own one. Admiring
physical beauty (and freakishly unnatural, digitally altered
perfection like in Playboy) and feeling stirrings for others does not
indicate that one is "settling" with the one's mate. It simply means
one is still breathing and the homones are pumping.
You write as if you have never, ever experienced real love. I'm sorry
for that, Dan. Really. You honestly do believe that its all about the
loins for everybody, don't you?
>That would probably also include virtually every woman who
>buys tickets to see a movie primarily because it stars Brad Pitt.
Brad Pitt. Ick.
I have a similar lust for Harrison Ford that Jet does, actually. More
so even for Alan Rickman. But if he showed up on my doorstep would I
fuck him? Guess what - I wouldn't. I might wish I could. I might think
about it real hard. But I've committed to someone wonderful and I have
no genuine interest in sleeping with anyone else. I really don't. And
it has nothing to do with having a less-than-raging sex drive because
trust me, I do.
That's the part of the puzzle you seem to continually miss, Dan.
Feeling lust for someone is NOT the same thing as wanting to have sex
with them. We all feel lust. But we don't necessarily want to follow
through. Why not? Because there are other considerations, and there
are joys and satisfactions that relationships offer that make it
downright _unattractive_ to jeopardize it by screwing around.
>What is the point in denying this? People can have stable,
>reasonably satisfying relationships even if they have to settle.
>Granted, only an emotionally secure person is capable of facing
>the hard reality that few of us have any hope of ever being at the
>very top of the wish lists of the people at the top of our own wish
>lists. But in practice this doesn't matter as much as being at
>the top of the actual list of people another person can attract.
Not everyone goes through life believeing that it's "settling" to mate
with a woman is isn't a Playmate or a porn star, Dan.
>I remember once when a woman apologized to me for not being as
>beautiful as some particular supermodel. I just laughed and informed
>her that if she had been that beautiful she would never have selected
>me. She thought for a moment, smiled, and said "You're absolutely
>right."
>
>Note to Dawn: before you jump gleefully on that last sentence,
>be aware that giving into the temptation to dis me at all costs
>will further undermine your already nonexistent argument.
I have nothing to say about the exchange. It strikes me as rather sad
for both of you, actually.
>See Dawn mock celibate men even as she laughs off the possibility
>that they could be feeling pain or that her own efforts to enhance
>that pain could be having the effect she intends.
I really push some highly sensitive buttons in you, don't I? I wonder
what it is I've written, exactly, that hits home for you so hard that
you respond this way.
I feel your pain, Dan.
Portia
>Of course, given that you (Dawn) have never attempted to understand
>a man,
And *exactly* how do you know this?
>If it is hard for you to believe men could get laid by pointing
>at their crotches and saying "below-me" how could you swallow
>this "channelling sexual energy" bunk?
There is no similarity there. One has to do with what actually happens
and the other with the person's personal belief. No, I do not believe men
get laid any faster than they would otherwise with that crap. Whether
that produces results or not is a fact that has nothing to do with whether
they *believe* it produces results and tell other people so. Yes, some
people may think they can "channel sexual energy" and may say so. Whether
they succeed in doing so or not would also be a fact but has nothing to do
with what she said.
>> Dan, what you misunderstand about women could fill the Indian Ocean.
>There are very few women who have any idea what it's like to be horny.
How would you know?
>How often do you go to a party and wish you could fuck every
>at-least-halfway presentable member of the appropriate sex there?
Actually I have been horny enough for door knobs to be inviting, but I
have so far resisted that temptation.
>How often do you get sexually aroused at the sight of an attractive
>stranger?
Heck, who needs to *see* anything to get aroused?
>How many times per day do you think about sex?
Varies. Sometimes roughly every 8 minutes. Can be distracting.
>how many women out there are comfortable discussing the details of
>their sex drives with men they don't want to fuck? Generally by the
I can't tell you how many do. I do and I know a half dozen or more who
have discussed such things with male friends of mine when I also have been
present.
On the other hand, no every man I meet feels it necessary to divulge this
information.
>time I'm having these kinds of discussions with a woman, we're already
>corrupting each other's morals or on the verge of it.
Poor sampling methods then.
Clarice
[snip]
> How often do you get sexually aroused at the sight of an attractive
> stranger?
Whenever I possibly can.
> How many times per day do you think about sex?
As often as I can while still accomplishing a variety of non-sex related
tasks.
But then again, multi-tasking has never been much of a problem for me.
Of course, if we're talking a hi-intensity all-out juice-up turn-on
fantasy, it tends to take center stage.
For a while, at least.
I love the fact that my mind is never far from the topic of sex.
> I'm not quite sure how this applies to the sex researchers whose
> work I read. I also can't quite see how it applies to the women
> who told me this before and after fucking my brains out. I'm curious:
> how many women out there are comfortable discussing the details of
> their sex drives with men they don't want to fuck?
With men I don't want to fuck, I usually don't volunteer any such
information.
That doesn't stop me from honestly answering any questions that somebody
may have, regardless of whether or not I want to fuck them.
> Generally by the
> time I'm having these kinds of discussions with a woman, we're already
> corrupting each other's morals or on the verge of it.
What morals? ;)
One surefire for me to know I'm dealing with a guy who not only wants to
fuck me, but cares about turning me on in style, is a question along the
lines of: What's your most secret fantasy?
If he asks in such a way that inspires me to tell the truth, and nothing
but the truth, then there is generally nothing that stands between us
and a fantastic shagging.
IME
> I also don't understand how a woman needs to "try to get out
> of sleeping with" me. I wasn't aware they were under some sort
> of obligation.
That's how I look it.
If a man doesn't turn me on, there's nothing 'to get out of', because
there's nothing to get intoin the first place. Literally.
If a man DOES turn me on - the more intensely, the better - fucking him
is both an honor and a delight, the most sincere compliment and the
ultimate reward.
To me, sex is about compatible desires and the pursuit of absolute
mutual pleasure.
> Since the only thing a woman would have to overcome
> to get out of sleeping with me is her attraction for me, it appears
> you gave me a possibly unintended compliment.
hehehe
> > >There are
> > >a few exceptions, of course---some women have sex drives that
> > >stay on all the time.
>
> For example, if Clarice's net.persona reflects a real person
> then it would seem Clarice is like this.
It does.
Women find that much harder to believe than men.
Go figure.
Or not.
And no, I don't have to prove it to anyone. Unless I want to.
> Perhaps you could address my ignorance about women by arguing
> that Clarice is somehow representative of most women.
> This should be good.
Forget it.
Rather than address that issue, Dawn will likely claim that I obviously
do not exist.
[snip]
> See Dawn mock celibate men even as she laughs off the possibility
> that they could be feeling pain or that her own efforts to enhance
> that pain could be having the effect she intends.
I'll pass.
That's exactly why I don't read her, unless someone I do read quotes her
posts.
C.
--
Their relationship had a great deal to do with the penetration of
Clarice Starling, which she avidly welcomes and encourages.
- Thomas Harris, "Hannibal", 1999
sunbird
> How many of them have you fucked?
> Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
You know, fucking is cool and all that, but why are you
so preoccupied with others' sexual habits? I mean, if
you're a kind of text voyeur that's cool (your kink is
ok) but it doesn't seem that you're provoking the kind
of responses you're looking for.
For example, if I were to mention that I have been with
several sniggler females in a sexual way over the past
years, would that turn you on? Or would it kind of get
your goat? What if I were to tell you that I even lived
with one for a while? Of course I'm not going to tell you
who because I don't have any idea who you are. But I'm not
revealing anything you couldn't find out in a sufficiently
large newsgroup archive.
Half a dozen or so, if I haven't missed any.
--
Pt
Unsolicited Commercial Email forbidden
Brock Hannibal
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > How many of them have you fucked?
> > Jackie 'Anakin' Tokeman
>
>
> Half a dozen or so, if I haven't missed any.
Wow, that's pretty good, since there's only a few more than that that
actually post here with any frequency. I don't expect you to tell,
twouldn't be gentlemanly(see:David Niven) but I think the babes that have
shagged you should fess up. They should post an assesment of your prowess,
and a size estimate. Whaddya say you sunbirded babes?
--
Brock
"Put a twenty dollar gold piece on my watch chain
so the boys'll know I died standin' pat."
sunbird
> Wow, that's pretty good, since there's only a few more than that that
> actually post here with any frequency. I don't expect you to tell,
> twouldn't be gentlemanly(see:David Niven) but I think the babes that have
> shagged you should fess up. They should post an assesment of your prowess,
> and a size estimate. Whaddya say you sunbirded babes?
Hehehe. Well, here's a clue...most of them (or perhaps all, I haven't
been paying such close attention) don't post to s.s.c anymore, but
have moved on to s.s.m or other pastures.
On the other hand there might be one or two just kind of lurking around.