"Female Sexuality"
Daniel A. Lopez
doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that practically all female porn
stars are either bisexual or lesbian?
Choosing porn as a career obviously requires sexuality. Could it be that
heterosexual women lack the sexuality to engage in that line of work?
Could it be that there really is no female sexuality except among women
who are abnormal like bisexuals and lesbians?
nethead8
news:18308-3E...@storefull-2174.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Knowing that the majority of the female population is heterosexual,
> doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that practically all female porn
> stars are either bisexual or lesbian?
You're reading too much into it..... To workers in the sex industry, it's just
a job, a "role" they are playing, for money. They could be just about anything
in their private lives.
>
> Choosing porn as a career obviously requires sexuality. Could it be that
> heterosexual women lack the sexuality to engage in that line of work?
> Could it be that there really is no female sexuality except among women
> who are abnormal like bisexuals and lesbians?
I'll break the bad news to you ;-) most of the women that you see in these porn
films are "faking it" for the camera. Sexuality is not a requirement for choosing
porn as a career. The only requirements are a good body (you don't even have
to be that good looking facially) and a willingness to have sex in front of a camera.
If you meet those requirements, and have no scruples about doing it, it is easy money.
And IMO that is why many do it - it's easier money than getting up early every morning,
fighting rush hour traffic, putting up with the crap that goes on in the average workplace etc.
Jack
>
Hyerdahl1
>From: daniel...@webtv.net (Daniel A. Lopez)
>Date: 5/8/2003 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <18308-3E...@storefull-2174.public.lawson.webtv.net>
Or, it could be that het women simply aren't all that excited by their options.
:-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
dsafjk...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg
>
> Knowing that the majority of the female population is heterosexual,
> doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that practically all female porn
> stars are either bisexual or lesbian?
And wear too much make-up, wear ridiculous breast implants, don't have a
clue what sex is about.....
>
> Choosing porn as a career obviously requires sexuality. Could it be that
> heterosexual women lack the sexuality to engage in that line of work?
> Could it be that there really is no female sexuality except among women
> who are abnormal like bisexuals and lesbians?
Porn stars are abnormal alright. Look at Annabel Chong. She's a got a
post-grad degree in feminism! (This being the woman who got gang-banged by
400 men for no pay. Silly feminist bitch. It's funny, feminists are
typically either heterophobic dykes or just severely-fucked-in-the-head
SLUTS.)
dsafjk...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg
You're projecting again. The last time you got turned on was watching a
brutal BSDM lesbian sado-masochism video with Patricia Ireland in a
starring role...
Ritalin-Kid
> >Knowing that the majority of the female population is heterosexual,
> >doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that practically all female porn
> >stars are either bisexual or lesbian?
> >
> >Choosing porn as a career obviously requires sexuality. Could it be that
> >heterosexual women lack the sexuality to engage in that line of work?
> >Could it be that there really is no female sexuality except among women
> >who are abnormal like bisexuals and lesbians?
>
> Or, it could be that het women simply aren't all that excited by their options.
> :-)
Or they LACK options from the opposite sex. :o)
Your sexist comment aside (and mine), I see bisexuality as a trend
gaining in popularity. Yes. It is as simple as this. Women's
bisexuality is well accepted in the new generation, young men find it
even sexy.
Not so for men, which would explain the disproportion of ratio by
gender.
I swear that I know more bisexual women than heterosexual ones, to the
great delight of their boyfriends. In fact, an ex gf of mine was a
bisexual, and she basically told me that for sex, she liked both men
and women, but for relationships, she preferred men as they were less
complicated and low maintenance. Now I don't know if she was the trend
or the exception though. Needless to say, I've had tons of fun in the
bedroom with her :o)
You're welcome to believe it or not (I know your views about personnal
experience in debates), but I see more and more girls acting bisexual
in the club where I work, dancing seductively together in sexual
movements and touching each other, to the great delight of the male
gender. Since clubs are basically human mating rituals, acting in a
way to excite the opposite sex (attracting tham) all the while being
excited at dancing seductively with a female friend, makes a win-win
situation for women.
Michael Snyder
dsafjk...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg wrote in message <3EBBB520...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg>...
>"Daniel A. Lopez" wrote:
>>
>> Knowing that the majority of the female population is heterosexual,
>> doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that practically all female porn
>> stars are either bisexual or lesbian?
>
>And wear too much make-up, wear ridiculous breast implants, don't have a
>clue what sex is about.....
Excuse me, but my honey is female, het, highly sexed, wears
as much or as little make-up as she pleases, has huge natural
breasts, and has more clues about what sex is about than you
ever will.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Jill perspi...@askme4addy.com
>Date: 5/8/03 8:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <be6mbv08ocdfre3c8...@4ax.com>
>
>On 09 May 2003 01:47:07 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: "Female Sexuality"
>>>From: daniel...@webtv.net (Daniel A. Lopez)
>>>Date: 5/8/2003 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <18308-3E...@storefull-2174.public.lawson.webtv.net>
>>>
>>>doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that practically all female porn
>>>stars are either bisexual or lesbian?
>>>
>>>heterosexual women lack the sexuality to engage in that line of work?
>>>Could it be that there really is no female sexuality except among women
>>>who are abnormal like bisexuals and lesbians?
>>
>>Or, it could be that het women simply aren't all that excited by their
>options.
>>:-)
>
What ARE you on about? First, I'm assuming you think I'm homosexual and have
"admitted" to that, and secondly you must think being a homosexual makes you
"guilty" of something. Neither are correct.
>
>
>
>
>
>
dsafjk...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg
You can't tell the difference between real or fake? Speaking of not having
a clue about sex....
dsafjk...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg
Trust Michael Snyder to jump to the defense of slutty women.
Men who have the #1 feminist issue (abortion) in common with feminists
cannot be anti-feminist. Keep chasing your tail bozo.
Michael Snyder
dsafjk...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg wrote in message <3EBC4776...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg>...
Dunno what gives you that idea -- I've had my hands on plenty of both kinds.
Michael Snyder
dsafjk...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg wrote in message <3EBC4908...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg>...
>Michael Snyder wrote:
>>
>> dsafjk...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg wrote in message <3EBBB520...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg>...
>> >"Daniel A. Lopez" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Knowing that the majority of the female population is heterosexual,
>> >> doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that practically all female porn
>> >> stars are either bisexual or lesbian?
>> >
>> >And wear too much make-up, wear ridiculous breast implants, don't have a
>> >clue what sex is about.....
>>
>> Excuse me, but my honey is female, het, highly sexed, wears
>> as much or as little make-up as she pleases, has huge natural
>> breasts, and has more clues about what sex is about than you
>> ever will.
>
>Trust Michael Snyder to jump to the defense of slutty women.
Bet your ass! ;-)
>Men who have the #1 feminist issue (abortion) in common with feminists
>cannot be anti-feminist. Keep chasing your tail bozo.
WTF are you talking about? What has this got to do with abortion,
and who ever told you that I support abortion?
Hyerdahl1
>From: Jeste...@yahoo.com (Ritalin-Kid)
>Date: 5/9/2003 7:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ad5b3a61.03050...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>> >Knowing that the majority of the female population is heterosexual,
>> >doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that practically all female porn
>> >stars are either bisexual or lesbian?
>> >
>> >Choosing porn as a career obviously requires sexuality. Could it be that
>> >heterosexual women lack the sexuality to engage in that line of work?
>> >Could it be that there really is no female sexuality except among women
>> >who are abnormal like bisexuals and lesbians?
>>
>> Or, it could be that het women simply aren't all that excited by their
>options.
>> :-)
>
>Or they LACK options from the opposite sex. :o)
>
>Your sexist comment aside (and mine), I see bisexuality as a trend gaining in
popularity.
I agree with you. My own personal opinion is that most of us are capable of
being bisexual, but that we choose which is most prevalent. For me, that
choice was heterosexuality, but I still question the universe. :-)
Yes. It is as simple as this. Women's
>bisexuality is well accepted in the new generation, young men find it>even
sexy.
>
I suppose. But does it really matter? I mean love is so rare, that when one
is fortunate enough to actually find it, why not be flexible.
>Not so for men, which would explain the disproportion of ratio by>gender.
>
????? Well, I think some women get along pretty well with gay men.
>I swear that I know more bisexual women than heterosexual ones, to the>great
delight of their boyfriends. In fact, an ex gf of mine was a bisexual, and she
basically told me that for sex, she liked both men
>and women, but for relationships, she preferred men as they were less
>complicated and low maintenance. Now I don't know if she was the trend
>or the exception though. Needless to say, I've had tons of fun in the
>bedroom with her :o)
>
Well, vive le difference!
>You're welcome to believe it or not (I know your views about personnal
>experience in debates),
I see no reason why personal experience cannot add to a debate; it's fun as
well.
My view is that it doesn't proove much factually, but it's still sometimes
entertaining or interesting.
but I see more and more girls acting bisexual in the club where I work,
dancing seductively together in sexual movements and touching each other, to
the great delight of the male gender. Since clubs are basically human mating
rituals, acting in a
>way to excite the opposite sex (attracting tham) all the while being excited
at dancing seductively with a female friend, makes a win-win situation for
women.
Men seem a bit more insecure about homosexuality than women. I'm not sure why?
I agree with you, that, for women, it's a win-win situation. And, even
het women who don't find suitable men can usually find another woman with whom
to share life.
>
>
>
>
>
Daniel A. Lopez
industry, it's just a job, a "role" they are playing, for money. They
could be just about anything in their private lives. >>>>>
But the women in the porn industry are almost always bisexual. Don't you
find that just a little strange?
<<<<<I'll break the bad news to you ;-) most of the women that you see
in these porn films are "faking it" for the camera.>>>>>
With MEN, but I've heard the exact opposite in the case of g/g scenes.
And "faking" or exaggerating the genital pleasure doesn't necessarily
mean that they're not enjoying their work. Many women and men find it
sexually arousing just to perform oral sex. You don't always need your
genitals directly stimulated to enjoy sexual activity. But you do need
sexuality, something that het women are lacking in.
<<<<<Sexuality is not a requirement for choosing porn as a career. >>>>>
In theory that's true. In practice it apparently isn't, otherwise you
would see a much greater participation of heterosexual women in porn
films. But since het women in general lack the strong sexuality that is
observed in bisexual women, their numbers in the porn industry are
overwhelming small.
Elisobella
Oh come on, I've never read such an idiotic thing. How can you jump
from performances of female porn stars to such a generalized
assessment of all heterosexual women? How on earth can you say
so-called "normal" women lack sexuality? Good grief! You need to
realize three things, basically. 1. porn is performance/acting. 2.
women are sexual beings. 3. bisexuality and lesbianism are not
abnormal. A fourth point: sexuality comes in many forms.
Elisobella
Elisobella
> Porn stars are abnormal alright. Look at Annabel Chong. She's a got a
> post-grad degree in feminism! (This being the woman who got gang-banged by
> 400 men for no pay. Silly feminist bitch. It's funny, feminists are
> typically either heterophobic dykes or just severely-fucked-in-the-head
> SLUTS.)
Heavens above! True, Annabel Chong is not a well person, but her
post-grad degree in feminism is not a reflection of this, or anything
else. I am a feminist and am not a man-hater nor
"severely-fucked-in-the-head", as you graphically put it. Feminism is
about asserting the rights of women to make their own choices and to
earn incomes commensurate with the job they do. The fact that Chong
was not even paid properly by those who made the documentary
illustrates how far we have yet to go. Chong, by the way, was
"diddled" out of her rightful share of the profits by her (male)
manager. I'd throw my slur, if I were you, at the manager not Chong -
as far as money is concerned. [The gender of the manager, by the way,
is not the relevant thing here as far as I'm concerned.] I agree with
you, however, about the sex with 200 men (not 400 [ I think it wasn't
even 200, actually]). That was very damaging to her health, physical
and psychological.
Lozette
> But the women in the porn industry are almost always bisexual. Don't you
> find that just a little strange?
They're not necessarily *really* bisexual - a lot of women are
gay-for-pay. Some men in the gay porn industry are too.
Laura.
~wd
This is so amusing.
Why is this the first thing a woman says about every women with big boobs.
They just GOT to be fake ..
--
~wd~
I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.
------ Socrates
connor_a
>
> What ARE you on about? First, I'm assuming you think I'm homosexual and have
> "admitted" to that, and secondly you must think being a homosexual makes you
> "guilty" of something. Neither are correct.
>
> >
Well, feminists of worth MUST remove their male-defined
"heterosexuality", otherwise they are selling-out every new generation
of women.
After all, women of substance don't need to assert themselves as
sexual entities for male predatory consumption, not that men of
substance are interested in women choosing to represent themselves as
"meat on the table".
So the choices of liberated men are increasingly limited in this age
of woman: another man shall suffice just nicely, thankyou. <g>
Tom Allen
| <<<<<You're reading too much into it..... To workers in the sex
| industry, it's just a job, a "role" they are playing, for money. They
| could be just about anything in their private lives. >>>>>
|
| But the women in the porn industry are almost always bisexual. Don't
you
| find that just a little strange?
Dewd, you've been watching too much Howard Stern. It's good publicity to
*appear* to be a bi porn star. Doesn't make it so.
| <<<<<I'll break the bad news to you ;-) most of the women that you see
| in these porn films are "faking it" for the camera.>>>>>
| With MEN, but I've heard the exact opposite in the case of g/g scenes.
Heard? From who? Howard Stern? Some of your friends? It's amazing how
information like this is disseminated.
| But you do need
| sexuality, something that het women are lacking in.
I can't wait to see what happens when some people read *this* line.
| But since het women in general lack the strong sexuality that is
| observed in bisexual women, their numbers in the porn industry are
| overwhelming small.
Or it could be because so many women _in general_ don't particularly
care for porn in the first place. It's probably more of a cultural
thing than a sexuality thing.
Tom
Andre Lieven
>>
>> Porn stars are abnormal alright. Look at Annabel Chong. She's a got a
>> post-grad degree in feminism! (This being the woman who got gang-banged by
>> 400 men for no pay. Silly feminist bitch. It's funny, feminists are
>> typically either heterophobic dykes or just severely-fucked-in-the-head
>> SLUTS.)
>
> Heavens above! True, Annabel Chong is not a well person, but her
> post-grad degree in feminism is not a reflection of this, or anything
> else.
So, you'd also say that a KKK membership had nothing to say on that
holder's views on blacks, eh ?
> I am a feminist and am not a man-hater nor
> "severely-fucked-in-the-head", as you graphically put it.
We'll see....
> Feminism is
> about asserting the rights of women to make their own choices and to
> earn incomes commensurate with the job they do.
Wrong. When Feminism *stops opposing men having equal rights to
women*, then you might be right.
But, with Feminism *opposing* equal men's custody of children,
men's equal participation in the raising of said children, and
women being paid what their work is worth in an open market,
you're just blowin' smoke.
" This is soc.men. We know better. " Michael Snyder.
> The fact that Chong
> was not even paid properly by those who made the documentary
> illustrates how far we have yet to go.
" Proof " by *anecdote*. How... ignorant.
Take a class on statistics and *pass it*...
> Chong, by the way, was
> "diddled" out of her rightful share of the profits by her (male)
> manager. I'd throw my slur, if I were you, at the manager not Chong -
> as far as money is concerned. [The gender of the manager, by the way,
> is not the relevant thing here as far as I'm concerned.] I agree with
> you, however, about the sex with 200 men (not 400 [ I think it wasn't
> even 200, actually]). That was very damaging to her health, physical
> and psychological.
But.... it was *her choice*. So, according to you, women ought to
be fre to choose... what *you demand that they do*...
How... Soviet of you...
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Hyerdahl1
>From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
>Date: 5/10/2003 5:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <6688b088.03051...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20030509162618...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
>
>>
>> What ARE you on about? First, I'm assuming you think I'm homosexual and
>have
>> "admitted" to that, and secondly you must think being a homosexual makes
>you
>> "guilty" of something. Neither are correct.
>>
>> >
>
>Well, feminists of worth MUST remove their male-defined "heterosexuality",
otherwise they are selling-out every new generation>of women.
>
life is the opposite sex. I don't see how that fact "sells out" anyone, nor do
I see that it has any importance at all.
>After all, women of substance don't need to assert themselves as sexual
entities for male predatory consumption, not that men of substance are
interested in women choosing to represent themselves as
>"meat on the table".
>
I don't see how any of that relates to some assignment of sexual status to me.
I have not presented myself as a sexual entity of any kind, here on the NG.
Perhaps you hadn't noticed.
>So the choices of liberated men are increasingly limited in this age>of woman:
another man shall suffice just nicely, thankyou. <g>
>
Fine; think of me as "another man", if you like.
>
>
>
>
>
John Jones
"Elisobella" <Eliso...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:2476b63d.03051...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Porn stars are abnormal alright. Look at Annabel Chong. She's
a got a
> > post-grad degree in feminism! (This being the woman who got
gang-banged by
> > 400 men for no pay. Silly feminist bitch. It's funny,
feminists are
> > typically either heterophobic dykes or just
severely-fucked-in-the-head
> > SLUTS.)
>
> Heavens above! True, Annabel Chong is not a well person, but
her
> post-grad degree in feminism is not a reflection of this, or
anything
> else. I am a feminist and am not a man-hater nor
That's what they all say.
> "severely-fucked-in-the-head", as you graphically put it.
Feminism is
> about asserting the rights of women to make their own choices
and to
> earn incomes commensurate with the job they do.
And vilifying men. Just look at Parg/Hyerdahl Shuggy and Libby.
For some local examples.
> The fact that Chong
> was not even paid properly by those who made the documentary
> illustrates how far we have yet to go. Chong, by the way, was
> "diddled" out of her rightful share of the profits by her
(male)
> manager. I'd throw my slur, if I were you, at the manager not
Chong -
> as far as money is concerned. [The gender of the manager, by
the way,
> is not the relevant thing here as far as I'm concerned.] I
agree with
> you, however, about the sex with 200 men (not 400 [ I think it
wasn't
> even 200, actually]). That was very damaging to her health,
physical
> and psychological.
251.
Bob
>>Porn stars are abnormal alright. Look at Annabel Chong. She's a got a
>>post-grad degree in feminism! (This being the woman who got gang-banged by
>>400 men for no pay. Silly feminist bitch. It's funny, feminists are
>>typically either heterophobic dykes or just severely-fucked-in-the-head
>>SLUTS.)
>
>
> Heavens above! True, Annabel Chong is not a well person, but her
> post-grad degree in feminism is not a reflection of this, or anything
> else.
LOL. A post-grad degree in hate is not a well person.
> I am a feminist and am not a man-hater nor
Feminism is misandry, hate, Toots. You lie.
> "severely-fucked-in-the-head", as you graphically put it. Feminism is
> about asserting the rights of women to make their own choices and to
> earn incomes commensurate with the job they do.
Feminism is organized misandry, hate, and that's about all that it is.
As the Nazi's hated Jews, so feminists hate men. We've heard all those
other lies before, but feminism is known by what it does, not by the
lies it tells.
> The fact that Chong
> was not even paid properly by those who made the documentary
> illustrates how far we have yet to go. Chong, by the way, was
> "diddled" out of her rightful share of the profits by her (male)
> manager.
Yep, another misandrist slur from another misandrist feminist. They are
all the same.
> I'd throw my slur, if I were you, at the manager not Chong -
You just did Toots.
Bob
Hanuman
>> Porn stars are abnormal alright. Look at Annabel Chong. She's a got a
>> post-grad degree in feminism! (This being the woman who got
>> gang-banged by 400 men for no pay. Silly feminist bitch. It's funny,
>> feminists are typically either heterophobic dykes or just
>> severely-fucked-in-the-head SLUTS.)
>
> Heavens above! True, Annabel Chong is not a well person, but her
> post-grad degree in feminism is not a reflection of this, or anything
> else.
Okay. I can agree to that much.
> I am a feminist and am not a man-hater nor
> "severely-fucked-in-the-head", as you graphically put it.
That remains to be seen. In my experience, feminist and man-hater are
synonymous terms.
> Feminism is
> about asserting the rights of women to make their own choices and to
> earn incomes commensurate with the job they do.
Which kind of "commensurate" are you talking about? Women are already paid
equally for the same jobs as men in the USA and most modern western nations.
Are you talking about "comprabable worth," which is just an euphamism for
state socialist wage controls?
> The fact that Chong
> was not even paid properly by those who made the documentary
> illustrates how far we have yet to go.
Or illustrates how nutty Chong was/is. You think women in porn are poorly
paid? Do you know what they pay men?
> Chong, by the way, was
> "diddled" out of her rightful share of the profits by her (male)
> manager. I'd throw my slur, if I were you, at the manager not Chong -
> as far as money is concerned.
Cite?
> [The gender of the manager, by the way,
> is not the relevant thing here as far as I'm concerned.]
Then why did you mention it?
> I agree with
> you, however, about the sex with 200 men (not 400 [ I think it wasn't
> even 200, actually]).
251
> That was very damaging to her health, physical
> and psychological.
Cite?
For a non-man-hating-feminist, you sure aren't getting off to a good start.
Hanuman
--
That government is best which governs least.
- Thomas Jefferson
Andre Lieven
> <<<<<You're reading too much into it..... To workers in the sex
> industry, it's just a job, a "role" they are playing, for money. They
> could be just about anything in their private lives. >>>>>
>
> But the women in the porn industry are almost always bisexual. Don't you
> find that just a little strange?
Why ? Since many straight porn flicks call for at least one chyk lesbo
scene, then a woman in the industry who is fine with bisexuality is
only *increasing her chances of paid employment*.
Being a bisexual chyk in the industry is directly comparable to
being a secretary with more computer program skills.
> <<<<<I'll break the bad news to you ;-) most of the women that you see
> in these porn films are "faking it" for the camera.>>>>>
>
> With MEN, but I've heard the exact opposite in the case of g/g scenes.
> And "faking" or exaggerating the genital pleasure doesn't necessarily
> mean that they're not enjoying their work.
So ? Its possible to enjoy sexual activity without having an orgasm...
> Many women and men find it
> sexually arousing just to perform oral sex. You don't always need your
> genitals directly stimulated to enjoy sexual activity. But you do need
> sexuality, something that het women are lacking in.
You MSspelled " *some* het women... "
> <<<<<Sexuality is not a requirement for choosing porn as a career. >>>>>
>
> In theory that's true. In practice it apparently isn't, otherwise you
> would see a much greater participation of heterosexual women in porn
> films. But since het women in general lack the strong sexuality that is
> observed in bisexual women, their numbers in the porn industry are
> overwhelming small.
Or, you're confusing effect for cause...
Elisobella
> > I am a feminist and am not a man-hater nor
> > "severely-fucked-in-the-head", as you graphically put it.
>
> That remains to be seen. In my experience, feminist and man-hater are
> synonymous terms.
How little you know. All my female friends are feminists and all have
male partners, including me.
>
> > Feminism is
> > about asserting the rights of women to make their own choices and to
> > earn incomes commensurate with the job they do.
>
> Which kind of "commensurate" are you talking about? Women are already paid
> equally for the same jobs as men in the USA and most modern western nations.
This is still not so in some industries.
> Are you talking about "comprabable worth," which is just an euphamism for
> state socialist wage controls?
No, I'm talking about wages in private enterprise.
>
> > The fact that Chong
> > was not even paid properly by those who made the documentary
> > illustrates how far we have yet to go.
>
> Or illustrates how nutty Chong was/is. You think women in porn are poorly
> paid? Do you know what they pay men?
I didn't generalize about women porn stars. I was talking about Chong.
She was not properly paid. This came out in the followup documentary
on the making of the Chong story.
>
> > Chong, by the way, was
> > "diddled" out of her rightful share of the profits by her (male)
> > manager. I'd throw my slur, if I were you, at the manager not Chong -
> > as far as money is concerned.
>
> Cite?
See above
>
> > [The gender of the manager, by the way,
> > is not the relevant thing here as far as I'm concerned.]
>
> Then why did you mention it?
Because I could see what you and other guys on this site could be
thinking. I just thought you'd like to know that I am aware that any
one, of any gender, is capable of foul play.
>
> > I agree with
> > you, however, about the sex with 200 men (not 400 [ I think it wasn't
> > even 200, actually]).
>
> 251
Ok. The number really didn't matter to me. The thought of so many was
abominable.
>
> > That was very damaging to her health, physical
> > and psychological.
>
> Cite?
The followup documentary included an interview with Chong and also
showed the many physical scars of her several suicide attempts. She is
really a very unstable person.
>
> For a non-man-hating-feminist, you sure aren't getting off to a good start.
>
> Hanuman
I was just trying to put a bit of sense into the discussion - to
balance the arguments, that's all.
Bob
> <<<<<You're reading too much into it..... To workers in the sex
> industry, it's just a job, a "role" they are playing, for money. They
> could be just about anything in their private lives. >>>>>
>
> But the women in the porn industry are almost always bisexual. Don't you
> find that just a little strange?
I've seen no evidence of that. Can you provide some evidence?
[Note: Scripts written for actors are the fantasy of the script writers,
not the sexual preference of the actors. ]
> <<<<<I'll break the bad news to you ;-) most of the women that you see
> in these porn films are "faking it" for the camera.>>>>>
And not faking it worth a damn most of the time.
> With MEN, but I've heard the exact opposite in the case of g/g scenes.
> And "faking" or exaggerating the genital pleasure doesn't necessarily
> mean that they're not enjoying their work. Many women and men find it
> sexually arousing just to perform oral sex. You don't always need your
> genitals directly stimulated to enjoy sexual activity. But you do need
> sexuality, something that het women are lacking in.
Most women would rather not do scenes with other women, just as most men
would rather not do sex with other men. Other than the script writers
what evidence do you have that film actresses are any different.
> <<<<<Sexuality is not a requirement for choosing porn as a career. >>>>>
>
> In theory that's true. In practice it apparently isn't, otherwise you
> would see a much greater participation of heterosexual women in porn
> films.
There is some kind of myth that lesbianism sells films. I am yet to
meet a man who wouldn't rather watch straight sex. Like a lot of myths
that one needs to die.
You are confusing the script writer for the actress again.
> But since het women in general lack the strong sexuality that is
> observed in bisexual women, their numbers in the porn industry are
> overwhelming small.
LOL. Most women are strongly sexual and straight. (Except maybe when
you are around. LOL)
Bob
Bob
>>>I am a feminist and am not a man-hater nor
>>>"severely-fucked-in-the-head", as you graphically put it.
>>
>>That remains to be seen. In my experience, feminist and man-hater are
>>synonymous terms.
>
>
> How little you know. All my female friends are feminists and all have
> male partners, including me.
Just like the KKK, "Some of my best friends are colored." The hate goes
on and on.
Or the feminist version, "Sleeping with the enemy."
>>>Feminism is
>>>about asserting the rights of women to make their own choices and to
>>>earn incomes commensurate with the job they do.
>>
>>Which kind of "commensurate" are you talking about? Women are already paid
>>equally for the same jobs as men in the USA and most modern western nations.
>
> This is still not so in some industries.
Wrong. Feminism is about lying a lot.
>
>>Are you talking about "comprabable worth," which is just an euphamism for
>>state socialist wage controls?
>
> No, I'm talking about wages in private enterprise.
>
>>>The fact that Chong
>>>was not even paid properly by those who made the documentary
>>>illustrates how far we have yet to go.
>>
>>Or illustrates how nutty Chong was/is. You think women in porn are poorly
>>paid? Do you know what they pay men?
>
> I didn't generalize about women porn stars. I was talking about Chong.
> She was not properly paid. This came out in the followup documentary
> on the making of the Chong story.
Pornography is one of the industries where women are paid many times as
much as men. Men in pornography make perhaps $.16 on the dollar that
women make for the same work. Like most of the related sex industries
they exploit men to pay women big bucks for easy work. Follow the money.
>>>Chong, by the way, was
>>>"diddled" out of her rightful share of the profits by her (male)
>>>manager. I'd throw my slur, if I were you, at the manager not Chong -
>>>as far as money is concerned.
>>
>>Cite?
>
> See above
>
>>>[The gender of the manager, by the way,
>>>is not the relevant thing here as far as I'm concerned.]
>>
>>Then why did you mention it?
>
>
> Because I could see what you and other guys on this site could be
> thinking. I just thought you'd like to know that I am aware that any
> one, of any gender, is capable of foul play.
>
>>>I agree with
>>>you, however, about the sex with 200 men (not 400 [ I think it wasn't
>>>even 200, actually]).
>>
>>251
>
> Ok. The number really didn't matter to me. The thought of so many was
> abominable.
On yahoo groups there are a bunch of women who do that kind of ganbangs
for fun. "Slut Rona" for example hosts a gangbang party with herself as
the slut of honor a couple of times per month, just for the fun of it.
If Chong doesn't enjoy her work she ought to get out of the business.
>>>That was very damaging to her health, physical
>>>and psychological.
>>
>>Cite?
>
> The followup documentary included an interview with Chong and also
> showed the many physical scars of her several suicide attempts. She is
> really a very unstable person.
Boo Hoo. If she doesn't like the work she ought not be doing it. Note
that there are many more men who are driven to suicide each year than
women.
>>For a non-man-hating-feminist, you sure aren't getting off to a good start.
>>
>>Hanuman
>
>
> I was just trying to put a bit of sense into the discussion - to
> balance the arguments, that's all.
LOL. Really.
Bob
nethead8
> > > "severely-fucked-in-the-head", as you graphically put it.
> >
> > That remains to be seen. In my experience, feminist and man-hater are
> > synonymous terms.
>
> How little you know. All my female friends are feminists and all have
> male partners, including me.
Proving what exactly? Many man-hating feminists have male partners.
Unfortunately there are many men who buy into misandry, for various reasons.
Gloria Steinem got married recently, just as a more famous example.
> >
> > > Feminism is
> > > about asserting the rights of women to make their own choices and to
> > > earn incomes commensurate with the job they do.
In theory yes, in practice no.
> >
> > Which kind of "commensurate" are you talking about? Women are already paid
> > equally for the same jobs as men in the USA and most modern western nations.
>
> This is still not so in some industries.
This is a voluntary choice of women. Women deliberately and voluntarily choose
not to enter many industries that have long hours or hazardous work conditions.
These are the industries that usually have the higher paying wages.
That is their choice and they have every right to make it, but no one should complain
that women are being discriminated against because of it. They aren't. Todays
employers bend over backwards to try and insure that they have a "diverse" work
force, to the point of giving women and minorities special consideration when hiring.
When more women were married, and were viewed as the secondary wage earner,
the unequal pay thing *may* have been true, but not in todays workplace.
>
> > Are you talking about "comprabable worth," which is just an euphamism for
> > state socialist wage controls?
> No, I'm talking about wages in private enterprise.
> >
> > > The fact that Chong
> > > was not even paid properly by those who made the documentary
> > > illustrates how far we have yet to go.
> >
> > Or illustrates how nutty Chong was/is. You think women in porn are poorly
> > paid? Do you know what they pay men?
>
> I didn't generalize about women porn stars. I was talking about Chong.
> She was not properly paid. This came out in the followup documentary
> on the making of the Chong story.
> >
> > > Chong, by the way, was
> > > "diddled" out of her rightful share of the profits by her (male)
> > > manager. I'd throw my slur, if I were you, at the manager not Chong -
> > > as far as money is concerned.
And for every "women as victim" example you could probably point to a woman
who has made quite a bit of money or has actually gone into business for themselves
using the Internet, in the sex business.
> >
> > Cite?
>
> See above
> >
> > > [The gender of the manager, by the way,
> > > is not the relevant thing here as far as I'm concerned.]
> >
> > Then why did you mention it?
>
> Because I could see what you and other guys on this site could be
> thinking. I just thought you'd like to know that I am aware that any
> one, of any gender, is capable of foul play.
Well, you have that right.....
> >
> > > I agree with
> > > you, however, about the sex with 200 men (not 400 [ I think it wasn't
> > > even 200, actually]).
> >
> > 251
> Ok. The number really didn't matter to me. The thought of so many was
> abominable.
> >
> > > That was very damaging to her health, physical
> > > and psychological.
> >
> > Cite?
>
> The followup documentary included an interview with Chong and also
> showed the many physical scars of her several suicide attempts. She is
> really a very unstable person.
> >
> > For a non-man-hating-feminist, you sure aren't getting off to a good start.
> >
> > Hanuman
>
> I was just trying to put a bit of sense into the discussion - to
> balance the arguments, that's all.
We get hit here with anti-male sexism all the time - most of our postings are a
counterweight to the anti-male bias currently prevalent in our society today.
Jack
Hot Frog
> This is so amusing.
> Why is this the first thing a woman says about every women with big boobs.
> They just GOT to be fake ..
My wife is a petite woman with huge breasts. She speaks longingly about
breast reduction surgery.
Hot Frog
> But the women in the porn industry are almost always bisexual. Don't you
> find that just a little strange?
Not at all. Who would want to hire a woman to star in a porn movie who
wouldn't perform under any circumstances? If I was producing a porno
flick and some starlet balked at doing a woman or having an orgy, she
would be back on the street in two seconds. If she wants a paycheck, she
better do the donkey.
~wd
Most women in my family are petite (under 5'5") woman with huge breasts.
And they laff at women that say "Your breast are fake". Its jealousy.
--
~wd~
I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.
------ Socrates
"The two party system: Where image takes precedence over wisdom "
---Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy
~wd
opinions:
> Elisobella wrote:
[..]
>>
>> The followup documentary included an interview with Chong and also
>> showed the many physical scars of her several suicide attempts. She is
>> really a very unstable person.
>
> Boo Hoo. If she doesn't like the work she ought not be doing it. Note
> that there are many more men who are driven to suicide each year than
> women.
Its true. Women "Attempt" more suicide, but, men actually do it.
Canada lost another man that felt he had
no other way out but to choose his own death:
On Thursday, January 23, 2003, another BC father, Mark Edward Dexel, 42,
took the only exit fathers are left with when dealing with the most
corrupt justice system ever known in the history of Canada, he committed
suicide.
See the press release here:
http://members.fortunecity.com/dexel/pr030202.htm
The numbers of men killing themselves is staggering and ongoing.
Bob
My first wife was like that. The women with big boobs want little ones.
The women with little tits want big ones. Women are never happy.
Bob
dduc...@ameritech.net
On 10-May-2003, Bob <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Elisobella wrote:
> >>>I am a feminist and am not a man-hater nor
> >>>"severely-fucked-in-the-head", as you graphically put it.
> >>
> >>That remains to be seen. In my experience, feminist and man-hater are
> >>synonymous terms.
> >
> >
> > How little you know. All my female friends are feminists and all have
> > male partners, including me.
>
>
> Just like the KKK, "Some of my best friends are colored." The hate goes
> on and on.
>
> Or the feminist version, "Sleeping with the enemy."
>
Which translates to "Sleeping with the money"?
Dexter M. Duck
Bob
You got that right.
Bob
connor_a
> Excuse me? I don't really care how men define homosexuality. My partner in
> life is the opposite sex. I don't see how that fact "sells out" anyone, nor do
> I see that it has any importance at all.
You ARE selling out; Why sleep with the enemy? Obviously the money.
> I don't see how any of that relates to some assignment of sexual status to me. > I have not presented myself as a sexual entity of any kind, here on the NG. > Perhaps you hadn't noticed.
Well, these days old gals will do anything to return to their cock
teasing days and ways. How about a free sample of foetus juice to
smear?
> Fine; think of me as "another man", if you like.
Indeed. There's no fear living with "another woman".
~wd
> Daniel A. Lopez wrote:
>> <<<<<You're reading too much into it..... To workers in the sex
>> industry, it's just a job, a "role" they are playing, for money. They
>> could be just about anything in their private lives. >>>>>
>>
>> But the women in the porn industry are almost always bisexual. Don't you
>> find that just a little strange?
>
> I've seen no evidence of that. Can you provide some evidence?
They cant provide evidence. At best they may find some quotes that say
this one or that one is Bi-Sexual. And thats just publicity Hype anyway/
Many of the porn stars are married or single moms with kids in a healthy
relatonship.
--
nethead8
My original point exactly. They are "actors" playing roles. What they are in their
private lives may differ. Some may actually be bisexual - you can't know that
by what they do on film though.
Jack
>
> Laura.
>
Hyerdahl1
>From: "Tom Allen" tao...@earthlink.net
>Date: 5/10/2003 5:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Ec7va.65661$4P1.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>(Edit for brevity)
>
>Or it could be because so many women _in general_ don't particularly>care for
porn in the first place. It's probably more of a cultural>thing than a
sexuality thing.
>
Women don't tend to think of men as just a dick with a wallet. That's why
women don't objectify men regarding porn, but women do sometimes enjoy laughing
with their friends about how men are, which is why so many of them go to male
reviews WITH THEIR FEMALE FRIENDS.
>Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hyerdahl1
>From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
>Date: 5/11/2003 5:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <6688b088.03051...@posting.google.com>
>
>> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>> >news:<20030509162618...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
>
>> Excuse me? I don't really care how men define homosexuality. My partner
>in>> life is the opposite sex. I don't see how that fact "sells out" anyone,
>nor do>> I see that it has any importance at all.
>
>You ARE selling out; Why sleep with the enemy? Obviously the money.
Are you suggesting that I would partner with a sexist, with someone who would
deny me equal rights based on my sex?
Nah. I'm not sleeping with the enemy; you are the enemy, but only a flaccid
one.
>> I don't see how any of that relates to some assignment of sexual status to
>me. > I have not presented myself as a sexual entity of any kind, here on the
>NG. > Perhaps you hadn't noticed.
>
>Well, these days old gals will do anything to return to their cock teasing
days and ways. How about a free sample of foetus juice tosmear?
????? Again, I have not suggested any mention of my sex/gender here. So what
are you on about?
>
>> Fine; think of me as "another man", if you like.
>
>Indeed. There's no fear living with "another woman".
Living with someone who regards your rights as highly as their own is its own
reward, regardless of the sex/gender of that person.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bob
> right. I always wished I had smaller boobs so I could wear all the
> spaghetti strap tops and dresses and go bra-less. Guys always liked
> the big boobs which is why I think flat chested women really resent
> women who are naturally well-endowed. With women most resentments
> hark back to plain old-fashioned jealousy. And I don't mean jealousy
> over the big boobs--I mean jealousy over another woman getting a lot
> of attention from men.
>
You're probably right on the money.
Bob
suzee
>
> The Court of Public Opinion found that Bob expressed the following opinions:
>
> > Daniel A. Lopez wrote:
> >> <<<<<You're reading too much into it..... To workers in the sex
> >> industry, it's just a job, a "role" they are playing, for money. They
> >> could be just about anything in their private lives. >>>>>
> >>
> >> But the women in the porn industry are almost always bisexual. Don't you
> >> find that just a little strange?
> >
> > I've seen no evidence of that. Can you provide some evidence?
>
> They cant provide evidence. At best they may find some quotes that say
> this one or that one is Bi-Sexual. And thats just publicity Hype anyway/
>
> Many of the porn stars are married or single moms with kids in a healthy
> relatonship.
>
And *you know* this because....? <g>
sue
John Jones
"Jill" <perspi...@askme4addy.com> wrote in message
news:q4osbvkicmug11s3d...@4ax.com...
> On 11 May 2003 14:34:41 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1)
wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: "Female Sexuality"
> >>From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
> >>Date: 5/11/2003 5:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <6688b088.03051...@posting.google.com>
> >>
> >>> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
> >>> >news:<20030509162618...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> >>
> >>> Excuse me? I don't really care how men define
homosexuality. My partner
> >>in>> life is the opposite sex. I don't see how that fact
"sells out" anyone,
> >>nor do>> I see that it has any importance at all.
> >>
> >>You ARE selling out; Why sleep with the enemy? Obviously the
money.
> >
> >Are you suggesting that I would partner with a sexist, with
someone who would
> >deny me equal rights based on my sex?
Why not? Your partner did.
J Fowler
wrote:
>>
>> > I am a feminist and am not a man-hater nor
>> > "severely-fucked-in-the-head", as you graphically put it.
>>
>> That remains to be seen. In my experience, feminist and man-hater are
>> synonymous terms.
>
>How little you know. All my female friends are feminists and all have
>male partners, including me.
Proves what, in the 240 million + in the US it is not unreasonable
that they should find sufficient male masochists to satisfy their
fetish!
Ken&Laura Chaddock
Elisobella wrote:
> Feminism is about asserting the rights of women to make their own
> choices and to earn incomes commensurate with the job they do.
This statement is, in my experience, only relatively true as far as it goes
but it doesn't go far enough. What you don't mention is that most feminists
are quite happy to sacrifice the basic rights and well being of men (and
children) so that they can obtain even a minor advantage or convience.
If feminism and feminists had taken an approact which attempted to
strike a reasonable balance between the vital interests of men and children
and women, then it, and they, would be much more credible, unfortunately,
they have sought to obtain any and all rights, advantages and convience for
women, regardless of the effect upon men and children.
Even more reprehensible, when men have tried to gail some of the "freedom"
and loosening of the "chains" of our old society (one of the promises of early
feminist was that it would "free" women AND men), feminists have been the
most ferocious opponents of ANY sort of re-evaluation of the role of men as
walking wallets and zombie support systems for women...
...Ken
Janet Hardy
~wd wrote:
> The Court of Public Opinion found that Bob expressed the following opinions:
>
>
>>Daniel A. Lopez wrote:
>>
>>><<<<<You're reading too much into it..... To workers in the sex
>>>industry, it's just a job, a "role" they are playing, for money. They
>>>could be just about anything in their private lives. >>>>>
>>>
>>>But the women in the porn industry are almost always bisexual. Don't you
>>>find that just a little strange?
My own experience is that most women who are highly sexual and
adventurous -- among whom I'd guess would be most porn actresses -- will
eventually at least experiment with women. There's much less social
pressure on women to be heterosexual than there is on men, F/F sex is
lower risk than M/F sex, and really, there are very few things that a
man and a woman can do together (reproduction aside) that two women can't.
And fact is, there are just an awful lot of hot women out there. It's
hard for me to imagine excluding half the human race for no better
reason than the configuration of their chromosomes.
A woman who enjoys the occasional fling with a woman may or may not
choose the label "bisexual" -- to me, the crossover point came when I
realized that I was capable of being in love with a woman, not just
having sex with one. But for someone who isn't dead set against the
whole idea of same-gender sex, well, why not?
To me, the question isn't so much "Why are so many Xs bisexual?" (insert
any value for X -- porn actresses, BDSM women, swinging women, etc.) as
it is, "Why are so many non-Xs monosexual?"
Janet
--
NOW IN STOCK! "Dreaming In Color: a special edition anthology of erotic
writing by Greenery Press authors," including Midori, Jay Wiseman,
Dossie Easton, James Williams, Joseph Bean, Janet Hardy and more. Only
500 will ever be printed. Now available at http://www.greenerypress.com .
Janet Hardy
suzee wrote:
>>Many of the porn stars are married or single moms with kids in a healthy
>>relatonship.
>
> And *you know* this because....? <g>
Of course, nothing in marriage or healthy relationships precludes
bisexuality. There *are* poly marriages and healthy relationships out
there.
Andre Lieven
> suzee wrote:
>
>>>Many of the porn stars are married or single moms with kids in a healthy
>>>relatonship.
>>
>> And *you know* this because....? <g>
>
> Of course, nothing in marriage or healthy relationships precludes
> bisexuality. There *are* poly marriages and healthy relationships out
> there.
And, even more that involve neither...
John Jones
"suzee" <suz...@nidlink.com> wrote in message
news:3EBE64B7...@nidlink.com...
It was printed right there in penthouse plain as day where anyone
could see it.
>
> sue
>
Ken&Laura Chaddock
Andre Lieven wrote:
> Daniel A. Lopez (daniel...@webtv.net) writes:
>
> > In theory that's true. In practice it apparently isn't, otherwise you
> > would see a much greater participation of heterosexual women in porn
> > films. But since het women in general lack the strong sexuality that is
> > observed in bisexual women, their numbers in the porn industry are
> > overwhelming small.
>
> Or, you're confusing effect for cause...
He's also conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the men in the porn
industry are also bisexual, or at least the are "in the movies". John Holms,
Peter North, Ron West, Tom Byron, Jamie Gilles, Ron Jeremy and many
many more have all have made "gay" and "bi" movies...maybe it's just part
of the job ?
....Ken
Andre Lieven
> ~wd wrote:
>> The Court of Public Opinion found that Bob expressed the following opinions:
>>
>>>Daniel A. Lopez wrote:
>>>
>>>><<<<<You're reading too much into it..... To workers in the sex
>>>>industry, it's just a job, a "role" they are playing, for money. They
>>>>could be just about anything in their private lives. >>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But the women in the porn industry are almost always bisexual. Don't you
>>>>find that just a little strange?
>
> My own experience is that most women who are highly sexual and
> adventurous -- among whom I'd guess would be most porn actresses -- will
> eventually at least experiment with women. There's much less social
> pressure on women to be heterosexual than there is on men, F/F sex is
> lower risk than M/F sex, and really, there are very few things that a
> man and a woman can do together (reproduction aside) that two women can't.
Other then piv sex... Many women don't find plastic and metal a
substitute for flesh, and more, the man whos with them...
> And fact is, there are just an awful lot of hot women out there. It's
> hard for me to imagine excluding half the human race for no better
> reason than the configuration of their chromosomes.
Your imaginative limits are your own problem... As you're exactly
*mirroring* the sort of anti gay prejudice that many gay and bi
people complain about... Whcih stems from a bigot being *unable*,
as you say you are, to imagine that others don't want what you
want...
> A woman who enjoys the occasional fling with a woman may or may not
> choose the label "bisexual" -- to me, the crossover point came when I
> realized that I was capable of being in love with a woman, not just
> having sex with one. But for someone who isn't dead set against the
> whole idea of same-gender sex, well, why not?
How about, " Because its not to my tastes and interests " ?
What *is* it with so many of you, in that, you demand that straights
accept your sexuality, *yet you refuse to do the same with ours*... ?
> To me, the question isn't so much "Why are so many Xs bisexual?" (insert
> any value for X -- porn actresses, BDSM women, swinging women, etc.) as
> it is, "Why are so many non-Xs monosexual?"
Because thats what we *prefer*. Can you grasp the fact that you are
not the arbiter of anyone's desires but *your own* ?
Sheesh.
Ritalin-Kid
> >> >Knowing that the majority of the female population is heterosexual,
> >> >doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that practically all female porn
> >> >stars are either bisexual or lesbian?
> >> >
> >> >Choosing porn as a career obviously requires sexuality. Could it be that
> >> >heterosexual women lack the sexuality to engage in that line of work?
> >> >Could it be that there really is no female sexuality except among women
> >> >who are abnormal like bisexuals and lesbians?
> >>
> >> Or, it could be that het women simply aren't all that excited by their
> options.
> >> :-)
> >
> >Or they LACK options from the opposite sex. :o)
> >
> >Your sexist comment aside (and mine), I see bisexuality as a trend gaining in
> popularity.
>
> I agree with you. My own personal opinion is that most of us are capable of
> being bisexual,
Yeppers. I know some het guys who strip in gay bars... I think they
are called gay-for-pay by the media.
> but that we choose which is most prevalent. For me, that
> choice was heterosexuality, but I still question the universe. :-)
>
> Yes. It is as simple as this. Women's
> >bisexuality is well accepted in the new generation, young men find it>even
> sexy.
> >
> I suppose. But does it really matter? I mean love is so rare, that when one
> is fortunate enough to actually find it, why not be flexible.
Flexible? Of course. I've known men who dumped their gf after finding
out that she was bi, which is ridiculous IMO. It would be like a
toaster oven being jealous of a frying pan because the owner wanted to
cook an egg. I mean, why being jealous of something you can't be (i.e.
a woman)? I am not a woman, and if my gf were into both gender for
sex, I cannot provide her pleasure in the lesbian sex department.
>
> >Not so for men, which would explain the disproportion of ratio by>gender.
> >
> ????? Well, I think some women get along pretty well with gay men.
Of course. I meant to say that society do not condone female
bisexuality as much as male bisexuality, hence the more bi women than
men. Of course, I could be talking out of my ass as if bi male is not
well seen, they simply keep it secret. I've seen some stats that says
that there is more bisexuals than gays in North America, so I suppose
I could be wrong.
> >I swear that I know more bisexual women than heterosexual ones, to the>great
> delight of their boyfriends. In fact, an ex gf of mine was a bisexual, and she
> basically told me that for sex, she liked both men
> >and women, but for relationships, she preferred men as they were less
> >complicated and low maintenance. Now I don't know if she was the trend
> >or the exception though. Needless to say, I've had tons of fun in the
> >bedroom with her :o)
> >
> Well, vive le difference!
The more the difference the more fun it is IMO.
> >You're welcome to believe it or not (I know your views about personnal
> >experience in debates),
>
> I see no reason why personal experience cannot add to a debate; it's fun as
> well.
> My view is that it doesn't proove much factually, but it's still sometimes
> entertaining or interesting.
Then should I regal you with personal anectdotes of my short lived
career in the strip bars security? I swear that I can now die saying
that I've seen everything! :)
> but I see more and more girls acting bisexual in the club where I work,
> dancing seductively together in sexual movements and touching each other, to
> the great delight of the male gender. Since clubs are basically human mating
> rituals, acting in a
> >way to excite the opposite sex (attracting tham) all the while being excited
> at dancing seductively with a female friend, makes a win-win situation for
> women.
>
> Men seem a bit more insecure about homosexuality than women. I'm not sure why?
No idea. There is a regular at the club where I work who saw his life
destroyed. Another client, tipped off by someone (or so he says),
found out that the guy made gay sex pictures. within a week everybody
in town knew about it, and the guy is some kind of outcast since. BOTH
men and women laughed at him in his back. I agree though that in
general women have less problems with gay men IMO.
> I agree with you, that, for women, it's a win-win situation. And, even
> het women who don't find suitable men can usually find another woman with whom
> to share life.
I know of one woman who has now a woman partner because of past abuse
at the hands of her bf and I know of another one who keeps changing
from bf to gf, each time complaining that she's tired of men acting
like jerks on the one hand, and when a relationship ends with her gf
she says that she now wants a man because it's less complicated. I
guess she's a person who always sees something greater in her
neighbour's backyard than her own.
Jen Larson
~wd wrote:
> This is so amusing.
> Why is this the first thing a woman says about every women with big boobs.
> They just GOT to be fake ..
Only if they're also skinny.
suzee
> What *is* it with so many of you, in that, you demand that straights
> accept your sexuality, *yet you refuse to do the same with ours*... ?
It's not that we refuse to accept exculsive heterosexuality, but that
many straight people put people down for having or accepting
homosexuality. That's how this whole thing got started.
> Because thats what we *prefer*. Can you grasp the fact that you are
> not the arbiter of anyone's desires but *your own* ?
I can. But then why do so many straight people put down any thinking but
their own?
sue
Sharon B
wrote in <3EBFA5AF...@udel.edu>:
I suppose there *could* be the odd freak of nature that *only* stores
adipose tissue in her breasts, but I've never heard of anyone only
depositing fat in one anatomical location.
xposted to soc.singles where there are people knowledgable on this
topic
Andre Lieven
Indeed. One should not assume that a paid entertainer's personal
and off hours sexuality is displayed accurately by what they do at
work.
To paraphrase Woody Allen " When being a porn performer, acting
bisexual doubles your chances for a paid job. "
Acting, as in movie type acting, as in, fiction.
~wd
I know plenty of slim women with large breasts that are quite real.
Jen Larson
Bob wrote:
The women with big boobs want little ones.
> The women with little tits want big ones. Women are never happy.
Wrong. I've always loved my body, still do, big time.
Jen Larson
As a woman of proportional boobage, yes, men like big boobs, but then
again, I've had plenty say that medium is better, especially in the
_long run_ :D
> You're probably right on the money.
So men never get jealous about other guys being highly attractive to
women? Why do you act like this is a specific sex trait? Sexist really,
isn't it.
~wd
>
>
Then explane why there are so many breast enlargement and breast reduction
operations performed yearly in America.
Janet Hardy
Andre Lieven wrote:
> Janet Hardy (ver...@earthlink.net) writes:
>>My own experience is that most women who are highly sexual and
>>adventurous -- among whom I'd guess would be most porn actresses -- will
>>eventually at least experiment with women. There's much less social
>>pressure on women to be heterosexual than there is on men, F/F sex is
>>lower risk than M/F sex, and really, there are very few things that a
>>man and a woman can do together (reproduction aside) that two women can't.
>
> Other then piv sex... Many women don't find plastic and metal a
> substitute for flesh, and more, the man whos with them...
In fact, neither do I -- I strongly prefer an attached penis, and I tend
to be fond of the people who come with them <pun intended>. But when I'm
hankering for penetration, and the person I'm hot for doesn't come with
the proper equipment, well, I'm a tool-using ape.
In fact, I'm in the process of becoming involved with a man who, for
medical reasons, cannot sustain an erection. We expect that dildos and
harnesses (and fists, but that's another topic for another post) will
become a significant part of our future. Turning him away because his
parts don't work the way I wish they did sounds silly to me, and so
would turning away a similarly attractive person who happened to have
breasts and a vulva instead.
Nobody I could have sex with owns all the parts I wish they did -- so
far, I've never been approached by a functional hermaphrodite with four
arms and a mouth on the back of their head ;) So I find ways to compensate.
>>And fact is, there are just an awful lot of hot women out there. It's
>>hard for me to imagine excluding half the human race for no better
>>reason than the configuration of their chromosomes.
>
>
> Your imaginative limits are your own problem... As you're exactly
> *mirroring* the sort of anti gay prejudice that many gay and bi
> people complain about...
I can't imagine having a penis (although I enjoy trying). That certainly
doesn't mean I think there's anything wrong with having one.
Your defensiveness is your own projection, not mine. I *was*
heterosexual for most of my adult life, a great many of my friends and
lovers are heterosexual, and I think heterosexuality is just fine (along
with homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality and any other consensual
variant you can mention).
>>A woman who enjoys the occasional fling with a woman may or may not
>>choose the label "bisexual" -- to me, the crossover point came when I
>>realized that I was capable of being in love with a woman, not just
>>having sex with one. But for someone who isn't dead set against the
>>whole idea of same-gender sex, well, why not?
>
>
> How about, " Because its not to my tastes and interests " ?
That's what I meant when I said "dead set against the whole idea." If
you truly can't imagine ever being sexually attracted to someone whose
gender isn't the one that usually attracts you, well, then, don't. My
own belief and experience is that most people, given the chance to
experiment without prejudice or social pressure, will do so, but some
won't -- I used to have an employee who, in his mid-30s, could not
remember ever having a sexual thought about a woman. Monosexuals exist,
but I believe that in a sex-positive culture they would be relatively rare.
> What *is* it with so many of you, in that, you demand that straights
> accept your sexuality, *yet you refuse to do the same with ours*... ?
Oh for heaven's sake. Run a Google search on my name if you like -- I've
done more for acceptance of all sexualities than you're likely to do in
several lifetimes.
>>To me, the question isn't so much "Why are so many Xs bisexual?" (insert
>>any value for X -- porn actresses, BDSM women, swinging women, etc.) as
>>it is, "Why are so many non-Xs monosexual?"
>
> Because thats what we *prefer*. Can you grasp the fact that you are
> not the arbiter of anyone's desires but *your own* ?
Goodness, you *are* defensive. There's nothing at all wrong with being
monosexual; I just wish people felt freer to make whatever choices they
liked. In this culture, people -- most especially men -- don't feel that
way, and I hate to see good sex being missed out on when it's there to
be had.
Mike Given
>Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote:
>>~wd wrote:
>>>This is so amusing.
>>>Why is this the first thing a woman says about
>>>every women with big boobs.
>>>They just GOT to be fake ..
"Fake" being something of a relative term; I tend to prefer to
differentiate in terms of "OEM" versus "after-market".
Of course there's a shitload of dependency on what ya mean by "big"
too.
>>Only if they're also skinny.
>I suppose there *could* be the odd freak of nature
>that *only* stores adipose tissue in her breasts,
Geez Sharon, just give the sock.men ammo, eh?
Just 'cuz a girlie is blessed with bodacious ta-tas don't make her a
"freak of nature"; I know several what's sportin' perky OEM C-cups on
top of 28-34 inch hips. Nothing abnormal about 'em - quite healthy
girlies, in fact.
Just ask mini-Saddam, an expert on such things as shown in this
picture:
http://pictures.sprintpcs.com/share.jsp?invite=gEor497fh8Ul8LZ7aoxa
...but don't tell the US Gummint where he is, m'kay? That extra "Food
for Oil" cash he smuggled along is coming in handy.
>but I've never heard of anyone only depositing fat
>in one anatomical location.
You're obviously bullshitting on that one, 'cuz roundabouts where I'm
from I'm constantly hearing women complain that anything fattening that
they eat heads "straight for [their] hips".
>xposted to soc.singles where there are people knowledgable
>on this topic
We are the Gurus of Breastesses here.
Mikey ("Dirigible Dolly Llamas", even.)
Jen Larson
Sharon B wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 09:46:23 -0400, Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu>
> wrote in <3EBFA5AF...@udel.edu>:
> >~wd wrote:
> >> This is so amusing.
> >> Why is this the first thing a woman says about every women with big boobs.
> >> They just GOT to be fake ..
> >Only if they're also skinny.
> I suppose there *could* be the odd freak of nature that *only* stores
> adipose tissue in her breasts, but I've never heard of anyone only
> depositing fat in one anatomical location.
Nope, me either. I could fit 3 of me in my room-mates' pants, then
again, I could fit 4 of my boobs in her bra too. They are real and
there's no question. Yes the men LOVE them :D She's only 24 tho, and
more than one b/f has commented that when she gets to be my age they
will induce the opposite effect, so all in all, I got attention from the
time I was 4/5 from boys and all the way up until now 35 yrs later, I'm
feeling that I'm better off in the LONG run :D No jealousy whatsoever.
As to fake boobs, I don't like anything to be fake unless you have a
body part loss, so I don't like the idea of it.
Jen Larson
~wd wrote:
>
> The Court of Public Opinion found that Jen Larson expressed the following opinions:
> >> They just GOT to be fake ..
> > Only if they're also skinny.
> I know plenty of slim women with large breasts that are quite real.
Doubt it, but w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r :D
j/k! If you say so, and btw: what do you consider "large"?
Jen Larson
~wd wrote:
>
> The Court of Public Opinion found that Jen Larson expressed the following opinions:
> > Wrong. I've always loved my body, still do, big time.
> Then explane why there are so many breast enlargement and breast reduction
> operations performed yearly in America.
I've always loved that big spongy part at the top the best :D It knows I
am exactly the way I'm supposed to be. Others are not so simillarly
situated, dhammit all to Hades, but what can I do about it?
Sharon B
in <elivbvc2g9lboia57...@4ax.com>:
>Sharon B wrote:
>>Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote:
>>>~wd wrote:
>>>>This is so amusing.
>>>>Why is this the first thing a woman says about
>>>>every women with big boobs.
>>>>They just GOT to be fake ..
>
> "Fake" being something of a relative term; I tend to prefer to
>differentiate in terms of "OEM" versus "after-market".
> Of course there's a shitload of dependency on what ya mean by "big"
>too.
>
>>>Only if they're also skinny.
>>I suppose there *could* be the odd freak of nature
>>that *only* stores adipose tissue in her breasts,
>
> Geez Sharon, just give the sock.men ammo, eh?
*sniff*
I have NO IDEA what yer on about
> Just 'cuz a girlie is blessed with bodacious ta-tas don't make her a
>"freak of nature"; I know several what's sportin' perky OEM C-cups on
>top of 28-34 inch hips. Nothing abnormal about 'em - quite healthy
>girlies, in fact.
...so then, they aren't "skinny", right?
> Just ask mini-Saddam, an expert on such things as shown in this
>picture:
> http://pictures.sprintpcs.com/share.jsp?invite=gEor497fh8Ul8LZ7aoxa
> ...but don't tell the US Gummint where he is, m'kay? That extra "Food
>for Oil" cash he smuggled along is coming in handy.
when I was about 18, I made my bf (29yo with a TRANS AM!!) take me to
one o dem dar strip bars to see what The Big Thing was.
i concluded this must be another o dem Mysterious Guy Thangs(tm).
>>but I've never heard of anyone only depositing fat
>>in one anatomical location.
>
> You're obviously bullshitting on that one,
<grin>
>'cuz roundabouts where I'm
>from I'm constantly hearing women complain that anything fattening that
>they eat heads "straight for [their] hips".
yah, but it kinda spreads out and up from there, ya know?
Sharon B
wrote in <3EBFDA68...@udel.edu>:
he's also changing the parameters. you distinctly said, "skinny".
~wd
Anything more then a handfull <G>
Mike Given
>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote:
>>>>~wd wrote:
>>>>>They just GOT to be fake ..
>>>I suppose there *could* be the odd freak of nature
>>>that *only* stores adipose tissue in her breasts,
>>Geez Sharon, just give the sock.men ammo, eh?
>*sniff*
>I have NO IDEA what yer on about
ObMeow: Count to ten, breathe deeply and retract the claws, kitty.
>>Just 'cuz a girlie is blessed with bodacious ta-tas
>>don't make her a "freak of nature"; I know several
>>what's sportin' perky OEM C-cups on top of 28-34 inch
>>hips. Nothing abnormal about 'em - quite healthy
>>girlies, in fact.
>...so then, they aren't "skinny", right?
28-inch hips is pretty darn skinny where I'm from; 34 is pretty narrow
too but a bit more propotionate to C-cup hooters.
To paraphrase my dad: 28-inch hips + C-cup tits = toothpick with a
coupla grapes tied to it. Skinny, but not what ya'd call unhealthy.
>>Just ask mini-Saddam, an expert on such things as
>>shown in this picture: [..elided..]
>>...but don't tell the US Gummint where he is, m'kay?
>>That extra "Food for Oil" cash he smuggled along is
>>coming in handy.
>when I was about 18, I made my bf (29yo with a TRANS
>AM!!) take me to one o dem dar strip bars
To audition?
>to see what The Big Thing was.
One hopes for your sake the "Big Thing" wasn't just the TransAm.
>i concluded this must be another o dem Mysterious
>Guy Thangs(tm).
Er, 'no'.
Having DJ'ed a few "Ladies' Nights" in strip clubs I can tell ya it
most certainly is not exclusive to men. In fact, the women tended to
get far more drunk and troublesome than the men do.
>>>but I've never heard of anyone only depositing fat
>>>in one anatomical location.
>>roundabouts where I'm
>>from I'm constantly hearing women complain that anything
>>fattening that they eat heads "straight for [their] hips".
>yah, but it kinda spreads out and up from there, ya know?
No.
Mikey (..Spandex doesn't tell lies.)
Jen Larson
Crash Street Kidd wrote:
> Fat tends to be deposited in locations where there are
> fat cells and this tends to follow the patterns established
> while the person was quite young.
I suppose so Steve, but the fact remains, not fat people don't have alot
of fat and breast size correlates with fatness due to the fact that
breast is mostly fat.
When people undergo
> surgery such as liposuction the fat tends not to returns to
> that location.
Hmmm.
Breast size is probably due to a combination
> of factors including heredity.
And body fat. Check it out.
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> What *is* it with so many of you, in that, you demand that straights
>> accept your sexuality, *yet you refuse to do the same with ours*... ?
>
> It's not that we refuse to accept exculsive heterosexuality, but that
> many straight people put people down for having or accepting
> homosexuality. That's how this whole thing got started.
So, by claiming that " they started it ", your side then responds by
*doing the exact same thing* ?
That seems to me to be an action that voids any moral high ground.
>> Because thats what we *prefer*. Can you grasp the fact that you are
>> not the arbiter of anyone's desires but *your own* ?
>
> I can. But then why do so many straight people put down any thinking but
> their own?
In the absence of any such commentary to " react " to, this also sounds
like " chip-on-shoulder " heterophobia to me...
Note that " tolerance and diversity " don't make more room for
heterosexuality... Remember " Not that theres anything wrong with
that... "
Jen Larson
~wd wrote:
>
> The Court of Public Opinion found that Jen Larson expressed the following opinions:
> > Doubt it, but w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r :D
> > j/k! If you say so, and btw: what do you consider "large"?
> Anything more then a handfull <G>
Ah ok that makes sense then :D
Jen Larson
Sharon B wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 13:31:20 -0400, Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu>
> wrote in <3EBFDA68...@udel.edu>:
> >j/k! If you say so, and btw: what do you consider "large"?
> he's also changing the parameters. you distinctly said, "skinny".
Yep, to me that's a dead giveaway.
Sharon B
in <pknvbvktfe61i0ovg...@4ax.com>:
>Sharon B wrote:
>>Mike Given <asp...@gipco.org> wrote:
>>>Sharon B wrote:
>>>>Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote:
>>>>>~wd wrote:
>[..big breastesses..]
>>>>>>They just GOT to be fake ..
>>>>>Only if they're also skinny.
>>>>I suppose there *could* be the odd freak of nature
>>>>that *only* stores adipose tissue in her breasts,
>>>Geez Sharon, just give the sock.men ammo, eh?
>>*sniff*
>>I have NO IDEA what yer on about
>
> ObMeow: Count to ten, breathe deeply and retract the claws, kitty.
Huh? Do I need to wear emoticons?
Ohhhhhh! You think I'm hissing at honkin' huge hooters??
*snarf*
I thought you were accusing me of trolling.
>>>Just 'cuz a girlie is blessed with bodacious ta-tas
>>>don't make her a "freak of nature"; I know several
>>>what's sportin' perky OEM C-cups on top of 28-34 inch
>>>hips. Nothing abnormal about 'em - quite healthy
>>>girlies, in fact.
>>...so then, they aren't "skinny", right?
>
> 28-inch hips is pretty darn skinny where I'm from; 34 is pretty narrow
>too but a bit more propotionate to C-cup hooters.
> To paraphrase my dad: 28-inch hips + C-cup tits = toothpick with a
>coupla grapes tied to it. Skinny, but not what ya'd call unhealthy.
What size was Twiggy?
>>>Just ask mini-Saddam, an expert on such things as
>>>shown in this picture: [..elided..]
>>>...but don't tell the US Gummint where he is, m'kay?
>>>That extra "Food for Oil" cash he smuggled along is
>>>coming in handy.
>>when I was about 18, I made my bf (29yo with a TRANS
>>AM!!) take me to one o dem dar strip bars
>
> To audition?
Why, whatever are you suggesting, Mike?
>>to see what The Big Thing was.
>
> One hopes for your sake the "Big Thing" wasn't just the TransAm.
Ya know, I would be surprised if that club caused *any* Big Things.
Yegads....WOT a dive.
>>i concluded this must be another o dem Mysterious
>>Guy Thangs(tm).
>
> Er, 'no'.
> Having DJ'ed a few "Ladies' Nights" in strip clubs I can tell ya it
>most certainly is not exclusive to men. In fact, the women tended to
>get far more drunk and troublesome than the men do.
I dun think any of the ones on Monmouth St. allow women in unescorted.
Seriously. Something about wanting the customers to be spending money
on drinks for the dancers and not other women. I could never fathom
why guys would blow big wads of cash just to look--at least with a
hooker they're getting something for their money.
[...]
>Mikey (..Spandex doesn't tell lies.)
<grin>
spandex fan, are ya?
~wd
>
>
Whats the difference in slim and skinny?
~wd
But my opinion on breast size does not change the fact that the first
thing most women say about a woman with large breast is: "They got to be
fake"
Jen Larson
~wd wrote:
>
> The Court of Public Opinion found that Jen Larson expressed the following opinions:
> >> he's also changing the parameters. you distinctly said, "skinny".
> > Yep, to me that's a dead giveaway.
> Whats the difference in slim
very low body fat.
and skinny?
avg/low body fat.
Jen Larson
Jen Larson wrote:
> ~wd wrote:
> > Whats the difference in slim
> very low body fat.
> and skinny?
> avg/low body fat.
switch those two around :D
Jen Larson
~wd wrote:
>
> The Court of Public Opinion found that Jen Larson expressed the following opinions:
> >> > j/k! If you say so, and btw: what do you consider "large"?
> >> Anything more then a handfull <G>
> > Ah ok that makes sense then :D
> But my opinion on breast size does not change the fact that the first
> thing most women say about a woman with large breast is: "They got to be
> fake"
No way. Women have large breasts, it's r-e-a-l-i-t-y. Now if it's a
skinny woman with huge breasts, you'll hear me say that, otherwise I
don't make a comment on breasts whatsoever.
Michael Snyder
Daniel A. Lopez wrote in message <6348-3EB...@storefull-2178.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
><<<<<You're reading too much into it..... To workers in the sex
>industry, it's just a job, a "role" they are playing, for money. They
>could be just about anything in their private lives. >>>>>
>
>But the women in the porn industry are almost always bisexual. Don't you
>find that just a little strange?
Pssssttt... they do it 'cause they're paid to do it, and they're
paid to do it because that's what the paying audience wants
to see.
Daniel A. Lopez
Sure I can. Here's a quote from Jim Gunn, a man who has worked in porn
industry for years. His website www.jimgunn.com.
Begin quote;
"Almost all of the girls I have shot like having sex with women, have
had sex with women before I met them, and are truly bisexual."
<<<<Many of the porn stars are married or single moms with kids in a
healthy relatonship.>>>>
Doesn't prove anything.
~wd
Oh PulEEze.. Gimme a break
Its all about the context also. I used slim as you used skinny for the
same size. Only a ko0k would say i was not.
~wd
> Path:
> sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!64.152.100.70.MISMATCH!sjc70.webuse
> net.com!news.webusenet.com!cyclone.bc.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.udel.e
> du!not-for-mail
> From: Jen Larson <stra...@udel.edu>
> Newsgroups: soc.men
> Subject: Re: "Female Sexuality"
> Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:07:41 -0400
> Organization: University of Delaware
> Lines: 19
> Message-ID: <3EBFF0FD...@udel.edu>
> References: <18308-3E...@storefull-2174.public.lawson.webtv.net>
> <3EBBB520...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg>
> <cDRua.12830$JX2.7...@typhoon.sonic.net>
> <3EBC4776...@adsfkjfh.sdfjgdsahjg>
> <vdZua.12944$JX2.7...@typhoon.sonic.net>
> <vbppnrd...@corp.supernews.com> <3EBFA5AF...@udel.edu>
> <vbve8ll...@corp.supernews.com> <3EBFDA68...@udel.edu>
> <vbvo7q6...@corp.supernews.com> <3EBFE99A...@udel.edu>
> <vbvrpfi...@corp.supernews.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: jenny.lib.udel.edu
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> Xref: sn-us soc.men:1114507
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
So what about an actress like "Annie Potts" or "Laura Sangiacomo".
Both could be considered slim/skinny yet both have big breasts for their
size and shape frame.
Even Reece Witherspoon and others like her could be considered to have
breast larger then what their frame calls for.
Are they all fake? No.
But i hear women snickering together in their sewing circles about
how they *must* be fake.
Admiral Amereker
Sharon, they did not make Trans Ams in 1940.
HTH
Sky King
says...
> The Court of Public Opinion found that Jen Larson expressed the following opinions:
>
> >
> >
> > Bob wrote:
> >
> > The women with big boobs want little ones.
> >> The women with little tits want big ones. Women are never happy.
> >
> > Wrong. I've always loved my body, still do, big time.
He was saying talking about women in general..besides maybe you
already have big breasts.:)
Janet Hardy
RC Moonpie wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 07:06:30 CST, suzee <suz...@nidlink.com> wrote:
>
>>Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>What *is* it with so many of you, in that, you demand that straights
>>>accept your sexuality, *yet you refuse to do the same with ours*... ?
>>
>>It's not that we refuse to accept exculsive heterosexuality, but that
>>many straight people put people down for having or accepting
>>homosexuality. That's how this whole thing got started.
>
> i wont argue with that, there is a lot of prejudice against
> homosexuals.
>
> however, homosexuals often irritate hets by constantly shoving issues
> of sexuality in their faces all the time, to an obnoxious extent. We
> call it the "Hooray! I'm Gay!" thing.
>
> Do i care if you are gay? Nope, until you start making an ass out of
> yourself with it.
Heterosexuals tend to be pretty good flaunters themselves. Last I heard,
they have great big heterosexual celebrations, planned for months or
even years in advance, where they dress up in funny costumes, indulge in
weird rituals (sometimes even smearing confectionery all over each
other's faces and bodies in public), and insist that all their friends
and relations attend and participate. At the climax of this strange
bacchanal they adorn each other with heterosexual symbols in the form of
gold and precious jewels, often costing many months' income. Then they
take rolls and rolls of photographs of this bizarre behavior, make
scrapbooks which they force their friends to look at, and sometimes even
post prints of the most outrageous photos right there in the workplace.
</sarcasm> On a more serious note, how do you suggest that homosexuals
*not* "make asses of themselves"? How can your gay friends talk about
their day-to-day lives -- what they did for fun last night, what their
plans are for the weekend, who they love and who they hang out with, all
the things that *you* talk about without thinking twice -- without
"flaunting"?
Imagine for just a moment that you lived and worked in an entirely
gay-dominated environment where you were subject to ostracism, cruelty,
possible assault, possible job loss just for talking about your life and
love. Imagine having to think for a moment before you opened your mouth
to talk about anything at all that matters to you. Think about that
before the next time you accuse anybody of "flaunting" anything.
Bob
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 07:06:30 CST, suzee <suz...@nidlink.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Andre Lieven wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What *is* it with so many of you, in that, you demand that straights
>>>accept your sexuality, *yet you refuse to do the same with ours*... ?
>>
>>It's not that we refuse to accept exculsive heterosexuality, but that
>>many straight people put people down for having or accepting
>>homosexuality. That's how this whole thing got started.
>>
>
>
>
> i wont argue with that, there is a lot of prejudice against
> homosexuals.
>
> however, homosexuals often irritate hets by constantly shoving issues
> of sexuality in their faces all the time, to an obnoxious extent. We
> call it the "Hooray! I'm Gay!" thing.
>
> Do i care if you are gay? Nope, until you start making an ass out of
> yourself with it.
>
The constant barrage of gay posts to soc.men are exactly what you are
talking about, a rump rider making an ass out of himself.
Andre Lieven
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 11:40:04 CST, dg...@freenet.carleton.ca (Andre
> Lieven) wrote:
>
>>suzee (suz...@nidlink.com) writes:
>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>
>>>> What *is* it with so many of you, in that, you demand that straights
>>>> accept your sexuality, *yet you refuse to do the same with ours*... ?
>>>
>>> It's not that we refuse to accept exculsive heterosexuality, but that
>>> many straight people put people down for having or accepting
>>> homosexuality. That's how this whole thing got started.
>>
>>So, by claiming that " they started it ", your side then responds by
>>*doing the exact same thing* ?
>
> *we* started it.
Indeed, and thats so... Grace Two...
> It is quite strange sometimes. On one hand, many gay rights people
> demand equality. OK, quit making an issue out of it, just act like a
> person, quit harping on your sexual preference, and I'll treat you
> equal.
Eaxctly. If I'm running a store, all I care about is that you do your
job well enough, and that your looks don't scare off clients.
Who or what you fuck, I couldn't care less about.
> Then some gay rights people demand preferential treatment, ala, the
> whole minority thing, "i'm special because i'm unique and different".
The irony of " we're all special ".... <g>
> Keep sticking it in my face, that you are special because of your
> sexual preference, and you'll irritate me, and then i WILL
> descriminate against you, not based on your sexual preference, but
> based on the fact that you're an overbearing obsessive blowhard.
Yep. Its called... consequences. Don't want 'em ? Then, don't
earn them. QED.
> And inevitably, there will be those gay rights people that view
> descrimination against them based from the fact that they are just
> acting like assholes, as descrimination because of their sexual
> preference.
Indeed.
> So what is it that they want? Equality, or preferential treatment; or,
> preferential treatment disguised as equality?
Many appear to want the label of equal treatment, with the actual
treatment being special, defined as " more " rights.
How... Feminist.
> It's weird, it goes round and round. Point a finger, you got three
> more pointing back at you.
Badda bing.
Andre Lieven
Bzt. You failed the " apples to Buicks " test.
You might have a point, IF said hetero festivals were ones where
the partipants were very scantily dressed, flaunted that aspect
over all else, *and* were held in the streets, and were held by
people who *demanded* the *right* to hold it in the streets.
Oh, BTW... ? Most people at a wedding weren't forced to be there...
But, your dissing of another aspect of heterosexuality is now clear
to all.
> </sarcasm> On a more serious note, how do you suggest that homosexuals
> *not* "make asses of themselves"? How can your gay friends talk about
> their day-to-day lives -- what they did for fun last night, what their
> plans are for the weekend, who they love and who they hang out with, all
> the things that *you* talk about without thinking twice -- without
> "flaunting"?
I diunno, I don't talk about my love life indiscriminitely.
Perhaps learning restraint, in a sense beyond leather, would help
that...
> Imagine for just a moment that you lived and worked in an entirely
> gay-dominated environment where you were subject to ostracism, cruelty,
> possible assault, possible job loss just for talking about your life and
> love. Imagine having to think for a moment before you opened your mouth
> to talk about anything at all that matters to you. Think about that
> before the next time you accuse anybody of "flaunting" anything.
You've not been to a university lately, have you ?
BTW, there are many jurisdictions where job discrimination on such
bases is *illegal*. But, that fact doesn't fit into your whiny victimhood,
it would appear.
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> Janet Hardy (ver...@earthlink.net) writes:
>
>>>My own experience is that most women who are highly sexual and
>>>adventurous -- among whom I'd guess would be most porn actresses -- will
>>>eventually at least experiment with women. There's much less social
>>>pressure on women to be heterosexual than there is on men, F/F sex is
>>>lower risk than M/F sex, and really, there are very few things that a
>>>man and a woman can do together (reproduction aside) that two women can't.
>>
>> Other then piv sex... Many women don't find plastic and metal a
>> substitute for flesh, and more, the man whos with them...
>
> In fact, neither do I -- I strongly prefer an attached penis, and I tend
> to be fond of the people who come with them <pun intended>. But when I'm
> hankering for penetration, and the person I'm hot for doesn't come with
> the proper equipment, well, I'm a tool-using ape.
So would be any man when masturbating...
> In fact, I'm in the process of becoming involved with a man who, for
> medical reasons, cannot sustain an erection. We expect that dildos and
> harnesses (and fists, but that's another topic for another post) will
> become a significant part of our future. Turning him away because his
> parts don't work the way I wish they did sounds silly to me, and so
> would turning away a similarly attractive person who happened to have
> breasts and a vulva instead.
Nonetheless, the point remains that this is your personal *choice*,
and its not incumbent on *anyone else* to have to replicate it, in
order for them not to be called names for the different choices
that they prefer.
> Nobody I could have sex with owns all the parts I wish they did -- so
> far, I've never been approached by a functional hermaphrodite with four
> arms and a mouth on the back of their head ;) So I find ways to compensate.
And, those of us who are quite happy with the parts that come with
the one sex that we choose to date/live with/marry also ought to be
respected, or at least, not disrespected, for that.
>>>And fact is, there are just an awful lot of hot women out there. It's
>>>hard for me to imagine excluding half the human race for no better
>>>reason than the configuration of their chromosomes.
>>
>> Your imaginative limits are your own problem... As you're exactly
>> *mirroring* the sort of anti gay prejudice that many gay and bi
>> people complain about...
>
> I can't imagine having a penis (although I enjoy trying). That certainly
> doesn't mean I think there's anything wrong with having one.
Waffle. Re-read your comments, two 'graphs up.
" Its hard for *me* ( emphasis added ) to imagine excluding... "
That really speaks to your own imainative *limits*, not to anyone
else's right to make their own choices, free of the same amount
of dissin' that you want your choices to be free from.
> Your defensiveness is your own projection, not mine.
LOL. I do so love people who project... Remember, *I* wasn't the
person dissin' straight people, at the start of this thread...
> I *was*
> heterosexual for most of my adult life, a great many of my friends and
> lovers are heterosexual, and I think heterosexuality is just fine (along
> with homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality and any other consensual
> variant you can mention).
Then, don't diss any of them... " Its hard for me to imagine... "
>>>A woman who enjoys the occasional fling with a woman may or may not
>>>choose the label "bisexual" -- to me, the crossover point came when I
>>>realized that I was capable of being in love with a woman, not just
>>>having sex with one. But for someone who isn't dead set against the
>>>whole idea of same-gender sex, well, why not?
>>
>> How about, " Because its not to my tastes and interests " ?
>
> That's what I meant when I said "dead set against the whole idea." If
> you truly can't imagine ever being sexually attracted to someone whose
> gender isn't the one that usually attracts you, well, then, don't. My
> own belief and experience is that most people, given the chance to
> experiment without prejudice or social pressure, will do so, but some
> won't -- I used to have an employee who, in his mid-30s, could not
> remember ever having a sexual thought about a woman. Monosexuals exist,
Heterosexuals. Please don't re-label us without our consent, if you
oppose any of us doing that to you...
> but I believe that in a sex-positive culture they would be relatively rare.
" No one is entitled to an opinion. They are only entitled to an
*informed* opinion. " Harlan Ellison.
The fact that most people behave as heterosexuals, in a society
where what goes in in bedrooms isn't an issue, speaks to the fact
that most people tend to choose one range of desires.
Why does that seem to threaten you ?
>> What *is* it with so many of you, in that, you demand that straights
>> accept your sexuality, *yet you refuse to do the same with ours*... ?
>
> Oh for heaven's sake. Run a Google search on my name if you like -- I've
> done more for acceptance of all sexualities than you're likely to do in
> several lifetimes.
Yet, you've done the exact opposite, on this matter. I have no obligation
to use my limited time to look for what other's don't put up.
>>>To me, the question isn't so much "Why are so many Xs bisexual?" (insert
>>>any value for X -- porn actresses, BDSM women, swinging women, etc.) as
>>>it is, "Why are so many non-Xs monosexual?"
>>
>> Because thats what we *prefer*. Can you grasp the fact that you are
>> not the arbiter of anyone's desires but *your own* ?
>
> Goodness, you *are* defensive.
Translation: " You're right, but in a 'wrong way'... "
Uh huh. Try addressing the *question*, and not getting so personal,
since *you don't know me, either*...
> There's nothing at all wrong with being monosexual;
...but...
> I just wish people felt freer to make whatever choices they
> liked.
Translation: " I must find excuses as to why so many people *don't
choose what I chose*... "
The problem is, that your premise, that folks like myself would
choose other things, were we able to, is rendered false by the
fact that we are as free as we want, and we're just choosing
*what we prefer, which seems to be different from what you
prefer*.
And, thats the heart of gay anti-hetero intolerance. The need
to find some " reason " why hetero people are as they choose to be.
> In this culture, people -- most especially men -- don't feel that
> way, and I hate to see good sex being missed out on when it's there to
> be had.
Free Clue: I'll define what " good sex " is for me.
Sharon B
Lieven) wrote in <b9p1ck$rp$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>:
>I diunno, I don't talk about my love life indiscriminitely.
....like when you weren't talking about necking in your car with a
19-yo girl this past winter....
Elisobella
> Elisobella wrote:
>
> > Feminism is about asserting the rights of women to make their own
> > choices and to earn incomes commensurate with the job they do.
>
> This statement is, in my experience, only relatively true as far as it goes
> but it doesn't go far enough. What you don't mention is that most feminists
> are quite happy to sacrifice the basic rights and well being of men (and
> children) so that they can obtain even a minor advantage or convience.
> If feminism and feminists had taken an approact which attempted to
> strike a reasonable balance between the vital interests of men and children
> and women, then it, and they, would be much more credible, unfortunately,
> they have sought to obtain any and all rights, advantages and convience for
> women, regardless of the effect upon men and children.
> Even more reprehensible, when men have tried to gail some of the "freedom"
> and loosening of the "chains" of our old society (one of the promises of early
> feminist was that it would "free" women AND men), feminists have been the
> most ferocious opponents of ANY sort of re-evaluation of the role of men as
> walking wallets and zombie support systems for women...
>
> ...Ken
You generalize. There are many different kinds of feminists and many
difference strands of feminism.
Elisobella
> "Elisobella" <Eliso...@excite.com> wrote in message news:2476b63d.03051...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > I am a feminist and am not a man-hater nor
> > > > "severely-fucked-in-the-head", as you graphically put it.
> > >
> > > That remains to be seen. In my experience, feminist and man-hater are
> > > synonymous terms.
In your very limited experience, me thinks.
> >
> > How little you know. All my female friends are feminists and all have
> > male partners, including me.
>
> Proving what exactly? Many man-hating feminists have male partners.
> Unfortunately there are many men who buy into misandry, for various reasons.
Why on earth would man-haters be married to gorgeous men? All the
married guys to feminist women I know (and obviously I can only
account for my experience) are just ordinary lovely men. Your view of
feminism is very outdated. Your image of loud, vehement leather
wearing feminists has no place in the lives of most feminists I know.
We are women who love being women and love being with men. The
feminist movement has softened in many places.
Jen Larson
Andre Lieven wrote:
> > Many women and men find it
> > sexually arousing just to perform oral sex. You don't always need your
> > genitals directly stimulated to enjoy sexual activity. But you do need
> > sexuality, something that het women are lacking in.
> You MSspelled " *some* het women... "
Wow, Andre correcting a gross stereotype. I'm impressed.
Janet Hardy
chip on your shoulder is so large it's blocking your vision and I don't
make a habit of arguing with such people. However, one semantic point:
Monosexuals exist,
>
>
> Heterosexuals. Please don't re-label us without our consent, if you
> oppose any of us doing that to you...
"Monosexual" is not synonymous with "heterosexual." It is a term for
people who prefer to have sex with one gender only; it includes
exclusive heterosexuals and exclusive homosexuals. It's the opposite of
"bisexual" (or, for those who recognize the existence of more than two
genders, "pansexual").
Andre Lieven
When posting to soc.men, I tend to use the well understood convention
here that, when someone says " women ", when attaching that term to
a specific type of activity, it tends to mean either most " ( group ) ",
or something like " the majority of ( group ) ".
OTOH, when dealing with a crossposting, where this convention cannot
be *assumed* to exist and be so understood, then such a distinction
warrants it being pointed out.
Max Burke
> There are many different kinds of feminists and many difference
strands of feminism.
Feminism is, by definition, undefinable. Feminism is whatever any
particular feminist believes it is at that particular moment; A moment
later it's likely to be the exact opposite....
Feminism is simply an ideology justifying women receiving 'maximum
reward' for minimum effort based on the premise that being female, they
deserve to be rewarded and excused for being female......
As long as feminism claims women need only to rely on being female to be
any man's equal, then feminism condemns ALL women to always be less than
any man....
Feminism is, above all, a crutch to lean on for those that believe in
it; Only by their professed belief in feminism can they believe in
themselves.
--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
Jen Larson
~wd wrote:
>
> The Court of Public Opinion found that Jen Larson expressed the following opinions:
> >> thing most women say about a woman with large breast is: "They got to be
> >> fake"
> > No way. Women have large breasts, it's r-e-a-l-i-t-y. Now if it's a
> > skinny woman with huge breasts, you'll hear me say that, otherwise I
> > don't make a comment on breasts whatsoever.
> So what about an actress like "Annie Potts" or "Laura Sangiacomo".
They look within the normal range to me.
> Both could be considered slim/skinny yet both have big breasts for their
> size and shape frame.
Slightly, not obviously false according to their body fat tho.
> Even Reece Witherspoon and others like her could be considered to have
> breast larger then what their frame calls for.
No, not really. Propping up can give that impression tho.
> Are they all fake? No.
No, Pam Anderson is an obvious idea of what I'm talking about here...
> But i hear women snickering together in their sewing circles about
> how they *must* be fake.
No you don't! There's no way in Hades you could possibly be caught
loitering around sewing circles!