well... it's just a sad fact that men get aroused easily. But for your sake, i'll say no for a while, so the rest of you can get laid more often [img]wink.gif[/img]
How come it is when it comes to sex men find it a hard time say no. This puts us in a state of always wanting it because somehow women are better or have excuses and can decline sex. Where as a guy usually will never turn down sex. And then women sit and wonder how all we can think about is sex. And how come we seem to have to WANT it all the time. I think if men said NO THANKS more often it would reverse the power struggle of men wanting the sex.
Also along the same topic I wonder why it seems that a man can become sexual (NOT ROMANTIC) at a given moments notice almost anywhere. Yet but % women are only usually romantic sexually when they seem to be in private place... ie Home, Hotel. Where as a guy would or could pick in the car, at the lake, on the beach, work place, elevator (hopefully no heads fall off), high in the stands at a baseball game... on an on. Yet when was the last time you said saw a lady wanting to get frisky in some new wild place? It isnt like they run around thinking out loud... wow there is no one between the 7th and 9th green we should have a quicky right here on the 8th and hope we dont get caught [img]redface.gif[/img]
well... it's just a sad fact that men get aroused easily. But for your sake, i'll say no for a while, so the rest of you can get laid more often [img]wink.gif[/img]
i think social values play a big part of it, as
already mentioned... but, again, i must suggest
natural tendencies in this area (why do we always
forget we are animal?).
schopenhauer would suggest that its the antagonistic
WILL that desires to be fed (through itself)...
and that the primary 'hard-wiring' of any male
is to produce and spread seed in as many females
as possible...
whereas the females are only intent on becoming
pregnant.
while it is naturally not the male's association
to be concerned with the latter... it is social
values imposed upon the males that create a
dam of sorts from the natural inclination to
spread seed.... therefore the WILL is thwarted...
though still present.
although females do desire pregnancy (through
the WILL)... females out number males on a
natural scale of (at least) 4 to 1... (sometimes
greater). this is all mathematically precise...
in terms of the stages of pregnancy, weening, etc.
it all revolves around some intricate ridiculous
scheme... that....
while one is at the beginning stages of pregnancy,
another is ending pregnancy, a third is nurturing,
and the fourth is weening (soon to be ready to
reproduce again).
but then again... it all depends on what you wanna believe [img]tongue.gif[/img]
<font size="4" face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Let's play Jeopardy...Originally posted by shatzy:
i think social values play a big part of it, as
already mentioned... but, again, i must suggest
natural tendencies in this area (why do we always
forget we are animal?).
schopenhauer would suggest that its the antagonistic
WILL that desires to be fed (through itself)...
and that the primary 'hard-wiring' of any male
is to produce and spread seed in as many females
as possible...
whereas the females are only intent on becoming
pregnant.
while it is naturally not the male's association
to be concerned with the latter... it is social
values imposed upon the males that create a
dam of sorts from the natural inclination to
spread seed.... therefore the WILL is thwarted...
though still present.
although females do desire pregnancy (through
the WILL)... females out number males on a
natural scale of (at least) 4 to 1... (sometimes
greater). this is all mathematically precise...
in terms of the stages of pregnancy, weening, etc.
it all revolves around some intricate ridiculous
scheme... that....
while one is at the beginning stages of pregnancy,
another is ending pregnancy, a third is nurturing,
and the fourth is weening (soon to be ready to
reproduce again).
but then again... it all depends on what you wanna believe [img]tongue.gif[/img]
GT rings in..."What post can you make to turn a somewhat interesting thread into the most boring and ridiculous ever posted? Alex"
Alex responds..."You are correct GT!!!"
now to my point....that was the stupidest respond i've ever read
to you, that is a given....
but then again... i gave a short version [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img]
and i'm almost curious as to why you find it such
a ridiculous justification.... there are other
modes of justification that are VERY similar.........
...........
The genetic makeup of men and women is pretty much the same, and of about 100k genes that make us human (as opposed to some species like Forum405/Alex), only one chromosome is responsible for all the biological differences between men and women. The gene is called the testes determining factor, or TDF, an is located on the Y chromosome.
The Y chromosome is the only one of the 46 chromosomes found only in men, not in women, and its obvious place to look for differences between the two sexes. Anytime a Y chromosome is present, even in oddities, a male will develop and by contrast, the absence of Y caused a female to develop.
Further, just the other day while at my midnight gas station clerk job, a voluptuously vivacious woman entered the store about 2am. As she passed the counter I "Recognized" her and immediately (within three seconds as all speed seducers would) said, "Hey".
She stopped and came over to the counter. I was lower than her because I had been sitting my ass on two milk crates, you know, chilling and shit. God damn her rack was the most huge tanned area I've ever seen on a girl. In this cindy lauper voice she asked, "What?".
Me: What's your name
VVW: Annie, and you're aaron, nice to meetcha (she looked at my name badge)
Me: What did you do today, annie?
VVW: I hung out with my ole' man at our pool. That's why my hair looks a mess. (meaning, I'm older than you, in a generation where women called their bf "old man")
Me: Let me see your hand (no ring). I think you're beautiful with your hair wet.
VVW: Don't try and "mack" me
Me: Is your boyfriend black?
VVW: Why? You think your c@*k is larger than his?
Me: Yep.
VVW: How big?
Me: Wanna see it?
VVW: Yep.
I took her to the gas station office, purchased a box of trojan-enz, and put a sign on the door: "Store closed for approx. 1 hour. Registers down". I actually spent about another ten minutes with annie. And I havent seen her again since then. But she promised she'd come back to hook up with me again.
So then, the perception that women have lower sex drives, are less likely to bang tail, is all socially constructed nonsense. Biologically, women are as driven to reproduce (via sex) as men are. But socially, you have to be a pimp like me to spot the easy ones and let them jump your bones.
If you aren't getting banged in the bleachers, then you're hooking up with the wrong chicks, or, perhaps, you should practice some transiitional phrases that let the right chicks know it's okay to take a crack at you.
<font size="4" face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">*ahem*now to my point....that was the stupidest respond i've ever read
<font color="#ffffff"><font size="1">[ August 20, 2003 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Omar de Fati ]</font></font>
<font color="#ffffff" size="1">[ August 20, 2003 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Omar de Fati ]</font>
LMMFAO!!! what a great post..... [img]cool.gif[/img]
the reason i make that comment is because i didn't feel that this thread was particularly asking for an in depth study of the differene between male and female animals as stated from the viewpoint of 3 different psychologists.
well i don't particularly care what you expected.
he asked a general Q and thats how i answered it.
sheeesh! [img]confused.gif[/img]
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks