• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Economic model of sexual access

OK Nik, like I said you're the go to expert about female sexuality. You should charge a fee. :)
 
Nik said:
judging people you don't even know.
Click to expand...

If this is your impressions about most women, I think it's ironic that you say this. What you're saying sounds like some kind of hyperbolic fabrication.

Nik said:
I hate dates and the idea of having to impress a woman
Click to expand...

Wow, what a casanova you are. :rolleyes2:
 
@Salento

A Roman nose does not look the way you described it, nor does it look like that statue of Cleopatra's. The pictures Angela posted are more representative of it, and as we can see from Pompey, they didn't all have a uniform nose. At any rate, that's off-topic; so that's all I'm going to say in regards to it in this thread.
 
@jovalis I I was talking about noses in general.
I said that Cleopatra looks Greekish, not Roman.
Read it!
 
Salento, just stop. Why are you insisting that a nose with a hook at the bottom is the definitive or typical nose for either Romans or Greeks? I don't get it. Did you google Greek and Roman art and statuary? It just isn't the case as anyone can see.
 
Ok. [emoji846] got it. :)
 
Angela said:
OK Nik, like I said you're the go to expert about female sexuality. You should charge a fee. :)
Click to expand...
Someone has to be.

P.s. for the rest, I'm only sharing my opinion and experience, but Angela has the power to counter opinions and experiences too if they don't match hers.

Jovialis said:
If this is your impressions about most women, I think it's ironic that you say this. What you're saying sounds like some kind of hyperbolic fabrication.
Click to expand...
Sorry, to which sentence were you referring too?

And whatever that sentence might be, when you equal sexuality with "impression about women" means that you're the kind of person that judges people over trivial matters. There's more to a woman than her biological needs/desires which we all have but since 2000 years some of us continue to carry a milder version of the idea that beautiful women are witches and should be burnt.

Ironically, I think more highly of women than I do of men. They're the reason why most humans grow up sane and loved and they're the first to push for family, commitment, responsibility, as well as taking care of parents or siblings. We men are on average way below women in all those regards.
Jovialis said:
Wow, what a casanova you are. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
You seem confused as to what casanova means, boy. I thought everyone should know that what I stated is the extreme opposite of a casanova.
 
@Nik
It's clear to me that you know nothing about women. As a matter of fact, I'd suggest you stop embarrassing yourself. I also suggest you choose your words carefully, and don't speak to me in a disrespectful manner. I don't know what kind of women you're supposedly hanging out with, but it sounds absolutely ridiculous. As a matter of fact, it sounds like you're t-rolling with your strident manner, and weird anecdotes. Or you get your knowledge from watching YouTube videos made by embittered individuals.
 
A few suggestions of mine. No-one is expected to fully (or, for that matter, even partly) agree. Hope I won't shock anybody.

I think we should not put everything in the same "bag", but distinguish between situations. Our sex life is determined by diverse urges and conflicting priorities. Also, "nature" and "culture" probably often clash in such matters.

Sex. "Nature". Sex is one of the most deeply ingrained instincts in the human psyche, along with self-preservation. I can't think why women wouldn't share in it equally with men. I think a healthy single woman, in the contraceptive pill era, can be just as tempted as a man by an overnight no-strings-attached affair with a good "performer". What may hold her back is "culture" - centuries of religious/moral coercion mostly imposed by men (see below) - and a concern for her social image.
As for men, I think sex has always somehow been connected with "power". Men are caught in a sort of tacit Darwinian competition for more… - more land, more money, more glory, more political power... and more women. Collecting women is part of that quest for fame, for influence. It comes down to saying : "See, guys… I'm the best". It's that "mine is bigger" kind of stuff. It all begins in High School, and you get trapped in it, whether you like it or not.

Procreation. Also a deeply rooted "need", linked to that notion that having children is somehow a way of "surviving oneself". In this perspective, after millenia of a perilous life in often precarious conditions, women may have learnt to pick their men on one criterion : reliability. Then they would no longer look for a sex mate, but for a father, who would help, care and protect. I'll concede it's no longer true in modern industrialized societies, where women can cope alone, and sometimes choose to. But millenia of fear probably left a lasting subconscious trace. In a wilder world, men, being on the whole more muscular, more aggressive, not subjected to the hazards of pregnancies, were more efficient in fighting off predators and enemies, providing, etc... (Hence patriarchy, probably). Before the pill, with risks of pregnancy running high, and knowing what men are like, it was no doubt safer for a woman to put her partner's commitment to the test beforehand, just in case…
On the men's side, there was always that lingering fear that the child might not be his own. To remove the doubts, men used both brawn and brain, chose to constrain and compel, and invented various tricks : social discredit, religious proscriptions, harems... Faithfulness in their women guaranteed better chances of legitimate offspring.
So priorities were different, but pointed towards the same end : institutional monogamy.

Marriage. Logically followed. But marriage is a long-term contract. So it involves other forms of attachment than just mutual physical attraction or a "paternal profile" : respect, tenderness, shared values, etc… basically, what we call "love". Marriage, in my opinion, is not "natural". It is "cultural". It helps sublimate desires that would otherwise be among the most animal ones in humans. For centuries, women were married off to men they had hardly met. Not all those marriages were failures. When people prove considerate, things can work out. And sex, whether satisfactory or not, becomes, to a degree, a side issue.

I think we are all heirs to those conflicting temptations and injunctions. Then upbringing, moral standards, experience – and maybe mere chance – make the difference.
 
@Angela
Me? Living in a dream world? Today has Literally Happen. True.
I’m living the dream! gone Tropical. Left the cold behind. (just for next few days).
Maybe I’m a bit stupid and boring. Nothing I can do about It, but , I don’t think so at all. :)
 
@Angela. Better than The Walking Dead, but not half as good as Sex and the City. You should see how some very married, very middle-aged women behave when away from home on seminars. Hardly any difference from males. And, before the old clichés re-emerge, I'm not talking about French women. A dream world ? I wouldn't call it that... More like a nightmare world in some respects. Or more likely somewhere in between : men (homo, not vir) will be men, half way between god and beast...

[Edit] Your Wikipedia link above confirms part of (most of) what I wrote. I wonder why my remarks were - it seems, kind of disdainfully - brushed aside.
 
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Plac 'd on this isthmus in a middle state,
A being darkly wise and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic 's pride,
He hangs between ; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas 'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much ;
Chaos of Thought and Passion , all confus 'd;
Still by himself abus 'd, or disabus 'd;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of Truth, in endless Error hurl 'd:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world !

Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
 
hrvclv said:
@Angela. Better than The Walking Dead, but not half as good as Sex and the City. You should see how some very married, very middle-aged women behave when away from home on seminars. Hardly any difference from males. And, before the old clichés re-emerge, I'm not talking about French women. A dream world ? I wouldn't call it that... More like a nightmare world in some respects. Or more likely somewhere in between : men (homo, not vir) will be men, half way between god and beast...

[Edit] Your Wikipedia link above confirms part of (most of) what I wrote. I wonder why my remarks were - it seems, kind of disdainfully - brushed aside.
Click to expand...

I didn't at all mean to brush aside your remarks, much less disdainfully. I'm sorry you took it that way.

To disagree, and perhaps not totally, doesn't mean I hold your opinions in contempt. I do disagree slightly. As for the links, the way I understood the data is that while there are indeed some women who have had multiple sexual partners, without commitment, the modern perception put about by television shows like "Sex in the City" are an exaggeration. A lot of women, the majority, in my opinion, don't act that way at all.

I love the Pope poem, btw, and agree with the sentiments. How nice someone else around here likes poetry. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top