More questions about sex...

[Captain Oates 910]

No, I did not use '' for that purpose. Where I to have wanted to quote you, I would have used "" or .

You have made some pretty negative statements about women for example:

What does that mean if it does not mean that for you, nothing about women is worth the effort of having to deal with them and what about that shows that you place an equal value on women as you do men?

I don't shack up with men - I shack up with women.

Just because I dont shack up with men doesn't mean I dont like them (as people)

Just because I will never shack up with another woman doesn't mean I dont like them (as people).

What it means is, it's not worth the hassle from either. Peace cand tranquility is the objective.

Some women love being the opposite of dominant. I can tell you for certain, that given the choice, any man who has been married 10 years would choose that type next time.

They wouldn't go for a berater and a judger and a demander - that type should be alone with their cats and their dark thoughts about men..

Yes, I have ethical objections but I am not only okay about it being legal, I think it would improve the situation of prostitutes significantly - it would not remove all the problems but it would lessen them considerably.

You are confusing caring about a particular individual's choices (I do not) with being interested in how people arrive at their values and what these values are just because it is an interesting subject. Ultimately I can't do anything about someone elses values, nor would I try (despite those who seem to see that in the things I post). However, if someone says something that does not make sense to me, I will try to get more information. If they do not wish to provide it they do not have to and I will not insist that they do nor will I lose any sleep over it. So, either continue to contribute to the discussion because you also find it interesting or not, your prerogative.

Queen bee complex or what !

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't shack up with men - I shack up with women.

Just because I dont shack up with men doesn't mean I dont like them (as people)

Just because I will never shack up with another woman doesn't mean I dont like them (as people).

What it means is, it's not worth the hassle from either. Peace cand tranquility is the objective.

Some women love being the opposite of dominant. I can tell you for certain, that given the choice, any man who has been married 10 years would choose that type next time.

They wouldn't go for a berater and a judger and a demander - that type should be alone with their cats and their dark thoughts about men..

Queen bee complex or what !

Why do you categorize women as either submissive or berater, judger, demander? Surely there are more personality types than that amongst women?

Neither category is very flattering by the way - even in a sexual context.

[slim 1,514]

What value do you personally place on sexual exclusivity (monogamous relationships) if you do? (Because my god demands it is NOT an answer)

If you do not currently place a value on sexual exclusivity, can you imagine a time when you might want to enter a monogamous relationship, and what change in personal circumstances do you envisage that would make this an attractive option? (if you have already made this change, same question)

For clarification, sexual includes all the varieties of full sexual contact - not 'kissing and heavy petting'.

How much does the fear of sexual disease affect your decisions relating to number of partners that you consider 'appropriate' (either serial or simultaneous)?

Personally I place the value of sexual exclusivity to be the same as the value of trust or "someone's word." It's useless in terms of monetary value, but it's invaluable in terms of securing credit or a relationship with someone. If you've entered into an agreement with your partner to be exclusive, the only way to place a value on it would be for a lawyer to draw up a pre-nup. Or, you mutually "value" each other's agreement.

As of right now, sexual disease has zero to do with my decisions relating to number of partners because I am exclusive with one. Back when I had mulitiple partners, it also had zero to do with decisions. I've always approached the subject of sexual diseases from a standpoint of personal protective equipment, not a number of participants involved.

I will say, quite typically as I got more exclusive with someone, my PPE level fell dramatically. Probably not so much because I was worried about catching something from them, but more because I knew who they were and where they lived so I could track them down if something went wrong.

Well there's the thing - I really do not believe that women who enjoy less traditional sexual liasons should be described in this way, even self deprecatingly. Time to move forward. My problems with prostitution stem much more from the fact that men see having sex with a woman who has no interest in him as 'normal' than any notion that casual sexual relationships are inherently 'wrong'.

How would you have them be described?

In many circumstances, men could care less whether their partner is interested or not. Hence the whole prostitution thing. And, if it wasn't normal, we wouldn't have prostitutes or fat girls getting laid at 2:15 anymore.

How does a man (or woman) who thinks that way develop a feel for what a partner enjoys/dislikes if they don't develop a sensitivity/care about the person they are having sex with on any level?

Men can turn it off and on. Sometimes a woman is simply a vaginal life support machine and that's the only way he's going to see her and his interest could stop right there.

Other times, when he's really interested in more than just sex, he'll do whatever he can to satisfy his lady.I think you'd be surprised at the lengths men will go to in order to impress someone they're actually interested in. Probably equally surprised how we can just turn it off.

the girl is wearing a bikini, she is not wearing a bikini that accentuates any part of her anatomy, she is not acting provocatively or in a way that would attract specific attention on a beach - it's a fail.

I'd have to disagree. Any girl wearing a bikini and approaching me business end first is going to gather my attention. Whether that was her intent or not cannot be gathered simply by that photo.

If men did what they were supposed to do, there would be no need for the nag reminder.

This is supported by my wife as well.

Never had my hair combed and slippers brought to me since. It was great while it lasted.

I once had a woman service me and then cut my toenails. I almost proposed.

I am interested in the people who want to explain their values when it comes to sexual relationships.

I think one doesn't necessarily apply to the other and it's impossible to generalize them all as doing such. Trying to place a hooker/john "relationship" into the same category as two happily married poeples' is impossible to do yet it's been attempted several times here.

I guess you're trying to make the connection that a man who would simply use a woman for ####### and not care about her one bit is incapable of forming healthy relationships with his partner. That's incorrect. It is possible.

Again, it shows that you see women as merely a means to an end, not having any value in their own right as human beings that you might want to have friendships with. How very limiting that would be, if true.

I don't want to be friends with the guy who changes my brakes at Midas any more than I want to be friends with the hooker who removes the ejaculate from my testicles.

The "relationships" are that simple. A service for payment. No friends involved.

While this happens and people do use other people for sex, that doesn't necessarily mean they're incapable of having a healthy relationship with someone they're interested in. It simply means they've "flipped the switch" for that person.

Before you get all mad.... women do it too. Probably moreso then men, actually, we're just not as embarrassed by it.

[Captain Oates 910]

Why do you categorize women as either submissive or berater, judger, demander? Surely there are more personality types than that amongst women?

Neither category is very flattering by the way - even in a sexual context.

See there you go again - that is YOUR personal opinion (flattering)but you issue it like you are the judge and the norm in society

I find a submissive extremely attractive - and moreover I am entitled to

I find dominant women indescribably repugnant - I am entitled to

Neither label (I know you like labels) implies that the woman is not confident and accomplished and educated so don't try and tie it to such

I like a highly educated, 'got it together', responsible and ambitious woman and many submissives are just that so don't paint it like I need a submissive to support my own fragile ego because my ego is not in the least fragile and I am self validating too.

[Captain Oates 910]

Before you get all mad.... women do it too. Probably moreso then men, actually, we're just not as embarrassed by it.

Slim you are a man of the world - a man's man and you tell it like it is without fear.

You are an example to us all us men and I salute you

I can see why women love us now.

[Peikko 1,575]

Geez Slim you answered then went off on some rant about $ value as if that's the only way value can be assigned.

Women who want to experiment with sexual relationships without settling down should not have any specific name assigned to them, nor should men, oh wait no one does that to a man.

I'll have to take your word for the 'switch' analogy because I don't have one of those switches.

No, I am not trying to put the two relationships into the same category, in fact the opposite is true - I believe that there is a problem with validating sexual relationships that blatantly disregard the emotional/sexual needs of a woman because it necessarily lends credence to the notion that such a view is 'normal' and acceptable even outside the narrow confines of prostitution. (several men have said that this is their attitude as regards all casual relationships which would not lead to them having sex casually if they stated that up front to a well adjusted woman) I am also wondering what exactly is the attraction for a sexual encounter that disregards the emotional/sexual needs of the other participant participant and why that is preferable to masturbation?

I am also not in the least bit satisfied that women who engage in prostitution come out the other side as well adjusted, normal women who can go on and have a normal relationship and children - there seems little evidence to suggest that this is true for most prostitutes which begs the question, are they really sufficiently compensated for what they do and is the need for men to satisfy the urge to #### without having to bother with anything except renting a ####### an acceptable price to pay?

I am also not trying to suggest men would or should be friends with a hooker - not sure how you got there from a specific question to a specific poster about something he said bout women, not hookers.

[slim 1,514]

I can see why women love us now.

They only love me because I care about their mutual gratification.

[Captain Oates 910]

They only love me because I care about their mutual gratification.

You wouldn't care about that if they were ripping on you for 4 hours before

Diff between us and them is it wouldn't stop us

They have no idea what they are dealing with

Well some haven't

Geez Slim you answered then went off on some rant about $ value as if that's the only way value can be assigned.

Women who want to experiment with sexual relationships without settling down should not have any specific name assigned to them, nor should men, oh wait no one does that to a man.

I'll have to take your word for the 'switch' analogy because I don't have one of those switches.

No, I am not trying to put the two relationships into the same category, in fact the opposite is true - I believe that there is a problem with validating sexual relationships that blatantly disregard the emotional/sexual needs of a woman because it necessarily lends credence to the notion that such a view is 'normal' and acceptable even outside the narrow confines of prostitution. (several men have said that this is their attitude as regards all casual relationships which would not lead to them having sex casually if they stated that up front to a well adjusted woman) I am also wondering what exactly is the attraction for a sexual encounter that disregards the emotional/sexual needs of the other participant participant and why that is preferable to masturbation?

I am also not in the least bit satisfied that women who engage in prostitution come out the other side as well adjusted, normal women who can go on and have a normal relationship and children - there seems little evidence to suggest that this is true for most prostitutes which begs the question, are they really sufficiently compensated for what they do and is the need for men to satisfy the urge to #### without having to bother with anything except renting a ####### an acceptable price to pay?

I am also not trying to suggest men would or should be friends with a hooker - not sure how you got there from a specific question to a specific poster about something he said bout women, not hookers.

are you writing a book or just getting off on all this ?

[Peikko 1,575]

See there you go again - that is YOUR personal opinion (flattering)but you issue it like you are the judge and the norm in society

I find a submissive extremely attractive - and moreover I am entitled to

I find dominant women indescribably repugnant - I am entitled to

Neither label (I know you like labels) implies that the woman is not confident and accomplished and educated so don't try and tie it to such

I like a highly educated, 'got it together', responsible and ambitious woman and many submissives are just that so don't paint it like I need a submissive to support my own fragile ego because my ego is not in the least fragile and I am self validating too.

Who is saying that you are not 'entitled' to believe submissive is attractive and dominant repugnant? What I asked was, why do you think women have to be either one thing or the other? Have you ever had a sexual relationship that was not founded upon this dynamic?

You wouldn't care about that if they were ripping on you for 4 hours before

Diff between us and them is it wouldn't stop us

They have no idea what they are dealing with

Well some haven't

are you writing a book or just getting off on all this ?

Neither. Either address it or ignore it, but if you don't think scoring cheap points is seemly, don't do it.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[mawilson 2,133]

Wait a minute.... Who has sex outside of a relationship?

Something like 50 percent of all married couples.

[Captain Oates 910]

What I asked was, why do you think women have to be either one thing or the other? Have you ever had a sexual relationship that was not founded upon this dynamic?

Women ARE one thing or the other just like a cat is cat and a dog is dog

Ever seen two lesbians ?

One is small and pretty and soft bosomed and powdered and scented and demure - the other is Rachel Maddow

Get the picture ?

[slim 1,514]

Geez Slim you answered then went off on some rant about $ value as if that's the only way value can be assigned.

Should I have assigned a value like "I'd give my life for her?"

What's a good way to quantify something that's invaluable?

Women who want to experiment with sexual relationships without settling down should not have any specific name assigned to them, nor should men, oh wait no one does that to a man.

Sure they do. Men are called pimps, players, hustlers, macks, studs, lady-killers, ladies man, etc. However, for every one of those, there's a guy out there who thinks that's kind of gross, even if he does high-five his buddy at the pub.

I think you'll find open-minded men could give two sh!ts about how many men a woman's been with.

I'll have to take your word for the 'switch' analogy because I don't have one of those switches.

Nor would I expect you to have one. You're a woman!

Some of the more modern versions (maven and amby come to mind) are equipped with them.

No, I am not trying to put the two relationships into the same category, in fact the opposite is true - I believe that there is a problem with validating sexual relationships that blatantly disregard the emotional/sexual needs of a woman because it necessarily lends credence to the notion that such a view is 'normal' and acceptable even outside the narrow confines of prostitution. (several men have said that this is their attitude as regards all casual relationships which would not lead to them having sex casually if they stated that up front to a well adjusted woman)

I believe it's up to the two consenting parties up front. If one doesn't believe the other or is used by the other... that's kind of their fault. I'm a firm believer in both parties being responsible for what happens in relationships.

It is 'normal' for men to view women in that way when they don't care about them. Women too, if applicable. (Back to that "switch" I was talking about.)

I am also wondering what exactly is the attraction for a sexual encounter that disregards the emotional/sexual needs of the other participant participant and why that is preferable to masturbation?

Have you ever had sex?

While it's not always better than masturbation, it's still pretty good. I guess to justify this in your head, you should start looking at sex with a person who someone is not interested in as a form of masturbation. The person being used is no different than a sex toy.

I am also not in the least bit satisfied that women who engage in prostitution come out the other side as well adjusted, normal women who can go on and have a normal relationship and children - there seems little evidence to suggest that this is true for most prostitutes which begs the question, are they really sufficiently compensated for what they do and is the need for men to satisfy the urge to #### without having to bother with anything except renting a ####### an acceptable price to pay?

Then they should up their rates.

I am also not trying to suggest men would or should be friends with a hooker - not sure how you got there from a specific question to a specific poster about something he said bout women, not hookers.

Hookers make great friends. Remember, sometimes that meter's off!

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

I don't know, Alan. I think I'm somewhere in between the soft, pretty and scented and Rachel Maddow. On the one hand, I'm a take charge kind of woman, who knows what she wants and isn't shy about it. On the other hand, I recognise what you might call "sub" tendencies within myself -- I enjoy pleasing men, and in particular being stereotypically "feminine" while I do that. I feel a distinct tension between these two aspects of myself, and I almost wonder at times as if there is a public persona (dominant) and private one (submissive).

[slim 1,514]

You wouldn't care about that if they were ripping on you for 4 hours before

Diff between us and them is it wouldn't stop us

They have no idea what they are dealing with

Well some haven't

Exactly. I don't care if she's been nagging all day long. As soon as it's ####### time, it's on like donkey kong.

There's an interesting type of woman who will nag and nag and nag... until she gets some to shut her up. Tie that into being ignored, not enough attention, daddy never hugged me, etc., but they're out there. Really good times, too.

But, that sh!t gets old after a while, especially when there are others who know how to get it without all the b!tching.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

What happens after the man climaxes?

Who cares!