SEX question

af_thefragile wrote: »

Men are more visual and think about the act itself. Why men's magazines contains of naked girls and lots of tits.

Women are more visceral and think about the things before/leading to the act such as flirting, foreplay etc. Which is why women's magazines and trashy novels have a lot of crap about "top 10 tips" and a lot of flirting, foreplay, dirty talk etc.


And from some of the girls I've come to known, they think about all that crap a lot more than men do. They might not think about sex and get horny as often. But they think about flirting with that guy and what he might be like to kiss or in bed etc. a lot of the time...

For men its more of ohh she's hot!, check out her legs, arse and tits... I better make a visit to the bathroom... And it over.

Actually to be honest, I think the differences in women and men's magazines is again based on the outward appearance women want to have. The magazines conform to this idea that women only want and need emotional connections and not simple physical ones. I think they evolved that way to suit what socially acceptable norms required. I'm female and I would love it if it was more acceptable for women to be gawking at nude magazines filled with sexy men! But if I were to own a magazine like that, like Playgirl, I'd be absolutely slaughtered by mates for it. Where as with my male mates; they are more than comfortable talking to each other about magazines like that and about women in that context.
It's like all the fuss about the Hunky Dory's ad with the scantily clad women...people saying it objectifies and sexualises women. My ONLY complaint was that they hadn't brought out a men's version of that! If the guys get something to druel over, why the feck shouldn't us girls get the same?? And I think it's BECAUSE of this 'social expectation' crap that ads like that don't ever appear, except in joking terms.

Saila wrote: »

so when you see a guy you dont check him out
and do a quick mental checklist and with I would, I would not.. which lasts about a second or two

No.
I don't tend to even notice what people look like.
Like say if I was in a shop, and the guy at the till was ridiculously good looking - of course I'd notice.
But if I was walking down the road and that same guy was walking along, I wouldn't even notice him.
Compared to my husband who is clearly looking at every girls boobs and ass that is in his eye line (he probably thinks he's being subtle bless him!)

From my social circle Id reckon young guys (as in teens/early 20s) are the more sex obsessed, and as women get older they get hornier. It definately varies person to person aswell though, some of the girls I know are absolute nymphos and some of the guys I know would be the ones to stop things going further to stop ruining friendships etc whereas the girls are more into the act itself/f-buddies etc. Which would go against the general perception of males/females in society imo.

I think guys probably do think more about sex than girls. Men have higher testosterone levels, causing a higher sex drive, so that's some obvious biological evidence for you. Having said that, we're still anatomically very similar, so from that perpective, there's no reason to suggest that women shouldn't have a high sex drive. From an evolutionary point of view, surely its "useful" for women to want and enjoy having sex.

What people have said about guys feeling pressure to talk about sex, and girls perhaps feeling pressured to "keep it quiet" is actually very interesting. Despite leaps and bounds in equality, like it or not, a promiscuous women will often be deemed a slut. This attitude isn't nearly as commonly applied to men.

Its pretty common knowledge that any girl can get casual sex if she so wants it - from my experience anyway. Depending obviously on how physically attractive she is, she may or may not be able to pull the hottest guy in the room, but nonetheless, I think if a girl decided she wanted to bring a guy home that night, she'd find someone willing.
On the other hand, it seems much harder for guys. Obviously the hot guys have girls lining up to sleep with them, but for a lot of men its just not like that.
I think if the same proportion of women were up for casual sex as men, a lottt more people would go home together.

I'm not saying, of course, that girls don't have casual sex, or that a lot of us aren't up for casual sex. Its definitely hidden more though. As a girl, I'd only tell my "stories" to friends/family who I know won't judge. Some of my friends would never even dream of having a ONS, whereas for others its totally normal and something we'd basically have the banter over.

ALSO, someone mentioned that they knew men they suspected of being virgins at 30, yet no women. I don't find this surprising or indictive of anything tbh. I would guess that most guys who are virgins at 30 are shy guys who are no good with women. I'd imagine (in most cases at least) that its not because they have a low sex drive, but because they have social anxiety, are depressed or just aren't confident enough to even talk to women. Women, on the other hand, are far less likely to be virgins at a older age because if a women wants to even try sex, its not that difficult. Even a women who is shy or not the best looking could probabaly get someone to sleep with her.

44leto wrote: »

You are joking,as a reason for an affair, a big maybe, but as a reason for a casual bit of unfaithfulness, noway.

Yes, I am joking - funny huh? :P

Well all the stats will tell you otherwise.
It is about issues within the relationship - feeling rejected, feeling unloved, feeling misunderstood, feeling unappreciated and so on.
Sex comes into it, but the majority of infidelity isn't just about sex.

44leto wrote: »

Or the ovaries:D

Nature or culture, in nature a man wants to spread his seed so his genes has maximum advantage of living on. But a woman want to have as many different gene types so she will have maximum advantage of her genes living on.

But in culture the pair bond has the maximum advantage, in that in primal times their mutual off springs could live on, but a man could be cuckolded into raring another man's child. So that culture of the pair bond could make for a lot of natural infidelity.

But we are no longer in a cave.

It makes sense to be monogamous though.
Spread of diseases being the main reason.

There are actually more polygamous cultures in the world than monogamous ones if I remember correctly.

I can't remember specifics, but we did it in psychology, and in sociology before, and the studies seemed to lead to the conclusion that we were not set as one or the other, like most animals are.

I guess it is left up to us to decide which we are!