Men and their.. insatiable lust

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

I do ignore some points because I'm too tired of this debate(not really a debate) and answer what I have the energy to answer.

That’s jolly convenient. It must be very handy to get so sleepy whenever any discussion doesn’t go in the direction you want or you’re faced with a question that you’d prefer was not asked. Of course, should the debate begin to become more agreeable you magically seem to get a second wind.

But tell you another one what?

Tell us another lie.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Beloved Wickinight, thou who are so fond of sources and back-up for one's arguements: What scientific research suggests this?

I saw it on that BBC program about the human species ... each week it dealt with a specific topic, sex food religion etc and the biological rationals behind them. If that sound too anti-religious or anti-love, I would point of that the presenter, Robert Winston, is a christian AFAIK

I can't remember the name of the series, but I haven't looked very hard (plus its 1.15am ) If I find it I will post it

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Beloved Wickinight, thou who are so fond of sources and back-up for one's arguements: What scientific research suggests this?

Quick google found some more info on the program where I saw this

It was in the episode "As Time Goes By", in the BBC series The Human Body, which explored why and how we grow old instead of just dying after our child bearing years are over.

From the BBC blurb

Humans are the only mammals to live beyond their child-bearing years, and this programme examines the ravages of ageing. Professor Robert Winston explains why baldness and wrinkles set in, and how we become more vulnerable to diseases and accidents

Nevyn

What I find bizzare is the asumption that there aren't women out there that are
just as sexually driven as men.
Just because it is not talked about amoung the general populous does not mean
there are not women out there and a lot of them that are just as 'bad'.

Bad really is not the correct word, as long as people are honest with themsleves
about thier needs and drives and don't make themselves and thier partners and
other people in thier lives miserible what is the issue really.

Are men really that biologically driven or is it a socail conception/convention to
see them in such a light ?

Are women really biologically not arsed really, or is it a socail conception/convention to see them in such a light unless they are slappers ?

Zombrex

Thaedydal wrote:

What I find bizzare is the asumption that there aren't women out there that are
just as sexually driven as men.

My house, 7 o'clock, bring some wine ...

Seriously though, the majority of women I meet really love sex but are not as driven to find it and get it as men. And if they are it is conscious decision, they realise the like it and want it. But they don't crave it like men do. They can have wild amazing sex (well thank'ya much), but they do this when they want to, when they feel like it. Of put it another way, girls can go weeks without even having to masterbate. Most guys can't go a day.

The ironic thing is that sex, if done right, is much more "amazing" for women than men. Yet they don't sheek it out as much. I always believe that men want sex at a highter desire than the pleasure they actually obtain from it (not to say it isn't great), which must be our genes driving us forward to have sex.

CathyMoran

Wicknight wrote:

Seriously though, the majority of women I meet really love sex but are not as driven to find it and get it as men. And if they are it is conscious decision, they realise the like it and want it. But they don't crave it like men do. They can have wild amazing sex (well thank'ya much), but they do this when they want to, when they feel like it. Of put it another way, girls can go weeks without even having to masterbate. Most guys can't go a day.

I think that most women would not admit to having a huge sex drive and to craving it and to masterbating every day due to social pressure - on the other hand there is social pressure for men to not admit that they have a low sex drive.

Nevyn

Wicknight wrote:

My house, 7 o'clock, bring some wine ...

See that right there is part of the problem.
So a high sex drive in a female equal’s low standards and lack of morals ?

Wicknight wrote:

Seriously though, the majority of women I meet really love sex but are not as driven to find it and get it as men. And if they are it is conscious decision, they realise the like it and want it. But they don't crave it like men do.
They can have wild amazing sex (well thank'ya much), but they do this when they want to, when they feel like it.

Ever stop to think it is a power thing ?
Female sexuality is seen as something that has to been controlled.
Fathers protected thier daughters and then married them off as soon as possible and husbands guarded thier wife’s to be sure the children were theirs.
The Victorian attitude towards sex didn’t help either.
Instruction and advice for the young bride.
[url] http://www.squaredancecd.com/Bride/brides.htm[/url]

One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM, AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust.

With the advent of contraception and the latter part of the 20th century things have changed.
But there are still conflicting and controling conditioning aimed at women.
You can be liberated from getting pregnant and have as much sex as you want
as long as you are not a slapper....
That female sexual urges have to be controlled or you will not be respected as
a person but seen as a cóck craving wanton.

Men are taught that such women are fun to play with but not to marry as they will be too demanding and can't be trusted to be faithful.
Women are taught not to trust such women as they may go after thier men.

So women to a marvelous job of suppressing thier own sexuality so not to be
seen as one of those women. Letting it know that you are or ever have been
gagging for it is simply not lady like.

Wicknight wrote:

Of put it another way, girls can go weeks without even having to masturbate. Most guys can't go a day.

Women and young girls are still not taught enough about thier bodies.
Male masturbation tends to be a little more straight forward, not like a guy can miss thier body being aroused.
There are programs that work towards teaching and empowering young women about thier bodies and drives but I can't really see it taking off here.
The idea of 15 year old girls being told to explore thier sexuality with vibrators
would have this county in up roar but it would be better that they learn that
they can do such things for themselves rather then relying on the fumbling
of a male peer and possibly ending up pregnant to early in thier lives.

Right so why the rant on female sexuality, well it is human sexualtiy male and female and while the thread is about men it is seen in comparison to what is
viewed and accepted as female sexualtiy most of which is wrong as there has
never been correct research into female sexuality. Yes there were some studies in the 60s and 70s but that is were it stopped.

When culturally female sexuality has been in such conflict and supressed male
sexualtiy will suffer in the extreme by comparison.

Zombrex

Thaedydal wrote:

See that right there is part of the problem.
So a high sex drive in a female equal’s low standards and lack of morals ?

No it means you are the perfect woman

I don't think you are fully apprecating how rare it is to find a woman who likes a lot of sex. The vast majority of women I have gone out with didn't. The vast majority of women my male friends have gone out with didn't. I don't know if that is social, cultural or biological, I do know it was annoying

Thaedydal wrote:

Ever stop to think it is a power thing ?
Female sexuality is seen as something that has to been controlled.

I think you are reading too much into it. In my experience when I girl isn't in the mood she just isn't in the mood. She isn't in the mood but thinking "Umm, I really shouldn't", she is thinking "I would rather read a book"

Thaedydal wrote:

Fathers protected thier daughters and then married them off as soon as possible and husbands guarded thier wife’s to be sure the children were theirs.

Er, maybe 100 years ago ... these days most women are free to have as much sex as they want. I am not talking about different partners cause yes you will get a (hypocritical and unfair) reputation, but even with their partners/boyfriends. The catholic idea that sex should only be used to make babies is pretty much gone from young people today.

Thaedydal wrote:

But there are still conflicting and controling conditioning aimed at women.
You can be liberated from getting pregnant and have as much sex as you want
as long as you are not a slapper....

But that is different partners ... that is a different issue. In my experience, even in a commited and loving relationship with one person, women still aren't nearly as bother about sex as the man in the relationship.

Thaedydal wrote:

Men are taught that such women are fun to play with but not to marry as they will be too demanding and can't be trusted to be faithful.
Women are taught not to trust such women as they may go after thier men.

Again you are talking about multiple partners, I am just talking about sexual lust, even in a marriage or relationship.

Thaedydal wrote:

Women and young girls are still not taught enough about thier bodies.
Male masturbation tends to be a little more straight forward, not like a guy can miss thier body being aroused.

Well any girls I have ever gone out with knew exactly how to make themselves orgasim (and didn't mind sharing that information), but still didn't do it that often. When I asked why the answer was always "I don't feel like it".

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

Quick google found some more info on the program where I saw this

It was in the episode "As Time Goes By", in the BBC series The Human Body, which explored why and how we grow old instead of just dying after our child bearing years are over.

From the BBC blurb

Heheh! *says with eager baby voice:* Wicknight believes what he sees on tv!!!!

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Heheh! *says with eager baby voice:* Wicknight believes what he sees on tv!!!!

More so than the Bible (he says in a dead pan sarcastic tone) :cool:

Vangelis, I just ain't feeling the love ...:D

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

More so than the Bible (he says in a dead pan sarcastic tone) :cool:

Vangelis, I just ain't feeling the love ...:D

Oh, these apeman proponents... What love do you want?
We have made different choices. You believe in BBC, I the Bible. At least they begin with the same letters.

A physics professor wrote an article in my local newspaper a little while ago where he termed evolution.. "the power that called itself a theory". I should translate the article and post it here, but oh...

Thaed has a good point. 99,9% of all scientific research, be it psychology, biochemistry, disease or the brain, has been based on observations and data about men - and performed by men. I'd appreciate research into female sexuality myself. Thaed, thank you for posting.

My experience is that women think very often about sex(not just penetration and "goal", mind you, but real detailed fantasies). It seems that, or stereotypically, the climax is what men believe women want. Or so I've heard. And it isn't. Men can misunderstand this. But I know that my man isn't like that. So... deconfirmed. On a total basis that is. I hate when scientists make an average of all men. The averag person doesn't really exist.

But women don't make it so obvious. Why I don't know, but I could examine my own state of mind. Will be back with thoughts.

*sighs hopelessly at statistics*

lazydaisy

It would be nice if some of the men here stopped spreading their misinformation about women. Women have enough to put up with without all this BS.

The female orgasm is a mystery to most men because everywoman is different and women generally don't gain the confidence to tell men what they need until they hit 30. Womens horniness runs on a cycle. Men need to get that. Nature is a bastard. Women start getting really revved up in their 30s and men start calming down.

Men self renewing supply of sperm demands that they masterbate or they will self combust.

You cannot talk about marriage and lust in the same paragraph. They are ill suited together.

Wicknight says

Well any girls I have ever gone out with knew exactly how to make themselves orgasim

Well they'd have to wouldnt they...? Lol

I don't think you are fully apprecating how rare it is to find a woman who likes a lot of sex. The vast majority of women I have gone out with didn't. The vast majority of women my male friends have gone out with didn't. I don't know if that is social, cultural or biological, I do know it was annoying

Wicknight - when you say things like this - oh my you tempt me.... the possibilities for cheap shots are too many to count...

Don't .... stop..... and when you stick your tongue out like that.... but mentioning the BBC ... oh that'll really push a girl over the edge....

Vangelis... maybe you should quote some song of songs to Wicknight..... you guys seem to have this unnameable frisson.....;)

Laguna

dublindude wrote:

Chump: you're 23. Let's have this conversation when you're my age.

Disclaimer: when I say "all men cheat" I mean "most men". Of course, I am aware there are some strange men who do not cheat, people in prison, mental homes, etc. But most men = at least 75%.

That statement is totally out of line, so I for instance, who hasn't and won't ever cheat on a girlfriend is some sort of mental patient/convict. You're judging everyone else by your own standards, if you see it morally acceptable to cheat and be selfish, it's your funeral. Do you say these outlandish and controversial statements for attention?

AARRRGH

Laguna wrote:

That statement is totally out of line, so I for instance, who hasn't and won't ever cheat on a girlfriend is some sort of mental patient/convict. You're judging everyone else by your own standards, if you see it morally acceptable to cheat and be selfish, it's your funeral. Do you say these outlandish and controversial statements for attention?

I was saying it slightly tongue in cheek

I never said cheating was morally acceptable. In fact, I said I think it is wrong. My point is that it is natural to cheat, that we want to cheat, and that most men will cheat. The men who don't cheat have to stop themselves from doing it.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

Oh, these apeman proponents... What love do you want?
We have made different choices. You believe in BBC, I the Bible. At least they begin with the same letters.

When an argument reaches this point there’s very little point in its continuation. After all, you’ve now drawn a line in the sand, stating that you hold a particular position from which you are not going to budge. No evidence to the contrary will change this.

A physics professor wrote an article in my local newspaper a little while ago where he termed evolution.. "the power that called itself a theory". I should translate the article and post it here, but oh...

This is hearsay. Or invention. Or quite possibly a mixture of both.

Thaed has a good point. 99,9% of all scientific research, be it psychology, biochemistry, disease or the brain, has been based on observations and data about men - and performed by men. I'd appreciate research into female sexuality myself. Thaed, thank you for posting.

That’s not really the point she made.

But I know that my man isn't like that.

Of course he isn’t. No woman’s man is like that, I suppose...

I hate when scientists make an average of all men. The averag person doesn't really exist.

I suggest you read up the definition of average.

lazydaisy wrote:

Men self renewing supply of sperm demands that they masterbate or they will self combust.

That’s not actually correct as it’s simply reabsorbed after a while. Still, ironic considering how you began your post berating men for “spreading their misinformation about women”.

AARRRGH

Vangelis are you from the US?
How many times have you met "your man", considering you claim your relationship is by "letter correspondance"? Could this be why you are so paranoid about him cheating...? He is far far away from you?

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

So when an artic fox steals a recent kill of a polar bear as the polar bear is resting (saw it on TV last night), he is really compensating for an emotional void in the fox's life ... ummm

Thats to avoid starvation and comes down to surviving. You didnt differentiate earlier. Why so now?

Your post has still operated entirely within the confines of social norms. I asked you to discard those ideas. You evidently did not read the post.

You still follow the course of action that I suspected you would do i.e. CHOOSE to follow social norms to form the basis of your argument. The simple fact of the matter that we can choose to ignore our instincts and not fúck like rabbits does not negate the notion that we should fúck like rabbits. If we werent supposed to fúck like rabbits, why do we wind up making a choice one way or the other?

K-

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

There is a biological urge to procreate.

Then why did you attempt to shred my same opinion? Just because most choose NOT to act on it doesnt mean it isnt there which is what I was trying to explain in detail.

Ooh, thats right. You didnt read my post. Getting a little dejá vu here from a few months back..............

K-

lisa.c

its human nature that men want sex all the time its the way the chemicals in their brains work...it goes back to before we evolved. im a girl and i dont like the way it works but thats men for ya. the secret to it all is finding a man who is content with having just one partner and who has enough control to realise that one women is enough!!!

Vangelis

dublindude wrote:

Vangelis are you from the US?
How many times have you met "your man", considering you claim your relationship is by "letter correspondance"? Could this be why you are so paranoid about him cheating...? He is far far away from you?

I've just come the conclusion that you are not worth my attention.
I promised that I'd be patient with people here, but I'm ignoring you from now on.

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

Then why did you attempt to shred my same opinion? Just because most choose NOT to act on it doesnt mean it isnt there which is what I was trying to explain in detail.

Ooh, thats right. You didnt read my post. Getting a little dejá vu here from a few months back..............

K-

Believe me, I read your post ...

You said

"Our specific purpose in life as males is to fúck with as many females as possible to spread our genes and ensure the survival of the next generation."

You also said...

"Relationships are not a natural instinct- not at all." (which is the statement is what I mostly took acception to)

And I am explaining that while human males share the instinct common in all animals to, as you put it, f**k with as many femals as possible, there also exists a strong instinct, specific to humans, to form family units based around monogamist partnerships. The evolutionary reasons for this are quite simple and I have explained them a number of times.

It is not just "society" that is behind the formation of these groups, it is instinct as well. In fact, as society is just a reflection of human behaviour, the reason society puts such strong emphasis on family is probably because of the underlying instinctive urges to form these groups in the first place.

Monogamist relationships are not only natural and instinctive, they are the corner stone of human behaviour, not just human society.

BTW I am not talking about something as specific as the idea of marriage, which is a cultural invention.

Vangelis

The Corinthian wrote:

When an argument reaches this point there’s very little point in its continuation. After all, you’ve now drawn a line in the sand, stating that you hold a particular position from which you are not going to budge. No evidence to the contrary will change this.

No. I still wonder why you call yourself "the Corinthian"..

The Corinthian wrote:

This is hearsay. Or invention. Or quite possibly a mixture of both.

Like I said, if only I had the time to translate the article..

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s not really the point she made.

Forgive my existence then.

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course he isn’t. No woman’s man is like that, I suppose...

You suppose.

The Corinthian wrote:

I suggest you read up the definition of average.

Haven't the time to search for it.

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

"Our specific purpose in life as males is to fúck with as many females as possible to spread our genes and ensure the survival of the next generation."

I just quote this in spite that you did not yourself state this.
It keeps me wondering what a fragmented life this would be for a man. If a man's sole purpose was this, how does this reflect any happiness? Don't we want to be happy too? And have predictable lives.. Women aren't the only ones who want that. And if they were, women and men are not meant for eachother.

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

Your post has still operated entirely within the confines of social norms. I asked you to discard those ideas. You evidently did not read the post.

None of my posts are based on the confines of social norms, though I have stated a number of times social behaviour forms around the more basic patterns of human behaviour.

Kell wrote:

You still follow the course of action that I suspected you would do i.e. CHOOSE to follow social norms to form the basis of your argument.

Kell it has nothing to do with following social norms. I am stating that monogamist relationships are instinctive you are arguing they can't be because the are part of social norms, as if everything to do with social behaviour patterns must be unnatural. That doesn't make sense.

Kell wrote:

If we werent supposed to fúck like rabbits, why do we wind up making a choice one way or the other?

That doesn't make sense either. If we were supposed to only f**k like rabbits there wouldn't be a choice in the first place. Male/female human relationships would never have developed in the first place, just like they haven't developed in the vast majority of other speices.

AARRRGH

Vangelis wrote:

I've just come the conclusion that you are not worth my attention.
I promised that I'd be patient with people here, but I'm ignoring you from now on.

Ah I hit a nerve?

lazydaisy

I dont know how anyone can assert that monogamy is instinctive when there are so many cultures in the world that aren't monogamous.

One could argue that its the male instinct to carry on their genes and as a result men made sure they had all the power and made all the rules so us girls couldn't f*** around with anyone but one man, so that men knew who their fathers are and land can be inherited and passed down in an attempt to accrue wealth and that this system was endorced and policed by the RC church in cahoots with the European monarchies.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

I dont know how anyone can assert that monogamy is instinctive when there are so many cultures in the world that aren't monogamous.

Such as?

Or put it another way, which culture or society in the world has no concept of a monogamist relationship?

I am not saying our genes tell us everyone must follow monogamy, but idea is enshired in our biological instincts. But humans have been ingoring their instincts, or following one instinct at the expense of another, for thosands of years.

As I said before, it isn't a law

fly_agaric

Thaedydal wrote:

Women and young girls are still not taught enough about their bodies.
Male masturbation tends to be a little more straight forward, not like a guy can miss thier body being aroused.

I have to say it - what a load of old horses' xxxx!
Why can't women just, like, mess around with their bodies and find out what works for them. Is that so hard to do?
And before you say it's taboo - what about the old "it's a sin" or "It'll rot off if you touch it" stuff that was peddled to boys at one point?
But you say...Ooh no no no we're too complex for that - not like those men with their simple urges and nasty sticky-uppy bits!

Surely women can tell if they are turned on or not without having classes on it or (the state, maybe!:D ) supplying them with a rabbit and some duracells when they finish the JCert.

I mean it is not flippin' rocket science now - is it? Especially if they have this powerful overmastering sex-drive which has been shackled by tradition
up to now.

Vangelis wrote:

Thaed has a good point. 99,9% of all scientific research, be it psychology, biochemistry, disease or the brain, has been based on observations and data about men - and performed by men.

True, Men did the research in the past. While the big bosses may be mostly men, (and it may stay this way for longer than it should unless a solution to the baby/children "problem" is found) I'd bet (no, I'd be almost certain) the vast majority of the upcoming young researchers working in the areas you mention are actually women.

I think such research is generally about "people" rather than "men" and "women" specifically so a representative sample (~50/50) would be taken if they can get it unless it is related to an area where sex matters. Like, sex specific diseases, health issues - also sex itself of course.

lazydaisy

Wicknight,

You said it was an instinct, which is biological drive, the same thing that makes salmon go upstream to mate, or birds to fly south in the winter. So, yes, you are saying its genetic and biologically determined.

Whose not monogamous?

Unfaithful westerners. Oh yeah, they are few and far between.:rolleyes:

[You can talk to the docs at the Blackrock clinic who run paternity tests to confirm.]

Practicing bisexuals.

People who choose polyamory for a lifestyle.

Tribal cultures.

Africa.

http://www.gwsafrica.org/knowledge/lucy%20edwards.html

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/346Monogamy.html

A list of books and resources around this conversation.
http://www.polyamory.org/Howard/sociology.html

INHO, it is an instinct to find someone and a choice to stay faithful.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

No. I still wonder why you call yourself "the Corinthian"..

Ahh... the word ‘no’ followed by an irrelevant change in subject to draw attention from your lack of argument to ‘why no’. Real smooth.

Like I said, if only I had the time to translate the article..

Try linking it, at present I’m doubting it’s existence and credibility, not it’s language.

Forgive my existence then.

Get off the cross, someone needs the wood.

You suppose.

No more than you.

Haven't the time to search for it.

You haven’t had time to actually answer any of the points (outside of one liners) that have been posed to you either by me either.