|
Post by milkman's baby on Jul 3, 2009 16:11:52 GMT -5
Even the type and composition of a man's sperm varies according to the conspicuousness of their partner. So will a woman's orgasm vary with the social status of her partner. This is new to me. I doubt you want to explain the details, but I can't trust the validity of that so much until I have proof.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 3, 2009 16:23:50 GMT -5
Even the type and composition of a man's sperm varies according to the conspicuousness of their partner. So will a woman's orgasm vary with the social status of her partner. This is new to me. I doubt you want to explain the details, but I can't trust the validity of that so much until I have proof. Lol... I didn't see the proof until I received a special specimen in my semen analysis lab. Anywho: Also, a woman's orgasm brings the deposited semen closer to the cervix.
|
|
|
Post by milkman's baby on Jul 3, 2009 17:40:20 GMT -5
This is new to me. I doubt you want to explain the details, but I can't trust the validity of that so much until I have proof. Lol... I didn't see the proof until I received a special specimen in my semen analysis lab. That special specimen that you found was probably an STD, darling. No one's sperm is magical. Although syphilis has been known to produce near-magical effects on the mind, I'll give you that. I think you're depending too much on psychology research. While psychologists may try to beat their evidence from those fun little experiments in the ground, that stuff is just never concrete. I'm too lazy to research the creditworthiness of the sources you provided, but either way, I wouldn't rely on them too much. Ultimately, the ingredients of a man's sperm and what gets woman going hardly make much of an argument in favor of the social reactions we speak of.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 3, 2009 17:54:10 GMT -5
^ Roger. How silly of me--an STD.
|
|
|
Post by ChickenSoda on Jul 3, 2009 18:19:10 GMT -5
Ultimately, the ingredients of a man's sperm and what gets woman going hardly make much of an argument in favor of the social reactions we speak of. Blind taste test, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by LaFace on Jul 4, 2009 7:20:07 GMT -5
^ The connotation they implied was that there was a single principled standard which evolved into something unfairly discriminatory. It's often used in a negative context. I don't think they were merely counting in this case. They were complaining. Are you referring to me when you say, 'they'? In my previous post, I said that females were largely to blame as opposed to solely, hence I disagree with your comment on 'single-principled standards'. I also don't think it's necessarily a simple case of 'unfair discrimination' if largely brought on by a discrepancy between the mindframes of each gender and conscious decisions on how many choose to view the opposite sex. I don't think I was complaining either because I was merely posting my observations, and couldn't care less for examples of such people in real life (but do feel puzzled when certain females complain of the 'double standards'). I'd also put it down to far more than 'biology'. The human mind's conscience is far more complex than any other creature in the universe. Penises don't just fall into vaginas. Vaginas don't just fall onto penises. Consensuality's voice is screaming here, and I'm sure we can all agree that with humans the issue is far more complex than it is in the biological nature of the animal kingdom. Growing up we always called people that got involved with players one thing: dumba$$es. Imo, if you constantly go after that type, male or female you deserve what you get. I knew some pretty promiscuous men and women, sure the women were called sluts at times, but the men were called manwhores or sluts. And both groups were treated pretty equally, although the girls did have it a bit more rough. Paris Hilton and George Clooney are horrible examples by the way. Paris Hilton's whole career is hinged on a sex tape and having enough money to force us all to watch her making an idiot of herself in the media. George Clooney, while not Olivier, is actually a working actor that did not require night vision cameras to obtain his fame. In your first paragraph, who are you referring to when you say, 'we'? Is it your female group of friends, or those in your year level at school etc? I ask because my previous post doesn't relate to specific examples but was more so a generalisation and made room for this. Whilst I accept your point on George Clooney who did become famous for his acting in the first place, I still believe my point remains. Take a girl renowned for her 'sluttiness'. She will be looked down upon by both genders, and without sex, I doubt there would be many males wanting to get to know her as a person, let alone get into a relationship with her because of who she is inside. Take a guy renowned for his 'sluttiness'. I took Clooney as an example as everyone knows he has had sex with hundreds females, but you can replace him with any male that is popular (you'd have to be popular, not necessarily of hollywood fame, to have had sex with so many females), is able to demonstrate his personality to any girl taking an interest, and is regarded as good-looking. Unlike males with 'slutty' females, I believe a far larger number of females would be interested in Clooney as far more than 'sex', ie easily willing to look past his sexual history and want a relationship with him. This is a decision that is up to these females, and I'm just making the observation to account for the discrepancy. Are you denying that a huge number of females would still desire male 'sluts' if sex was out of the question, where as a huge number of males wouldn't desire female 'sluts' if sex was out of the question? Do you disagree with my observation? If so, I'm interested in your opinion(s) as to why? I'm also interested in your opinion as to why the double standards then exist?
|
|
|
Post by LaFace on Jul 4, 2009 9:29:46 GMT -5
Still have a few questions pelle coz it's an interesting discussion.
Do you basically disagree with my view regarding females being responsible (at least in part) for the double standard?
Do you not think that females often desire males that are sluts/promiscuous for relationships, whilst in contrast, look down upon the corresponding females? For me, that is the main part where a discrepancy lies.
How do you differentiate between someone that is a 'slut' and someone that is 'promiscuous'?
What do you mean by things being different in Oz? Obviously I live here, but my observation seems to be a common occurrence in almost all countries; male 'sluts' are generally regarded in a more positive light in comparison to female 'sluts', and I think females are largely responsible for this.
When you say the double standard is ridiculous, do you want females that are 'promiscuous/sluts' to be viewed in a more positive light, or do you want males that are 'promiscuous/sluts' to be viewed in a more negative light?
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 4, 2009 12:48:27 GMT -5
I'd also put it down to far more than 'biology'. The human mind's conscience is far more complex than any other creature in the universe. Penises don't just fall into vaginas. Vaginas don't just fall onto penises. Consensuality's voice is screaming here, and I'm sure we can all agree that with humans the issue is far more complex than it is in the biological nature of the animal kingdom. [sigh] You say "biology" as if it were a simplification, a reduction to sexual organs, a base approximation to animals, or a philosophical duality completely separate from the mind. I say this... the brain is a sexual organ. At most, only 10% of this organ is under our conscious control. It engages in chemistries--and perhaps quantum mechanics--that our conscious self continually seeks to discover. Though, we probably disagree on more fundamental levels. Don't take this as any kind of insult... but the other 90% of the your brain doesn't need any conscious approval to do... what it has already been doing.
|
|
|
Post by milkman's baby on Jul 4, 2009 12:55:52 GMT -5
Wow. This conversation has become way too deep.
|
|
|
Post by penguinopolipitese on Jul 7, 2009 0:38:04 GMT -5
I would propose rather than EA guys being players, perhaps EA girls are sluts? All I know is somebody's getting lucky and it isn't me
|
|
|
Post by Groink on Jul 7, 2009 1:30:19 GMT -5
I would propose rather than EA guys being players, perhaps EA girls are sluts? All I know is somebody's getting lucky and it isn't me I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that, but yeah, definitely a dry spell out thisaway as well.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 8, 2009 14:12:08 GMT -5
Women can usually have as many sexual partners as they want (a friend of mine screwed 9 different guys last week - I think she's going through a rough patch emotionally) if they are reasonably good looking. Men, not so much. I certainly don't miss being in the hunt, though back in my single days I would tend to go through long dry spells (2-3 years) shaken up by the odd girlfriend and periods of crazy fun (usually abroad - leaving home inevitably leads to meeting more people and more going out).
This is a rather personal question though - do you think people are honest here or do we need to apply the exchange rates from Clerks?
|
|
|
Post by LaFace on Jul 9, 2009 3:41:43 GMT -5
^lol at nine guys in one week.
Anyway, with regards to your last sentence...
- Only three people have answered the question (and females of course won't post their answer).
- In terms of the three answers, only fei has set off my bs radar going by what he has written.
- In terms of the poll, it appears realistic (although I expected less results for 0 partners for those in the west).
It would still be interesting to see the differences (if any) between the genders in conjunction with the east vs west location. Also, more votes are needed from people living in Asia in order to elucidate anything from that half of the poll.
|
|
Maverick
Full Member
"I live to fly"
Posts: 532
|
Post by Maverick on Jul 10, 2009 13:31:33 GMT -5
I admitted popular with the ladies, that does not mean i sleep with all of them. I'm not a slut! EA guy are bless with looks and due to our Anglo-Saxon background we are gifted with word and British charm(it in our blood) and we are fearless with the opposite sexes than our full Asian brother. So that mean the all EA guy at fault cause they irresistible to women? Is it fair to judge a nice EA guy cause he got everything that other dont have?? But your not blessed with the cockiness and @sshole personalities we exude as Americans.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by jenbrook on Jul 11, 2009 22:27:18 GMT -5
^lol at nine guys in one week. Anyway, with regards to your last sentence... - Only three people have answered the question (and females of course won't post their answer). - In terms of the three answers, only fei has set off my bs radar going by what he has written. - In terms of the poll, it appears realistic (although I expected less results for 0 partners for those in the west). It would still be interesting to see the differences (if any) between the genders in conjunction with the east vs west location. Also, more votes are needed from people living in Asia in order to elucidate anything from that half of the poll. I answered 2 and thats truth, i havent subtracted or divided
|
|