View Full Version : Sexual Consent
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 04:11 PM
Yes I do. Like for some reason every guy thinks that every other guy really has to have an arm twisted into giving oral sex.
Exactly. It's annoying. (Which is one reason I can tolerate mr. p--his shameless admissions of selfishness are refreshing in comparison.)
For example: imagine men paying to give oral sex. Now imagine women paying to give oral sex. Taking into account the vast disparity in the consumer base (that is I realize that A LOT more men are out there purchasing sex acts in various form)....
Okay, THAT's because sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive. There. Do you feel better now?
...do you think that men are a) just as likely to pay for the privilege of gratifying their partner orally b) much less likely to pay for the privilege of gratifying their partner orally or c) much more likely to pay for the privilege of gratifying their partner orally?
All I can say is that if I hired a male escort for sex (and don't think I haven't entertained the idea during a really bad dry spell), you're damn skippy I'd be paying for that privilege (at least in a perfect world where you didn't have to worry about any nasty pathogens). What can I say--I love sucking dick. Sex wouldn't be sex without that.
But seriously, though, I don't know if we have enough data to determine the answer to your question. Because it is so much rarer for women to hire men for sex, I'm not sure that a) women who do this are typical of all women or that b) anyone has done a study to determine what women ask for from male escorts.
I'm not trying to be disingenuous; if I had to guess, I'd say the answer might be (c), as you seem to suggest. But I wouldn't be very confident in that guess.
This is not to say that women don't enjoy gratifying their partners or that women don't enjoy oral sex, just that the investment is not really the same.
I dunno about this, either. I mean, I think that I like giving oral sex so much not just because it makes the guy happy but because doing it well gratifies my ego. And we're all pretty invested in our egos.
Like when guys at work are talking dirty to me (and note: they realize I'm being paid so they don't really need to seduce me) it tends to delineate around "I could eat you until you pass out"; "I want to make you cum so hard that you chip a tooth"; "You have no idea what I could do to you" etc., and not around "I'd really love it if you sucked me off right now."
Yes, I observed the exact same thing. And I've always wondered if this attitude is somehow more common among strip club customers than among the general male population.
There are guys who pay me to masturbate, because it is evidently just what they like to see - like a lot of guys, not a niche fetish market. It's common. Do you think women would generally be as gratified watching men masturbate?
Well, I have a cum fetish, so I like it. But I guess we've established that I'm pretty weird.
By the way - did I say:
Nicolina's back! Eeeee!
:-* :-* :-*
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 04:39 PM
You like men, you like having sex with men, and so you enjoy the giving as much as the men do. Maybe Jenny doesn't like men as much, and so while she has sex with them, she doesn't have the same strong passion to try and please them.
Doubt it. I don't like men that much. I doubt I like men any more or less than Jenny does.
I don't understand why you think she's some sort of man-hater; she seems quite sympathetic toward individual men, even as she rails against the patriarchy...(Not to speak for you Jenny, that's just my take on your general attitudes. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
However if Jenny is right, and there is something to the generalization, I'd say try to ask the question in terms of how have men and women evolved differently.
As you know, I'm all about biological determinism. However, in this case, I'm not seeing an obvious or direct evolutionary explanation for the proposed phenomenon.
Further, there is no evidence that this phenomenon (i.e. men being more "giving" sexual partners than women) is universal across human history or human cultures--In fact, I'm pretty sure that if the phenomenon exists at all, it is a recent phenomenon and found almost exclusively in certain Western cultures.
Even I can see that it's silly to look for evolutionary reasons for social or psychological phenomena that are unique to only a few human societies.
Jenny
01-06-2007, 04:52 PM
Doubt it. I don't like men that much. I doubt I like men any more or less than Jenny does.
No, you probably do. It's because I'm fat and ugly and haven't landed a husband. I'm just bitter.
I don't understand why you think she's some sort of man-hater; she seems quite sympathetic toward individual men, even as she rails against the patriarchy...(Not to speak for you Jenny, that's just my take on your general attitudes. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
What can I say? I just can't stand the damn patriarchy. I don't think a discussion on whether or not I'm a man hater is going to be particularly fruitful; among other things - the men who assume that I'm a "man hater" are generally guys that I have a pretty healthy disdain for in the first place, and even I'm cognizant of the point that nobody (or very few people) identify themselves as bigots of any kind - so my word on the matter will not likely carry weight with the kind of people who make that assumption.
As you know, I'm all about biological determinism. However, in this case, I'm not seeing an obvious or direct evolutionary explanation for the proposed phenomenon.
Nic! Don't say that! You just said that eggs were expensive. Actually - funny story - I got into a similar conversation several months back with a customer (I know, I know, I'm a very bad stripper) and I (thinking of you) actually asked him if he had a background in the subject; when he said no I actually responded "Oooh... then you'd better be careful, because I have been practicing."
yoda57us
01-06-2007, 05:25 PM
But my experience is this: My mom was born in the 40’s and was a bona-fide women’s libber in the 60’s and 70’s: consciousness-raising groups, marches on Washington, the whole nine yards.
Nic: My mom was born in the 30's and was a single parent raising two kids by the mid 60's. She was already working, and thriving, in a man's world when the women's movement hit. She never cared much for the term "feminist" but I think that was largely because she had forged her own path before people came along, gave it a title, and called it a movement. To her it was just paying the rent and feeding her kids. I'm sure that her views and beliefs on the subject have greatly effected mine...
However, BOTH of my parents made a concerted effort to instill in me a belief that sex was natural and good—that it should be a source of pleasure, and never a source of shame. I never ever got the sense that “embracing my sexuality” was “a bad thing.” Quite the contrary.
I also never got the sense that being viewed as a “sex object” was something to be avoided at all costs. Maybe because my mom was comfortable with her own sexuality, she never bad-mouthed women who presented themselves as sexy or openly sexual.
Sounds like your parents provided a great environment for you to grow-up in.
Though I believe that there are cultural differences among women in their attitudes toward sex, I also think that you are overlooking a lot of individual variability here….
Well, honestly I don't think I'm overlooking anything. I've been sexually active for about thirty years and I've been with many more post-sexual -revolution North American women than I have with immigrant or first generation American women. I don't believe for a minute that one should apply my negative findings to all American women or all of my positive conclusions to all foreign women...
For instance, I find it hard to believe that you don’t find more American women who feel this way.
That's gonna be tough, I stopped trying about seven years ago.
I feel like this is less a cultural trait and more an individual, personality-based trait.
Honestly Nic, I think it's a little of both.
But then, I can’t tell you that you haven’t had the experiences that you’ve had. Maybe you just haven’t stumbled across the right American girls....
It's tough to explain but my conclusions and recent preferences did not develop overnight. I certainly don't mean any of this as an indictment of all North American women born into the sexual revolution. I just know what I like.
mr_punk
01-06-2007, 05:36 PM
I always have this problem:<snip>
Or something like that. What does this mean?ummmm..you prefer to get throat fucked? not that there's anything wrong with that.
Am I even weirder than I thought?oh no, no, no, no, no, it's perfectly normal for women to enjoy getting throat fucked. LOL..like i'm going to argue with you.
Exactly. It's annoying. (Which is one reason I can tolerate mr. p--his shameless admissions of selfishness are refreshing in comparison.)why, thank you, but i really owe it all to my laziness, incompetency and complete lack of interest on finding the female clitoris.
What can I say? I just can't stand the damn patriarchy.of course, why else would you spend so much time down here.
Jenny
01-06-2007, 05:50 PM
of course, why else would you spend so much time down here.Well, you guys aren't going to overthrow yourselves, now, are you?
xdamage
01-06-2007, 05:53 PM
^X, I didn't say that your argument was invalid. To be honest, I didn't even read the whole thing.
I was just kind of shocked to see someone who often uses arguments from biology--and even seems to have some background in the subject--making such an egregiously erroneous (though commonly perpetuated) assertion.
Also, I don't think I'd say that our intelligence, even, is "more evolved." I'd say that, for various reasons, we've evolved extremely large brains--maladaptively large, I might even argue. We've evolved consciousness and language, which allow us to conceive of concepts like intelligence and sexuality and stripclub ettiquette, and pontificate thereon.
However, all extant species are highly evolved and extraordinarily well-adapted to their ecological niches. It seems to me that humans, being a more recent addition to the planet, are actually probably "less evolved" than hagfish or dragonflies or archaebacteria or other more ancient species.
(Sorry, now I'll get back to the sex...)
Well, if we want to get all technical, it's complicated. It really has more to do with brain mass ratios to body mass ratios. It's complicated because neurons can only be packed so densely. It's complicated because larger creatures have more nerve inputs to process and so tend to have larger brains. The best indicators of intelligence seem to be brain mass ratios to body mass ratios as well as considering total brain mass, but anywa....
Human brains have a very high ratio of neurons to body mass, but there is more.
The truth Nicolina is I'm somewhat of a lazy MOFO when it comes to writing. I hate writing, I always have. I prefer doing, and experiencing, and thinking. My mind runs faster then I have the patience to write it all out. I certainly don't claim to be the best at expressing my feeling or thoughts in words. In fact I'm really quite terrible at it.
xdamage
01-06-2007, 05:56 PM
It's because I'm fat and ugly and haven't landed a husband. I'm just bitter.
I seriously doubt you are ugly or fat.
What can I say? I just can't stand the damn patriarchy. I don't think a discussion on whether or not I'm a man hater is going to be particularly fruitful; among other things - the men who assume that I'm a "man hater" are generally guys that I have a pretty healthy disdain for in the first place, and even I'm cognizant of the point that nobody (or very few people) identify themselves as bigots of any kind - so my word on the matter will not likely carry weight with the kind of people who make that assumption.
Men are really not you're enemies. The patriarchy isn't the cause of all your problems.
If conditions permitted, I'd get you drunk and we could talk about this shit - the male vs female differences are irrelevant in the big picture.
mr_punk
01-06-2007, 06:11 PM
Well, you guys aren't going to overthrow yourselves, now, are you?planning a coup, are we? well, you pack a big lunch, red. this isn't like practicing against the cream puffs, pushovers and water boys upstairs.
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 06:12 PM
Hey, yoda,
thanks for the reply.
Nic: My mom was born in the 30's and was a single parent raising two kids by the mid 60's. She was already working, and thriving, in a man's world when the women's movement hit. She never cared much for the term "feminist" but I think that was largely because she had forged her own path before people came along, gave it a title, and called it a movement. To her it was just paying the rent and feeding her kids. I'm sure that her views and beliefs on the subject have greatly effected mine...
Hm. My mom was also raised by a single working mom, in the 40's and 50's when that was practically unheard of. So that may have been part of the reason that she felt so strongly about it.
Sounds like your parents provided a great environment for you to grow-up in.
yeah, and look how great I turned out. ::)
Well, honestly I don't think I'm overlooking anything. I've been sexually active for about thirty years and I've been with many more post-sexual -revolution North American women than I have with immigrant or first generation American women. I don't believe for a minute that one should apply my negative findings to all American women or all of my positive conclusions to all foreign women....It's tough to explain but my conclusions and recent preferences did not develop overnight. I certainly don't mean any of this as an indictment of all North American women born into the sexual revolution. I just know what I like.
I'm not offended by or defensive about your sentiments, and I'm not questioning the validity of your personal experience. I'm just genuinely surprised that you haven't run across more generous American lovers.
I am curious, though: Do you think that you are, on some level, fetishizing the "Otherness" of these women? (I will believe you either way, and I'm not asking the question in any sort of accusatory way.) I know that I do this, though--especially in sex industry situations. Like, I will often find the foreign girls hotter than the domestic girls in a stripclub, and prefer to get LD's from them. I'm not sure, but I think it's because it's a little easier to objectify them, and, as I've said, I think a little objectification is good in these exchanges. Similarly, as a dancer I often felt more comfortable with customers whose sensibilities seemed very different from mine. I will admit that in high-contact clubs, I often preferred to go with foreign guys who didn't want to talk much; I'd just focus on the physical experience and it made the whole interaction less complicated and therefore somehow more palatable, sometimes even kinda hot. If I felt too sympatico with a customer, I often got a little weirded out, especially in a high-contact environment.
(I dunno, maybe that's a totally different phenomenon.)
xdamage
01-06-2007, 06:15 PM
Doubt it. I don't like men that much. I doubt I like men any more or less than Jenny does.
I don't understand why you think she's some sort of man-hater; she seems quite sympathetic toward individual men, even as she rails against the patriarchy...(Not to speak for you Jenny, that's just my take on your general attitudes. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Well, in the big picture, I think Jenny is like most of us, trying to make sense of a complicated world. I've found my set of explinations that work for me. I believe in evolution, in biology, in DNA, and that humans have aspirations and dreams that are greater then the sum of those parts, but still greatly influenced by them. So I have no big picture view against her, and think she has the passion and intelligence to go far.
OTOH, I'd say she is so focused on the evils of the patriarchy she has totally lost sight of the fact that women really were there when history was shaped, and that women have contributed to the shaping of history.
But there was a time not so long ago when people who I were related to by some gene association suffered oppression, and murder. I however wasn't there. I don't sit around holding a grudge against the entire world (or HALF of it) because of some vague gene association. In the time we live now, I am free, free to choose my own destiny. So is Jenny. So are you. For me to sit around and obsess over a past that had no actual effect on me, to which I am only vaguely related via genes, seems utterly pointless to me, just an excuse to not have the balls to live my life.
Well there you go, like I said, I'm terrible when it comes to writing, but hopefully that gives you a rough idea of what goes on in my head.
As you know, I'm all about biological determinism. However, in this case, I'm not seeing an obvious or direct evolutionary explanation for the proposed phenomenon.
Further, there is no evidence that this phenomenon (i.e. men being more "giving" sexual partners than women) is universal across human history or human cultures--In fact, I'm pretty sure that if the phenomenon exists at all, it is a recent phenomenon and found almost exclusively in certain Western cultures.
Even I can see that it's silly to look for evolutionary reasons for social or psychological phenomena that are unique to only a few human societies.
Maybe. Here is what I'd like to believe (it may not be true):
I'd like to believe that if the risks of sex are taken out of the picture, and if the anti-opposite-sex feelings are taken out of the picture, that women and men have evolved similar degrees of pleasure, and passion (or empathy) for their sexual partners. That's what I'd like to believe. There will stil be variances on an individual basis (some will be more passionate then others), but overall the trends will be similar.
That leaves it up to individuals to express or repress. But then, maybe that's just a big fantasy. I don't know.
Well, you guys aren't going to overthrow yourselves, now, are you?
Over the years, I've had quite a few employees tell me how much they appreciate the opportunities I have given them and several have expressed their thoughts of me as a father slash mentor figure from a business standpoint. At the time, I was touched by what they said. But now, having read all this talk of the patricarchal system and realizing I am likely a part of it, I wonder if, given an opportunity, those same folks would pull a 1917 on me. I am now going to be suspicious of everything they say. Thanks for the reality check ;)
FBR
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 06:31 PM
ummmm..you prefer to get throat fucked? not that there's anything wrong with that.
oh no, no, no, no, no, it's perfectly normal for women to enjoy getting throat fucked. LOL..like i'm going to argue with you.
It's not just about the throat-fucking, though. It's about...well, come to think of it, I'm not entirely sure what it's about.
I was going to say that it's about doing whatever HE wants, and ostensibly, that's true. But if I was with a submissive guy who wanted me to be the dom, I couldn't (or wouldn't) do it. (So I guess it's about doing whatever he wants as long as it's something that gets me off, too. Not quite as selfless--or as submissive--as I thought...)
I was going to say that it's about giving up control, but that's not really it, either--In fact, when I give someone a really mind-blowing orgasm, I get off on watching his loss of control. And you know how they say that the sub is actually the one in control--I think that's probably true.
I think it may just be about providing a really great experience for the other person, and taking pride in a job well done. (See, Mom, I do have a work ethic after all. :P)
(Well, that and I do appreciate a good throat-fucking.)
why, thank you, but i really owe it all to my laziness, incompetency and complete lack of interest on finding the female clitoris.
Oh, I believe you, mr. p. It's still refreshing, though.
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 06:34 PM
The patriarchy isn't the cause of all your problems.
Can I just please say that I also hate the patriarchy?
Why does Jenny get all the credit for this?
*pouts*
xdamage
01-06-2007, 06:38 PM
Well, you guys aren't going to overthrow yourselves, now, are you?
My take is this...
The world sucked in more ways then you can imagine pre-modern history (by which I mean the last few hundred years or so). Take away the following:
o Medicine based on a good understanding of biology and chemistry.
o Electricity, electrical lights, modern electronics, computers, lasers, etc.
o Nearly instant communication around the world.
o Fast travel and accurate navigation.
o Democracy and freedom of speech.
o No cheap/safe birth control, no morning after option, no safe abortion, no DNA testing.
o No roads, cars, convience stores, no canned foods, no imported refrigerated/frozen foods.
o Physics, computers, astronomy, space travel, I could go on...
and the world truly is a sucky place to live. Life expectencies of 30-40 years at best; no teeth in the early 20s; painful and slow deaths; beliefs in gods, witches, and spooks; information travels at a snails pace; cold winters; hot summers; limbs and injuries treated with no anesthetic, no sterile techniques, no cosmetic concerns; and much more...
If you're going to blaim history on the patriarchy, then you can also credit them with all of the positives you live with now, and if you really think the world was such a great place before all of this, try to live in a pre-modern culture. If it took men to have the balls to reshape the world into a place where women could have a shot at being treated like equals, so be it.
The natural world is a terribly brutal place, and modern women in Western cultures have no clue what it meant to live like that, or how many thousands of years of struggle it has taken before we have a life style that allows people the free time, protections, and modern conviences that have made it possible for people to aspire to hire aspirations.
It's easy to second guess history, but you weren't there when it was being re-shaped, you have no direct input, and there is no proof you'd have acted any differently then your ancestors. OTOH, the very patriarchy you rally against, well they are likewise responsible for re-shaping the world into a place where people no longer live like animals, and so have time to aspire to greater things. You may not like it, but women are half of the worlds population - they are had their shot at reshaping the world. If they didn't do it, and the patriarchy did, you're opinion about it after the fact is irrelevant. You weren't there when history went down. If it didn't go down as you think it should (after the fact, hindsight is 20:20), it must be that there are factors you are not aware of and not considering.
BOTTOM line - if you blaim history on the Patriarchy, you can also blaim them with the good as well as the bad or we won't take your complaints seriously.
xdamage
01-06-2007, 06:40 PM
Can I just please say that I also hate the patriarchy?
Why does Jenny get all the credit for this?
*pouts*
See my reply after your post.
I just accept that history has unfolded as it has because it's what worked, the same way I accept that evolution has unfolded as it has because it's what worked.
Consider this possibility... I also hate the patriarchy... but I don't believe the universe is particularly kind, or fair. It may well be that the patriarchy was a necessary social evolutionary step to equality.
Jenny
01-06-2007, 06:43 PM
Can I just please say that I also hate the patriarchy?
Why does Jenny get all the credit for this?
*pouts*
Because, baby, you just don't hate it with the same passion, the same vehemence; you just don't hate it as much.
Kidding, by the way. I have complete and implicit faith in your distain for the patriarchy - and I do not think that it is at all inconsistent with the occasional, or even frequent, throat fucking or submissive role play.
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 06:52 PM
^Thank you, Jenny.
I really appreciate that.
:)
xdamage
01-06-2007, 06:54 PM
I think it may just be about providing a really great experience for the other person
I have a fetish for seeing women get off, their turn is my turn on. I could try to break that down, but what's the point? It's what I enjoy, and somethings are better just enjoyed without any further understanding.
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 07:06 PM
In the time we live now, I am free, free to choose my own destiny. So is Jenny. So are you.
Do you deny that you are freer than most to choose your own destiny--by virtue of the fact that you are a white (<--I'm guessing) male who lives in the richest democratic country in the world?
(Yes, I am saying that YOU are a part of the EVIL PATRIARCHY. Hey--enjoy it while you can, because Jenny and I are busy planning the coup via PM... :P)
I'd like to believe that if the risks of sex are taken out of the picture, and if the anti-opposite-sex feelings are taken out of the picture, that women and men have evolved similar degrees of pleasure, and passion (or empathy) for their sexual partners.
The evolution of pleasure?
I don't think there's any dispute that biologically, the female orgasm is more difficult to induce than the male orgasm. Unlike the male orgasm, it is not essential to reproduction. In fact, nobody really knows why or how it evolved. I'm not sure if there are any other species in which the female can experience an orgasm--maybe the bonobos, but I'm not sure.
In fact, it seems that we as a species are anomalous in finding pleasure in sex at all; humans and bonobos are the only creatures we know that copulate for reasons other than reproduction. Bonobos (perhaps our closest relatives among the primates) appear to engage in all kinds of interesting sexual behaviors as a way to defuse social tension and avoid violent confrontations. (Interesting, huh?)
So, humans are weird. It's weird that men OR women enjoy sex, and have it just for fun. I don't know what else to say about that.
I think that the differences in male and female reproductive strategies (the whole "expensive egg" thing) make females more selective than males in choosing sexual partners in general, but I don't know that these differences in strategy have any bearing on levels of enjoyment or empathy during sex.
I believe that human attitudes toward sex are largely determined by culture, even if there are basic biological underpinnings that influence much of our sexual and reproductive behavior...
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 07:25 PM
(Hey, what was this thread originally supposed to be about, anyway?)
(And why is blue so way more interesting than pink???)
Jenny
01-06-2007, 07:27 PM
Hey. I just asked why it seemed like most men derived so much more pleasure in getting women off than the reverse - THEY brought feminists.
Initially it was the video at the beginning of the thread. What prompted my question was the scene in which the guy was reluctant to agree to Article 17.
xdamage
01-06-2007, 07:50 PM
Do you deny that you are freer than most to choose your own destiny--by virtue of the fact that you are a white (<--I'm guessing) male who lives in the richest democratic country in the world?
(Yes, I am saying that YOU are a part of the EVIL PATRIARCHY. Hey--enjoy it while you can, because Jenny and I are busy planning the coup via PM... :P)
I'll answer with a 90 degree answer starting with a question:
Do you deny that you are freer than most to choose your own destiny--by virtue of the fact that you are a white female who lives in the richest democratic country in the world? That you have the potential to make more money, have more freedom then most men in the world?
The other half of my answer is this:
To much of the world, who lives several hundred years in the past, American men and women are equally as evil, equally viewed as oppressors, and living in excess.
So do you really want those people who have yet to catch up with modern equality to set the standards of how we all should live? I suspect not. And since American males (of which I'm one) don't have any problem with women having equal rights (as long as you take on equal responsibility for failure or success), I'm not your enemy.
The evolution of pleasure?
I don't think there's any dispute that biologically, the female orgasm is more difficult to induce than the male orgasm. Unlike the male orgasm, it is not essential to reproduction. In fact, nobody really knows why or how it evolved. I'm not sure if there are any other species in which the female can experience an orgasm--maybe the bonobos, but I'm not sure.
In fact, it seems that we as a species are anomalous in finding pleasure in sex at all; humans and bonobos are the only creatures we know that copulate for reasons other than reproduction. Bonobos (perhaps our closest relatives among the primates) appear to engage in all kinds of interesting sexual behaviors as a way to defuse social tension and avoid violent confrontations. (Interesting, huh?)
So, humans are weird. It's weird that men OR women enjoy sex, and have it just for fun. I don't know what else to say about that.
I think that the differences in male and female reproductive strategies (the whole "expensive egg" thing) make females more selective than males in choosing sexual partners in general, but I don't know that these differences in strategy have any bearing on levels of enjoyment or empathy during sex.
I believe that human attitudes toward sex are largely determined by culture, even if there are basic biological underpinnings that influence much of our sexual and reproductive behavior...
I've read that some types of monkeys and dolphins may have sex for pleasure. Of interest, they also have higher brain mass to body ratios.
But yes, I forgot how intelligent Nicolina is ;) Welcome back. I'd also have said, if there is a difference, it comes down to "Unlike the male orgasm, it is not essential to reproduction." And that's no minor difference at all.
I guess the only thing I'd add is, imagine being a female in a world without birth control, without DNA testing, without sterile abortion, without moring after pills.
Imagine then hooking up with same strange guy.
What's going through the strange guy's mind is, damn this feels good, I want to cum, never see this chick again, and go back to my wife.
So what's going through the woman's head at this point? Could it be something like, if he cums, I'm going to have to go through pregnancy, and raise a kid for 16 some years by myself, unable to prove who the father is, and yea know, that's kind of a sucky price to pay just to get off.
I'd say people have to be pretty dense not to understand the difference in risk to a female vs male of casual sex, but again, that's because most people who are young in our culture have no clue what it means to grow up the way most of our ancestors grew up. They just assume that their ancestors hoped in their cars and drove down to 7-11 to buy condoms. I'd also say, cultures reflect that dramatic risk difference, rather then cultures have just suppressed women's sexuality for no cause.
xdamage
01-06-2007, 07:52 PM
(And why is blue so way more interesting than pink???)
Careful what you write... I really don't want to see you executed by the secret-sister-Ninjas for blasphemy.
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 08:03 PM
Do you deny that you are freer than most to choose your own destiny--by virtue of the fact that you are a white female who lives in the richest democratic country in the world? That you have the potential to make more money, have more freedom then most men in the world?
No. Not for a moment. I'm extraordinarily privileged, and I'm keenly aware of my privilege. As a result, I don't feel well equipped to judge those who have not benefitted from the same privileges as I. Why would you think I'd be in denial about this?
I haven't even read the rest of your post yet.
xdamage
01-06-2007, 08:10 PM
No. Not for a moment. (Out of curiosity, why do you assume I'm white?) I'm extraordinarily privileged, and I'm keenly aware of my privilege. As a result, I don't feel well equipped to judge those who have not benefitted from the same privileges as I. Why would you think I'd be in denial about this?
I haven't even read the rest of your post yet.
I assumed you were white by the way you write. I'm fairly certain I also confirmed it a year or so ago when skimming the SW dancer pictures.
And yes, I'm very privileged too. But the thing is, I'm thankful that those before me have slowly, but surely, built a society and developed technologies that have made that possible. OTOH, when we talk about the patriarchy, I can't easily dis-entwine history, and I really don't know that women or minorities would ever have a shot at equality if it wasn't for the history that has led us to this point where we finally have some protection, nearly instant communications, and enough free time to overcome our base instincts. I'm okay with blaiming the patriarchy for what went wrong, as long as the same gets credit for what went right.
p.s. I actually do have some sympathy for women living in much of the world, likewise men. I just have much have less for American women that have effectively equal rights and opportunities, and who are still harping on the past of which neither I nor they were directly a part of. While we both have gene associations with the past, neither of us lived in that time, and bottom line, women can no longer blaim men for their failures in the present. Step up to the plate, and play ball like the rest of us, or move aside and sit in the bleachers and be an observer and whine.
yoda57us
01-06-2007, 08:23 PM
I'm not offended by or defensive about your sentiments, and I'm not questioning the validity of your personal experience. I'm just genuinely surprised that you haven't run across more generous American lovers.
Thank you for realizing that it's just my personal preference based on my experiences.
I am curious, though: Do you think that you are, on some level, fetishizing the "Otherness" of these women? (I will believe you either way, and I'm not asking the question in any sort of accusatory way.) I know that I do this, though--especially in sex industry situations. Like, I will often find the foreign girls hotter than the domestic girls in a stripclub, and prefer to get LD's from them. I'm not sure, but I think it's because it's a little easier to objectify them, and, as I've said, I think a little objectification is good in these exchanges. Similarly, as a dancer I often felt more comfortable with customers whose sensibilities seemed very different from mine. I will admit that in high-contact clubs, I often preferred to go with foreign guys who didn't want to talk much; I'd just focus on the physical experience and it made the whole interaction less complicated and therefore somehow more palatable, sometimes even kinda hot. If I felt too sympatico with a customer, I often got a little weirded out, especially in a high-contact environment.
(I dunno, maybe that's a totally different phenomenon.)
Well actually yeah, I think part of the attraction for me is the "otherness" of these women. Fetish? I don't know, different people apply that word in different ways. The fact that they are exotic looking plays into my initial attraction but if that where all it was I wouldn't be bothering to keep writing about it here. In my job I spend a lot of time working in hotels. Hotels hire a LOT of immigrants. Over the years I developed a fondness for their personalities, their work ethic, their sense of humor and their unabashed femininity.
Your club experiences ring very true Nic. Due in no small part to my preferences I know a lot of dancers from Brazil. Many of them speak very good English but act as if they don't in order to avoid conversation with customers. They also avoid Spanish and Portuguese speaking customers like the plague. It cracks me up when guys think they could ever hope to have a "relationship" with a woman who they pay to grind on their laps.
One of my best friends is a Brazilian lady who I met when she was dancing. Within a month or two of our customer/dancer relationship we both realized that we where becoming very good friends....and that neither of us where comfortable with her doing full contact lap dances for me....We where getting "Weirded-out". We ended the customer/dancer part of our relationship by mutual agreement and are still good friends to this day.
yoda57us
01-06-2007, 08:27 PM
(Hey, what was this thread originally supposed to be about, anyway?)
Damned if I can remember...
(And why is blue so way more interesting than pink???)
I can't put my finger on it Nic...but FWIW, I have a feeling that you and the rest of the ladies who post down here in blue could probably put my entire international female superiority thing to a severe test;)
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 08:27 PM
I assumed you were white by the way you write.
You realize that that's kind of fucked up, right? I'm surprised you admitted it.
I'm fairly certain I also confirmed it a year or so ago when skimming the SW dancer pictures.
Yeah, I somehow forgot I'd posted pictures. Duh.
And yes, I'm very privileged too. But the thing is, I'm thankful that those before me have slowly, but surely, built a society and developed technologies that have made that possible. OTOH, when we talk about the patriarchy, I can't easily dis-entwine history, and I really don't know that women or minorities would ever have a shot at equality if it wasn't for the history that has led us to this point where we finally have some protection, nearly instant communications, and enough free time to overcome our base instincts. I'm okay with blaiming the patriarchy for what went wrong, as long as the same gets credit for what went right.
x, you need to calm down about this whole patriarchy thing. Does the term "tongue-in-cheek" mean anything to you? Most human societies are male-dominated. We can acknowledge this, can't we, without being man-haters or getting all defensive about the fact that we, personally, don't mind being equal partners with women? (except in bed, of course--at least according to some of the posts in this thread.)
Good to see you back, Nic :)
FBR
xdamage
01-06-2007, 09:22 PM
You realize that that's kind of fucked up, right? I'm surprised you admitted it.
But I don't care Nic. I don't walk around believing that the highest aspiration is to be PC correct, particularly not if that means wearing blinders and pretending everyone is identical.
I'm much more in favor of openly, and honestly facing what is, and measuring my intuition against reality as a indicator of how well I perceive reality.
You writing has a lot of tell-tale signs that you are a white woman, and since I was right that tells me that my intuition was correct.
Unlike the PC among us, I don't expect all cultures and all genders to behave the same - that's not equality to me. And I do expect that those who are in-tune with the differences can pick up on them. There is nothing wrong with cultural or even gender differences afterall. The only thing that is wrong is when people assume that differences = in equality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Differences just mean differences. Not all differences are equal, but many differences are neutral, like subtle differences in the flavor of foods, they are observable, but imply no inequality.
x, you need to calm down about this whole patriarchy thing. Does the term "tongue-in-cheek" mean anything to you? Most human societies are male-dominated. We can acknowledge this, can't we, without being man-haters or getting all defensive about the fact that we, personally, don't mind being equal partners with women? (except in bed, of course--at least according to some of the posts in this thread.)
That would be fine, but I'd have to put blinders on to believe that some women aren't haters of the patriarchy, more specifically, of men. Sadly, I sometimes think, if these same individuals had been born with pensis, they would be the women haters in our society, and the types who are and were responsible for much of the male against female hate that has pervaded our history. I'm pretty sure now that the hate is not male a trait so much as it is a human trait, and the only reason men have been more successful it is their overall physical strength and size. Likewise, if females had the strength and size to do so, the male haters in our society now would very likely be the very same individuals who would abuse the opposite sex, and take pleasure in it.
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 09:32 PM
Thanks, FBR! Good to see you too! :)
Yikes, my connection was down for a little while and I was freaking out. Back to my old ways already, I guess. See why I need to stay away during school semesters??? I have officially fallen off the SW wagon.
So I went back and watched the original video. It was pretty hilarious, I thought. I see Jenny's point, though.
At first I thought the explanation for the "Article 17" thing was perhaps that it was written by a guy, and, as we've established, a lot of guys think that no OTHER guys are willing to partake of the repast at the Y. But the credits said that the story was by a girl. So I don't know. Maybe she's a young girl--I do find that the guys who go on and on about their cunnilingual skills are usually over 30, at least. In fact, the older the guy, the more likely he is to regale a stripper with tales of his pussy-eating prowess.
Personally, I haven't found that young guys are less keen on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were statistically true. My sample size is small, so I don't know.
There are certain subcultures (some African-American and Italian-American subcultures come to mind) in which it is not really considered okay for men to admit that they do this. (In my experience, they do it, but then they deny it to their guy friends. I'm not sure what that's all about.)
Remember that episode in the Sopranos? There was some truth to that, I think. (God, I felt so bad for Uncle Jun's floozy. That was so terrible...)
Jenny
01-06-2007, 09:40 PM
I thought it was hilarious too. It's just that at the same time as the hilarity it occurred to me that there is this weird mythos that men are very self absorbed lovers, and that has never seemed the case to me - in fact, as I said, I think that if there is a leaning it is probably the opposite. (really, when you think about it, it intuitively does not seem like the kind of comment that could offend a bunch of guys).
Although I can't believe that you just used the word "floozy."
Nicolina
01-06-2007, 09:47 PM
^Did you see it, though? (The Sopranos episode, I mean.) If you did, you'd know that was really the only way to describe her.
Jenny
01-06-2007, 09:51 PM
I did; and I get what you mean. But still. "Floozy." You're killing me, here.
xdamage
01-06-2007, 09:53 PM
It's just that at the same time as the hilarity it occurred to me that there is this weird mythos that men are very self absorbed lovers, and that has never seemed the case to me
Uhm, careful though.
Mythos tend to exist because there is some element of truth, so there is probably something to the mythos. There are a lot of factors that aren't being considered in this discussion. Here are they (roughly):
o You are, from what I read others post and my intuition, a very good looking woman; in fact most of the strippers here are probably above average. It's very likely that a guy will make greater efforts to sexually please a women the he finds attractive then one that he does not.
o Are we talking about short term or long term relationships? Guys will make a lot of effort at first. Not all guys will continue to do so after the newness wears off.
o You and Nicolina live in cultures where the women pick their own mates. In another culture, where the women have less say, it may well be that the guys treat them more like property and invest a lot less into pleasing their women.
Afterall, as I said, humans tend to do things because they get something out of it too. A guy making an effort to please a girl may well be doing so, in part, because he believes the effort will pay off in the girl having sex with him again.
miabella
01-06-2007, 09:56 PM
so, xdamage, how do non-white women of any sort write, that you can tell so readily online? this should be interesting.
xdamage
01-06-2007, 10:12 PM
so, xdamage, how do non-white women of any sort write, that you can tell so readily online? this should be interesting.
Well, first I would guess you are not a white woman, based on your previous posts. Am I right or wrong?
As for how, most likely you won't like this answer because it won't fit what they are teaching in school these days, but anyway... human brains are incredibly adept at pattern matching. That alone could keep you busy reading for several weeks if you had any real interest in the answer. I suspect you don't and are more interested in throwing a PC tirade, but it's okay, I'll forgive you since it's expected.
People tend to have patterns - that includes mannerisms, choices of words, what they focus on in conversations, how apologetic they are in conversations, how they phrase their opinions, how they hold their bodies, facial expressions, etc. These pattersn tend to be cultural, racial, and sexual. They are not 100%, they are just stastically probable.
If you are terrified of human differences, like most PC people are these days, you can pretend they don't exist, or tune them out because you may not be 100% correct.
If you are not terrified of human differences, you can try tuning it, and measure your intuition against reality, similar to the way a food taster confirms the subtle flavors they taste in food against the actual ingrediants, or the way someone who enjoys wine slowly but surely gets better at identifying wines. Are they 100% correct? No, but that's not the goal. Can they adequately describe the subtle differences in words? No, but again, that's not the goal.
Like I said, you won't like that answer in a PC world where you've been trained to fear differences in humans. I can't help that, nor do I care to try. Hopefully in a hundred years or so our society will grow out of that.
And as for "that you can tell so readily online" - bzzzt WRONG. Nobody said that, so nice try, but if you're brain can only register the concepts of absolutes (i.e., someone can tell absolutely/readily, or someone cannot tell at all) you're wasting time arguing with me. If you're not capable of understanding concepts like probable, statistically likely, grey shades tending toward probable, it's a waste of my time. There are plenty of others who will agree with you - go find them and they'll tell you what you want to hear.
Katrine
01-06-2007, 10:49 PM
Why does this discussion re-occur in every thread? BTW, WB Nicolina, you have been missed, muah!
X, you break everything in the end down to "you're an attractivw woman so you get the best things in life because men are evolutionary amoebas." Its the ultimate over-simplification.
I know PLENTY of unattractive women who have men just dying to lick them clean. Breaking it all down to biological urges really explains very little and proves nothing of ongoing contradicions we all experience on a day to day basis.
Jenny
01-06-2007, 11:00 PM
Well, first I would guess you are not a white woman, based on your previous posts. Am I right or wrong?
As for how, most likely you won't like this answer because it won't fit what they are teaching in school these days, but anyway... human brains are incredibly adept at pattern matching. That alone could keep you busy reading for several weeks if you had any real interest in the answer. I suspect you don't and are more interested in throwing a PC tirade, but it's okay, I'll forgive you since it's expected.
People tend to have patterns - that includes mannerisms, choices of words, what they focus on in conversations, how apologetic they are in conversations, how they phrase their opinions, how they hold their bodies, facial expressions, etc. These pattersn tend to be cultural, racial, and sexual. They are not 100%, they are just stastically probable.
If you are terrified of human differences, like most PC people are these days, you can pretend they don't exist, or tune them out because you may not be 100% correct.
If you are not terrified of human differences, you can try tuning it, and measure your intuition against reality, similar to the way a food taster confirms the subtle flavors they taste in food against the actual ingrediants, or the way someone who enjoys wine slowly but surely gets better at identifying wines. Are they 100% correct? No, but that's not the goal. Can they adequately describe the subtle differences in words? No, but again, that's not the goal.
Like I said, you won't like that answer in a PC world where you've been trained to fear differences in humans. I can't help that, nor do I care to try. Hopefully in a hundred years or so our society will grow out of that.
And as for "that you can tell so readily online" - bzzzt WRONG. Nobody said that, so nice try, but if you're brain can only register the concepts of absolutes (i.e., someone can tell absolutely/readily, or someone cannot tell at all) you're wasting time arguing with me. If you're not capable of understanding concepts like probable, statistically likely, grey shades tending toward probable, it's a waste of my time. There are plenty of others who will agree with you - go find them and they'll tell you what you want to hear.
I'm going to kick myself in about 5 minutes for doing this.
a) Being unable to articulate your thoughts does not (contrary to what you seem to imagine) make you more intelligent than those who can. If you are, in fact, actually unable to articulate a reasonable thought process that should actually tell you that you either need to think about it more or you need to expand your vocabulary.
b) Being able to, intuitively or otherwise, identify dialects, speech patterns, colloquialism and patois as being related to certain races doesn't mean that the absence (or what you interpret as the absence) makes the person white. So, identifying someone using an ebonics dialect might likely mean that they are African American does NOT mean that someone speaking articulately and clearly (like Nicolina) is necessarily caucasion. You seem to readily admit assuming that she is white because she is educated and articulate. Really, I don't know that there is much more to say after that.
xdamage
01-06-2007, 11:01 PM
X, you break everything in the end down to "you're an attractivw woman so you get the best things in life because men are evolutionary amoebas." Its the ultimate over-simplification.
If that's all you got out of all of that, it's because it's all you wanted to get out of it. A lot LOT more was written.
I know PLENTY of unattractive women who have men just dying to lick them clean. Breaking it all down to biological urges really explains very little and proves nothing of ongoing contradicions we all experience on a day to day basis.
Nobody "Breaking it all down" (not the use of the word "all") - another absolute statement.
Again, if you can't handle the notion that people's behaviors follows general patterns, but there are always going to be exceptions (see the Bell Curve) I don't know want to tell you. Not everybody can get their head around it. Most people are much more comfortable with simplistic absolutes, and if they can't have an explination that covers all absolutes, they throw their arms up in the air and try to explain human behavior away via "society" (i.e., they say nothing other then they have no explination). Of course if you pin them down and ask them to define society, it still comes full circle back to society's are just groups of people, people who have behaviors, so "society" is no explination at all.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread.
FBR