Not quite right. Today's article seemed to me generally (although not quite 100%) consistent with a previous study's conclusion that all women are by nature bisexual and most choose to be either straight or Lesbian; and all men are by nature gay or straight, and some choose to be bisexual. When I read about that study, everything I had seen and heard and read in my life suddenly made so much sense that I was surprised I hadn't figured it out on my own, as it's not as if I hadn't read and thought a lot about this.
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,021
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 127
- Points
- 383
- Location
- Palm Springs, CA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Actually, it seems that you do. This isn't the first time you've been combative and defensive about being heterosexual.
Meh! A big cock is useless on an idiot who hasn't a clue on what to do with it.
Most men think hammering away at a vagina {much like using a jackhammer} is how to do it!"
I say if you're very,very lucky you will find a woman like me who is willing to show you what we women want and expect from our men.
I have only been with a few out of my "scads" of men who really knew what I wanted from them intuitively.
I find that very sad. I also find that bi sexual leaning or men who's minds are open to trying any new thing regardless of what it is
do make the best lovers. Truly guys!
That does not mean you need to engage in scary behavior take unusual risks either.
cigarbabe:saevil:
Most men think hammering away at a vagina {much like using a jackhammer} is how to do it!"
I say if you're very,very lucky you will find a woman like me who is willing to show you what we women want and expect from our men.
I have only been with a few out of my "scads" of men who really knew what I wanted from them intuitively.
I find that very sad. I also find that bi sexual leaning or men who's minds are open to trying any new thing regardless of what it is
do make the best lovers. Truly guys!
That does not mean you need to engage in scary behavior take unusual risks either.
cigarbabe:saevil:
Brilliant post, Jen, thanks :smile:
My mother did encourage me sexually. Not overtly - I mean she didn't stand by the bed and cheer lead or anything
But she was never ashamed of her body, whether in a heavy phase or a slim phase - she spoke about the men she found attractive - she never hid the fact she had and enjoyed sex. My sister and I had the same upbringing in that regard, obviously, and we both have a positive and relaxed attitude to sex, she started a couple of years later than I did (well - 6 months in the time line but she's nearly 2 years older than me), draw what conclusions you will from that.Tell me about it! I live in France and I had to cross the Atlantic!! Oh wait, you didn't mean that kind of frog.... did you?
B_Jennuine73
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Posts
- 1,604
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 76
- Points
- 133
- Location
- Windsor, Ontario
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Female
Originally Posted by super_crayon
![]()
What do you think about encouraging sexuality in girls? Do you think that if our mothers were more open about it as we're growing up that we might not do "dirty" things behind her back? Or would we start our sexual lives a little earlier? Is it like alcohol, where, if our parents let us try it at home then we we're less likely to drink underaged?
I am not talking about encouraging sexuality. I am talking about it being open and honest. It is natural. To treat is as something dirty and to be ashamed of has consequences that last a lifetime. Sex is not like alcohol, like teenage drinking. Sex is a natural part, a healthy part of human existence. I don't think treating sex as healthy and normal would be encouraging girls to start their sexual lives earlier. I think it would be teaching them healthy views on sexuality, on their bodies, not shame them for natural desires.
What do you think about encouraging sexuality in girls? Do you think that if our mothers were more open about it as we're growing up that we might not do "dirty" things behind her back? Or would we start our sexual lives a little earlier? Is it like alcohol, where, if our parents let us try it at home then we we're less likely to drink underaged?
I am not talking about encouraging sexuality. I am talking about it being open and honest. It is natural. To treat is as something dirty and to be ashamed of has consequences that last a lifetime. Sex is not like alcohol, like teenage drinking. Sex is a natural part, a healthy part of human existence. I don't think treating sex as healthy and normal would be encouraging girls to start their sexual lives earlier. I think it would be teaching them healthy views on sexuality, on their bodies, not shame them for natural desires.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
I'll go our on a limb and say that the best women lovers that I have had want three things.
1/ The comfort and confidence to be able to express their sexuality.
2/ The comfort and confidence to experience the man's sexuality.
3/ Experiencing what is created from the combination of the two above that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Women's sexuality, as is men's sexuality, is rooted in their genetics. Often the mistake is made that our genetics is fairly recent. It is not. We have been homo sapiens for about 200000 years. Sex is designed first and foremost for procreation. And to use a kind of analogy, lets *follow the money* or in the case of biology, *follow the energy.* And energy is really food, and protein is the rarest of foods.
Women have about 400-500 viable eggs, men have millions upon millions of sperm. Imagine the amount of energy used to kick out one egg during a woman's cycle. The uterus gets ready for egg implantation, there is growth of the uterine lining, and then if there isn't any fertilized egg the lining is shed and blood is lost. A ton of energy just to get one egg cycled.
If there is a successful fertilization, then imagine the huge amount of energy a woman has to devote to just carrying the fetus. Another huge energy expenditure. 9 months and upwards of 30-50 pounds of protein is dedicated to one thing, making a healthy fetus. The Placenta, another huge investment of energy is shed, and the new mother now starts lactating, another huge expenditure of energy.
And as I have said b/4 here, is there anything so helpless as a post partum female and a tiny newborn? Talk about easy pickings for a saber tooth tiger or a giant eagle or pack of dire wolves. That was the crucible, the real environment where our underlying genetics was formed. So a woman might be excited by a sexual image but at her core she needs to think of it way more than a man because it means so much more to her, based strictly on survival.
Now in that context, is it any wonder that women generally have to have at least a fleeting emotional connection with a sex partner? Is it any wonder that a woman usually will think about her sex partner far more than a male would? Is it any wonder that women might be at heart *whores*, as was posted here b/4? Whores because their very survival was dependent on getting lots of food and protection in order to have babies? A woman who just fucked anyone, without some regard to her well being if she got pregnant likely had her genes wiped from the earth in her death and the death of her baby. Thats why women are far more attracted to intelligence and men of *means* than they are a big dick.
BTW I am willing to bet that the humans larger penis is really an adaptation evolving as a sign stimulus for other men, not women. A male standing upright would display automatically his penis and I bet that in some way determined his pecking order. Think about it. Men are FAR more interested in penis size than women. Women virtually dont care. I am always amused here that SO many times men try to corner women into saying that penis size is a strong determinant for female to male attraction and just as many times the women here say *no its not.* It is way down the list of traits women look for and I outlined above my theory as to why. INnfact to go out on a limb, I would venture that a woman who bases her attraction to a male solely or strongly on penis size is in some way emotionally crippled. I guess there could be purely physical reasons but me thinks that is a very small percentage.
My gut tells me womens vaginas adapted to the increasingly larger penis and not the reverse. Hell a male mountain gorilla of 500 lbs and immense strength has a very small unit. He gets his females pregnant rather easily. A large penis is another waste of protein unless it imparted some genetic advantage, but the advantage was over other males, not female attraction. Women did not pick their partners until very recently. They got fucked by the more dominant males and even the weaker males. A female who could not accomadate a larger cock was selected against. I have been with a woman with a very shallow vagina and she could not handle the last inch or 2 of me. Not that much fun, and in the time b/4 antibiotics an abraded torn vagina could have meant death.
Think about it. Any woman who got a urinary tract infection, a rather common malady handled by gantracin today, probably died if she got it 18000 years ago. Maybe the first time she had sex. Her genes wiped from the earth. Its called honeymoon cystitis for a reason. Its been suggested that vaginas can handle any size penis but I know for a fact that isnt true.
Women have about 400-500 viable eggs, men have millions upon millions of sperm. Imagine the amount of energy used to kick out one egg during a woman's cycle. The uterus gets ready for egg implantation, there is growth of the uterine lining, and then if there isn't any fertilized egg the lining is shed and blood is lost. A ton of energy just to get one egg cycled.
If there is a successful fertilization, then imagine the huge amount of energy a woman has to devote to just carrying the fetus. Another huge energy expenditure. 9 months and upwards of 30-50 pounds of protein is dedicated to one thing, making a healthy fetus. The Placenta, another huge investment of energy is shed, and the new mother now starts lactating, another huge expenditure of energy.
And as I have said b/4 here, is there anything so helpless as a post partum female and a tiny newborn? Talk about easy pickings for a saber tooth tiger or a giant eagle or pack of dire wolves. That was the crucible, the real environment where our underlying genetics was formed. So a woman might be excited by a sexual image but at her core she needs to think of it way more than a man because it means so much more to her, based strictly on survival.
Now in that context, is it any wonder that women generally have to have at least a fleeting emotional connection with a sex partner? Is it any wonder that a woman usually will think about her sex partner far more than a male would? Is it any wonder that women might be at heart *whores*, as was posted here b/4? Whores because their very survival was dependent on getting lots of food and protection in order to have babies? A woman who just fucked anyone, without some regard to her well being if she got pregnant likely had her genes wiped from the earth in her death and the death of her baby. Thats why women are far more attracted to intelligence and men of *means* than they are a big dick.
BTW I am willing to bet that the humans larger penis is really an adaptation evolving as a sign stimulus for other men, not women. A male standing upright would display automatically his penis and I bet that in some way determined his pecking order. Think about it. Men are FAR more interested in penis size than women. Women virtually dont care. I am always amused here that SO many times men try to corner women into saying that penis size is a strong determinant for female to male attraction and just as many times the women here say *no its not.* It is way down the list of traits women look for and I outlined above my theory as to why. INnfact to go out on a limb, I would venture that a woman who bases her attraction to a male solely or strongly on penis size is in some way emotionally crippled. I guess there could be purely physical reasons but me thinks that is a very small percentage.
My gut tells me womens vaginas adapted to the increasingly larger penis and not the reverse. Hell a male mountain gorilla of 500 lbs and immense strength has a very small unit. He gets his females pregnant rather easily. A large penis is another waste of protein unless it imparted some genetic advantage, but the advantage was over other males, not female attraction. Women did not pick their partners until very recently. They got fucked by the more dominant males and even the weaker males. A female who could not accomadate a larger cock was selected against. I have been with a woman with a very shallow vagina and she could not handle the last inch or 2 of me. Not that much fun, and in the time b/4 antibiotics an abraded torn vagina could have meant death.
Think about it. Any woman who got a urinary tract infection, a rather common malady handled by gantracin today, probably died if she got it 18000 years ago. Maybe the first time she had sex. Her genes wiped from the earth. Its called honeymoon cystitis for a reason. Its been suggested that vaginas can handle any size penis but I know for a fact that isnt true.
D_Hyacinth Harrytwat
Account Disabled
I like the idea of open and honest sexuality, and I like the term used in a broader sense than just meaning "sex". A friend reminded me in a recent letter of the notion that women's sexuality is often repressed because we are such powerful beings already, and the more I think about it, the more I find it true. We have very powerful bodies and we are capable of so much that it's a huge responsibility - and not everyone uses these powers to their natural ability. I think that young girls should be taught more about this responsibility rather than having the whole topic of sexuality be avoided or worse yet, deemed "shameful".
Drifterwood
Superior Member
Phil, it takes 50 generations for a species to evolve physically, but clearly very much less for them to evolve socially. Admitted, this leaves us with some anomalies to deal with. Socio sexual evolution, maybe I have found my PhD.
Penis Aficionado
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Posts
- 2,949
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1,196
- Points
- 198
- Location
- Austin (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
As a matter of semantics, I suppose it's true that there is no way you can participate in gay male porn.
But I guarantee you do not have to be a gay male in order to have sex with one!
Similar threads
